In the year 1296, Edward I of England launched a series of vicious raids across the Anglo-Scottish Border in his attempt to annexe Scotland. The Scots retaliated and the two countries were plunged into 300 years of war in which the Borderland became the frontline and raiding, or ‘reiving,’ encouraged by both sides, became a way of life. Keith Durham examines the Border fortresses, ranging from small, well-defended castles to imposing tower houses, or ‘peles,’ and a variety of fortified farmhouses known as ‘bastles.’ He also investigates the many churches that were strengthened against attack and in times of trouble served as sanctuaries for their congregations. Packed with full-colour photographs and detailed cut-away artwork, this is an ideal historical commentary for any tourist visiting the sites that are dotted across the whole of the Border region.

This is a superb addition to the Osprey series of publications, and manages to pack a quart into the pint pint of its slim volume. It gives a succinct but comprehensive account of Border fortifications from castles to bastles, via churches, peles and tower houses. It also manages to place these in the context of the wild and lawless Border society and the ongoing conflict between England and Scotland. The captions are excellent and informative with superb photos and drawings. As someone who knows most of the places mentioned I can vouch for its accuracy, and it is sure to whet the appetite of anyone with an interest in order history or fortifications. A highly recommended and beautiful book.

Robert Carey, 1st Earl of Monmouth (c. 1560 – 12 April 1639) was an English nobleman and courtier.

In assessing the extent of the powers of Sir Robert Carey and his effectiveness as Warden of the Middle March, this work has taken a number of factors into account. The Introduction has focussed on looking at the history of the Border to give an idea of the general problems Carey faced, and why and how they came about. Carey as a person was the focus of Chapter 1, in order to assess his own character and ability to carry out the duty of Warden. The next Chapter examined the Border Laws to provide a general understanding of the powers a Warden had, and as an indication of the problems within the Marches. The laws produced by the Commission of 1597 were also looked at in an attempt to again show the powers of the Warden, and to give an idea of the problems that were prevalent only a year before Carey took office. The final Chapter looked at Carey’s time as Middle March Warden and gave examples to show both Carey’s Wardenship, and how the laws and people effected it. Now all these factors will be examined together in summing up the power of Carey as Middle March Warden, and the effectiveness of his rule.

Carey himself was a very capable Warden, not only did the assessment of his character show this, but also his actions. Carey seems to have been of strong character who both knew his job and how to go about it. On entering the March Carey quickly realised that the reivers would only be contained by a firm hand, where hanging and strict rule were the only measures they would respond to. This is not because Carey enjoyed capturing outlaws in order to execute them, merely that he recognised the only thing that would work was for the reivers to see justice done.

Carey’s character did sometimes cause trouble for himself, an example of which can be found after the Tarras Moss incident of 1601. In acquiring the bonds from the Liddesdale men Carey obviously felt quite impressed with himself,¹ and thought he deserved recognition. On writing to Cecil on July 8th about the gentlemen that had accompanied him to the ‘wastes’, Carey states that ‘They deserve thanks, unless greater affairs cause this place not to be thought of? Pardon me if I offend, but I think myself too slightly regarded.’² Unfortunately for Carey, thanks had been sent, only it had been delayed in the post, and his mumbled apology can almost be heard as he wrote to Cecil complaining of the ‘slackness of the posts’, and that he hoped his honour would ‘forgive and forget’.³ Carey’s letter about being ‘too slightly regarded’ could be taken to be somewhat arrogant, and to an extent it was a reflection on Carey’s, possibly deserved, opinion of himself. It is also a sad reflection of the way the Wardens and the Border were looked at, where relations with the opposite kingdom were almost more important than the actions of the Wardens. Carey’s arrogance, if that is what it was, could also be seen as another good characteristic for the Border, as if anything, the most notorious of the reivers such as Sir Robert Kerr, were often arrogant in the extreme.

The extent of the powers Carey ruled by were fairly comprehensive for dealing with the reivers of the Border, and if they were in place within the centre of a united country they would probably have been entirely successful. No-where in England or Scotland was there a government appointed post with such powers as the Wardens of the Marches had. When looking at them the Wardens were basically running large stretches of land, all under their control, with central government watching from afar. As shown in Chapter 2 the Border Laws were a comprehensive set of rules, which when instigated, could keep the country in a state of Marshal Law. The laws which gave the Warden his powers were not without their problems, especially when, as in the case of the Border Council, they are never implemented. This is curious as the Border Council must have been put forward due to the apparent failure of the Days of Truce, and there is no mention of why they never appeared.

Carey had the power to meet with the opposite Wardens once a month in the Day of Truce, to administer justice. Here Carey could present all the Bills against the opposite Warden to be filed, and he in return received the complaints against his March. On receipt of the opposites Bills, Carey was then responsible to get the defendant to turn up to the next Day of Truce. The defendants charge would then be heard in one of four ways⁴ whereby justice was done.

Carey also had the power to follow a reiver on the Hot Trod, whereby if he caught up with the thieves he could probably save everybody some time and kill the culprit red-handed. As a Warden Carey also had the blanket-offence known as March Treason, which could be used against a particular reiver who had caused more trouble than his worth. Unfortunately life was never this easy for Carey, nor for any other Warden, and if he tried to set up a Day of Truce, the opposite would be found using stalling tactics. When Bills were presented the defendant often didn’t feel it worth while turning up, possibly due to the fact that he didn’t feel like paying back what he quite skilfully stole. Justice was never easily carried out, and finding avowers or 12 jury members to sit in an assise was often a challenge. Even following in a Hot Trod was never a simple matter, with the reivers setting ambushes, or turning to fight, it was a very risky adventure. Been able to hang people by March Treason was all well and good, but was of little use if the reivers were holed up within the Debatable Land or Liddesdale.

Sir Robert Carey did have extensive powers as Warden of the Middle March, but having such powers and been able to put them into effect are two entirely different matters. As the Border Commission of 1597 showed, it had been recognised that the Wardens of some Marches, for example that of the Scottish Middle March under Sir Robert Kerr, were not always forthcoming in their quest for justice. This was the reason for the clauses concerning the restrictions on the Wardens themselves, where it had been recognised that pledges were needed from each of the surnames if the Wardens were to get any of the Bills filed and delivered. In all, the powers of Sir Robert Carey were enough, but the cross Border co-operation that they relied so heavily on was rarely seen, especially within the first few years of Carey’s Wardenship.

The problem with assessing the effectiveness of anything is how to measure it, and when considering Carey’s rule as Warden, it must be looked at within the context it was set. When Carey first entered it was only one year since the last Commission had met, and attempts were underway to carry out its findings. All of the Marches of England and Scotland were in a bad state of repair, with the reivers wreaking havoc throughout the Borders. It was within these conditions of blood feud, constant raiding, and a certain lack of effort on some officials part, that Carey’s effectiveness should be measured.

Given these conditions it would have to be concluded that Sir Robert Carey was an effective Warden when his rule is examined in its context. As mentioned in Chapter 2 the official duties of the Wardens of the Marches were to guard the frontier against Scottish inroads; to meet with their opposite Warden to administer justice for the area, in their endeavour to suppress crime; pursue fugitives; muster the March for defence; and generally to keep good rule throughout the March.

Carey certainly carried out his duty to guard against Scottish inroads and to muster the March for defence,⁵ especially when the Tarras Moss incident is considered, when he guards the English frontier against Scotland by meeting the Scottish reivers on their own grounds. This event really did show Carey’s ability to the full, whereby he used his experience at directing a small force to hit at the heart of the enemy. Carey also tried to guard the frontier earlier in 1598, which has been covered in Chapter 2, in the form of the Redesdale hunting incident. This incident showed the intervention of politics within a Border affair, which was one of the main restraints on the power of the Warden. It is difficult to say how well Carey managed this as no-one is entirely certain how it occurred, though it did show that Carey had been making some progress within his March, as he began protesting for the return of his Deputies after some 20 raids.

Carey also appears to have attempted to meet the opposite Wardens to administer justice, but again this was not always possible, which was not something within Carey’s powers to change. It is though interesting to note the change within the frequency of the Border meetings on the approach of the ever increasing likely-hood of James VI’s succession. Carey does then appear to have generally kept good rule within the context of the conditions he faced. The extent of the powers that Carey held would appear to have been sufficient to allow him to rule the Middle March of England effectively, though, while writing his Memoirs as the Earl of Monmouth,⁶ he would likely have recalled how much easier his rule would have been without characters such as Sir Robert Kerr⁷ and the Armstrongs of Liddesdale.

1. It should be noted that by March 17th 1602 the Liddesdale men were in bond to the West and Middle Marches, but were now found to be active within the East March.
2. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p764.
3. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p764.
4. See Chapter 2.
5. Sir Robert Carey would seem to have favoured an aggressive defence.
6. Sir Robert Carey became the Earl of Monmouth on February 7th 1626.
7. Sir Robert Kerr became the Earl of Roxburgh, showing that his help in clearing the Borders once he realised the tides were soon to turn, paid off.

The official duties and responsibilities of the Wardens of the March were to guard the frontier against Scottish inroads; to meet with their opposite Warden to administer justice for the area; pursue fugitives; muster the March for defence; and generally to keep good rule throughout the March. To perform duties the International Border Laws were devised throughout some 300 years to deal with the particular problem of the Anglo-Scottish Borders. These laws were introduced to deal effectively with situations involving two jurisdictions and two codes of law, where ordinary laws were too slow and cumbersome to be effective. They were introduced as a rapid, and hopefully, effective form of justice, and became known as The Border Laws.

At the centre of the Border Laws was the Day of Truce, a meeting between the opposite Wardens for the administration of cross Border justice. According to law these meetings would be held once every month,³ though in reality this was not the case. The Border Commission of 1563 was restating the need to carry out the Truce Days,⁴ so obviously the Wardens had been lax in their duty. It was not hard, however, for a Warden to feign illness, or to be on some other errand, if he had no wish to turn up to a meeting. Sir John Forster was accused by Lord Eure in a letter to Burghley on the 31st January 1596 of not holding a Day of Truce since last August.48 It was also the rule that the meetings should be held within a Border town with not more than 100 men in attendance. This, however, was not always the case, for example when Carey wrote to Cecil on January 31st in relation to a trial of his two Wardens,⁵ he was asking for the 200 foot from Berwick to be sent to the Day of Truce, as he expected the Scots to cause some trouble if the outcome was not to their liking.

There was still confusion about Border meetings and on October 10th 1598 Sir W. Bowes wrote a letter to Cecil referring to the ‘old controversy as to Border meetings’.⁶ Days of Truce, according to the letter, comprised a number of stages, taking assurance; that assurance is usually taken by the English going into Scotland, and immediately after, by the Scots of the English; and meeting in some church or town for business. The Wardens’ meetings were usually to be found within the Scottish Borders, though there is no one reason given as to why this was so. There are some speculations, ranging from a past Day of Truce in England where the English attacked, and in response the Scots refused to enter England on assurance again, to an assertion that when a war ended it was the Scots who must first demand peace, and the English who must first demand assurance. Whatever the reason, in practice, the Day of Truce was often held wherever was most convenient for the Wardens.⁷

The taking of assurance basically meant that from sunrise of the day of the meeting, till sunrise of the next day, every person attending the meeting was considered to have safe conduct. The Warden would be expected to ensure not only the appearance of the inhabitants of the opposite March that he had in custody, but also all those of his own march against whom complaints had been made. Complaints took the form of Bills written up by the Warden and presented at a Day of Truce, and it was these Bills that provided the main focus for the day. They would often include accusations of murder, kidnapping, wounding, robbery, arson, or ‘recetting’.⁸ Due to the number of Bills that the Wardens had to deal with, not all of them may be covered in a day, and it was sometimes the case that another day was needed. Often, Bills which were equal to each other, and presented by people from opposite Marches, might be struck off, cancelling each other out. If someone was found innocent the Warden would write ‘clear’ in the margin of the Bill, and if guilty, ‘foul’, and if the defendant didn’t turn up ‘foul conditionally’.

The verdict could be reached in a number of different ways. Firstly by avower, whereby someone of sufficient standing and acceptable to both sides, could be found to swear to the persons innocence or guilt. The second method was by compurgation, which is a communal oath sworn by 3 uninvolved persons. Finding innocent, uninvolved people living on the Borders, would have presented a challenge. The third made the conviction reliant on the Warden, who would ‘speer fyle and deliver’⁹ upon his honour, if he was certain the person was innocent or guilty. If the Warden didn’t come up with the evidence to support his decision within 15 days, he would be accountable for compensation owed to the complainant for goods stolen. The fourth method was by assise, which involved the Warden of the Scottish March selecting six Englishmen whom he thought he could trust, to act as a jury, and vice-versa for the English Warden. This again held problems; neither Warden may have sufficiently trusted anyone from the other side; or, may select someone of their name or someone of the same name as the person under investigation. Even if an impartial jury was found, threats of violence or later reprisal attacks would not have been uncommon, and it is debatable how good an oath would be when their own goods, or even their lives may be at stake.

One laws of the Realm of England that seems to have found a home in the Borders was the ‘Acte for the followinge of Hue and Crye’.¹⁰ The Commission of 1563 still held the custom of following with ‘Hound and Horn, with Hue and Cry and all other accustomed manner of fresh pursuit’, W. Nicolson, (1747), p89.)) and was known as the Trod. There were two types of Trod; the Hot Trod, which would involve immediately following the reivers; or the cold Trod, which left a space of six days to follow. The reason for the six day limit is to try and stop revenge raids. The pursuer would carry a lighted turf on his lance point, as an indication of peaceful intentions, and would announce the trod to the first person they met across the Border, where you could ask for assistance.¹¹ There was no law which stated that assistance had to be given, but impeding a Trod was punishable by a fine and seven days imprisonment.¹² It was also during a Hot Trod that the captured reivers may be executed on the spot, as they were caught red-handed, a phrase which entered into the English language. This is not to say that a Trod would always be successful as the reivers may well turn and fight, or could place an ambush to allow them time to move the slower cattle and goods in their possessions out of reach.

Other March Law offences include kidnapping, truce breaking, attacking castles, impeding a Warden, and importing wool.¹³ Further laws, while not international, included on the English side a blanket-offence known as March Treason. It has never been discovered exactly what this covered, but it would seem to have been used when the defendant had shown himself to be a serious menace to the March. An example can be seen on September 14th 1596 when Carey arrested Geordie Bourne, after ambushing a number of reivers. Carey ‘called a jury the next morning’ and found Geordie Bourne ‘guilty of March-treason’.¹⁴ Bourne was one of the band under the protection of Sir Robert Kerr, the infamous Warden of the Scottish Middle March who was also a reiver of some renown. Although Carey later disguised himself as a commoner and gained a full confession from Bourne, which included seven murders,¹⁵ he had arrested and convicted him for nothing more than reiving. This would seem to support the theory that March Treason was used against the most notorious reivers, though it would not explain why it also covered such a seemingly innocuous offence as the marriage, or even befriending of a Scots person by an English person.¹⁶ This would seem to indicate that March Treason was attributed to offences which may in some way compromise the safety of the Borders, such as the large scale reiving of Geordie Bourne which was likely to foment instability, and intermarriage which would further weaken national loyalty.

The last Commission of the Borders met in 1597 ¹⁷after a proclamation by the Queen on August 20th 1596, which read:

‘The Queen being advertised of a similar proclamation by the King of Scots, commands all her subjects on the borders of England to keep peace towards Scotland; and signifies her intention of appointing commissioners to meet those of the King of Scots for redress of a multitude of bypast offences.’¹⁸

These Commissioners¹⁹ were responsible for revising the laws, and would take the role of the Warden court, by going through all complaints since the last commission. The number of complaints which must have built up during this time, even allowing for those the Wardens themselves managed to file, must have presented a demanding task. One thing which can be said of the Commissions is that they had exactly the same problems as the Wardens; in getting people to turn up, and in getting pledges from some of the more notorious reivers. The Commission of 1597 first met on January 14th and by February the 19th the greater part of the Bills had been filed for the Middle March and East March, with the remainder remitted to the Wardens. This was a remarkable achievement and was an advertisement for the rough and ready justice of the Borders. It must be remembered, however, that although the Bills had been filed, getting the pledges would be another matter.

Within the treaty produced by the Commission there were 36 clauses,((See Appendix B.)) which give an idea of the Laws of the Marches, and of the problems that the Commission faced. The Commission did not give the Warden unlimited power, and a great many of the clauses have one thing in common; they are placing time limits and imposing penalties on the Warden in order to force him to carry out justice. For example the Wardens are given a 15 day time limit to do justice against murderers having been required to do so by their opposite Warden.²⁰ If the Warden did not manage this he would face an immediate £10 fine, followed by a further £10 each month justice was delayed. This seems to recognise the fact that the Wardens may not always have wanted to deliver one of their own inhabitants, and as such would use stalling tactics. This points to the problem of Warden corruption where, for example in the case of Sir Robert Kerr and Geordie Bourne, the Warden may be protecting the accused.

Time limits, backed by oaths, were also introduced for Wardens to seek out offenders in 15 days after being asked to by the opposite Warden,(( Clause 4, the Commission of 1597.)) and to foul and clear upon their honour and carry out justice again within 15 days.²¹ The Commission then dealt with Days of Truce,²² stating that the Wardens should swear an oath to do justice regardless of the person who was being billed against.

Preparations were made to set up a Border Council in every March comprising the most notable and honourable borderers,²³ selected by their respective monarchs, and entreated to meet twice a year. The need for such a Council must surely question the effectiveness of the Day of Truce, which itself lay at the heart of Border Law. This Council also drew up a list of all notorious thieves, who upon conviction for any crime, could be put to death.²⁴ If the offender became fugitive this would be made known and his house demolished. This clause recognises that the past law failed in its attempts to convict the most notorious of the thieves, and it recognises the problem of reivers becoming fugitive.

The Wardens were also asked to draw up a list of all fugitives exiled for theft and robbery within their March. These lists would then be interchanged throughout the opposite Marches, and the fugitives home destroyed leaving them no where to return to. If this declaration wasn’t carried out the Warden would be held responsible for payment of Bills until the declaration was made. This again shows the penalties the Warden faced if he did not carry out his duty.

There are also a number of clauses concerned with pledges²⁵ the first of which states that two or more of every surname Billed, were to be entered as pledges.²⁶ The system of pledges recognised that filing a Bill was only half the problem, while actually getting the offender to turn up, or the goods or money owed, was another matter. The pledge system shows that the Wardens position may not always have been strong enough to guarantee offenders’ co-operation. This, especially when taken in connection with the setting up of the Border Council, would seem to show that the Wardens may have had the power to carry out justice, but the co-operation this power was based on, was lacking.

The Wardens were the target again in connection with the practice of the Warden Rode, where they or their Keeper should ride or direct any other to follow.²⁷ The Warden Rode was a legal attack against an opposite reiver, aimed at reclaiming stolen goods. It was, however, open to abuse where it could be used as nothing more than a legalised raid. This clause stated that a command from the respective monarch was needed, and that whoever accompanied the Rode would lose all redress owed to them.

Feuds were also dealt with by the laws, where those which were the result of a lawful execution, including red-hand, should be renounced.²⁸ If the Warden couldn’t get the offender to renounce a feud he would be sent to the opposite Warden till he did. This provision is evidence that feuds were affecting those who were trying to enforce the law, such as the Wardens or their Deputies.

The Commission of 1597 also stated that if a Warden faced two opposite Marches and one of them refused to do justice, the Warden should simply proceed to do justice with the other. It would then be down to the Monarch of the refusing Warden to order him to obey.²⁹ This is one of three clauses which seemed to be attempting to speed up the process of the law, as well as recognising past Wardens’ failures to meet for justice. The second clause states that actions of debt would not be subject to the Warden court, and if so, only if the accused was an inhabitant of the March.³⁰ The last of the laws concerned the instance when one person was subject to a number of complaints. He should only be filed for those Bills the Warden has ‘fouled’ or ‘cleared’ upon his honour.³¹ All three of these clauses were included to try and attempt to rid the backlog of Bills, and probably to allow the Wardens to concentrate on the more serious crimes.

The laws of the Commission of 1597 have brought up some interesting points, not the least of which is the fact that there are more laws than expected which addressed the problem of the Wardens not doing their job. This was to be remedied by setting fines and making them responsible for paying the Bills. This shows that the problems the Borders faced were not only due to the reivers, but also down to the lack of strong or law abiding Wardens, showing that Lord Eure and Sir John Forster were not alone in their poor Wardenship’s. The Commissions’ findings also show that the Days of Truce had not been effectively implemented by the Wardens. As this is central to Border Law it is hardly surprising that the Commission needed to be called. Border Law was based on co-operation and truthfulness between the two people of the two Marches, but this was obviously found to be lacking where the Wardens had to be told to co-operate, and the people had to swear oaths claiming a rightful Bill.

1. The Commission of 1597 was the last of the Commissions to be set up before the Union of the Crowns, and the 36 clauses printed in W. Nicolson, (1747), Leges Marchiarum, have been included as Appendix B. The Commissions were set up when the state of the border was deemed so bad that representatives from either side had to be selected to represent their government. The Commissions would attempt to sort out all past bills, and would draw up new, or revise past laws. The previous Commissions to meet in Carey’s lifetime were in 1561, 1563, 1586, 1588 and finally 1597.
2. Clause 14, the Commission of 1597.
3. W. Nicolson, (1747), Leges Marchiarum, p86.
4. W. Nicolson, (1747), p85.
5. This is in relation to the hunting fray at Redesdale and is discussed in Chapter 3.
6. Sir Robert Cecil (1563-1612), was Queen Elizabeth’s Secretary of State from 1596.
7. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p565.
8. ‘Recetting’ meant either harbouring criminals, or receiving stolen goods.
9. W. Nicolson, (1747), p105.
10. Statutes of the Realm, p720.
11. W. Nicolson, (1747), p93.
12. W. Nicolson, (1747), p93.
13. Wool was a valuable commodity and its inclusion within March Law was more to do with money and trade than any threat to the safety of the Border.
14. F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p36.
15. F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p37.
16. G.M. Fraser, (1986), p67.
17. In Nicolsons Leges Marchiarum (Border laws), the date given is 1596. The confusion seems to come from when the commission was first organised, 1596, and when it actually met, 1597.
18. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p177.
19. For a list of these Commissioners see Appendix B
20. Clause 9, the Commission of 1597.
21. Clause 5, the Commission of 1597.
22. Clause 3, the Commission of 1597.
23. Clause 2, the Commission of 1597.
24. Clause 7, the Commission of 1597.
25. Clauses 26-35, the Commission of 1597.
26. Clause 26, the Commission of 1597.
27. Clause 6, the Commission of 1597.
28. Clause 8, the Commission of 1597.
29. Clause 10, the Commission of 1597.
30. Clause 21, the Commission of 1597.
31. Clause 22, the Commission of 1597.

Reiving was to an extent, a seasonal occurrence, lasting from autumn to spring, of which the worst time was from Michalaelmas (September 29) to Martinmas (November 11). The ground was dry and the cattle and horses were strong enough for the drive, and by February oats were too expensive and the nights to short for significant raids.⁴ The reiver was not just an accomplished thief, but also an excellent light horseman and would be armed with plate armour, mail, or more common to the Borders a “jak of plaite”. This was usually sleeveless and constructed of quilted cloth, twill or linen and had small overlapping iron plates stitched inside. Their heads were protected by a range of steel helmets and they would be armed with a sword, a lance (8 – 12 foot long), various knives, bows and crossbows,⁵ most of which can be seen in illustration 2.

Particular conditions had created this way of life, one of which was the history of Border turbulence between England and Scotland. Disputes and outbreaks of violence had been a feature ever since the Border between the two Kingdoms had existed, even in the Roman era when the Border was marked, for a time, by Hadrian’s Wall (built in AD122-126/8) violence existed between the Britons and Picts.

The problem that was to lead to the Border reivers can roughly be dated back to Edward I’s attempt to conquer Scotland in 1296. Though it should be noted that this marked a dramatic decline within the state of the Border, some 38 years earlier sufficient disintegration had already taken place for the two countries to send representatives to meet and agree upon international Border laws. This saw the beginning of some 300 years of sporadic warfare, often resulting in a war of attrition, the bloody and cruel fighting was to leave the Borders deeply scarred, and the people suffered severely. An example of the dangers the Borderers faced was after Bannockburn in 1314 when he Scots after years of repression, and victorious under Robert the Bruce, turned and systematically savaged the Northern Marches of England. These same Marches now became a buffer zone, absorbing successive raids and attacks, and by the sixteenth century, the area had become an impoverished wasteland. The constant raids that were to become a way of life for many also changed their outlook. The Borderers of both England and Scotland by the 16th century realised that their respective government could no longer provide justice nor protection. This is not to say the Borderers even remembered the events of 1296, but with the conflicts of the 16th century there was no need to. In 1542 Henry VIII went to war with Scotland creating great destruction, and in 1547 there was the battle of Pinkie, an English victory, and further retaliation by Scotland. In 1570 there was the Rising of the North, and although this was under the leadership of two Earls, many Borderers joined with them. This meant there was again the opportunity for mass reprisals from the English government against the English Borderers for treason. By now the Borderers must have felt that they were surrounded by enemies on all sides. This meant that their allegiance was not always placed primarily in the state, and it resulted in the growth of ties to clan and family. Thoughts of ‘Nation’ had now become secondary.

It was this allegiance to clan and family, that saw the growth of the great riding surnames of the Border regions. Within the Borders ‘to ride’ became synonymous with ‘to raid’, so the great riding families were those most involved in raiding. Examples of such Surnames⁶ are Elliot, Maxwell, Armstrong and Graham,⁷ just a few of the notorious names of the Borders who would often meet for raids, or could be found joining with one another to increase their numbers. As nation had become secondary one surname was not confined to only one side of the Border, for example the Grahams were found principally within the English West March, but could also be found in the opposite Scottish March. Readily willing to raid either side of the Border, they were not alone in their split loyalty. The emergence of the surnames and the weak sense of nationality was directly related to the wars and policies of the governments of the opposing countries. As early as the 13th century, the people living there were encouraged to raid the opposite kingdom during times of peace. With the many atrocities that occurred on the Borders during warfare little encouragement was needed. Though with the loss of national feeling the Borderers were often content in aiding in foray’s from the opposite realm.

The emergence of these strong family ties brought about serious problems for peace keeping. The ‘names’ would not just join together for raids, but could also be found fighting each other. This saw the emergence of a bewildering number of feuds which would often prove very bloody affairs, where matters were made worse when different surnames joined together creating alliances, as they so often did for raiding. Each name in the alliance would bring with it their own feud and through association alone the feuds could spread creating a complicated lattice work of conflicting names, as can be clearly seen Table 1. It was not unknown for the Warden and others whose job it was to keep the peace, to become deeply involved within these feuds. Table 1 gives some idea of the number of feuds that existed, and as can be seen by the colour key, feuds were not restricted by each names nationality, for example the Scotts are feuding with both the English Charltons, and the Scottish Elliots.

The Wardens of the Borders who have been mentioned were established soon after Edward I began the war with Scotland, and before this time the law and defence of the Border was oversaw by the Sheriffs. They were working under what was known as the Laws of the Marches which was an agreement reached in 1248⁸ between the governments of both England and Scotland in an attempt to regulate the Borders. By 1296 the hostilities between England and Scotland had meant that there was a need for an office with military powers to be placed in defence of the Border. Edward I issued a commission to appoint captains and keepers for the peace, and to split the Border into Marches. At first this post was temporary and only instigated when the need arose, but by 1309 the position had become permanent, with one person in charge of each country, and became known as the Warden of the March.

Up until 1381 there were two Marches, the East March and the West March, where one Warden would take control of both Marches. This practice continued after 1381 even with the introduction of the Middle March. Eventually each of the six Marches, three on the English side and three on the Scottish side, had a Warden. These Marches can be seen on the map which shows the Border of each March and a smaller region known as the Debatable Land, where many of the worst of the outlaws could be found.⁹ Each of these Wardens would choose some of their own men to act as keepers of the respective Marches. By the sixteenth century the Warden, upon entering office, would be backed by Deputies, Keepers, Captains, Land Sergeants and Troopers. During the late sixteenth century the Wardens of England tended to be given to gentlemen from the southern counties. This was an attempt to avoid appointing any who had connections with the feuding factions, though with relatively little pay, many still fell foul to temptation, and became deeply involved within the corruption that was rife within the area. On the Scottish side the post was usually given to one of the great family names resident to the area itself. This was due to the lack of authority the Scottish government had within their Marches, and because there were advantages to be had. The great surnames knew the area and people well, and the Scottish government probably followed the rule of setting a thief to catch a thief. The disadvantage was that they were deeply embroiled within Border politics, for example within feuds and various alliances. Due to this the great riding surnames often held little respect for central authority. The post, however, was often vital to the Scottish government especially during times of domestic upheaval, and was given as inducement to a strong family, for example the Humes or the Johnstones, to obtain their loyalty.

This, then, is briefly how the Border reivers came into existence. By the time of Robert Carey, the focus of this work, the Borders of England and Scotland were in considerable turmoil. Constant raiding and murder were everyday affairs throughout the Marches. The Middle March, at the time Carey was appointed Warden in 1598, had long since been in a bad state of affairs, and had suffered for reasons other than the problems outlined above, under two successive Wardens, Sir John Forster and Lord Eure.

Forster was appointed in 1560 and held the Wardenship for almost 35 years, till 1595, with only a brief break in 1587 when Henry, 1st Baron Hunsdon held the post for less than a year. Forster was deeply entrenched within Border affairs, including a number of long running feuds, not the least of which was with the Elliots.

By September 1595 Carey can be found writing a letter questioning Forsters ability to control the Middle March. Carey said that “the Scots already claim and enjoy 3 or 4 “meilse” of English ground”,¹⁰ and most damagingly he directly lays the blame on Forster when he wrote an unsigned report¹¹ on the state of the Middle March in September 1595,

‘I am sorry that I must be forst to lay the falt where it is’ This cuntrey had gret neede of suche a warden as is able to take paynes, and will see wronges redrest, which Sir John Forster by no mænes is able to dooe for his age is within 6 of a hundrid yærs ould, his memory faylles him, he is not able to stur out of his chamber’¹²

He ends by saying that if the Queen does not wish to end Forsters Wardenship in view of past service, it may be wise to appoint a gentleman of worth with his own horse to help.

Ralph, 3rd Lord Eure, was appointed to replace Forster on September 6th 1595, but he was never happy in the post and was not suited to this type of work. The first problem that Lord Eure encountered was in connection with the last Warden, Sir John Forster. Eure immediately found that even if Forsters Wardenship had ended, there was still ‘no gentlemen of worth in Northumberland not near of kin or allied to Sir John Forster.’¹³ This is evidence that Lord Eure was not only up against the Border Reivers, but also the men and officers appointed to help him. Lord Eure also came across the problem of the inability of the opposite Wardens to co-operate with each other where he states that

‘Sir Robert Kerr is apparently inclined to do justice. Buccleuch,¹⁴ however, though he appointed one or two meetings, still practises some treason or other.¹⁵

Lord Eure would also suffer from another attack, through allegations concerning the misappropriation of pay for some 80 horsemen sent for his service. Although Lord Eure was eventually cleared of these charges, he still resigned from office in January 1598. When Carey came into his Wardenship he found that crime was widespread and the reivers in full flow.

1. Reiver, meaning robber, raider, marauder, plunderer. The term is now obsolete, but lingers on in words like bereave.
2. The Wardens were placed by the government of each realm and it was their responsibility to enforce the laws and keep the peace. More is said on the Wardens later in this introduction.
3. G.M. Fraser, (1986), The Steel Bonnets, p5.
4. G.M. Fraser, (1986), p93.
5. For a more detailed look at border arms and armour look at ‘The Border Reivers’ by Keith Durham and Angus McBride, (1995).
6. It should be noted that not all people of one surname were related. The surname simply came from the place where they were associated with, for example Jock from Charlton, became Jock Charlton.
7. The modern spelling of these names has been used here and will be adhered to, unless quoted, to avoid confusion. The reason for this being the remarkable number of ways in which the names were written, an extreme example of which is the name Elliot, boasting over 70 variations.
8. G.M. Fraser, (1986), p149.
9. For more information on the Debatable Land and another problem area, Liddesdale, see Appendix A.
10. J. Bain, ed., (1896), Calendar of Border Papers, Vol. II, p57.
11. This has been recognised as Carey’s letter from the hand writing.
12. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, P57.
13. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p99.
    
14. Lord, Buccleuch, Keeper of Liddesdale, as the keeper of Liddesdale Buccleuch held powers equal to those of the Wardens.
15. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p130.