Border Raids and Reivers

by Robert Borland

THE DEADLY FEUD.

“At the sacred font, the priest Through ages left the master hand unblest To urge with keener aim the blood incrusted spear.”

Leyden.

he difficulties with which the Borderers had to contend were of a varied character. They had to be constantly on the watch against the aggressions and incursions of their enemies on the opposite Marches. But it frequently happened that their most dangerous and inveterate foes were to be found amongst their own countrymen. This was the case more especially when blood-feuds arose, setting family against family, and clan against clan. An interesting, if not very luminous, account of the origin of the “Feud” is given by Burghley in a report submitted by him to the English government, in which he deals with what he calls the “Decays of the Borders.” He says:—“Deadly Foed, the word of enmytie on the Borders, implacable without the blood and whole family destroyed, whose etymologie I know not where better to fetch than from Spiegelius in his Lexicon Juris, in Verbo ‘feydum:’ he saith it is an old Teutch word whereof is derived by Hermanus Nivoranus (?) faydosum Hostis publicus; ‘foed’ enim, Bellum significat.” He further points out that the Scottish wardens, being native Borderers, are “extraordinarilye adicted to parcialities, favour of their blood, tenantes and followers,” and consequently he holds they should be disqualified for office.[49]

The evils resulting from these deadly-feuds would have been comparatively trifling had it been possible to limit the consequences to the persons more immediately concerned. Owing, however, to the system of clanship which prevailed on the Borders, the whole sept became involved in the feud. “If one of the clan,” says Sir Walter Scott, “chanced either to slay a man, or commit any similar aggression, the chief was expected to defend him by all means, legal or illegal. The most obvious and pacific was to pay such fine or amende, or assythement, as it was called, as might pacify the surviving relations, or make up the feud. This practice of receiving an atonement for slaughter seems also to have been part of the ancient Celtic usages; for it occurs in the Welch laws of Howell Dha, and was the very foundation of the Irish Brehon customs. The vestiges of it may be found in the common law of Scotland to this day. But poor as we have described the Border chief, and fierce as he certainly was by education and office, it was not often that he was either able or disposed to settle the quarrels of his clansmen in a manner so amicable and expensive. War was then resorted to; and it was the duty of the chief and clan who had sustained the injury to seek revenge by every means in their power, not only against the party who had given the offence, but, in the phrase of the time and country, against all his name, kindred, maintainers, and upholders. On the other hand, the chief and clan to whom the individual belonged who had done the offence, were equally bound in honour, by every means in their power, to protect their clansman, and to retaliate whatever injury the opposite party might inflict in their thirst of vengeance. When two clans were involved in this species of private warfare, which was usually carried on with the most ferocious animosity on both sides, they were said to be at deadly feud, and the custom is justly termed by the Scottish parliament most heathenish and barbarous.... In these deadly feuds, the chiefs of clans made war, or truce, or final peace with each other, with as much formality, and as little sincerity, as actual monarchs.”[50]

Feuds of the most bitter and hostile character were an every-day occurrence. The Herons, Fenwicks, Shafftownes, Charletons, and Milbornes, on the English side of the Border, were all at feud at the same time. And on the Scottish side the Elwoods (Elliots), Armstrongs, Nixons, Crosiers, Trumbles, and Olivers were, during the same period, at “daggers drawn,” and thirsting for each other’s blood. The misery which such feuds created can hardly be over-estimated. The sense of personal security was completely destroyed. Mutual trust, the primary condition of social life, was rendered practically impossible. And, as might be expected, the most trivial circumstances often gave rise to the most implacable hostility. A singular instance of this is referred to by John Cary in one of his communications to Burghley. He says:—“Your honour remembers hearing long since of the great road by the Scotts ‘as Will Haskottes and his fellowes’ made in Tynedale and Redesdale, taking up the whole country and nearly beggaring them for ever. On complaint to the Queen and Council, there was some redress made with much ado and many meetings. Buccleuch and the Scotts made some ‘bragges and crackes’ as that the country durst not take its own; but the Charletons being the ‘sufficientest and ablest’ men on the borders, not only took their own goods again, but encouraged their neighbours to do the like and not be afraid—‘which hath ever since stuck in Buccleuch’s stomack.’... Mary! he makes another quarrell, that long since in a war tyme, the Tynedale men should goe into his countrey, and there they took his grandfather and killed divers of his countrye, and that they took away his grandfather’s shworde, and never let him have it yet synce. This sayeth he is the quarrell.”[51]

Nor did lapse of time tend to soften the animosities. The feud was inherited along with the rest of the family property. It was handed down from generation to generation. The son and grandson maintained it with a bitterness which, in some cases, seemed year by year to grow more intense. It affected more or less a man’s whole social relationships, and gave rise to endless animosities and heart-burnings. Feuds were not unknown in other districts of the country, but owing to the feeble and ineffective manner in which the law was generally administered, they prevailed to a greater extent on the Borders,—and were characterised by a more vengeful spirit,—than in any other part of the kingdom.

Hence it was found that the existence of such feuds made the administration of the law, such as it was, a matter of supreme difficulty. It is said that it was hardly possible for any gentleman of the country to be of a jury of life and death if any of those at feud were indicted, “as they were grown so to seek blood that they would make a quarrel about the death of their grandfather, and kill any of the name.” It was, therefore, found necessary to appoint special nobles and barons belonging to some distant part of the country, to sit in judgment in those cases in which the accused was at feud with the warden. On two occasions when courts were being held at Jedburgh, it was found expedient to issue proclamations in the King’s name,—“That na maner of persons tak upon hand to invaid ane an uther for ald feid or new, now cumand to this present air or passand tharfra, and induring the tyme thairof under the pane of dede; and that na maner of persone or persons beir wapins except kniffis at their beltis, bot alanerlie our soverane lordis household, the justice, constable, merschell, compositouris, thair men and houshald, schireff, crounaris and thair deputis, under the pane of escheting of the wapins and punishing of the persons beraris therof.”[52] Owing to the disturbed condition of the country, such precautions were much needed, although it must be admitted that they did not always secure the end desired.

Many of the Border feuds present features of great interest alike to the sociologist and the historian. They afford interesting glimpses of the condition of society in this part of the realm, and disclose the dominant passions by which the lives and characters of those more immediately concerned were shaped and determined. Throughout the greater part of the 16th century a fierce feud raged between two of the most noted and powerful Border families—the Scotts and the Kers. The circumstances which gave rise to this deadly feud form an interesting chapter in the history of the Borders.

During the minority of James V. the Earl of Angus controlled the government of the country, and in his own interests, and for the furtherance of his own ends, kept a watchful eye on the movements of the young King. In the year 1525, James, accompanied by Angus, and other members of the court, came south to Jedburgh, “and held justice aires quhair manie plaintes cam to him of reiff, slauchter and oppression, bot little justice was used bot the purse, for thir was manie in that countrie war the Earl of Angus’ kin and friendis, that got favourable justice, quhairof the king was not content, nor non of the rest of the lordis that war about him, for they wold have justice equally used to all men; bot the Earl of Angus and the rest of the Douglass’ rulled yitt still as they pleased, and no man durst find fault with their proceidingis; quhairat the king was heartilie displeased, and would fain have been out of their handis, and for that effect he writt are secreitt letter to the laird of Buccleugh, desiring him effectuouslie that he wold come with all his forces, kin and freindis, and all that he might ax, and meit him at Melrose, at his home coming, and thair to tak him out of the Douglas’ handis, and put him at libertie, to use himself among the rest of the lordis as he thought expedient.”[53] Buccleuch at once convened his “kin and freindis,” and all who were prepared to take part with him, to the number of six hundred spears, and set out for Melrose to await the coming of the King. Home, Cessford, and Fernieherst, who were of the King’s company, had returned home. Buccleuch and his followers made their appearance, arranged in order of battle, on Halidon Hill, overlooking the Tweed, near Melrose bridge. When Angus saw them he wondered what the hostile array portended. But when he discovered that Buccleuch was supported only by numbers of Annandale thieves, he took heart of grace, and said to the King—“Sir, yonder is the laird of Buccleuch, and the thieves of Annerdaill with him, to unbesett your grace in the way, bot I avow to God, Sir, they sall aither fight or flie. Thairfor, Sir, ye sall tarrie here, and my brither George with yow, and any other quhom yeu pleas, and I sall pas and put yon thieves aff the ground, and red the gaitt to your grace, or else die thairfor.”[54]