|
NEW PROVISIONS IN THE TRUCE OF
1438—THE DOUGLASES : ARCHIBALD, FIFTH EARL ; HIS SON, WILLIAM, THE SIXTH
EARL J CHARACTER AND FATE—(t GROSS JAMES’’—THE POWER OF THE FAMILY REACHES
ITS HEIGHT IN EARL WILLIAM ; HIS ESTATES AND INFLUENCE ON THE BORDERS ; HIS
MURDER BY JAMES II. IN STIRLING CASTLE—WARS WITH THE BLACK DOUGLASES — THEIR
DOWNFALL — THE SCOTTS PROFIT THEREBY — END OF THE LAST EARL OF DOUGLAS —
DOINGS ON THE BORDERS — NEW REGULATIONS FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE MIDDLE
MARCHES — SIEGE OF ROXBURGH CASTLE — DEATH OF JAMES II. — CAPTURE AND
DEMOLITION OF THE CASTLE—MODERN DEPREDATORS— BORDERERS IN THE WARS OF THE
ROSES— BORDER LAWS (THIRD SERIES)—SELFISH CHARACTER OF DOUGLAS’S
AMBITION—THE TRUCE STRAINED TO BREAKING - POINT ON THE BORDERS — CHARACTER
OF JAMES III.—BORDERERS UNDER ANGUS AND HOME TAKE PART IN THE REBELLION
—ARCHIBALD, EARL OF ANGUS, “ BELL-THE-CAT ” — THE DOUGLASES LOSE LIDDESDALE
AND HERMITAGE—NEW TREATY WITH ENGLAND—PERKIN WARBECK ON THE BORDERS—A ROYAL
MARRIAGE DESTINED TO AFFECT THE BORDERS—THE RISE OF MOSS-TROOPING— CAUSES
WHICH LED UP TO FLODDEN—BLOOD-FEUD OF KER OF FERNIHIRST AND THE HERONS OF
FORD—BATTLE OF FLODDEN.
In 1438 commissioners of the
two countries, meeting in London, concluded a new truce which was to last
nine years. It contained one new clause of great significance to the
Borders—to wit, an enactment which made it unlawful for the inhabitants of
the one country to enter the lands, woods, or warrens of any inhabitant of
the other, for purposes of fishing, hunting, or fowling. There was also a
provision to prevent persons injured by the trespassing of sheep or cattle
upon their com or grass from taking the law into their own hands; and a
further one for fixing the bounds within which the garrison of Roxburgh
Castle should have rights of mowing, grazing, and fuel. The traffic in wool
between the two countries was subjected to stringent regulation.
The story of the growing
arrogance of the house of Douglas, and of the successive tragedies by which
its downfall was effected, though rising far above the region of merely
local history, is yet too intimately connected with the Borders to be here
passed over. Among the high-handed acts by which James I. had incurred the
enmity of his nobles, perhaps there was none less defensible than his
forfeiture of the Earl of March. It will be remembered that the elder George
of Dunbar had been reinstated in his possessions by Albany, and it is
difficult not to suspect the king of animus when, after the lapse of years,
he took it upon him to declare that in so doing the regent had exceeded his
powers. But what is here to the point is the fact that, in thus destroying
the balance of power on the Borders, James acted with far less than his
usual judgment; for the disappearance of March left Douglas without a rival.
To “Tineman” had succeeded
his son Archibald, Earl of Wigtown, who thus became fifth Earl of Douglas.
In the Parliament of 1438 Earl Archibald is mentioned as lieutenant-general
of the kingdom, by virtue of which office he seems to have had the young
king under his special care. In the intrigues and disputes to which the
custody of the king’s person afterwards gave rise, the minority of James II.
recalls that of Alexander III., but whilst Douglas lived we hear of no such
rivalry. -He took a leading part in public affairs, his influence being
beneficially exerted in the passing of parliamentary measures, as well as in
the arrangement of the truce with England which has been already referred
to. Unfortunately that influence was destined to be too soon withdrawn, for
the earl succumbed to a fever in June 1439. Shortly before his death we hear
of his sojourning at his castle of Newark in the Forest, having Sir William
Crichton, Chancellor of Scotland, in his company.
He was succeeded by his son
William, a lad of not more than eighteen years.2 But, young as he was, the
sixth earl seems to have been already fully conscious of the greatness of
his position. He has been credited with a policy altogether beyond his
years, and at the same time charged with harbouring the dreams of a wild
ambition. More credible, however, is the theory which would trace the
allegations against him to his insolent splendour and the extravagance of
his retinue. At any rate, “records of the time impute no crime to the earl,”
who was probably a victim or a scapegoat rather than a traitor or a
criminal. For, blameless or not, it is easy to see that in certain quarters
there might well be powerful reasons for desiring his decease. A succession
of remarkably able men—distinguished specially for that military prowess
which in those days won the warmest and speediest recognition—had raised the
reputation of his family to the very highest pitch. And, meantime, increase
in power and possessions had fully kept pace with reputation. In this
respect, indeed, nobody had been more fortunate than the otherwise luckless
fourth earl. Then it had not been forgotten in the country that in the
Douglases was now vested the Comyn claim to the crown. These facts being
taken in conjunction with the character and youth of the present head of the
house, it would be by no means surprising if two such scheming statesmen as
Crichton and Livingston, though opposed in other matters, should agree as to
the desirability of clearing the ground by his removal.
Historical details regarding
his fate are meagre. Inveigled to Edinburgh Castle by a friendly invitation
from the king, he was subjected by Crichton to a sham trial in the royal
presence, and being condemned, was led into the courtyard, and there
beheaded, together with his brother David, who had accompanied him. On his
way to Edinburgh he had been the guest of the Chancellor at Crichton Castle,
and the degree of false security with which the latter had succeeded in
inspiring him is shown by the fact that though his retinue would often
number more than iooo, he had with him on this occasion but a single
attendant, Malcolm Fleming of Cumbernauld, who shared his fate. Pitscottie
describes the earl as receiving his first intimation that foul play was
intended from the placing before him, at the conclusion of a banquet, of a
black bull’s head set on a charger.
On the death of the sixth
earl and his brother without issue in 1439, the earldom reverted to the
second son of Earl Archibald the Grim—James, Earl of Avondale and Lord
Balvany, from his corpulence known as “Gross James.” The estates were
divided—those on the Border, including Liddesdale and Jed Forest,
accompanying the title, whilst those in the north and west, being unentailed,
passed to Margaret, only sister of the murdered nobleman, who was known as
the “Fair Maid of Galloway.” It was thus to greatly curtailed possessions
that the seventh earl succeeded, whilst it is probable that his age and
habit of body were deemed sufficient security for his inoffensiveness.
During the three years for which he held the title he seems to have made no
effort to avenge the murder of his grand-nephews, contenting himself with
arranging to reunite the Douglas estates by the marriage of his eldest son
with the Fair Maid. Godscroft2 speaks of him as having held the office of
warden of all the marches.
It was in the person of
William, the eighth earl, that the power of the Douglases reached its
height, and between him and King James II. that the duel between the Crown
and the feudal baronage of Scotland may be said to have been fought out. The
relations of the antagonists were at the outset of the friendliest. Almost
immediately on his succession the earl seems to have attracted the attention
of the king, after which his rise in the royal favour was extraordinarily
rapid. He soon enjoyed the satisfaction of seeing Crichton — the mortal foe
of his family — disgraced, whilst he was himself appointed to the
lieutenant-generalship of the kingdom. His brothers Archibald, Hugh, and
John, became respectively Earl of Moray, Earl of Ormond, and Lord of Balvany,
whilst Sir James Hamilton and others of his adherents w’ere advanced to be
lords of Parliament. His marriage with the Maid of Galloway, which, though
retarded by difficulties as to kinship, was now an accomplished fact, had
given him command of the undiminished Douglas estates, and he now’ enjoyed a
position of greatness such as had never before been attained by any nobleman
in Scotland. This position he held unchallenged for seven or eight years. At
the end of that time there was a momentary misunderstanding with James; but
in 1451, on submitting himself to the royal will, he was confirmed in the
possession of all his offices, lands, and castles, with remainder to his
four brothers and their heirs-male. As regards the Borders alone, these
confirmatory grants comprised the wardenship of the Middle and West Marches,
the Forests of Ettrick and Selkirk, Sprouston, Hawick, Bedrule, Smailholm,
and Brondon in the county of Roxburgh, and Romanno, Kingsmeadow, and
Glenwhim in that of Peebles, besides Lauderdale and Eskdale.2 Yet these were
but a small part of the earl’s total possessions, and do not of course
include those of his brothers. During these years he was constantly in the
king’s company at Court or elsewhere, and his name appears as witness to
nearly every royal charter. Meantime we hear of him incidentally on the
Borders as freeing the monks of Melrose from his jurisdiction as lord of the
Forest, and as holding his baron’s court in the great hall of Newark.
Notwithstanding his
reconciliation with the king, it would appear that Douglas now thought it
desirable to strengthen his position, with which object he entered upon an
alliance, offensive and defensive, with the powerful Earl of Crawford,
sometimes called the “Tiger Earl.” This was probably intended as a
counterpoise to the influence of Turnbull, Bishop of Glasgow, and his
coadjutor, Crichton the Chancellor—the latter of whom, having retrieved his
old position, seems to have availed himself of an absence of Douglas in Rome
to prejudice the king’s mind against him. Various cruel, overweening, and
high-handed acts are now alleged against the earl. Among others he is
accused of endeavouring to seduce the barons of the Border—where, in
Godscroft’s words, “he commanded, and might command indeed” — from their
allegiance to the king. The same writer asserts, however, that he suffered
from having the acts of the Border thieves (of whom we now begin to hear)
laid at his door, and tells us that his following on the Border was so large
that his enemies dubbed him the Captain of the Thieves. At least it is
satisfactory to find that the latest authority decides to reject the too
well-known story—first told by the unreliable Pitscottie—of his hurrying on
the execution of the Tutor of Bombie whilst he detained the king’s messenger
at dinner, and then, in compliance with the royal mandate contained in a
sealed missive, delivering up the body of his captive— headless. The
question for us to decide is whether the retribution which now befell him is
to be regarded as the act of justice or of jealousy, and the majority will
probably decide in favour of the latter. In either case the manner of that
retribution was indefensible.
To give James his due, there
is no ground for suspecting that his bloody act was premeditated. With the
amplest and most formal assurances of safety, he summoned Douglas to attend
him at Stirling Castle. The invitation went under the Great Seal, and he
would be a charitable rather than a sagacious judge who should acquit the
proved traitor Crichton of treacherous intentions in it. On obeying the
summons, the earl was courteously received and entertained. Supper over, the
king broached the points at issue between himself and his subject, Douglas
at first dutifully deferring to him. But when the bond with Crawford was
brought up, things went less smoothly. The king charged Douglas on his
loyalty to forego it, which Douglas declined to do — at least until he
should have advertised his confederate. Words then waxed high, and the earl
persisting in his refusal to break the alliance, the king suddenly started
to his feet, exclaiming, “ False traitor, if thou wilt not, I will! ” and,
drawing his dagger, twice stabbed his guest—unarmed, or at least unprepared,
as he was—in the body and in the neck. Sir Patrick Gray—to whom is assigned
the role of the hoodwinked messenger in the Bombie incident — then struck
Douglas on the head with a pole-axe, whilst others present took part in the
vile carnage until the body was pierced with six-and-twenty wounds. It was
then cast out to nameless burial. Such a deed could not pass unquestioned,
and in the June following (1452) a special Act of Parliament was passed to
clear James of the charge of murder. Justification was alleged on the
ground, first, of Douglas’s having forfeited the benefit of his safe -
conduct; secondly, of his having conspired against the king; and, thirdly,
of his having withstood the royal persuasions.
The fall of Earl William gave
the deathblow to his house. He was succeeded by his brother James, who,
being twin with Archibald, had some years before been formally adjudged the
elder. James’s reputation as a knight was of the highest, as had been proved
by the coming of the freux chevalier De Lalain from Burgundy to Scotland
especially to meet him in the lists. They fought a Voutrance in the royal
presence, and the account of their combat forms one of the most
circumstantial of contemporary narratives of chivalry.' It is said that Earl
Douglas was present at the fight with from 4000 to 5000 retainers. But
whatever his prowess in the tournament, the last earl, as he proved to be,
did not show himself equal to the difficulties of his present situation. His
conduct, as it emerges from the conflict of rival historians, abounds in
inconsistency. He is said to have been at Stirling with his brothers when
the murder was committed, and to have exhorted them with much spirit to a
prompt revenge; but, for reasons insufficiently explained, a month was
allowed to elapse before effective action was taken. This delay, the
salvation of the king, was fatal to the Douglas. At the month’s end, the
brothers, with their adherent Lord Hamilton, assembled at the market-cross
of Stirling, and, with a blast of five hundred horns and trumpets,
proclaimed the king and all who had been plotters or authors of Earl
William’s death “perjured traitors to God and man.” The king’s safe-conduct,
having the broad seal affixed, was nailed to a board and dragged in
contumely through the streets at the tail of a “spittle jade.” But the
interval had given time for the popular odium excited by the king’s crime to
subside. Perhaps from impatience, when they found this was the case, the
earl and his followers burnt and pillaged the town—thus committing a second
error of judgment, for their true policy was to draw the people towards them
against the king.
Meantime James had not been
inactive. On March 2— little more than a fortnight after the murder—we find
him at Jedburgh, in the heart of the Douglas country, with what object can
only be guessed. In May the power of Crawford, Douglas’s principal ally, was
crushed by the Earl of Huntly, after an obstinate battle near Brechin.
Douglas himself, who, as the other great Border earl had been before him,
was now in treaty with England, renounced his allegiance to his sovereign in
a contemptuous document which he caused to be affixed by night to the door
of the Parliament House. The king responded by marching through the Douglas
country of Peebles, Selkirk, and Dumfries, destroying and harrying as he
went. Whether in consequence of this demonstration or not, in August Douglas
submitted—formally expressing his forgiveness and that of his brothers for
the murder of Earl William, and binding himself for the future to enter into
no league against his sovereign. To make the reconciliation more complete,
the king now exerted himself to obtain a dispensation for the marriage of
the earl with his brother’s widow, thus seeming to interest himself in
preserving the integrity of the estates. The earl was actually employed in
public business, and it seemed that expediency had triumphed over both
ambition and family feeling. In this manner two or three years passed, hut
so long as a Douglas remained in power the king found himself unable to
rest. Conscious of his own treachery, he may have suspected — perhaps not
without reason — the genuineness of his great subject’s submission; or it is
possible that he was but biding his time whilst, with the aid of his
long-headed adviser Kennedy, Bishop of St Andrews, he won over the more
powerful barons to himself. At any rate, ere long he resolved to strike
another blow, in the hope of thus for ever ending difficulties which had at
one time appeared so overwhelming as almost to lead him to resign his
kingdom. Accordingly, in March 1455, having without warning seized and
demolished Douglas’s castle of Inveravon, near Linlithgow, he passed at the
head of an army, by Lanark, where an encounter took place, through Doug’as-dale,
Avondale, and Ettrick Forest, wasting as he went. He then besieged the
castle of Abercorn. Douglas summoned his vassals, and marched to its relief.
Hamilton, who as usual was with him, and whose lands had suffered in the
recent raid, urged him to give battle without delay; but a scruple of
loyalty, as unaccountable as it was ill - timed, is said to have held the
earl inactive. Perhaps he already foresaw the end. After vain remonstrance,
Hamilton, not stanch enough to share his leader’s ruin, consulted his own
safety by passing to the enemy. His defection was at once followed by that
of the rest of Douglas’s adherents. No course now remained open to the earl
but to leave Abercorn to its fate ; and w’hen he fled for refuge to England
it was with four or five, not 4000 or 5000, in his train.
The last act of the tragedy
still remained to play. The earl’s three brothers sought to rally their
adherents on the Border, but met with many disappointments. Nevertheless, on
May 1, 1455, they attacked a royal army, composed of Scotts and members of
other Border clans, and commanded, it is said, by Douglas, Earl of Angus. A
battle was fought at Arkinholm, on the Ewes Water, where the town of
Langholm now stands. The Douglases were completely defeated. Moray was slain
in the battle, his head being cut off and sent to the king; Ormond, who was
made prisoner, was tried and executed; whilst Balvany escaped into England,
only to meet his doom eight years later, when he was captured whilst
endeavouring to promote a rising in the Douglas interest on the Border. A
month or two after the battle the castle of Thrieve, the last stronghold of
the Douglases, capitulated.
On June the 10th and nth, in
a Parliament held at Edinburgh, Acts of forfeiture were passed against the
earl, Balvany, and the countess - dowager. In August the earl and his
brother were outlawed, all persons being forbidden to “ressett, house, or
herbry, support or supply them in any manner.” The jurisdiction of the
warden of the marches over cases of treason was at the same time abolished,
and heritable wardenships were declared illegal. Thus at last was recognised
the extreme danger to a State of the too-powerful Border chieftain, whose
local position enables him, if so minded, to hold out a standing menace to
his sovereign, whilst it endows his retainers with an aptitude and training
in warfare unattainable by clans in more central and secure situations. The
power of the Black Douglases was now entirely broken, and, indeed, this—the
main—branch of the family wanted] little of becoming extinct; for both the
earl and Balvany were childless, whilst Ormond’s only son was a priest, who
eventually became Dean of Brechin. Moray also left an only son, but his
history, says ‘The Douglas Book,’ “has not been traced.” The possessions of
the Douglases passed to the Crown, sufficing to furnish forth many a Border
family who rose upon their fall. Among these were the Scotts of Kirkurd,
afterwards of Buccleuch. For his services against the Douglases at Arkinholm
and elsewhere, the head of the family, Sir Walter Scott, received, in 1458,
a charter of lands in the barony of Crawfordjohn. Again, in 1463, with his
son David, he was granted the remaining half of the barony of Branxholm, to
be held blench for the payment of a red rose on the Nativity of St John. The
latter charter further confirms to the family the lands of Lempitlaw, Elrig,
Ranldeburn, Kirkurd, Eck-ford, Whitchester, and part of Langtoun, all on
account of the same services.
During the next
eight-and-twenty years, which he spent in England, the fugitive earl had
ample time to deplore the results of his own indecision of character. At
length, weary of exile, he joined the malcontent Albany, brother of King
James III., in a desperate endeavour to rouse the Borders. Their hope was
that the name of Douglas would stir recollections of past glories; but a
generation had grown up which knew not Joseph, and the attempt was a signal
failure. Riding towards Lochmaben, the intruders were attacked by a band of
Borderers. Albany escaped, but Douglas, aged and unrecognised, allowed
himself to be made prisoner. Alexander Kirkpatrick, a former dependent of
his own, to whom he surrendered, is said to have wept when he beheld the
changes wrought by time and circumstar.ce in his old master. He offered to
flee with him to England, but Douglas declined his offer, merely stipulating
that his own life should if possible be saved. This was conceded by the
king, from whom Kirkpatrick also received the reward which had been promised
for the capture of his master. An asylum was provided for the earl in the
abbey of Lindores, to which he resigned himself with the observation that
“he that may no better be, must be a monk.” There he lingered until his
death in 1488. All this, however, is of course anticipatory.
Outside the engrossing
history of the house of Douglas there are few events to tell of on the
Borders during this reign. There was little warfare with England, the nine
years’ truce of the commencement of the reign being by subsequent
negotiations extended, first to 1454, then to 1457, and finally to 1461. But
of course it would have been too much to expect that these truces should
remain entirely inviolate. In 1448 dissensions among the marchmen led to an
outbreak of hostilities, in which three of the brothers Douglas—William,
James, and Hugh, but especially the last-named—distinguished themselves in
reprisals made upon the English at Alnwick and Warkworth, and in the battle
of Sark. Indeed it has been suggested that one of James’s motives for
avoiding war with England was fear of the distinction likely to be gained
therein by the Douglases.
During this and following
years successive meetings were held for the regulation of international
affairs, and it is to 1449 that the second code of Border laws belongs.2
What is chiefly noticeable, however, is the official recognition at this
time that the wardens of the marches were not on all occasions to be
depended on to do their duty; and, of course, where they were so inclined,
great opportunities for the abuse of justice lay in their hands. Within a
limited district they exercised almost sovereign power, and in a region
where clan feeling ran so high, the temptation to show undue severity to an
enemy, or undue favour to a friend, was sometimes too much for them.
Provision was therefore made for checking their proceedings, and those of
their lieutenants and deputies, by members of the Councils of the respective
kingdoms. A defect in the system of balefires, revealed on the occasion of
the recent English incursion, was rectified by an Act of Parliament, which
ordained that the fords of Tweed should be regularly watched, and that the.
approach of an enemy should be announced by the kindling of beacons on the
nearest heights. A single fire was to give warning of suspected danger; two
to announce the actual advance of the foe; whilst four—arranged in line, and
all flaming together—indicated that great numbers were approaching. An alarm
first raised at Hume would be communicated to Edgarhope Castle, thence to
Soutra Edge, and so on to Edinburgh, Fife, and Stirling. On this, all
fighting men to the west of Edinburgh were to draw to that city, and all to
the east of it to Haddington. Burgesses whose towns had been passed by the
advancing army on their march were to pursue it. Another statute provided
for the stationing on the Middle Marches (those with which we are here
specially concerned) of 200 men-at-arms and as many archers, to be
maintained at the expense of the lords, barons, and freeholders of the
country, who were to be assessed for the purpose. Owners of land near the
Border were further required to make their dwellings as capable as might be
of defence, to provide men qualified for military service, and to have their
horses and arms in readiness for attendance on their chief, or warden, when
required.
It will be remembered that
Roxburgh and Berwick still remained in the hands of the English. England was
now divided by the Wars of the Roses, and James II., though otherwise
peaceably inclined, seems to have seen in her internal dissensions an
irresistible opportunity of striking a blow for himself. Bishop Leslie tells
the story otherwise, representing James as fighting in the Lancastrian
interest, or at least in that interest combined with his own; but this
version is disproved by Henry VI.’s mandate to the Earl of Salisbury,
charging him to raise the northern and midland counties to resist the King
of Scotland, who had entered England and laid siege to Roxburgh and Berwick.
The siege of Roxburgh received an accession of interest from the arrival of
the Lord of the Isles with a large following of Highlanders and Islanders,
armed in the Highland fashion with “halbershownes” (or short coats of chain
mail), bows, and axes, and vaunting their willingness, in amends for past
misdeeds, to march a mile ahead of the king’s forces into England, and take
the brunt of the first meeting with the enemy. The advent of these and other
auxiliaries led to redoubled efforts on the part both of attackers and
defenders. The fighting was of a transitional character, the newer and more
deadly class of projectile not having yet supplanted the older one, as is
shown by recent orders for supplying the garrison of Roxburgh with “100 bows
and 200 sheaves of arrows,” as well as with “ cannons, artillery, and
powder,” We know that James II. was an amateur and expert in the use
of the latter. In his wars with the Douglases he had personally directed the
attack on Abercorn, where heavy ordnance was brought to bear on the castle,
whilst it is generally believed that the great cannon known as Mons Meg was
constructed, if not actually for his siege of Thrieve, at least during his
reign. This was a kinglike taste, but its gratification was to cost him
dear. He had posted a battery on the north side of Tweed, in what are now
the pleasure-grounds of Floors Castle, and thither, on Sunday, August 3,
1460, he repaired to superintend the firing of a great gun which had been
christened the Lion. As to the precise nature of the accident which
followed, there is divergence of statement. One authority says
circumstantially that the gun burst through the powder having found its way
into some cleft or crack; another limits the accident to the flying off from
the piece, as it was discharged, of a “wedge or slice” — which, on the
whole, appears the more probable. In either case, the king, who was standing
injudiciously near, received a blow which broke his thigh - bone, killing
him on the spot. The Earl of Angus, who stood beside him, was also seriously
injured, but no other person was struck. It is traditionally supposed that a
thorn-tree at Floors marks the spot where the king fell. Though he had
reigned three - and - twenty years, he was but in the thirtieth year of his
age.
As soon as they had assured
themselves of the king’s death, the bystanders covered the body, dreading
lest the report of the accident, if rashly communicated, should create a
panic in the camp; and, if Leslie is to be trusted, there seem to have been
good grounds for these fears, for James possessed to the full the Stewart
aptitude for popularity. When in due course the catastrophe was made public,
the historian tells us that the people lamented his death “with no lesse
sorowe and deulfull meane, nor is sene in ane private house for the decesse
of the wel-beloved maister and awner thairof; for in tyme of weare amang his
subjectis in the campe, he behaveth himselfe so gentlie towardis all menne,
that they semed nocht to feare him as thaire King, bot to reverence and love
him like a fader; he wald ryde up and downe amangis thame, and eate and
drinke with thame, even as he had bene bot ane private man and fellowe.”
The royal remains were
conveyed to Holyrood for interment But this was no time for unavailing
grief. The widowed queen, Mary of Gueldres, herself set a noble example of
fortitude and patriotism. Stifling her private sorrow, she appeared in the
camp in person, and exhorting the chiefs not to relax their efforts against
the castle, presented to them her eight-year-old son as the king who should
fill his father’s place. Her heroic bearing roused her hearers to
enthusiasm, and they continued the assault to such good purpose that the
garrison were soon happy to capitulate. Roxburgh Castle had been in
possession of the English since the battle of Neville’s Cross, more than a
hundred years before, and was now generally felt to be a source of too much
danger and uncertainty to be allowed to remain standing. It was therefore
demolished by the captors, as Jedburgh had been before it. The child king
was crowned in Kelso Abbey by the name of James III., with the unanimous
consent of the three Estates, and great rejoicing of the assembled army and
people.
The years now following were
unusually uneventful in the Border counties. The Wars of the Roses still
kept England’s hands full, whilst the seat of much of the war being near to
the Border probably drew off a great part of the superfluous martial energy
which might have bred disturbance at home. Many Borderers from both sides
the marches fought on the Lancastrian side at Towton and Hedgeley Moor, but
they did so in a private capacity; whilst the good guidance of Kennedy,
Bishop of St Andrews, who now held the helm of affairs, kept the government
of the country neutral, except in so far as mere sympathy was concerned. To
which side that sympathy leaned none knew better than Edward IV., who, fully
conscious of the kn portance which Scotland might yet develop as a factor in
the struggle, did his best to undermine her by means of intrigues with the
exiled Douglas and the Lord of the Isles. It cannot have escaped the reader
that had Douglas been a patriot or even a loyalist at heart, he had had it
in his power to render great services to his country by acting as a bulwark
against invasion. But his degeneracy from the best of his forebears must be
acknowledged; and the purely personal character of his ambition is
illustrated by the readiness with which he now embraced a proposal that he
should hold his estates under Edward, when the latter, having conquered
Scotland, should have restored them to him. The scheme did not stop here,
but went on to allot to him the whole of Scotland south of the Firth of
Forth, whilst the Earl of Ross and of the Isles was to receive the
remainder.
It was probably to Kennedy’s
influence also that was due a truce which was concluded in 1463 for fifteen
years, but soon afterwards extended to 1519. As regards the marches, the
most important new provisions of this agreement are—first, one for further
limiting and checking the powers of the wardens, by extending the right of
appeal from their jurisdiction to that of a committee of members of
council;8- and secondly, a provision enacting that every person to whom a
safe-conduct is granted shall be guaranteed by declaration to be no traitor
or rebel. The number of a party to whom a safe-conduct may be granted is
also limited to three, from which one may infer that the liberality with
which (as the pages of the Rotuli and Calendars show) these licences had
hitherto been accorded had been abused. Meantime it would be by no means
safe to assume that peace reigned undisturbed on the Borders. Though the two
kingdoms were in amity, the Borderers had not forgotten their predatory
habits, and what was no longer demanded by their country’s interest was now
carried on in their own. This is proved by the charge made against King
James’s insubordinate brother, Albany, that, whilst as warden of the marches
it had been his duty to protect England from injury, he had actually taken
part in Border raids, by which the subjects of the King of England had been
slaughtered and plundered; and, indeed, it has even been suggested that the
payment in advance of the dowry of the English princess Cecilia, who had
been betrothed to James’s infant son, was in reality but a species of
blackmail or bribe to the Government to restrain the Borderers and the
country generally.
In time the difficulties on
the Border strained the truce almost to breaking, whilst the elaborate
ordinances of frequent march meetings dealt with the situation
ineffectually. Indeed it is easy to see that these march meetings were
themselves felt to be a source of danger, for it is now enacted that men
should attend them unarmed, or with no weapon but a sword or knife, whilst a
limit is fixed to the number of the attendants of the wardens, their
lieutenants and deputies. Things, nevertheless, got worse instead of better,
and— discord being fomented on the English side by the renegade Albany, and
on the Scottish by the practices of Louis XI.— the two nations were soon
upon the brink of war. For the time the Pope’s intervention stayed the
outbreak, but special preparations for resisting attack continued to be made
upon the Border—Hermitage Castle receiving a garrison of 100, under command
of the Laird of Lamington, whilst the Laird of Edmonstoun commanded 60 in
Cessford, 20 in Ormistoun, and 20 in Edgerstoun, and the Laird of Cranstoun
60 in Jedburgh, 20 in Cocklaw, and 20 in Dolphinston.
The story of the assembling
of the levies of Scotland upon the Boroughmuir, of the march to Lauder, the
meeting in the kirk which gave a nickname to Angus, and the shocking act of
barbarity which immediately followed it, is well known; nor is it a part of
the history of our counties. Suffice it to say, then, that the Scottish host
was soon afterwards disbanded, whilst the English, after advancing as far as
Edinburgh, retook Berwick on their return. Albany, who was for a time
reconciled to his brother, soon resumed his intrigues with England, which,
however—owing to the death of Edward IV.—issued merely in the abortive
attempt with Douglas at Lochmaben, which has been already described. During
part of this time the king had been detained in duress. As a man born out of
due place, season, and condition, James III. deserves some sympathy. In the
Florence of that day he would have shone, leaving a name in history as an
enlightened patron of the arts. But as recluse and peace-lover—one who “
loved Solitariness and Desert, and never to hear of Wars, nor the Fame
thereof, but . . . delighted more in Singing and Playing upon Instruments
than he did in the defence of the Borders ”—he remained incompris amid the
elements of turbulence in which his lot was cast—a lot additionally
imbittered by the hostility of those nearest to him, his brother and his
son. If he abused the privileges of monarchy to do as he listed, he had to
swim hard against the stream for it, and towards dire retribution. In the
final rebellion which ended in his mysterious assassination at Sauchieburn,
the Borderers under Angus and Home took the lead against him. A
counter-rising against his successor, under the Earl of Lennox, was
suppressed in a night engagement near Talla Moss.
With the downfall of the
elder or “Black” branch of the Douglases, the younger or “Red” branch, who
had assisted in their ruin, and who were represented by the Earls of Angus,
came to the front on the Borders. In 1485 the wily, sinuous, double-dealing
Archibald “ Bell-the-Cat ” held the office of warden of the East and Middle
Marches. In the first Parliament of the new reign he was appointed to
exercise justice and preserve order in the shires of Roxburgh, Selkirk, and
Peebles. Henry VII. of England was at this time anxious to strengthen his
own insecure position by any means which might offer. Angus was just the man
for his purpose, and in 1491 we find the two in treaty. The document on
which rests the evidence of the earl’s baseness, though still preserved, is
much defaced, but what remains legible suffices to reveal the part assigned
to him in the agreement. This was to do his utmost to prevent war between
the two countries, but, supposing that his efforts failed, to take the side
of England, and to surrender Hermitage Castle—in exchange for which he
should receive an equivalent. It may be mentioned that as security to this
bond, with the earl’s son, we find the name of Robert Elwold (Elliot), son
of Robert Elwold, younger, of Hermitage. The young king, James IV., seems to
have got wind of this treaty; but Angus—who is known to have taken part in
the royal amusements of dice and other games — had obtained an ascendancy
over him. Accordingly, after a brief rupture, we find the earl reinstated in
the royal favour. The precaution— very necessary under the circumstances —
was, however, taken of depriving him of the lordship of Liddesdale with
Hermitage, which were bestowed on Patrick Hepburn, the recently created and
therefore presumably reliable Earl of Bothwell. Angus was indemnified by a
grant of Both well in Lanarkshire, formerly a possession of the Black
Douglases. But as the family never regained Liddesdale and Hermitage,
notwithstanding that they retained Eskdale and Ewesdale, their power on the
Borders was henceforth much diminished.
The current truce—that of
i486—having expired (for of course the older one had been set aside), in
1491 a new one was arranged. In general outline it followed the model of its
predecessors, containing, however, a special clause intended to restrain
offences of a type which was probably very common on the Borders—i.e., those
of persons who, having suffered from spoliation, presumed to take the law
into their own hands and spoil the spoiler. For some years before this
letters of denization have been of growing frequency in the Calendar —whence
the present treaty contains a provision aiming to make it impossible for the
holders of these letters to use them to shield themselves from the just
punishment of crimes. Of course there is nothing very new about these
enactments; still they serve to illustrate the special class of difficulties
which on the marches continued to beset the relations between the two
countries. The truce was to be proclaimed in the principal places of the
Border, and among the subscribers are the names of Angus and Bothwell. At
the last moment James, acting under French influence, boggled over the
ratification, and certain non - essential modifications had to be
introduced. It is about this time that the name of Walter Ker of Cessford
begins to appear, among those of the ambassadors of the King of Scots,” as
that of a trusted intermediary.
We have seen that, with the
change of circumstances, England was now, and had been for some time past,
the party desiring peace, whilst Scotland could afford to display
indifference on the subject. The meteoric apparition of the impostor
Warbeck, and the powerful support which he received abroad, made Henry more
than ever desirous to maintain the truce. Ridpath does not hesitate to
say that, to all intents and purpose's, he paid for its continuance by his
acknowledgment that the balance in the claims and counter-claim^, between
the two kingdoms lay on the Scots’ side of the account — which balance was
forthwith paid. A truce for seven years was now concluded, but Henry’s
anxieties continued unallayed. The qualifications of the hapless and
euphuistic lover of the “White Rose of Scotland ” were of a kind to appeal
to James IV., who, as we shall yet see, could carry the notions of knightly
honour to the point of craze. He espoused Perkin’s cause, and in 1496 we
find the Earl of Surrey—Vice-Warden of the Mid Marches under the infant
Arthur, Prince of Wales—commissioned, with the Bishop of Durham, to array
the men of Redesdale and the marches to resist the Scots, who are “
threatening to attack the North of England immediately in force.” “Bekyns”
to warn the marches are to be maintained, and wheelwrights, smiths, and
other craftsmen retained to make carriages and waggons for the king’s
ordnance for Scotland. The Scots expedition entered England by the
Berwickshire route. But fortune did not smile upon it. Had James been as
clear-sighted as he was chivalrous, he must have foreseen that the support
of their hereditary enemies was not the best means to win the people of
Northumberland to the cause of the pretender. The expedition degenerated
into a raid, and though renewed, led to no tangible result. Perhaps
familiarity, and the vulgarity inseparable from imposture in whatever form,
destroyed the glamour which had at first clothed Perkin in the eyes of the
king. Diplomacy was also at work against him, and thus in February 1498
a new truce with England was concluded, and, so far as the Border was
concerned, the cause of the pretended Duke of York had flickered to
extinction. Two of Henry’s precautions against Borderers at this period
deserve passing notice. One of them provides against “ privy meetings ”
between Scots and Englishmen on the Borders; the other is an act of
banishment from the English Border counties of Scots who, being suspected,
shall fail to render satisfactory account of themselves. In the new treaty
the provisions relating to the Border were, on the whole, of a more
stringent character than heretofore, and doubtless did their part in that
system of government which • was gradually bringing Scotland into better
order than she had known for many years. The above negotiations bring us for
a moment into touch with Spain’s brief period of glory, by showing us
D’Ayala, the ambassador of Ferdinand and Isabella, empowered to act as
mediator between the two kingdoms.
Ferdinand had also a hand in
another transaction which was destined to prove of profound significance to
the Borders, and eventually, indeed, to lead to their annihilation as a
military frontier. This was, of course, the royal match which united James
IV. to Margaret, daughter of the far-seeing and peace-desiring Henry VII.,
and which among its ultimate results included the setting upon the English
throne, one hundred and one years .later, of the Scottish king James VI. The
girl princess was conducted to Lamberton kirk on the Border, and the
marriage took place with much rejoicing at Holyrood on the 8th August 1502.
The occasion was celebrated, not by a mere hand-to-mouth truce, of the
pattern to which we have been accustomed ever since the Treaty of
Northampton, but by the conclusion of a substantial treaty of Perpetual
Peace between the two countries.
It was during this reign,
says Hill Burton, that “there was the beginning of troubles on the Borders,
bearing in some of their features a resemblance to those with which the
Highland district had so long afflicted the central government.” These
consisted of predatory incursions directed not ostensibly against a hostile,
or even a foreign, Power, but towards any quarter whence desirable
commodities might be obtained, and this is the first reference in our
history to what many persons would no doubt pronounce the distinctive
feature of old Border life —i.e., to moss-trooping. We must, however, defer
our more extended notice of the practice until it reaches a head in the next
reign. In the meantime it may suffice to say that disorders of this
character seem in this year to have been the means of bringing the king to
the Border counties. He was at Jedburgh on the 5th and nth November, and on
the 15th Edmund Armstrong of Liddesdale appeared with his brothers, in
answer to the royal command, to meet the charge of burning Bothuichelis (Borthwickshiels),
and of the “hereschip” of 300 sheep, 60 oxen and cows, 20 horses and mares,
and goods to the value of 100 merks. There were also further indictments of
the same character against these Armstrongs and others of the race. At the
same time an amnesty was granted for all offences of the kind committed
three years before date. Besides the Armstrongs, the family of the Crosars
were at this period engaged in harrying the lands of their own countrymen,
and there is mention too of a raid “ beyond Tweeddale and Lauderdale,” in
which certain Elliots—brothers, nicknamed “ Hob the King ” and “ Dand the
Man ”—carried off nine score of sheep. The record of the assize held at
Selkirk during the same month also contains charges of a similar description
against Walter Scot younger of Edschaw, but the class of offence does not
seem to have spread yet to Peeblesshire.
What with disorders such as
these, and improvements which he was introducing in the country at large,
James had plenty to keep his hands full at home, and ought therefore to have
rejoiced in the prospect of lasting peace with England. But he appears to
have been dead to his own interest in this respect. As long as Henry VII.
lived, that monarch set an example—as admirable as it was rare—of moderation
and self-restraint in the treatment of such difficulties as might arise upon
the Borders. But with his death, in 1509, the peaceful aspect of affairs
began at once to change. A variety of causes now combined to strain
relations between the two countries. Among these no doubt the chief was the
interest and influence of Scotland’s old ally, France, who being herself
embroiled in war with Henry VIII., naturally brought powers of every
description to bear on the somewhat simple-minded James to draw him with her
into the struggle. The retention of the Queen of Scotland’s jewels by her
brother, and the very free construction put by Sir Andrew Barton on his
letter of all the way to the riuer of Roul trauellouris be traytouris war
trublet, reft, and slane; be nycbt, that tha knew nocht his mynd, he inuades
thame with a gret band of men of weir, takes mony of the traytouris, to Jed-burghe
bringis thame be force, quhair sum he declares innocent, vtheris worthie of
Jugement, quha war chiefe and specialis. Thir war compelit to cum afor the
King with thair naket swordes and t-owis about thair neckis, putting thame
selfes in the Kings wil; to saue thair lyues, or punis thame at his plesure
; quhome the King commandet to put in strait presone in sindrie places,
quhil the sentence war geiuen out against thame. Heirefter was na pairt in
Scotland sa quyet as the bnrdours, quhilk afoir was wraket throuch spoylie,
reife, and slaucliter.”—Historie, book viii., Dal.-ymple’s translation. The
quietness, as we shall soon see, was not of long duration. Jeffrey says that
most of the prisoners were Turnbulls (Roxburghshire, vol. ii. p. 164).marque
against the Portuguese, tended further to inflame matters. Yet another
ground of offence—and that the one with which we are here most
concerned—arose out of a blood-feud.
The facts were these. Sir
Robert Ker of Femihirst, the head of a second branch of the Ker family, had
held the office of warden of the Middle Marches during the reign of Henry
VII. Having by strictness in the performance of his duties rendered himself
hateful to the more lawless among the Borderers, he was attacked and
murdered, while attending a march meeting, by three Englishmen named
Lilburn, Starhead, and Heron, called the Bastard. The king, in whose esteem
Ker had held a high place, appealed to England for redress. Acting in
accordance with his usual policy, Henry showed zeal in complying with this
just demand. Starhead and the Bastard had already made good their flight,
but Heron of Ford, the legitimate brother of the latter, was seized in his
place and delivered with Lilburn to the Scots. Lilburn died in prison, and
Heron continued to languish there; but, after the accession of Henry VIII.,
the fugitives—trusting that bygones were now forgotten— began to show
themselves in public once more as if nothing serious had happened. This was
too much for Andrew, known as “Dand,” Ker, son of the murdered man, who
determined to have revenge. Two of his retainers, named Tait, were therefore
despatched across the Border, and having journeyed ninety miles to the house
of Starhead, broke into it, slew the owner, and cutting off his head,
carried it back in triumph to their employer, by whom it was exposed to the
public gaze in Edinburgh. This violent act is represented as a source of
grievance to Henry VIII., whilst the continued immunity from punishment
enjoyed by the Bastard Heron was equally offensive to James.
At last the tension became
unbearable. Portents of the most startling nature were disregarded, and in
August 1513 the Scottish army, having assembled on the Boroughmuir to the
number of 100,coo fighting men, proceeded to cross the Border. From this
time forward there is an air of infatuation about King James’s acts which
might have justified his contemporaries in suspecting him to be “fey.” The
campaign had opened with a reverse sustained by Lord Home, who, on his
return from an incursion into England, had been attacked and routed by an
ambush concealed in the tall broom of Mil-field plain. But after this,
fortune for a while favoured the Scots, to whom the castles of Norham, Wark,
and Etal fell an easy prey. At Ford the too-gallant James came under the
fascinations of the scheming chatelaine—-Lady Heron, wife of his
prisoner—and a few precious days were wasted in dalliance. Provisions for
the army were already beginning to fail, and in the real or pretended search
for them many of the Scottish soldiers, whose hearts were not really in the
campaign, returned to their homes.
Meantime Surrey, the English
commander, having raised an army of some 26,000 men in the northern
counties, was advancing under the sacred banner of St Cuthbert to meet the
Scots. Acting upon his knowledge of the king’s character, he sent forward
Rouge Croix herald to provoke him to a contest, receiving a reply to the
effect that James desired it as ardently as himself. The Scots had meantime
secured themselves upon the top of Flodden Hill, a roomy tableland formed by
the last of the subsiding swells of Cheviot, and it now became Surrey’s
object to lure them from this strong position. Again he sought to play upon
the king’s weakness, by sending another herald to expostu late against his
occupation of ground which was “more like a fortress ” than the impartial
plain on which fair battle might be waged. But even the king’s folly stopped
short of yielding to such representation. Meantime, every day was of
importance to Surrey, for the country around had been wasted, whilst
incessant rains served to depress the spirits of the soldiers. In these
circumstances, he resolved upon a manoeuvre which, though justified by
success, must have seemed risky to the point of foolhardiness. Between him
and the enemy wound the Till, a narrow but deep river, enclosed by
precipitous banks. This stream was now crossed by the main body of the
English army at Twizell bridge, and by the rear-guard at a ford somewhat
higher up. And now—while the enemy were divided in the execution of this
awkward evolution—now or never was clearly King James’s opportunity for
attack. But, in the face of all inducements, he insisted on remaining
inactive, fascinated as would seem by his own destiny. It was in vain that
the veteran Angus urged him on. He was met by an insult, which he made his
excuse for withdrawing from the army, leaving behind him two sons and 200 of
his name to perish in the ensuing battle. It was in vain that Borthwick,
master of the artillery, flung himself upon his knees and implored to be
permitted to bring his guns to bear upon the column. Other tried soldiers
joined their entreaties to his, but James remained fixed in his obdurate
petulancy. The disastrous results of his conduct were soon apparent. Having
at length got his army across the river, Surrey advanced at the head of it
to Branxton, which lies to the north-west of Flodden Hill — thus cutting off
the Scottish army from their base, and intercepting their return.
Starvation now stared James
in the face, and there was nothing for it but to leave his position of
vantage and meet the enemy in the plain. Still his men were fresh, and there
remained in his favour the chances of a weli-fought day.
Having fired the huts and
other temporary buildings which they had been occupying, the Scottish army
began to descend the incline. It was the afternoon of the 9th September, and
the smoke, hanging low in the heavy atmosphere, for a time concealed their
advance. Never probably had Scotland sent forth a more gallant band, under a
leader of a higher courage, and yet the greatest of all Scottish military
disasters lay ahead of it. For the lesson of Flodden Field is that personal
courage, cultivated to the total neglect of military discipline and of
military tactics, may become in the presence of a hostile army a source of
positive calamity; and a generation had grown up in Scotland who, though
matchless in the tourney or the personal combat, had yet lacked the stern
preceptorship of warfare.
It was four o’clock when the
armies joined battle. The Scots were drawn up in five divisions. The first
encounter was between the Scottish left, under Lords Home and Huntly, and
the English right, under Edmund Howard, a son of Surrey, and the first
advantage lay with the Scots. But the English reverse was quickly repaired
by the support brought up by Lord Dacre, whilst the facile advantage gained
by Home’s men seems of itself to have tended to demoralise them. The further
progress of the battle has been too often and too brilliantly described to
require or to excuse detailed recapitulation. Suffice it to say, then, that
the incipient confusion was materially heightened by a movement of the
Highlanders, who formed the right wing of the army. Galled by the English
arrows, they precipitated themselves upon the enemy. But severe as was their
impact, its effect was not sustained, whilst the wild and undisciplined
movements which succeeded it proved terribly disconcerting to their own
allies. The king commanded the centre of the Scottish army. Years before
this, his friend Ayala, whilst doing full justice to his courage, had
observed of him that he was not a good captain, “because he begins to fight
before he gives his orders.” James was to-day to justify the reproach. His
quest throughout the battle seems to have been a hand - to - hand conflict
with Surrey—the wiser general, to whose greater experience the relative
functions of head and hands in an army were familiar. But it was James’s
example more than his conduct which was ruinous. Not to be outdone by their
sovereign, the Scottish nobles left the posts to which their rank and
authority should have held them, and pressed after him into the melle. The
gallantry of individual disunited effort, however, availed nothing. James
fell, pierced by an arrow and struck down by an axe, and ere night closed on
the scene the Scottish army had received its coup-de-grace from the charge
which Chester directed upon its rear. But it was not until the rising sun
lit up the heaps of the slain, and the ghastly ring of corpses which
surrounded the dead king, that the extent of their victory became manifest
to the English themselves. |
