There is another tradition which it may be as well to notice in passing. It is said that, after hanging Cockburn, the King proceeded to Tushielaw to deal in like manner with Adam Scott, well known on the Borders as “The King of Thieves.” His castle stood on the spur of a hill opposite the Rankleburn, on the west side of the river Ettrick, commanding a wide out-look in almost every direction. Near it was the famous “Hanging Tree,” which was accidentally destroyed by fire only a few years ago, where the unlucky captives of this noted outlaw were unceremoniously suspended in order to prevent their giving further annoyance. It is said that, on one of the branches, a deep groove was worn by the swaying to and fro of the fatal rope. It would have been most fitting had this cruel marauder been put to death where so many of his victims ended their career. But in this instance the tradition, that this actually happened, has been proved to be without any foundation in fact. We find in “Pitcairn” an account of Adam Scott’s trial and execution in Edinburgh. On the 18th May, 1529—just two days after Cockburn had “justified the law”—“Adam Scott of Tuschilaw was Convicted of art and part of theftuously taking Black-maill, from the time of his entry within the Castle of Edinburgh, in Ward, from John Brown, Hoprow: And of art and part of theftuously taking Black-maill from Andrew Thorbrand and William, his brother: And of art and part of theftuously taking of Black-maill from the poor Tenants of Hopcailzow: And of art and part of theftuously taking Blackmaill, from the poor Tenants of Eschescheill.” Then follows the significant word—“Beheaded.”[79]
The King, therefore, when he passed the castle of Tushielaw with his retinue, on his way to Teviotdale to meet Johnie Armstrong, must have had the satisfaction of knowing that Adam Scott had gone “where the wicked cease from troubling.”
He had sent a loving letter, written with “his ain hand sae tenderly,” to the laird of Gilnockie, requesting him to meet his “liege lord” at a place called Carlenrig on the Teviot, some nine miles above Hawick. Various accounts have been given by historians, both ancient and modern, as to the means adopted by the King to bring about Armstrong’s capture and execution. Leslie, for example, informs us that “all this summer the King took great care to pacify the Borders with a great army, and caused forty-eight of the most noble thieves, with Johnie Armstrong, their captain, to be taken and hanged on growing trees.” He says that “George Armstrong, brother of the said Johnie, was pardoned and reserved alive, to tell on the rest, which he did, and in course of time they were apprehended by the King, and punished according to their deserts.”[80] Pinkerton, who evidently bases his account largely on the information supplied by Leslie, enters more fully into particulars. He alleges that “by the assistance of George, his brother, who was pardoned on condition of betraying the others, John Armstrong, the chief of the name, whose robberies had elevated him to opulence and power, was captured and suffered the fate of a felon.”[81] These statements, definite though they are, ought not to be lightly accepted, as the strongest reasons may be advanced against this supposition. In the first place, we ought to remember that, however many sins and shortcomings the Border reivers may be accused of, breach of faith can hardly be reckoned one of them. “Hector’s Cloak” was a phrase of peculiar opprobrium. It was regarded as the symbol of meanness and perfidy. That this one instance of betrayal should have been so long remembered, and so thoroughly detested, is an unmistakable indication that the Border thieves, bad as they were in many respects, were not without a high sense of honour in matters of this kind. It is hardly conceivable, therefore, that Armstrong’s brother could have been guilty of his betrayal. Strong proof would require to be forthcoming in support of such a statement; and this is precisely what the historians do not give us.
But there are other and more cogent arguments against this view. George Armstrong was under no necessity of betraying his brother in order to save himself. He could easily have escaped had he been minded to do so. The King’s authority did not extend beyond the Scottish Border. It is morally certain, had Armstrong and his friends ever suspected that James would have treated them as he did, they would either have taken refuge in their own strongholds and defied him, or crossed the Border into England, where they would have been comparatively safe from pursuit. That they did neither, but voluntarily came before the King, is strong evidence in favour of the supposition that they were enticed by fair promises to place themselves within his power. The very fact that Armstrong neither sought nor obtained a safe conduct goes to prove that he had the most implicit confidence in the clemency, if not the goodwill, of his sovereign. There was no betrayal on the part of anyone, save the King himself. This is clearly brought to view in the peculiarly graphic and fascinating account which “Pitscottie” has given of this memorable incident. He says:—“Efter this hunting the King hanged Johnie Armstrong, laird of Gilnockie, quhilk monie Scottis man heavilie lamented, for he was ane doubtit man, and als guid are chiftane as ever was upon the borderis, aither of Scotland or of England. And albeit he was ane lous leivand man, and sustained the number of xxiiij. weill horsed able gentlemen with him, yitt he nevir molested no Scottis man. Bot it is said, from the Scottis border to Newcastle of England, thair was not ane of quhatsoevir estate bot payed to this John Armstrong ane tribut to be frie of his cumber, he was sae doubtit in England. So when he entred in befoir the King, he cam verie reverentlie, with his foresaid number verie richlie apparrelled, trusting, that in respect he had cum to the Kingis grace willinglie and voluntarilie, not being tain nor apprehendit be the King, he sould obtaine the mair favour. Bot when the King saw him and his men so gorgeous in their apparrell, and so many braw men under ane tirrantis commandement, throwardlie, he turned about his face, and bad tak that tirrant out of his sight, saying, ‘Quhat wantis yon knave that a King should have.’ But when Johnie Armstronge perceaved that the King kindled in ane furie againes him, and had no hope of his lyff, notwithstanding of many great and fair offeris, quhilk he offerred to the King, that is, that he sould sustene himself with fourtie gentlemen, ever readie to awaitt upon his majestie’s service, and never tak a pennie of Scotland, nor Scottis man. Secondlie, that there was not ane subject in England, duik, earle, lorde, or barrun, bot within ane certane day he sould bring ony of them to his majesty, either quick or dead. He seing no hope of the Kingis favour towards him, said verrie proudlie, ‘I am bot ane fooll to seik grace at ane graceles face. But had I knawin, sir, that ye wad have taken my lyff this day, I sould have leved upon the borderis in disphyte of King Harie and yow baith; for I knaw King Harie wold doun weigh my best hors with gold to knaw that I were condemned to die this day.’ So he was led to the scaffold, and he and his men hanged. This being done, the King returned to Edinburgh, the xxiiij. day of July, and remained meikle of that winter in Edinburgh.”[82]
This interesting and picturesque account is corroborated by another historian, who says: “On the eighth of June the principalls of all the surnames of the clannes on the Borders came to the King upon hope of a proclamation proclaimed in the King’s name that they sould all get their lyves, if they would come in and submit themselves to the King’s will, and so upon this hope Johnie Armstrang, who keipit the castle of Langhame (a brother of the laird of Mangerton’s, a great thieff and oppressor, and one that keiped still with him four-and-twenty well-horsed men), came to the King, and another called Ill Will Armstrong, another stark thieff, with sundrie of the Scotts and Elliotts, came all forward to the campe where the King was in hopes to get their pardons. But no sooner did the King persave them, an that they were cum afarre off, when direction was given presentlie to enclose them round about, the which was done accordinglie, and were all apprehendit, to the number of threttie fyve persons, and at a place called Carlaverocke[83] Cheapell, were all committed to the gallowes. One Sandy Scot, a prowd thieff, was brunt because it was provin that he haid brunt a pure widowes house, together with sum of her children. The English people were exceeding glade when they understood that John Armstrang was executed, for he did great robberies and stealing in England, menteaning 24 men in houshold evorie day upon rieff and oppression. The rest delyvered pledges for their good demeanare in tymes to cum.”[84]
There can be little doubt that Armstrong was cruelly betrayed, not by his brother, but by the King—a circumstance which seriously reflects on his honour and good name.
The suggestion has been made that this expedition against the laird of Gilnockie was undertaken by James at the instigation of Lord Maxwell, who was then a ward in Edinburgh. It is certainly a somewhat suspicious circumstance that three days after Armstrong’s execution Maxwell received from the King the gift of all the property, moveable and immoveable, which pertained to “umquhill Johne Armstrang, bruther to Thomas Armstrang of Mayngerton, and now perteining to our souverane lord be reason of eschete throw justefying of the said umquhill Johnie to the deid for thift committed be him.”[85]
As might be expected, when all the circumstances were taken into consideration, the execution of Armstrong and his followers produced a profound sensation, and a deep and bitter feeling of resentment. It was long believed by the peasantry of the district that, to mark the injustice of the deed, the trees on which they were hanged, withered away. On purely abstract grounds it may be argued that Armstrong and his men richly deserved the punishment meted out to them, but this fact does not exonerate the King from the charge of treachery and deceit which has justly been brought against him. The measures he adopted to capture the quarry were unworthy of a puissant monarch with eight thousand well armed men under his command. He might well have paid more respect to the principles of honour and fair play.
It is interesting to find that the version of Armstrong’s capture and execution given in the famous ballad agrees substantially with the accounts of Pitscottie and Anderson. There, we are told, that the King sent a “loving letter” to Armstrong, inviting him to a conference.
The King he wrytes a luving letter,
With his ain hand sae tenderly,
And he hath sent it to Johnie Armstrang,
To cum and speik with him speedily.