Thus God blessed me in bringing this great trouble to so quiet an end; we broke up our fort, and every man retired to his own house.”75
Judging from this account, one is led to suppose that the force which Cary had at his command was comparatively small. He tells us that he took a list of those that offered to go with him, and found that with his officers, gentlemen, and servants there would be about two hundred good men and horse; a competent number he thought for such a service. But we find in a letter which he sent to Cecil that he speaks of having “a 1000 horse and foot.”76 But whatever may have been the strength of the forces at his command, it is quite certain that, on this occasion at least, he proved himself more than a match for the “Lewd Liddesdales.”
The tradition of this famous raid, which was long preserved in the district, differs considerably from the account here given. “The people of Liddesdale have retained,” says the editor of the “Border Minstrelsy,” “the remembrance of Cary’s raid,” as they call it. “They tell that, while he was besieging the outlaws in the Tarras, they contrived, by ways known only to themselves, to send a party into England, who plundered the warden’s lands. On their return, they sent Cary one of his own cows, telling him that, fearing he might fall short of provisions during his visit to Scotland, they had taken the precaution of sending him some English beef.”
The anecdote is worth preserving, as it indicates how anxious the Liddesdale reivers were to forget one of the most unpleasant episodes in their history, or at least to make their discomfiture appear in as favourable a light as possible.
X.
AFTER THE HUNTING
“Efter the hunting the King hanged Johnie Armstrong.”
Pitscottie.
“Here is ane cord baith grit and lang,
Quhilk hangit Johne Armstrang,
Of gude hempt soft and sound,
Gude haly pepil, I stand ford,
Whaevir beis hangit wi’ this cord,
Neidis never to be drowned!”
Sir David Lindsay.
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 broth
From 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 an excellent 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 gentlemen that 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. The tradition 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 deal in 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 taking Black-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 taking Black-maill from Andrew Thorbrand and William, his brother: And of art and part of theftuously taking of Black-maill from the poor Tenants of Hopcailzow: And of art and part of theftuously taking Blackmaill, from the poor 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, who was 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 not extend 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 Armstrong ane 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 my best 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 Carlaverocke83 Cheapell, were all committed to the gallowes. 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 circumstances were 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. It was 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 kinnen86 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 to move 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 dow87 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 town
Sall 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 their quondam Scottish neighbours. In 1535, for example, we find that “Christopher Armstrong, Archibald his son, Ingram Armstrong, Railtoun, Robert and Archibald Armstrong there, John Elwald, called Lewis John, William, son of Alexander Elwald, and Robert Carutheris, servants to the laird of Mangerton; John Forrestare, called Schaikbuklar, Ninian Gray his servant, Thomas Armstrong in Greneschelis, Lang Penman, servant of one called Dikkis Will. Thomas Armstrong of Mangerton, and Symeon Armstrong, called Sim 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 of traitorously 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 by Evil-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 traitorous Fire-raising and Burning 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 Howpaslot and his servants; committed by Alexander Armstrong, in company with Robert Henderson, alias Cheyswame,90 Thomas Armstrong, alias Grenescheles, 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, called Evil-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 and Hanged thereupon: 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 the Armstrongs, 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.