09 May 2023
Borders, as we know them today, typically involve a line dissecting a map between two countries. The people living in the area of the border can range from peaceful to violent. The border between England and Scotland in the late Medieval and Early Modern eras was an epicenter of violence. The brutal warfare on the Anglo-Scottish border along with the tense relationship of England and Scotland between 1249 when the first treaty on the borders was ratified and 1603 when James VI/I united the crowns and abolished the Border Marches led to a state of such common chaos and violence that set this area apart from what we traditionally see as a border. The decisions made by the English and Scottish crowns across this time frame directly led to the creation of a sub-state on the two countries’ borders with its own set of laws, custom, and culture leading to violence and desolation of that area for over 350 years due to the two governments mismanagement in peacetime and abuse during wartime. On the English Side of the border, the abuse and mismanagement came in the form of poor laws agreed to with the Scots in peace treaties, utilizing the reivers for their own purposes and perpetuating violence, and their inability to put effective Wardens in the Marches to help stem the violence. The Scottish crown was also implicit in the inept laws passed in peace treaties to stem the violence, being too weak of a central government to deal with violence on the border along with the Highlands, with the Highlands taking up most of their efforts, and placing men in Warden positions that were reivers themselves. The two governments also jointly recognized the Marches as having their own laws and customs, establishing them as entirely separate from the countries whose borders they resided on.
The border between Scotland and England has given rise to much academic research lending itself mostly to the border reivers. Included in this research is who they were, what they did, and their ultimate demise at the hands of King James VI of Scotland and I of England as he attempted to quell the violence there and, eventually, pacify it entirely as he united the crowns of those two nations. This research has covered the large expanse of time from the Scottish Wars for Independence through the pacification. The research by these authors argues that the continual warfare between the English and Scotts and the concurrent destruction of the border lands led to the development of a hard people who needed to create their own way of life to survive. Arguments are also made indicating that the respective crowns were either too weak or too unconcerned to do much about the evolving violence on the border. finally, arguments are made about the issues presented on the border due to the laws passed there and the customs and culture developed by the people in their own separate space.
In discussing the Anglo-Scottish Wars in the late 13th and early 14th Century, Michael Brown argues in his article “War, Allegiance, and Community in the Anglo-Scottish March: Tividale in the 14th Century” that this sustained warfare had a substantial impact on the allegiances of the people who lived in the border lands between the two countries.[1] Utilizing clergy records, Brown argues that the borderlands were valuable royal holdings, frequented by Scottish Kings for recreation, with both Scottish and English lords owning land on both sides of the border creating strong international and local ties. As the Scottish War for Independence truly kicked off, Brown argues that this borderland was ravaged as both sides fought for control of the pivotal land. By utilizing correspondence from within the English and Scottish courts in the Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland along with the National Manuscripts of Scotland and The Acts of David II, Brown argues that the allegiances of this area passed back and forth between Scotland and England as the two countries fought for control of Scotland. Brown also argues that the changing allegiances also inhibited sense of community, as communal leadership was changed often and there was no group or person from the town willing to take the responsibility of leadership. Thus, the inhabitants were left to deal with whatever leadership the ruling crown at the time provided them.
This argument of how the notorious border reivers were created by warfare between Scotland and England is echoed by John Grey in “Lawlessness on the Frontier”. Here Grey also argues that the state governments in Edinburgh and London shaped the borderlands into a frontier by their consistent decimation of the area.[2] Grey, utilizing spatial characteristics for constructing a sense of place and identity, goes further in arguing that this decimation by the two governments of this area created a coherent space that spanned the political boundary between Scotland and England. This argument suggests that the area of the border, where the reivers were created out of, was its own community and this is justified by the inter relations of the Scotts and English that lived in the Marches. Grey argues that London was too far away to effect much change and Edinburgh was spread too thin between the Highlands and the Borderlands to be effective. Throughout Greys arguments, he only cites other secondary source work for his information in a cumulative argument, mostly focusing on the spatial identity of the borderers.
When looking at the Border Marches post Scottish War for Independence, Denis Hay argues in “England, Scotland, and Europe: The Problem of the Frontier” the lawlessness in the border region led to the feeling of a “frontier”, an area of minimal excursion from the law.[3] Here Hay argues that the border region had become a rallying point for those disposed of by the government, those looking to avoid the law, and those looking to avoid the chaotic changing of religious policies. Utilizing Northumberland County History documents, the Calendars of Letters Pertaining to the Borders, and the National Library of Scotland Heraldic Papers, Hay argues that because of this “frontier” atmosphere, the border began to emerge as a frontier much like the American frontier in the 18th and 19th Centuries with its own literature, bonds amongst those who lived there on both sides of the border, and even its own separate economy fueled by reiving and building of fortifications to defend against reiving. Hay also argues that the border was not necessarily a line as we know borders as today, but instead it was a tract of territory separated from the countries on either side of it.
Cynthia Neville argues in “Scottish Influences on the Medieval Laws of the Anglo-Scottish Marches” that, opposed to lawlessness, there was indeed law in the Marches, though it was certainly not followed by the reivers and that Scottish law prevailed over English law there.[4] Neville suggests that the traditions found in Scottish law at the time were the primary basis for March law over the more “civilized” English law. To establish this argument Neville utilizes the Documents and Records Illustrating the History of Scotland, Reistrum Episcopatus Glasguensis, the Calendars of Close Rolls, the Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, and the Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland. Neville argues that while this system of laws may have been beneficial to the Scottish side of the border, it was not understood by the English March Wardens early on and thus gave more fuel to the lawlessness on the border. Neville also argues that this disparity in the law fueled England more in the attempt to control Scotland as Edward I saw the Scottish Crown having the same ability to solve border law as being contrary to his dominion over Scotland.
In “The Obligations of Kinship and Alliance Within Governance in the Scottish Borders, 1528-1625”, Anna Groundwater explains that the ideas of kinship and lordship were still very significant in the 16th and 17th Centuries even with the shift of accountability to the crown.[5] Utilizing the National Records of Scotland and the Registrar of the Privy Council of Scotland, Groundwater argues that James VI/I utilized traditional private justice in unprecedented ways for his increasing intolerance towards violence, especially on the border. Groundwater states that loyalty and identity were rooted in family over country and the relationship between lords and tenants was nearly as strong and important. Groundwater suggests that as James was trying to utilize this to his advantage to keep order in the Marches, it was sometimes detrimental to his rule as borderers would have more allegiance to their families than to the crown.
In his Journal of Legal Studies article “The Laws of Lawlessness”, Peter Leeson argues that the laws created in the treaties that make up Leges Marchiarum are the “Laws of Lawlessness” that simply regulated violence instead of stopping it.[6] Utilizing a 1605 Bell Manuscript and a manuscript of Sir Robert Bowes, Leeson states that March Wardens were too week and unable to stop violence on the borders. Leeson pushes the idea that the treaties agreed to by the crowns developed organically from cross border relations and regulated all aspects of cross border interactions but failed in their primary purpose of curbing cross border crime.
Problems within the border were not only related to the laws of the borders but also to areas of the borders themselves. According to Jack Sybil in “’The Debatable Lands’, Terra Nullius, and the Natural Law in the Sixteenth Century” England and Scotland’s inability to control and agree upon the debatable lands, and the borderers ignoring border lines all together, hindered border peace.[7] Sybil argues that domestic laws on either side of the border also affected border law allowing the March to become its own privileged space with its own rules. This phenomenon, according to Sybil, occurred partially because borderers had established cross-border relationships by the end of the 13th Century, and this impacted the crowns’ ability to keep their populations separate. By utilizing a collection of documents on Liddesdale and the Debatable Land by RB Armstrong and the Calendars of Letters Relating to the Affairs of the Border of England and Scotland, Sybil makes the argument that the debatable lands that both sides laid claim to, but neither could control laid outside of ordinary March Law leading to many other issues including these lands being safe havens for outlaws. Sybil also states that neither Scott nor Englishman was allowed to build houses on the land or graze their livestock after sunset and that no protection could be offered for those who chose to. March Wardens, according to Sybil, would even often lead raids on any who chose to break these rules burning their homes and carrying away their livestock, adding even more chaos to an already hectic situation.
March Wardens played a pivotal role in what the borders became according to R. Reid in “The Office of Warden of the Marches: Its Origin and Early History.” Here Reid utilizes the Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, Leges Marchiarum, Acts of Parliament of Scotland, the Calendar of Patent Rolls, and three Northumberland Assize Rolls to argue that while Wardens had full authority to defend the March, punish breeches of the truce, hold Warden Courts, grant safe conducts, and appoint deputies, their power was limited which limited their ability to control the Marches.[8] Reid states that because the Wardens only had power when there was a breech in military discipline, breech of the truce or the laws of the Marches, none of which were offenses to the common law, they were handcuffed when it came to offenses that were not Scott against Englishman or Englishman against Scott. Reid also makes the case that the Tudor policy of placing “inland” men in the office of Warden who did not understand the area or culture of the people who lived there, greatly hampered the ability of peace to flourish on the border.
Devoting a substantial amount of time and energy to the Border Reivers themselves and their story, George MacDonald Fraser argues strongly against the romanticized version of reiving in his book The Steel Bonnets: The Story of the Anglo-Scottish Border Reivers that came from the likes of Sir Walter Scott. Fraser relies heavily on Leges Marchiarum, the Calendars of Papers Referring to Scotland, the Calendars of Papers Referring to England, and the Calendars of Papers Referring to the Border of England and Scotland to make his argument that the border reivers were violent and merciless raiders, contrary to the romantic assessment of their acts and deeds.[9] Fraser covers the entirety of the reivers making the arguments that they were created and enabled by their respective governments, and even sometimes used by those governments for the crown’s own gain. Fraser focuses closely on the argument that the reivers were hard men, created that way, then eventually punished by those who created them. Fraser also argues that the Wardens charged with administering March Law laid out in the multiple truces between the countries were incapable of effecting any real change and even sometimes joined in the reiving themselves.
The arguments set forth by these scholars paint a picture of life on the Anglo-Scottish border and the governments of the two countries hand in the border becoming what it was as stated by Brown in his article examining how the allegiances were confused during and after the wars along with Sybil’s article establishing how the crowns made the matters worse and were unable to even agree on where the border should be. Reid also makes a case against the government’s ability to control the border in his article explaining how the Wardens’ hands were tied from really bringing about any positive change with Groundwater also explaining that the culture on the border and familial ties also made governance difficult. Laws on the borders were also difficult as set forth in Neville’s article relating how border law came about, the Scottish influence in it, and England’s distaste of it. Leeson also lends his pen to the argument of issues of law in his article explaining that the laws set forth in the truces of the two countries only regulated violence. That violence on the border established it as a frontier of sorts as argued by Gray in his article establishing the border as having its own spatial characteristics and hay who argues that the border was a rallying point for those disposed of their government. Finally, Fraser in his substantive book on the reivers themselves makes the case that while the border issues were largely created by the governments, the people who lived their adapted to tough lives by becoming tougher men capable of merciless violence.
While these scholars have looked closely at different aspects that set the Anglo-Scottish border aside from its respective countries, they have not yet established these aspects as a whole, all-encompassing, argument, nor have they argued for these issues being the causes that led to the Border Marches becoming a separate and nearly independent state. In fact, while there have been arguments that the Marches had indeed their own spatial identity and the ability to govern themselves, no argument has been made as to the Marches truly being their own, nearly independent state inadvertently created by those who governed them. Much of these scholars’ focus has been on the reivers themselves, the wars that led to the border becoming a desolate space, and independent looks at singular issues either perpetuated by the crowns or within the governments’ attempts to rein in the violence. This paper will form the complete inclusive argument that the Anglo-Scottish Border Marches did, in fact, become their own separate and nearly independent state, with their own laws, customs, and culture, and that this state was created by the decisions of the English and Scottish governments from those government’s mismanagement and abuse.
By utilizing the Cultural History approach to show how governmental decisions effect those they govern, and in association with predominantly sources such as Leges Marchiarum, the Calendar of Papers Relating to the Borders, and The Records of Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, this paper will examine the cause and effect of decisions made by the English and Scottish crowns and how those decisions were responsible for the creation of a nearly independent state with its own customs, culture, and laws. The Cultural History approach to this topic allows for a broader view of how the English and Scottish crowns’ decisions affected those living in the Marches socially, intellectually, and politically and how these effects led to the Borderers not relating to either country more so than the Border Marches themselves, thus being set entirely apart in all those cultural facets in their own independent space. The focus in the following pages will be the governments themselves and the actions that they took at different points along the 350-year journey of the violent Border Reivers.
The first defining example of mismanagement, perpetuated by the English and Scottish governments, that led to the Border Marches existing as their own independent state was the passage of laws pertaining solely to those who lived in the Marches. These laws were passed in order to bring order between the two countries by regulating and holding accountable the subjects of each real for the actions that they took in the opposite realm. By creating these laws, the crowns of the two countries also hoped to reduce the opportunity for the actions of their subjects to cause a direct conflict or war between the two. The problems with these laws, however, is that they established an “otherness” of the borders and separated the borderers from the rest of their respective countries. The laws passed by England and Scotland pertaining to the border established a sense of independence on the border and among those who lived there, and that independence would plant the seeds for the customs and culture that the borderers would create that established them as their own separate and mostly independent substate.
When the Border Marches were established via treaty in 1249, England and Scotland jointly established rules for those, on both sides of the border, living in the Marches to live by. These border laws went towards attempting to ensure that any person from Scotland who broke the law across the border in England, or visa versa, would be brought to justice between the two. As the 24 knights, 12 from each kingdom, met to establish the Laws of the Marches, they were in fact creating a new way of life for those who lived on the borders that would eventually separate them from the citizens of their respective countries.[10]
While establishing the laws that would pertain to the borders independently, the original treaty between the two countries also allowed for the crowns of England and Scotland to call the men of the border to war. [11] This kept the men of the border under the jurisdiction of the two kings, independently, though these men were beginning to, and would continue to, build their lives on the border, often in close association with borderers from the other realm. While the crowns had this right to utilize these border men as they saw fit, as their subjects, this utilization, in time, would become severely cumbersome to the two countries as the men of the borders associated less with the realms they came from and more with their fellow borderers. This will be shown in battles between the two countries discussed later in this paper.
In order to regulate law, the first treaty of the Marches established procedures for individuals wronged by someone from the other country to seek redress. For instance, if a Scot stole from and Englishman across the border, the Englishman could request a duel and the Scot could request the same in defense of his innocence, or visa versa.[12] Eventually, duels would fade out as part of the culture of Europe. The fact, however, that the English and Scottish crowns incorporated this custom into the Border Laws shows a deep mismanagement of an area that was firmly separated from Edinburgh and London. As the crowns would begin to see, feuds between two families, or clans, would become a substantial issue in the governance of the border, something that these duels would surely instigate. This mismanagement in the early stages of border law would continue throughout its history, as will be shown, causing more issues for the crowns of England and Scotland while establishing a self-governance mindset in the borderers themselves.
The English and Scottish Governments, through these truces, built in laws that they believed would keep the two countries from being grieved by each other based upon the actions of their respective borderers. One such law stated that no person from one country can prove one guilty from the other country for murder without producing the body of the person slain. [13] Also, to try and keep the peace, and understanding that financial loss could become a prelude to war, the countries established that a person who was indebted to someone on the other side of the border must be forced to pay by those of the same occupation.[14] The issues with these early laws, is that they placed the success of the laws entirely on the shoulders of the borderers themselves. This reliance on personal accountability enabled the borderers to believe that they governed themselves and perpetuated their own justice from the earliest stages of the Border Marches while also setting them further apart from the people of their respective countries and the crowns who were supposed to be ruling them. These early laws establish that from the very beginning of the Border Marches, the crowns of England and Scotland’s blatant mismanagement created a separate space that was independent as it relied on self-governance.
The laws passed for the border in 1249 would be the laws that the borderers operated under for two hundred years until the next treaty added to the laws and refined others. During this time, Sheriffs, who were the primary law enforcement officials on the borders would be replaced by March Wardens. This separation would change the jurisdiction of law on the border from civil which involved the Sheriffs, to far more military based as the Warden was only given cross border and military jurisdiction.[15] This change showed that the crowns of England and Scotland recognized that the issues on the border could not be regulated by the civil service of the Sheriffs, but needed a separate entity that could deal with cross border issues. Thus, not only were the borders given their own laws, but their own enforcers of those laws. While Wardens will be covered more in depth later in this paper, this pivot from civil to more military and international law enforcement further removes the borderers from those of their respective countries and shows an early recognition from the crowns of those countries that these marches were separate.
Across the 300 years of March Law established by the crowns of England and Scotland, the governments continuously placed the ability to redress offenses in the hands of the borderers themselves. For instance, if a fort was taken by raiders from the other side of the border, the offended had a few options. First, they could take the matter to the court of the Wardens to be tried at the next Day of Trewes. Second, they could petition the king for redress. Or third, they could fight back themselves in an attempt to take back the fort using “trickery, deceit, and evil wit” to do so.[16] By giving the authority to take justice by means other than through the appointed government legal official, the Warden, the governments further bolstered the borderer’s belief that they had the ability to seek justice themselves and thus govern themselves. By giving the people of the Marches the ability to self-govern, the crowns, though inadvertently, were establishing and giving those people their own independent state to govern as well.
Another instance of borderers being allowed to seek their own justice is what is called “hot trod”. “Hot Trod” is first mentioned in the Laws of the Marches in the truce established in 1549 during the English reign of Edward VI and the Scottish reign of Mary who was still and infant. “Hot Trod” allows for a person who was stolen from or attacked to pursue their offender, within 6 days, into the other country without letters of safe conduct.[17] This legal form of vigilante justice is not much departed from the feuds that plagued the borders throughout their existence and, in fact, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that “Hot Trod” lead to more of the same. “Hot Trod” would continue through the end of the Border Marches with the abolishment of the borders as it is mentioned again as being legal per “the laws and customs of the borders” during the reign of Elizabeth in 1563, though here the laws give power to those in pursuit to gain the assistance of those they come across while in the other realm and establish redress for anyone innocent harmed during the trod.[18] “Hot Trod”, thus, became the mass enabler in the Borderers finding their own justice for offenses against them. Not only did this lead to more dangerous feuds within the borders, but it also set the Borderers completely apart from the citizens of their respective countries.
Further issues were created by the laws passed by England and Scotland in order to curb violence on the borders. One of these was the crowns’ disconnect with the obligations of lordship and tenants who resided there. In these obligations of lordship, lords were bound to their tenants legally, and for their defense.[19] This relationship between lord and tenant was a pivotal aspect of medieval Scotland and continued throughout the history of the Border Marches. As the Borderers were operating more and more on their own accord, and less within the realms from which they belonged, these ties to their lords, and their lords’ ties to them, would become far more important than any national identity. The crowns, however, attempted to circumvent this entirely by requiring that the lord of a tenant who was accused of an offense to hand that tenant over to the Warden and if the Lord refused, he could be held accountable for the tenant’s offense and be charged with the redress for everything except a death sentence.[20] This disconnect between the laws passed by the crowns and the cultural obligations of the borderers themselves went further to drive a wedge between those on the borders and the other subjects of their respective countries and shows a complete misunderstanding of the people that the governments of England and Scotland were attempting to control. This misunderstanding led complete mismanagement and the development of an independent state operated by the self-governance of its people.
The crowns of England and Scotland were also independently responsible for the devolution of the Border Marches and further separating them into their own independent state. England, for its part, had a strong desire for peace on the border but was too disconnected from the issues there to place enough priority on the issues to fix them. The English government allowed the defenses on the border to deteriorate a point where they were unusable, as was the case in Berwick where the raiders from Liddesdale Scotland had sufficient ability to attack consistently and the crown also allowed for the horsemen and equipment in the borders to devolve into insufficient numbers to hold out against to consistent attacks from Scottish raiders.[21] Also, the English Wardens on the border were handcuffed by the crown refusing to give them sufficient funds or troops to control violence, but they were held far more accountable for peace on the border during the reign of Elizabeth.[22] And, finally, the crown perpetuated violence on the border itself by utilizing reivers to raid in Scotland, with these reivers often being Scottish themselves.[23]
London may have simply been too far away from the Border Marches for the crown to truly worry too much about the happenings there. The decay of border defenses was a consistent problem that resulted in the degradation of Berwick, a town in the East March of England. The town, tower and defenses became a priority during Queen Elizabeth’s reign to re-fortify after years of neglect.[24] As this was happening, the Border Wardens were also required to take account of the number of men, both on horse and on foot and equipped and not equipped, they could put in the field in defense of the English Border. [25] As seen here the defenses on the English side of the border had fallen into disrepair. A memorandum on the borders, however, give us a glimpse as to why, stating that private quarrels between English borderer families who would rather fight each other than the Scots, raiding and destruction by the Scots during Queen Mary’s reign, the long peace, and neglect of “horses and furniture of war”, having castles and forts in the hands of unfit keepers, and the land in the Border Marches being run by Lords who do not reside on the border led to the devolution of border security.[26] While these are only recent problems to the time, they are not wholly exclusive to that time alone as Scotland was not the only enemy England faced in the previous 200 years that required her attention. England allowing the border defenses to decay in such a way shows that the Border Marches were not a high priority throughout the reins of different leaders and is a firm example of mismanagement that led to an independent people in a nearly independent state.
Even with this proven decay on the border and Elizabeth’s focus to re-fortify and get an account of the number of men she could field if needed, her government still showed neglect at the highest level. In a decision to Lord Scrope, the English West March Warden, the government refuses him the 50 horsemen that he requested along with 50 foot soldiers to help keep Scottish raiders at bay providing him only the 50 foot.[27] Again, support is requested by the English Middle March Warden, Sir John Forster, for more horsemen which the Queen originally agrees to, but then changes her mind relaying that the borders are strong enough in themselves.[28] These decisions come as a pivotal moment when the English crown seeks to bolster defenses but at the same time refuses further assistance to actually defend the border. This shows a disconnect between the ruler of England and those on the border living through the violence and chaos and is an indicator of how the crown saw the border throughout the years of the Marches. This neglect establishes that the decisions made on the border by the English crown allowed the Marches to slip further and further away from central control, allowing them to control themselves.
Though Elizabeth showed refusal to provide much needed support to the March Wardens in terms of men to defend the borders, she did place the entirety enforcing border laws, without the support they required, on these Wardens. For instance, Wardens were required to take an oath annually at every Day of Trewes and were also required to file a bill of offense that was given to them by someone in their March within 15 days or were required to pay the redress themselves.[29] While these orders would keep the Wardens accountable for their actions, they also are inept while not providing the Wardens with what they needed to successfully keep the peace. This mismanagement led to a force on the border that was wholly inadequate to suppress the violence occurring there and was yet another key aspect of the borders and the people living there being entirely separate from England and Scotland.
In addition to the decay of the defenses and the mismanagement of the March Wardenries, the Crown also allowed the utilization of reivers from the English side on the Scottish side and allowed the Wardens from the English side to raid into Scotland themselves. As stated in March Law, Wardens were prohibited from riding hostile into the other realm without a signed letter from their crown and if they did then they will be labeled a public enemy and all who rode with him would lose all their bills for redress from there forward.[30] Even with this being the law, Lord Scrope, the English West Warden sent his deputy into Liddesdale to take the Lord of Mangerton into custody as Scrope believed Mangerton to be responsible for many of the raids occurring in the English Marches.[31] As such, both Lord Scrope and the English Crown, as this information was assuredly passed up via letter past the commissioner, were themselves in direct violation of March Law.
Lord Scrope and the English Crown did not stop at conducting their own hostile raids into Scotland but also perpetuated raids in that country by English and Scottish raiders. Lord Scrope plainly lays out his ideas to defend the English border to his government as he talks about strengthening the border by making bonds with “loose men” on both sides of the border to get them to raid Scotland to force the Scottish Wardens to make redress for past crimes.[32] Lord Scrope then acts upon this advice to his leadership by encouraging borderers in his March to raid into Scotland, specifically Liddesdale.[33] These actions by Lord Scrope and, in effect, the English government establish a system where the people of the Border Marches were made to suffer due to the ineptness of the governments who supposedly controlled them. From these actions, the people of the border would have been further ravaged at the direction of the governments, who were supposed to be protecting them, due to revenge raids and feuds. These decisions by the English government would have certainly established within the communities of the borders that the people were on their own. There was no true justice to be had, except the justice that one could create for oneself. This mismanagement further solidified the borders being their own independent state, battling the realms that were supposed to be governing them.
Scotland’s complicity with the border becoming its own independent state started at the highest levels of that government and would continue throughout the history of the Border Marches. The Scottish government was simply too week, disorganized, and preoccupied to focus much on the border for most of the Border Marches existence. These issues trickled down from the crown, which was often in a state of chaos and had to deal with the Highlands as well as the borders, to the Wardens who were often involved in reiving themselves or at the very least were protecting their own kin. While attempts were made throughout the existence of the Border Marches to curb the violence there, those attempts were never properly followed up with strategic change that would bring the Scottish Border Marches back under the control the Scottish government. While the violence continued, the borderers of the Scottish Marches would slip further and further away from the crown and closer to each other and those of the English Marches.
The chaos within the government of Scotland is well documented and stretches back to the very beginning of the establishment of the Border Marches and stretching through the Scottish Wars for Independence and up to the accession of James VI/I to the throne of England and the uniting of the Crowns. The English saw and understood this, stating that the weakness of the Scottish government was one of the predominant reasons, if not the number one reason for border issues.[34] Highlighted especially in the 16th Century with the reign of Mary Queen of Scots and her subsequent execution at the hands of the English, the Scottish government went through a long course of chaos leading up to a Scottish king uniting the realms in James VI. This chaos within the upper echelons of the government itself did little to help convince the borderers that they were indeed part of Scotland, thus setting them apart from the rest of Scotland as they went about their independent ways of life.
Though arguments could be made on if James VI uniting the thrones truly benefited Scotland at all, the time leading up to this unification was certainly not beneficial to order on the border. This is shown by James, while still only King of Scotland, pardoning all offenses perpetrated by Scottish borderers before the date that the act was signed in parliament.[35] The weakness and chaos in the Scottish government allowed for the borderers on the Scottish side to operate in a way that they saw fit, which meant consistently raiding into England and raiding their own “countrymen” in Scotland. The inability of Scotland to not only control its own population in the Border Marches but to also pardon offenders, further set that population apart from others in the crown’s realm giving the reivers the idea that they were free from the crown’s justice.
For a weak government, one issue is enough to take matters out of control, two are certainly enough to ensure that nothing of benefit is accomplished. Throughout most of the existence of the Border Marches, the Scottish government was dealing with concerns in the Highlands as well. Issues with the Highlands arose in much the same way that those on the borders did, the difference being that Highland troubles were purely in the realm of Scotland and not a cross-border affair. However, the troubles consisted of feuds, raids, robberies, and murders just the same and the Scottish Parliament and crown had to deal with these as well which amounted to pacifying the Highlands by looking to the Lords to maintain their people.[36] As would be expected, placing the responsibility solely on the shoulders of the Lords, who would defer to obligations of kinship and lordship as we have seen on the borders, a more forceful approach was taken by sending armed men into the highlands to quell the violence there.[37] The focus of this paper is not on the Highlands, this information does, however, add credence to the point that the Scottish crown, with its own internal struggles, was also dealing with nearly the same issues in the Highlands as it was in the Border Marches. Being pulled in these two opposite directions, with Edinburgh being in a consistent state of chaos, left the border lands of Scotland with little oversite, creating more of an independent realm.
The oversite that the Scottish Border Marches did have was the March Wardens. If the crowns of England and Scotland did not understand how to deal with the border violence, the March Wardens certainly did not, or did and used that knowledge for their own gain. On the Scottish side, the problem started with the crown’s placement of Wardens. Not only were the Wardens operations restricted to only those issues of military discipline and cross-border affairs but were often protecting their kin who were reivers or these Wardens were reivers themselves.
Rewarding lords with bountiful lands and titles was certainly common during this era in Europe. However, maintaining the peace and wellbeing in the Border Marches required men suitable to the task. Such a reward was placed upon Alexander Steward when he was declared Warden of the Marches by his father King James II then affirmed in 1455 by the Scottish Parliament.[38] Operating as Warden of the Marches did not bring out the best in Alexander Stewart, however, as the Scottish Parliament explains in their summons for the Warden to appear before them stating,
to answer to us in our said parliament for the treasonable arming, provisioning and fortification of the said castle of Dunbar with men, victuals and armaments, bombards and warlike apparatus, against our majesty and royal authority, and contrary to acts of our parliament; and for treasonable art and part, order, command, assistance, counsel, aid, favour and support treasonably shown by the said Alexander to our rebels being in the said castle of Dunbar, and in the treasonable occupation of the same castle; also for art and part, order and command treasonably shown and given in the treasonable violation and violent breaking by the said Alexander of the truces and peace treaties made and confirmed between ourself and the most excellent prince, our brother and cousin Edward [IV], king of England, in treasonably killing, plundering and robbing of the English, against the public good of our realm, notwithstanding that at the time of the said violation of the said truces the same Alexander was our warden, and treasonably perpetrating the aforesaid things within the bounds and limits of his office of warden; and for art and part of the cruel killing and death of our late liege John Scougall; and to answer for a great many other treasonable offences wickedly perpetrated by the said Alexander, duke of Albany against our highness; and to submit to the law.[39]
Alexander went on to cause further problems for his brother King James III, but this example shows that the Scottish government was not necessarily concerned with placing competent men in charge of the Wardenries as much as they were awarding political posts. This disconnect between what was required for ruling the Border Marches and who was actually placed in positions of authority there shows that the Scottish government did not have a grasp on the issues of the border and was yet another poor decision that led to the borderers being independent of the Scottish crown.
Of all the chaos erupting on the Anglo-Scottish border, nothing was more important to establishing the Border Marches as their own, nearly independent state as the governments of England and Scotland recognizing that the Marches had their own laws, customs, and culture. By this recognition, the crowns of the respective countries were affirming that the Borderers were, if fact, separate from those countries. This was highlighted by the laws that only pertained to those who lived there, the people of the borders feeling more allegiance to each other than to their countries, highlighted by the intermarriage between Scottish and English borderers, and the fact that James VI/I recognized this state as an issue when he pushed to unite the countries.
Possibly setting the Border Marches apart from the realms of England and Scotland more so than anything else was the recognition by the crowns that these borders had their own laws and customs that they operated under and the fact that the laws of the Marches were predominantly based off these laws and customs in the multiple truces on the border established by the two countries. The mention the laws in the treaties being based on the “laws and customs of the borders” first appears in the first border treaty between England and Scotland during the reign of Henry III in 1249 establishing that at this point the borders were already operating under different rules than the rest of the subjects of England and Scotland.[40] This recognition continues through the different reigns of English and Scottish leaders up to the last treaty signed by the two countries on the border in the reign of Elizabeth in which it is dictated that any who are found guilty of robbery or thievery will be put to death and if they cannot be found, their houses will be destroyed “according to the orders and customs of the borders”.[41] While these laws put forth by the crowns were an attempt to stem the violent border reiving that was taking place, they did little to actually quell that violence. They did, however, establish within the two countries and the Border Marches that the borderers were operating separate from, and independent of, the respective governments.
Recognition by the governments that the Border Marches had their own laws customs and culture could only lead to the people of the borders recognizing it as well. This recognition could manifest itself in many ways, but it certainly caused the borderers to feel more allegiance to each other than they did the crowns that oversaw their Marches. Even in a time where feuds ran rampant amongst the families of the Border Marches, the allegiance between those living in the Marches is shown in the intermarriages between Scottish and English borderers, and the men of the borders not wanting to fight each other in open battle when fighting in the wars of England and Scotland.
Though intermarriage of English and Scots living in the border region was probably common before, it is seen as a key problem, at least in the West March by England, in 1565. Here a special commission, appointed to establish regulations for the Border Marches, declares it illegal for English and Scottish borderers to marry.[42] This law, however, did not solve the problem as again in 1583 intermarriage between English and Scots is mentioned when a recommendation is put forth by the Constable of Bewcastle Castle that no marriages take place between English and Scots without the direct written permission of their respective Wardens.[43] The issue of intermarriage was certainly felt by the Scottish government as well. In 1587, not only did the Scottish government make it illegal for a Scot to marry an English man or woman, but they made it a crime punishable by death.[44] While one would think that this type of punishment would put a hold on these intermarriages, the issue is mentioned again in 1593 With the Warden of the English Marches recommending that the English government try to find a way to restrain intermarriages and to hold bonds of good behavior from those who already are married to someone from the opposite realm.[45] These intermarriages show that the borderers had little care if the person they wed were English or Scottish, because they were a borderer. The governments though cared much as they saw how these intermarriages separated these people from their respective countries and combined them into one of their own.
Possibly the singular biggest indicator that borderers allied more with other borderers than with their respective countries is the fact that, when fighting in the wars between England and Scotland, they were in no hurry to fight each other. As described by the first-hand account of English Historian William Patten, the men of the border who rode in King Edward VI’s expedition into Scotland wore arm bands and letters sewn into their clothes which they told Patten they wore so they could assemble quick and distinguish each other in battle if one of them needed help.[46] Patten noted, however that the Border riders on the Scottish side identified themselves in the same way and he suspected that this was for the reason of identifying a borderer from the other side as well.[47] This suspicion was affirmed while on the battlefield. Patten explains seeing borderers from each side of the conflict finding each other and getting along quite well until they noticed someone watching them at which time they made a great display of fighting, though never enough to seriously maim one another.[48] Patten also states that the Scottish border riders would submit rather quickly to their counterparts in the English Army to be taken prisoner for ransom, though the English riders would rarely actually take them home, suggesting that as soon as they were out of site of the army, the prisoners were released.[49] These actions by the borderers in the English and Scottish army prove that the people of the Marches had far more loyalty to each other, regardless of the side of the border they came from, than to the governments of the side that they were on. The allegiances here show that those governments had failed the people of the Marches, further separating them into their own independent state.
The final recognition of the independent state on the Anglo-Scottish border came from the King of both of those countries himself, King James VI of Scotland, and I of England. With the death of Elizabeth I and the coronation of James I as the ruler of a “united kingdom”, James took steps to truly unite the kingdoms of England and Scotland. He attempted this by first establishing a commission to govern the borders after abolishing the Border Marches and suspending March Law.[50] The king and his commission attempted this pacification of the borders in several ways. The first was to remove all “occasions of strangeness and marks of division” among those on the borders.[51] This was an attempt to get the people of the borders to conform to English and Scottish standards, and not the Border standards they had become accustomed to, showing yet again that those who lived on the border were separate and independent from those who attempted to govern them. Another, and more final, solution to the problem of the borderers, especially those in the old Middle March of Scotland, was to take those convicted and send them to Ireland in the Kings service.[52] Not only was this an opportunity to elevate the Kings military with some very tough men but also to remove the problem entirely from the Anglo-Scottish border by removing the people. These actions taken by the united crown against the reivers would not solve the problem of these distinct and separate people overnight, however. The problems of the borderers would continue in the years after the Border Commission and these actions were taken.[53]
The 350-year history of the Border Reivers was an altogether domestic and international problem for the island of Britain. The decisions covered here made by the English and Scottish crowns directly led to the creation of a sub-state on the two countries’ borders with its own sets of laws, customs, and culture leading to violence and desolation of that area across this timeframe due to those governments’ mismanagement during peacetime and abuse during wartime. The Laws of the Marches, as they became known, established from the very beginning that the people of the borders were operating under and regulated by their own sets of rules, separate from those of the countries they were supposed to be a part of. England, for its part, allowed its defenses in the border region, both fortifications and sufficient cavalry, to decay while also denying the March Wardens the support they needed to adequately do the job. England also utilized the Border Reivers for the crowns own gain and revenge against Scotland. The Scottish government was just as complicate in the creation of a separate border state by simply being too week to hold a hard line against the Reivers of the borders while also trying to deal with other issues in the Highlands. Scotland also constantly appointed March Wardens who were more apt to join the Reivers than control them. Finally, by the English and Scottish governments recognizing that the Border Marches operated off their own laws and customs, they created an environment where those borderers aligned more with each other, regardless of the side of the border one was on, than they did the people residing on their side of the border. This allegiance showcased itself in intermarriages and the borderers seeking each other out in a battle so as not to fight each other, leading to the stark realization on the part of James VI/I when he united the crowns that he had to dispose of this separate state that had been created across time.
[1] Michael Brown, “War, Allegiance, and Community in the Anglo-Scottish Marches: Teviotdale in the Fourteenth Century”, Northern History 41, no. 2 (September 2004): doi:10.1179/nhi.2004.41.2.219, 219.
[2] John Grey, “Lawlessness on the Frontier”, History & Anthropology 12, no. 4 (September 2001): doi:10.1080/02757206.2001.9960940, 383.
[3] D. Hay, “England, Scotland and Europe: The Problem of the Frontier”, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 25 (January 1, 1975): doi:10.2307/3679087, 79.
[4] Cynthia Neville, “Scottish Influences on the Medieval Laws of the Anglo-Scottish Marches”, The Scottish Historical Review 81, no. 212 (October 1, 2002): https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.25529646&site=eds-live&scope=site, 162-163.
[5] Anna Groundwater, “The Obligations of Kinship and Alliance within Governance in the Scottish Borders, 1528-1625”, Canadian Journal of History 48, no. 1 (Spring/Summer2013): doi:10.3138/cjh.48.1.1, 3.
[6] Peter T. Leeson, “The Laws of Lawlessness”, The Journal of Legal Studies 38, no. 2 (June 1, 2009): doi:10.1086/592003, 473.
[7] Jack M. Sybil, “‘The Debatable Lands’, Terra Nullius, and the Natural Law in the Sixteenth Century”, Northern History 41, no. 2 (September 2004): doi.10.1179/007817204790181050, 294.
[8] R. R. Ried, “The Office of Warden of the Marches; Its Origin and Early History”, The English Historical Review 32, no. 128 (October 1, 1917): https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/login.aspx?dirct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsfsr.550854&site=eds-live&scope=site, 482.
[9] George MacDonneld Fraser, The Steel Bonnets: The Story of the Anglo-Scottish Border Reivers, (New York: Skyhorse, 2015), 3-5.
[10] William Lord Bishop of Carlile, “Henry III 1249”, In Leges Marchiarum, edited by William Nicolson, (London: Printed for Tim Goodwin, 1705), 1-2.
[11] Carlile, “Henry III 1249”, 2-3.
[12] Carlile, “Henry III 1249”, 5.
[13] Carlile, “Henry III 1249”, 6.
[14] Carlile, “Henry III 1249”, 6.
[15] Reid, “The Office of Warden”, 481-482.
[16] William Lord Bishop of Carlile, “Henry VI 1449”, in Leges Marchiarum, edited By William Nicolson, (London: Printed for Tim. Goodwin, 1705), 16.
[17] William Lord Bishop of Carlile, “Edward VI 1549”, in Leges Marchiarum, edited By William Nicolson, (London: Printed for Tim. Goodwin, 1705), 64.
[18] William Lord Bishop of Carlile, “Queen Elizabeth 1563”, in Leges Marchiarum, edited By William Nicolson, (London: Printed for Tim. Goodwin, 1705), 93-94.
[19] Groundwater, “The Obligations of Kinship”, 3.
[20] Carlile, “Queen Elizabeth 1563”, 90.
[21] Robert Bowes, “Robert Bowes to Lord Burghley, August 30, 1577”, in Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, edited by Joseph Bain, (Edinburgh: H. M. General Registry House, 1894), 6-7.
[22] Privy Council of England, “The Privy Council to the Warden of the East March January 25,
1580”, in Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, edited by Joseph Bain, (Edinburgh: H. M. General Registry House, 1894), 13.
[23] Henry Scrope, “Scrope to Walsingham January 13, 1584”, in Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, edited by Joseph Bain, (Edinburgh: H. M. General Registry House, 1894), 127.
[24] Bowes, “Robert Bowes to Lord Burghley, August 30, 1577”, 6-7.
[25] Privy Council, “The Privy Council to the Warden of the East March January 25, 1580”, 13.
[26] “Memorandum on the Borders 1579”, in Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, edited by Joseph Bain, (Edinburgh: H. M. General Registry House, 1894), 13-15.
[27] “Minute to Lord Scrope February 18, 1583”, in Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, edited by Joseph Bain, (Edinburgh: H. M. General Registry House, 1894), 94-95.
[28] John Forster, “Forster to the Privy Council October 30, 1583”, in Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, edited by Joseph Bain, (Edinburgh: H. M. General Registry House, 1894), 113.
[29] William Lord Bishop of Carlile, “Queen Elizabeth 1596”, in Leges Marchiarum, edited by William Nicolson, (London: Printed for Tim. Goodwin, 1705), 104-105.
[30] Carlile, “Queen Elizabeth 1596”, 106.
[31] Henry Scrope, “Scrope to Walsingham January 13, 1584”, in Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, edited by Joseph Bain, (Edinburgh: H. M. General Registry House, 1894), 127.
[32] Henry Scrope, “Defense of the Egnlish Border September 1583”, in Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, edited by Joseph Bain, (Edinburgh: H. M. General Registry House, 1894), 110.
[33] Scrope, “Scrope to Walsingham Dec 17, 1587”, 116.
[34] Simon Musgrave, “Sir Simon Musgrave on Border Offences July 1583”, in Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, edited by Joseph Bain, (Edinburgh: H. M. General Registry House, 1894), 105.
[35] ”Legislation”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews: 2007-2023), 1436/10/2, date accessed: 8 March 2023, https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
[36] “The First Point Concerning the Pacification and Governing of the Highlands”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews: 2007-2023), 1369/3/5, date accessed: 9 April 2023, https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
[37] “Item, Because the Prelates”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews: 2007-2023), 1385/4/3, date accessed: 9 April 2023, https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
[38] “Item, That no office”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews: 2007-2023), 1455/8/6, date accessed: 19 April 2023, https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
[39] “Judicial Proceeding: Process Against the Duke of Albany”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews: 2007-2023), 1479/10/7, date accessed: 19 April 2023, https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
[40] Carlile, “King Henry III 1249”, 6.
[41] Carlile, “Queen Elizabeth 1596”, 106.
[42] Border Commission, “Notes of Regulations for the Borders 1565”, in Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, edited by Joseph Bain, (Edinburgh: H. M. General Registry House, 1894), 3.
[43] Musgrave, “Sir Simon Musgrave on Border Offences July 1583”, 105.
[44] “For the Quieting and Keeping in Obedience of the Disordered Subjects, Inhabitants of the Borders, Highlands and Isles”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews: 2007-2023), 1587/7/70, date accessed: 20 April 2023, https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
[45] Thomas Scroope, “Lord Scroope to Burghley May 12 1593”, in Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland, edited by Joseph Bain, (Edinburgh: H. M. General Registry House, 1894), 459.
[46] William Patten, The Expedicion Into Scotlande of the most woorthely fortunate prince Edward, Duke of Soomerset, vncle onto our most noble souereign lord ye kinges Maiestie Edvvard the VI. goouernour of hys hyghnes persone, and protectour of hys graces realmes, dominions and subiectes made in the first yere of his Maiesties most prosperous reign, and set out by way of diarie, by W. Patten Londoner, 240-241, (London: Printed by Richard Grafton, 30 June 1548), https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/a09164.0001.001/240:5?page=root;size=125;vid=14557;view=text.
[47] Patten, The Expedicion, 241.
[48] Patten, The Expedicion, 241-243.
[49] Patten, The Expedicion,241-243.
[50] “Instructions to Edmond Lord Sheffield”, in Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Of the Reign of James I, 1603-1610, edited by Mary Anne Everet Green, (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1857), 24.
[51] “Commission to Sir Wm. Selby, Sir Rob. Delavale, and others”, in Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Of the Reign of James I, 1603-1610, edited by Mary Anne Everet Green, (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1857), 198.
[52] James Stewart I, “The King to The Bishop of Durham, Sir Wm Selby, Sir Wm. Fenwick, Edw. Gray, and Edw. Charleton”, in Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Of the Reign of James I, 1603-1610, edited by Mary Anne Everet Green, (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1857), 358.
[53] James Stewart I, “The King to Earl of Dunbar”, in Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Of the Reign of James I, 1603-1610, edited by Mary Anne Everet Green, (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1857), 338.
Works Cited
Border Commission, “Notes of Regulations for the Borders 1565” Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland. Edited by Joseph Bain. 1894. H. M. General Registry House, Edinburgh, 3.
Bowes, Robert, “Robert Bowes to Lord Burghley, August 30, 1577” Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland. Edited by Joseph Bain. 1894. H. M. General Registry House, Edinburgh, 6-7.
Brown, Michael. “War, Allegiance, and Community in the Anglo-Scottish Marches: Teviotdale in the Fourteenth Century.” Northern History 41, no. 2 (September 2004): 219-38. doi:10.1179/nhi.2004.41.2.219.
“Commission to Sir Wm. Selby, Sir Rob. Delavale, and others” Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Of the Reign of James I, 1603-1610. Edited by Mary Anne Everet Green. 1857. London, 198.
Forster, John, “Forster to the Privy Council October 30, 1583” Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland. Edited by Joseph Bain. 1894. H. M. General Registry House, Edinburgh, 113.
“For the Quieting and Keeping in Obedience of the Disordered Subjects, Inhabitants of the Borders, Highlands and Isles”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews, 2007-2023), 1587/7/70. Date accessed: 20 April 2023. https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
Fraser, George MacDonneld. The Steel Bonnets: The Story of the Anglo-Scottish Border Reivers. New York: Skyhorse, 2015 3-5.
Gray, John. “Lawlessness on the Frontier.” History & Anthropology 12, no. 4 (September 2001): 381-408. doi:10.1080/02757206.2001.9960940 383.
Groundwater, Anna. “The Obligations of Kinship and Alliance within Governance in the Scottish Borders, 1528-1625.” Canadian Journal of History 48, no. 1 (Spring/Summer2013): 1-27. doi:10.3138/cjh.48.1.1. 3.
Hay, D. “England, Scotland and Europe: The Problem of the Frontier.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 25 (January 1, 1975): 77-91. doi:10.2307/3679087. 79.
“Instructions to Edmond Lord Sheffield” Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Of the Reign of James I, 1603-1610. Edited by Mary Anne Everet Green. 1857. London, 24.
“Item, Because the Prelates,”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews, 2007-2023), 1385/4/3. Date accessed: 9 April 2023. https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
“Item, That no office,”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews, 2007-2023), 1455/8/6. Date accessed: 19 April 2023. https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
“Judicial Proceeding: Process Against the Duke of Albany”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews, 2007-2023), 1479/10/7. Date accessed: 19 April 2023. https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
Leeson, Peter T. “The Laws of Lawlessness.” The Journal of Legal Studies 38, no. 2 (June 1, 2009): 471-503. doi:10.1086/592003. 473.
”Legislation”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews, 2007-2023), 1436/10/2. Date accessed: 8 March 2023 https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
“Memorandum on the Borders 1579” Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland. Edited by Joseph Bain. 1894. H. M. General Registry House, Edinburgh, 13-15.
“Minute to Lord Scrope February 18, 1583” Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland. Edited by Joseph Bain. 1894. H. M. General Registry House, Edinburgh, 94-95.
Musgrave, Simon, “Sir Simon Musgrave on Border Offences July 1583” Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland. Edited by Joseph Bain. 1894. H. M. General Registry House, Edinburgh, 105.
Neville, Cynthia. “Scottish Influences on the Medieval Laws of the Anglo-Scottish Marches.” The Scottish Historical Review 81, no. 212 (October 1, 2002): 161-85. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.25529646&site=eds-live&scope=site. 162-163.
Privy Council of England, “The Privy Council to the Warden of the East March January 25, 1580” Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland. Edited by Joseph Bain. 1894. H. M. General Registry House, Edinburgh, 13.
Reid, R. R. “The Office of Warden of the Marches; Its Origin and Early History.” The English Historical Review 32, no. 128 (October 1, 1917): 479-96. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/login.aspx?dirct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsfsr.550854&site=eds-live&scope=site. 482.
Scroope, Thomas, “Lord Scroope to Burghley May 12 1593” Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland. Edited by Joseph Bain. 1894. H. M. General Registry House, Edinburgh, 459.
Scrope, Henry, “Defense of the Egnlish Border September 1583” Calendar of Border Papers, Vol 1. Calendars of Letters and Papers Relating to the Affairs of the Borders of England and Scotland. Edited by Joseph Bain. 1894. H. M. General Registry House, Edinburgh, 110.
———-. “Scrope to Walsingham Dec 17, 1587” H. M. General Registry House, Edinburgh, 116.
———-. “Scrope to Walsingham January 13, 1584” H. M. General Registry House, Edinburgh, 127.
Stewart, James I, “The King to Earl of Dunbar” Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Of the Reign of James I, 1603-1610. Edited by Mary Anne Everet Green. 1857. London, 338.
———-. “The King to The Bishop of Durham, Sir Wm Selby, Sir Wm. Fenwick, Edw. Gray, and Edw. Charleton” 1857. London, 358.
Sybil, Jack M. “ ‘The Debatable Lands’, Terra Nullius, and the Natural Law in the Sixteenth Century.” Northern History 41, no. 2 (September 2004): 289-300. doi.10.1179/007817204790181050. 294.
“The First Point Concerning the Pacification and Governing of the Highlands”, The Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707, K.M. Brown et al eds (St Andrews, 2007-2023), 1369/3/5. Date accessed: 9 April 2023. https://www.rps.ac.uk/.
William Lord Bishop of Carlile, “Edward VI 1549.” in Leges Marchiarum. Edited By William Nicolson, 64. London: Printed for Tim. Goodwin, 1705.
———-. “Henry III 1249.” London: Printed for Tim. Goodwin, 1705. 1-2.
———-. “Henry VI 1449.” London: Printed for Tim. Goodwin, 1705. 16.
———-. “Queen Elizabeth 1563.” London: Printed for Tim. Goodwin, 1705. 93-94.
———-. “Queen Elizabeth 1596.” London: Printed for Tim. Goodwin, 1705. 104-105.
William Patten, The Expedicion Into Scotlande of the most woorthely fortunate prince Edward, Duke of Soomerset, vncle onto our most noble souereign lord ye kinges Maiestie Edvvard the VI. goouernour of hys hyghnes persone, and protectour of hys graces realmes, dominions and subiectes made in the first yere of his Maiesties most prosperous reign, and set out by way of diarie, by W. Patten Londoner. London, (London: Printed by Richard Grafton, 30 June 1548) 241-243 https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/a09164.0001.001/241:5?page=root;size=125;vid=14557;view=text.
The Liberty Chronicles 
Leave a comment