When Carey was offered the Middle March Wardenship of England, he immediately recognised that it was ‘much weakened and spoiled’.¹ Having said that, Carey then asked for only 40 horse, even though he was assured that he would be offered at least 100, as Lord Eure had previously been granted.² This decision of Carey’s may have been shear bravado, though that would not seem to fit his character, and he may simply be playing down his own ability to make any success he had seem that much more of an achievement.

Upon entering his office Carey immediately set out to solve one of the main problems Lord Eure had, that is the loyalty of his officers. To achieve this Carey’s first action was to ‘cleanse my under officers.’,³ whereby he placed Sir Henry Widdrington⁴ and Sir William Fenwick⁵as his two Deputies. This immediately shows that Carey knew of the often split loyalties of previous officers of the March, and of the need to employ those who he knew would be loyal to him.

When Carey first arrived he also recognised that the thieves continued in ‘spoiling the country, not caring much for me, nor my authority.’⁶This lack of respect by the thieves was mirrored in the Commissions findings of 1597, where the system of pledges stated that the thieves enter two or more of their name, in an attempt to force them to co-operate with the Wardens, though this had obviously failed so far.

Carey then immediately recognised another problem of the March, that was the dual, or lack, of nationality that the reivers had. He set out to,

‘cleanse the country of our inbred fears, the thieves within my March, for by them most mischief was done: for the Scotch riders were always guided by some of them in all the spoils they made.’⁷

Carey was showing his knowledge of the Border between England and Scotland and putting this to good use. Carey seems to have made some headway, and speaks of taking ‘sixteen or seventeen that summer, and the winter following, of notorious offenders, that ended their days by hanging or heading.’((F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p48.))

The first of the main incidents during Carey’s rule as Middle March Warden occurred in August 1598. Carey states in a letter to Burghley that ‘a company of 200 Scots, 80 of them and more, armed with ‘calyvers and horsemens peece’ came into England their purpose unkown.’⁸Carey sent his two Deputies who ‘set upon the Scots within England’,(( and then followed the ‘foray’ into Scotland, whereupJ. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p551.)) on ‘private men slew their enemies who were in deadly feud with them’,((J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p551.)) resulting in 3 or 4 dead and 16 prisoners.⁹ It was discovered that the Scotsmen had entered England merely for the hunt and ‘to take such venison as the country [England] afforded’.((J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p551.)) Carey recognised that hunting without permission from across the Borders had come about because of the weakness of Sir John Forster in his later years, and the troubled Wardenship of Lord Eure’s, where such things were considered too small a matter for immediate concern.((F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p55.) Carey realised that this incident would result in some complaint, but insisted that the people who entered knew it was unlawful to do so, and that it was also their ‘custom to bring in 100 men’ to cut and carry away wood’¹⁰ to Scotland, which itself was illegal.((This incident is somewhat confusing as Carey’s report to Burghley, in 1598, differs to that contained within his own Memoirs, which placed the incident after Carey dealt with the outlaws of Liddesdale in 1601. It is certainly the same incident that Carey talks of, and it would seem that as with many dates in Carey’s Memoirs the chronology was simply wrong.))

The Scottish had their own view of the incident and on August 13th Carey was writing in complaint to Cecil having heard that King James VI had asked for the delivery of both Carey’s Deputies.((J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, pp.552-553.)) There is also an undated letter by the hand of Cecil’s clerk which was titled within the Calendar of Border Papers (1896) as the ‘Rival Statements on the Redesdale Hunting’, which states five main areas of difference. In brief these included Carey’s report of 200 Scots, of which 80 were armed, while the Scots swear to only 60 unarmed; Sir Robert that they entered on 2nd August, and his officers chased them 2 miles into Scotland, while the Scots version says they had been hunting some two days already and were attacked while having dinner; Carey’s accusation that the Scots brought 100 people to take wood, while the Scots deny this completely; Carey stated only two Scots were slain, while the Scots claim they were also robbed of 50 ‘nags’; and Carey defends his Deputies saying they had no plans to take life, while the Scots say they planned the attack to show no ‘favour’ to any.((J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, pp.556-557.))

It is impossible to say exactly what happened at Redesdale, as the truth was never found out. It did though result in both of Carey’s Deputies been delivered to the Bishop of Durham in November 1598, ‘to remain at her Majesty’s pleasure’, where Carey hoped that their stay there would be short, as the country was in need of them both.((J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p577.))

Carey complained that the ‘Scots had made not fewer than 20 great spoils in this March’¹¹only a month since his Deputies were delivered. In a letter by Cecil, however, Carey is reminded that,

‘it is contrary to the lawe of the Borders, to followe into Scotland in such a manner to kill and take prysoners for an offence of hunting without warrant, when nothing was stolne nor no man killed’¹²

On January 31st Carey writes to Cecil stating that he believed it to be Sir Robert Kerr who made King James so vehement in the hope that his own pledges would be released in return for the complaint against Carey’s Deputies to be dropped.¹³Further accusations occurred on March 2nd when Carey blamed Kerr for helping to plan the escape of pledges from York, as a means to disquiet the Border.((J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p595.)) By April 3rd the two Deputies had been allowed to return back to Alnwick, where they would be kept prisoner. On May 17th Carey wrote to Cecil to inform him that when been tried by assise at a Day of Truce, the Governor of Berwick and ‘Lord Houme’ would hear the case, to avoid any complaints of impartiality.((J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p656.)) Later that month Sir Henry Widdrington and Sir William Fenwick were both released to carry out their duties.

This incident acts as an example to show a number of problems that a Warden had to face while carrying out his duty. It showed that neither the Warden nor his Deputies had control over the people under their command when blood feuds rose to the surface. If neither the Warden, nor his Deputies could control their own company, it would be near impossible for justice to be carried out. The second point is that the incident became a political tool for the Scots, highlighting the position of the Warden as a political figure representing his country.

The third point to be learnt from this incident was the dangerous lack of man-power Carey had at his disposal, which allowed some 20 raids against the Middle March only one month after his Deputies were delivered. Having two extra men to help would hardly have made a difference, but the reason these two were so important was because they were loyal, and because they were versed in the ways of the Border.

In May 1601 Carey was to face the problem of the outlaws of Liddesdale when,((See Appendix A.)) after they had attacked a village,((The name of which isn’t given.)) and took prisoners and goods, Carey complained to his opposite Lord Ochiltree.((Andrew, 3rd Lord Stewart of Ochiltree, who was made Warden in November 1597 after Sir James Johnstone was forced to leave by King James VI for non delivery of pledges.((Andrew, 3rd Lord Stewart of Ochiltree, who was made Warden in November 1597 after Sir James Johnstone was forced to leave by King James VI for non delivery of pledges.)) Carey was informed by Lord Ochiltree that he could do nothing as the thieves were fugitives, and not answerable to him nor King James VI. This seems somewhat curious, when the Commission had passed the law forcing the Wardens to produce lists of fugitives, who they were responsible to catch.((Clause 24, the Commission of 1597.))

This incident then produces an excellent example of a legal Warden Rode, as, upon complaining to the King, Carey is given permission to enter Scotland and take revenge. This is following the law whereby the Warden needed permission from the opposite Monarch to cross the Borders, in a Warden Rode.((Clause 6, the Commission of 1597.)) The rode, led by Carey’s Deputy, Henry Woodrington, was successful and all the goods the outlaws had were taken back. During the rode one of the outlaws was killed at the hands of one of Carey’s company. The man shot was ‘Sim of the Cat Hill’,((Sim of Calfhill as he is more usually known.)) an Armstrong, and reiver of some renown, and it was a Ridley((The Ridley’s were another important border family, and feature on the ‘Fueds Amongst The Rinding Families’table in the Introduction.)) from Haltwhistle that killed him. Unfortunately as the Ridleys and the Armstrongs were at feud, the Armstrongs carried out a revenge attack against the town of Haltwhistle at the beginning of June. While the Armstrongs were burning and pillaging the town, a Ridley, while sheltering within a stone house, shot and killed another Armstrong, who was ‘one of the sons of the chiefest outlaw.’,((F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p50.)) old Sim of Whithaugh. Sim and his sons, according to Carey, could muster not so few as 200 horse,((F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p51.)) who would be willing to ride at his command.

The people living in the high part of the March towards Scotland ‘were put in a mighty fear’,¹⁴ and in response to this Carey gathered together the gentlemen of the country, and asked for their help. Carey decided to deal with the outlaws on their own grounds, and set out to establish a small fort near the Border. He gathered about him some 200 horse, on whose approach the chief outlaws fled to ‘a large and great forest (with all their goods) which was called the Tarras.’¹⁵ This was a particularly inhospitable place surrounded by bogs and marsh, and was considered by the borderers to be impregnable. Carey was informed by the reivers that he,

‘was like the first puff of a haggis, hottest at the first, and bade me stay there as long as the weather would give me leave; they would stay in the Tarras wood, till I was weary of lying in the waste’¹⁶

Carey then showed his genius, and sent 150 horsemen 30 miles into Scotland, to circle round the back of the Tarras. They split up to guard the three exists from the wood and in June 1601 at about ‘four o’clock in the morning’ ¹⁷ Carey attacked from the south with 1000 infantry men who he must have called from the English and possibly Scottish Border garrisons. This attack was successful and Carey’s officers captured ’3 of the chiefest men’ without ‘blood or hurt’.¹⁸ The next day the rest of the thieves came from deep within the woods and bogs where they had escaped to, and ‘wholly submitted themselves to any conditions I [Carey] should impose’¹⁹ In a letter to Cecil dated the 15th July 1601, Carey says that the Armstrongs of Liddesdale agreed to four main points which were; to quit claim to all deadly feud; to free all prisoners; repay all those in Carey’s charge who had lost to them; and 14 of them are bound to enter to Carey in 15 days warning.²⁰ Carey ends by saying, ‘and so upon these conditions I set them at liberty, and was never after troubled with these kind of people.’²¹

This incident of Carey’s Wardenship has been covered in such depth as it gives a number of good examples. Firstly it shows the ability of Carey as a Warden, his strength of character and his sheer will to carry out his duty for the good of the March. This incident supports the assessment of Carey’s ability as analysed in Chapter 1, and gives some good examples of the laws of the Border in action. The effectiveness of a Warden Rode was shown, as well as the problems a Rode could produce in the form of the continuation of the Ridley and Armstrong feud. It can be seen to show the limitations of the clause of the Commission of 1597 whereby all feuds resulting from legal execution were to be renounced.²² Such feuds, resulting from the legal execution of a reiver, would effect the Warden and his Deputies, but would not cover those killed by the Wardens men in such circumstances as a Warden Rode. This would appear to be a flaw within the Border Laws, one which would allow a continuation, and even an expansion of the feuds inherent to the region.

Carey’s Wardenship also showed that the Commissions work of 1597 had merely addressed the problem of the Borders. Informing the Wardens to meet at Days of Truce was one thing, but carrying this out was not as easily done, and again there were political reasons for this. On September 22nd Carey wrote to Cecil informing him that he had not met with Sir Robert Kerr in two previously set meetings, due to the Scots demanding he enter Scotland first. Carey refused as this would be a sign showing that ‘England dyd oue that duty and obedyence to Scotland to come over into Scotland to them at all metings upon the Borders’.²³ Eventually Carey met with Sir Robert Kerr some miles from any of their men within England, showing that their was certainly a lack of trust between the two Wardens. Kerr also informed Carey at the end of the meeting that he was hard pressed to do justice as his authority rested with the loyalty of his men, and that while some of the ‘chiefest’ of them were held as pledges at York, he could not control many of the Borderers. Such talk though would seem to be nothing more than a simple attempt at getting his own pledges released from York.

By October 4th 1600 Carey in a letter to Cecil was writing about the ‘great justice’²⁴ he was getting from Sir Robert Kerr, and that the opposite March was quiet. This would seem somewhat strange, especially having read of Sir Robert Kerrs earlier exploits, though one theory can be put forward. By 1600 it was becoming increasingly likely that King James VI of Scotland was to become King James I of England, as successor to Queen Elizabeth. Sir Robert Kerr was often connected to violent acts of reiving, but he was a man of above intelligence and when the succession became more likely, he seems to have made himself outwardly as useful and loyal as possible, in the hope to be rewarded later.²⁵ This is an important point and could also help explain the success of the bonds Carey placed on the Armstrongs of Liddesdale, who themselves may have been aware of the change.

Things though hadn’t changed too much, and a Day of Truce between Carey and Johnstone had to be broken up as the ‘Laird of Newton’ warned of a Scottish foray of 100 horse against his town.²⁶ The improved co-operation was certainly a change for the better, as the delivery of Bills had always been one of the biggest headaches of any Warden, for example Sir Robert Kerrs attempts at gaining the release of his pledges.

Carey’s Wardenship effectively came to an end in 1602 when he returned to court to find that the Queen had taken ill. Overall Carey had dealt with feuding families, the loss of his Deputies for about six months, and the outlaws of Liddesdale, as well as carrying out Days of Truce and chasing up the delivery of Bills filed.

1. F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p46.
2. F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), pp.46-47.
3. F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p47.
4. Sir Henry Widdrington came from a notable Northumberland family of which Carey’s wife’s first husband had been a part of.
5. Sir William Fenwick, a member of another notable family of the North, with much experience in border affairs.
6. F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p48.
7. F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p48.
8. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p551.
9. Carey’s letter to Burghley states ’4 or 5 Scots slain’, his letter to Cecil, 2 or 3, and his Memoirs none.
10. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p551.
11. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p581.
12. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p584.
13. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p586.
14. F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p51.
15. F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p53.
16. F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p53.
17. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p763.
18. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p763.
19. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p763.
20. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p764.
21. F.H. Mares, ed., (1972), p54.
22. Clause 8, the Commission of 1597.
23. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p563.
24. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p692.
25. If this was the reason it was certainly successful as Sir Robert Kerr the reiver became the Earl of Roxburgh.
26. J. Bain, ed., (1896), CBP, Vol. II, p795.

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.