|
CHANGE BROUGHT ABOUT ON THE
BORDERS BY THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER III., AND EVENTS FOLLOWING — THE
CONVENTION OF BIRGHAM — EDWARD SUMMONED TO THE BORDER — SUBSEQUENT
EVENTS—SCOTTISH INCURSIONS OVER THE BORDER—SACK OF BERWICK — EDWARD*S
ITINERARY IN ROXBURGHSHIRE — LOCAL NAMES IN THE RAGMAN ROLLS—LANDS RESTORED
IN VIRTUE OF FEALTY SWORN—WALLACE IN ETTRICK — FOREST ARCHERS AT FALKIRK —
WALLACE’S ELECTION AS GUARDIAN AT ST MARY OF THE LOWES—LANERCOST
CHRONICLER’S ACCOUNT OF MILITARY EVENTS ON THE BORDER — TRADITION OF
WALLACE'S DESCENT FROM A PEEBLESSHIRE FAMILY—THE “WALLACE” TOWER AND
THORN—THE FRASERS OF OLIVER, FATHER AND SON— THE BORDERS UNDER ENGLISH
RULE—ADVENTURE OF DOUGLAS ON THE WATER OF LYNE—THE “EMERALD” CHARTER—DOUGLAS
CAPTURES ROXBURGH CASTLE BY STRATAGEM—SUCCESSION OF SCOTTISH INCURSIONS
AFTER BANNOCKBURN—DOUGLAS ROUTS THE ENGLISH AT LINTALEE—PROGRESS OF THE WAR
ON THE BORDERS — FROISSART’S ACCOUNT OF THE SCOTTISH SOLDIERS AND THEIR
HABITS — THE INCURSION INTO WEARDALE—TREATY OF NORTHAMPTON — BRUCE CHARGES
HIS SUCCESSORS WITH THE CARE OF MELROSE ABBEY — “THE GOOD KING ROBERT’S
TESTAMENT ”—DEATH OF DOUGLAS — THE BORDER HERO OF THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.
“Southern Scotland’ says a
brilliant historian, “was the creation of David I. He embellished it with
the monasteries of his religious foundations ; he strengthened it with the
castles of his baronage ; and here he established the nucleus of feudal
Scotland, and the foundation of that importance which eventually transferred
the preponderance in the kingdom to the south.” What is here said of the
South of Scotland generally is true in a special degree of the Border
counties, whilst it is no less true that the policy of David’s immediate
successors was in the main a development of that of their pious ancestor.
But if the Borders had had their share, and more than their share, of the
prosperity of Scotland’s Golden Age, they were now doomed to taste in
proportion of that cup of adversity which was for so long to be held to her
lips. During the period that was to follow, says Professor Veitch, “the most
unhappy part of this unhappy kingdom . . . was this Border district. It was
exposed to outrage, fire, and sword from the south. Every English army must
pass through it; and each time this happened the country was made desolate,
either by the foe, or by the inhabitants seeking to starve the enemy. Even
in times of peace there were constant reprisals from each side of the
Border; and the internal raids and the family feuds were of the most savage,
bloody, and persistent kind—almost entirely unchecked by central authority
or law.”
During the years now’
following, several of the most important events in Scottish history may be
said to have been enacted on the Borders. After Alexander’s death a meeting
of the Estates, convened at Scone on the nth April 1286, had with all
reasonable speed made provision for carrying on the government of the
country by a regency composed of six Guardians, of whom three—namely,
Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow, John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, and James the
Stewart —were to act for Lothian with Galloway. During the next three or
four years the country had been already menaced by a war of factions, so
that when Edward propounded his scheme for uniting the infant Queen of
Scotland to the Prince of Wales, it was warmly approved at a meeting held at
Birgham in the spring of 1290. In the summer following, a further
meeting, representative of the entire nation, was held at the same place, to
meet Edward’s commissioners and to settle the details of the scheme. Among
these details, notwithstanding the prospective union of the Crowns, were
provisions relating to the marches — as, for instance, that the rights,
laws, liberties, and customs of Scotland were to extend to its marches, with
a saving clause in favour of any rights which the King of England or others
might possess or justly acquire there. The observation of the right marches
was also ' provided for, and it was proposed that the Border fortresses and
castles should not be fortified anew. At Kelso, a fortnight later,
plenipotentiaries were appointed, and everything seemed to be shaping for
the best, when the death of a little girl in one of the Orkney Isles, on her
way over to Scotland, threw back for at least three centuries the happiness
of two nations.
The claims of the
Competitors, authorised if not originated by the death of the Maid of
Norway, made the intervention of a strong hand now more than ever desirable,
and accordingly on the 7th October 1290 we find the Bishop of St Andrews,
whose name heads the list of Guardians, entreating Edward to “approach the
Border,” “to give consolation to the people of Scotland, to prevent the
eflusion of blood,” and, in fine, to help them to choose a king. The
excessive detestation in which Edward’s memory has been held in Scotland
makes it desirable to give prominence to the exact circumstances under which
he first intervened in her affairs. There is no reason for alleging that he
harboured designs upon her freedom at this date; and if at a later period
the integrity of his early conduct was to yield before an error of judgment
or a strong provocation, that does not justify us in withholding from a
great monarch, in any given circumstances, such credit as is his due. After
taking the not unreasonable precaution of issuing writs to some fifty-eight
of his military vassals in the northern counties, he attended the council
held on the banks of Tweed in May and June 1291. With what took place at
Norham it is no business of ours to deal at length. Suffice it to say that
the whole question of the claim there advanced by the King of England to be
regarded as lord-paramount of Scotland remains to this day a hopeless
imbroglio—hopeless, that is, until it shall be approached by a historian
uninfluenced by national prejudice. In the meantime it is enough to note
that, even by the showing of the strongest of Edward’s partisans, his claim
on this occasion was at first allowed merely to go “ by default.” The words
of that author are that the Scots lords returned to Norham, after the three
weeks’ interval allowed for deliberation, “unprepared to withstand, and
consequently prepared to admit, the English claim.” The state of indecision
is thus not recognised. And in relation to their subsequent categorical
acknowledgment of Edward’s superiority, it must be remembered at how great a
sacrifice only could any of the parties concerned have taken it upon himself
individually to oppose the English king. If they were weak in allowing his
claim, he was at least equally ungenerous under the circumstances in
pressing it. But this is an anticipation.
After due deliberation and
consultation, his judgment between the rival claimants of the Scottish crown
was delivered with proper solemnity at Berwick Castle some seventeen months
later—namely, on November 17, 1292. On November 20, John Baliol, the still
uncrowned king, swore fealty to his acknowledged superior in Norham Castle.
He was then duly crowned at Scone, after which he renewed his homage at
Newcastle. During the long interval when the kingdom was in abeyance pending
his judgment, Edward had retained possession of its strongholds — among them
being those of Roxburgh and Jedburgh, governed by Brian Fitz-Alan, which had
been placed in his hands after the Council of Norham. Strict in his
observance of the forms of law, after making his award, he punctually
resigned them.
There are few characters
among those called upon to play a leading part in history who make a poorer
figure than Baliol. His situation was beyond his powers, and he lingers in
our imagination, as scathingly described by the chronicler, “paralysed,
mute, tongue-tied, a lamb among wolves,” a figure of pity. The events of his
reign, however, scarcely come within our scope. He was scarce seated on his
throne when the appeal of Roger Bartholomew, a burgess of Berwick, to
Edward, against the finding of a Scottish law-court, opened up in a way
which promised to become troublesome the question of the relations between
the two kingdoms. Perhaps, in the difficulties thus presented, the
lawyer-like mind of the far-sighted Edward saw' its opportunity. At any
rate, since to take action in such a case would be to contravene the terms
of the Treaty of Birgham, which expressly provided for the judicial
independence of Scotland, he compelled Baliol to release him from that
treaty. From this Baliol's downward course was rapid. His overlord assumed
the high hand, and the process of degradation applied to the unhappy vassal
was ruthless and unsparing.
It will be remembered that
Edward’s proposed punishment for what he chose to pronounce contumacy on
Baliol’s part was to deprive him of the three principal castles of his
realm. Which these castles were to be is not stated by any of the
authorities,—perhaps this had not been decided. But when, two years later,
Baliol, acting in doubtful faith, consented to surrender three castles,
Roxburgh, Jedburgh, and Berwick were those named. Meantime, war having
broken out between England and France, the Scottish nation, grown weary of
Edward’s interference in its affairs, decided to take the side of France. In
our desire to be fair to Edward we shall do well to remember that, as his
intervention in Scottish affairs had at first been solicited from Scotland,
so now the first outbreak of hostilities came from that country. In
consequence of the French alliance, in the spring of 1296 a Scottish army
made successive incursions into Cumberland and Northumberland, wasting the
country, and attacking among other places Carlisle and the castle of
Harbottle, but effecting nothing of moment. Edward’s vengeance was prompt
and terrible. The town of Berwick is described by the contemporary
chronicler of Lanercost (or, as some think, of Carlisle) as, for commerce
and population, a second Alexandria, “its walls the waters, its wealth the
sea.” Having invested that town by land and water, and carried it, on the
30th March Edward put the inhabitants, without regard to age or sex, to the
sword. The slaughter is variously estimated as from 4000 to upwards of 800c.
A month later a second disaster befell the Scottish arms at Dunbar, and from
that time forward Edward's course through Scotland may be described as a
triumphal progress. The itinerary appended to the Ragman Rolls3 enables us
to trace his movements within our district. Arriving at Roxburgh from Lauder
on May 7, he was lodged for one night with the Minorite Friars. The next day
he went to the castle, which five days afterwards4 was placed in his hands
by Sir James the Stewart of Scotland, who of his own freewill swore fealty,
tact is sacrosanctis, kissing the Gospels. Edward remained at Roxburgh
castle for a fortnight, and then set out on an expedition to Liddesdale,
spending the first night at Jedburgh, the second at Wyel, which has been
identified as a peel in the neighbourhood of the Wheel Causey, and the third
at Castleton :n Liddesdale. This was a Friday. During the week following he
returned by the same route to Roxburgh, whence he continued his journey
northward by Lauder and Edinburgh.
Among the hosts of persons of
all classes recorded in the Ragman Rolls as having sworn allegiance to
Edward at Berwick on the 28th August of this year, occur many names from the
counties of Roxburgh, Selkirk, and Peebles. The abbots of Jeddeworthe,
Meuros, and Kelshou, with their respective convents, head the list. Then we
have Patrick, Earl of the March and Dunbar, Thomas de Soules, Wautier the
Goldsmith, burgess and alderman of Roxburgh, and all the “ comune ” of the
burgh. There are also Adam, the parson of the church of Roxburgh Castle;
Thomas, “le pestour” of Roxburgh; and Nicol le Chapeleyn, warden of the
Maisondieu. From Jedburgh come John the Seneschal of Jeddeworthe, John
Damesone, alderman and burgess, and the whole community. There is also
Richard Fossart of Jedburgh and Reyner de Clonas “ Lumbard,” “tenants le Roi
du counte de Rokesburk.” Among territorial names are John de Ormestone, John
Fraunceys de Longa Neuton, Richard le fiz Geffrai de Ekford, David Eyr of
Stichehulle, and the names de Hardene, de Maxpoffel, de Chesehelme, de Roule,
de Farningdon, de Dolfinestone, de Rucastel, de Chathou, de Denum, de Heton,
de Yetham, and so on; while among ecclesiastics are “ Mestre William de
Rother-forde, persone del eglise de Lillesclyve ”; Johan, “vicaire del
eglise de Edenham ”; Morice Lovel, parson of the Selkirk sends Michel de
Witton, Adam de VVytton, Emme de Ailmer, Henry de fiz Arnaud, William
Gocelyn, Thomas de Selkirk, Cristiane del Grenehevede, James de Crake, and
others. The fact that the number here is in all a small one is partly
accounted for by most of the land being held by the Crown. Peebles has a
larger contingent. It numbers William de Maleville, Robert de Hastinges,
Erchebaud de Morref, Laurence Fresel, Johan Hope, Lorence atte Bure, Nicol
Kerre, Alisaundre de Droghkil, William le Wache, Cristine Lockarde, Johan
Eyr of Mesfennon, de Erthe, de Horde, Renaud Hardegreypes, John le fiz
Walter Grethevede, Henry Ravesmaughe, Rauf “del pount de Pebbles,” Huwe of
the Leigger, William Porveys, and other tenants of the king, Walter le Scot,
Thomas Walghe, Michel of Dundee, parson of the church of Stobo, Friar
Thomas, master of the house of the Holy Rood at Peebles, William de la
Chaumbre, bailiff and burgess, besides others, burgesses, and the community.
Present-day names may generally be traced through the antiquated spelling,
as Veitch in Wache, Waugh in Walghe, Purves in Porveys, and so on; and the
impression produced is that surnames in our sense of the word are more
common in the western counties than in Roxburgh.
When Edward returned to
Berwick, after having in twenty-one weeks marched through Scotland, he left
behind him a conquered country, regarded by himself as a fief forfeited by
the treason of the holder. He had already dispossessed its king; its nobles,
prelates, and commons had flocked, and were still flocking, to make
submission to him. It now only remained for him to arrange for the
administration of the country’s affairs, and to complete his measures for
joining it to England. He was careful to choose his officials among those
unlikely to be seduced from his interest, and one of his first steps being
to secure the strongholds, he made William Tonke, or Touk, governor of
Roxburgh Castle, and Thomas de Burnham, governor of Jedburgh, with the
Forest of Selkirk and its appurtenances. In a succession of writs, dated
September 3, and addressed to the sheriffs of the three counties, he orders
the restoration of the lands of certain Borderers who had sworn fealty to
him, thus making clear the worldly wisdom of those who had attended the
ceremony of a week earlier. Among the Roxburghshire names appear Richard
Forshard, Walter de Sherewyndelawe, Alan le Fraunceys, Richard de Alnecrum,
Adam Makepoffel, and others. Selkirk has Richard Scot, and Peebles Thomas de
Cardies, or Burdis.
Whilst giving Edward full
credit for the moderation of his present conduct, one is quite unprepared to
accept the statement of his advocate, Professor Clifford, that to Scotland
his supremacy was a “positive good.” Supposing that every consideration of
national pride and self-respect were left out of the question, there might,
indeed, be much to say from the Professor’s point of view. But he entirely
forgets that it can never be for the advantage of a nation, any more than of
an individual, to lose self - respect, and that no nation having anything of
spirit will choose or submit, even “ for its own good,” to be dictated to
from without. He goes on to say that in the long-run it would have been
better for Scotland had things remained as they were at the period to which
we have now brought them. Here we presume again to differ from him. Better
in one respect it would certainly have been, for much of sorrow and of
suffering would have been spared. But to those who can raise their heads
above material considerations, in no other way would it have been better.
For these, the permanent elevation and increase of true dignity to the
nation purchased by the struggle of Wallace and of Bruce were not too dearly
bought, for it is an increase of dignity in which every Scotsman worthy the
name participates, and will continue to participate, a priceless factor in
the formation of national character, a potent incentive to true patriotism!
A historian of the newest school has characterised Wallace as a “brigand.”
But he forgets that an inspiration is not always to be judged by its
immediate outcome. Circumstances will distort individual actions, but the
deeper underlying feeling is only to be judged at a distance, by its
aggregate effect, and with the help of sympathetic insight. The national
instinct is generally right in its choice of a hero. At the least, and from
whatever motive, Wallace kept up the spirit of resistance in his country
when her heart and fortunes were at the lowest. And to speak of him as a
brigand simply convicts the speaker of a total lack of historical
imagination. It is true that the English chronicler dubs him a robber chief,
but that is easily explained.
That colossal shadowy form
figures obscurely in the Border country at least at two periods of his
career. The first is after the desertion of the nobles at Irvine had seemed
to doom his efforts to abortion. Then he seems to have withdrawn to Ettrick
with a band of followers, availing himself, doubtless, of the covert
afforded by the forest, just as the gathering Scottish army had done at
Jedburgh, while Menteith amused the English envoys, in the reign of
Alexander III. In the Forest, tradition still associates with the name of
Wallace a trench, “occupying a skilfully chosen position,” on a steep
hillside of the watershed between Tweed and Yarrow. Above iooo feet in
length, the work bears traces of laborious construction, being in many
places deep enough to hide a man on horseback, and frequently paved with
flat whinstones set on edge. At the upper end, on the hill-top, it
communicates with an extensive rectangular enclosure. While in Ettrick,
Wallace is said to have been joined by Sir Nicol de Rutherford with sixty
followers, and Walter of Hemingburgh at least so far bears out this
statement as to speak to his having archers of Selkirk, described as shapely
and well-grown men, in his army at Falkirk. It is possible that the
romantically situated church of St Mary of the Lowes, or, as Mr Craig-Brown
thinks more probable, of St Mary at Selkirk, may have been the scene of his
election as Guardian of Scotland for Baliol, after his victory at Stirling
Bridge. Certainly Blind Harry tells us, for whatever his information may be
worth—
“At Forest kyrk a metyng
ordand he;
Thai chesd Wallace Scottis wardand to be.”
His next move was to carry
the war into the enemy’s country, crossing the Border on the 18th October,
and again seeking the shelter of a forest — that of Rothbury—for his
headquarters.5 The guerilla warfare which followed is thus detailed by the
Lanercost chronicler. The Scots swept on through Northumberland, wasting the
country, burning, robbing, and slaying almost up to the gates of Newcastle.
There they stopped short, and turning aside into Cumberland, continued to
act as before. After a month spent in this manner, they returned to
Northumberland and recrossed thejBorder, where a detachment of them laid
siege to Roxburgh Castle, withdrawing, however, before the approach of the
English nobles and barons, who had secretly rallied and followed them. The
English force spent some time at Roxburgh, but had to withdraw through
famine, when the Scots again stole back, burnt the town, and possessed
themselves of the castle and of other strongholds of the south. Meantime
King Edward had been absent in Flanders. Returning thence, he set to work to
raise money and an army, to which he sought by promises of pardon— so great
was his emergency—to attract even malefactors and vagrants. This army he
himself led in pursuit of the Scots, who had again retreated, and after his
great defeat of Wallace at Falkirk on the 22nd July, brought it back to
guard the Borders, where he remained until shortly before Christmas (1298).
Such is an outline of the
authentic story of William Wallace’s connection with the Border. With the
flight of the centuries it has, of course, received liberal accretions,
which it is for the antiquarians to prove or to disprove.
For instance, the hero has
been claimed as a descendant from a Tweeddale family—that of Fraser, a house
which, in the person of Sir Simon Fraser, certainly produced one leader in
the War of Independence. Then, again, there are various localities and
objects which tradition associates with the name. Of these is the ruined
tower near the present village of Roxburgh. This time-resisting fragment,
which still encloses a vaulted lower storey, is said at one time to have
been ornamented with carved Gothic work, as would not be unprecedented in a
tower of the kind, and surrounded with fruit-trees and flower-plots.2 Henry
the Minstrel, speaking of the period after Wallace’s return from his
predatory incursion into England, says:—
“In to Roxburch thai chesyt
him a place,
A gud tour thar he gert byg in schort space.”
But Harry is a romancer
rather than a historian. In view of Wallace’s particular system of warfare,
the statement is improbable. Yet it is quite likely that that statement may
have occasioned the linking of the national hero’s name with that of the
tower.
The case for the “Wallace
Thorn,” which till recently stood in the grounds of Wilton Lodge, Hawick, is
probably even weaker. The tradition is that, being in the Border country
before Stirling Bridge, Wallace tied his horse’s bridle to the tree while
visiting his friend Longueville of Langlands,4 laird of the land, in
connection with his object of raising the Borders against the English. It
will be noticed that the date tallies with that of his visit to Ettrick. On
the other hand, it is stated that the lands of Wilton were not at that time
in possession of the Longueville family. There is also doubt as to a
hawthorn surviving so long, though a specialist asserts that one might live
at least four centuries. Perhaps on the whole we must reluctantly relegate
“Wallace’s Thorn” to the category of those of Glastonbury and of Cawdor.
Something must at any rate be allowed for the reputed tendency on the part
of the Scottish peasant of bygone time to associate any particularly
striking work of art or nature' with the name of “ Michael Scot, Wallace, or
the devil.”
During the few years of life
which now remained to him, Edward again entered Scotland with an army no
less than four times, but these later expeditions were directed against the
western and northern counties. After what seemed the final conquest of the
country in 1304, he withdrew by way of Selkirk, Jedburgh, and Yetholm.
In the interval between
Wallace’s eclipse at Falkirk and the definite emergence of Bruce in the
character of patriot, there is perhaps no figure more prominent in the
struggle against Edward than that of the Peeblesshire baron who has been
already named—Sir Simon Fraser. He was the representative of one of the
oldest and most powerful of the feudal families planted in Tweeddale, the
race being connected by legend with the fabulous Achaius, whilst the origin
of the name is similarly referred to the presentation of a plate of
remarkably fine strawberries to Charles the Simple by one who previously
bore the name De Berry. Fruid, in the wilds of Tweeddale, is represented as
their earliest local habitation ; whilst an Oliver Fraser, who was probably
alive in the later years of David I., and is mentioned in the charters of
Newbattle Abbey, is regarded as the builder of Oliver Castle. The family
soon increased in power and spread into neighbouring counties, the Frasers
of Oliver holding their lands direct of the Crown, and, as so doing, being
entitled to sit in the council of the kingdom. In the reign of Alexander
III. a Gilbert Fraser, probably the grandfather of the patriot, was Sheriff
of Traquair. A Sir Simon, probably his son, was Sheriff of Peebles and
Keeper of the Forests of Selkirk and Traquair. Of the latter we catch a
glimpse at Carham, in February 1289, when he stickles for the use of the
Border law in the case of John le Massun, a Gascon merchant. “ A stern and
worthy patriot,” Veitch calls him, and proceeds to sentimentalise in his own
peculiar vein over the old man’s ride to Norham, in the summer of 1291, to
swear fealty to Edward, and over his death, within the glimmering chamber of
his peel, which followed not long afterwards. But leaving sentiment out of
the question, Symon Fraser the elder seems to have been, like others of his
period, pliant, aggressive, and self-seeking—nothing more. Before March 1285
the priest of Witfield, diocese of Durham, had had occasion to complain “ to
God and the king ” of the conduct of this stern patriot, who had sent
thirty-two of his servants to seize and bind him upon a horse, and, having
carried him into Scotland and robbed and sore wounded him, to leave him for
dead in the Forest of Selkirk at midnight. So far as the present writer is
aware, there is no such definitely formulated charge of outrage for private
ends made against the “princeps latronum,” Wallace.
Simon Fraser the younger
seems to have been one of those who, like Bruce, took some time to decide
which side to join ; but of course we are bound to remember that in their
eyes the character and ultimate issues of the national struggle did not
present themselves so definitely as they do to us today. Veitch would make
outward circumstances “ somehow ” responsible for Fraser’s early apostasy,
and takes it upon himself to tell us that “ his heart was all along with the
national cause.”' But in the absence of any possible evidence to support it,
I must decline to share that opinion. We shall, however, do well to bear in
mind that being, like Bruce, of Norman origin, Fraser probably had
sympathies, as he had interests, with both sides. Probably, also, it will be
enough if we claim for him that he rose with experience out of timeserving
into man-like decision. In any case, the facts in his story are as follows.
Having sworn allegiance in 1291, he was probably surprised when, on his
father’s death, he found himself passed over for the keepership of Selkirk
Forest, which, as we have seen, was given t6 De Burnham. Espousing the
Scottish side in 1296, he fought at the battle of Dunbar, where he was taken
prisoner, but was released from captivity that he might accompany Edward to
Flanders. In consideration of having acquitted himself well in that
campaign, his forfeited lands were restored to him ; he was installed in the
keepership, and was for some years a trusted officer of Edward in Scotland.
Veitch thinks that he fought against Wallace at Falkirk; but soon after that
he began to be suspected of disaffection, and in the autumn of 1301 he
definitely cast in his lot with the national party, to which he now remained
faithful until the end. Next year, in conjunction with Comyn, with a body of
men raised in Tweeddale and Lanarkshire, he defeated Sir John Segrave, the
English Guardian of Scotland, in a battle fought at Roslin. But in spite of
this success—the greatest gained by the Scots in this struggle before
Bannockburn—we find him two years later, with Comyn, Soulis, and the other
leaders, compelled to come to terms with the English. It was agreed that his
life and estates should be spared, but he disregarded the terms of the
accommodation. Having been summoned to Edward’s presence, and having
disobeyed the summons, he was outlawed, and joining Wallace in the last
obscure struggles of that patriot’s life, was defeated by Segrave on his own
estate at Happrew, Peeblesshire, in March 1304. He was exiled and went
abroad, but could not stay there, for in 1306, when Comyn’s murder and
Bruce’s coronation had brought Aymer de Valence with an army to Scotland, we
find Fraser at the fight of Methven, where he saved Bruce’s life. Made
prisoner for the second time, he was taken to London, and there shared the
barbarities of Wallace’s sentence, his head, after decapitation, being set
up over London Bridge. It is said that at the place of execution his
handsome form and noble bearing drew expressions of sympathy and admiration
from the crowd ; and in consideration of his end we may well forget his
early indecision, and remember him only as a Border associate of Bruce and
Wallace—by no means the least of participators in their deeds and glories.
The Border counties were now
under English rule. The provisions of Edward I. for the government of
Scotland, drawn up in Parliament at Westminster in 1305, had included the
appointment of two Justiciaries over Lothian; and his son, in making new
appointments on his accession, gave to his joint Lieutenants and Guardians
over Scotland special charge of the district between Berwick and the Forth.
Roxburgh and Jedburgh castles were retained in the hands of the king’s
officers, and Aymer de Valence was named hereditary Sheriff of Peebles and
Selkirk. The scene of Bruce’s romantic wanderings and adventures, which,
following the murder of Comyn and his own coronation, occupied this period,
is laid chiefly in the west and north; but as his fortunes brightened, his
influence began to extend towards the Border. The most devoted of his
adherents was the “Good Sir James,” son of Wallace’s stanchest supporter,
William of Douglas, and to him was intrusted the task of reducing the
English strongholds in the forests of Selkirk and Jedburgh. The poet Barbour
tells us that, whilst thus engaged, he came one night to a house on the
Water of Lyne in Peeblesshire, where he intended to sleep, but found it
already occupied. Suspicious as to who the occupants might be, he and his
followers listened outside until—according to one reading of the poem—they
heard a voice within pronounce the word “devil.” Knowing from this that the
speaker must be English — for a Scot would have said “deil” — they beset the
house, ousted the intruders, and in the person of Bruce’s nephew, Thomas,
son of Randolph, made a most important prisoner. Randolph, afterwards Earl
of Moray, became a principal ally of Bruce’s, and by so doing forfeited his
Roxburghshire estate of Stichill. Meantime Douglas’s work in the Borders
prospered, so that the newly acquired estates of De Valence were also
forfeited, on the ground that the tenants had “traitorously” deserted King
Edward in favour of Bruce. And it may here be mentioned that, after the
final triumph of the latter, these lands were granted to Douglas by a
charter of 1321, confirmed in 1324 by a deed which, from the king’s placing
“ane ring and ane emrod,” in token of its perpetual endurance, on the
holder’s fingers at the time of seizin, was known as the Emerald Charter.
Among Douglas’s further
achievements on the Border, which Barbour acknowledges were too numerous to
be rehearsed, must be mentioned his taking of Roxburgh Castle by stratagem.
Having resolved on the capture, he set one Sym of the Ledous, or Leadhouse,
to fashion hempen ladders, fitted with wooden steps and with strong square
iron hooks that could be fixed to the “kyrnells,” or crenelations of the
battlements of the castle. This done, he collected some threescore trusty
followers, who, concealing their armour under black “ froggis,” or frocks,
drew near the castle on all fours. By this device—the twilight abetting—they
were mistaken for cattle by those on the castle walls, who, naming a certain
husbandman of the neighbourhood, proceeded to make merry at his expense; for
it was Fastern’s E’en, and they concluded that his keeping of the feast had
led him to neglect to house his beasts. Having reached the castle and
adjusted the ladders, Sym was the first to mount, and having overpowered and
slain the sentry, he threw the body over the battlements, whilst signalling
to his friends below that the coast was clear. They followed him, and,
gathering in the courtyard, found that the entire inhabitants of the castle
were assembled in the great hall, to celebrate the feast by dancing and
singing and “otherwais playing”—
“As apon Fastryn-evin it is
The custum to mak joy and blis
To folk that ar in savite.”
But the appearance of safety
was fallacious, as they soon found, when the intruders, suddenly appearing
in the midst, raised the cry of “ Douglas! Douglas!" They were so taken by
surprise that no defence was attempted except by the warden, Gilmyn de
Fiennes, who with some of his company took refuge in the keep. Here he held
out till the morrow, when, having received a wound in the face which
threatened to prove fatal (and eventually did so), he surrendered on
condition of being allowed to march out with the honours of war and pass to
England. Bruce had the castle demolished, as was his practice with his
captures, and one is pleased to hear that the services of Sym were
handsomely rewarded. The taking of Roxburgh was followed by the
acknowledgment of Bruce as king throughout the greater part of Teviotdale.4
This took place in 1314, the memorable year of Bannockburn; but before this,
in 1309, Edward II. had passed through the Border country in one of his
abortive invasions of Scotland—stopping at Selkirk, Lessudden, and Roxburgh
during the September of that year; whilst Bruce on his part had crossed the
Solway and repeatedly raided the northern counties, which were finally glad
to make heavy payments as the price of a suspension of hostilities.
Though the main issue of the
national struggle was decided at Bannockburn,6 the
war, in so far as it affected the Border, was not terminated by that
victory. On the contrary, in respect to burning and harrying, if not
slaying, the northern counties continued to fare as badly as ever before. In
the first place, finding these left defenceless by the King of England’s
ignominious flight from Scotland, Bruce sent his brother Edward, with
Douglas and John de Soulis, to invade Northumberland, which they
accomplished to good purpose—not only wasting the whole of that county, but
penetrating as far as Teesdale, whence they returned by way of Appleby.
After this, incursions followed each other in as rapid succession as the
terms of truces dearly purchased by the north - countrymen would allow. In
one of these Douglas wasted county Durham, and, entering Hartlepool, drove
the terrified inhabitants to seek refuge in their shipping. In another the
Scots pressed on to Richmond in Yorkshire, and being bought off there,
turned to Furness, which had hitherto escaped their ravages. A third—a night
attack, led by the king and Douglas against Berwick—came very near proving
successful. In a fourth, again led by the king, the city of Carlisle
sustained an eleven days’ siege, memorable for the varied ineffectual
contrivances and ruses of the assailants. Then there was another
Northumbrian raid, in which Wark, Harbottle, and Mitford were captured; and
a Yorkshire one, in which Northallerton, Knaresborough, and Skipton were
burnt, and Ripon was compelled to pay tribute. Under the circumstances, and
especially when it is remembered that the singularly luckless De Valence,
Earl of Pembroke, was guardian of the north at the time, one is surprised at
the failure of the so recently triumphant Scots to gain any but a purely
predatory advantage.
On the other side the Border
Douglas was more fortunate. He had been left in charge of the marches during
the king’s absence in Ireland to support the claims of his brother Edward to
the Irish crown. Meantime the Earl of Arundel and Sir Thomas Richmond, a
knight of Yorkshire, hearing that a large body of men had been withdrawn
with Bruce and Randolph from the kingdom, judged the moment favourable for a
raid.
Their special object was the
destruction of Jed Forest, which, as we have seen, afforded excellent covert
for an army, and thus greatly facilitated raids from the other side the
Border. With this purpose in view the Englishmen were armed with hatchets.
It happened that Douglas had recently been occupied in building a pavilion
and laying out a park in the haugh of Lyntounle, now Linthaughlee, on the
lovely banks of Jed, and that he was now intent upon his “ house-warming.”
He had not, however, neglected the precaution of posting spies, who duly
announced the approach of the English. He thereupon quickly assembled his
force, which numbered some fifty men-at-arms, besides a goodly host of
archers. Carefully selecting his ground, where the invading force must pass
through a narrow defile, wooded on either side, he posted his archers, and
then had recourse to the singular stratagem of bending down the young
birch-trees on 'either side the way, and knittirg their tops together, so as
to form a net in which to catch the foe. A detachment of the Englishmen was
riding without suspicion straight into the trap, when the war-cry of Douglas
was suddenly raised, his banner was displayed, and the advancing column was
charged from the rear, whilst the Scottish archers, from their place of
concealment, poured their fire into its flanks. The force of their charge
carried the Scots right through the enemy, Douglas with his own hand slaying
Richmond, and seizing as a token of victory a furred hat which the latter
wore over his helmet. Word being now brought to him that another detachment
of the foe was at Lintalee, he betook himself thither, and found fully 300
of them in the act of making merry with the feast which he had prepared. He
set upon them with his men, and as the poet puts it—
“With suerdis that scharply
schar
Tha servit tham full egirly ” ;
so that scarce one escaped
with his life. On hearing of the double disaster, the main body of the army
were so disheartened that they judged it well to withdraw.
"The Forest left tha standand
still,
To hew it than tha had na will.”
The war was now carried on in
the struggle for Berwick, which had changed hands—as the fortress of
Roxburgh had also done again—and in the raid of Douglas and Randolph into
Yorkshire, which led to the fray with the Archbishop’s men mockingly known
as the “Chapter of Mitton.” A sorely-needed truce of two years was then
made, the King of Scots agreeing among its conditions to erect no new
fortress in Roxburghshire. Scarcely had it expired, at the end of 1321, when
Douglas, with Randolph Earl of Moray, the king’s son-in-law Walter the
Stewart, and the king himself, was again over the Border, as the towns of
Richmond, Preston, and Carlisle found successively to their cost Edward
retaliated by another invasion of the northern kingdom, which proved as
futile as its predecessors. Disappointed of supplies which he had expected
to receive by sea, and starved by the Scots, who, following their usual
tactics, had retreated, leaving no provisions behind them, he found himself
compelled to fall back from Edinburgh. Hanging upon his rear, Douglas gained
an advantage over part of his troops near Melrose,8
but did not succeed in preventing the sack of the abbey, where William of
Peebles, the prior, a sick monk, and two lay-brethren were slaughtered in
cold blood in the dormitory, many others of the monks being wounded to the
death. The Host, which stood on the high altar, was at the same time
sacrilegiously cast down, whilst the silver pyx in which it was kept formed
part of the plunder. Bruce and Douglas followed Edward over the Border, and
avenged these cowardly acts by a defeat near Biland in Yorkshire. At last,
grown weary of ever-recurrent raids and invasions, and the sufferings which
they brought in their train, Sir Andrew of Ilarclay, a soldier proved in
Bruce’s siege of Carlisle, took on himself to conclude a peace with Bruce,
by the terms of which the independence of Scotland, against which Edward had
held out so long, was recognised. There was now rejoicing beyond measure
among the farmers and men of small condition in the north, on whom the
burden of the war had principally fallen, and who saw before them the
prospect of at length living at peace.3 But Harclay had presumed too much
upon Edward’s weakness, and had to pay with his life for his unauthorised,
if not treasonable, action. It had, however, served the purpose of rousing
the king into anxiety for the integrity of his kingdom, and he now proceeded
to act upon the bint given him by concluding, in May 1323, a peace with
Scotland which was to have lasted for thirteen years.
Unhappily, on the accession
of Edward III., four years later, hostilities again broke out. Yet once more
the Scots crossed the Border, and it is to this incursion that Froissart’s
well-known description of their habits in time of war has special reference.
He tells us that they were bold, hardy, much inured to war, and well
mounted—the knights and esquires on large bay horses, the rank and file on
little hackneys that were never tied up or dressed, but turned, immediately
after the day’s march, to pasture on the heath or fields. A day’s march
would consist of from twenty to twenty-four miles without halting. “ They
bring no carriages with them, on account of the mountains they have to pass
in Northumberland; neither do they carry any provisions of bread or wine,
for their custom and sobriety is such, in time of war, that they will live
for a long time on flesh half sodden without bread, and drink the river
water without wine. They have therefore no occasion for pots or pans, for
they dress the flesh of their cattle in the skins, after they have taken
them off; and being sure to find plenty in the country which they invade,
they carry none with them. Under the flaps of his saddle each man carries a
broad plate of metal, behind the saddle a little bag of oatmeal: when they
have eaten too much of this sodden flesh, and their stomach appears weak and
empty, they place this plate over the fire, mix with water their oatmeal,
and, when the plate is heated, they put a little of the paste upon it and
make a thin cake, which they eat to warm their stomachs.” The writer’s
testimony to Scottish frugality—a quality which happily Scotsmen have not
yet lost, and to which they owe so much of their success in the world—is
worthy of note.
This army, numbering by the
lowest estimate 10,000, now passed through Cumberland into the south -
western parts of Northumberland, burning and destroying as it went, and
driving off cattle in greater numbers than it could dispose of, though that
so many cattle still remained in those oft - devastated districts may well
tax our belief. Thence it passed on into the wild and mountainous regions of
Weardale and Westmorland. Meantime the English army, having assembled in the
north, gazed helplessly on the smoke of conflagration, for so artfully did
the Scots pursue their customary tactics that Edward found himself
constrained to offer the reward of knighthood and a landed estate to any one
who should bring him within sight of them where they might be attacked.
Indeed, the bold and ingenious stratagems in which Douglas excelled were
throughout this campaign more conspicuous than ever, culminating perhaps in
his daring night ride with a few followers through the very midst of the
enemy, many of whom were not left to see the morrow. At last, however, the
two armies confronted each other. The English now hoped to obstruct the way
back to Scotland, but the Scots, again under Douglas’s direction, contrived
to outwit them, and made a successful moonlight flitting. The boy king
Edward is said to have been so mortified when he heard of their escape that
he shed tears. About this time we also hear of further military events in
the shape of sieges of Alnwick and Norham castles, of another expedition
into Northumberland and Durham, and of a counterexpedition into Teviotdale.
The last was led, with doubtful success, by Henry de Percy, who had been
appointed keeper of the Marches at a salary of 1000 marks, with a hundred
men-at-arms and as many hobblers, or light horse, under his command, besides
such of his own men as he might choose to employ.
The last-mentioned expedition
into Northumberland had been under the leadership of Bruce himself, but his
days of Border warfare were now almost over. The net effect of the war so
far had been to leave England in a condition eagerly to desire a treaty,
whilst the Scots were strong enough to insist upon carrying their point.
External circumstances abetted them, and thus, in March 1328, was concluded
the Peace of Northampton!, by which the independence of Scotland, “as far as
the old boundary lines,” was duly recognised.
Other provisions of the
treaty which concerned the Borders were that Scotland should pay to England
the sum of £20,000 sterling — to be paid at Tweedmouth in three yearly
instalments—“apparently as damages for the mischief done in the recent raids
across the Border”; and that the Laws of the Marches be confirmed, with
right of appeal in doubtful cases to the sovereigns. Further, it being
stipulated that ecclesiastical possessions on either side which had changed
hands during the recent war should be restored, the claims of Melrose and
the other abbeys of Teviotdale received special attention. Thus did the
kingdom and people emerge consolidated and united from the war; whilst a
fact by no means without significance for the Borders was that about this
time it became accepted, whether explicitly or as the indirect result of an
enactment, that those who “ cast their lot with England could not be
permitted to retain their domains in Scotland.” The Treaty of Northampton,
however, specifies exceptions to this rule in favour of Henry de Percy,
Thomas, Lord Wake of Liddel, and the Earl of Buchan—exceptions which were
yet to prove a source of discord between the two countries.
Bruce did not long survive
the completion and crowning of his life’s work, but in the brief space which
yet remained to him he gave what must be considered as a convincing proof of
his attachment to the Borders. His handsome provision for the restoration of
Melrose Abbey, after its sack by Edward II., will not have been forgotten.
On the nth May 1329 — within a month, that is, of his death — he Scotiae
ultimo defuncti fuerunt habit* et servatae.”— Fordun, lib. xiii. cap. 12. In
the Acts of the Scottish Parliament, vol. i. p. 126, it is given in Norman
French.addressed a letter to his son and successors, in which he solemnly
charged them with the care and protection of the same building, as the place
where he designed that his heart should be interred.1 By a yet later
disposition, characterised by the fantastic beauty and pathos of medieval
chivalry, that heart was intrusted to Douglas, his best friend, to be
conveyed to the Holy Land, whither the cares and troubles of his reign had
made it impossible for him to go in person. Faithful to his charge, soon
after the king’s death Douglas set sail for Palestine, landing in Spain,
where he found that the King of Leon and Castile was at war with the Saracen
King of Granada. A battle was imminent, and Douglas resolved to take part in
it. He was honourably received at the Castilian court, and all crowded to
see a knight who was esteemed, as Froissart tells us, the “bravest and most
enterprising” in Britain. On the 25th August 1330 they joined battle near
Teba, a castle on the confines of Andalusia and Granada, when, whether from
excess of impetuosity, from unfamiliarity with the new and desperate foe
confronting him, or simply because his hour was come, Douglas, the victor of
so many fights, found himself surrounded and cut off. Seeing that his case
was wellnigh hopeless, according to one of several versions of the story, he
took from his neck, whence it was suspended by a chain, the silver casket
which contained his master’s heart, and flinging it before him, cried out, “
Onward, as thou wert wont, thou noble heart! Douglas will follow thee.”
These were probably his last words. He fell, and with him many of his little
band of followers. Some say that he might have saved himself, had he not
paused to render assistance to Sir William Sinclair of Roslin, whom he saw
hard pressed by the enemy. The cherished casket was afterwards picked up on
the battlefield, and reverently borne back to Melrose, where it was buried.
The body of the “Good Sir James” rests in St Bride’s Kirk of his native
valley of Douglas.
The Scottish War of
Independence, studied from a Border point of view, serves admirably to
illustrate the principles of warfare embodied in the lines popularly known
as the “Good King Robert’s Testament.” In plain language, the king
recommends his subjects to fight on foot, with bow, spear, and battle-axe,
and to put their trust in the natural rather than the artificial strong
places of their country, driving off their cattle into safety, whilst they
make the country about them incapable of supporting an enemy. He further
enjoins the maintenance of a sharp look-out, and the persistent disturbance
of the enemy by night, promising as the result the withdrawal of the hostile
force, from famine and weariness, as if routed by the sword. The first of
these maxims must not, perhaps, be taken too literally. The value of
infantry pitted against cavalry in the field was at this time a new
discovery, and as such may have required emphasising; but Froissart’s
description quoted above shows where the following translation into Scots is
appended from Hearn's edition :—
“On fut suld be all Scottis
weire,
He hyll and mosse thaim self to weire.
Lat wod for wallis be bow and speire,
That innymeis do thaim na d re ire
In strait placis gar keip all stoire;
And byrnen the planen land thaim before ;
Thanen sail thai pass away in haist,
Quhen that they find nathing bot waist,
With wyllis and waykenen of the nicht,
And mekill noyes maid on hycht.
Thanen sail they tumen with gret aflrai,
As thai were chasit with swerd away.
This is the counsall and intent
Of gud King Robert's testament.”
us that the horse had not
lost his importance to the Border soldier. Probably now, as in the later
“riding” times, he was used rather as a means of locomotion than as an aid
in the fight. In other respects it is scarcely necessary to direct attention
to the soundness of the principles placed in the mouth of King Robert, or to
their success when put in practice. For many a day to come they might have
served as the text-book of Border warfare.
But though the history of
this Border warfare may appear monotonous, it would be the greatest of
mistakes to see in it nothing but a mere barren' record of wanton raid and
invasion. From this it is redeemed, first, by the nobility of its moral
inspiration—for were not the Scots fighting for the freedom of their
country?—and, secondly, by the chivalry and the military distinction of the
leaders engaged in it on their side. One might add by their humanity, for
though war was still war, we now no longer hear, even from chroniclers of
the opposite side, of the butchery of non-belligerents. Perhaps there is no
figure in history more distinguished at once by kingly and delightful
qualities of character and by romance of circumstance than Bruce; and in
Douglas and Moray — his right hand and his left, as they have been
called—Bruce chose, not captains only, but men, well worthy to fill the
positions nearest to himself. “Ye like subjects had never any king,” says
the inscription on the sword given by him to Douglas and though the line
belongs to a date later than that assigned to it, it none the less embodies
truth. Of the two heroes, the one more closely associated with the Borders
is Douglas, who, if not strictly speaking a Borderer at the outset, though
his family had long held the lands of Fawdon in Northumberland, becomes
adopted as one on the strength of his Border exploits and of his acquisition
of the Forest lands. Barbour, speaking from hearsay at first-hand, has
described his manners and appearance. He was not strictly a handsome man,
but one of commanding stature, well-formed, large-boned, spare, and with
broad shoulders; swarthy of complexion and black haired. Speaking with a
slight lisp, which became him well, he was gentle and courteous in company,
but terrible of aspect upon the field of battle. As a military commander he
was second only to the king, specially excelling, as we have seen, in the
conception and execution of strategical devices, so that his adventures, in
that age when the personal element entered so much more largely into
warfare, remain the favourite reading of the imaginative childhood of
succeeding generations. Perhaps the story of his last speech —first told in
the allegorical poem of the “Howlat,” written a century or more after his
death—does not rest on what we, with our modern methods, should consider
very reliable authority. But, even supposing it to be without foundation in
the letter, one still feels irresistibly, as with so many others of its
kind, that in the spirit it remains true—faithfully, if poetically,
representing the life-long attachment and comradeship in arms of Douglas and
his royal master. |
