310. Near the water of Sark, in the Debateable Land, and belonging to Kinmont Willie: “William Armstrong, in Morton Tower, called Will of Kinmouth, 1569.” Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, II, 44.
310. Near the water of Sark, in the Debateable Land, and belonging to Kinmont Willie: “William Armstrong, in Morton Tower, called Will of Kinmouth, 1569.” Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, II, 44.
311. “The queen of England, having notice sent her of what was done, stormed not a little,” and her ambassador was instructed to say that peace could not continue between the two realms unless Buccleuch were delivered to England, to be punished at the queen’s pleasure. Buccleuch professed himself willing to be tried, according to ancient treaties, by commissioners of the respective kingdoms, and the Scots made the proposal, but Elizabeth did not immediately consent to this arrangement. At last, to satisfy the queen, Buccleuch was put in ward at the castle of St Andrews. Spotiswood adds that he was “afterwards entered in England, where he remained not long” (and Tytler to the same effect, IX, 226). According to one of the MSS of The Historie of King James the Sext, the king, to please and pleasure her Majesty, entered Buccleuch in ward at Berwick with all expedition possible, and the queen, of her courtesy, released him back in due and sufficient time: p. 421. But Buccleuch seems to have been entered in England only once, and that in 1597, and not for the assault on Carlisle castle, or for a raid which he made in the next year, but because he did not deliver his pledges, as he was under obligation to do according to a treaty made by a joint commission in 1597. See Ridpath’s Border History, 1848, pp. 473, 477.
311. “The queen of England, having notice sent her of what was done, stormed not a little,” and her ambassador was instructed to say that peace could not continue between the two realms unless Buccleuch were delivered to England, to be punished at the queen’s pleasure. Buccleuch professed himself willing to be tried, according to ancient treaties, by commissioners of the respective kingdoms, and the Scots made the proposal, but Elizabeth did not immediately consent to this arrangement. At last, to satisfy the queen, Buccleuch was put in ward at the castle of St Andrews. Spotiswood adds that he was “afterwards entered in England, where he remained not long” (and Tytler to the same effect, IX, 226). According to one of the MSS of The Historie of King James the Sext, the king, to please and pleasure her Majesty, entered Buccleuch in ward at Berwick with all expedition possible, and the queen, of her courtesy, released him back in due and sufficient time: p. 421. But Buccleuch seems to have been entered in England only once, and that in 1597, and not for the assault on Carlisle castle, or for a raid which he made in the next year, but because he did not deliver his pledges, as he was under obligation to do according to a treaty made by a joint commission in 1597. See Ridpath’s Border History, 1848, pp. 473, 477.
312. Tytler’s History, IX, 437. “The greatest nomber whareof war ordinar nycht-walkers” (H. of K. J. the Sext, p. 369).
312. Tytler’s History, IX, 437. “The greatest nomber whareof war ordinar nycht-walkers” (H. of K. J. the Sext, p. 369).
313. “Dike Armestronge of Dryup dwelleth neare High Morgarton” (Mangerton). Dike Armestronge of Dryup appears in a list of the principal men in Liddesdale, drawn up when Simon Armstrong was laird of Mangerton, among Simon’s uncles or uncles’ sons. Dick of Dryup is complained of, with others, for reif and burning, in 1583, 1586, 1587, 1603, and his name is among the outlaws proclaimed at Carlisle July 23, 1603. (Notes of Mr R. B. Armstrong.)
313. “Dike Armestronge of Dryup dwelleth neare High Morgarton” (Mangerton). Dike Armestronge of Dryup appears in a list of the principal men in Liddesdale, drawn up when Simon Armstrong was laird of Mangerton, among Simon’s uncles or uncles’ sons. Dick of Dryup is complained of, with others, for reif and burning, in 1583, 1586, 1587, 1603, and his name is among the outlaws proclaimed at Carlisle July 23, 1603. (Notes of Mr R. B. Armstrong.)
314. “The informer saith that Buclughe was the fifth man which entered the castle:” Lord Scroop’s letter, Tytler, IX, 437. But the MS. used by Scott, Spotiswood’s account (founded chiefly or altogether upon that MS.), and The Historie of King James the Sext agree in saying that Buccleuch remained outside, “to assure the retreat of his awin from the castell againe.”
314. “The informer saith that Buclughe was the fifth man which entered the castle:” Lord Scroop’s letter, Tytler, IX, 437. But the MS. used by Scott, Spotiswood’s account (founded chiefly or altogether upon that MS.), and The Historie of King James the Sext agree in saying that Buccleuch remained outside, “to assure the retreat of his awin from the castell againe.”
315. “Red Rowy Forster” is one of the list complained of to the Bishop of Carlisle, about 1550 (see ‘Hughie Grame’), and he is in company with Jock of Kinmont, one of Will’s four sons, Archie of Gingles, Jock of Gingles, and George of the Gingles, who may represent “The Chingles” in the informer’s list already cited. Nicolson and Burn, I, lxxxii.
315. “Red Rowy Forster” is one of the list complained of to the Bishop of Carlisle, about 1550 (see ‘Hughie Grame’), and he is in company with Jock of Kinmont, one of Will’s four sons, Archie of Gingles, Jock of Gingles, and George of the Gingles, who may represent “The Chingles” in the informer’s list already cited. Nicolson and Burn, I, lxxxii.
316. This is also to be observed: “There are in this collection no fewer than three poems on the rescue of prisoners, the incidents in which nearly resemble each other, though the poetical description is so different that the editor did not think himself at liberty to reject any one of them, as borrowed from the others. As, however, there are several verses which, in recitation, are common to all these three songs, the editor, to prevent unnecessary and disagreeable repetition, has used the freedom of appropriating them to that in which they seem to have the best poetic effect.” ‘Jock o the Side,’ Minstrelsy, II, 76, ed. 1833.
316. This is also to be observed: “There are in this collection no fewer than three poems on the rescue of prisoners, the incidents in which nearly resemble each other, though the poetical description is so different that the editor did not think himself at liberty to reject any one of them, as borrowed from the others. As, however, there are several verses which, in recitation, are common to all these three songs, the editor, to prevent unnecessary and disagreeable repetition, has used the freedom of appropriating them to that in which they seem to have the best poetic effect.” ‘Jock o the Side,’ Minstrelsy, II, 76, ed. 1833.
317. Campbell “projected” his work as early as 1790, and he intimates in his preface, p. viii (if I have rightly understood him), that he gave help to Scott.
317. Campbell “projected” his work as early as 1790, and he intimates in his preface, p. viii (if I have rightly understood him), that he gave help to Scott.
318. For the Laird’s Jock, see ‘Dick o the Cow,’ No 185. “I do not say there never was a Laird’s Wat, but I do not recollect having met with an Armstrong called Walter during the sixteenth century:” Mr R. B. Armstrong.
318. For the Laird’s Jock, see ‘Dick o the Cow,’ No 185. “I do not say there never was a Laird’s Wat, but I do not recollect having met with an Armstrong called Walter during the sixteenth century:” Mr R. B. Armstrong.
319. If the text is right, John (or was it Hobbie Noble?) had killed Peeter a Whifeild. See ‘Hobbie Noble,’ 94.
319. If the text is right, John (or was it Hobbie Noble?) had killed Peeter a Whifeild. See ‘Hobbie Noble,’ 94.
320. “I am a bastard brother of thine,” says Hobby in 263; cf. 282. But inB7 and ‘Hobie Noble,’ 3, he is an Englishman, born in Bewcastle, and banished to Liddesdale.
320. “I am a bastard brother of thine,” says Hobby in 263; cf. 282. But inB7 and ‘Hobie Noble,’ 3, he is an Englishman, born in Bewcastle, and banished to Liddesdale.
321. This device, whether of great practical use or not, has much authority to favor it: Hereward, De Gestis Herwardi, Michel, Chroniques A. Normandes, p. 81; Fulk Fitz-Warin, Wright, p. 92; Eustache le Moine, Michel, p. 55, vv. 1505 ff. (see Michel’s note, p. 104 f.); Robert Bruce, Scotichronicon, Goodall, II, 226; other cases in Miss Burne’s Shropshire Folk-Lore, pp. 16, 20, 93 note. It is repeated in ‘Archie o Cawfield.’
321. This device, whether of great practical use or not, has much authority to favor it: Hereward, De Gestis Herwardi, Michel, Chroniques A. Normandes, p. 81; Fulk Fitz-Warin, Wright, p. 92; Eustache le Moine, Michel, p. 55, vv. 1505 ff. (see Michel’s note, p. 104 f.); Robert Bruce, Scotichronicon, Goodall, II, 226; other cases in Miss Burne’s Shropshire Folk-Lore, pp. 16, 20, 93 note. It is repeated in ‘Archie o Cawfield.’
322. Bay and grey should be exchanged inB10,C7.
322. Bay and grey should be exchanged inB10,C7.
323. Miswritten Capeld; again in 124.
323. Miswritten Capeld; again in 124.
324. “Tradition says that his [Archie’s] name was Archibald Armstrong.” (Note at the end of the MS.)
324. “Tradition says that his [Archie’s] name was Archibald Armstrong.” (Note at the end of the MS.)
325. Belonging to John’s Christie, son of Johnie Armstrong. Christie of Barnglish was in Kinmont Willie’s rescue. R. B. Armstrong, Appendix, p. cii, No LXIV; T. J. Carlyle, The Debateable Land, p. 22. Tytler, IX, 437.
325. Belonging to John’s Christie, son of Johnie Armstrong. Christie of Barnglish was in Kinmont Willie’s rescue. R. B. Armstrong, Appendix, p. cii, No LXIV; T. J. Carlyle, The Debateable Land, p. 22. Tytler, IX, 437.
326. The “white hand” in the Slovenian ballad, II, 350, is hard to explain unless there is a mixture of a prison-ballad and a snake-ballad.
326. The “white hand” in the Slovenian ballad, II, 350, is hard to explain unless there is a mixture of a prison-ballad and a snake-ballad.
327. “The earldom of Huntingdon was vacant from about 1487 to 1529, and, as the Fitz-Walters were lineally descended from the daughter of the first Simon de St Liz, Earl of Huntingdon, this may have suggested to Skelton the idea of giving that title to the husband of Matilda Fitz-Walter.”
327. “The earldom of Huntingdon was vacant from about 1487 to 1529, and, as the Fitz-Walters were lineally descended from the daughter of the first Simon de St Liz, Earl of Huntingdon, this may have suggested to Skelton the idea of giving that title to the husband of Matilda Fitz-Walter.”
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTESP.204, changed "3. unto her lovely." to "33. unto her lovely.".P.287, changed "25. 5 score" to "251. 5 score".Except as noted, all spelling errors were left uncorrected.All punctuation was left uncorrected, except as follows.A beginning or ending quote mark was added for obviously unbalanced pairs of quotes.Full stops and commas were made consistent for the verse & line references, for example, "121," was corrected to "121."Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES