Border Raids and Reivers

XI.

THE CORBIE’S NEST

The incidents in the predatory warfare so long carried on by the dwellers on both sides of the Border were not all of a painful or tragic character. The spirit of fun sometimes predominated over the more selfish and aggressive instincts. There was a grim kind of humour characteristic of the Border reiver. He certainly was not disposed to laugh on the slightest provocation, – his calling was much too serious for that, – but when he once relaxed, his mirth was not easily controlled. And, however degrading his occupation may have been in its general tendency, there was often displayed among the Border thieves, even among the very worst of them, a spirit of the most splendid heroism, which helps to redeem the system from the general contempt in which it is regarded by the moralist of modern times. Many of the leaders were not only men of undaunted courage, but of considerable military genius. In a later age, under other and happier conditions, they would have won renown on many a well-fought battlefield. They possessed the qualities, physical and moral, of which great soldiers are made. The Bold Buccleuch, Little Jock Elliot, Johnie Armstrong of Gilnockie, and his kinsman, Willie of Kinmont – not to mention other names which readily occur to the mind in this connection – were men dowered by nature with great courage and resource. They were strong of arm and dauntless of heart. We do not seek to justify their deeds. These were reprehensible enough, judged by almost any standard you may apply to them. But just as some people find it impossible to smother a certain sneaking kind of admiration of the Devil, so magnificently delineated in Milton’s “Paradise Lost” – a being who seems possessed of almost every quality save that of consecrating his varied endowment to worthy ends – so in like manner it is difficult to withhold a certain meed of admiration for some of the “nobil thieves” whose names stand out prominently in, if they cannot always be said to adorn, this long chapter of Border history. They were undoubtedly men of ability, energy, and force of character, who would have won their spurs in almost any contest into which they had chosen to enter.

One of the most notable of this band was the famous Kinmont Willie, renowned in Border song and story. He was an Armstrong, a descendant of the laird of Gilnockie, whom James VI. put to death at Carlinrig in such graceless fashion. He, like all his race, was a notorious freebooter. The English Border, more especially the West and Middle Marches, suffered much at his hands. He had a large and well armed following, and conducted his marauding expeditions with an intrepidity and skill which created a feeling of dismay among the subjects of his oppression. Nor did it matter much to him where, or on whom, he raided. The King’s treachery at Carlinrig had destroyed – at least so far as the Armstrongs and their friends were concerned – the last lingering spark of patriotism. Their hand was now turned against every man, English and Scottish alike. They had become pariahs, outcasts, whose only ambition was revenge. But bad as Kinmont was, and his record is of the worst, it might be said of him, as it was said of one of the greatest and best men Scotland has ever produced, that “he never feared the face of man.” He was always to the front, dealing out hard blows; courting danger, but never dreaming of defeat. He cared as little for the warden as for the meanest and most defenceless subject of the realm. Scrope tells us, for example, that on one occasion “certain goods were stolen by Scottish men from one of the Johnstones, a kinsman of the laird Johnstone being warden, whereupon the fray arose, and the warden himself, with his company and friends, pursued the same. But Kinmont and his complices being in the way to resist them, the warden and his company returned again to Annand, the which he taketh in very yll parts.”92

It was no doubt a sore point with the warden that he should be thus interfered with in this masterful fashion, and one can readily sympathise with him in his chagrin. Such an incident shows that Kinmont and his friends were in a position to set the constituted authorities at defiance, and conduct their reiving “without let or hindrance.” The warden, however, was not altogether free from blame for this state of matters. He seems to have given the thieves every encouragement as long as they confined their depredations to the English Border. Scrope, in a letter to Walsingham, informs him that “as well in the tyme of my being with you, as also synce my return home, manye and almost nightlie attemptates have been committed in Bewcastle and elsewhere within this wardenrie, as well by the Liddesdales as also by the West Wardenrie of Scotland, specially Kinmont, his sonnes and complices; who … are nevertheless at their pleasure conversaunte and in company with the warden, and no part reprehended for their doynges.” Hunsdon, another English warden, even goes the length of suggesting that the King himself (James VI.) privately encouraged Kinmont in his evil doing. He says that four hundred horse came to “Hawden brigges,” and took up the town and burned divers houses, whereat the King was very angry, “because it was done there – for he would have had it to be done in some part of my wardenry. Since the taking up of Hawden brigg, Will of Kinmont, who was the principal man who was at it, hath been with the King in his cabinet above an hour, and at his departure the King gave him 100 crowns, as littell as he hath. What justis wee are to looke for att the King’s hands lett her Majestie judge!”93

Thus encouraged by the warden and the King, it is not to be wondered at that Kinmont should have thrown himself with great enthusiasm into the work of harassing and plundering all who came within his power.

But his name might have remained in comparative obscurity, notwithstanding his depredations, had it not been for an extraordinary incident which occurred, and for which he was in no way directly responsible.

The dramatist has said that some men are born great, and that others have greatness thrust upon them. We are not prepared to say that only the latter part of the statement applies to the subject of our sketch, for, despite his evil-doing, Kinmont was a man of much natural ability – ability amounting almost to genius. But that he had “greatness thrust upon him” will be readily conceded. His name will always remain associated with one of the most thrilling incidents in Border history. The circumstance which made him famous was this. He had been present at Dayholm, near Kershopefoot, on the occasion of a day of truce, in the month of March, in the year 1596. The business which called them together having been finished, he was returning home, accompanied by a few of his friends, along the banks of the Liddle, when he was suddenly attacked by a body of two hundred English Borderers, led by Salkeld, the deputy of Lord Scrope, the warden of the East March, chased for some miles, captured, tied to the body of his horse and thus carried in triumph to Carlisle castle.

This proceeding was clearly in direct violation of Border law, which guaranteed freedom from molestation to all who might be present at a warden court, or day of truce, betwixt sunrise on the one day and sunrise on the next. We can easily understand the overmastering desire of the warden’s deputy to lay Kinmont “by the heels,” as he had long been notorious for his depredations on the English Border, but it is incumbent on the representatives of the law that they should honour it in their own persons, and, however many crimes might be laid to the charge of the famous freebooter, he was justly entitled to enjoy the freedom, which a wise legal provision had secured, even to the greatest offenders. The excuse given by Scrope for this manifest breach of Border law is an exceedingly lame one. He says: – “How Kinmont was taken will appear by the attestations of his takers, which, if true, ‘it is held that Kinmont did thereby break the assurance that daye taken, and for his offences ought to be delivered to the officer against whom he offended, to be punished according to discretion.’ Another reason for detaining him is his notorious enmity to this office, and the many outrages lately done by his followers. He appertains not to Buccleuch, but dwells out of his office, and was also taken beyond the limits of his charge, so Buccleuch makes the matter a mere pretext to defer justice, ‘and do further indignities.’”94

That Kinmont had broken the assurance taken at the warden court is an assertion in support of which neither has “takers,” nor Scrope give a scintilla of proof. Had such a thing really happened, there surely would have been no difficulty in establishing the fact; but this is not done, or even attempted to be done, by those whose interest it was to prove the accusation up to the hilt. The other reasons adduced for this unwarrantable proceeding will not bear serious consideration. That Kinmont bore no goodwill to Scrope or those associated with him in his office, may be taken for granted; and that he and his friends and associates had been guilty of many outrages on the English Border, goes without saying. But a slight examination of the excuses will be sufficient to show that they are mere subterfuges. The point in dispute is carefully left out of view by the English warden. No doubt Kinmont richly deserved to suffer the utmost penalty of the law on the ground of his misdemeanours; but he had been present at the warden court, where he would never have gone had he not felt sure that he was amply protected from arrest by the law to which we have referred. It may be said that nearly every man present on that occasion, irrespective of nationality, might have been apprehended on the same general grounds. To use an expressive Scottish phrase – “they were all tarred with the same stick.” It was therefore a direct violation, not only of the spirit, but of the letter of Border law, for Salkeld to take Kinmont prisoner. Scrope was clearly in the wrong – a fact of which he himself seems dimly conscious – as he displayed an amount of temper and irritability in dealing with the case which seemed to indicate that he felt the weakness of his position. On the other hand, the “rank reiver,” who had been thus suddenly and unceremoniously “clapped in jail,” accepted the situation with a singular amount of philosophical indifference. He felt sure that the deed would not go unavenged, that his friends, and he had many of them, would leave no stone unturned in order to effect his release. The balladist finely represents him as saying —

An account of what had happened was speedily conveyed to Branxholme, where the Bold Buccleuch was residing. When he heard what had occurred he was highly indignant. The picture drawn by the balladist is graphic in the extreme. For intense realism it has rarely ever been surpassed —