We have already seen that the Armstrongs were a numerous and powerful clan, and that for a considerable period they had been known on the Borders as “notour thieves and limmers.” They levied blackmail over a wide district, and appropriated whatever came readiest to hand with a sublime indifference either to neighbourhood or nationality.
“They stole the beeves that made them brothFrom Scotland and from England both.”
King James V. having succeeded in shaking himself free from the tyranny of the Douglasses, resolved that he would “daunton” the Border thieves, by making them feel the weight of his sword. He made anexcellent beginning. He imprisoned the Earls of Bothwell and Home, Lord Maxwell Scott, Ker of Ferniherst, Scott of Buccleuch, Polworth, Johnston, and Mark Ker.[77]It must have been quite evident to the young King, and his counsellors, that so long as these Chiefs were at liberty it would be a bootless errand to proceed against those who owned them allegiance. The ringleaders must first of all be disposed of, and so they were put in ward, there to await his Majesty’s pleasure. This measure was not devised, as some suppose, for the purpose of crushing the nobility. It is absurd to infer that James, a youth of seventeen, had projected a deep political plan of this nature. The outrages which these men had committed during his minority had excited his lively resentment, and he was determined that they should no longer maintain bands of lawless followers at the public expense. This necessary measure for the pacification of the Borders was wisely devised, and promptly executed, and must have produced a deep impression, if not a wholesome fear, in the minds of those whom it was intended to influence.
It was in the month of June, 1529, that James set out for Meggatdale, accompanied by eight thousand men, lords, barons, freeholders, and gentlemen, all well armed, and carrying with them a month’s provisions. The King commanded all gentlementhat had “doggis that were guid” to bring them with them to hunt “in the said bounds.” The Earls of Huntley, Argyle, and Athol, brought their deerhounds with them, and hunted with his Majesty. They came to Meggat, near St. Mary’s Loch, and, during their short stay in this district, eighteen score of deer were slain.
The tradition is that on this occasion the King captured William Cockburn of Henderland, a famous freebooter, and hanged him over his own gate. It is quite certain, however, that in regard to this matter the tradition is unreliable. In “Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials” we find it stated, under date May 26th—nearly a month before the King left Edinburgh—that “William Cockburne of Henderland was convicted (in presence of the King) of High Treason committed by him, in bringing Alexander Forrestare and his son, Englishmen, to the plundering of Archibald Somervile: And for treasonably bringing certain Englishmen to the lands of Glenquhome: And for Common Theft, Common Reset of Theft, outputting and inputting thereof.—Sentence. For which causes and crimes he has forfeited his life, lands, and goods, moveable and immoveable, which shall be escheated to the King.—Beheaded.”[78]Such is the brief but authentic record. It establishes beyond controversy the fact that Cockburn was apprehended, and tried, before the King had left Edinburgh on his famous expedition. Thetradition that he was hanged over his own gate, must therefore be set aside.
The Cockburns were an old and well-known family. One of the Scotts of Buccleuch married a daughter of the house, which, on the principle of heredity, may help to explain the well-known reiving propensities of some branches of this famous clan. In “Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials,” where so much of the ancient history of the great Border families may be read, if not with pleasure, at least not without profit, mention is made of various Cockburns who distinguished themselves as daring and successful freebooters. In the old churchyard of Henderland there is still to be seen a large slab bearing the inscription—“Here lyis Perys of Cockburne and Hys wife Marjory.” There is no date on the tombstone, but the likelihood is that this “Perys of Cockburne” was a descendant of the William Cockburn whose fate we have just mentioned.
But the most interesting tradition in connection with this family relates to the well-known ballad, “The Border Widow’s Lament,” one of the most beautiful, and certainly the most pathetic, of all the Border ballads. It has been supposed to describe the feelings of Cockburn’s widow when her husband was put to death by the King.
“My love he built me a bonnie bower,And clad it a’ wi’ lilye flour,A brawer bower ye ne’er did see,Than my true love he built for me.There came a man, by middle day,He spied his sport, and went away;And brought the King that very night,Who brake my bower, and slew my knight.He slew my knight, to me sae dear;He slew my knight, and poin’d his gear;My servants all for life did flee,And left me in extremitie.I sew’d his sheet, making my mane;I watch’d the corpse, myself alane;I watch’d his body, night and day;No living creature came that way.I took his body on my back,And whiles I gaed, and whiles I sat;I digg’d a grave, and laid him in,And happ’d him with the sod sae green.But think na ye my heart was sair,When I laid the moul’ on his yellow hair;O think na ye my heart was wae,When I turned about, awa’ to gae?Nae living man I’ll love again,Since that my lovely knight is slain;Wi’ yae lock o’ his yellow hair,I’ll chain my heart for evermair.”
This exquisite ballad has probably no connection with Cockburn of Henderland,—we feel strongly convinced it has not,—but it is none the less interesting, as it is a composition which can well afford to be regarded apart altogether from its traditional associations.
There is another tradition which it may be as well to notice in passing. It is said that, after hanging Cockburn, the King proceeded to Tushielaw to dealin like manner with Adam Scott, well known on the Borders as “The King of Thieves.” His castle stood on the spur of a hill opposite the Rankleburn, on the west side of the river Ettrick, commanding a wide out-look in almost every direction. Near it was the famous “Hanging Tree,” which was accidentally destroyed by fire only a few years ago, where the unlucky captives of this noted outlaw were unceremoniously suspended in order to prevent their giving further annoyance. It is said that, on one of the branches, a deep groove was worn by the swaying to and fro of the fatal rope. It would have been most fitting had this cruel marauder been put to death where so many of his victims ended their career. But in this instance the tradition, that this actually happened, has been proved to be without any foundation in fact. We find in “Pitcairn” an account of Adam Scott’s trial and execution in Edinburgh. On the 18th May, 1529—just two days after Cockburn had “justified the law”—“Adam Scott of Tuschilaw was Convicted of art and part of theftuously takingBlack-maill, from the time of his entry within the Castle of Edinburgh, in Ward, from John Brown, Hoprow: And of art and part of theftuously takingBlack-maillfrom Andrew Thorbrand and William, his brother: And of art and part of theftuously taking ofBlack-maillfrom the poor Tenants of Hopcailzow: And of art and part of theftuously takingBlackmaill, from thepoor Tenants of Eschescheill.” Then follows the significant word—“Beheaded.”[79]
The King, therefore, when he passed the castle of Tushielaw with his retinue, on his way to Teviotdale to meet Johnie Armstrong, must have had the satisfaction of knowing that Adam Scott had gone “where the wicked cease from troubling.”
He had sent a loving letter, written with “his ain hand sae tenderly,” to the laird of Gilnockie, requesting him to meet his “liege lord” at a place called Carlenrig on the Teviot, some nine miles above Hawick. Various accounts have been given by historians, both ancient and modern, as to the means adopted by the King to bring about Armstrong’s capture and execution. Leslie, for example, informs us that “all this summer the King took great care to pacify the Borders with a great army, and caused forty-eight of the most noble thieves, with Johnie Armstrong, their captain, to be taken and hanged on growing trees.” He says that “George Armstrong, brother of the said Johnie, was pardoned and reserved alive,to tell on the rest, which he did, and in course of time they were apprehended by the King, and punished according to their deserts.”[80]Pinkerton, who evidently bases his account largely on the information supplied by Leslie, enters more fully into particulars. He alleges that “by the assistance of George, his brother, whowas pardoned on condition of betraying the others, John Armstrong, the chief of the name, whose robberies had elevated him to opulence and power, was captured and suffered the fate of a felon.”[81]These statements, definite though they are, ought not to be lightly accepted, as the strongest reasons may be advanced against this supposition. In the first place, we ought to remember that, however many sins and shortcomings the Border reivers may be accused of, breach of faith can hardly be reckoned one of them. “Hector’s Cloak” was a phrase of peculiar opprobrium. It was regarded as the symbol of meanness and perfidy. That this one instance of betrayal should have been so long remembered, and so thoroughly detested, is an unmistakable indication that the Border thieves, bad as they were in many respects, were not without a high sense of honour in matters of this kind. It is hardly conceivable, therefore, that Armstrong’s brother could have been guilty of his betrayal. Strong proof would require to be forthcoming in support of such a statement; and this is precisely what the historians do not give us.
But there are other and more cogent arguments against this view. George Armstrong was under no necessity of betraying his brother in order to save himself. He could easily have escaped had he been minded to do so. The King’s authority did notextend beyond the Scottish Border. It is morally certain, had Armstrong and his friends ever suspected that James would have treated them as he did, they would either have taken refuge in their own strongholds and defied him, or crossed the Border into England, where they would have been comparatively safe from pursuit. That they did neither, but voluntarily came before the King, is strong evidence in favour of the supposition that they were enticed by fair promises to place themselves within his power. The very fact that Armstrong neither sought nor obtained a safe conduct goes to prove that he had the most implicit confidence in the clemency, if not the goodwill, of his sovereign. There was no betrayal on the part of anyone, save the King himself. This is clearly brought to view in the peculiarly graphic and fascinating account which “Pitscottie” has given of this memorable incident. He says:—“Efter this hunting the King hanged Johnie Armstrong, laird of Gilnockie, quhilk monie Scottis man heavilie lamented, for he was ane doubtit man, and als guid are chiftane as ever was upon the borderis, aither of Scotland or of England. And albeit he was ane lous leivand man, and sustained the number of xxiiij. weill horsed able gentlemen with him, yitt he nevir molested no Scottis man. Bot it is said, from the Scottis border to Newcastle of England, thair was not ane of quhatsoevir estate bot payed to this John Armstrongane tribut to be frie of his cumber, he was sae doubtit in England. So when he entred in befoir the King, he cam verie reverentlie, with his foresaid number verie richlie apparrelled, trusting, that in respect he had cum to the Kingis grace willinglie and voluntarilie, not being tain nor apprehendit be the King, he sould obtaine the mair favour. Bot when the King saw him and his men so gorgeous in their apparrell, and so many braw men under ane tirrantis commandement, throwardlie, he turned about his face, and bad tak that tirrant out of his sight, saying, ‘Quhat wantis yon knave that a King should have.’ But when Johnie Armstronge perceaved that the King kindled in ane furie againes him, and had no hope of his lyff, notwithstanding of many great and fair offeris, quhilk he offerred to the King, that is, that he sould sustene himself with fourtie gentlemen, ever readie to awaitt upon his majestie’s service, and never tak a pennie of Scotland, nor Scottis man. Secondlie, that there was not ane subject in England, duik, earle, lorde, or barrun, bot within ane certane day he sould bring ony of them to his majesty, either quick or dead. He seing no hope of the Kingis favour towards him, said verrie proudlie, ‘I am bot ane fooll to seik grace at ane graceles face. But had I knawin, sir, that ye wad have taken my lyff this day, I sould have leved upon the borderis in disphyte of King Harie and yow baith; for I knaw King Harie wold doun weigh mybest hors with gold to knaw that I were condemned to die this day.’ So he was led to the scaffold, and he and his men hanged. This being done, the King returned to Edinburgh, the xxiiij. day of July, and remained meikle of that winter in Edinburgh.”[82]
This interesting and picturesque account is corroborated by another historian, who says: “On the eighth of June the principalls of all the surnames of the clannes on the Borders came to the King upon hope of a proclamation proclaimed in the King’s name that they sould all get their lyves, if they would come in and submit themselves to the King’s will, and so upon this hope Johnie Armstrang, who keipit the castle of Langhame (a brother of the laird of Mangerton’s, a great thieff and oppressor, and one that keiped still with him four-and-twenty well-horsed men), came to the King, and another called Ill Will Armstrong, another stark thieff, with sundrie of the Scotts and Elliotts, came all forward to the campe where the King was in hopes to get their pardons. But no sooner did the King persave them, an that they were cum afarre off, when direction was given presentlie to enclose them round about, the which was done accordinglie, and were all apprehendit, to the number of threttie fyve persons, and at a place called Carlaverocke[83]Cheapell, were all committed to thegallowes. One Sandy Scot, a prowd thieff, was brunt because it was provin that he haid brunt a pure widowes house, together with sum of her children. The English people were exceeding glade when they understood that John Armstrang was executed, for he did great robberies and stealing in England, menteaning 24 men in houshold evorie day upon rieff and oppression. The rest delyvered pledges for their good demeanare in tymes to cum.”[84]
There can be little doubt that Armstrong was cruelly betrayed, not by his brother, but by the King—a circumstance which seriously reflects on his honour and good name.
The suggestion has been made that this expedition against the laird of Gilnockie was undertaken by James at the instigation of Lord Maxwell, who was then a ward in Edinburgh. It is certainly a somewhat suspicious circumstance that three days after Armstrong’s execution Maxwell received from the King the gift of all the property, moveable and immoveable, which pertained to “umquhill Johne Armstrang, bruther to Thomas Armstrang of Mayngerton, and now perteining to our souverane lord be reason of eschete throw justefying of the said umquhill Johnie to the deid for thift committed be him.”[85]
As might be expected, when all the circumstanceswere taken into consideration, the execution of Armstrong and his followers produced a profound sensation, and a deep and bitter feeling of resentment. It was long believed by the peasantry of the district that, to mark the injustice of the deed, the trees on which they were hanged, withered away. On purely abstract grounds it may be argued that Armstrong and his men richly deserved the punishment meted out to them, but this fact does not exonerate the King from the charge of treachery and deceit which has justly been brought against him. The measures he adopted to capture the quarry were unworthy of a puissant monarch with eight thousand well armed men under his command. He might well have paid more respect to the principles of honour and fair play.
It is interesting to find that the version of Armstrong’s capture and execution given in the famous ballad agrees substantially with the accounts of Pitscottie and Anderson. There, we are told, that the King sent a “loving letter” to Armstrong, inviting him to a conference.
The King he wrytes a luving letter,With his ain hand sae tenderly,And he hath sent it to Johnie Armstrang,To cum and speik with him speedily.
This communication evidently excited no suspicion, and extensive preparations were at once made to extend to his Majesty a kind and hearty welcome. Itwas even hoped that he might be induced to dine at Gilnockie!
The Eliots and Armstrangs did convene;They were a gallant cumpanie—“We’ll ride and meet our lawful King,And bring him safe to Gilnockie.“Make kinnen[86]and capon ready, then,And venison in great plentie;We’ll welcum here our royal King;I hope he’ll dine at Gilnockie!”They ran their horse on the Langholme howm,And brak their spears wi’ mickle main;The ladies lukit frae their lofty windows—“God bring our men weel hame again!”When Johnie cam before the King,Wi’ a’ his men sae brave to see,The King he movit his bonnet to him;He ween’d he was a King as well as he.
According to the balladist, it would seem that Armstrong’s ruin was brought about by the princely style in which he appeared before his sovereign. The King, highly displeased, turned away his head, and exclaimed—
“Away, away, thou traitor strang!Out o’ my sight soon mayst thou be!I grantit never a traitor’s life,And now I’ll not begin wi’ thee.”
This unexpected outburst of indignation led Armstrong at once to realise the perilous position in which he found himself placed. He now felt that, if his life was to be spared, he must use every means in his power tomove the King to clemency. Consequently he promised to give him “four-and-twenty milk white steeds,” with as much good English gold “as four of their braid backs dow[87]bear;” “four-and-twenty ganging mills,” and “four-and-twenty sisters’ sons” to fight for him; but all these tempting offers were refused with disdain. As a last resource, he said—
“Grant me my life, my liege, my King!And a brave gift I’ll gie to thee—All between here and Newcastle townSall pay their yeirly rent to thee.”
This was no idle boast. So powerful had Armstrong become that, it is said, he levied black-mail—(which is only another form of the word “black-meal,” so-called from the conditions under which it was exacted)—over the greater part of Northumberland. But even the prospect of increasing his revenue by accepting this tribute was not sufficient to turn the King aside from his purpose. He was bent on Armstrong’s destruction, a fact which now became painfully evident to the eloquent and generous suppliant. Enraged at the baseness of the King, he turned upon him and gave vent to the pent up feelings of his heart—
“Ye lied, ye lied, now King,” he says,“Altho’ a King and Prince ye be!For I’ve luved naething in my life,I weel dare say it, but honesty—“Save a fat horse, and fair woman,Twa bonny dogs to kill a deir,But England suld have found me meal and mault,Gif I had lived this hundred yeir!“She suld have found me meal and mault,And beef and mutton in a’ plentie;But never a Scots wyfe could have said,That e’er I skaith’d her a puir flee.“To seik het water beneith cauld ice,Surely it is a greit folie—I have asked grace at a graceless face,But there is nane for my men and me![88]“But had I kenn’d ere I cam frae hame,How thou unkind wadst been to me!I wad have keepit the Border side,In spite of all thy force and thee.“Wist England’s King that I was ta’en,O gin a blythe man he wad be!For anes I slew his sister’s son,And on his briest bane brak a trie.”
The balladist then proceeds to give a minute description of the dress worn by the redoubtable freebooter on this occasion—of his girdle, embroidered and bespangled with gold, and his hat, with its nine targets or tassels, each worth three hundred pounds. All that he needed to make him a king was “the sword of honour and the crown.” But nothing can now avail.
“Farewell! my bonny Gilnock hall,Where on Esk side thou standest stout!Gif I had lived but seven yeirs mair,I wad hae gilt thee round about.”John murdered was at Carlinrigg,And all his gallant companie;But Scotland’s heart was ne’er sae wae,To see sae mony brave men die.
It was a foul deed, foully done. The King was no doubt determined, as it is said, to “make the rush bush keep the cow,” and perhaps to a certain extent he succeeded, as some time after this, Andrew Bell kept ten thousand sheep in Ettrick Forest, and they were as safe as if they had been pasturing in Fife or the Lothians. But the murder of Armstrong in no way daunted the other members of that notable clan. Many of them took refuge on the English side of the Border, and for years waged a successful predatory warfare against theirquondamScottish neighbours. In 1535, for example, we find that “Christopher Armstrong, Archibald his son, Ingram Armstrong, Railtoun, Robert and Archibald Armstrong there, John Elwald, calledLewis John, William, son of Alexander Elwald, and Robert Carutheris, servants to the laird of Mangerton; John Forrestare, calledSchaikbuklar, Ninian Gray his servant, Thomas Armstrong in Greneschelis,Lang Penman, servant of one calledDikkis Will. Thomas Armstrong of Mangerton, and Symeon Armstrong, calledSim the Larde” and several others, were denounced rebels, and their whole goods escheated for not underlying the law for having stolen from John Cockburn of Ormiston seventy “drawand oxen” and thirty cows; and for art and part oftraitorously taking and carrying off three men-servants of the said John, being the keepers of the said castle, and “detaining them against their will for a certain space;” and further “for art and part of the Stouthreif from them of their clothes, whingars, purses and certain money therein.”[89]Indeed the depredations of the clan after the execution of Gilnockie were on the most extensive scale. On the 21st February, 1536, Symon Armstrong was “convicted of art and part of the theft and concealment of two oxen from the laird of Ormistone, furth of the lands of Craik, and a black mare from Robert Scott of Howpaslot, furth of the lands of Wolcleuche; committed during the time he was in the King’s ward, about Lammas 1535.Item, of art and part of the theft and concealment of five score of cows and oxen from the said laird of Ormistone, stolen furth of the said lands of Craik; committed byEvil-willit Sandie, and his accomplices, in company with Thomas Armstrong,alias Greneschelis, and Robert Carutheris, servants of the said Symon, and certain Englishmen, at his command, common Thieves and Traitors, on July 27, 1535.Item, of art and part of the traitorousFire-raisingandBurning of the Town of Howpaslot; And of art and part of the Theft and Concealment the same time of sixty cows and oxen belonging to Robert Scott of Howpaslotand his servants; committed by Alexander Armstrong, in company with Robert Henderson,alias Cheyswame,[90]Thomas Armstrong,aliasGrenescheles, his servants, and their accomplices, common Thieves and Traitors, of his causing and assistance, during the time he was within the King’s ward, upon October 28, 1535.Item, of art and part of the theft and concealment of certain sheep from John Hope and John Hall, the King’s shepherds, furth of the lands of Braidlee in the Forest; committed during the time he was within the said ward.Item, for art and part of the treasonable assistance given to Alexander Armestrang, calledEvil-willit Sandy, a sworn Englishman, and sundry other Englishmen his accomplices, of the names of Armestrangis, Niksounis, and Crosaris, in their treasonable acts.Sentence—To be drawn to the gallows andHangedthereupon: And that he shall forfeit his life, lands, possessions, and all his goods, moveable and immoveable, to the King, to be disposed of at his pleasure.”[91]In the following month John Armstrong,alias Jony of Gutterholes, and Christopher Henderson were hanged for “Common Herschip and Stouthreif, Murder and Fire-raising.” These items give but a faint idea of the extent to which the Armstrongs carried on their depredations.
But, perhaps, a still more serious result of the unwise policy adopted by James in his treatment of theArmstrongs, was the destruction of that feeling of loyalty to the Scottish Crown, which had hitherto been, in some measure at least, a characteristic of the Borderers. Henceforth not only the Armstrongs, but many others besides, were ready to place their arms and their lives at the service of the English government, and to take part with their ancient foes in oppressing and despoiling their own countrymen. In the battle of Ancrum Moor in 1546, there was a considerable contingent of Scottish Borderers fighting under the standard of Lord Eure, and it was only after the tide of war had turned in favour of the Scots that they threw away the badge of foreign servitude and helped to complete the victory. It maybe said that in acting thus they were moved simply by considerations of personal advantage. Be this as it may, the incident clearly shows that their attachment to King and country had been all but completely destroyed. Had James acted with ordinary discretion and foresight he might at once have secured the end he had in view, and at the same time have won over to his side, and to the side of law and order, a body of men whose crimes were due rather to the peculiarity of their circumstances than to their own inherently evil dispositions. He had a great opportunity, but he failed conspicuously to take advantage of it. He learned, when it was too late, that force, when not wisely applied, may produce greater evils than those it seeks to remedy.
The incidents in the predatory warfare so long carried on by the dwellers on both sides of the Border were not all of a painful or tragic character. The spirit of fun sometimes predominated over the more selfish and aggressive instincts. There was a grim kind of humour characteristic of the Border reiver. He certainly was not disposed to laugh on the slightest provocation,—his calling was much too serious for that,—but when he once relaxed, his mirth was not easily controlled. And, however degrading his occupation may have been in its general tendency, there was often displayed among the Border thieves, even among the very worst of them, a spirit of the most splendid heroism, which helps to redeem the system from the general contempt in which it is regarded by the moralist of modern times. Many of the leaders were not only men of undaunted courage,but of considerable military genius. In a later age, under other and happier conditions, they would have won renown on many a well-fought battlefield. They possessed the qualities, physical and moral, of which great soldiers are made. The Bold Buccleuch, Little Jock Elliot, Johnie Armstrong of Gilnockie, and his kinsman, Willie of Kinmont—not to mention other names which readily occur to the mind in this connection—were men dowered by nature with great courage and resource. They were strong of arm and dauntless of heart. We do not seek to justify their deeds. These were reprehensible enough, judged by almost any standard you may apply to them. But just as some people find it impossible to smother a certain sneaking kind of admiration of the Devil, so magnificently delineated in Milton’s “Paradise Lost”—a being who seems possessed of almost every quality save that of consecrating his varied endowment to worthy ends—so in like manner it is difficult to withhold a certain meed of admiration for some of the “nobil thieves” whose names stand out prominently in, if they cannot always be said to adorn, this long chapter of Border history. They were undoubtedly men of ability, energy, and force of character, who would have won their spurs in almost any contest into which they had chosen to enter.
One of the most notable of this band was the famous Kinmont Willie, renowned in Border song and story. He was an Armstrong, a descendant ofthe laird of Gilnockie, whom James VI. put to death at Carlinrig in such graceless fashion. He, like all his race, was a notorious freebooter. The English Border, more especially the West and Middle Marches, suffered much at his hands. He had a large and well armed following, and conducted his marauding expeditions with an intrepidity and skill which created a feeling of dismay among the subjects of his oppression. Nor did it matter much to him where, or on whom, he raided. The King’s treachery at Carlinrig had destroyed—at least so far as the Armstrongs and their friends were concerned—the last lingering spark of patriotism. Their hand was now turned against every man, English and Scottish alike. They had become pariahs, outcasts, whose only ambition was revenge. But bad as Kinmont was, and his record is of the worst, it might be said of him, as it was said of one of the greatest and best men Scotland has ever produced, that “he never feared the face of man.” He was always to the front, dealing out hard blows; courting danger, but never dreaming of defeat. He cared as little for the warden as for the meanest and most defenceless subject of the realm. Scrope tells us, for example, that on one occasion “certain goods were stolen by Scottish men from one of the Johnstones, a kinsman of the laird Johnstone being warden, whereupon the fray arose, and the warden himself, with his company and friends, pursued the same. But Kinmontand his complices being in the way to resist them, the warden and his company returned again to Annand, the which he taketh in very yll parts.”[92]
It was no doubt a sore point with the warden that he should be thus interfered with in this masterful fashion, and one can readily sympathise with him in his chagrin. Such an incident shows that Kinmont and his friends were in a position to set the constituted authorities at defiance, and conduct their reiving “without let or hindrance.” The warden, however, was not altogether free from blame for this state of matters. He seems to have given the thieves every encouragement as long as they confined their depredations to the English Border. Scrope, in a letter to Walsingham, informs him that “as well in the tyme of my being with you, as also synce my return home, manye and almost nightlie attemptates have been committed in Bewcastle and elsewhere within this wardenrie, as well by the Liddesdales as also by the West Wardenrie of Scotland, specially Kinmont, his sonnes and complices; who ... are nevertheless at their pleasure conversaunte and in company with the warden, and no part reprehended for their doynges.” Hunsdon, another English warden, even goes the length of suggesting that the King himself (James VI.) privately encouraged Kinmont in hisevil doing. He says that four hundred horse came to “Hawden brigges,” and took up the town and burned divers houses, whereat the King was very angry, “because it was done there—for he would have had it to be done in some part of my wardenry. Since the taking up of Hawden brigg, Will of Kinmont, who was the principal man who was at it, hath been with the King in his cabinet above an hour, and at his departure the King gave him 100 crowns, as littell as he hath. What justis wee are to looke for att the King’s hands lett her Majestie judge!”[93]
Thus encouraged by the warden and the King, it is not to be wondered at that Kinmont should have thrown himself with great enthusiasm into the work of harassing and plundering all who came within his power.
But his name might have remained in comparative obscurity, notwithstanding his depredations, had it not been for an extraordinary incident which occurred, and for which he was in no way directly responsible.
The dramatist has said that some men are born great, and that others have greatness thrust upon them. We are not prepared to say that only the latter part of the statement applies to the subject of our sketch, for, despite his evil-doing, Kinmont was a man of much natural ability—ability amounting almostto genius. But that he had “greatness thrust upon him” will be readily conceded. His name will always remain associated with one of the most thrilling incidents in Border history. The circumstance which made him famous was this. He had been present at Dayholm, near Kershopefoot, on the occasion of a day of truce, in the month of March, in the year 1596. The business which called them together having been finished, he was returning home, accompanied by a few of his friends, along the banks of the Liddle, when he was suddenly attacked by a body of two hundred English Borderers, led by Salkeld, the deputy of Lord Scrope, the warden of the East March, chased for some miles, captured, tied to the body of his horse and thus carried in triumph to Carlisle castle.
They band his legs beneath the steed,They tied his hands behind his back;They guarded him, fivesome on each side,And they brought him ower the Liddel-rack.They led him thro’ the Liddel-rack,And also through the Carlisle sands;They brought him to Carlisle castell,To be at my Lord Scrope’s commands.
This proceeding was clearly in direct violation of Border law, which guaranteed freedom from molestation to all who might be present at a warden court, or day of truce, betwixt sunrise on the one day and sunrise on the next. We can easily understand the overmastering desire of the warden’s deputy to layKinmont “by the heels,” as he had long been notorious for his depredations on the English Border, but it is incumbent on the representatives of the law that they should honour it in their own persons, and, however many crimes might be laid to the charge of the famous freebooter, he was justly entitled to enjoy the freedom, which a wise legal provision had secured, even to the greatest offenders. The excuse given by Scrope for this manifest breach of Border law is an exceedingly lame one. He says:—“How Kinmont was taken will appear by the attestations of his takers, which, if true, ‘it is held that Kinmont did thereby break the assurance that daye taken, and for his offences ought to be delivered to the officer against whom he offended, to be punished according to discretion.’ Another reason for detaining him is his notorious enmity to this office, and the many outrages lately done by his followers. He appertains not to Buccleuch, but dwells out of his office, and was also taken beyond the limits of his charge, so Buccleuch makes the matter a mere pretext to defer justice, ‘and do further indignities.’”[94]
That Kinmont had broken the assurance taken at the warden court is an assertion in support of which neither has “takers,” nor Scrope give a scintilla of proof. Had such a thing really happened, theresurely would have been no difficulty in establishing the fact; but this is not done, or even attempted to be done, by those whose interest it was to prove the accusation up to the hilt. The other reasons adduced for this unwarrantable proceeding will not bear serious consideration. That Kinmont bore no goodwill to Scrope or those associated with him in his office, may be taken for granted; and that he and his friends and associates had been guilty of many outrages on the English Border, goes without saying. But a slight examination of the excuses will be sufficient to show that they are mere subterfuges. The point in dispute is carefully left out of view by the English warden. No doubt Kinmont richly deserved to suffer the utmost penalty of the law on the ground of his misdemeanours; but he had been present at the warden court, where he would never have gone had he not felt sure that he was amply protected from arrest by the law to which we have referred. It may be said that nearly every man present on that occasion, irrespective of nationality, might have been apprehended on the same general grounds. To use an expressive Scottish phrase—“they were all tarred with the same stick.” It was therefore a direct violation, not only of the spirit, but of the letter of Border law, for Salkeld to take Kinmont prisoner. Scrope was clearly in the wrong—a fact of which he himself seems dimly conscious—as he displayed an amountof temper and irritability in dealing with the case which seemed to indicate that he felt the weakness of his position. On the other hand, the “rank reiver,” who had been thus suddenly and unceremoniously “clapped in jail,” accepted the situation with a singular amount of philosophical indifference. He felt sure that the deed would not go unavenged, that his friends, and he had many of them, would leave no stone unturned in order to effect his release. The balladist finely represents him as saying—
My hands are tied, but my tongue is free,And whae will dare this deed avow?Or answer by the Border law?Or answer to the bold Buccleuch?“Now haud thy tongue, thou rank reiver!There’s never a Scot shall set thee free;Before ye cross my castle yate,I vow ye shall take farewell o’ me.”“Fear na ye that, my lord,” quo’ Willie;“By the faith o’ my body, Lord Scroope,” he said,“I never yet lodged in hostelrie,But I paid my lawing before I gaed.”
An account of what had happened was speedily conveyed to Branxholme, wheretheBold Buccleuch was residing. When he heard what had occurred he was highly indignant. The picture drawn by the balladist is graphic in the extreme. For intense realism it has rarely ever been surpassed—
He has ta’en the table wi’ his hand,He garr’d the red wine spring on hie—“Now Christ’s curse on my head,” he said,But avenged on Lord Scroope I’ll be!“O is my basnet a widow’s curch?Or my lance a wand o’ the willow-tree?Or my arm a ladye’s lilye hand,That an English lord should lightly me!“And have they ta’en him, Kinmont Willie,Against the truce of Border tide?And forgotten that the bauld BuccleuchIs Keeper here on the Scottish side?“And have they e’en ta’en him, Kinmont Willie,Withouten either dread or fear?And forgotten that the bold BuccleuchCan back a steed, or shake a spear?“O were there war between the lands,As well I wot that there is none,I would slight Carlisle castell high,Though it were builded of marble stone.“I would set that castell in a low,And sloken it with English blood!There’s never a man in Cumberland,Should ken where Carlisle castell stood.“But since nae war’s between the lands,And there is peace, and peace should be;I’ll neither harm English lad or lass,And yet the Kinmont freed shall be!”
Before resorting to extreme measures Buccleuch did everything in his power to bring about an amicable settlement of the case. He first of all applied to Salkeld for redress; but Salkeld could only refer him to Lord Scrope, who declared that Kinmont was such a notorious malefactor that he could not release him without the express command of Queen Elizabeth. Buccleuch then brought the matter under the consideration of James, who made an application throughan ambassador, for Kinmont’s release; but this also proved unavailing.
It looked as if the imprisoned freebooter was likely to pay his “lodging mail” in a very unpleasant fashion. The English government seemed determined to detain him until such times as they could conveniently put a period to his career by hanging him on Haribee hill. But Buccleuch, while anxious to effect his purpose, if possible by constitutional means, was determined that Kinmont should be rescued, whatever might be the method he was under the necessity of adopting. To accomplish his purpose he was prepared to “set the castle in a low, and sloken it with English blood.” This threat was regarded as a mere piece of bravado. The castle was strongly garrisoned and well fortified. It was in the centre of a populous and hostile city, and under the command of Scrope, who was regarded as one of the bravest soldiers in England. The Bold Buccleuch, however, was not easily daunted. He had a strong arm and a brave heart, and he knew that he could summon to his aid a small band of followers as brave and resolute as himself. On a dark tempestuous night, two hundred of his bravest followers met him at the tower of Morton, a fortalice in the Debatable land, on the water of Sark, some ten miles or so from Carlisle. Their plans had been carefully considered and determined upon a day or two before, when they had met at a horse race near Langholm. TheArmstrongs, of course, were ready to adventure their lives in such a laudable undertaking, and the Græmes, to whom Will of Kinmont was related by marriage, were also forward with promises of assistance. They were all well mounted—
With spur on heel, and splent on spauld,And gleuves of green, and feathers blue—
and carried with them scaling ladders and crowbars, hand-picks and axes, prepared to take the castle by storm. The rain had been falling heavily, and the Esk and the Eden were in roaring flood, but boldly plunging through their turbid waters they soon came within sight of the “Corbie’s Nest” which they had come to “herry,” and—
The first o’ men that we met wi’,Whae sould it be but fause Sakelde?“Where be ye gaun, ye hunters keen?”Quo’ fause Sakelde; “Come tell to me?”“We go to hunt an English stag,Has trespass’d on the Scots countrie.”“Where be ye gaun, ye marshall men?”Quo’ fause Sakelde; “Come tell me true!”“We go to catch a rank reiver,Has broken faith wi’ the bauld Buccleuch.”
But the troublesome questions of the “fause Sakelde” were speedily cut short by the lance of Dickie of Dryhope, who led the band—
Then nevir a word had Dickie to say,Sae he thrust the lance through his fause bodie.
The way was now clear for the advance upon the castle. Everything seemed favourable to the success of their hazardous undertaking. The heavens were black as pitch, the thunder rolled loud and long, and the rain descended in torrents—
“But ’twas wind and weet, and fire and sleet,When we came beneath the castle wa’.”
When Buccleuch and his men reached the castle they were dismayed to find that the ladders they had brought with them were too short; but finding a postern they undermined it, and soon made a breach big enough for a soldier to pass through. “In this way a dozen stout fellows passed into the outer court (Buccleuch himself being fifth man who entered,) disarmed and bound the watch, wrenched open the postern from the inside, and thus admitting their companions, were masters of the place. Twenty-four troopers now rushed to the castle jail, Buccleuch meantime keeping the postern, forced the door of the chamber where Kinmont was confined, carried him off in his irons, and sounding their trumpet, the signal agreed on, were answered by loud shouts and the trumpet of Buccleuch, whose troopers filled the base court. All was now terror and confusion, both in town and castle. The alarum-bell rang and was answered by his brazen brethren of the cathedral and the town house; the beacon blazed upon the top of the great tower; and its red, uncertain glare on the blacksky and the shadowy forms and glancing armour of the Borderers, rather increased the terror and their numbers. None could see their enemy to tell their real strength.”[95]
The suddenness of the attack and the terrific noise made by Buccleuch and his troopers as they laid siege to the castle, created confusion and dismay amongst the defenders of the stronghold. Lord Scrope, with commendable prudence, kept close within his chamber. He was convinced, as he afterwards declared, that there were at least five hundred Scots in possession of the castle.
Kinmont, as he was borne triumphantly forth on the broad shoulders of Red Rowan, shouted a lusty “good night,” to his bewildered lordship.
Then Red Rowan has hente him upThe starkest man in Teviotdale—“Abide, abide now, Red Rowan,Till of my Lord Scroope I take farewell.”“Farewell, farewell, my gude Lord Scroope!My gude Lord Scroope, farewell he cried—I’ll pay you for my lodging maill,When first we meet on the Border side.”Then shoulder high, with shout and cry,We bore him down the ladder lang;At every stride Red Rowan made,I wot the Kinmont aims play’d clang!“O mony a time” quo’ Kinmont Willie,“I’ve prick’d a horse out oure the furs;But since the day I back’d a steed,I never wore sic cumbrous spurs!”
Having now successfully accomplished their purpose, Buccleuch and his men moved off towards the place where they had left their horses, and in a short time they were safely back on Scottish soil—
Buccleuch has turn’d to Eden Water,Even where it flow’d frae bank to brim,And he has plunged in wi’ a’ his band,And safely swam them through the stream.He turn’d them on the other side,And at Lord Scroope his glove flung he—“If ye like na my visit in merry England,In fair Scotland come visit me.”
A cottage on the roadside between Longtown and Langholm, which stands close to the Scotch Dyke, is still pointed out as the residence of the smith who was employed, on this occasion, to knock off Kinmont Willie’s irons. It is said that when Buccleuch arrived he found the door locked, the family in bed, and the knight of the hammer so sound a sleeper, that he was only wakened by the Lord Warden thrusting his long spear through the window, and nearly spitting both Vulcan and his lady.
The rescue of Kinmont Willie—a most notable feat from whatever point of view it may be regarded—made Buccleuch one of the most popular heroes of the age. It was declared on all hands that nothing like it had been accomplished since the days of Sir William Wallace.
According to a statement made in the “BorderPapers,” Buccleuch was assisted in effecting Kinmont’s rescue by Walter Scott of Goldielands; Walter Scott of Harden; Will Elliot of Gorronbye; John Elliot of Copeshawe; the laird of Mangerton; the young laird of Whithaugh and his son; three of the Calfhills, Jock, Bighames, and one Ally, a bastard; Sandy Armstrong, son to Hebbye; Kinmont’s Jock, Francie, Geordie, and Sandy, all brethern, the sons of Kinmont; Willie Bell, “Redcloak,” and two of his brethren; Walter Bell of Goddesby; three brethren of Tweda, Armstrongs; young John of the Hollows, and one of his brethren; Christie of Barngleish and Roby of Langholm; the Chingles; Willie Kange and his brethren with their “complices.”
The breaking of the castle, and the rescue of Kinmont, completely upset the equanimity of my Lord Scrope. His indignation almost unmanned him. He wrote a long letter to the Privy Council describing the circumstances, and denouncing Buccleuch and his accomplices, in no measured terms. He entreated the Council to induce her Majesty to call upon the King of Scotland to deliver up Buccleuch “that he might receive such punishment as her Majesty might find that the quality of his offence merited.” He assured their lordships that “if her Majesty shall give me leave it shall cost me both life and living, rather than such an indignity to her Highness, and contempt to myself, shall be tolerated.” From the subsequentcorrespondence on this subject, which was of a voluminous nature, one can easily see that Scrope was more concerned about the indignity to himself than the contempt which had been offered to her Majesty. He seems to have found it more difficult than he at first anticipated to move the government to take prompt and effective action. Buccleuch, as may be readily supposed, had a good deal to say in his own defence. He argued, and with considerable cogency, that Kinmont’s capture and imprisonment constituted a gross violation of Border law, and that he had not made any attempt at his rescue until he had exhausted every other means of accomplishing his purpose. He also pointed out that the representations which he had made had been received with scant courtesy, and that even the remonstrance of the King had been treated with contempt. Further, he showed that his Borderers had committed no outrage either on life or property, although they might have made Scrope and his garrison prisoners, and sacked the city.
These considerations ought to have weighed heavily in Buccleuch’s favour, but Elizabeth would listen to no excuses. She demanded his immediate surrender. For a time James refused to comply, and was warmly supported by the whole body of his council and barons, even the ministers of the Kirk were strongly opposed to surrender. Had the King been able to act with as much freedom as some of hispredecessors, it is morally certain that this demand would have been indignantly repelled, but in the circumstances he had to proceed with caution, as he was afraid that resistance might lead to unpleasant results. And so, bowing to the inevitable, Buccleuch was surrendered—at least he was for a time put in ward in Blackness.
The letter which Elizabeth addressed to James on this occasion is written throughout in the most passionate language. It is evident that Her Majesty had great difficulty in controlling her feelings. After soundly rating her “Dear brother” on the attitude he had assumed, she says:—“Wherefore, for fine, let this suffice you, that I am as evil treated by my namedfriendas I could be by my knownfoe. Shall any castle or habytacle of mine be assailed by a night larcin, and shall not my confederate send the offender to his due punishment? Shall a friend stick at that demand that he ought rather to prevent? The law of kingly love would have said, nay: and not for persuasion of such as never can or will stead you, but dishonour you to keep their own rule, lay behind you such due regard of me, and in it of yourself, who, as long as you use this trade, will be thought not of yourself ought, but of conventions what they will. For, commissioners I will never grant, for an act that he cannot deny that made; for what so the cause be made, no cause should have done that. And when you with a better weighed judgmentshall consider, I am assured my answer shall be more honourable and just; which I expect with more speed, as well for you as for myself.
For other doubtful and litigious causes in our Border, I will be ready to point commissioners, if I shall find you needful; but for this matter of so villainous a usage, assure you I will never be so answered, as hearers shall need. In this and many other matters, I require your trust to our ambassador, which faithfully will return them to me. Praying God for your safe keeping. Your faithful and loving sister, E. R.”
Such plain speaking might not be relished by the Scottish King, but the interests at stake were too great to enable him to disregard it. He was in thorough sympathy with Buccleuch, but he dare not resist further, and so pacified the angry Queen by yielding her demands.
While reflecting great credit on the prowess of the Bold Buccleuch, the rescue of Kinmont Willie gave rise to many serious local as well as international complications. As we have seen, the English Queen was deeply offended. She resented the high-handed and arbitrary manner in which the release of this famous prisoner had been effected. It constituted a gross insult to the Crown, and she was determined that those responsible for the deed should suffer for their temerity. The anger of Elizabeth was no trifling matter under any circumstances, but to James, whose courage was never a conspicuous quality, it was dreaded in the last degree. He simply quailed before the storm, and hastened to tender his humble submission. The Queen received his assurances of contrition with commendablegraciousness. Yet it would seem she was not quite satisfied. Buccleuch had been put in ward, but he had not been, as was demanded, surrendered to the English government, and satisfaction was apparently out of the question until this condition had been complied with. She expostulated with James on the impropriety of the course he had seen fit to adopt, and gave him an interesting lecture on the manner in which he ought to discharge the duties of his high office. “For the punishment given to the offender,” she says, “I render you many thanks; though I must confess, that without he be rendered to ourself, or to our warden, we have not that we ought. And, therefore, I beseech you, consider the greatness of my dishonour, and measure his just delivery accordingly. Deal in this case like a king, that will have all this realm and others adjoining see how justly and kindly you both will and can use a prince of my quality; and let not any dare persuade more for him than you shall think fit, whom it becomes to be echoes to your actions, no judgers of what beseems you.
For Border matters, they are so shameful and inhuman as it would loathe a king’s heart to think of them. I have borne for your quiet too long, even murders committed by the hands of your own wardens, which, if they be true, as I fear they be, I hope they shall well pay for such demerits, and you will never endure such barbarous acts to be unrevenged.
I will not molest you with other particularities; but will assure myself that you will not easily be persuaded to overslip such enormities, and will give both favourable ear to our ambassador, and speedy redress, with due correction for such demeanour. Never think them mete to rule, that guides without rule.
Of me make this account, that in your world shall never be found a more sincere affection, nor purer from guile, nor fuller fraught with truer sincerity than mine; which will not harbour in my breast a wicked conceit of you, without such great cause were given, as you yourself could hardly deny; of which we may speed, I hope,ad calendas Græcas.
I render millions of thanks for such advertisements as this bearer brought from you; and see by that, you both weigh me and yourself in a right balance; for who seeks to supplant one, looks next for the other.”
These wise and weighty admonitions were no doubt received in a becoming spirit. But James was not prepared at once to comply with the demand that Buccleuch should be handed over to the tender mercies of his enemies. Buccleuch was a special favourite. He was disposed, therefore, to shield him as long as he could conveniently do so, with any degree of safety to himself and his own interests. Negotiations were carried on between thetwo governments for a period of eighteen months, and everything might have been amicably settled had the wardens, and others in authority, only conducted themselves with a reasonable amount of discretion. Scrope, especially was dying to be revenged on those who had subjected him to such great indignity; and consequently, a few months after the castle of Carlisle had been broken into by Buccleuch, he gathered together two thousand men and marched into Liddesdale, where he and his followers created great devastation. They burned, so the Scottish commissioners allege, “24 onsettes of houses, and carried off all the goods within four miles of bounds. They coupled the men their prisoners ‘tua and tua togeather in leashe like doggis. Of barnis and wemen, three or four scoore, they stripped off their clothis and sarkis, leaving them naked in that sort, exposit to the injurie of wind and weather, whereby nyne or tenne infantes perished within eight daies thereafter.’”
The answer of the English commissioners to this indictment indicates, at least, the grounds on which Scrope regarded himself as justified in undertaking this invasion of Liddesdale. The reasons adduced are plausible, if not always convincing. “It is no novelty,” they say, “but an ancient custom, for the English warden to assist his opposite, and the keeper of Liddesdale, to ride on and ‘herrie’ such thieves, and on occasion to do so at his own hand....Buccleuch, besides (1) surprising the second fortress of the Queen’s Border; (2) slaying 24 of her subjects, including 16 of her soldiers; (3) has bound himself with all the notorious riders in Liddesdale, Eskdale, and Ewesdale, and after asserting that he paid ‘out of his own purse’ half of the sworn bill of Tyndale of £800, which the King commanded him to answer, joined himself with the Ellotts and Armstrongs, to plunder Tyndale for demanding the balance, slaying in their own houses 7 of the Charletons and Dodds the chief claimants. And being imprisoned by the King, he made a sporting time of it, hunting and hawking, and on his release did worse than ever, maintaining his ‘coosens’ Will of Hardskarth, Watt of Harden, &c., to murder, burn, and spoile as before.
The people under his charge, Ellotts, Armstrongs, Nicksons, &c., have of late years murdered above 50 of the Queen’s good subjects, many in their own houses, on their lawful business at daytime—as 6 honest Allandale men going to Hexham market, cut in pieces. For each of the last 10 years they have spoiled the West and Middle Marches of £5000. In short, they are intolerable, and redress being unattainable, though repeatedly demanded by the Queen and warden, the justifiable reprisal ordered by her Majesty in necessary defence of her own Border, cannot in equity be called an invasion, but rather ‘honourable and neighbourlike assistance,’ to maintain theinviolable amitie between the princes and realms, against the proud violaters thereof in eyther nation.... To conclude—this action of the Lord Scrope’s is to be reputed and judged a ‘pune,’ an ancient Border tearme, intending no other than a reprisall, which albeit of late years her Majesty’s peacable justice hath restrained.”
There is much in a name. This invasion of Liddesdale, resulting in the burning of numerous homesteads, the slaughter of many women and children, accompanied by barbarities of the most revolting description, is euphoniously described by the commissioners as “honourable and neighbourlike assistance.” The women and bairns, who were led in leashes like so many dogs, were no doubt duly grateful to my Lord Scrope and his minions for their kindly attentions! The absurdity of such a verdict is surely unique.
It would appear that Buccleuch’s enforced absence from the Borders, after the taking of Carlisle castle, was of brief duration. He was soon back in his old haunts, and at his old trade. What had happened in the interim was not likely to enhance his feeling of regard for Scrope, and those who were aiding and abetting him in this matter. He was determined to avenge the cruel raid which had been made upon Liddesdale. Along with Sir Robert Ker of Cessford, another renowned freebooter, he marched into Tynedale with fifty horse and a hundred foot, burned atnoonday three hundred onsteads and dwelling houses; also barns, stables, ox houses, &c., to the number of twenty; and murdered “with the sworde” fourteen who had been to Scotland, and brought away their booty. The English warden was utterly helpless. He dare not lift a finger to stay the progress of the invaders. He gave vent to his feelings in a letter to Burghley, in which he says—“To defend such like incursions, or rather invasions, with sorrow as formerly I declare to your lordship the weak state of Tindale, for there was not 6 able horse to follow the fray ‘upon the shoute,’ though in daytime, and where as reported to me, there were 300 able foot, ‘or better,’ there was not a hundred of this following, ‘and those naked.’ This piteous state increases since my coming, and I cannot see how to amend it, leaving this to your wisdom, ‘wishing to God’ I had never lived to serve where neither her Majesty nor her officer is obeyed; fearing unless assisted by her Majesty’s forces, Tyndale will be laid waste as other parts of the March are.”[96]
One cannot restrain a certain feeling of commiseration for the English warden, who was so shamefully neglected by his government, and so miserably supported in the discharge of his duties by those dwelling within his wardenry. The complaint which Eure here makes is one which was often made by thewardens on the English Border. They were frequently left in a comparatively helpless condition, having neither men, horses, nor money sufficient for their purposes. The knowledge of this fact no doubt encouraged the Scots to pursue their nefarious calling with a boldness and persistency, which, at first sight, appear somewhat extraordinary.
Buccleuch, when charged with the atrocities here so minutely described, had a good deal to say in his own defence. He avowed that his inroad on Tynedale was fully justified. He says—“60 English entered Liddesdale by night, slew 2 men, and drove many sheep and cattle, when the fray arising, he with neighbouring gentlemen ‘followed the chace with the dog,’ and put the first men he met making resistance, to the sword. The rest of the spoil, taken to sundry houses in Tindale, was therein held against him by the stealers, and though he offered them life and goods, if the cattle were delivered, he had to force entry by the firing of doors, when the houses were burned ‘besides his purpose,’ with the obstinate people who refused to yield on trust.”[97]
This plausible story, the main facts of which, however, are admitted by the English warden, did not go far to pacify the Queen of England. She threatened the utmost penalties unless Buccleuch and Ker weredelivered up to her. The time had gone past for further “excuses, deferrings, and lingerings.” It is said her resentment had reached such a pitch that, with her concurrence, a plan was formed toassassinateBuccleuch.
Though the Queen had at first been opposed to the appointment of a Commission for the consideration of some of the more important questions which had arisen between the two kingdoms, owing mainly to Buccleuch’s exploits, she ultimately yielded the point, and it is an interesting and significant fact that during the time of the sitting of the Commission Buccleuch was busily engaged in ravaging with fire and sword some of the fairest districts within the English Border. The magnitude of his offences had evidently impressed them. They hardly knew what to say about him. In the first paragraph of the report which they issued we read:—“We have accomplished the treaty of the Border causes with all the diligence possible, though not to so great advantage to the realm as we desired. Yet we have revived articles of the former treaties discontinued, supplied many old defects, and made new ordinances. Slaughters we were forced to leave as they were (the Scots protesting that they could not, under their instructions, deal with them); but we trust as the punishment is left to the princes, her Majesty will so consider the same, that it shall be found far better that we have left that article at large, than if we hadcondiscended to any meane degree of correccion for so barbarous acts ... specially by Baklugh, who isflagellum Deito his miserably distressed and oppressed neighbours.”[98]