mrn'mmm. 
 
 e Trustworthiness of 
 order Ballads 
 
 •j — 
 
 itzwilliam Elliot
 
 Sent by desire of Author.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 The Trustworthiness of 
 Border Ballads
 
 The Trustworthiness of 
 Border Ballads 
 
 AS EXEMrLIFIF.n liY 
 
 ''Jamie Telfer i' the Fair Dodhead " 
 And Other Ballads 
 
 BY 
 
 LIEUT.-COl,. 
 TtiF. »lIoN. FITZWILI.IAM RLLIOT 
 
 WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS 
 
 EDINBURGH AND LONDON 
 
 MCMVI 
 
 All Kit'lils rcscnifd
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 ^ It may be as well to explain how the papers published in this 
 
 volume came to be written. 
 
 Some years ago I was interesting myself in matters relating 
 to Border raids, when my attention was drawn to the ballad of 
 
 "^ "Jamie Telfer of the Fair Dodhead," which is frequently referred 
 
 '^^'* to as noteworthy, not only for the vividness of the picture drawn 
 
 but for the accuracy of the events recorded. On studying it, 
 
 however, I found that the story was so contrary to probability, 
 
 and so absolutely impossible with regard to geography, that I 
 
 ^ put it aside as useless. 
 
 Being profoundly ignorant of matters relating to ballads, I 
 was not then aware of the existence of another version, although 
 Sir Walter Scott had noticed the fact in his prefatory note in 
 the Minstrelsy. But subsequently I heard of the publication of 
 this version in Professor Child's great work entitled ' English 
 and Scottish Popular Ballads,' and upon reading it I found that 
 all the improbabilities, all the difficulties in the way of believing 
 in the essential truth of the story, disappeared. 
 
 JLc'ji-..»Ub
 
 vi PREFACE. 
 
 Both versions are interesting in their way, — the one in thai 
 the story defies criticism, the other as an instance of a ballatl 
 having been adapted — as we are told used frequently to be done 
 in old days — to suit the ears of a powerful chief or clan. 
 
 Having thus become interested in the general question of 
 the trustworthiness of the Border ballads, I turned lu the one 
 entitled "The Battle of Philiphaugh," concerning which Sir Walter 
 Scott remarked that its sole merit lay in the fact that it coincided 
 accurately with history. I read the ballad, and then Sir Walter's 
 description of the battle, and found them to differ largely. Next, 
 I turned to the account of the battle given by Hogg in his 
 " Wat Pringle o' the Yair," included in the " New Edition of the 
 Works of the Ettrick Shepherd," by the Rev. Thomas Thomson, 
 who states that the circumstances of Montrose's surprise and the 
 battle of Philiphaugh are related " not only with minuteness, but 
 striking accuracy." On reading it, however, I found that it not 
 only differed from the ballad and from Sir Walter's account, but 
 contained much which was evidently incompatible with possibility. 
 Once again, I turned to a very high authority on all matters re- 
 lating to Selkirkshire — namely, to Mr Craig - Brown's History of 
 that county. The account here given differs from Sir Walter's, 
 differs from the "strikingly accurate" account of Hogg, and differs 
 from the ballad. Under these circumsta/ices it seemed to me that 
 Sir Walter's statement that the ballad coincided accurately with 
 history was open to dispute ; and partly to assure myself as to 
 this, and partly to satisfy an awakened interest regarding the 
 battle itself, I decided to study the subject for myself, and to 
 build upon the very few facts related by contemporary writers
 
 PREFACE. vii 
 
 an account which would be neither improbable in itself, incon- 
 sistent with common-sense on the part of the actors in the scene, 
 nor impossible with regard to geography. 
 
 My studies have resulted in the account of the battle given in 
 the third paper in this volume. It does not lay claim to being in 
 all respects accurate, for accuracy is unattainable where we have 
 so few facts to guide us ; but these few facts, if we only take 
 them for what they are worth, and neither try to magnify their 
 importance nor, on the other hand, to ignore them because, 
 forsooth, they may not accord with some preconceived idea of 
 our own, do nevertheless provide us with sufficient material to 
 make a probable story, — and probability is, I think, all that can 
 be aimed at. Indeed, what I have written regarding this battle 
 does not merit to be called an account nor a description : it is 
 merely a not improbable conjecture. 
 
 I may add that I have tried to be absolutely impartial 
 throughout, and have most certainly not been conscious of the 
 slightest wish to bolster up a tradition related in an old ballad. 
 I cannot, however, be otherwise than pleased that the occurrences 
 as I have described them arc in accordance with the tradition, in 
 so far as it relates to the disposition of the Covenanters and the 
 tactics employed by them. 
 
 The paper on the old song of "Little Jock Elliot" has less 
 connection with the question regarding the trustworthiness of 
 ballads than with that regarding their authenticity. This ballad. 
 provided it is genuine, is an interesting instance of tradition, 
 passed down orally by the medium of song for centuries, referring 
 to an incident of whicii history affords us definite information.
 
 viii PREFACE. 
 
 But is the ballad genuine ? That is the question which I have 
 attempted to answer. 
 
 The chief point of interest in the paper entitled "On Border 
 Verse relating to Flodden Traditions" will, I think, be found in 
 the reasons given in support of the somewhat unorthodox view 
 that the condition of the Scottish Borders for some years after 
 Flodden was not such as to make it probable that verse par- 
 taking of the nature of a lament should have then originated in 
 that district. In " Marmion" reference is made to the traditionary 
 Flodden " wail," and we there read that 
 
 " Tradition, legend, tune, and song. 
 Shall many a day that wail prolong." 
 
 The view expressed here, however, is that this wail originates from 
 a period considerably later than Flodden. 
 
 One or two remarks are also made on the Selkirk and Hawick 
 traditions, both of which date from this period. 
 
 W. F. E. 
 
 i6 Royal Tkrrace, Edinburgh, 
 yune 1906.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGF. 
 
 I. "JAMIE TKI.FER" — WHICH IS THR ORIGINAl. BA/.IAD? . . I 
 
 11. " IJTTLE JOCK ELLIOT" — IS THIS A GENUINE OLD BALLAD? . 71 
 
 III. THE nATTI.E OF PIULIPIIAUGI I AND LOCAL TRADITION . . 83 
 
 IV. ON nonnER verse relatinc. to elouden traditions . 131
 
 MAPS. 
 
 TAGF, 
 
 MAT Tt) ILLUSTRATE THE BALLAD OF "JAMIE TELFER l' THE' 
 FAIR DODHEAD" 
 
 MAP TO H.LUSTRATE THE VERSION IN THE BORDER MINSTRELSY 36 
 
 MAT TO ILLUSTRATE THE THEORY OF DODHEAD BEING ON TIH-; 
 DOD BURN 
 
 THILIPHAUGH, I3TII SEPTEMBER 1645 . . . . .128
 
 I. 
 
 "JAMIE TELFER I' THE FAIR DODHEAD 
 
 OR, 
 
 "JAMIE TELFER OF THE FAIR DODHEAD" 
 
 WHICH TS THE ORIGINAL BALLAD?
 
 PART I. 
 
 Which is the original ballad — 
 
 "Jamie Telfer in the Fair Dodhead" 
 
 or, 
 " Jamie Telfer of the Fair Dodhead " ? ^ 
 
 The first of the above-named ballads is from a MS. still in 
 existence,- and formerly in the possession of Mr Charles Kirkpatrick 
 Sharpe ; the second was published by Sir Walter Scott in the 
 ' Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border,' where, unfortunately, he does 
 not, as in other instances, give us the least hint as to how he 
 obtained it, — whether from a manuscript or from recitation. We 
 happen to know, however, that he had seen a version in the 
 possession of Mrs Hogg, or heard her recite the ballad ; for her 
 son, the Ettrick Shepherd, wrote to Sir Walter about the time of 
 the publication of the ballad in the Minstrelsy, expressing surprise 
 at the great differences existing between it and his mother's ver- 
 sion ; and we may, therefore, assume that it was to this version 
 that Sir Walter referred when he wrote of "the existence of 
 another ballad in which nearly the same incidents are related," 
 for otherwise he must have been aware of the existence of two 
 
 ' "In" implies tenancy; "of" implies - In the possession of Mr VVilii.im M.ic- 
 
 proprictorship. m.ith, Edinburgh.
 
 4 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 versions in addition to the one he was publishing, while giving it 
 to be understood that he knew only of one. 
 
 It may also be noticed that Hogg must have been ignorant 
 of the existence of any version other than his mother's, for other- 
 wise there would have been no cause for him to be surprised. It 
 follows also that while Sir Walter Scott had been made acquainted 
 with the version known to the Hoggs, he had maintained secrecy 
 towards them regarding the version which he published in the 
 Minstrelsy. 
 
 Although the ballads are so similar that it is evident that 
 the one is merely an adaptation of the other, yet there are two 
 important classes of differences — namely, those which may be 
 termed literary differences, and which are dealt with in Part III. 
 of this paper ; and those which occur in the relation of the actual 
 incidents, and which I shall now proceed to consider in some 
 detail. 
 
 The difference as regards the relation of the facts lies in 
 the parts assigned respectively to the Elliots and the Scotts, — 
 Sharpe's version ascribing the merit for the recovery of the kye 
 to the former, Scott's to the latter, clan. This matter may not 
 appear to be of much importance, but it involves the trust- 
 worthiness of this famous ballad — and to that extent the trust- 
 worthiness of the old ballads in general, — a quality which will 
 be somewhat severely shaken should Scott's version be proved 
 to be the original, since the story therein told is incorrect his- 
 torically regarding one of the alleged actors in the scene, is 
 ridiculous having regard to local topography, and is highly im- 
 probable as to every detail recorded. On the other hand, 
 Sharpe's version is consistent with our knowledge of the chief 
 persons referred to, with local topography, and with probability 
 regarding the details.
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 5 
 
 Since it is impossible to understand the subject without 
 some knowledge of the country, three maps have been prepared 
 from the Ordnance Survey. Map i is a general map, but is 
 also specially illustrative of Sharpe's version ; Map 2 illustrates 
 Scott's version ; Map 3 has been prepared with reference to a 
 theory that has in late years been advanced with a view to 
 overcoming the difficulties existing in Scott's version, to the effect 
 that the Fair Dodhead was not where Sir Walter Scott located it, 
 near Singlee in Selkirkshire, but at a spot some 13 miles nearer 
 the frontier of the two kincjdoms. 
 
 & 
 
 Now, in the first place, let us see what the ballads tell 
 us regarding the movements of the English raiders. 
 
 As to these, both versions agree in every particular. We 
 are told- — (i) that they intended to seek a prey in Teviotdale'; 
 (2) that they marched by Hardhaughswire ; (3) that they went 
 to Borthwick Water and thence to Dodhead ; (4) that they retired 
 via the Frostily burn; (5) that from the Frostily burn they went 
 " into [or unto] the plain " ; (6) that their retreat was continued 
 to, or towards, the Rittcr ford on the Liddel, and thence towards 
 the Kershope ford. 
 
 Remarks as to (i) will be deferred till later. 
 
 With regard to (2) and (3). Unfortunately the position of 
 Hardhaughswire cannot be ascertained : no name resembling it is 
 to be found either on the Ordnance Survey or on Blaeu's Atlas 
 (1654). Sir W. Scott, indeed, states in the Minstrelsy that it 
 " is the pass leading from Liddesdale to the head of Teviotdale," 
 but this is a very vague and indeed an inaccurate statement, since, 
 though there are many passes leading from Liddesdale (including 
 Hermitage Water) into upper Teviotdale, not one leads to the 
 head of that valley : from Ewesdale there are passes that do so.
 
 6 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 but not from Liddesdale. However, wherever Hardhaughswire 
 may have been, we may be practically certain that the raiders 
 did not enter Teviotdale by any pass to the east of Mosspaul, 
 or at all events of Tudhope, for had they done so their line of 
 march from Bewcastle, whence they came, would have passed 
 through the middle of the country inhabited by the Armstrongs, 
 Elliots, Nixons, and Crosiers, and it would have been clearly 
 unwise on their part to have wantonly incurred, during their 
 advance, the risk of arousing those clans. There can be little 
 doubt that the English kept well away from this district — which 
 was, moreover, guarded by Hermitage Castle — and moved by one 
 of the following three routes leading into Teviotdale : ( i ) by the 
 Meikledale burn and across the hills to Merrylaw ; (2) by the pass 
 across the hills between Pikethaw and the Wisp to Merrylaw ; ^ 
 (3) by Mosspaul and down the Frostily burn to the Teviot. (It 
 is possible, though hardly probable, that they may have moved 
 over Tudhope, but as this route would have likewise led them 
 down the Frostily, it may be considered as identical with route (3).) 
 Now, supposing they marched by either route (i) or (2), they 
 would, after passing Merrylaw and Ramscleugh, — though not too 
 near either place for fear of giving the alarm, — have hit upon the 
 Borthwick somewhere near Howpasley.^ 
 
 ■ This pass used formerly to be called haughswire was a pass leading to the head 
 
 "Ewes Doors," and was the scene in August of Teviotdale, and though no doubt he de- 
 
 1565 of a fight between the Scotts and scribed it as coming from "Liddesdale," he 
 
 Elliots, in which the former clan suffered may perhaps have included Ewesdale in that 
 
 a severe defeat. Six of the principal men expression. In the second place, when a 
 
 about Buccleuch were slain and sixty of their raid is made into an enemy's country it is 
 
 number made prisoners. ('Border Elliots.') desirable to have another route to retire by 
 
 - It seems highly probable that one of than that taken during the advance, when 
 
 these routes — it is unimportant which — was the country is likely to be disturbed and 
 
 the one actually taken. In the first place, the inhabitants to collect to bar a retreat. 
 
 Sir VV. Scott may have had good grounds, The line selected for retreat should lie 
 
 unknown to us, for asserting that Hard- through fresh country, and be as direct
 
 JAMIE TEL PER. 7 
 
 Supposing, however, that they followed route (3), they must 
 have crossed the Teviot after reaching the foot of the Frostily, 
 and then, pushing straight on between Dryden Fell and Common- 
 side Moor, have hit on the Borthwick near Muselee. 
 
 (It seems improbable that after reaching the foot of the Frostily 
 they should have turned in an easterly direction down Teviotdale, 
 for by so doing they would certainly have alarmed Coultart Cleugh 
 and other places in the valley, which we know was not the case, 
 since some hours later we are told that Telfer " took the fray " 
 there : moreover, by moving in that direction they would have 
 been approaching Branxholm, — a very undesirable thing to do !) 
 
 From Borthwick Water they went to the Fair Dodhead, 
 which is near Singlee in Selkirkshire. It lay straight ahead of 
 them, and was only 7^ miles distant from Howpasley, or, if the 
 raiders had moved via Muselee, which is less likely, only ^yi 
 miles from there. 
 
 With regard to the other points of similarity which exist 
 between the two ballads, a few remarks will be incidentally made 
 when we come to consider the English retreat. 
 
 Let us now turn to the statements made in each ballad ' 
 regarding the action taken by Jamie Telfer after the Fair Dod- 
 head had been harried, and presumably after the raiders had set 
 out on their return towards England, — for until then he is not 
 likely to have had an opportunity of hurrying off with the object 
 of "raising the fray." 
 
 and easy as possible. By using ciliier of .idv.incecl by any pass to the west of the 
 
 these two routes for their advance, the Eng- Frostily, and therefore it is almost certain 
 
 lish left undisturbed the more direct and that they did so by Merrylaw, and thence 
 
 comparatively easy route by the Frostily for to Howpasley and Dodhcid. 
 their retreat. Reasons have already been ' The ballads will be found in ju.xtaposi- 
 
 given against the probability of their having tion at the end of this paper.
 
 8 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 Sharpe's version (stanza 7) makes Jamie run 8 miles from Dod- 
 head to Branxholm, — the true distance being between 7 and 8. 
 
 Scott's version makes him run from Dodhead to Stobs, a 
 distance of 10 miles, — the true distance being between 10 and 
 1 1 miles. 
 
 In both cases, therefore, the distances named are in accord- 
 ance with fact. The important point to notice is — and a glance 
 at maps 2 and 3 will show the truth of the statement I am going 
 to make — that, according to Scott's version, Telfer on his way to 
 Stobs must have passed within a stone's - throw of Branxholm, 
 and therefore the two versions are really in agreement as to 
 his having gone direct from Dodhead to Branxholm : they 
 differ only in that the one, Sharpe's, states that he stopped 
 there to ask for aid, while the other, Scott's, states that he did 
 not do so, though eventually, according to this version, he 
 returned there after a long detour of very many miles. 
 
 Stanza 8 is the same in each version, with the important 
 difference that, in Sharpe's, it is Buccleuch, the laird of Branx- 
 holm, in Scott's, it is Gibbie Elliot, the laird of Stobs, who asks, 
 "Whae's this that brings the fray to me.-*" Now, Sharpe's version 
 is consistent with history, for at the period to which the ballad 
 refers Buccleuch zuas the laird of Branxholm, but Scott's version 
 makes a blunder in introducing a "Gibbie Elliot of Stobs." The 
 Hon. George Elliot, in his ' Border Elliots and the Family of 
 Minto' (1897), points out that no such individual existed until 
 some years after the union of the crowns; and it is clear, he 
 writes, that, since the English party was commanded by a 
 Government official, the Captain of Bewcastle, the raid occurred 
 before that time. Curiously enough, exception has been taken 
 by Sir George Douglas to this exposure of an undeniably 
 historical mistake because it is based "on ^rounds of historical
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 9 
 
 accuracy scarcely applicable to a form of poetry so loose and 
 so subject to successive modification as the ballad." ^ The 
 meaning of this criticism is not quite clear. There would have 
 been sense in it, doubtless, and perhaps some force, had only 
 one version of the ballad been in existence, and that one the 
 one published in the Minstrelsy, and had the author of the 
 ' Border Elliots ' been seeking to prove that it was not of ancient 
 composition ; but such was not the case. Mr Elliot was discussing 
 which of two versions was probably the original, and in showing 
 the one to be consistent with history and the other not, he 
 established a point — he did not claim even that that point was 
 conclusive of the whole argument — in favour of the former. 
 
 The pith of Sir George Douglas's remark appears to be that 
 we ought not to read the ballad too literally, and that though 
 " Gibbie Elliot of Stobs " is named, we should not take this to 
 mean necessarily " Gibbie Elliot of Stobs," but rather the in- 
 dividual of that surname of the greatest repute at the time, 
 namely, the head of the Elliot clan ; and with this many persons 
 may be inclined to agree. But if it is not incumbent upon us 
 to understand from the ballad that Telfer sought aid from 
 Elliot of Stobs, surely we may understand that he did not go to 
 Stobs ; and if it is permissible to believe from the ballad that he 
 sought aid from the head of the clan, surely we must also believe 
 that he went to where that individual resided, namely, with the 
 rest of his clan in Liddesdale ; and this is precisely what Sharpe's 
 version says he did. Stanza lo of this version relates that Jamie 
 was told by Buccleuch to seek aid from Martin Elliot, who, we 
 know, was the de facto chief of his clan during the period to 
 which the ballad clearly relates, and resided sometimes at Braidley 
 
 ' 'History of the Border Counties (Roxburgh, Selkirk, Peebles),' 1S99. See footnote 
 on page 310 of that work.
 
 lo JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 on Hermitage Water, sometimes at Prickenhaugh, close to Lariston 
 on Liddel Water. 
 
 In the corresponding stanza of Scott's version the mythical 
 " Gibbie Elliot of Stobs " tells Jamie to apply to Buccleuch at 
 Branxholm, and the advice is followed. Now, if for "Gibbie 
 Elliot of Stobs" we are to read "the chief of the Elliot clan," 
 as has been suggested, we must necessarily understand that Jamie 
 Telfer ran direct from Dodhead into Liddesdale, then to Coultart 
 Cleugh in Teviotdale — a distance of over 30 miles, and the whole 
 of it on foot !— and thence to Branxholm ! 
 
 Stanza 11 of Sharpe's version tells us that Telfer paid black- 
 mail to Buccleuch of Branxholm. That he should have done so 
 seems likely enough, since his home was situated in the middle 
 of the Scott country. 
 
 Scott's version says he paid black-mail to " Gibbie Elliot of 
 Stobs," or, seeing there was no such person, let us say to the 
 head of the Elliot clan. But the latter resided in Liddesdale ; 
 and even if he had resided at Stobs, it does seem most improb- 
 able that Telfer should have paid black-mail to him rather than 
 to the chief of the clan in the very midst of which he lived. 
 (The question of black-mail, on the supposition of Dodhead being 
 on the Dod burn, is considered in Part II. of this paper.) 
 
 Stanza 12 of Sharpe's version makes Jamie run "up the water- 
 gate " to Coultart Cleugh. " Up the water-gate " was of course 
 the natural route for him to take for Coultart Cleugh, coming, 
 as this version states he did, from Branxholm. 
 
 The statement in the corresponding stanza (13) of Scott's 
 
 version, that 
 
 " He has turned him to the Tiviot side, . . . 
 Till he cam to the Coultart Cleugh," 
 
 is inconsistent with his having; come, in accordance with this
 
 JAMIE TELFER. ii 
 
 version, from Stobs, and it is equally inconsistent with his having 
 come from the residence of the head of the Elliot clan in Liddes- 
 dale. If Jamie indeed followed this course, he must not only 
 have made a very considerable detour, but must also, for a 
 second time, have passed at no great distance from Branxholm, 
 his goal. 
 
 With reference to this point, a really extraordinary observa- 
 tion is made by Professor Veitch in his ' History and Poetry of 
 the Scottish Border.' He writes (see vol. ii. p. 148): " Telfer, 
 in running [from Dodhead near Singlee] for Stobs across the 
 moor, followed in the direction of the retreating band, who were 
 making for the pass at the head of the Teviot. Having reached 
 Stobs, the other places oj his call came in quite naturally — 
 Coultart Cleugh and Branxholm!' The absolute inaccuracy of 
 these two statements can be seen by a mere glance at Map 2. 
 
 Both versions now agree in stating that, after Jamie had been 
 refused aid, he went direct to Coultart Cleugh and thence to 
 Catlock Hill ; but from that point they differ, — Sharpe's version 
 saying that he went on to Prickenhaugh, Scott's version saying 
 that he went on — "back" would have been a better word — to 
 Branxholm. 
 
 Let us now consider the story as told by the former 
 version. 
 
 We have not, I think, any right to assume that when Telfer 
 left Branxholm he intended to follow Bucclcuch's advice, and to 
 go direct to Martin Elliot. His sole object was to save his 
 cattle ; and he might, upon leaving Branxholm, have well said to 
 himself tliat instead of continuing on foot over the routrh hills 
 by Sundhope to Prickenhaugh, a distance, as the crow flies, of 
 about 13 miles, — he had already run 7 or 8, — it would be
 
 12 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 wiser to run up Teviot Water to Coultart Cleuj^h, where his 
 brother-in-law, who lived there, would be able to provide him 
 with a horse to carry him into Liddesdale. Moreover, by follow- 
 ing this route he evidently hoped to get ahead of the English 
 raiders, for he must have been tolerably confident that they in- 
 tended to retire by the Frostily, and equally confident that by 
 the time he reached Coultart Cleugh, after a total run of 1 2 miles, 
 they would still be well to the north of the Teviot. Another 
 advantage to be gained by adopting this course was that he 
 would probably get a few men to accompany him from Teviot- 
 dale, and, what was of the utmost importance, would be able to 
 warn the inhabitants of Hermitage Water as he passed on his 
 way to Liddesdale. For these reasons it is impossible to say 
 that in going from Branxholm to Prickenhauf{h via Coultart 
 Cleugh, instead of via Sundhope, he acted otherwise than in 
 accordance with ordinary common-sense. 
 
 His brother-in-law havinw o-iven him a horse "weel fed wi 
 corn and hay," — the meaning, of course, being that the horse 
 was in condition for a good gallop, — he crossed the hills to Cat- 
 lock HilP in Hermitage Water, a distance of, say, 7 miles. Here 
 he was received by Martin's Hab, who provided him with a fresh 
 horse — and doubtless one was welcome after such a gallop — to 
 enable him to continue in the same direction to Prickenhauofh 
 on the Liddel, the usual residence of Martin Elliot, the chief of 
 the clan. It should be mentioned that the reference to Martin's 
 Hab is quite consistent with our knowledge of family history, 
 for Martin had in fact a son called Hab, a well-known man in 
 
 ' On Blaeu's Atlas the name is spelt fluence of those streams. "Lock" signifies 
 
 "Catlie Hill"; it is there shown as situ- "the meeting of waters, the junction of 
 
 ated between the Dinlay burn and the rivers." See Morris's 'Etymology of Local 
 
 Hermitage Water, and close to the con- Names.'
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 13 
 
 his clay. We also know that Catlock Hill was inhabited by an 
 Elliot in the middle of the sixteenth century. 
 
 We must now turn to Scott's version. Here Telfer's intention 
 when he left Stobs is evident : it was to go direct to Branxholm, — 
 indeed, what other course was open to him ? He could not, even 
 had he succeeded in raising a few men to aid him, have hoped to 
 bar the retreat of the raiders through the Mosspaul pass, because 
 they would have been at the head of the Frostily burn before he 
 had reached its foot. He had also admittedly abandoned all hope 
 of obtaining assistance from the Elliots, or, in other words, had 
 abandoned the hope of intercepting the retreat of the English across 
 the Liddel. The only possible course of action, then, remaining to 
 him was to go with the utmost rapidity to Branxholm, and induce 
 Buccleuch to raise a sufficiently large and well-mounted body of 
 men to ptirsue. Well, as a matter of fact, in accordance with the 
 version we are considering, what did he do ? Instead of running 
 to Branxholm, which is 3^ miles from Stobs as the crow flies, he 
 ran to Coultart Cleugh, a distance of 5^ miles, — indeed consider- 
 ably more by the route which we are told he took, — to find himself, 
 when there, farther remote from his goal than when he left his 
 starting-point ! 
 
 Again, what did he do when he got to Coultart Cleugh .'' He 
 went to Catlock Hill, which place has already been said to be identi- 
 cal with Catlie Hill in Hermitage Water. This, however, is denied 
 by the supporters of Scott's version : they say that, since Telfer's 
 intention was to go to Branxholm, it is inconceivable that, from 
 Coultart Cleugh, he should have passed over the hills for 7 miles 
 into Hermitage Water and thence back again for another 10 miles 
 or so to Branxholm, and therefore they argue Catlock Hill cannot 
 have been in Hermitage Water. In arriving at this conclusion they
 
 i4 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 ignore the possibility of the details of the story, as related in Scott's 
 version, being incorrect. 
 
 Professor Veitch writes thus :^ " Catslock Hill,^ between these 
 two places [Coultart Cleugh and Branxholm], has evidently been 
 confused with Catslack in Yarrow. There is a Catslack and Catslack 
 burn in Yarrow. There was a Catslack peel, — but there is no 
 Catslack Hill. The Catslock Hill of the ballad has to be sous^ht in 
 some locality betzveen Coultart Cleugh and Branxholm." In making 
 this bold statement, Professor Veitch lets his " wish be father to the 
 thought," for he gives no reason whatever in support of it, and 
 brings forward no argument save that that site would be more com- 
 patible, in his opinion, than any other with the truth of the tale as 
 related by the version which he favours ! 
 
 Let us now see whether, in fact, this really preposterously cool 
 suggestion renders the story in any way more credible. 
 
 According to it, Jamie Telfer, upon leaving Stobs, directed his 
 course ^ towards Branxholm, a distance of about 3 miles, but upon 
 reaching the Teviot, and consequently when close to his destination, 
 he turned up the river-side for some 4 miles to Coultart Cleugh, 
 necessarily passing on his way close to Allanhaugh, Commonside, 
 and also Professor Veitch's Catslock Hill, but without raising the 
 fray at any of those places. After a run from Stobs of 6 or 7 miles 
 he reached Coultart Cleugh, where he is provided with a horse 
 " right weel fed with corn and hay," — the implication being, as has 
 already been pointed out, that he had a good long stretch before 
 
 1 ' History and Poetry of the Scottish read Professor Veitch's assertion that Cat- 
 Border,' vol. ii. p. 148. lock Hill was on the Teviot. Since doing 
 
 - In Scott's version given in the Minstrelsy so, though I have altered the text consider- 
 
 the name is spelt " Catslock." ably, I have thought it better to let the 
 
 ^ See verses 13, 17, and 21 of Scott's ver- map remain as it is : it illustrates the 
 
 sion. See also Map 2. It will be noticed absurdity of the one view as strongly as 
 
 that the map shows Telfer to have crossed the text shows, in my opinion, the absurdity 
 
 the hills from Coultart Cleugh into Hermi- of the other. 
 tage Water : it was drawn before I had
 
 JAMIE TELFER. IS 
 
 him, — and he gallops back again by the easy course he had come 
 for, say, a couple of miles to " Catslock Hill," where fresh horses 
 are turned out, and this desperate gallop resumed for another two 
 miles to Branxholm. 
 
 Such is the folly we must necessarily believe if we accept the 
 site for Catlock Hill selected by Professor Veitch. 
 
 That Telfer, hurrying from Stobs to Branxholm, should have 
 gone to Coultart Cleugh is simply inconceivable, and, being incon- 
 ceivable, are we to apply the argument made use of by Professor 
 Veitch and assert that one of the three places — Stobs, Coultart 
 Cleugh, Branxholm — is not where the map shows it to be? or 
 are we to adopt the alternative and to think that the details of 
 the story are incorrect ? 
 
 It may, perhaps, be considered superfluous to notice that, 
 according to Professor Veitch's view, Telfer must, on his journey 
 between Dodhead and Branxholm, have covered 17 miles on foot 
 and 4 on horseback, though the two places are barely 8 miles 
 apart. It has already been noticed that he must have passed on 
 two occasions quite close to the latter place. 
 
 It is difficult to understand what Professor Veitch means when 
 he writes that Catslock Hill has "evidently been confused with 
 Catslack in Yarrow," for surely it has never been suggested that 
 the ballad referred to this place and that Telfer ran over to Yarrow 
 on his way from Coultart Cleugh to Branxholm !— a suggestion fully 
 as wild as that of his going by Hermitage Water. It seems, how- 
 ever, highly probable — though I do not understand Professor Veitch 
 to make the suggestion — that the fact of there being a Catslack in 
 Yarrow may account for the difference in the spelling of the name 
 in the two versions. Nothing is more likely than that Sir Walter 
 Scott, in editing the version published in the Minstrelsy, should 
 have inadvertently written for "Catlock "the almost similar name
 
 i6 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 of a place situated in a district with which he was intimate. I do 
 not think there can be very much doubt that the " Catslock " of 
 Scott's version is a derivative, so to speak, of "Catslack," and that 
 the "Catlock" of Sharpe's version is the primary of the "CatHe" 
 of later days. 
 
 With regard to the general course taken by Jamie Telfer, it 
 should be noticed that both versions agree in the statement that 
 from the first place at which he stopped after leaving Dodhead he 
 went to Coultart Cleugh, and from there to Catlock Hill : they 
 differ as to the first place of call and as to the final destination. 
 That the one version should be sense and the other not so is due 
 to this other being but an adaptation of the former, and to its author 
 having failed to make the adaptation consistent with local topo- 
 graphy. The name of the first place at which Jamie stopped he 
 changed from Branxholm to Stobs, the name of the last place he 
 changed from Prickenhaugh to Branxholm, but, either from careless- 
 ness or from ignorance of the country, he neglected to alter the 
 intermediate places of call, with the result that the story is unin- 
 telligible. It may be interesting to inquire why he selected Stobs 
 of all places in the district, and why he altered the name of the 
 Elliot chiefly concerned from Martin to Gibbie. The reason is not 
 difficult to guess. He would, doubtless, have preferred to have 
 retained the name of Martin, and to have made Prickenhaugh the 
 first place of call ; but to have said that Telfer ran from Dodhead to 
 Prickenhaugh and thence back to Branxholm, via Coultart's Cleugh 
 and Catlock Hill, would have been too outrageous an assertion, 
 since the distance, measured from point to point as the crow flies, 
 is about 46 miles. It was therefore necessary to select for the first 
 place of call some old tower or castle situated nearer to Branxholm, 
 and he accordingly chose Stobs, a place for long connected with the 
 Elliot clan. Having selected Stobs, it would have been absurd to
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 17 
 
 retain Martin for the hero, since there has never been a Martin 
 Elliot of Stobs. Gibbie Elliot of Stobs is, however, a famous name, 
 and it was a natural one, therefore, for him to choose : it is probable, 
 moreover, that at the time this version was composed Gibbie may 
 have been generally believed — though quite erroneously — to have 
 been the chief of the Elliot clan at the period to which the ballad 
 relates, and that he had then resided at Stobs. No cleverer sub- 
 stitution of names than that of Stobs for Prickenhaueh and Gibbie 
 Elliot for Martin Elliot could have been devised. 
 
 There is one other point worth remarking upon. Both 
 versions show that bad feeling existed between Buccleuch and 
 the Elliot concerned. Now, this is easily understood in Sharpe's 
 version, since Martin Elliot and Buccleuch were for long bitter 
 enemies ; but in the case of Scott's version — since Gibbie Elliot 
 of Stobs and Buccleuch were not only intimate friends but were 
 nearly related, the former's mother having been a Scott of Buc- 
 cleuch — it can be explained best by the author having been 
 unacquainted with these facts, and of his having lived at a 
 period long subsequent to that in which the events recorded in 
 the ballad occurred. Another explanation might be that the 
 plagiarist disregarded the facts, trusting to his audience being 
 ignorant of them. 
 
 We must now consider the action taken by Martin Elliot, 
 according to the one version, and by Buccleuch, according to 
 the other, after receiving information of the English raid ; but 
 before doing so we should try to picture to ourselves the actual 
 state of affairs at those times. Where were the retreating band 
 when Telfer reached Prickenhaugh ? Where were they when 
 he reached Branxholm } My answers to both questions will be 
 found on the maps, where estimates are given of the time required 
 
 B
 
 iS JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 by Telfer to cover certain known distances, and of the distances 
 probably passed over by the English in those periods of time. 
 These computations cannot, of course, be accurate, since they 
 are based on rates of speed of which we are ignorant : we can 
 do little more than guess at these, and say that Telfer's rate on 
 foot is not likely to have been less than 4 miles an hour nor 
 greater than 6, and that that of the cattle probably lay between 
 2^ and 3^ miles an hour. If we allow, as I have done on 
 the maps, 5 miles an hour to the former and 3 miles an hour 
 to the latter, we shall not, I think, be very far from the truth. 
 We do not know whether the occurrences took place by day 
 or by night,^ nor whether the weather was fine or the reverse, 
 nor the condition of the burns and rivers to be crossed. All 
 these are considerations which would have greatly affected the 
 speed ; but they would not, I think, have affected the speed of 
 the one more than that of the other, and therefore, though of 
 course the actual distances covered would be affected, the relative 
 positions of the two parties, Telfer and the raiders, would not. 
 
 In one particular the calculations on the maps are rather 
 unfair to Sharpe's version. The rate of speed of a man on foot 
 diminishes as the distance increases : the distance run by Telfer 
 in accordance with Sharpe's version was 1 1 ]/i miles, the distance 
 according to Scott's version was between 16 and 17 miles; yet 
 in each case I have allowed the same rate. 
 
 ' The only light the ballads afford as to menced in the early part of the night, and 
 
 the time of day at which the occurrences to have continued during moonlight, and, 
 
 took place is in the first line of stanza 7. from the latter version, to have commenced 
 
 Sharpe's version states tliat "The moon in the early morning — at the darkest time 
 
 was up and the sun was down," while ac- of the whole night, when neither moon nor 
 
 cording to Scott's version "The sun wasna sun was up — and to have continued by day- 
 
 up, but the moon was down." Jamie's run, light. It would be rash to venture an opinion 
 
 then, and the English retreat may, from the as to which of these is the more likely to 
 
 former version, be inferred to have com- be true.
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 19 
 
 Ten miles an hour may be thought too low a rate for a 
 man on horseback, and perhaps it is so as regards the com- 
 paratively easy country between Coultart Cleugh and Branxholm, 
 but hardly for the rough hill country lying between Teviotdale 
 and Liddesdale ; and as to the former, the distance is so very 
 short — only 4 miles — that the difference in time would be trifling 
 whether we allowed 10 or 12 or even 15 miles an hour. 
 
 If the occurrences happened by night, Telfer's speed on 
 horseback would have been affected considerably more than that 
 of the raiders : by day it is easy to gallop over country across 
 which by night one is obliged — or one imagines oneself to be 
 obliged — to pick one's way with care. 
 
 In my estimate of the rates I have been guided by some per- 
 sonal experience of my own in driving large herds of cattle through 
 an enemy's country, and also by experience in riding by night over 
 country unknown to me and my companions, and I know well what 
 terribly slow work it is ; but in the case we are considering there 
 were only ten head of cattle, the men driving them were thorough 
 experts, and moreover were, probably, fairly well acquainted with 
 the country they passed over. 
 
 Let us now turn to Sharpe's ballad and see what it says regard- 
 ing the action taken by Martin Elliot. Although he is not likely to 
 have known anything definite about the English movements, we 
 may be certain that Telfer told him the hour of their departure from 
 Dodhead and the direction they took, and this knowledge would 
 have sufficed to lead him to think that the raiders were probably at 
 that time a little to the north of Mosspaul (see E. R. on Map i). 
 On this assumption the action he took was quite in accordance with 
 common-sense. It was as follows: He gave orders for the Liddel 
 and Hermitage Waters to be warned (see stanzas 23-25), naming
 
 20 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 specially the Currers at the Shaw, which is shown on Blaeu's Atlas 
 at the foot of Roughlie burn, and also Willie of Gorrenberry, who 
 was doubtless the Will Elliot of Gorranberry who was concerned in 
 the rescue of Kinmont Willie in the year 1596.^ While it is 
 evident from stanza 32 that he himself moved down Liddel Water, 
 it appears that he detached his son, Simmy," to take command of 
 the men of Hermitage Water, for stanzas 26, 30, and 31 make it 
 evident that the latter's force was in touch with the enemy some- 
 where between the Frostily and Ritter ford, and this is consistent 
 only with his having moved up Hermitage Water. 
 
 It has been objected that Simmy could not have got from 
 Prickenhaugh in sufficient time to head the English raiders on the 
 Frostily, and to get over this difficulty it has been suggested that 
 possibly Telfer did not go to Prickenhaugh, but only as far as 
 Braidley, for Martin was "of" Braidley and not "of" Prickenhaugh, 
 though he was usually spoken of in Liddesdale as "of" the latter 
 place, where he seems to have chiefly resided. By taking the fray 
 to " Prickenhaugh," the ballad-maker may, it is said, have referred 
 to the individual and not to the locality. This is no doubt highly 
 probable ; but I think it is better to base this argument solely on 
 the ballad as we find it, and the ballad says definitely that Telfer 
 went to "the Prickenhaugh." Now, as to the objection itself, I can 
 see no force in it, no difficulty to explain away. It is certain that 
 after the news of the raid reached Catlock Hill it must have spread 
 rapidly through Hermitage Water, and it is most unlikely for the 
 men of this district to have delayed taking action until they received 
 instructions from their chief. Moreover, stanza 26 mentions that the 
 cattle were driven up the Frostily and thence " into the plain," which 
 
 1 ' Border Elliots,' p. 508. killed in the fray, as the ballad states, the 
 
 2 The eldest son of Martin Elliot. He is event cannot have tal<en place prior to the 
 heard of from 15S0 to 1592, so if he was latter date. ('Border Elliots,' p. 509.)
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 21 
 
 surely means not the comparatively level piece of ground extending 
 over a few acres at the head of the Frostily at Mosspaul, but 
 rather the lower country somewhere near to where the Mosspaul 
 burn helps to form the Ewes, or, what is still more probable, the 
 country between Tarras Water and Ritter ford. It may be noticed 
 also that the words, 
 
 "When Simmy looked him afore. 
 
 He saw the kye right fast driving," 
 
 somewhat imply that when he first saw the cattle they were ahead 
 of him and being driven away from him. These considerations 
 quite dispose of any objection as to insufficiency of time. 
 
 From stanzas 30 and 31 we learn that Simmy endeavoured to 
 check the enemy's retreat to the Ritter ford, and that he was 
 killed in doing so ; and, lastly, stanza 32 relates how Martin pre- 
 vented them from reaching the Kershope ford. 
 
 The account given implies, no doubt, promptitude and rapidity 
 on the part of both Martin and Simmy Elliot, but nothing more. 
 After news of the raid had reached Prickenhaugh, it must have 
 taken Martin at least three, let us say four, hours to collect a 
 sufficiently large body of men, — though he was probably able to 
 do this to a great extent as he advanced, — and to lead them 
 to the Kershope ford, which place he can hardly have reached 
 before the English raiders had got close to Ritter ford. In the 
 meantime, Simmy, with men from Hermitage Water, and pos- 
 sibly, too, with Grieve of Coultart Cleugh and others who may 
 well have accompanied Telfer from Teviotdale, in the first place 
 got on to the track of the raiders, then pursued them, then har- 
 assed their retreat in the hope — a vain one as it turned out — of 
 affording sufficient time to his father and chief to move down 
 Liddcl with a stronger force and to join hands with him ; and
 
 22 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 finally, when the looked - for assistance never came, he boldly 
 attempted, though at the cost of "mony a toom saddle" and 
 of his own life, to bar the road to the Ritter ford. 
 
 The English now, curiously enough, turned towards Kershope : 
 that they did not cross the frontier at Ritter ford was due, pre- 
 sumably, to opposition from Simmy's force, — but then, why turn 
 up stream ? A move in the other direction would evidently 
 have been far the safer course. It may possibly have been due 
 to Simmy's tactics, but more probably, I think, to the Water 
 "coming down," — for the ballad mentions that snow had fallen, — 
 and to a consequent difficulty in getting the cattle across ; but 
 whatever the reason may have been, whether it was due to ne- 
 cessity or to rashness, the move to the left proved fatal — it took 
 them straight into Martin's teeth. Before they reached the Kers- 
 hope ford they were met by Elliot's comparatively fresh force 
 of Liddesdales and were completely defeated. The Captain of 
 Bewcastle was wounded and taken prisoner, while of his men 
 two were killed and fifteen " lay bleeding on the grund." 
 
 The whole account is perfectly intelligible, perfectly natural 
 and simple throughout. 
 
 We must now turn to Scott's version, and examine it in a 
 similar fashion. 
 
 We must first ask ourselves, Where would the English prob- 
 ably have been at the time the news of the raid reached Branx- 
 holm ? The answer depends upon whether the news travelled 
 there via Catlock Hill in Hermitage Water or via Professor 
 Veitch's supposititious Catlock Hill on Teviot Water. In the 
 former case, they would have been about 5 or 6 miles south of 
 Mosspaul (see E.R. 2 on Map 2); in the latter case, they would 
 not have got so far on their homeward journey, but would never-
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 23 
 
 theless have been well past Mosspaul, and have been about three- 
 quarters of a mile short of the spot marked E.R. i on Map 2. 
 
 Stanzas 24, 25, and 26 tell us that Buccleuch immediately 
 sent for his son, Willie (it may be remarked that Buccleuch had 
 no son of this name : Sir Walter Scott gets over this little diffi- 
 culty by assuming that Willie must have been his natural son !), 
 and issued orders for the Water — i.e., Teviot Water — to be 
 warned, and also Harden and Borthwick Water, Gaudilands, 
 Gilmanscleuch, and Commonside. Now it would have required 
 a considerable time to get men together from these places : 
 Harden is a long two miles away over the moors to the north 
 of Branxholm ; Gaudilands — or Goldielands, as the name is now 
 spelt — is about a mile down the Teviot ; and Allanhaugh and 
 Commonside are about a mile and three miles respectively in 
 the opposite direction. Gilmanscleuch is on the Ettrick,^ and 
 fully ten or eleven miles from Branxholm. 
 
 It is absolutely certain that Martin Elliot would have re- 
 quired less time to move down the level haugh by the Liddel 
 from Prickenhaugh to Kershope, collecting his forces as he went, 
 than Buccleuch — who would necessarily have been obliged before 
 movingr off to await the arrival of the men from the above-named 
 widely scattered localities, since none of these were on the route 
 which he afterwards followed — would have required to march 
 an equal distance into the rough hill country lying between Branx- 
 holm and Liddesdale. However, it is quite unnecessary to press 
 this point, and the really absurd assumption that equal distances 
 might have been covered in equal periods of time may be safely 
 made without fear of prejudicing this argument. Well, since we 
 
 ' Not on the Teviot or Bortluvick, as same curious mistake is made by Sir 
 stated in Sir George Douglas's ' History of Walter Scott in the Minstrelsy. 
 Roxburgh, Selkirk, and Peebles.' The
 
 24 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 allowed Martin Elliot four hours to get his force to Kershope, 
 so let us allow Buccleuch's party four hours to go an equal 
 distance,— that is to say, to the pass at the head of the Priest- 
 haugh burn, this being the most direct route, and the one which 
 Sir Walter Scott sugforests was followed.^ 
 
 At this moment where would the raiders have been ? We 
 left them at a spot about 5 or 6 miles south of Mosspaul, or, 
 on the assumption of Catlock Hill being in Teviotdale, some 
 4 or 5 miles farther north. During the next four hours they 
 would have accomplished 1 2 miles, and consequently in the 
 one case they would have got well into Cumberland, and, in 
 the other, they would have almost reached Ritter ford. The game 
 would have been up, and it seems quite unnecessary to pursue 
 this particular point any further. 
 
 I have now concluded my examination into the bare facts 
 of the story, as related by each version of the ballad, and the 
 conclusions drawn may be summarised briefly thus : — 
 
 Firstly, the raiders during their advance must have hit upon 
 the Borthwick either at Howpasley or at Muselee, more probably 
 at the former place, and thence continued in the same direction 
 for a few miles farther to Dodhead near Sino-lee. 
 
 Secondly, the course taken by Telfer, as recorded in Sharpe's 
 version, was quite in accordance with common-sense, whereas that 
 
 ' I think Sir Walter Scott was somewhat cept the forayers at the passage of the 
 
 hasty in interpreting Buccleuch's words at Liddel." Though this idea invites com- 
 
 verse 27 — "Ride by the gate of Priesthaugh- nient, I shall merely remark that such a 
 
 Swire" — to be an instruction to the force course is inconsistent with the statement 
 
 generally. I should rather read it as an in the ballad that they overtook the English 
 
 order to an individual messenger. Sir either in the neighbourhood of the Frostily 
 
 Walter says, "The pursuers seem to have burn or between Mosspaul and the Ritter 
 
 taken the road through the hills of Liddes- ford (see verse 29). 
 dale, in order to collect forces, and inter-
 
 JAMIE TEL PER. 2$ 
 
 recorded in Scott's version is incredible, and, however much it 
 may be twisted, cannot be rendered otherwise. 
 
 Thirdly, to cut off the English raiders before they reached 
 the frontier was not a difficult task for the men of Hermitage 
 and Liddel Waters ; on the other hand, owing to the length of 
 time which must have elapsed before Buccleuch can have heard 
 of their leaving Dodhead, it was an impossible one for a force 
 composed of his clansmen from Teviotdale, Borthwick Water, 
 and Ettrick. 
 
 But these conclusions are pardy based on the assumption 
 that the Fair Dodhead of the ballad is identical with the Dod- 
 head of to-day, near Singlee in Selkirkshire, as asserted by Sir 
 Walter Scott, and as accepted by all writers on the subject, in- 
 cluding Professor Veitch, until a comparatively short time ago, 
 when a theory was advanced that its true site was on the Dod 
 burn, some 12 or 13 miles nearer the frontier. This point must 
 now be considered ; but before doing so there still remains one 
 somewhat interesting circumstance to be remarked upon. 
 
 In each version an improbability so gross as to be tantamount 
 to an impossibility is related in making a 
 
 " Rude Border Chief of mighty name 
 And iron soul, who sternly tore 
 The blossoms from the tree of fame. 
 
 And purpled deep their tints with gore," 
 
 guilty of the despicably mean action of declining to assist the man 
 from whom he had received black-mail. Surely it is inconceivable 
 that the bold Buccleuch of Sharpe's version, or the renowned old 
 warrior Martin Elliot — for it is doubtless he who in Scott's version 
 is designated "Gibbie"— of Scott's version, should have denied 
 himself the pleasure of striking a perfectly legitimate blow at a
 
 26 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 band of English raiders who had insolently ridden some twenty- 
 five miles into Scottish ground. 
 
 Now, can this improbability be in any way explained? In 
 the case of Sharpe's version there is no great difficulty in finding 
 a plausible explanation, for we have only to credit Telfer with a 
 little common-sense, Buccleuch also with some sense of honour 
 and duty, and the ballad -maker with just a little human imper- 
 fection. Common-sense would have led Telfer from Dodhead to 
 Branxholm, while a sense of honour and duty would have caused 
 Buccleuch to take practical steps to assist him. Now the steps 
 that common-sense would have dictated to the latter would have 
 been, in the first place, to send a messenger to Martin Elliot — 
 possibly "by the gate of Priesthaughswire " — with a view to the 
 Liddesdales intercepting the English on the lower Liddel ; in the 
 second place, to send a scout — Telfer i* — up Tcviotdale partly to 
 eet into touch with the raiders and to make sure of the course 
 they were taking, and partly to raise tlie fray as he proceeded 
 into Hermitage Water and Ewesdale ; and, in the third place, to 
 raise a sufficiently large force of his own clan as quickly as 
 possible in order to pursue. The result of such measures would 
 probably have been the defeat of the English before the forces 
 under his immediate command had reached the field. His action, 
 wise and honourable as it would have been, might quite well have 
 been misunderstood by a ballad-maker ignorant, perhaps, of war ; 
 or it might possibly have been wilfully misinterpreted by one 
 wishful to throw a stone at a rival clan — for in those days there 
 was not always much love between the Elliots and Scotts ; or, 
 again, possibly it might have been mere chaff, a common char- 
 acteristic of Border ballads. 
 
 In the case of Scott's version, however, no similar explana- 
 tion can be made. Telfer's action was inconsistent with the
 
 JAMIE TEL PER. 27 
 
 commonest of common-sense, Elliot's with honour and duty, and 
 the ballad-maker was perfectly justified in describing the latter's 
 conduct in the way he did. No ; in Scott's version the gross 
 improbability referred to above cannot be explained away. 
 
 Assuming — as, however, we have no right to do — that the 
 author of Sharpe's ballad intentionally misinterpreted Buccleuch's 
 action, and was actuated by ill-feeling towards him and his clan, 
 his offence was as nothing compared to that of him who, having 
 stolen the text, maliciously altered it ; who threw upon an 
 Elliot the misconduct imputed, possibly unjustly, to Buccleuch ; 
 who took the merit for defeating the English from the former to 
 give it to the latter ; and who — and perhaps this is the most 
 unpardonable offence of all — manipulated an old ballad, containing 
 an interesting and graphic tale of the olden days, — a tale in which 
 we cannot pick a hole either as regards the historical truth of the 
 existence of the individuals mentioned, or as regards the prob- 
 ability of their recorded action, or as regards local topography, — 
 into one the truth of which, upon examination, docs not hold 
 water for a minute as regards any one of these points, and which 
 consequently brings into discredit the trustworthiness of the old 
 Border ballads in general.
 
 PART II. 
 
 Was "The Fair Dodhead " situated near Singlee or at the head 
 of the Dod burn, a tributary of the Allan Water ? ^ 
 
 Some recent writers have objected that the Dodhead of the 
 ballad could not be identical with Dodhead, which is near Singlee 
 in Selkirkshire, and have suggested as a more probable site the 
 head of the Dod burn, a burn which flows from the hills separating 
 Teviotdale and Liddesdale into Allan Water, a tributary of the 
 river Teviot. They point out, in the first place, that the first 
 verse of the ballad relates that the raiders intended to "seek a 
 prey " in Teviotdale, and that Dodhead is not in Teviotdale ; 
 in the second place, they assert that an English force is not 
 likely to have penetrated so far into Scotland ; and thirdly, they 
 urge that its distance from the places at which Telfer sought for 
 aid is too great. 
 
 With regard to the first of these objections, it may be re- 
 marked that "Teviotdale" in old days had a much larger signifi- 
 cation than at the present time. It included, I believe, the district 
 lying to the east of the hills at the sources of the Teviot and 
 Borthwick, to the north of the mountain -range stretching from 
 Liddesdale to the Cheviots, and to the south of the rivers Tweed 
 
 ' See Map 3.
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 29 
 
 (above Kelso) and Ettrick. If this is true, the ballad would 
 have been correct in describing Dodhead as being in Teviotdale. 
 But no doubt from a strictly geographical point of view it is not 
 so— it is not so by a matter of a few hundred yards ! The burn 
 near which it stands flows into the Ettrick, a tributary of the 
 Tweed, while the waters of the streams not half or a quarter of 
 a mile away to the south flow into Shaws Loch, and thence by 
 Langhope burn into the Ale, a tributary of the Teviot. We 
 should indeed be reading the ballad literally if we were to con- 
 sider this objection anything but paltry. 
 
 With regard to the second objection, I cannot admit the 
 improbability : raids frequently penetrated greater distances. To 
 quote an instance: in 1516 the Elliots — and apparently quite a 
 small party of them — raided Hexham, which is at a very con- 
 siderably greater distance from the Liddesdale frontier on the 
 Enelish side than Dodhead is on the Scottish side. 
 
 Again, we know that the English raiders went to the 
 Borthwick, so that really the objection, taken in conjunction 
 with the suggestion that Dodhead was on the Dod burn, means 
 no more than that they were less likely to have gone thence to 
 Dodhead near Singlee than to the Dod burn. Let us con- 
 sider this. 
 
 Reasons have already been given for believing that the 
 raiders must have hit on the Borthwick either near Howpasley 
 or Muselee.^ By going for a few miles lower down stream than 
 the latter place, they would have slightly increased their distance 
 from the Dod burn site ; and by going still farther down the 
 
 ' The second stanza of the ballad says they not llie Hue meaning of tlie words, which 
 
 were " laigh down in Borthwick water," im- are in fact merely the antithesis to " high 
 
 plying', it may be urged, that they were near up on Hardhaugh swirc," and art- equivalent 
 
 its conllucncc with the Teviot ; but this is to "deep down.'"
 
 30 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 river, they would have placed Branxholm between themselves and 
 it and their own country. But without deliberately putting them- 
 selves into such a dangerous position, they could not have gone 
 to any spot on the Borthwick nearer to Dod burn than is 
 Muselee, nor to one more favourable to the argument of 
 those who assert this to have been the true site of the Fair 
 Dodhead. 
 
 Let us, then, in order to give the advantage in the argument 
 to the supporters of the Dod burn site, assume that it was to 
 Muselee rather than to Howpasley where the English first came 
 upon the Borthwick. 
 
 Now, if we believe that the Fair Dodhead was on the Dod 
 burn, we must also believe that up to the time of the arrival of 
 the Captain of Bewcastle on the Borthwick Water he did not 
 know where he was going to, — that, till then, he had been on a 
 wild-goose chase; yet this must undoubtedly have been the case 
 if he suddenly doubled back in a southerly direction for a distance 
 of some 7 miles. It may surely be taken for granted that the 
 English leader had not ridden 20 miles or so on a practically 
 straight course into his enemy's country without having some 
 definite goal ; and that that goal should have been straight 
 ahead of him — as Dodhead near Singlee in fact was — seems 
 much more probable than that it should have been on the Dod 
 burn or in any other direction. 
 
 Again, to which of the two rival sites, Dodhead or Dod 
 burn, would it have been the more venturesome to move ? 
 
 On the one hand, Dodhead was nearer than the suggested 
 site on Dod burn by a couple of miles : moreover, by moving 
 towards the former the raiders would be increasing their distance 
 from Branxholm and that unpleasantly dangerous neighbourhood ; 
 and, again, there was the all -important consideration that from
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 31 
 
 Dodhead lay a direct, easy, and comparatively safe line of retreat 
 to Bewcastle. One cannot, therefore, since the raiders had, 
 as a matter of fact, ventured so far into Scotland as the 
 Borthwick Water, be surprised at their boldness in continuing 
 on to Dodhead. 
 
 On the other hand, in order to reach the supposititious site 
 on the Dod burn, they would have been obliged either to retrace 
 their steps from Muselee as far as the Teviot, and then, giving 
 Coultart Cleugh a wide berth, to skirt the rough hill country as 
 far as Allan Water before turning up to the Dod burn, or to 
 follow the route shown on Map 3, — though this would have been 
 a dangerous one to have taken, since it would have led them un- 
 
 o 
 
 comfortably near to Commonside and Branxholm. 
 
 And there is yet another consideration to be mentioned — 
 namely, the critical position in which the English would have 
 found themselves upon arrival at their destination. They would 
 then have been only some 3 miles from Braidley, the headquarters, 
 so to speak, of the Elliot clan, with the country occupied by that 
 clan and others allied to it lying between them and the frontier, or 
 rather between them and Bewcastle. For a line of retreat they 
 would have been compelled to make a choice between two routes, 
 neither being particularly attractive. The one would have con- 
 ducted them in an easterly direction on the north side of the 
 watershed between Teviotdale and Liddesdale over very rough 
 hill country into England somewhere near Keeldar, — 10 miles, say, 
 as the crow fiies, from the Dod burn. This would have been the 
 most direct way into England. The other route would have led 
 them for some miles in the opposite direction and farther away 
 from the frontier and from Bewcastle, — and yet, if we are to believe 
 the statement in tlic ballad that " the gear was driven the i'Vostily 
 up," this is the line they selected. By this route the distance from
 
 32 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 the suggested site on the Dod burn to Ritterford, where the raiders 
 came to the frontier, is between 20 and 25 miles. It is really in- 
 conceivable that the Captain of Bewcastle should have placed his 
 force in such a position as that suggested — the Liddesdales barring 
 his way to the south, Buccleuch and his men in close proximity 
 on the north, mountainous, almost impassable, country to the east 
 and west — on the bare chance of capturing merely ten head of 
 cattle ! 
 
 It has, I believe, been asserted that the distance from Bewcastle 
 to Dodhcad and back is too great to have been covered by the 
 English horsemen, and that they would have had a considerably 
 shorter distance to travel had Dodhead been situated on the Dod 
 burn. But this is incorrect : the distance from Ritterford to Dod- 
 head and back would have been about 53 miles, while the distance 
 from Ritterford to Muselee, Dod burn, Frostily burn, and Ritterford 
 would have been about 52 miles. 
 
 The answer, then, to the question whether a move from 
 Muselee to Dodhead would have been more or less venturesome 
 than a move to the head of the Dod burn is that, in the former case, 
 it would have been bold though not rash, while in the latter it would 
 have been not only rash but foolhardy. 
 
 We now come to the consideration of the third objection — 
 namely, that the distance of Dodhead from the places at which 
 Telfer sought for aid is too great. It has already been pointed 
 out (p. 8) that the distances mentioned in the ballads agree with 
 the measurements on the Ordnance Survey, so when it is stated 
 that the distances are "too great," the meaning must be that they 
 are greater than is compatible with the possibility of their having 
 been passed over by Telfer in the time required by him to take the 
 requisite steps for intercepting the raiders.
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 33 
 
 The following are the actual distances, measured on the 
 Ordnance Survey, which Telfer is stated to have run on foot : — 
 
 I. Following Sharpe's version — 
 
 From Dodhead to Branxholm . . 7^ miles 
 Thence to Coultart Cleugh . . 4 „ 
 
 Total . 11}^ „ 
 
 Following Scott's version — 
 
 From Dodhead to Stobs . . .11 miles 
 
 Thence to Coultart Cleugh . . 55^ ,, 
 
 Total . \ty. 
 
 2. Assuming the head of the Dod burn ^ to have been the 
 true site of "the Fair Dodhead," the distances would 
 have been as under : — 
 Following Sharpe's version — 
 
 From " the Fair Dodhead " to Branxholm 6 miles 
 Thence to Coultart Cleugh . . . 4 ,, 
 
 Total . 10 
 
 Following Scott's version — 
 
 From "the Fair Dodhead" to Stobs . 4 miles 
 Thence to Coultart Cleugh . . 5^ 
 
 Total . 9^ „ 
 
 Now, if the advocates of the Dod burn site consider 9^ or 10 
 miles not "too great" a distance, surely they would be splitting 
 
 ' It should be noticet\ that on this assump- Fair DodhcatI " to Stobs was 10 miles, 
 
 tion the distances given in the ballads differ whereas the extreme head of the Uod burn 
 
 materially from the true distances. Accord- is only 4 miles distant, 
 ing to Scott's version the distance from "the 
 
 C
 
 34 JAMIE TEL PER. 
 
 hairs if they asserted that 1 1 ^ miles — as stated in Sharpe's version 
 on the assumption of "the Fair Dodhead" being identical with 
 Dodhead — are so. No doubt, according to Scott's version, the 
 distance would have been i6)^ miles — and it has already been 
 shown that this distance is " too great " ; but it cannot be 
 admitted that this fact throws any reasonable doubt as to " the 
 Fair Dodhead " being identical with Dodhead. The supporters 
 of the Dod burn site say, and rightly enough, that it is absurd to 
 think of Telfer having run 1 1 miles from his ravaged home to Stobs, 
 then nearly 6 to Coultart Cleugh, and then 4 to Branxholm, but 
 from this they argue that his home cannot have been at Dodhead. 
 It would be as false to argue that since Telfer went — as the 
 advocates of the Dod burn site assert — from Stobs to Branxholm 
 by way of Coultart Cleugh, and consequently travelled 10 miles 
 instead of 3, therefore Stobs was not on the Slitrig or Branx- 
 holm on the Teviot. The true deduction in both cases is, not that 
 any one of the places has been wrongly located, but that the account 
 as told in Scott's version is an impossible one, whether the Fair 
 Dodhead was at Dodhead or on the Dod burn. 
 
 The true point for consideration is, whether or not Telfer 
 went from his home direct to the nearest place at which he had 
 reasonable expectation of obtaining assistance, and it is in fact 
 immaterial whether that place was i mile, or 5 miles, or 10 
 miles off If we are told that it was to some place situated 
 outside the bounds of possibility, then we ought to doubt not the 
 correctness of our geographical knowledge but the credibility of 
 the story. For example, if we had been told Telfer sought aid 
 from Gibbie Elliot of Minto, that would have been no evidence 
 of Minto not being where we know it to be, nor of some other 
 place having, in old days, borne the same name, but of the un-
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 35 
 
 trustworthiness of the ballad. Now, if Telfer's home was identical 
 with the Dodhead of to-day, near Singlee, the most natural place 
 for him to seek aid at was undoubtedly Branxholm,^ and both 
 versions agree as to his having run there in the first instance, 
 though, from Scott's version, it would appear that he did not 
 stop, but went on to Stobs. The improbability of the story, as 
 told in Scott's version, its absurdity, lies not in the distance Telfer 
 had to pass over in order to reach Branxholm, but in his not 
 having asked for assistance when he arrived there. The further 
 absurdity of the course he followed in going from Stobs to Branx- 
 holm has nothing whatever to do with the position of the Fair 
 Dodhead. 
 
 On the other hand, had Telfer's home been on the Dod 
 burn, the nearest and most likely place for him to have first 
 gone to would have been Braidley, only 3 miles distant. The 
 sole object he had in view was to prevent his cattle from being 
 driven across the Border, and it is therefore simply inconceivable 
 that, instead of " raising the fray " between his home and the 
 frontier,- — which he might easily have done, since the raiders did 
 not at first move in that direction ; instead of seeking from the 
 Chief of the Elliots, to whom Scott's version, if we are to read it 
 in the free manner that has been suggested,^ alleges he paid 
 black -mail, and to whom, no doubt, assuming that he lived on 
 the Dod burn, it is more likely that he should have done so than 
 to Buccleuch, — it is inconceivable that, instead of so doing, he 
 should have run off for miles in the very opposite direction— to 
 Branxholm according to one version, to Stobs according to the 
 
 ' Gilnianscleugh, about 3 miles to the effective aid might possibly not have been 
 north of Uoclhead, would have been nearer, obtainable there, 
 but it Inv in a wrong direction ; moreover, - See I'art I. of this paper, p. 9.
 
 36 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 other I There can be no reasonable doubt that if Telfer's home 
 was indeed on the Dod burn, he is certain to have sought aid, in 
 the first instance, from the Liddesdale clans ; but then the rest of 
 the account, as given in Scott's version, becomes more hopelessly 
 unintelligible than ever. 
 
 Since the theory of the Dod burn site was framed in order 
 to explain away, as the authors hoped, certain difficulties which 
 exist in Scott's version but not in Sharpe's, it is the account as 
 given in the former which has been illustrated in Map 3. Telfer 
 is there shown as having passed over into Hermitage Water from 
 Coultart Cleugh ; but even assuming that from the latter place he 
 ran back direct to Branxholm, as asserted by Professor Veitch,^ 
 a glance at it ought to suffice to convince any one of the incredi- 
 bility of the theory. 
 
 If Sharpe's version were illustrated, the theory would appear 
 equally untenable. The fact is, indeed, that the story told in the 
 latter version can be true only on the hypothesis that the Fair 
 Dodhead was where Dodhead now is, and that the story told in 
 Scott's version can be true on no hypothesis whatever. 
 
 Answers have now been given to all the objections — or, at 
 all events, to all I know of — which have been raised to the belief 
 so long and generally held that the Fair Dodhead of the ballad 
 was identical with Dodhead near Singlee. Some reasons have 
 also been given against the suggestion, manufactured of late years 
 to bolster up an incredible tale, that the true site was on the 
 Dod burn, — reasons which are further strengthened by the fact 
 that no such place in the neighbourhood of the Dod burn is 
 
 ' See Part 1. of this paper, p. 14.
 
 MAP (1) 
 
 to i II u s r r J.U Iht. 
 
 B/4LLAD of JAMIE TELFER ;• fhe RIR bOMLAD. 
 
 Dodhead tp Btanxholm 
 
 Han 
 
 BrArtxholm fc CoufNrt Cleu^h 
 Hair 
 
 Coulr^Tl- Cl<u5h ruCiHcckHill. 
 Utit. 
 
 CaMoekHill ^o f^ricfcrnh4.u9K 
 
 To I- a I ■ 
 
 D ( 4 r« n £ » s 
 7f mt/€3 
 
 7 
 
 IZt 
 
 Z o ■■ ( 
 
 • /J- •■ 
 
 1 1? • S ;o,.„i.j 
 
 It. ■■ 16' 
 
 in If hours li minuses Ikt En)li«h raii<<r8, ini>vin5 at^ J milts ^-n Imur, 
 wovM hdv< m^rcKcd /2f niiUt, *•„<( /iiv« rtiu-lxa ^K« 6(iof m»rl«d EI.R 
 C E.R.CO ^n^.^H^ Hi.ir /.o..f..« J^ Nit fiwt or TelP<rt 
 4rM><l 4r ClNock HillO 
 
 Ex()la.iiaMons 
 
 
 — r— I— I 
 
 N.B. Tli« /«»ifioii» of RirfoiTord, CiHock 
 (5^^^f CiH(.) Hill 4Tid Piitkcuhaujh /lavt 
 b»<ii ^^l«n fTom Bliliu's AMfS.liJif 
 0*1 ^I)A^ AMds Cairhcrdt cf«ujh fs sKcm'il 
 aksur 2 milt siurh of Jj f»e«nr |io<iniin.. 
 rrt(li<nA«wjA <i ntmrW irrgkin 7«vwtr »»i M)« 
 
 ■• SiMroy ElKoM fore*. 
 " M*Thn CHitfs • 
 
 A 
 
 SBcwcasH* 
 
 I o I I 3 L S i 
 'I I I I T I J „,,„
 
 ii Version 
 
 Dodh«ad 
 
 MAP (1) to illusrrite thi 
 
 .7, THE BORDER M/NSTRELSV. 
 
 Tel Fer's Route 
 
 J>odh<ail fo itobs 
 Stol-S fe Coul'Urt Cleuoll''" if4 
 CouiravCC'fu^h fn CaK()ft.J^ll( 7 
 CdflockHill fo BTanxliolwt'^rO 
 
 Ji4li\iic« tun* Octvfiied- 
 
 2. hi-»- J"m)0T, F<J<J^ 
 
 •: &■■ 
 
 
 Tofal 
 
 33i 
 
 «J- 
 
 ^o^3. 
 
 In (V'hii. I^A'iu. fli< fnjIisK rai-lers, moving a^ 
 3 wilts dn Koui; vtoi'lJ haw* gone /V'^r OTi'<s >»"<< 
 
 Takitip CaMock Hill half wdy kiwcen TouiraTf Clfjuah cind 
 BraiixholTn, 49 9^a^<<^^y ProPf bsot Veifck flic alf ovt ("oUls 
 would Ire ioi 1111 leS .iml iii hours, and E-n(i) kVou(d Ire 
 ^tfraniiU iiorfh of E.R.(i). 
 
 M o_ss liA." I ■-/■t ..P-TsV l|l 
 
 Poslfion of Cnjiish ,'i 
 
 vvhtn Telfer Iffh /y,E._R.(l) 
 
 C.xHock Hill 
 
 I'Ta's? 
 
 '•/I— 
 
 
 nJical-ts line. oP English R£^Tea^ 
 " " taken l/y Ttlfer. 
 
 Scale 
 1 1 3 
 
 _1 miles 
 
 TK« Wasf< of BtivcasHe.
 
 Podhea.d 
 
 Howftdfl 
 
 MAP (3) 
 
 fo illus^Ta.^e. thi. \h-toiy of 
 
 HE Ad i^ins onth^DOD hum. 
 
 odheid To SI'oIas. 
 
 o •■ IS-"' 
 
 It. miles f>hTS. SO my; ;» 
 Hal /■ •• i ■• /,jt>l 
 
 Sfobs fo Coulta.rfcleuah Si. " I " >' " )?*>■• 
 Couirarfcleugh ("o (aHockHiU 7 
 
 111 IfhrsSOmin- Ki< Enjlijh Mi<i<r«, n/<7V(nj *C 
 Smiles an Aoyr, weuU ha.ve mATthed. )3jnt«l«s 
 cJnW would hive. TtAchcd. thi sfict mi.rk<<l E. N 
 
 kcnK&ujk- 
 
 Exjilanari on 
 
 "^.--" indicates covrst ^iktn^)|(h< CuiiJitk 
 _^ — ^ .■ .. •• r T«Jf«r- 
 
 Sca.lt 
 
 -* H 
 
 7»//c 
 
 Ri^•^«T•for^a, "irJ^—Ti
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 37 
 
 marked on any of the old maps of the district, nor is there any 
 tradition of such a place ever having existed, nor are there any 
 traces of ruins of an old peel, such as are still standing at Dod- 
 head near Singflee. 
 
 Can there be any reasonable doubt that this is the very 
 " peel " referred to in verse 4 of the ballad ? 
 
 ;r,
 
 PART III. 
 
 From a literary point of view the two ballads differ, not merely 
 in sliorht variations of the text, but in the fact that entire verses 
 of a style markedly dissimilar to that apparent in the rest of 
 the ballad occur in the one version — namely, Scott's — but not 
 in the other. 
 
 The former, or purely textual, differences consist of two 
 classes, the first being consequent on the reversal of the parts 
 played, on the one hand, by the Chief of the Elliots and his 
 son, and on the other hand by Buccleuch and his son ; but 
 upon these it is unnecessary to make any remarks further than 
 that, since each version is relating evidently identical events in 
 almost identical words, it is clear that one version must be an 
 adaptation of the other. The question really at issue is, Is Sharpe's 
 version an adaptation of Scott's, or is Scott's an adaptation of 
 Sharpe's ? 
 
 The second class of textual differences consists in slight 
 variations other than those consequent on the inversion of the 
 parts just referred to. It will be unnecessary to look very closely 
 into these, the general nature of which will be best appreciated 
 by any one interested in the subject if he were to examine for 
 himself the two versions, which he will find placed side by side 
 at pp. 52-69. Should he take the trouble to do so, he will, I
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 39 
 
 think, agree with me that Scott's version is, in a hterary sense, 
 superior to Sharpe's — more elegant and poHshed, less rude and 
 uncouth. For instance, he will probably think the line, " He has 
 turned him to the Tiviot side," is preferable to " Now Jamie is 
 up the water-gate " ; or again, that the lines 
 
 " There was a wild gallant amang us a', . . . 
 Cried — ' On for his house in Stanegirthside ' " 
 
 are less abrupt than 
 
 " There was a man in our company, . . . 
 'There is a house in the Stanegarside.'" 
 
 It may, however, be well to draw attention to a point con- 
 nected with the apparently unimportant textual differences which 
 might, perhaps, escape notice, and this is, that they frequently 
 occur where in Sharpe's version there is a repetition — according 
 to modern taste, an ugly repetition. Now, one of the character- 
 istics of the old ballads is a frequency of repetition not only of 
 words, phrases, and lines, but sometimes of complete stanzas, 
 and this without the slightest verbal variation. In the ballad 
 of "Johnie Armstrong," consisting of thirty-three stanzas, the 
 following lines occur four times — 
 
 & 
 
 "'Grant me my life, my liege, my king! 
 And a bonny gift I'll gie to thee ; ' " 
 
 and the complete stanza- 
 
 " ' Away, away, thou traitor Strang ! 
 
 Out of my sight soon may'st thou be ! 
 I grantit never a traitor's life, 
 
 And now I'll not begin with thee'" — 
 
 is repeated no less than five times.
 
 40 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 This characteristic may not, perhaps, be so marked in what 
 are sometimes called the "riding ballads," but nevertheless it is 
 there ; and what is also there sometimes is an apparent attempt 
 to avoid the repetitions, or to modify and soften them. Thus, 
 in "Archie of Ca'field," which, like "Jamie Telfer of the Fair 
 Dodhead," was published for the first time in the Minstrelsy, 
 occur the lines — 
 
 "Then up and spak him mettled John Hall, 
 The luve of Teviotdale was he." 
 
 And again — 
 
 "O up then spak him mettled John Hall, 
 Frae the laigh Teviotdale was he." 
 
 Again, the following two lines are brought in twice — 
 
 " There was horsing, horsing in haste. 
 
 And there was marching on the lee ; " 
 
 but when they would naturally have been repeated for a third 
 time, they are modified to — 
 
 " O there was mounting, mounting in haste, 
 And there was marching upon the lee." 
 
 Now, in the case of "Jamie Telfer" this characteristic of pure 
 repetition is very marked in Sharpe's version, while the wish 
 to avoid or to vary the repetitions is equally apparent in the 
 Minstrelsy version. Thus in the former version, stanza 9 occurs 
 four times without the slightest variation. It runs thus — 
 
 " ' It's I, Jamie Telfer i the Fair Dodhead, 
 And a harried man I think I be ; 
 There's naething left i the Fair Dodhead 
 But only wife and children three.' "
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 41 
 
 In Scott's version this stanza also occurs four times, but no two 
 are absolutely identical, and in one instance for the last couplet 
 are substituted — 
 
 "'The Captain of Bewcastle has driven my gear; 
 For God's sake rise, and succour me ! ' " — 
 
 the last line being, to my ear, quite out of tune with the rest 
 of the ballad. 
 
 Again, stanza 16 of Sharpe's version is repeated verbatim, 
 the destination of course excepted, in stanza 20 : — 
 
 "Then he's taen out a bonny black, 
 It was weel fed wi corn and hay. 
 And set Jamie Telfer on his back. 
 
 To thej'^^''""'' ^'" j-to take the fray." 
 ( Prickenhaugh ) 
 
 In Scott's version, stanza 17, which is practically the same as 
 the foregoing, is altered at stanza 21 — clearly in order that the 
 repetition may be avoided— into, 
 
 " He's set his twa sons on coal-black steeds, 
 Himsel' upon a freckled gray. 
 And they are on wi' Jamie Telfer, 
 
 To Branksome Ha' to tak the fraye.''^ 
 
 An excellent instance in proof of the contention that art 
 has been brought to bear so as to improve the older version 
 
 * This stanza recalls to mind one in the As already mentioned (p. 11), the expression 
 
 ballad of "Auld Maitland"— '■'on to Branksome" is liardly appropriate to 
 
 the course Telfer is alleged by this version to 
 
 " Then thuy h.-ie saddled twa Ijlack horse, , „, , . n i » u 
 
 -r v,/ 1 1 c,n„H,„r.,„- have followed ; "back to Branksome 'would 
 
 Twa black horse and a gray ; ' 
 
 And ilicy arc on to King I'Mward's host, have been more true. 
 
 Before the dawn of day."
 
 42 JAMIE TEL PER. 
 
 is seen in the treatment by Scott's version of stanzas 30 and 
 32 of Sharpe's. The latter run thus — 
 
 " ' Fa on them, lads ! ' can Simmy say, 
 ' Fy, fa on them cruelly ! 
 For or they win to the Rilter ford 
 Mony loom saddle there shall be.'" 
 
 And then — 
 
 " ' Fy, lay on them ! ' co Martin Elliot, 
 ' Fy, lay on them cruelly ! 
 For or they win to the Kershop ford 
 Mony toom saddle there shall be.'" 
 
 Now, in Scott's version, stanza t,2,, corresponding to the first 
 of these, is much the same. It runs — 
 
 " ' Set on them, lads ! ' quo' Willie than ; 
 ' Fye, lads, set on them cruellie ! 
 For ere they win to the Ritterford, 
 Mony a toom saddle there sail be ! '" 
 
 But afterwards (see stanzas 37 and 38) the stanza is spht up, 
 the first two Hues being taken to form the first couplet of one 
 stanza, the last two lines being taken to form the last couplet 
 of the following stanza. The two stanzas referred to run thus, 
 the interpolated lines being in capitals : — 
 
 "'Revenge! revenge!' auld Wat 'gan cry; 
 ' Fye, lads, lay on them cruellie ! 
 WE'LL NE'ER SEE TIVIOTSIDE AGAIN, 
 
 OR WILLIE'S DEATH REVENGED SALL BE.' 
 
 O MONY A HORSE RAN MASTERLESS, 
 
 THE SPLINTERED L.\NCES FLEW ON HIE 
 
 But or they wan to the Kershope ford. 
 The Scotts had gotten the victory."
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 43 
 
 Of course, in the first of the above stanzas the words " Revenee ! 
 revenge!" have been substituted, to avoid repetition, for "Set on 
 them, lads!" and the words "lay on them" for "set on them"; 
 and in the second stanza the words " The Scotts had gotten 
 the victory" have been substituted for " Mony a toom saddle 
 there sail be ! " 
 
 One other instance will be given where the compiler of Scott's 
 version has endeavoured to put a little polish on a somewhat 
 uncouth line occurring in Sharpc's version, and has at the same 
 time kept clear of repetition. In Sharpe's version (stanzas 29 
 and 40) is the line — 
 
 ., , T •. f Taniie Telfer's ) , , , , „ 
 
 " ' In spite o - -' . teeth and thee.' " 
 
 (. the Captain's ) 
 
 The corresponding lines of Scott's version (stanzas 32 and 47) 
 
 are^ — 
 
 " ' In spite of every Scott that's here,' " 
 
 and — 
 
 "'In scorn of a' his men and he.'" 
 
 A sufficient number of instances have now, I think, been 
 given to show reason for believing that the slight textual varia- 
 tions apparent in the ballads are due to the writer of Scott's 
 version having endeavoured — and successfully endeavoured — to 
 improve upon the language of an older version and to brin^i- it 
 into consonance with modern taste. 
 
 A more important difference, and one which can hardly be 
 termed textual, must now be remarked upon. I refer to the 
 occurrence in the one version of complete stanzas which have no 
 counterpart in the other. 
 
 Sharpe's version numbers forty -one stanzas, Scott's forty- 
 nine. Each one of Sharpe's has a corresponding stanza in Scott's.
 
 44 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 The eight additional stanzas of the latter have no corresponding 
 stanzas in the former, and yet these are the most beautiful, the 
 most striking and vivid of all ! 
 
 Now it has already been said that the true question at issue 
 is whether Sharpe's version is an adaptation of Scott's, or Scott's 
 of Sharpe's ; and it follows that if we believe in the former alter- 
 native, we must also necessarily believe that the writer not only 
 rubbed off from the older version its superior textual polish, re- 
 placing this by rough uncouthness, but that he also omitted the 
 only stanzas in the whole ballad of any beauty whatever ! This, 
 to any ordinary mind, is absolutely incredible, and admits of only 
 one conclusion, namely, that the second alternative is the true 
 one, — that is to say, that Scott's version is an adaptation of 
 Sharpe's. 
 
 Again, Border ballads of the period to which "Jamie Telfer" 
 relates — at all events, those which are called the "riding ballads" — 
 always confine themselves to the simplest language, and but rarely, 
 if ever, depart from a strict relation of the actual occurrences. 
 Frequently, no doubt, there is a joke, now a bit of chaff, and 
 now a bit of brag between individuals ; but never is there any- 
 thing suggestive of a sense of glory, nor of fame, nor of the 
 chivalrous, nor of the beautiful in war : it would almost seem as 
 if the ballad-maker had had no time to allow to his imagination 
 to lead him away from the work he had in hand — the relation 
 of events. The resemblance of the style of the ballads entitled 
 "Kinmont Willie," "Archie o' Ca'field," "Jock o' the Syde," 
 "Dick o' the Cow," and Sharpe's version of "Jamie Telfer," is 
 so noticeable that the thought must occur to most readers that 
 they were written certainly at much the same period and pos- 
 sibly by the same hand, although in the first two of these ballads 
 a line may be noticed here and there differing somewhat in tone
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 45 
 
 from the rest.^ The same thought will accompany us when we 
 read Scott's version until we come to the lines (stanza 12) — 
 
 " ' My hounds may a' rin masterless, 
 My hawks may fly frae tree to tree, 
 My lord may grip my vassal lands, 
 For there again maun I never be ! '" 
 
 They are, doubtless, beautiful lines, but their very beauty jars 
 like a false note. One feels they were written by another hand, 
 by an artist of a higher stamp than a Border " ballad -maker." 
 And not only is it their beauty that jars, but so also does their 
 inapplicability to Jamie Telfer and to the circumstances in which 
 he found himself — so much so, indeed, that it may well occur to 
 one that the stanza belongs to some other ballad, and has ac- 
 cidentally been pitchforked into this one. It would not have 
 been out of place in the ballad of " The Battle of Otterbourne," 
 and, indeed, it bears some resemblance to a stanza in that 
 ballad.2 
 
 But perhaps the most noticeable superiority over the rest of 
 
 the ballad occurs in stanzas 2>'h to 38 — 
 / 
 
 " ' Set on them, lads ! ' quo' Willie than ; 
 ' Fye, lads, set on them cruellie ! 
 For ere they win to the Ritterford, 
 Mony a toom saddle there sail be ! ' 
 
 Then till't they gaed, wi' heart and hand. 
 
 The blows fell thick as bickering hail ; 
 And mony a horse ran masterless. 
 
 And mony a comely cheek was pale ! 
 
 - Stanza 12 — 
 
 ' ISoth " Kinmont Willie" and "Archie o' ,,„. . ... ,.„ , ,, 
 
 " The deer nns wild on hill and d-ile, 
 
 Ca'fieUl" were, like "Jamie Telfer." pub- The birds fly wild from tree to tree ; 
 
 lishctl for the first time in the Minstrelsy. But there is neither bre.-»d nor kale, 
 
 To fend my men and me,"
 
 46 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 But Willie was stricken ower the head, 
 
 And thro' the knapscap the sword has gane ; 
 
 And Harden grat for very rage, 
 
 Whan Willie on the grund lay slane. 
 
 But he's taen aff his gude steel cap, 
 And thrice he's waved it in the air — 
 
 The Dinlay snaw was ne'er mair white 
 Nor the lyart locks of Harden's hair. 
 
 ' Revenge ! revenge ! ' auld Wat 'gan cry ; 
 
 ' Fye, lads, lay on them cruellie ! 
 We'll ne'er see Tiviotside again. 
 
 Or Willie's death revenged sail be.' 
 
 O mony a horse ran masterless, 
 
 The splintered lances flew on hie ; 
 But or they wan to the Kershope ford, 
 
 The Scotts had gotten the victory." 
 
 With reference to these truly stirring verses, Professor Veitch 
 writes in his 'History and Poetry of the Scottish Border' that 
 they are "a picture set in the simplest terms, which no art can 
 improve." But is this true ? Is not the story told in simpler 
 terms in Sharpe's version, and has not this been improved by 
 art into what Professor Veitch and we all so much admire } 
 
 Professor Veitch continues : " The whole spirit of the old 
 Border life is there, in its fidelity to clanship, its ready daring, 
 its fierceness of fight and fence, its delight in romantic deeds, 
 and, withal, in its heart of pathos." Now, even assuming all 
 this to be true, it only proves that the verses are out of harmony 
 witli the rest of the ballad ; for where is the fidelity, where are 
 the romantic deeds, and where the pathos ? fidelity, indeed ! 
 Why, one of the most noticeable incidents is the infidelity of 
 the chief who refused assistance to the man from whom he had 
 received black- mail. And romantic deeds! Really the stealing
 
 JAMIE TEL PER. 47 
 
 of a few cattle and their recapture may not have occurred to 
 many of us before as being exactly romantic. And pathos ! 
 Does this lie in Jamie's wail that 
 
 "There's naething left in the fair Dodhead 
 ^ But a greeting wife and bairnies three"? 
 
 or in the Captain of Bewcastle's remark — 
 
 " Man, there's naething in thy house 
 But ae auld sword without a sheath, 
 That hardly now would fell a mouse " ? 
 
 or, perhaps, in the latter's lament that 
 
 " If he had lived this hundred years. 
 
 He had never been loved by woman again " ? 
 
 But whatever the spirit of the verses may be, and whether 
 they are or are not in keeping with the rest of the ballad, it is 
 indisputable that the picture drawn is strikingly brilliant, and 
 from this fact alone we may be practically certain that it is of 
 later manufacture than Sharpe's more sober one. Here the 
 whole story from beginning to end is told in a simple, natural, 
 matter-of-fact way as in other ballads of the period, in which we 
 never read of horses running masterless and comely cheeks 
 turning pale, nor of splintered lances flying on high and steel 
 caps waving in the air. Such rhapsodies are of later date, and 
 call to mind Hogg's " Elliot of Lariston" and Scott's " last words 
 of Marmion." 
 
 Professor Veitch thinks that Scott's version tells the story 
 with a sense of realism so strong as to suggest that it was the 
 composition of an eye-witness of the foray. Sharpe's version 
 might possibly have been so, but certainly not the more beautiful 
 verses of Scott's. Fighting men rarely describe scenes in which 
 they themselves have played a part otherwise than in a quiet.
 
 48 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 sober way : the vivid pictures, coloured by the fluttering of 
 banners and crests over the heads of the combatants, by the 
 waving of lyart locks as white as Dinley snaws, by the splinter- 
 ing of lances and halberds and armlets and bucklers, are drawn 
 by artists, not soldiers, — by artists whose poetical imaginations 
 enable them to paint the spirit with which Fancy likes to endow 
 the combatants, but certainly not the grim reality, the ugly 
 ferocity, or even the calm heroism of war. Of a truth, the 
 beauty of war is less visible to the eye of the soldier than to 
 that of the distant visionary. 
 
 Another point, and the last, to which attention need be 
 drawn, is that in the old Border ballads the deeds they relate 
 are never assigned to clans but to individuals. Indeed, any one 
 not acquainted with the Borders and Border history might quite 
 well read, say, "Jock o' the Syde," or "Archie o' Ca'field," or 
 " Hobbie Noble " without learning that the Armstrong clan ever 
 existed. Even in "Johnie Armstrong" the only reference to the 
 clans concerned is in the line, "The Elliots and Armstrongs did 
 convene"; and again, it is the same in " Kinmont Willie," where, 
 although the party which stormed Carlisle Castle was headed by 
 Buccleuch, no reference is made either to the Scotts or to any 
 other clan taking part in it.^ The same is again observable in 
 Sharpe's version of "Jamie Telfer," but not so in Scott's. One 
 
 ' Exception may, perhaps, be taken to the original was not composed until long 
 
 this statement in view of the verse which after the true facts of the case had been 
 
 runs thus ("He" refers to Buccleuch) — forgotten. It is quite incorrect to de- 
 
 " He has call'd him forty Marchmen bauld, scribe the party as consisting entirely of 
 
 I trow they were of his ain name, Buccleuch's clansmen, with one exception. 
 
 Except Sir Gilbert Elliot, calPd j^ addition to the leader there were only 
 
 The Laird of Stobs, I mean the same." c c- i « r • . , 
 
 tour bcotts : the Armstrongs furnished, as 
 
 But this stanza clearly does not belong to one would naturally expect, by far the 
 the original ballad, or if it does so, then largest contingent, and numbered at least
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 49 
 
 of the most striking differences between the two ballads is that 
 
 whereas the writer of the former appears to have had for his sole 
 
 object the relation of what occurred, the writer of the latter has 
 
 evidently been greatly actuated by the desire to sing a hymn of 
 
 praise in honour of the Scott clan. Not once, in the former, is 
 
 there a reference to the Elliot, Armstrong, Scott, or other clans, 
 
 though it is probable that men belonging to most of the clans in 
 
 the immediate district took part in the occurrence, whereas in 
 
 the latter, reference to the Scott clan is incessant : "In spite of 
 
 every Scott that's here"; "The Scotts they rade, the Scotts 
 
 they ran" (a line which bears some resemblance to one in "Auld 
 
 Maitland " — "King Edward rade. King Edward ran"); "The 
 
 Scotts had gotten the victorie " ; " Rise for Branksome readilie ! " 
 
 (a line with a peculiarly modern ring, since " Bellenden " was 
 
 the old Scott slogan). There is undoubtedly in Scott's version — 
 
 or rather in those verses of it which have no counterpart in 
 
 Sharpe's version, and which appear to have been interpolated into 
 
 the original ballad for the purpose of rendering it more beautiful 
 
 — something akin to the florid, to the frothy, to the vainglorious, 
 
 — characteristics of which the genuine old Border ballads were, I 
 
 think, free. In this connection may be noticed an unimportant 
 
 but nevertheless characteristic difference which occurs between 
 
 stanza 2)Z ^f Sharpe's version and the corresponding stanza of 
 
 Scott's. The former runs thus — 
 
 "John o Biggam he was slain. 
 
 And John o Barlow, as I heard say, 
 And fifteen o the Captain's men 
 
 Lay bleeding on the ground that day." 
 
 twenty. "Sir Gilbert Elliot of Stobs" had Irvines are all mentioned in the list of per- 
 
 no share in this gallant exploit, for the ex- sons who served under Buccleuch on this 
 
 cellent reason that no such individual was in occasion. This list is given in 'The Border 
 
 existence at the time. Elliots, Bells, and Elliots and the Family of M into,' p. 158.
 
 50 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 In Scott's version the stanza is almost identical, except that the 
 modest "fifteen" has been doubled into the more imposing "thirty"! 
 
 These remarks, which have run to an inordinate length, must 
 now be brought to a close. Many of a similar nature might be 
 made on various other verses of Scott's version, all tending to 
 show that it is in fact merely an adaptation of, though in a literary 
 sense an artistic improvement upon, an older, simpler, truer tale. 
 But to what good object ? If what has already been written does 
 not suffice to prove this truth to an unprejudiced mind, all other 
 words would be vain. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 Although the foregoing paper has been written solely with the object of determin- 
 ing which of the two versions of this ballad is the original, and whether the story as 
 related in this original is or is not consistent with probability, it may yet be thought 
 desirable that some definite opinion should be expressed with regard to the author- 
 ship of the other. 
 
 No one, I think, can doubt that the eight additional stanzas of Scott's version 
 were written by Sir Walter Scott himself — the life, the spirit, the beauty in them are 
 his, and his only. But there are also other grounds for suspecting it. Has any one 
 ever written on this ballad without making some remark on the extreme beauty and 
 spirit of the verses referred to? Sir Walter Scott was, in his great kindliness of 
 heart, somewhat inclined to be too profuse in his expressions of admiration for the 
 works of others, bestowing them at times where they were hardly deserved ; but in 
 this instance, it is he of all the many writers who have noticed these verses who 
 makes no remark whatever upon them, — the probable reason being that he was too 
 modest to do so. 
 
 Again, we all know how proud — and justly proud — he was to be able to claim 
 descent from Auld Wat of Harden,' who plays such a conspicuous part in these 
 stanzas ; and he himself boasts of having made that old chieftain's name " ring in 
 
 • Lockhart's 'Life of Sir Walter Scott,' are descended from him, the hero of Scott's 
 p. 3, ist edition. I can also claim Auld version, and not, I believe, from Martin 
 Wat as a forebear ; the Elliots of Minto Elliot, the hero of Sharpe's version.
 
 JAMIE TELFER. 51 
 
 many a ditty." The thought cannot but arise that this may have been one of the 
 said ditties. 
 
 I do not blame Sir Walter for having made these additions to the ballad, which 
 without them would probably have failed to attract popular attention, and would have 
 remained unread by all who care for only what is pleasing. Had it not been for the 
 beautiful frame, so to speak, in which Sir Walter set the old, uncouth Border ballads, 
 giving them here and there an occasional touch of that inimitable colour which he so 
 well knew how to mix, they would have remained to this day unknown to the world 
 at large, scorned by men of letters, and appreciated only by archaeologists. However 
 much we may regret — and I think it is a true cause for regret — that he did not 
 acknowledge the authorship of these stanzas, we have much to be thankful for in our 
 possession of them. 
 
 Whether Sir Walter was or was not responsible for the inversion of the parts 
 played by the Elliots and the Scotts is an entirely distinct and separate question. 
 If he was not so, then, since he himself told us that he was cognisant of both versions, 
 we have to believe either that he was deceived as to which was the original — and 
 this, with his intimate knowledge of the country, it is almost impossible to credit — 
 or that he intentionally selected for publication the one which was not the original. 
 
 But whether he was himself responsible for the inversion of the parts, or 
 whether he merely preferred, for some unexplained reason, to publish an adaptation 
 rather than an original version, let us not he harsh in condemning him. A man 
 should be judged according to the standard of morals of his own period — and that 
 that standard, in dealing with ballads at all events, was much lower than it is now, 
 is of course unquestionable. It is not we, but rather the contemporaries of Pinkerton 
 and Surtees, who should be the judges of the moral offence committed, — though we 
 may rightly enough determine, if we can, what the acts themselves truly were. Then, 
 again, we, poor unimaginative critics, may perhaps fail to realise how great must have 
 been the temptation to one to whom, when but a boy of si.x, 
 
 " Each blank in faithless memory void. 
 The poet's glowing thought supplied." 
 
 But it is not material to this paper to determine what Sir Walter Scott did, 
 or did not do, with regard to the ballad of "Jamie Telfer." I have merely 
 sought to prove that the additional verses were written by another and more 
 modem hand than the rest of the ballad, and that the version which awards the 
 honours of the day to the Scott clan is an adaptation of the older version. I am 
 not in the least called upon to prove by whom either the new verses or the new 
 version have been written, and, though I have, perhaps unwisely, expressed an opinion 
 on the former point, I shall continue gladly to assume, as I have done in the Preface 
 to this book, that the version published in the Minstrelsy is an interesting instance of 
 a ballad adapted to please the ears of a great chief and of a powerful clan.
 
 52 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 THE BALLAD. 
 
 Sharpe's Version — 
 
 It fell about the Martinmas, 
 
 When steads were fed wi corn and hay, 
 The Captain of Bevvcastle said to his lads. 
 
 We'll into Tiviotdale and seek a prey. 
 
 II. 
 
 The first ae guide that they met with 
 Was high up in Hardhaugh swire, 
 
 The second guide that they met with 
 Was laigh down in Borthwick water. 
 
 III. 
 
 'What tidings, what tidings, my bonny guide.'' 
 ' Nae tidings, nae tidings I hae to thee ; 
 
 But if ye'll gae to the Fair Dodhead 
 Mony a cow's calf I'll let ye see.' 
 
 IV. 
 
 When they came to the Fair Dodhead, 
 Right hastily they clam the peel, 
 
 They loosd the nolt out, ane and a', 
 And ranshakled the house right weel. 
 
 V. 
 
 Now Jamie's heart it was right sair. 
 The tear ay rowing in his eye ; 
 
 He pled wi the Captain to hae his gear 
 Or else revenged he would be.
 
 THE BALLAD. 53 
 
 THE BALLAD. 
 
 Scott's Version — 
 
 It fell about the Martinmas tyde, 
 
 When our Border steeds get corn and hay, 
 
 The Captain of Bewcastle hath bound him to ryde, 
 And he's ower to Tividale to drive a prey. 
 
 II. 
 
 The first ae guide that they met wi', 
 It was high up in Hardhaughswire ; 
 
 The second guide that they met wi', 
 It was laigh down in Borthwick water. 
 
 III. 
 
 ' What tidings, what tidings, my trusty guide ? ' 
 ' Nae tidings, nae tidings I hae to thee ; 
 
 But gin ye'll gae to the fair Dodhead 
 Mony a cow's cauf I'll let thee see.' 
 
 IV. 
 
 And whan they cam to the fair Dodhead, 
 Right hastily they clam the peel ; 
 
 They loosed the kye out, ane and a'. 
 And ranshackled the house right weel. 
 
 V, 
 
 Now Jamie Telfcr's heart was sair. 
 
 The tear aye rowing in his ce ; 
 He pled wi' the Captain to hae his gear. 
 
 Or else revenKcd he wad be.
 
 54 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 Sharpe's Version — 
 
 VI. 
 
 But the Captain turnd himsci about, 
 
 Said, Man, there's nacthiny in thy house 
 
 But an auld sword without a scabbard, 
 That scarcely now would fell a mouse. 
 
 VII. 
 
 The moon was up and the sun was down, 
 'Twas the gryming of a new-fa'n snaw ; 
 
 Jamie Telfer has run eight miles barefoot 
 Between Dodhead and Branxholm Ha. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 And when he came to Branxholm Ma, 
 He shouted loud and cry'd weel he, 
 
 Till up bespake then auld Buccleugh — 
 ' Whae's this that brings the fray to me .■' ' 
 
 IX. 
 
 ' It's I, Jamie Telfer i the Fair Dodhead, 
 And a harried man I think I be ; 
 
 There's naething left i the Fair Dodhead 
 But only wife and children three.' 
 
 'Gae seek your succour frae Martin Elliot, 
 For succour ye's get nane frae me ; 
 
 Gae seek your succour where ye paid black-mail, 
 For, man, ye never paid money to me.' 
 
 XI. 
 
 Jamie he's turnd him round about, 
 
 And ay the tear blinded his eye : 
 ' I'se never pay mail to Scott again. 
 
 Nor the Fair Dodhead I'll ever see.'
 
 THE BALLAD. 55 
 
 Scott's Version — 
 
 VI. 
 
 The Captain turned him round and leugh ; 
 
 Said — 'Man, there's naething in thy house 
 But ae auld sword without a sheath, 
 
 That hardly now wad fell a mouse.' 
 
 VII. 
 
 The sun wasna up, but the moon was down. 
 It was the gryming of a new-fa'n snaw, 
 
 Jamie Telfer has run ten myles a-foot, 
 
 Between the Dodhead and the Stobs's Ha'. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 And whan he cam to the fair tower yate, 
 
 He shouted loud, and cried weel hie, 
 Till out bespak auld Gibby Elliot — 
 
 'Whae's this that brings the fraye to me?' 
 
 IX. 
 
 ' It's I, Jamie Telfer o' the fair Dodhead, 
 
 And a harried man I think I be ! 
 There's naething left at the fair Dodhead, 
 
 But a waefu' wife and bairnies three.' 
 
 ' Gae seek your succour at Branksome Ha', 
 For succour ye'se get nane frae me ; 
 
 Gae seek your succour where ye paid black-mail. 
 For, man ! ye ne'er paid money to me.' 
 
 XI. 
 
 Jamie has turned him round about, 
 I wat the tear blinded his ee — 
 
 ' I'll ne'er pay mail to Elliot again, 
 And the fair Dodhead I'll never see ! '
 
 56 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 Sharpe's Version — 
 
 XII. 
 
 Now Jamie is up the water-gate, 
 
 E'en as fast as he can drie, 
 Till he came to the Coultart Cleugh, 
 
 And there he shouted and cry'd weel he. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 Then up bespake him auld Jock Grieve — 
 ' Whae's this that bring[s] the fray to me .■' ' 
 
 ' It's I, Jamie Telfer i the Fair Dodhead, 
 And a harried man I think I be. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 ' There's naething left i the Fair Dodhead 
 But only wife and children three, 
 
 And sax poor calves stand i the sta, 
 A' routing loud for their minnie.' 
 
 XV. 
 
 ' Alack, wae's me ! ' co auld Jock Grieve, 
 
 ' Alack, alack, and wae is me ! 
 For ye was married t' the auld sister, 
 
 And I t' the younges[t] o the three.' 
 
 XVI. 
 
 Then he's taen out a bonny black, 
 It was weel fed wi corn and hay, 
 
 And set Jamie Telfer on his back, 
 To the Catlock hill to take the fray.
 
 THE BALLAD. 57 
 
 Scott's Version — 
 
 XII. 
 
 ' My hounds may a' rin masterless, 
 
 My hawks may fly frae tree to tree, 
 My lord may grip my vassal lands, 
 
 For there again maun I never be ! ' 
 
 XIII. 
 
 He has turned him to the Tiviot side. 
 
 E'en as fast as he could drie, 
 Till he cam to the Coultart Cleugh, 
 
 And there he shouted baith loud and hie. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Then up bespak him auld Jock Grieve — 
 ' Whae's this that brings the fraye to me .' ' 
 
 ' It's I, Jamie Telfer o' the fair Dodhead, 
 A harried man I trow I be. 
 
 XV. 
 
 'There's naething left in the fair Dodhead, 
 
 But a greeting wife and bairnies three. 
 And sax poor ca's stand in the sta', 
 
 A' routing loud for their minnie.' 
 
 XVI. 
 
 ' Alack a wae ! ' quo' auld Jock Grieve, 
 
 ' Alack, my heart is sair for thee ! 
 For I was married on the elder sister. 
 
 And you on the youngest of a' the three.' 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Then he has ta'cn out a bonny black, 
 
 Was right weel fed wi' corn and hay. 
 And he's set Jamie Telfer on his back. 
 
 To the Catslockhill to tak the fraye.
 
 58 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 Sharpe's Version — 
 
 XVII. 
 
 When he came to the Catlock hill. 
 He shouted loud and cry'd weel he ; 
 
 ' Whae's that, whae's that ? ' co Martin's Hab, 
 ' Whae's this that brings the fray to me ? ' 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 ' It's I, Jamie Telfer i the Fair Dodhead, 
 And a harried man I think I be ; 
 
 There's nacthing left i the Fair Dodhead 
 But only wife and children three.' 
 
 XIX. 
 
 ' Alack, wae's me ! ' co Martin's Hab, 
 ' Alack, awae, my heart is sair ! 
 
 I never came bye the Fair Dodhead 
 That ever I faund thy basket bare.' 
 
 XX. 
 
 Then he's taen out a bonny black, 
 It was weel fed wi corn and hay, 
 
 And set Jamie Telfer on his back. 
 
 To the Pricken haugh to take the fray. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 When he came to the Pricken haugh, 
 He shouted loud and cry'd weel he ; 
 
 Up then bespake auld Martin Elliot, 
 
 ' Whae's this that brings the fray to me ? ' 
 
 XXII. 
 
 ' It's I, Jamie Telfer i the Fair Dodhead, 
 And a harried man I think I be ; 
 
 There's naething left i the Fair Dodhead 
 But only wife and children three.'
 
 THE BALLAD. 59 
 
 Scott's Version — 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 And when he cam to the Catslockhill, 
 
 He shouted loud, and cried wcel hie, 
 Till out and spak him William's Wat — 
 
 ' O whae's this brings the fraye to me ? ' 
 
 XIX. 
 
 ' It's I, Jamie Telfer of the fair Dodhead, 
 
 A harried man I think I be ! 
 The Captain of Bevvcastle has driven my gear ; 
 
 For God's sake rise, and succour me ! ' 
 
 XX. 
 
 'Alas for wae ! ' quoth William's Wat, 
 
 ' Alack, for thee my heart is sair ! 
 I never cam bye the fair Dodhead, 
 
 That ever I fand thy basket bare.' 
 
 XXI. 
 
 He's set his twa sons on coal-black steeds, 
 
 Himsel' upon a freckled gray, 
 And they are on wi' Jamie Telfer, 
 
 To Branksome Ha' to tak the fraye. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 And when they cam to Branksome Ha', 
 
 They shouted a' baith loud and hie, 
 Till up and spak him auld Buccleuch, 
 
 Said — ' Whae's this brings the fraye to me 1 ' 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 It's I, Jamie Telfer o' the fair Dodhead, 
 And a harried man I think I be ! 
 There's nought left in the fair Dodhead, 
 But a greeting wife and bairnics three.'
 
 6o JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 Sharpe's Version — 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 ' Ever alack ! ' can Martin say, 
 
 ' And ay my heart is sair for thee ! 
 
 But fy, gar ca on Simmy my son, 
 And see that he come hastily. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 'Fy, gar warn the water-side, 
 Gar warn it soon and hastily ; 
 
 Them that winna ride for Telfer's kye. 
 Let them never look i the face o me. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 ' Gar warn the water, braid and wide, 
 And warn the Currers i the shaw ; 
 
 When ye come in at the Hermitage slack. 
 Warn doughty Willie o Gorrenberry.' 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 The gear was driven the Frostily up, 
 From the Frostily into the plain ; 
 
 When Simmy looked him afore, 
 He saw the kye right fast driving.
 
 THE BALLAD. 6i 
 
 Scott's Version — 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 ' Alack for wae ! ' quoth the gude auld lord, 
 
 ' And ever my heart is wae for thee ! 
 But fye gar cry on Willie, my son, 
 
 And see that he come to me speedilie ! 
 
 XXV. 
 
 ' Gar warn the water, braid and wide, 
 
 Gar warn it sune and hastilie ! 
 They that winna ride for Telfer's kye, 
 
 Let them never look in the face o' me ! 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 ' Warn Wat o' Harden, and his sons, 
 
 Wi' them will Borthwick water ride ; 
 Warn Gaudilands, and Allanhaugh, 
 
 And Gilmanscleugh, and Commonside. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 ' Ride by the gate of Priesthaughswire, 
 
 And warn the Currors o' the Lee ; 
 As ye cum down the Hermitage Slack, 
 
 Warn doughty Willie o' Gorrinberry.' 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 The Scotts they rade, the Scotts they ran, 
 
 Sae starkly and sae steadilie ! 
 And aye the ower-word o' the thrang 
 
 Was — ' Rise for Branksome readilie I ' 
 
 XXIX. 
 
 The gear was driven the Frostylee up, 
 
 I'^rae the Frostylee unto the plain, 
 Whan Willie has looked his men before. 
 
 And saw the kye right fast drivand.
 
 62 JAMIE TEL PER. 
 
 Sharpe's Version — 
 
 XX vn. 
 
 ' Wliae drives the kye,' then Simmy can say, 
 'To make an outspecklc o me?" 
 
 ' It's I, the Captain o Bewcastle, Simmy, 
 I winna lain my name frae thee.' 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 ' O will ye let the gear gac back ? 
 
 Or will ye do ony thing for me ? ' 
 ' I winna let the gear gae back, 
 
 Nor naething, Simmy, I'll do for the[e]. 
 
 XXIX. 
 
 ' But I'll drive Jamie Telfer's kye 
 
 In spite o Jamie Telfer's teeth and thee'; 
 
 ' Then by my sooth,' can Simmy saj', 
 ' I'll ware my dame's calfskin on thee. 
 
 XXX. 
 
 'Fa on them, lads!' can Simmy say, 
 
 ' Fy, fa on them cruelly ! 
 For or they win to the Ritter ford 
 
 Mony loom saddle there shall be.' 
 
 XXXI. 
 
 But Simmy was stricken oer the head, 
 And thro the napskape it is gane. 
 
 And Moscrop made a dolefull rage 
 When Simmy on the ground lay slain.
 
 THE BALLAD. 63 
 
 Scott's Version — 
 
 XXX. 
 
 ' Whae drives thir kye?' 'gan Willie say, 
 ' To mak an outspeckle o' me ? ' 
 
 ' It's I, the Captain o' Bewcastle, Willie ; 
 I winna layne my name for thee.' 
 
 XXXI. 
 
 'O will ye let Telfer's kye gae back.'' 
 Or will ye do aught for regard o' me ? 
 
 Or by the faith of my body,' quo' Willie Scott, 
 ' I'se ware my dame's caufs skin on thee!' 
 
 XXXII. 
 
 ' I winna let the kye gae back, 
 
 Neither for thy love, nor yet thy fear ; 
 
 But I will drive Jamie Telfer's kye, 
 In spite of every Scott that's here.' 
 
 XXXIII. 
 
 ' Set on them, lads ! ' quo' Willie than ; 
 
 ' Fye, lads, set on them cruellie ! 
 For ere they win to Ritterford, 
 
 Mony a toom saddle there sail be!' 
 
 XXXIV. 
 
 Then till't they gaed, wi' heart and hand ; 
 
 The blows fell thick as bickering hail ; 
 And mony a horse ran masterlcss, 
 
 And mony a comely cheek was pale ! 
 
 XXXV. 
 
 But Willie was stricken owcr the head. 
 
 And thro' the knapscap the sword has ganc ; 
 
 And Harden grat for very rage, 
 
 Whan Willie on the grand lay slane.
 
 64 JAMIE TEL FEE. 
 
 Sharpe's Version — 
 
 XXXII. 
 
 ' Fy, lay on them ! ' co Martin Elliot, 
 
 ' Fy, lay on them cruelly ! 
 For ere they win to the Kcrshop ford 
 
 Mony toom saddle there shall be.' 
 
 XXXIII. 
 
 John o Biggam he was slain, 
 And John o Barlow, as I heard say. 
 
 And fifteen o the Captain's men 
 
 Lay bleeding on the ground that day. 
 
 XXXIV. 
 
 The Captain was shot through the head, 
 And also through the left ba-stane; 
 
 Tho he had livd this hundred years, 
 He'd necr been loed by woman again.
 
 THE BALLAD. 65 
 
 Scott's Version — 
 
 XXXVI. 
 
 But he's ta'en aff his gude steel cap, 
 And thrice he's waved it in the air — 
 
 The Dinlay snaw was ne'er mair white 
 Nor the lyart locks of Harden's hair. 
 
 XXXVII. 
 
 ' Revenge ! revenge ! ' auld Wat 'gan cry 
 ' Fye, lads, lay on them cruellie ! 
 
 We'll ne'er see Tiviotside again, 
 Or Willie's death revenged sail be.' 
 
 XXXVIII. 
 
 O mony a horse ran masterless, 
 The splintered lances flew on hie ; 
 
 But or they wan to the Kershope ford, 
 The Scotts had gotten the victory. 
 
 XXXIX. 
 
 John o' Brigham there was slane, 
 And John o' Barlow, as I hear say; 
 
 And thirty mae o' the Captain's men 
 Lay bleeding on the grund that day. 
 
 XL. 
 
 The Captain was run thro' the thick of the thigh, 
 And broken was his right leg bane ; 
 
 If he had lived this hundred years. 
 
 He had never been loved by woman again.
 
 66 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 Sharpe's Version — 
 
 XXXV. 
 
 The word is gane unto his bride, 
 Een in the bower where she lay, 
 
 That her good lord was in's enemy's land 
 Since into Tiviotdale he led the way. 
 
 XXXVI. 
 
 ' I loord a had a winding sheed 
 And helpd to put it oer his head, 
 
 Or he'd been taen in's enemy's lands, 
 Since he oer Liddle his men did lead.' 
 
 XXXVII. 
 
 There was a man in our company, 
 And his name was Willie Wudespurs : 
 
 'There is a house in the Stanegarside, 
 If any man will ride with us.' 
 
 XXXVIII. 
 
 When they came to the Stanegarside, 
 
 They bangd wi trees and brake the door. 
 
 They loosd the kye out, ane and a', 
 And set them furtli our lads before.
 
 THE BALLAD. 67 
 
 Scott's Version — 
 
 XLI. 
 
 ' Hae back thy kye ! ' the Captain said ; 
 
 ' Dear kye, I trow, to some they be ! 
 For gin I suld live a hundred years, 
 
 There will ne'er fair lady smile on me.' 
 
 XLII. 
 
 Then word is gane to the Captain's bride, 
 Even in the bower where that she lay. 
 
 That her lord was prisoner in enemy's land. 
 Since into Tividale he had led the way. 
 
 XUII. 
 
 ' I wad lourd have had a winding-sheet, 
 And helped to put it ower his head, 
 
 Ere he had been disgraced by the Border Scot, 
 Whan he ower Liddel his men did lead ! ' 
 
 XLIV. 
 
 There was a wild gallant amang us a', 
 His name was Watty wi' the Wudspurs, 
 
 Cried — 'On for his house in Stanegirthside, 
 If ony man will ride with us!' 
 
 XLV. 
 
 When tliey cam to the Stanegirthside, 
 
 They dang wi' trees, and burst the door ; 
 
 They loosed out a' the Captain's kye, 
 And set them forth our lads before.
 
 68 JAMIE TELFER. 
 
 Sharpe's Version — 
 
 XXXIX. 
 
 There was an auld wif ayont the fire, 
 A wee bit o the Captain's kin : 
 
 'Whae loo[s]es out the Captain's kye, 
 
 And sae mony o the Captain's men wi[t]hin ? ' 
 
 XL. 
 
 ' I, WiUie Wudespurs, let out the kye, 
 I winna lain my name frae thee, 
 
 And I'll loose out the Captain's kye 
 In spite o the Captain's teeth and thee.' 
 
 XLI. 
 
 Now on they came to the Fair Dodhead, 
 They were a welcome sight to see, 
 
 And instead of his ain ten milk-kye 
 Jamie Telfer's gotten thirty and three.
 
 THE BALLAD. 69 
 
 Scott's Version — 
 
 XLVI. 
 
 There was an auld vvyfe ayont the fire, 
 
 A wee bit o' the Captain's kin — 
 ' Whae dar loose out the Captain's kye, 
 
 Or answer to him and his men?' 
 
 XLVII. 
 
 'It's I, Watty Wudspurs, loose the kye! 
 
 I winna layne my name frae thee ! 
 And I will loose out the Captain's kye, 
 
 In scorn of a' his men and he.' 
 
 Xl.VIII. 
 
 When they cam to the fair Dodhead, 
 
 They were a wellcum sight to see ! 
 For instead of his ain ten milk kye, 
 
 Jamie Telfer has gotten thirty and three. 
 
 XLIX. 
 
 And he has paid the rescue shot, 
 Baith wi' goud and white monie ; 
 
 And at the burial o' Willie Scott, 
 I wat was mony a weeping ee.
 
 11. 
 
 "LITTLE JOCK ELLIOT" 
 
 IS THIS A GENUINE OLD BALLAD?
 
 LITTLE JOCK ELLIOT. 
 
 About the year 1563 the agents of Queen Elizabeth of England 
 took advantage of a feud that had broken out between the 
 Elliots and Scotts to strengthen their own policy. They gave 
 encouragement to the former clan with the view of annoying 
 Mary's partisans, and suggested that thirty or forty "strapping 
 Elliots" might be employed to harry the lands of Lord Home, 
 one of the Queen's most trusty adherents in the Merse. 
 
 In 1566 Bothwell, who had been made Lieutenant- General of 
 all the Marches, " wrought sore with the Elliots to call them to 
 him, but he was unable, by all his promises, to induce them to 
 join the Queen's party." The English party, in the meantime, 
 " feared that they would become open enemies " ; but when 
 Bothwell was preparing an expedition against the Laird of Cess- 
 ford and his son, the Elliots, with Lord Home, the young Laird 
 of Buccleuch, and all the best Border names, combined to with- 
 stand him unless the Queen herself accompanied him. The in- 
 tended expedition was abandoned at the time, but some months 
 later Bothwell went with a large force to the Borders, being 
 followed there by the Queen to hold a justice-court at Jedburgh. 
 The raid was directed particularly against the Elliots, who were 
 now banded with the Armstrongs and Scotts, and in conducting it
 
 74 LITTLE JOCK ELLIOT. 
 
 Bothwell, " the most hated man in the realme," met with defeat at 
 their hands in the combat commemorated by the ballad, when he 
 himself was severely wounded by John Elliot of the Park.^ 
 
 The following account of what happened is taken from the 
 " Diurnal of Occurrents " (kept by an anonymous writer, 1513-1575) 
 but we should remember that it is in all probability based chiefly 
 on Bothwell's report, which would certainly have put as favourable 
 a complexion on the matter as possible. 
 
 " Oct. 7, 1566. — The Queen departed towards Jedburgh to hold a justice- 
 court there on the 8th. Upon the same day the Earl of Bothwell, sent by 
 her to bring in certain thieves and malefactors of Liddesdale to the public 
 air to be punished for their demerits, and he being searchand the fields 
 about the Hermitage after that he had taken certain of the said thieves, 
 and had put them in the said place of Hermitage in prison, chancit upon 
 ane thief callid John Eluat of the Park. And after he had taken him, the 
 said John speirit gif he would save his life; the said Earl of Bothwell said, 
 gif an assise would make him clean, he was heartily contented, but it be- 
 huvit to pass to the Queen's peace. The said John hearand thae words, 
 slips fra his horse to have run away ; but in the lighting the said Earl 
 shot him with ane dag in the body, and lighted down to have taken him 
 again ; and followand fiercely upon the said thief, the said Earl slipped over 
 ane souch and tumbled down the same, wherethrough he was sa hurt that 
 he swoonit. The said John perceivand himself shot and the Earl fallen, 
 he gaed to him where he lay and gave him three wounds, ane in the body, 
 ane in the head, and ane in the hand, and my lord gave him twa straikes 
 with ane whinger at the paip, and the said thief departed, and my lord 
 lay in a swoon till his servants came and carried him to the Hermitage. 
 At his coming thereto the said thieves, which was in prison in the said 
 Hermitage, had gotten forth thereof and was maisters of the place, till ane 
 callit Robert Eliot of the Shaw came and said, gif they would let in my 
 lord Bothwell he would save all their lives and let them gang hame ; and 
 so they let my lord in ; and gif he had not gotten in at that time, he and 
 
 ' For fuller particulars see 'The Border Hon. George F. S. Elliot, from which the 
 Elliots and the Family of Minto,' by the above information has been extracted.
 
 LITTLE JOCK ELLIOT. 75 
 
 all his company had been slain. And the said thief that hurt my lord 
 Bothwell deceasit within ane mile upon ane hill of the wounds gotten fra 
 my lord Bothwell of before." 
 
 Another account,^ also contemporaneous, 
 
 " gives a different version of the story, describing a fierce encounter between 
 the soldiers led by Bothwell and a party of Elliots, who attacked them 
 suddenly from one of the glens which intersects the hillsides of Liddesdale : 
 a conflict, hilt to hilt, ensued, in which Bothwell was severely wounded 
 by the leader of the Elliots, John Elliot of the Park. In the meanwhile, 
 another party of Elliots had possessed themselves of the Hermitage, and 
 were prepared to resist the entry of the Queen's troops and their wounded 
 leader, but were finally dissuaded from doing so by the representations of 
 Elliot of the Shaw, — a man of weight and influence among them, — who 
 pointed out the hopelessness of any but temporary success in a struggle 
 between the clan and the power of the state." - 
 
 The enforced agreement to the terms imposed on him by the 
 Elliots ere they would let him into Hermitage Castle rankled in 
 Bothwell's mind, and in the following year, 1567, he was "minded 
 to make a raid into Liddesdale," and summoned the gentry and 
 Border chiefs to join him at Melrose, June 7. These refused to 
 obey his summons, and shortly afterwards the Queen surrendered 
 to her nobles at Carberry Hill, and Bothwell was a prisoner. 
 
 Whether John Elliot of the Park was killed or not is a dis- 
 puted question not admitting of settlement. In 'The Border 
 Elliots ' several authorities are quoted in proof that he was so. 
 On the other hand, the Register of Privy Council names a John 
 Elliot of the Park as a pledge in 1588, and he is also referred 
 to in Maitland's ballad, " Aganis the Theives of Liddesdale," as 
 being alive in 1567. The ballad of " Little Jock Elliot" is also to 
 
 ' The Bedford correspondence. ' 'Border Sketches,' by the 3rd Countess 
 
 of Minto, 1870. (Privately printed.)
 
 76 LITTLE JOCK ELLIOT. 
 
 some extent evidence that, in the opinion of the ballad-maker, — 
 and his opinion was probably that held commonly in Liddesdale 
 at the time, — he survived. 
 
 It is, of course, asserted by those who hold that Elliot was 
 killed in the combat that the Register of Privy Council, Mait- 
 land's ballad, and the ballad of " Litde Jock Elliot " refer to some 
 other individual. This may be the case with regard to the 
 Register of Privy Council and to Maitland's ballad ; with regard to 
 the ballad of " Little Jock Elliot," however, the probability seems 
 to be the other way. Here we are told definitely of a Jock Elliot 
 who routed the Queen's Lieutenant. History tells us definitely of 
 a Jock Elliot who routed the Queen's Lieutenant. No other Jock 
 Elliot routed a Queen's Lieutenant ; no other Queen's Lieutenant 
 was routed by any one else. It is, then, surely futile to assert 
 that history and the ballad refer to different individuals. 
 
 The author of ' The Border Elliots ' appears to believe both 
 that Jock Elliot was killed and that the ballad refers to him. 
 He gets over the dilemma in which he thus finds himself by 
 suggesting that the ballad - maker, in making it appear that 
 Elliot survived, was guilty of " a little poetical licence." I can 
 see no ground for this accusation, although I do see some 
 reason, in consideration of the authorities quoted in proof of 
 Elliot's death, for thinking him mistaken. The evidence in 
 the ballad may not be very valuable, but, such as it is, it is in 
 favour of the view that the ballad -maker, rightly or wrongly, 
 believed Elliot had survived, and to attempt to weaken this by 
 the suggestion of "poetical licence" is hardly fair: moreover, I 
 think it is somewhat improbable— for bards and their like are 
 more inclined to kill their heroes than to resuscitate them. Had 
 the poet thought Elliot had been killed, we may be sure he 
 would not have missed the opportunity of singing his glorious
 
 LITTLE JOCK ELLIOT. 77 
 
 end. Again, can any other Border ballad be quoted the words 
 of which are put in the mouth of a dead man ? But, really, 
 whether Elliot was killed or not is not of much importance, 
 except that, if he was so, tradition is incorrect in ascribing the 
 authorship of the song to /n?n} 
 
 With reference to this old Border song, it may be interesting 
 to give here the following anecdote, taken from the preface to 
 ' Leyden's Poetical Remains ' ^ : — 
 
 " Leyden's love of the place of his nativity was a passion in which 
 he had always a pride, and which in India he cherished with the fondest 
 enthusiasm. I ^ once went to see him when he was very ill, and had 
 been confined to his bed for many days. There were several gentlemen in 
 the room. He inquired if I had any news. I told him I had a letter 
 from Eskdale. 'And what are they about on the Borders?' he asked. 
 'A curious circumstance,' I replied, 'is stated in my letter,' — and I read 
 him a passage which described the conduct of our volunteers on a fire 
 being kindled by mistake at one of the beacons. This letter mentioned 
 that the moment the blaze, which was the signal of invasion, was seen, 
 the mountaineers hastened to their rendezvous, and those of Liddesdale 
 swam the Liddel river to reach it. They were assembled (though several 
 of their houses were at a distance of six or seven miles) in two hours, 
 and at break of day marched into the town of Hawick — a distance of 
 twenty miles from the place of assembly — to the border tune of 'Wha 
 daur meddle wi' me .■• ' Leyden's countenance became animated as I 
 proceeded with this detail, and at its close he sprang from his bed, and 
 with strange melody, and still stranger gesticulations, sang aloud, ' Wha 
 daur meddle wi' me .' ' Several of those who witnessed the scene looked 
 at him as one that was raving in the delirium of fever." 
 
 ' 'Border Sketches,' by the 3rd Countess when Great Britain was greatly agitated by 
 
 of Minto. I do not know her authority for the fear of a French invasion. During the 
 
 the allegation as to the existence of this tra- night of the 2nd February the Border coun- 
 
 dition, but the information was very prob- try was roused by the accidental lighting of 
 
 ably derived from Mr Riddell Carre, the a beacon at Home Castle. 
 
 author of ' Border Memories.' ' General Sir John Malcolm — himself a 
 
 ' The anecdote refers to the year 1804, Borderer from Eskdale.
 
 78 LITTLE JOCK ELLIOT. 
 
 I must now explain the manner in which the ballad, as it is 
 given on page 82, has been constructed. The first stanza has for 
 long been very commonly known and sung in Liddesdale, and is 
 undoubtedly ancient ; the third was communicated by Mr Telfer 
 (schoolmaster at Saughtree) to Mr Riddell Carre of Cavers Carre, 
 who states ^ that he made every effort to obtain the whole of 
 the ballad of "the great Little Jock Elliot"; the fifth stanza is 
 taken from ' Border Exploits,' ^ where it and another are given 
 in a footnote, but without any information as to whence they 
 have been derived or any observation concerning them, — indeed 
 it would seem as if the attention of the reader was being called 
 from the text to verses with which he was presumed to be 
 acquainted. The same two stanzas are given by Mr Riddell 
 Carre in his above-mentioned work, but neither does he mention 
 the source from which he obtained them. They are as 
 follows : — 
 
 " I vanquished the Queen's heutenant. 
 And made his fierce troopers flee ; 
 My name it is little Jock Elliot, 
 And wha daur meddle wi' me ? 
 
 I ride on my fleet-footed gray, 
 
 My sword hanging down by my knee ; 
 I ne'er was afraid of a foe. 
 
 Then wha daur meddle wi' me ? " 
 
 ' 'Border Memories' (Walter Riddell Lieutenant must have been as splendid an 
 Carre of Cavers Carre, 1876). The author achievement as the ballad -maker could 
 and all other authorities appear to be agreed have ever hoped his hero to perform, and 
 that the verses now known are but a frag- to have prolonged the song after that 
 ment of a longer ballad. I do not know climax had been reached would have been 
 the grounds for this belief, and, indeed, in not only superfluous, but an artistic mistake, 
 my opinion the verses as they stand are ^ By W. Scott (schoolmaster at Burn- 
 sufficiently complete for a wild song of mouth) : see the 1828 edition ; the verses are 
 this nature. To have defeated the Queen's not in the original edition published in 1812.
 
 LITTLE JOCK ELLIOT. 79 
 
 It appears likely that the first two lines of the second of these 
 stanzas originally formed, together with the refrain, a distinct 
 stanza, and that the third line is in fact the first of another 
 couplet of another stanza of which the second line is missing. 
 The second line, therefore, of the fourth stanza is of my own 
 manufacture ; the arrangement is, of course, also my own. 
 
 We must now consider the question of the genuineness of 
 this ballad, but in the first place a few bare facts ought to 
 be noted. 
 
 Firstly, for seven years previous to the publication of ' The 
 Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border,' Sir Walter Scott had annually 
 passed some time in Liddesdale for the sole object of discovering 
 old songs and ballads, &c. 
 
 Secondly, this ballad is not included in the Minstrelsy 
 published in 1803. 
 
 Thirdly, not many months after the publication of the 
 Minstrelsy, the men of Liddesdale marched into Hawick, on the 
 occasion of the false alarm of a French invasion, to the tune of 
 this ballad. 
 
 Fourthly, in the same year, 1804, Leyden, then in India, 
 sang the song, or a portion of it. We are not told definitely 
 that he sang more than the first verse. 
 
 Fifthly, in 1828, two other stanzas were published in a foot- 
 note to ' Border Exploits.' 
 
 Lastly, another stanza was communicated by the school- 
 master at Saughtree in Liddesdale to the author of ' Border 
 Memories,' published in 1876. 
 
 These facts admit of only one of three possible conclusions — 
 namely, either Sir Walter Scott had not heard of the song before 
 publishing the Minstrelsy, or he intentionally refrained from in-
 
 8o LITTLE JOCK ELLIOT. 
 
 eluding it in that work, or it did not exist at the time, — in other 
 words, it is of later date and is not genuine. 
 
 On the face of it, the last of these three possibilities would 
 appear to be the most probable, so let us first consider it. 
 
 No one disputes that the first stanza, the refrain, existed 
 long before the period of Sir Walter's "raids" into Liddesdale ; 
 but how about the two given in ' Border Exploits ' and the one 
 furnished by Mr Telfer? The manner in which the former two 
 are inserted has already been mentioned, and, I think, the 
 inference drawn that the author expected his readers generally 
 to be acquainted with them is a fair one : we may, at least, 
 be certain that he himself did not compose them. 
 
 With reference to the verse supplied to Mr Riddell Carre, 
 who, he tells us himself, had been making great efforts to recover 
 the whole of the ballad, one cannot help being a little suspicious, 
 since supply is apt to follow demand ; but, on the other hand, if 
 Telfer (himself a ballad-maker, I think ?) had thought it worth while 
 to be so accommodating, he would hardly have confined himself to 
 the production of merely one stanza, or rather of merely two lines. 
 
 In my opinion, the strongest reason for doubting the gen- 
 uineness of these three stanzas lies in the fact that Sir Walter 
 Scott made no reference to them in the Minstrelsy. 
 
 Now, with regard to the first of the above-mentioned pos- 
 sible conclusions : while it is, of course, possible that Sir Walter 
 had not heard of all the four stanzas, surely it is impossible for 
 him not to have heard of the existence in former days of the 
 ballad to the tune of which the Liddesdales marched into 
 Hawick, — not to have known at least the first stanza, which 
 Leyden sang in the far-off East. 
 
 Lastly, why did he not refer to the ballad in the Minstrelsy ? 
 It will be but fair to assume that he knew only of the first stanza,
 
 LITTLE JOCK ELLIOT. 8i 
 
 and the answer to the question then, of course, will be — because such 
 a scrap could not be ranked as a ballad. But this can hardly be 
 considered a very satisfactory explanation, nor likely to be a true 
 one, since the " Souters of Selkirk " was but a scrap, and not a very 
 interesting one, yet he included it in his collection. Here, however, 
 this one verse has a peculiar interest in that it refers — or at all 
 events is generally believed to refer — to a remarkable and pic- 
 turesque page of Border history. One would have thought that 
 the somewhat romantic incidents — the combat between a party of 
 Borderers and a body of troopers under the Queen's Lieutenant ; 
 the death, perhaps, of the leader of the former and the almost death 
 of the leader of the latter ; the seizure of Hermitage Castle by 
 the victorious Liddesdales ; the carrying there of the wounded and 
 hated Bothwell ; and, lastly, Queen Mary's ride from Jedburgh 
 to see her suffering lover, followed immediately by her own sick- 
 ness, almost unto death — would have afforded Sir Walter suffi- 
 cient excuse for including but one verse of an old ballad referring 
 to them, and that the very spirit of the lines, appealing to him 
 as strongly as it did to the Liddesdales of old, to Leyden, and 
 to every Borderer of to-day, would have impelled him to do so. 
 That he did not — the why and the wherefore need not be con- 
 sidered — greatly weakens, in my mind at all events, the strength 
 of the argument that the absence of the other three stanzas from 
 his work throws a doubt on their having then been in existence, 
 and consequently on their genuineness. 
 
 After some consideration, and, I must confess, after a good 
 deal of doubt, I have arrived at the conclusion that the ballad 
 may be accepted as genuine, and that it may be rightly regarded 
 as a good instance of the memory of a popular hero, who had 
 striven against a well-known historical personage, being perpetuated 
 through many generations by means of song. 
 
 F
 
 82 LITTLE JOCK ELLIOT. 
 
 THE BALLAD. 
 
 Wha daur meddle wi' me ? 
 Wha daur meddle wi' me? 
 My name is little Jock Elliot, 
 And wha daur meddle wi' me ? 
 
 I ride on my fleet-futted grey, 
 
 My sword hanging doun by my knee, 
 
 My name is little Jock Elliot, 
 And wha daur meddle wi' me? 
 
 In raids I ride always the foremost, 
 My straik is the first in mell^; 
 
 My name is little Jock Elliot, 
 And wha daur meddle wi' me ? 
 
 I ne'er was afraid of a foe. 
 
 Or yield I liefer wad die ; 
 My name is little Jock Elliot, 
 
 And wha daur meddle wi' me? 
 
 I've slain the Queen's lieutenant, 
 And garr'd her troopers flee ; 
 
 My name is little Jock Elliot, 
 And wha daur meddle wi' me ? 
 
 Wha daur meddle wi' me ? 
 Wha daur meddle wi' me? 
 My name is little Jock Elliot, 
 And wha daur meddle wi' me ?
 
 III. 
 
 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH AND 
 LOCAL TRADITION
 
 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 At the commencement of the troubles between Charles I. and 
 his Parliament the Marquis of Montrose took a very prominent 
 part against the king, but, in 1643, becoming annoyed and 
 jealous at the preference shown by the Covenanters to the Earl 
 of Argyle, or perhaps actuated by nobler motives, he suddenly 
 deserted the cause and took up arms against his old comrades. 
 With the assistance of various Highland clans and of a force of 
 Irish, 1 he overran a great part of Scotland, defeating the Cove- 
 nanters in battle after battle, first at Tippermuir on the ist Sep- 
 tember 1644, then at Aberdeen, then at Inverlochy, Auldearn, 
 Alford, and lastly at Kilsyth on the 15th August 1645, in which 
 bloody fight, it is said, the Covenanters lost some 4000 men. 
 
 This victory, however, — which he owed rather to the intense 
 folly of his adversaries than to any merit of his own, — was the 
 turning-point in his career : immediately after it he was deserted 
 by the Macdonalds, who "went off because they wanted to fight 
 
 ' A body of old soldiers from the Irish descent connected with the race of Mac- 
 war had been sent to the Highlands by the donalds. They were consequently extremely 
 Marquis of Antrim, and were commanded by hostile to the Campbells, by whom they 
 Alaster Macdonell, or Macdonald. These or their ancestors had been driven out of 
 men are usually described as Irish, but they Scotland. (Dictionary of National Bio- 
 were probably for the most part of Scottish graphy.)
 
 S6 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 the Campbells and not to succour Charles. Other Highlanders 
 went off because they could not be allowed to plunder in the 
 south as they had plundered in the north. The Gordons went 
 off because they no longer occupied the first place in Montrose's 
 counsels ; " ^ and it was therefore with a much attenuated force 
 that he commenced his march for the Borders of Scotland, hoping 
 to obtain such assistance from various great Border lords — notably 
 the Earls of Home and Roxburghe and the Marquis of Douglas 
 — as would allow of his crossing into England and moving to 
 the direct assistance of the king. After passing through the 
 Lothians and occupying Edinburgh he moved down the Gala 
 to Melrose, thence to Kelso, and thence to Jedburgh;- but by 
 the time he reached the last-named town he had abandoned all 
 hope of obtaining the reinforcements he had expected. A march 
 over the Border was evidently no longer feasible, and, abandon- 
 ing the enterprise, he determined to return to the Highlands as 
 quickly as possible. His retreat by way of Edinburgh was, 
 however, cut off, or was on the point of being so, by a strong 
 
 ■ Dictionary of National Biography : see Scott's account, Leslie must have detached 
 
 under "Graham." a large force on a long detour to the south 
 
 2 It may here be remarked that there are, of what he terms Montrose's " front " to 
 perhaps, only two important points connected attack the rear of his "right" wing, Hogg 
 with the battle of Philiphaugh and with the and Mr Craig -Brown assert that he de- 
 events preceding it upon which historians tached a force to make a similar detour 
 agree : these are the date of the battle and to the north to attack what Scott would 
 its result. On all other points they differ. have called their "rear," and the two last- 
 They differ as to whether Montrose marched named authorities differ widely between 
 first to Kelso and then to Jedburgh, or themselves as to how and where this 
 first to Jedburgh and then to Kelso. Some attack was delivered. Readers who are 
 authorities state that Leslie passed the night interested in the subject will find Sir 
 before the battle at Melrose, others at Lin- Walter Scott's, Mr Craig - Brown's, and 
 dean. Whereas Sir Walter Scott and Hogg Hogg's accounts — or rather the main points 
 describe the one flank of the Royalist army of their accounts — in the "Notes" at the 
 as having been the first annihilated, it would end of this paper, together with some criti- 
 appear from Wishart and Gordon to have cal remarks upon each. A map of the 
 been the other. While, in accordance with district will be found facing p. 128.
 
 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 87 
 
 force under the command of General David Leslie, and he there- 
 fore decided to move, in the first instance, by Nithsdale into 
 Ayrshire, and thence endeavour to get back to safer quarters in 
 the Highlands. With this intention he marched from Jedburgh 
 to Selkirk, where he arrived on the 12th September, meaning, 
 presumably, to resume the movement next morning towards 
 Moffat, or — and this is perhaps more likely — on Peebles. 
 
 In the meanwhile General David Leslie, who was in command 
 of the Scottish army then engaged fighting against the king's forces 
 in England, hearing of the disasters that were overtaking the cause 
 of the Covenanters in Scotland, determined to return north to oppose 
 Montrose's victorious career. At the head of his magnificent troops 
 — the victors in the July of the preceding year of the glorious battle 
 at Marston Moor, a victory which was due chiefly to the valour of 
 the Scottish troops, and to the skill with which they were handled 
 by himself, — he marched along the east coast by Berwick and 
 Dunbar to Gladsmuir. Thus far he had directed his march with 
 the object of cutting off Montrose, whom he knew to be on the 
 Borders, from the midland counties of Scotland, and he was about 
 to continue it on Edinburgh, when, on reaching Tranent, he 
 received more precise information as to the position of the Royalist 
 army, and also as to its strength, which was put at "only 500 Irish 
 foot and a few raw undisciplined horsemen." ^ He forthwith — and, 
 it should be noticed, on the same day as that on which Montrose 
 left Jedburgh - — changed the direction of his march to the left, 
 and proceeded down Gala Water towards the valley of the 
 Tweed. 
 
 The information received must clearly have referred to the 
 
 • 'The Deeds of Montrose.' (Rev. George •' Craig-Drmvn's ' History of Selkirkshire.' 
 
 Wishart, bishop of Edinburgh, 1662-1671.)
 
 88 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPIIAUGH. 
 
 Royalist army when either at Kelso or Jedburgh, and it was prob- 
 ably upon the latter town that the Covenanters were marchingr on 
 the 1 2th, with the intention of halting for the night at Melrose, 
 when, on getting low down Gala Water, news reached them that 
 Montrose's army had that morning moved up the right bank of 
 the Tweed and was already encamped on Philiphaugh, not five miles 
 off.^ In consequence of this intelligence, Leslie, instead of con- 
 tinuing on to Melrose, — a move which would have increased his 
 distance from Selkirk by some miles, and which would, moreover, 
 have necessitated the fording of the Tweed, — led his army, consist- 
 ing of about 5000 or 6000 men, chiefly dragoons and cavalry, across 
 the southern spurs of the hills which separate the valleys of Gala 
 and Tweed, and, crossing the latter river above where its waters 
 are augmented by those of Ettrick and Yarrow, halted near the 
 small village of Sunderland for the night. But this was not effected 
 without fighting. His advanced-guard, on nearing Sunderland, had 
 observed that it was occupied by a picket of Royalist horse : these 
 were quickly surrounded, and, after a sharp fight, were slain or 
 captured, with the exception of the commander and two others 
 who escaped.^ 
 
 We must now return to Montrose. After reaching Selkirk on 
 the 1 2th, and probably early in the afternoon,^ he moved the greater 
 part of his army — consisting of about 1000 horse, 1400 foot, and a 
 
 ' See Note D, first paragraph. curred fairly early in the day. Leslie and 
 
 2 See Note A, i. Montrose, we are told, left Tranent and 
 
 ' Authorities (Hogg excepted, see Note Jedburgh respectively on the same day. 
 
 F, i) agree as to this date. Burton, in his The former's march is hardly likely to have 
 
 ' History of Scotland,' states that Montrose been accomplished under two days. In this 
 
 reached Selkirk late in the evening; but case, the tatter's marches would have been 
 
 historians are rarely reliable regarding short, and would probably, therefore, have 
 
 matters of such detail, and there are reasons been completed before noon, 
 for thinking it is more likely to have oc-
 
 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 89 
 
 few guns ^ — across to the left bank of the Ettrick, where they halted 
 on Philiphaugh. This is the name of the haugh (or flat ground) 
 lying between the river and the foot of the hills separating the 
 valleys of Yarrow and Tweed, and which extends from the former 
 stream on the south to the Linglee burn on the north, a distance of 
 about i^ mile. The breadth of the haugh varies from about 200 
 to 500 yards. 
 
 The advanced-guard was pushed forward to the Yarrow, where 
 the haugh is narrowed by the approach of the hills towards the river, 
 and a rear-guard was posted at the other extremity of the plain 
 (where it is likewise considerably pinched in), being covered by a 
 cavalry picket at Sunderland. Some foot-companies bivouacked 
 along the foot of the bank which extends from Linglee to Harehead 
 (where the Selkirk-Moffat highroad now is), while the rest of the 
 infantry, guns, and headquarters occupied ground in the neighbour- 
 hood of the present cricket-ground.- The greater part of the cavalry 
 were also on the left bank of the Ettrick, where there was sfood 
 feeding for the horses, but the remainder, together with Montrose 
 himself and most of the officers — cavalry officers, presumably, — 
 were billeted in the town on the right bank. 
 
 Although the position thus described must have appeared very 
 secure from attack, we are nevertheless told that both front- and 
 rear-guards threw up entrenchments and prepared the dykes and 
 
 ' The true strength of Montrose's .irniy is that such a force, whose success depended 
 
 not known. Sir Walter Scott puts it at so entirely on rapidity of movement, should 
 
 "from 1200 to 1500 foot and about 1000 have been hampered with them. See Hogg's 
 
 horse." Wishart states that the infantry description of the guns in Note F, 3. 
 
 did not "in all exceed 500." Mr Craig- - Craig-Brown's ' History of Selkirkshire.' 
 
 Brown brings forward evidence to show The second "h" of "Philiphaugh" in the 
 
 that Montrose was accompanied by a few map marks approximately the site of the 
 
 guns, and I think we may accept this ,ts cricket-ground, 
 correct, although it seems perhaps curious
 
 90 THE BATTLE OF PHTI.IPIIAUGH. 
 
 hedges for defence.^ If this was, in fact, done, it tends to show 
 that Montrose was suspicious of an enemy being in the neighbour- 
 hood, and to discredit the statement made by Sir Walter Scott in 
 his 'Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border' that he employed the 
 forthcoming night " in writing and dispatching the agreeable intel- 
 licrence to the kincj that there was no armed enemy in the realm 
 of Scotland," a statement which is also inconsistent with the un- 
 doubted fact that he knew of his retreat from Jedburgh to the 
 north via Edinburgh having been intercepted.^ 
 
 Vague rumours of an enemy being in close proximity to his 
 camp reached Montrose during the night, and Captain Hempsfield, 
 the commander of the cavalry picket at Sunderland, also reported 
 the disaster that had occurred there ; but for some unexplained 
 reason this was believed — or at all events stated to have been 
 believed — to have been a mere drunken brawl.^ Nevertheless, 
 Montrose appears to have attached some weight to the rumours, 
 for he issued special orders for carefully selected scouts to be sent 
 
 ' It seems strange that this should have advanced-guard took such precautions, it 
 
 been done by the advanced -guard, since would certainly have been curious for the 
 
 there was no probability of an enemy ap- rear-guard not to have done so also, being 
 
 proaching down the Yarrow ; but Sir Walter the more exposed of the two to danger, for 
 
 Scott mentions it as a definite fact, and, no Montrose, knowing his retreat to the north 
 
 doubt, entrenchments are still visible there. had been cut off, must have felt there was 
 
 Hogg, however, refers to these, and probably a possibility of Leslie moving down the 
 
 correctly, as dating from a period far anterior Gala, or even down the Tweed, and it may 
 
 to that of Philiphaugh (see Note F, 3). Sir have been partly for this reason that he 
 
 Walter mentions also that entrenchments posted a picket at Sunderland, where these 
 
 were thrown up at the other extremity of two routes converge. 
 
 the haugh, — and the Covenanters' Account " Wishart. Corroboratory evidence is also 
 
 (see Note C) confirms this, — but no traces found in a letter from Sir R. Spottiswood to 
 
 of these are now visible on the low ground Lord Digby, dated " Near Kelso, Sept. loth," 
 
 (high up on the hill the old Catrail can still in which reference is made to Leslie "hav- 
 
 be traced) or on the lower slopes of the hills ing been suffered to come in here [Scotland] 
 
 near Linglee, and it is here, if anywhere, to make head against us now." 
 where they would have been thrown up. ^ Gordon. See Note A, i. 
 
 If Scott was correct in saying that the
 
 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 91 
 
 out to patrol and for the cavalry to be on the alert. Concerning 
 the scouts, it is related that upon returning to camp next morning 
 they "wished damnation to themselves if they could find an enemy 
 within ten miles of them." ^ But, assuming this story to be true, 
 there is really nothing remarkable in it, for, unless definite instruc- 
 tions had been given for patrols to move down the left bank of the 
 Ettrick, the commander, knowing that there was already a cavalry 
 picket at Sunderland, would naturally have confined his attentions 
 to the front, up Ettrick and Yarrow ; or to the left flank, towards 
 Lilliesleaf and the valley of the Ale ; or to the rear, down the 
 right bank of the Ettrick and Tweed, the route by which they had 
 come in the morning. It is quite probable that patrols did move 
 in the last-named direction even as far as Melrose, and if so, their 
 finding no trace of Leslie was due to the excellent reason that he 
 was not there. He and his army were on the other bank of the 
 river, screened from view by the darkness of night, or by the 
 early morning mist, or by the folds of the ground and Sunderland 
 wood. But though there was, under the cit-cumstances, nothing 
 extraordinary in the scouts having failed to detect the presence 
 of the enemy, it is truly astounding that, after the commander of 
 the picket at Sunderland had reported what had occurred there, 
 no patrol was sent to ascertain the truth, if this were doubted. 
 When such a very evident duty is neglected, it may fairly safely 
 be attributed, not to carelessness nor to stupidity, but to treachery. 
 The simple facts of the case as we know them are as follows : 
 The captain of a picket personally reports the presence of the 
 enemy and the capture of his men ; no picket is sent out to re- 
 place the one lost ; scouts and patrols are sent out in other direc- 
 tions, and these, since they naturally enough find no enemy, are 
 held up to execration as fools, or worse. To say that the scouts 
 
 ' Wishart. See Note B, 4.
 
 92 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 were inefficient is pure nonsense : however untrained the men may 
 have been, they could not have helped finding the enemy if they 
 had tumbled on the top of them ! And this they undoubtedly 
 would have done had they been sent only a mile, or a mile and a 
 half, in front of their rear-guard, along the narrow space intervening 
 between the left bank of the Ettrick and the foot of the hills. 
 
 That Montrose was badly served on this occasion is certain, 
 but there is no reason for saying that he was so either by the 
 picket on the left bank of the river, which had reported the 
 enemy's presence, or by the patrols and scouts on the right bank, 
 who had, equally truly, reported that he was not there. 
 
 In the morning (13th September 1645) Montrose's breakfast 
 was interrupted by a cavalry officer rushing in to report that " a 
 great armie was advancing within a mile of the toune," ^ and there- 
 upon the General mounted a horse and galloped off to the haugh, 
 on the opposite side of the river, which had been appointed as 
 the place at which the troops were to fall in that morning, previous 
 to resuming the march up Yarrow.^ The troops here had no 
 expectation of any attack : the cavalry horses were dispersed, 
 feeding in every direction ; the men were busy at their ordinary 
 routine work ; the officers, or a large number of them, were still 
 absent at their various billets. Suddenly a trumpet-blast is heard. 
 Horses stampede ; panic ensues amongst the men. Some fly ; 
 some collect in small knots, but, having no officers, know not what 
 to do ; some rush off to reinforce the rear-guard towards Linglee 
 (for the enemy were advancing in that direction, up the Ettrick 
 from the Tweed), and about 120 horse galloped furiously in the 
 same direction in order to make good the ground lying between 
 the right of the rear-guard and the river.^ This may now be 
 
 ' Gordon. See Note A, 2. ^ Wishart. See Note B, 5. 
 
 ^ Wishart. See Note B, 5.
 
 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 93 
 
 looked upon as the Royalists' main line of battle, although it was 
 occupied by a mere fraction of their army. It faced north-east: 
 the handful of cavalry was on the right ; the infantry, amounting 
 probably to only a few companies, on the left. The right flank 
 of the former rested on the left bank of the Ettrick ; the left 
 flank of the latter on the bank which has already been referred to 
 as stretching from Linglee towards Harehead, and at the foot of 
 which is the great highroad of to-day. 
 
 We must now turn to General Leslie, who, it will be remem- 
 bered, had reached Sunderland on the evening of the 12th. 
 
 It may be as well to draw attention here to two points. The 
 first is, that he knew where his enemy was ; and the second is, 
 that he did not know whether his enemy knew where he was. 
 But although he had no certain knowledge on this latter point, 
 he probably assumed that the men who had escaped from the 
 Royalist picket at Sunderland — provided that their escape had 
 been reported to him — would have informed Montrose of his 
 presence. Now, if Leslie did think this, we can understand at 
 once why he was so late on the morning of the 13th in delivering 
 his attack, which cannot have occurred much, if at all, before 1 1 
 o'clock.^ It may be confidently asserted that had he been aware 
 of the ignorance which in fact existed at Montrose's headquarters 
 concerning his whereabouts, he would have been on the move at 
 a very early hour, and have taken advantage of the usual 
 autumnal mist — which, we are told, was exceptionally dense that 
 day, and is even described as fog — to approach unobserved to 
 within striking distance of his foe ; but to have so acted when 
 
 ' The Covenanters' Account. See Note under arms the whole of the previous 
 C, from which it will be seen that the night ready to repel an attack. 
 Covenanters believed the Royalists were
 
 94 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 he was under the impression that they might be on the alert 
 and fully prepared to meet him would have been extremely im- 
 prudent, in spite of the fact that he knew precisely where they 
 lay, precisely where to lead his own army. In ordinary circum- 
 stances, such as existed here, a fog is advantageous to an attack- 
 ing force only in the event of their approach being unknown to 
 the defending force. Should, however, the latter be aware of 
 the impending blow and have made preparations to resist it, the 
 advantage will be reversed. Leslie must have felt this, and it 
 must, there can be little doubt, have had great weight in deter- 
 mining him to delay his advance until the mist had cleared away, 
 which he might count on its doing later in the day. 
 
 I'^th September 1645. — After the men had had their breakfasts, 
 the Covenanters moved off from Sunderland up the valley of the 
 Ettrick, keeping, as well as they conveniently could, in the low 
 ground in order to be screened partly by the folds of the ground, 
 and partly, perhaps, by the mist, which may still have been hang- 
 ing over the water, from the view of the enemy near Selkirk ; 
 but, upon nearing the Linglee burn, it would have been im- 
 possible to continue any farther close to the river bank, on ac- 
 count of a projecting spur which advances from the hills to the 
 edge of the stream, and there terminates in an abrupt scaur, effectu- 
 ally barring further progress by the water-side. 
 
 We may now fairly conjecture that General Leslie would 
 have ridden forward to the crest of the "knowes," or the rising 
 ground constituting the spur just referred to, whence he would 
 have obtained a clear view of the Royalists in their bivouacs 
 on the plain below him, evidently ignorant of his approach and 
 protected only by a weak rear-guard of infantry, posted almost 
 at his feet. 
 
 Tradition tells us that at this period of the day Leslie acted
 
 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 95 
 
 upon the advice of a certain "ag^cd father." But it is quite 
 inconceivable that he should have been in need of any such coun- 
 sellor, and he would doubtless have been greatly, though not 
 agreeably, surprised to hear — what we are now asked by serious 
 historians to believe — that the tactics which he then adopted were 
 less his than of this " veteran soldier of the district," as he is 
 somewhat magniloquently styled. However, the advice recorded 
 by tradition and the ballad ^ as having been tendered and accepted 
 was so simple and so perfectly in accordance with the commonest 
 of common-sense, — if only we choose to read it in the light of 
 common-sense, — that it might, certainly, as well have originated in 
 the mind of an ordinary hind as in the brain of a great soldier. 
 It was as follows : The army was to be divided into two por- 
 tions ; the one was to push up the " water-gate " to make a 
 feint attack, and then to retire with the object of inducing the 
 Royalist infantry to pursue and, in doing so, to vacate their 
 trenches, or their selected defensive position ; the other portion 
 was to move "round the hill," and, when "the nether party," 
 namely, the party low down by the water - side, beat a flying 
 drum," — in other words sounded the "retire," — and were, it was 
 to be hoped, being pursued by the Royalists, to charge down 
 upon the latter, who would then truly be placed " between the 
 armies twa." This appears to have been very much what actually 
 happened. 
 
 Now, when Leslie was standing, as our imagination has 
 pictured him, on the crest of the knowes overlooking the plain 
 of Philiphaugh, he can have had no difi'iculty in coming to a 
 rapid decision as to the dispositions necessary to ensure the 
 victory which he then saw within his grasp. To continue the 
 
 ' See stanzas 11, 12, aial 13 ol the ballatl, which is given at pp. 103-106.
 
 96 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPIIAUGH. 
 
 forward movement up the left side of the valley would necessitate 
 his army inclining to their right over the high ground upon which 
 he was standing, when they would be exposed to the immediate 
 observation of the Royalists, who, before his attack could be de- 
 livered, would be fully prepared to receive it. Moreover, his 
 troops would be in such a cramped position that it would be 
 impossible to deploy them sufficiently to enable him to bring 
 his full force to bear, until, at all events, he had succeeded, after 
 a frontal attack, in pushing back the enemy's rear - guard some 
 considerable distance into the plain. No doubt with his ex- 
 cellent troops he would have succeeded in this, but the victory 
 would not have been a decisive one, for Montrose would have 
 had no great difficulty in retiring directly to his then rear, or, 
 in other words, of continuing his march up Yarrow covered by 
 a rear-guard. 
 
 Seeing, then, that he could not hope for any decisive ad- 
 vantage if he retained the whole of his force on one side of the 
 river, he determined to form his army into two wings — the one, 
 consisting of 2000 horse, to act on the right bank, the other, 
 under his own immediate command, to remain on the left bank. 
 It must not be thought that he had any intention of allowing 
 these wings to act otherwise than in close connection with each 
 other, and still less that he had the remotest idea of either 
 makinp^ a orreat flank march such as modern historians, when 
 describing this combat, — for, in truth, it was nothing more, — 
 delight to relate. The disposition he made was really a very 
 minor tactical one, by which the wings were to be barely out 
 of touch with each other, while at the same time it enabled him 
 to bring his whole force to bear on the enemy at the same 
 moment. It was also a safe one, for the configuration of the 
 ground was such that it would have been impossible for the enemy
 
 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 97 
 
 to have made a counterstroke by advancing between the wings, 
 or to have attacked either without exposing a flank to the other. 
 
 The precise spot at which the force of 2000 men crossed 
 the Ettrick cannot be definitely stated. It may have been as 
 far back as the ford (see Map), in which case the troops would 
 probably have pushed on to the Melrose- Selkirk road through 
 Will's Gap, which, tradition tells us, owes its name to the guide 
 employed on this occasion. It is useless to make conjectures as 
 to where the stream was forded, but we may be sure that they 
 cannot have advanced far from that point, wherever it may have 
 been, before coming into view of the enemy ; and the moment 
 this occurred was the moment to which the account of the pro- 
 ceedings of the Royalists has been brought, — the moment when 
 the trumpets screamed, when panic ensued, when Montrose flew 
 from Selkirk down the steep brae and across the river to his 
 men, and when a small body of horse galloped off to the right 
 of the infantry rearguard. 
 
 After crossing the Shaw burn and passing opposite the mouth 
 of the Linglee burn, the 2000 Covenanters must have found them- 
 selves on the prolongation of the Royalists' right flank, and where, 
 on account of the river intervening, they could neither charge nor 
 be themselves charged. But the horsemen of those days were not 
 cavalry in our sense of the word ; they were called dragoons, and 
 were much the same as our mounted infantry. The men accord- 
 ingly dismounted, linked their horses,^ and opened an enfilade fire 
 on the Royalist horse, who must have formed front to their right 
 in order to reply to it. 
 
 The Covenanters' Account now tells us that " three horses " - 
 
 ' See last paragraph but one of Note F. mentary armies troops numbered between 
 
 2 By this expression presumably three 60 and 80 men, .ind they were probably 
 
 troops are meant. In the English Parlia- much the same strength in the Scottish 
 
 G
 
 98 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 came out on either side and skirmished gallantly for a quarter of 
 an hour, when the Royalist horse fell back, but were almost im- 
 mediately supported by a body of 200 musketeers,^ who were 
 promptly moved to their assistance from the left wing — that is 
 to say, from the troops near Linglee. 
 
 Now had arrived the supreme moment for which Leslie had 
 been waiting. He had been moving his division "round the 
 hill," — not Linglee Hill, but the " knowes " already referred to 
 on the left bank of Linglee burn, — and now that the position in 
 his front was weakened, as he had foreseen, by the withdrawal 
 of so large a force, and the attention of the Royalists was 
 diverted to the attack on their right, he broke in on the left of 
 their remaining foot and overwhelmed them. He then found 
 himself on the left flank, or indeed rear, of the Royalist cavalry, 
 who had to make immediate choice between flying with all speed 
 or being surrounded and taken prisoners. According to Wishart,- 
 they "withdrew themselves, every one the best way he could"; 
 while, on the other hand, the Covenanters' Account states that 
 they were made prisoners : the truth, probably, lying between the 
 two, is, that a few escaped, while many were taken. Amongst 
 the former was Montrose himself, who, together with one or two 
 others, is said to have gallantly cut his way through the ranks 
 
 army. In this case the "three horses" muskets to bear with any effect at the dis- 
 
 would have numbered between i8o and tance which must have separated the com- 
 
 240 men. That a larger force should not batants : the river lay between them. Even 
 
 have been employed against the three as late as 1846, after a series of experiments 
 
 Royalist troops — although these cannot in at Chatham, it was officially reported that 
 
 this instance have numbered more than 40 musketry-fire should never be opened at a 
 
 men each — may seem curious when we greater range than 150 yards, and "even 
 
 think of the large force the Covenanters at that distance half the shots missed the 
 
 had at their disposal. It was perhaps due target— 11 ft. 6 in." 
 
 to the extreme shortness of musketry-range ' Covenanters' Account. See Note C. 
 
 in those days, and to a consequent impos- * See Note B, 6. 
 sibility of bringing a greater number of
 
 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 99 
 
 of his enemies and to have fled — or, as Sir Walter Scott more 
 courteously worded it, " to have graced with his example the 
 retreat of the fugitives " — over Minchmuir, without drawing rein, 
 till he reached Traquair, many miles from the field of battle. 
 
 Of the infantry engaged some escaped into the hills, where 
 they were safe from the Covenanters' horsemen, and some fled 
 along the haugh towards the Yarrow, being pursued by the 
 victors until these were taken in flank by the fire from the guns, 
 which, as has already been mentioned, were placed near the site 
 of the present cricket - ground, and the pursuit was checked. 
 Time was thus afforded to the fugitives, or to many of them, 
 to rally on the infantry companies which had been posted the 
 evening before, as an advanced-guard, at the Harehead extremity 
 of the haugh. 
 
 In the meantime the 2000 dragoons on the right bank of 
 the Ettrick had pushed into' the town of Selkirk, and, after 
 capturing there many of the skulkers belonging to Montrose's 
 cavalry, had continued their march until they found themselves 
 in the rear — the then rear — of the Royalist guns, when, crossing 
 to the left side of the river, they captured them and such infantry 
 as had been detailed to guard them. 
 
 This enabled the pursuit to be resumed, but, curiously enough, 
 it docs not seem to have been prosecuted with much vigour, since 
 at a distance of only some three miles from the field, we are told, 
 the Royalists had rallied "a respectable body of foot," who con- 
 tinued their retreat, or rather their original march, on Traquair 
 without further molestation. 
 
 The number of killed on each side cannot be definitely stated. 
 Sir Walter Scott estimated that of the Royalists at between 400 
 and 500, whereas Wishart states that none of the horse, and very 
 few of the foot, fell in the fight.
 
 lOO THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 The Covenanters' Account gives the loss of the Royalists 
 as between 2000 and 3000, and their own loss as 2 officers 
 and very few soldiers killed, the killed and wounded together 
 not exceeding 100. 
 
 In their accounts of this battle, or rather combat, modern 
 historians have crowned Montrose with a halo of glory for 
 desperate personal gallantry on the field, and nevertheless, being, 
 as all their kind are, far more deeply versed in what they term 
 " the science of war " than the soldiers regarding whom they 
 write, criticise his generalship recklessly. Any one who reads 
 the old accounts, on which the modern ones are all based, will 
 probably think there is no more solid ground for the blame than 
 for the praise, — less so, perhaps, since it would have been contrary 
 to Montrose's nature had he acted otherwise than in a manner 
 worthy of the great name of Graham. 
 
 In my opinion, the position on Philiphaugh, being difficult 
 of access to an enemy from whatever direction he might be 
 advancing, covering as it did the Royalist line of march up 
 Yarrow, being close to a town whence provisions could be drawn, 
 and being in the neighbourhood of wood, water, and pasture, was 
 admirably qualified for the purpose of a halt, whether for one 
 night or longer. 
 
 The opinion expressed by Sir Walter Scott and others that 
 " Montrose made an unaccountable and fatal error " in keeping 
 his horse, or a large portion of it, in Selkirk, thus " throwing the 
 river Ettrick betwixt the cavalry and the infantry," is founded 
 on the erroneous belief that Montrose had taken up a position 
 for battle. Whether, under the actual circumstances, he was wise 
 or not in so disposing of his cavalry is arguable ; but the point is 
 of little importance, and need not be discussed here.
 
 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. loi 
 
 Curiously enough, Sir Walter makes no criticisms on the 
 extraordinary position occupied by the infantry, — that is to say, 
 as recounted by himself, — severe as he is on that occupied by 
 the cavalry. Mr Burton, however, in his ' History of Scotland,' 
 unhesitatingly condemns it, remarking that it would have been 
 wiser to have posted the infantry high up in the hills — a not 
 altogether convenient position for a night's halt! His observa- 
 tion recalls to remembrance the criticism of a greater military 
 authority, Dugald Dalgetty, anent the placing of guns on a high 
 rock, "where, being perched, like to scarts or sea-gulls, he had 
 ever observed that they astonished more by their noise than they 
 dismayed by the skaith or damage which they occasioned." 
 
 Montrose has also been condemned for neglecting to employ 
 his cavalry for the protection of his army, but this would appear 
 to be somewhat unjust when we remember that he had posted 
 a troop at Sunderland on the left bank of the river, and had 
 given instructions for the cavalry on the right bank to be on 
 the alert and to send out frequent patrols. 
 
 His defeat, or rather his surprise, seems to have been 
 primarily due to his or his staff's not crediting the report 
 regarding the capture of Captain Hempsfield's picket at Sunder- 
 land. That no steps were taken to ascertain immediately the 
 truth or otherwise of this report is so difficult to account for in 
 a legitimate manner, that one can hardly refrain from the sur- 
 mise, which has already been made, that treachery was at work. 
 
 But even had Leslie's presence been detected, Montrose could 
 have avoided defeat only by a rapid resumption of his march, 
 for he must have been well aware that there was no hope for 
 a successful stand being made against the Covenanters. It is 
 practically certain that he would not have attempted it, but would 
 have moved off during the night towards Moffat or Peebles, soon,
 
 I02 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 however, to be overtaken by the inexorable fate which was await- 
 ing him. He knew well that the quality of his troops was as 
 poor as it could well be, and that not only in this respect, but 
 also numerically, they were greatly inferior to their enemies. 
 Neither is he likely to have deceived himself — as we of later 
 days are inclined to deceive ourselves — into believing that he 
 was a great soldier in the sense that Leslie undoubtedly was, 
 nor to have overestimated his own abilities as a tactician in con- 
 sequence of the many victories he had won during the previous 
 twelve months, — victories which were partly due to his own 
 superiority over the incapable leaders to whom he was opposed, 
 partly to the dash and confidence — now, alas ! gone — of his men, 
 and to the want of these same qualities in his foes, and partly, 
 no doubt, to fortunate circumstances, for, as our friend Dugald 
 remarked, "in rebus bellicis maxime dominatur Fortuna." But 
 who were his adversaries now ? Why, 6000 of the very finest 
 troops that this island has ever produced, led by a leader they 
 thoroughly trusted — and trusted with reason, too, for he was the 
 victor of Marston Moor. In very truth, Montrose's fate was 
 sealed at the moment these magnificent troops turned their faces 
 to the north from the midland counties of England. At Philip- 
 haugh he met them. With little better than a rabble under his 
 command he faced here a greater leader than himself; he faced 
 soldiers who, man for man, were far superior to his own ; he 
 faced a force outnumbering his by three or four to one. Under 
 such circumstances it is futile to attempt to explain away the 
 Royalist defeat by attributing bad leadership to him, or in- 
 efficiency to his so-called cavalry. Defeat was a certainty ; yet, 
 though it may be regretted that he failed to snatch glory out of 
 it by death, of disgrace there was none.
 
 THE BALLAD. 103 
 
 THE BALLAD. 
 
 [The ballad of the Battle of Philiphaugh is the last of the old Border ballads, 
 and relates to the last battle fought upon the Borders of Scotland. It 
 was first published in the 'Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border,' where Sir 
 Walter Scott writes that "it is preserved by tradition in Selkirkshire." 
 He mentions that it coincides accurately with history, adding that "this, 
 indeed, constitutes its sole merit," but, curiously enough, he gives an 
 account of the battle which, in my opinion, differs very essentially 
 from it.] 
 
 {From the ' Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border.'^ 
 
 I. 
 
 On Philiphaugh a fray began, 
 
 At Hairhead-wood it ended ; 
 The Scots out o'er the Graemes they ran, 
 
 Sae merrily they bended. 
 
 II. 
 
 Sir David frae the Border came, 
 
 Wi' heart an' hand came he ; 
 Wi' him three thousand bonny Scots, 
 
 To bear him company. 
 
 III. 
 
 Wi' him three thousand valiant men, 
 
 A noble sight to see ! 
 A cloud o' mist them vveel concealed, 
 
 As close as e'er might be. 
 
 IV. 
 
 When they came to the Shaw burn, 
 Said he, 'Sae weel we frame, 
 
 \ think it is convenient 
 
 That we should sing a psalm.'' 
 
 Various reading, 'That we should take a dram.'
 
 I04 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 V. 
 
 When they came to the Lingly burn, 
 As daylight did appear, 
 
 They spy'd an aged father, 
 And he did draw them near.' 
 
 VI. 
 
 'Come hither, aged father!' 
 
 Sir David he did cry, 
 'And tell me where Montrose lies. 
 
 With all his great army.' 
 
 VII. 
 
 ' But, first, you must come tell to me 
 If friends or foes you be ; 
 
 I fear you are Montrose's men. 
 Come frae the north country.' 
 
 VIII. 
 
 ' No, we are nane o' Montrose's men, 
 
 Nor e'er intend to be ; 
 I am Sir David Lesly 
 
 That's speaking unto thee.' 
 
 IX. 
 
 'If you're Sir David Lesly, 
 As I think weel ye be, 
 
 I am sorry ye hae brought so few 
 Into your company. 
 
 X. 
 
 ' There's fifteen thousand armed men 
 
 Encamped on yon lee ; 
 Ye'll never be a bite to them, 
 
 For aught that I can see. 
 
 ' The traditional commentary on this in the parish of Ettrick, particularly those 
 ballad states the old soldier's name to have occupying the farms of Midgehope and 
 been Brydone, ancestor to several families Redford Green.
 
 THE BALLAD. 105 
 
 XI. 
 
 ' But, halve your men in equal parts, 
 
 Your purpose to fulfil ; 
 Let ae half keep the water side. 
 
 The rest gae round the hill. 
 
 XII. 
 
 ' Your nether party fire must, 
 
 Then beat a flying drum ; 
 And then they'll think the day's their ain, 
 
 And frae the trench they'll come. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 'Then, those that arc behind them maun 
 
 Gie shot, baith grit and sma' ; 
 And so, between your armies twa. 
 
 Ye may make them to fa'.' 
 
 XIV. 
 
 'O were ye ever a soldier.'"' 
 
 Sir David Lesly said ; 
 ' O yes ; I was at Solway flow, 
 
 Where we were all betray'd. 
 
 XV. 
 
 'Again I was at curst Dunbar,^ 
 
 And was a pris'ner ta'en : 
 And many a weary night and day 
 
 In prison I hae lien.' 
 
 XVI. 
 ' If ye will lead these men aright. 
 
 Rewarded shall ye be ; 
 But, if that yc a traitor prove, 
 
 I'll hang thee on a tree.' 
 
 ' It is a strange anachronism to make and a still stranger to mention that of Dun- 
 
 this aged father state himself to have been bar, which did not take place till five years 
 
 at the battle of Solway tlow, which was after Montrose's defeat, 
 fought a hundred years before Philiphaugh,
 
 io6 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 ' Sir, I will not a traitor prove ; 
 
 Montrose has plundered me ; 
 I'll do my best to banish him 
 
 Away frae this country.' 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 He halv'd his men in equal parts, 
 
 His purpose to fulfil ; 
 The one part kept the water side, 
 
 The other gaed round the hill. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 The nether party fir6d brisk, 
 Then turn'd and seem'd to rin ; 
 
 And then they a' cam frae the trench, 
 And cry'd, ' The day's our ain ! ' 
 
 XX. 
 
 The rest then ran into the trench, 
 And loos'd their cannons a' : 
 
 And thus, between his armies twa, 
 He made them fast to fa'. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 Now, let us a' for Lesly pray. 
 
 And his brave company ! 
 For they hae vanquish'd great Montrose, 
 
 Our cruel enemy.
 
 NOTES. 107 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 Extracts from Patrick Gordon's ' Short Abridgement of 
 Britane's Distemper.' 
 
 1. "About the shooting of the night [i2th-i3th], Hempsfield with his troop 
 were beat out of Sunderland, four miles from Selkirk, eleven of his troop slain, the 
 rest yielding themselves prisoners. Only Hempsfield himself and two with him 
 escaped, and were come to inform him [Montrose] ; but they were thought to have 
 brawled amongst themselves in a drunken fray." 
 
 2. "Captain Blackadder returned [/.<?., to Selkirk, off patrol duty] with his men 
 in a great fright, and reported to Montrose at breakfast that ' a great armie was 
 advancing within a mile of the toune.'" 
 
 B. 
 
 From 'The Deeds of Montrose' (Rev. George Wishart, D.D., Bishop of 
 Edinburgh, 1 662-1 671. Translated by the Rev. Alexander Murdoch 
 and H. F. Morland Simpson). Wishart was Montrose's chaplain : 
 his work was written in Latin. 
 
 1. "General Leslie intended to march on Edinburgh from Gladsmuir, but 
 information reaching him of Montrose's strength being only 500 Irish Foot and a 
 few raw undisciplined horse, he suddenly changed the direction of his march to 
 the left. . . ." 
 
 2. Leslie passed the night (i2th-i3th) in Sunderland village. 
 
 3. Montrose quartered his horse in the village (Selkirk) and his foot in a 
 neighbouring wood. 
 
 (The editor, in a footnote, states that the wood referred to was the Hare-head 
 wood ; but as to this he was doubtless misled by Sir Walter Scott's account of the 
 battle. See footnote, p. 117.
 
 io8 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPIIAUGH. 
 
 4. During the night of the I2th-i3th, "Montrose gave orders to his cavalry 
 to be extremely watchful. ... In the course of the night vague rumours of the 
 enemy's approach reached him. These he transmitted to his officers. ... At 
 daybreak some of the best and most experienced troopers were sent out to recon- 
 noitre," and these, upon their return, "wished damnation to themselves if they 
 could find an enemy within ten miles of them." 
 
 5. Montrose's scouts first discovered the enemy when they were not half a 
 mile oflT. "Montrose galloped into the field appointed for the morning's rendezvous. 
 There he found all in uproar and confusion. The cavalry, unused to command, 
 were dispersed up and down the fields, more intent on baiting their horses than 
 maintaining their lives with honour. On the first blast of the trumpet they 
 scattered in a panic, and rode about at random, so that they took no share in the 
 fight, but a few, mostly nobles and knights, flew to the point of attack, and though 
 not more than 120 in number, bravely undertook to cover the right wing." The 
 foot, too, were in much the same plight, bent on saving their baggage, &c. More- 
 over, a great number of officers were absent. 
 
 6. The foot numbered only 500.1 'Yhe. enemy, who were 6000, charged 
 Montrose's right wing, and were twice repulsed. "Nor could they make that noble 
 troop give any ground, or break through it, until at last, laying along the few foot 
 that withstood them, they broke in upon the left flank where there was no horse. 
 By this, 2000 horse, whom the enemy had sent over to the other side of the river, 
 were getting on the rear of these noble gentlemen, who, being hemmed in on every 
 side, and galled with the enemies' shot at a distance, lest they should fall for nothing 
 and unrevenged, withdrew themselves, every one the best way he could. But the 
 foot, who could have little security by flight, fighting a good while, stoutly and 
 resolutely, at last upon quarter asked and given for their lives, threw down their 
 arms and yielded themselves prisoners." 
 
 7. "None of the horse, and very few of the foot except those who had sur- 
 rendered upon terms, fell in fight. As there were not more than 500 in all, — and 
 of these 250 rejoined Montrose next day all armed with their swords, — we may 
 conjecture that those who were missing did not exceed that number." 
 
 ' I understand Wishart to refer here only troopers who had placed themselves on the 
 to the men actually engaged. By the term right of the infantry of the rear-guard, 
 "right wing" I think he must mean the 120 whose left rested on the Linglee bank.
 
 NOTES. 109 
 
 The Covenanters' Account. 
 
 The following account of the battle was published in London on the 
 25th September 1645 — consequently in less than a fortnight after the 
 battle. It is headed "A more perfect and particular Relation of the 
 late great Victory in Scotland," &c., and it is dated " Haddington, 
 1 6th September 1645": — 
 
 "Upon Friday, the 12th inst. (which was a day of fasting and humiliation), 
 Lieut.-General David Lesley with his forces advanced within three miles of the 
 enemy, who were quartered in Philip Haugh, not far from Selkirk. That night he 
 sent out two parties, who fell in upon their quarters, killed some, and gave them 
 the alarm, which made them continue all night in arms, and ours did the like. The 
 morrow being Saturday, the 13th, our forces marched towards the enemy, and came 
 within view of them about ten in the morning. According to their usual manner 
 they had made choice of a most advantageous ground wherein they had entrenched 
 themselves, having upon one hand an impassable ditch, ^ and on the other dikes 
 and hedges, and where these were not strong enough they further fortified them by 
 casting up ditches, and lined their hedges with musketeers. After viewing one 
 another, there came out three horses from each side, and after skirmishing very 
 gallantly about a quarter of an hour, the enemy's three were beaten in. After this, 
 the enemy sent out a party of 200 musketeers, who were forced by ours to retreat 
 in great disorder, whereupon the van of our forces advanced, and for almost an hour 
 (being between 1 1 and 1 2 o'clock) it was body disputed, our Horse endeavouring 
 to break through, and the enemy with great resolution maintaining their ground. At 
 length General Lesley, charging very desperately upon the head of his own regiment, 
 broke the body of the enemy's Foot, after which they all went in confusion and 
 disorder, and the Horse, wanting their Foot, were all cut off and taken, whereof an 
 hundred were Irish, who were all shot at a post, many of the Horse killed upon the 
 place, and many taken, — but more in the pursuit, for they rallied again, which 
 occisioned their greater overthrow, and gave opportunity to our Horse to reincounter 
 them. ... Of the Foot and Horse it is conceived there is between two and three 
 thousand killed. . . . We lost of our side Captain Barclay and Captain Dundas, 
 
 ' Possibly the lower portion of the Linglee from its original course. Or is it possible 
 burn, on the (lal haugh near its confluence that the Ettrick itself has been termed "a 
 with the Ettrick : the water is now diverted ditch " ?
 
 no 
 
 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 and a very few soldiers, but have divers wounded, yet killed and wounded there are 
 in all not above a hundred. . . . Montrose himself escaped with a few Horse, 
 leaving behind him all his baggage, amongst which is found his own commission 
 from the King. . . . Since the battle, divers of the enemy's soldiers are killed 
 and taken by the country people. ..." 
 
 D. 
 
 Did General Leslie, when moving on Philiphaugh from the Gala, do so vid 
 Sunderland, as I have assumed in the text, or vi& Melrose, as is 
 usually asserted by historians? 
 
 The reasons in favour of the former view are as follows : — 
 
 For some days previous to the 12 th September Montrose had never been at 
 any very great distance from the foot of the Gala, and consequently his movements 
 were, in all probability, well known to many people in that neighbourhood. More- 
 over, it is likely, though it cannot be asserted definitely, that his march to Selkirk 
 lay for some miles up the valley of the Tweed, and in this case his army must have 
 passed not far from the foot of the Gala and have been almost — I am inclined to 
 think, actually — within sight of the old village of Galashiels, which in those days 
 stood near the present entrances to Gala House. No doubt the shortest route 
 from Jedburgh, whence Montrose marched, to Selkirk lies over Lanton Hill and 
 across rough undulating country by Lilliesleaf or Midlem, the distance being about 
 1 3 miles ; but there is another route by Ancrum Bridge over the Teviot and thence 
 over Liliard's Edge to Melrose on the Tweed. This route is 3 or 4 miles longer 
 than the other, but it is the easier of the two, and, seeing that Montrose was 
 accompanied by guns, — so Hogg and Mr Craig-Brown tell us, — it is quite probable 
 that he should have preferred it. If so, we may be certain that his march from 
 Melrose to Selkirk must have been quickly known for a considerable distance up 
 Gala Water. 
 
 But if, on the other hand, Montrose marched by the former and more direct 
 route, — and with reference to this see Hogg's statement on Note F, 2, as to 
 Montrose's infantry having moved by the Hearthope burn, — then no doubt the 
 news of his arrival at Selkirk may not perhaps have spread to Gala Water in time 
 to prevent Leslie from continuing his march to Melrose, and it most assuredly 
 would not have done so if, as modern writers say, Montrose did not reach Selkirk 
 till late in the evening. But we may safely disregard this improbable possibility. 
 We should rather — remembering that Montrose and Leslie left Jedburgh and 
 Gladsmuir respectively on the same day, and remembering also that the distance 
 from Jedburgh to Selkirk is very considerably less than that from Gladsmuir to the
 
 NOTES. Ill 
 
 foot of the Gala — assume that the former reached his destination many hours before 
 the latter reached Galashiels, in which case the news would certainly have spread 
 to that village. 
 
 From these considerations it seems clear that, whichever route Montrose may 
 have followed from Jedburgh, information as to his move on Selkirk probably 
 reached Leslie before the latter had turned away from the Gala towards Melrose. 
 Hogg, indeed, in his " Wat Pringle," mentions definitely that it reached him when 
 " aneath Galashiels," but much weight ought not to be attached to statements in this 
 story, interesting as many of them are. 
 
 Now, what where Leslie's intentions ? what was his object ? 
 
 When he first came into Scotland he had advanced rapidly into the Lothians 
 with the intention of cutting off the Royalist army from the midland counties of 
 Scotland, and, when he reached Gladsmuir, he had practically succeeded in doing so ; 
 but here he got information which induced him to alter his plans and to move 
 direct on his enemy. We do not know fully what this information was, but it was 
 evidently such as to make him think it would be possible to bring about a general 
 action before the Royalists had succeeded in withdrawing from the Border country 
 by either of the only lines of retreat remaining open to them — that is to say, either 
 by the Tweed to Innerleithen, Peebles, &.C., or by the Yarrow on Moffat (or 
 Traquair), for, failing these two routes, no other was available save that by Langholm. 
 Should he fail to bring Montrose to battle before the latter reached the defile of the 
 Tweed above Sunderland and Fairnalee in the one case, or before he reached the 
 defile of the Yarrow near Bowhill in the other case, all the strategical advantage of 
 position which he, General Leslie, had secured when at Gladsmuir would be lost. 
 And it was almost lost. Had Montrose — assuming he had marched via Melrose — 
 continued his course up the Tweed instead of moving up the Ettrick, it would have 
 been lost; had Montrose, — whether his march had been either by Melrose or by 
 Lilliesleaf, — instead of bivouacking at Selkirk, done so, say, at Bradmeadows, it 
 would have been lost. Leslie would then have been simply in the position of a 
 pursuer, and would have realised that he had been guilty of a most egregious 
 strategical blunder. 
 
 Well, when the news of the Royalist army being at Selkirk reached him, when 
 he heard of their being at the very mouth of the defile which, once entered, would 
 afford them a comparatively safe retreat to the detriment of his own reputation, 
 is it conceivable that he would further assist them to slip through his fingers by 
 moving his army in a direction opposite to where they were? Yet this is what 
 Leslie would have done had he marched to Melrose. He would there have found 
 himself four miles farther from his quarry than if he had gone to Sunderland, and, 
 what is more, on the wrong side of the Ettrick ! 
 
 It may also be noticed as favouring the correctness of this view, that in none 
 of the accounts of the events of the 13th is any reference made to Leslie having
 
 112 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 crossed the river Ettrick from the right bank to the left, as he must necessarily have 
 done had he been advancing from Melrose. Sir Walter Scott, indeed, mentions that 
 Leslie forded the river in the morning ; but he quotes no authority for the statement, 
 which is, doubtless, merely a corollary to the assertion that the night had been 
 passed at Melrose. On the other hand, Wishart definitely states that a body of 
 2000 horse was detached from the main army, on the left bank, and sent to the 
 other bank, and this surely implies that up to that time the army intact had been 
 on the left bank.^ 
 
 Lastly, Patrick Gordon, Wishart, and the Covenanters' Account may all be 
 quoted as authorities for this view, — the first, in giving details regarding the capture 
 of the Royalist picket at Sunderland the night before the battle ; the second, in 
 stating that General Leslie passed the night there ; and the third, in mentioning that 
 on the evening of the 12th General Leslie had advanced to within three miles of 
 the enemy. 
 
 Sunderland was, indeed, a peculiarly advantageous position for Leslie to have 
 occupied. In the first place, it barred one of the two lines of retreat open to the 
 Royalists ; in the second place, his army here was on the same side of the river as 
 they, and so close to them as to be almost within touch, yet at the same time was 
 well screened from observation. The position itself, moreover, was one which, in the 
 event of their presence becoming known, could have been attacked only with great 
 difficulty ; and, again, should matters go badly and a retreat become necessary, they 
 could fall back either by the way they had come or by Clovenfords. And once again, 
 had the enemy given them the slip and hurried off during the night up Yarrow, they 
 could, by moving up the Tweed, regain the strategic advantages which Leslie had 
 imperilled when he moved from the Lothians down Gala Water. Sunderland was, in 
 short, not only an excellent position from which to make an attack on Montrose's 
 army on Philiphaugh, but was one of considerable strategical importance, and neither 
 of these qualities did Melrose possess in the slightest degree. 
 
 Now, what can be said in favour of the other view — of the view that on the 
 afternoon or evening of the day previous to the battle Leslie marched to Melrose on 
 the south bank of the Tweed ? 
 
 It may be argued that since Leslie's march from Gladsmuir down Gala was the 
 result of information he had received respecting the Royalist forces prior to their move 
 on Selkirk, it is certain that at the time he determined on that march his intention 
 was to go to Melrose, and that, since there is no authority for alleging that he received 
 later intelligence regarding their movements, there is no sound reason for asserting 
 that he altered this intention. 
 
 It may also be said that since Montrose heard nothing as to Leslie being in the 
 
 ' Note B, 5. See also footnote on p. 118.
 
 NOTES. 
 
 "3 
 
 neighbourhood, it is equally probable that Leslie knew nothing as to Montrose being 
 so. This argument is, of course, weak ; for, putting aside the unquestionable fact that 
 the feeling throughout the Border country was strongly hostile to the Royalist cause 
 and to Montrose personally, Leslie's presence naturally could not be reported previous 
 to his arrival, while the fact of Montrose being near Selkirk was probably known in 
 the neighbourhood of Galashiels hours before Leslie came into it. 
 
 Then it might also be said that Wishart and Gordon are no more reliable than 
 are modern historians ; ^ and further, that while fully admitting the force of the argu- 
 ment showing that a march on Melrose, instead of on Sunderland, would have been a 
 serious blunder, yet Leslie, who was famous rather as a tactician than a strategist, was 
 fully capable of making a great blunder, — he had made them before, and he made 
 them again,— and, indeed, was not his march to the south from Gladsmuir a step of 
 very doubtful wisdom ? 
 
 I can think of nothing further remaining to be said in favour of this view save 
 that it is the one supported by far the greater weight of opinion. Tradition favours 
 it ; Sir Walter Scott favours it, though possibly he was only following tradition — or 
 has tradition been following him ? Hogg, who was conversant with all local traditions, 
 either was ignorant of this one or else he did not believe in it ; modern writers favour 
 it, but these are, perhaps, merely following Sir Walter ; and lastly, Mr Craig-Brown, 
 perhaps the soundest authority of all, favours it, and he cannot be said to have blindly 
 followed Scott, for he has evidently given the matter some consideration. Indeed, 
 had it not been for his description of the battle itself, — a description which is con- 
 sistent only with Leslie having marched from Melrose, — he might have been thought 
 to have held the opposite view. While on the one hand he appears to attach but 
 little weight to tradition,- on the other hand he thinks that Leslie may have been in- 
 
 ' The following is an instance — I have " Melrose" has not been accidentally written 
 
 met with many — of the looseness with which for " Gladsmuir" or " Tranent," since Mon- 
 
 historians describe military movements. In trose was never in that neighbourhood at all. 
 
 a well-known Border work, of recent public- The statement is incorrect with regard to 
 
 ation, we are told, with reference to Leslie's history, and absolutely defiant with regard 
 
 move from England, that he "advanced to geography, yet nevertheless it will mis- 
 
 across the Border towards Melrose," and lead many. 
 
 again, where the very next mention concern- " A Melrose tradition states that Leslie 
 
 ing his movements is made, that "he had in slept at "the West Port House." Now, 
 
 fact advanced as far as Melrose when news Montrose passed the same night at a house 
 
 reached him of Montrose's presence in the of the same name at Selkirk, and Mr Craig- 
 
 neighbourhood and of the weakness of his Brown suggests that this identity of names 
 
 army. On this he resolved to disregard the gave rise to an identity of traditions, and 
 
 orders he had received, and turning sharply that whereas the one is an undoubted his- 
 
 to the le/l, took his way down Gala Water." torical fact, the other is an easily under- 
 
 There has been no mere slip of the pen here ; stood mistake. 
 
 H
 
 114 THE BATTLE OE PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 duced to make a detour by Melrose on account of a bridge being there over the 
 Tweed. 
 
 But was there a bridge there? — and if so, why should he have been tempted to 
 use it ? 
 
 Sir Walter Scott, in a note to the ballad in the ' Minstrelsy of the Scottish 
 Border,' says there was no bridge over the Tweed in those days betwixt Peebles and 
 Berwick. It may be said, perhaps, that the reference to a bridge at Melrose in ' The 
 Monastery ' — the story of which novel (written some years after the publication of the 
 Minstrelsy) is laid in the century preceding the battle of Philiphaugh — proves that Sir 
 Walter had subsequently ascertained that he had been incorrect in this statement ; 
 but in so far as the present question is concerned this is quite unimportant, since the 
 bridge referred to in ' The Monastery ' would have been absolutely useless for troops, 
 and would have assisted Leslie in no way whatever.^ 
 
 And assuming that a bridge did exist at Melrose, why should he have been 
 attracted by it ? From Galashiels he wished to move due south towards Philiphaugh. 
 No serious obstacle to his march intervened, the Tweed at Sunderland being unlikely 
 to offer much difficulty in the month of September. Why, then, should he wish to 
 cross the river at a point some miles to the east of where he was ? Why put himself 
 on the wrong side of the Ettrick on the day of battle ? 
 
 Finally, it may be interesting to consider whether the ballad itself can be said 
 to favour one view more than the other. 
 
 Doubtless the words "when they came to the Shaw burn" imply — since 
 the Shaw burn joins the Ettrick from the south — that Leslie's army was then on 
 the right bank of the river, and had therefore come from the direction of Melrose. 
 Again, the words " when they came to the Linglee burn " imply that they were then 
 on the north bank, — and that this was in fact the case is admitted, I think, by 
 all authorities.- Consequently it follows either that the army must have crossed 
 from the right bank of the river to the left at some point between the mouths of 
 the Shaw and Linglee burns, or that the words "when they came to the Shaw 
 burn " have been misunderstood. Now, with regard to the former alternative, it 
 seems, in the first place, unlikely that the ballad-maker, while referring to two 
 truly insignificant burns, should have made no mention of the fording — had such 
 occurred — of the rapid and, in places, deep river ; and, in the second place, it is in- 
 conceivable that Leslie, if he in fact advanced from the direction of Melrose, should 
 have postponed crossing the river until he had approached within half a mile of his 
 enemy ! And then again, after having crossed, he must — if Wishart's account is 
 correct — have sent 2000 men back again ! We have, then, no choice but to accept 
 
 ' A curious description of this bridfje is 2 Perhaps Mr Craig-Brown should be ex- 
 
 jjiven in Gordon's ' Itinerarium Septentri- cepted. See pp. 127, 128. 
 onale.' See Notes to ' The Monastery.'
 
 NOTES. 115 
 
 the second alternative, namely, that the words " when they came to the Shaw burn " 
 have been misunderstood. The only other interpretation to be placed upon them 
 is, " when they came abreast of the Shaw burn on the opposite bank of the river " : 
 in this case the Covenanters would have been on the left bank when they came to 
 the Shaw burn, and must therefore have been advancing from the direction of 
 Sunderland. 
 
 This, however, does not settle the question as to whether they had come from 
 Sunderland after passing the night there, or from Melrose, having crossed the Ettrick 
 between its confluence with the Tweed and the Shaw burn ; but if they did the latter, 
 then, as has already been pointed out, it is extraordinary that the ballad should not 
 have recorded their " coming to the Ettrick," as it does of their " coming to the Shaw 
 and Linglee burns." The fact is, I think, that the ballad appears to have been 
 written by some one who had never doubted that Leslie's army had moved entirely 
 by one bank of the river up to the time of its division into two portions — that is to 
 say, up to the time when they reached the Linglee burn. That they were then on 
 the left bank we are practically certain. 
 
 On the whole, therefore, the ballad, although it does not afford any direct 
 evidence, may be considered to confirm the view that the Covenanters passed the 
 night before the battle in the neighbourhood of Sunderland. 
 
 E. 
 
 Extracts from Sir Walter Scott's Account of the Battle, 
 and remarks thereon. 
 
 " The river Ettrick, immediately after its junction with the Yarrow, and previous 
 to its falling into the Tweed, makes a large sweep to the southward,^ and winds 
 almost beneath the lofty bank on which the town of Selkirk stands, leaving upon 
 the northern side a large and level plain, extending in an easterly direction, from 
 a hil! covered with natural copsewood, called the Harehead-wood,- to the high 
 ground which forms the banks of the Tweed near Sunderland Hall. This plain 
 is called Philiphaugh : it is about a mile and a half in length and a quarter of a mile 
 broad, and being defended to the northward by the hills which separate Tweed 
 from Yarrow, by the Ettrick in front, and by the high grounds, already mentioned, 
 on each flank, it forms at once a convenient and a secure field of encampment. On 
 
 " This sentence is curiously inaccurate. for "after" read "belore," and for "Yarrow" 
 To bring it into conformity with fact — in read " Ettrick." See Map at p. 128. 
 the first line, for "Ettrick" read "Yarrow," - See footnote on p. 117.
 
 Il6 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 each flank Montrose threw up some trenches, which are still visible ; and here he 
 posted his infantry, amounting to about 1200 or 1500 men. He himself took 
 up his quarters in the burgh of Selkirk, and with him the cavalry, in number 
 hardly 1000, but respectable, as being chiefly composed of gentlemen and 
 their immediate retainers. In this manner, by a fatal and unaccountable error, the 
 river Ettrick was thrown betwixt the cavalry and infantry, which were to depend 
 upon each other for intelligence and mutual support. This might be overlooked 
 by Montrose, in the conviction that there was no armed enemy of Charles in the realm 
 of Scotland ; ' for he is said to have employed the night in writing and despatching 
 this agreeable intelligence to the king. Such an enemy, however, was already 
 within four miles of his camp." 
 
 Having mentioned that General Leslie reached Melrose in the evening of the 
 1 2th with an army consisting of from 5000 to 6000 men, the account continues: — 
 
 " How it is possible that Montrose should have received no notice whatever 
 of the march of so considerable an army seems almost inconceivable, and proves 
 that the country was strongly disaflTected to his cause or person. Still more extra- 
 ordinary does it appear that, even with the advantage of a thick mist, Lesly should 
 have, the next morning, advanced from Melrose,^ forded the Ettrick, and come 
 close upon Montrose's encampment without being descried by a single scout. Such, 
 however, was the case, and it was attended with all the consequences of the most 
 complete surprisal. 
 
 " The first intimation that Montrose received of the march of Lesly was the 
 noise of the conflict, or, rather, that which attended the unresisted slaughter of 
 his infantry, who never formed a line of battle ; the right wing alone, supported 
 by the thickets of Harehead-wood, and by the entrenchments, which are there still 
 visible,^ stood firm for some time. But Lesly had detached 2000 men, who, cross- 
 ing the Ettrick still higher up than his main body, assaulted the rear of Montrose's 
 right wing. At this moment the Marquis himself arrived, and beheld his army 
 dispersed, for the first time, in irretrievable rout. He had thrown himself upon a 
 horse the instant he heard the firing, and, followed by such of his disorderly 
 cavalry as had gathered upon the alarm, he galloped from Selkirk, crossed the 
 Ettrick, and made a bold and desperate attempt to retrieve the fortune of the 
 day. But all was in vain ; and after cutting his way, almost singly, through a 
 body of Lesly's troopers, the gallant Montrose graced by his example the retreat 
 of the fugitives. That retreat he continued up Yarrow and over Minchmoor ; nor 
 did he stop till he arrived at Traquair, sixteen miles from the field of battle. Upon 
 Philiphaugh he lost, in one defeat, the fruit of six splendid victories ; nor was he 
 
 ' With reference to this, see p. 90. haugh ; the true distance is fully 6 or 7. 
 
 2 A reader would understand from this ^ Remarks have been made with regard 
 
 that Melrose is within 4 miles of Philip- to this statement in footnote i, p. 90.
 
 NOTES. 117 
 
 again able effectually to make head, in Scotland, against the covenanted cause. The 
 number slain in the field did not exceed 300 or 400, for the fugitives found refuge 
 in the mountains, which had often been the retreat of vanquished armies, and were 
 impervious to the pursuer's cavalry." 
 
 Such is the account of the battle of Philiphaugh given by Sir Walter Scott in 
 the ' Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border.' 
 
 In the picture drawn, Montrose is shown as having taken up a position for 
 battle, the river Ettrick marking the front, Harehead-wood ' and the Yarrow the 
 right flank, and the rising ground at the northern extremity of the haugh the left 
 flank. Now this is, without doubt, a radical misconception of the truth, which has 
 misled Sir Walter throughout the whole of his account. Indeed its falsity is proved 
 by his own description of the disposition of the Royalist troops, for he writes that 
 the infantry, numbering only 1200 or 1500 men, were divided into two portions, 
 the one being placed on the "right flank," the other on the "left flank" — that is 
 to say, a mile and a half apart ! That front- and rear-guards should have been 
 separated by so great a distance is probable enough, but that the flanks of such a 
 small and badly equipped force should have been so, when occupying a defensive 
 position, is simply absurd. The misconception is, perhaps, an excusable one to 
 have fallen into, for the position, as described, is certainly somewhat inviting, and — 
 although it is, in fact, suitable only against an attack coming from the south, from 
 Upper or Lower Teviotdale — there is little cause for surprise at Sir Walter having 
 hastily jumped to the conclusion that it had been occupied for battle, and at his 
 having thought that the troops — which he, in my opinion, correctly located at the 
 extremities — were the flanks of an army fronting on the Ettrick, instead of being 
 the front- and rear-guards of a force which had temporarily halted on the line of 
 march. 
 
 Sir Walter having thus painted to himself a vivid though false picture of the 
 position of the Royalist army, was further led astray by endeavouring, apparently, 
 to adhere to tradition as related by the ballad and to contemporary accounts of 
 the battle. Thus he followed Wishart in writing that the fighting occurred on 
 Montrose's right wing, and, again, that this wing was turned by a body of the 
 Covenanters' horse on the other side of the river ; but, nevertheless. Sir Walter 
 is referring to the troops near Harehead, Wishart to the troops at the other 
 extremity of the haugh ; and while, then, it becomes necessary for the former — 
 
 ' It is extremely doubtful whether a wood wood, &c., are all designated woods. In 
 
 existed at Harehead at the time of the Ainslie's map, which was not made till very 
 
 battle. In Font's map, which dates froin much later, Harehead - wood is shown a 
 
 about that period, a few trees only are well-defined and enclosed wood, 
 shown here, while Sunderland wood, Yair
 
 ,i8 THE BATTLE OF FHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 in order to adapt his account to that given in the ballad — to assume that Leslie 
 ordered a great flank movement to be made by a large portion of his army upon 
 the Royalists at Harehead, no such extraordinary manoeuvre is referred to in the 
 clear and simple account given by the latter, an account in no way inconsistent 
 with the ballad. 
 
 Wishart's description may be considered as that of a spectator standing on 
 the bank above the river at Selkirk, who first sees the Covenanters moving up the 
 valley from the direction of the Tweed ; then he sees Montrose dash down the steep 
 hillside and cross the stream to the haugh on the left bank, whence, collecting what 
 troopers he can, he gallops off to his right " to cover the right wing," — that is to 
 say, the right of the foot composing the rear-guard (Sir Walter would have termed 
 it the left flank of the position), which was in position with their left resting on the 
 bank near Linglee, ready to check the now immediately expected advance of the 
 enemy. He sees the troopers prolong the infantry line to the left bank of the 
 Ettrick, and his attention being then riveted on this part of the field, he naturally 
 uses the words " right " and " left flank " to indicate the right and left of the troops 
 actually engaged. Now he sees Montrose's right twice attacked, and he sees 
 them twice repulse their enemies. Then he sees troops, led by Leslie himself, move 
 round the knowes beyond the Linglee burn, and, from the higher ground there, 
 rush down upon the left flank of the Royalist rear-guard, " laying along the few 
 foot that opposed them," — in other words, Leslie attacked the Royalists in flank, and, 
 as we should say in these days, rolled them up ; at the same time he sees a body 
 of horse, numbering 2000, whom "the enemy had sent over to the other [right] 
 side of the river," getting in rear of Montrose's cavalry, when the latter, "being 
 galled with shot at distance," ' and "fearing they should fall for nothing and un- 
 revenged," — the meaning being that on account of the river lying between them 
 and their foes, they were unable to charge and revenge themselves, — broke and fled. 
 
 Having thus endeavoured to show how, in my opinion, the erroneous idea 
 arose as to a portion of Leslie's army having made a great flank movement, 
 and the equally erroneous one — a necessary corollary to the former — that the 
 battle was fought at the south-western extremity of the haugh instead of at the 
 north-eastern, it may be as well to point out the extreme improbability in itself 
 of the Royalist troops at Harehead having been attacked in rear by a division 
 of Leslie's army, as stated by Sir Walter. 
 
 According to Sir Walter, Leslie — who, it must be remembered, is represented 
 
 ' Wishart has hitherto been describing The distance would to us seem very short 
 
 events on the left bank of the river, so here — probably but little, if at all, over 100 
 
 he means that Leslie's horse were sent from yards. Witli reference to this, see footnote, 
 
 that bank to the right bank, whence they p. g8. 
 tired "at distance" on the Royalist cavalry.
 
 NOTES. 119 
 
 as marching from Melrose ^ — divided his army into two portions, one of which 
 he himself led to the left bank of the Ettrick, while the other, consisting of 2000 
 horse, he either left on, or subsequently sent back to, the right bank. Now this 
 clearly shows that he had no intention of sending these 2000 men on a turning 
 movement to the north — that is, say, to the rear, in the sense Sir Walter Scott 
 uses the word rear — of the Royalist position. But then, how otherwise were they 
 to attack the latter's right " rear " near Harehead ? Sir Walter says that they 
 crossed the Ettrick higher up than where the main body did. To have done so, 
 they must either have crossed somewhere short of Selkirk or above that town. 
 In the former case, in order to reach their objective, they would have been 
 obliged to pierce through the very centre of their enemy's position, — as it is 
 described by Sir Walter, — and such a supposition is, of course, inadmissible. 
 Again, if they crossed above Selkirk, they must have made a long detour to the 
 south of the town, and then, in order to get round the " flank " to attack it in 
 rear, they must have forded not only the Ettrick but the Yarrow as well. Such 
 a suggested movement is equally inadmissible." 
 
 The fact is that Leslie, when approaching Linglee, had already succeeded in 
 bringing his army into as advantageous a position as any leader could possibly 
 hope to attain, and where, short of a miracle, victory was certain. He — who as 
 a soldier was more distinguished as a tactician than a strategist — is most unlikely 
 to have jeopardised success by detaching, when in close proximity to the enemy, 
 fully a third of liis force over rough and hilly, or rather mountainous, country. 
 To have done so would have been a rash and foolish act, which, unless the 
 march had been so accurately timed as to ensure simultaneous attacks by both 
 divisions, — practically an impossible feat under the circumstances of the case, — 
 would in all probability have ended in well-deserved disaster. 
 
 In those days, when contending armies were in touch with each other, flank 
 movements — at all events, flank movements on such a scale as this — were never 
 made. At all times hazardous, they can only be successful when conducted by 
 a highly trained staff possessing an accurate knowledge of the country to be 
 passed over. It was not till a hundred years later that Frederick the Great, with 
 
 ' The question whether Leslie went to Ettrick still higher up than his main 
 
 Melrose at all has already been fully dis- body, assaulted the rear of Montrose's 
 
 cussed in Note D. right wing." Does Sir Walter mean that 
 
 ■ Sir Walter's account is difficult to under- the whole army crossed in the first instance, 
 stand, and 1 may have misunderstood it. and that 2000 men were afterwards sent 
 He writes that " Lesly . . . advanced from back to the right bank, or does he mean 
 Melrose, forded the Ettrick, ..." and a that the 2000 men were in the first in- 
 few lines farther on, after referring to fight- stance left on the right bank, and subse- 
 ing at Harehead, he says, "But Lesly quently crossed to the main body? 
 had detached 2000 men, who, crossing tlie
 
 I20 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 his machine-like batulions, introduced the system on the level plains of Central 
 Europe : his object was to place his army — as Leslie had succeeded in placing 
 his — intact on one extremity of his enemy's position, knowing that when there 
 the game was his. At such a supreme moment, to have detached a large portion 
 of his force to attack the other extremity would have seemed to him an act of 
 lunacy, and we may be absolutely certain that it would have appeared to Leslie 
 in the same light. 
 
 Some further remarks will be found on pp. 12S, 129, Note G. 
 
 Extracts from the Account of the Battle of Philiphaugh in " Wat Pringle 
 o' the Yair," by James Hogg, the Ettrick Shepherd,' and remarks 
 thereon. 
 
 1. " Montrose reached Selkirk on Thursday evening, the nth September." 
 This statement is important, for, if correct, Montrose had quite sufficient time 
 
 to throw up entrenchments, on which doubt has been expressed in the text (see 
 footnote on p. 90). 
 
 It would also add greatly to the improbability of Leslie having marched to 
 Melrose, from the foot of the Gala, on the 1 2th, instead of towards Selkirk (see 
 pp. no, III, Note D). 
 
 Friday, the 12 th September, is the generally accepted date of the Royalists' 
 arrival at Selkirk. 
 
 2. " It is true that they are landit this afternoon, and the mist has been 
 sae pitch dark, that the Selkirk folks never kend o' them till the troopers came 
 to the Cross. But it seems that he is rather a discreet man that Montrose, 
 for he wadna let his foot-soldiers, his Irish an' Highlanders, come into Selkirk at 
 a', for fear of plundering the hale town, but sent them by Hearthope burn, an' 
 through at the fit o' the Yarrow ; an' there they lie in three divisions, wi' their faces 
 to the plain, an' their backs to the river an' the forest, sae that whaever attacks 
 them maun attack them face to face." 
 
 ' "New edition of the Works of the of Philiphaugh "not only with minuteness, 
 
 Ettrick Shepherd," by the Rev. Thomas but striking accuracy" — a somewhat bold 
 
 Thomson : 1869. In a footnote the editor assertion for any one to make, and one 
 
 states that Hogg describes the circum- with which it is dilTjciilt 10 agree. 
 stances of Montrose's surprise and the battle
 
 NOTES. 121 
 
 3. Montrose's cannons "are a kind o' lang sma' things, no' like the Car- 
 lisle cannons though ; and ye never saw onything sae capitally placed as they 
 are too. But nae thanks to them, for they were trenches made to their hand 
 by some of the auld Douglasses, an' they had naething ado but just to clear them 
 out a bit. Sae they hae a half-moon on the hill on each side, an' three lines in 
 the middle, with impervious woods an' the impassable linns of the Yarrow close 
 at their backs ; whether they lose the battle or win the battle they are safe 
 there." 
 
 This is all that Hogg tells us with regard to Montrose's position : he does 
 not say where the cavalry were placed, but it may be inferred from 2, in con- 
 junction with a curious statement (which will be mentioned presently) in his 
 account of the battle as to their having galloped up the right bank of the 
 Ettrick, that he believed they, or a portion of them, were with Montrose at 
 Selkirk. 
 
 It is clear that Hogg's idea of the position occupied by the Royalists differs 
 essentially from Sir Walter Scott's : the latter describes the Ettrick as marking 
 the line of their front, while the former shows the infantry to have been massed 
 in three divisions at the south-western extremity of the haugh, with the guns 
 in the entrenchments which are still to be seen not far from Philiphaugh House, 
 the whole facing north-east down the haugh, with the Ettrick on their right, 
 the Yarrow and the defile leading up Yarrow at their backs, and the hills on 
 their left. 
 
 Though this position would not have been convenient in so far as supplies 
 are concerned, — a matter of primary consideration to the commander of an army 
 on the march, and who is ignorant of an enemy being in the neighbourhood, — 
 it is not at all an unlikely one for Montrose to have taken up if his infantry 
 had indeed come by way of the Hearthope burn,' as stated by Hogg. But, 
 though there is nothing impossible, nor indeed improbable, in the statement 
 that this was the position occupied by Montrose, yet there is a difficulty in 
 crediting it, since it is inconsistent with the accounts of the actual fighting — not, 
 
 ' There is no burn of this name in the sumahly it must have been to one of these 
 
 district; there is, however, a HartwoocI burns Hogg was referring, and if so it 
 
 burn, and also another which takes its rise follows — assuming always his statement to 
 
 near Hartwood Myre, and these, flowing from be correct — that Montrose's march to Sel- 
 
 the high ground on the south side of the kirk lay through Lilliesleaf or Midlem, not 
 
 Ettrick, unite when they reach the low through Melrose, and further, that he came 
 
 land at Howden, and thence, under the from Jedburgh, as has been assumed in the 
 
 name of the Howden burn, flow into the text, and not from Kelso, as alleged by 
 
 Ettrick near tl>e foot of the Yarrow. Pre- some authorities.
 
 122 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 it must be admitted, inconsistent with Hogg's account, but with those of the 
 older historians. That Hogg's account of the battle is in its main features quite 
 incorrect there can, in my opinion, be no doubt whatever : it is based on the 
 assumption of a great flank march having been made by a large portion of Leslie's 
 army, — a movement in which, for the reasons already mentioned in Note E, 
 as well as for others which will be given farther on, it is impossible to place any 
 belief whatever. 
 
 With regard to the movements of the Covenanters before the battle, Hogg 
 makes only two statements of any interest. The first is that Leslie was "aneath 
 Galashiels " when he first heard of Montrose being at Selkirk : this bears out 
 the truth of the conjecture made in the text, as to the news having reached 
 Leslie in sufficient lime to check his further advance towards Melrose. The 
 second statement is that Leslie and his army reached Lindean ' on the evening 
 preceding the battle, and passed the night there : this, it will be seen, is some- 
 what inconsistent with the opening sentences of the following extract from the 
 account of the battle, from which it may fairly be gathered that in Hogg's belief 
 Leslie and his army were, early on the morning of the 13th, on the left bank 
 of the river. 
 
 Wat Pringle, the hero of Hogg's tale, after telling Leslie of the position 
 occupied by the Royalists, speaks thus : — 
 
 "Gie me the half of your troops an' your best captain at the head of them, 
 and I'll lead them by a quiet and hidden road into the rear of the Irish an' High- 
 landers' army, while you ride straight up the level haugh. Then, as soon as you 
 hear the sound of a bugle frae the Harehead-wood, answer it with a trumpet, and 
 rush on to the battle. But, by the time you have given one or two fires, sound a 
 retreat, turn your backs, and fiee, and then we will rush into their strong trenches, 
 and then between our two fires they are gone, every mother's son of them. . . ." 
 The account continues : " It was at the Linglee burn where the armies separated, 
 and from thence Pringle led off two thousand troopers up Philhope, over at the 
 Foulshiels Swire, and then by a narrow and difficult path through the Harehead- 
 wood. When they came close behind Montrose's left wing, every trooper tied 
 his horse to a bush, and sounded the bugle, which was answered by Leslie's 
 trumpets. This was the first and only warning which the troops of Montrose 
 
 ' There is no reason to think that when old traditions and superstitions are attached 
 
 Hogg was writing "Wat Pringle" he had —into his tale as an appropriate place for a 
 
 any intention of giving an accurate historical midnight rencontre, without for a moment 
 
 account of the battle of Philiphaugh, and wishing or expecting the statement to be 
 
 he might quite legitimately have introduced regarded as historically true. 
 Lindean Church — to which, I believe, many
 
 NOTES. 123 
 
 got of the approach of their powerful enemy. The men were astonished. They 
 had begun to pack up for march, and had not a general officer with them ; while 
 Leslie's dragoons were coming up Philiphaugh upon them at full canter, three lines 
 deep. They, however, hurried into their lines, and the two wings into platoons, and 
 kneeling behind their breastworks received the first fire of the cavalry in perfect 
 safety, which they returned right in their faces, and brought down a good number 
 of both troopers and horse. Leslie's lines pretended to waver and reel, and at the 
 second fire from the Highlanders they wheeled and fled. Then the shouts from 
 Montrose's lines made all the hills and woods ring, and flinging away their plaids and 
 guns, they drew their swords and pursued down the haugh like madmen, laughing 
 and shouting ' Kilsythe for ever ! ' They heard, indeed, some screams from the 
 baggage behind the lines, but in that moment of excitement regarded them not in 
 the least. This was occasioned by Wat Pringle and his two thousand troopers 
 on foot rushing into the enemy's trenches, and opening a dreadful fire on their backs, 
 while at the same time General Leslie wheeled about and attacked them in front. 
 The fate of the day was then decided in a few minutes. The men, thus enclosed 
 between two deadly fires, were confounded and dismayed, for the most part of them 
 had left their arms and ammunition behind them, and stood there half naked with 
 their swords in their hands. Had they rushed into the impervious recesses of the 
 Harehead-wood, they would not only have been freed from any possible pursuit, but 
 they would have found two thousand gallant steeds standing tied all in a row, and 
 they might all have escaped. But at that dreadful and fatal moment they espied 
 their general coming galloping up the other side of the Ettrick at the head of three 
 hundred cavalry, mostly gentlemen. This apparition broke up David Leslie's lines 
 somewhat, and enabled a great body of the foot (Royalists) to escape from the 
 sanguine field ; but then they rushed to meet Montrose — the very worst direction 
 they could take ; yet this movement saved his life and the lives of many of his 
 friends. The men in the trenches (Covenanters) fled to the wood for their horses. 
 Leslie, with his left battalion, galloped up to the Mill ford to intercept Montrose, so 
 that the field at that time was in very considerable confusion. Montrose, seeing his 
 infantry advancing at rapid pace in close column, hovered on the other side of the 
 river [i.e., right bank] till they came nigh, and then, rushing across, he attacked the 
 enemy first with carbines, then sword in hand. A desperate scuffle ensued here. 
 Montrose, by the assistance of his foot behind, forced his way through Leslie's army, 
 with a loss of about a hundred of his brave little band, and soon reached the forest, 
 where every man shifted for himself, the rallying-point being Traquair. But the 
 remainder of the foot suffered severely before they could gain the wood." 
 
 From this account it will be seen that Hogg agrees with Wishart as to the 
 division of Leslie's army into two portions having occurred on the left bank of the 
 Ettrick near Linglee burn ; but while the former alleges that the body of 2000
 
 124 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 horse moved off on a long flank march up Philhope, the latter says they crossed to 
 the other bank of the stream, and makes no suggestion of any great detached flank 
 movement whatever. 
 
 It is, indeed, impossible to understand how 2000 horse could have moved 
 from the Linglee burn up Philhope without the knowledge of Montrose. Hogg 
 does not mention definitely where the Royalist cavalry had been stationed, but we 
 know from other sources that they were partly in the town of Selkirk and partly on 
 the haugh on the opposite — i.e., left — bank of the river. Mr Craig-Brown also tells 
 us that the artillery were placed near to the present site of the cricket-ground. Now, 
 the haugh at this point is barely a quarter of a mile wide, and it is really preposterous 
 to think of such a large force as 2000 horse passing the artillery and cavalry 
 bivouacked on this narrow piece of ground without being challenged by their 
 sentries or by the sentries of the infantry companies which, we are told, had 
 bivouacked on the bank on the other side of the haugh. It is, if possible, even 
 more diflScult to believe that they should have desired to do so — that they should 
 have intentionally left Montrose himself, together with half his army, all his cavalry, 
 all his guns, in a commanding position in their rear, and actually between them and 
 their main army ! And this is not all : we must further believe that, shortly after- 
 wards, Leslie, with his main body, also moved up the haugh, leaving Montrose at 
 Selkirk, unnoticed and unfeared ! And then, again, Montrose, instead of availing 
 himself of such a splendid opportunity of annihilating his foolish enemy, actually 
 gallops up the right bank of the Ettrick to the Mill ford below the confluence 
 of the two rivers ! 
 
 There is another point to be remarked upon with reference to the alleged flank 
 march by Philhope. On a good road 2000 horse require, roughly speaking, 2000 
 yards, or say one mile and a quarter ; on a " narrow path " they would take, say, 
 four and a half miles. If the path were also " difficult," as it is stated to have been 
 in this instance, it is impossible to estimate the space required. There will, therefore, 
 be no exaggeration in asserting that the rear of the column cannot have left the foot 
 of Philhope on Philiphaugh by the time the leading horsemen were beginning to 
 tie up their horses in Harehead-wood " all in a row," the length of which I shall 
 refrain from attempting to estimate ! 
 
 A curious little difference between Wishart's and Hogg's accounts ought not 
 to be passed over. According to the former, it was the detached body of horse 
 that made the feint attack ; the main body, under the immediate command of the 
 General, that made the real attack in the manner described by the ballad, which 
 may be taken to represent old tradition. But, according to Hogg, who may, perhaps, 
 be taken to represent later tradition, the action of the two parties is reversed : it is 
 the main body, under the General, which delivers the feint attack; the detached 
 body which, after waiting for the simulated defeat of the General, delivers the 
 true one. This is certainly a reversal of the usual order of things.
 
 NOTES. 125 
 
 From the foregoing remarks it must not be thought that there has been any 
 wish to criticise Hogg himself for the account given in " Wat Pringle." It is 
 a very spirited one, and admirably suited to his story ; and, moreover, it is, if 
 considered entirely by itself, more consistent and less impossible, perhaps, than 
 that of any other modern writer without exception. But certain facts regarding 
 the disposition of the Royalists have been omitted (possibly Hogg was ignorant 
 of them), and these suffice to upset the correctness of his story as a whole. 
 I think it is unfortunate that some recent writers should have taken his descrip- 
 tion of the battle in a serious sense, for there is no reason to think that he 
 had any intention of making it historically correct. But while his story is evi- 
 dently inaccurate in its main features, it is quite possible that there may be a 
 considerable amount of truth in the vivid picture he paints of the details of the 
 fighting. The statements as to the horses being tied up, the soldiers pretending 
 to fly, the troopers rushing back to their horses, &c., &c., may well owe their 
 origin to descriptions, passed down orally for generations, of actual spectators of 
 the fight, — of men who, perhaps, themselves misunderstood the meaning of what 
 they saw, or who, perhaps, were misunderstood by their listeners. The follow- 
 ing short extract from Grose's ' Military Antiquities,' descriptive of the manner 
 in which Horse Grenadiers were exercised in those days, somewhat bears out 
 the truth of this conjecture : — 
 
 "The Horse Grenadiers were armed with muskets and grenades, linked 
 their horses, dismounted, fired, screwed their daggers into the muzzles of their 
 muskets, charged, returned their daggers, fired, and threw their grenades by 
 ranks, the centre and rear ranks advancing in succession through the intervals 
 between their file leaders. They then grounded their arms, went to the right 
 about, dispersed, and, at the preparative or beating to arms, drew their swords 
 and stood by their arms, falling in with a huzza ! They then returned their swords, 
 shouldered and slung their muskets, marched to their horses, unlinked and 
 mounted; after which they fired their pistols and muskets on horseback." 
 
 One other remark remains to be made. According to Hogg the battle was 
 fought at the southwestern extremity of the haugh, near Harehead-wood ; accord- 
 ing to the ballad, 
 
 "On Philiphaugh a fray began. 
 At Hairheacl-wood it ended." 
 
 Some further general remarks will be found at p. 129.
 
 126 THE BATTLE OF PHILIPHAUGH. 
 
 The Account of the Battle of Philiphaugh given in Mr Craig-Brown's 
 ' History of Selkirkshire,' and remarks thereon. 
 
 In this account it is mentioned that Montrose arrived at Selkirk on the 
 1 2th September, and fixed his headquarters at the house and offices of Philip- 
 haugh, which then stood near the site of the present Lauriston Villa, close to 
 the cricket -ground. His cannon were placed here also, in order to command 
 the valley and to flank the road up the river. On the bank, from the present 
 Leslie Cottage by Beechwood and Thirladean, other infantry companies were 
 bivouacked. The greater part of the horses are described as having been 
 quartered in the town of Selkirk. 
 
 On the morning of the 13th General Leslie moved from Melrose — if I 
 understand Mr Craig-Brown correctly — in the direction of Selkirk, and, while 
 on the march, received information regarding the position of the Royalists from 
 a man called "Will.''^ "Acting on the advice of this man, himself an old 
 soldier, Leslie sent a strong body of horse over a dip in the bank that separated 
 his advance-guard from the Ettrick, and still known as 'Will's Nick,' with in- 
 structions to follow their guide up Nettly burn, wheel to the left round Linglee 
 Hill, and then fall upon the flank of Montrose's army at Philiphaugh. Under 
 cover of a thick mist, which filled the valley at daybreak, this movement was 
 effected without attracting the enemy's notice ; and after pausing a sufficient 
 time to let his flanking force get well round their circuit, Leslie ordered a 
 general advance of his remaining troops. Even by this movement Montrose 
 was surprised. It was all he could do to mount the first horse he saw, gallop 
 down the steep brae from Selkirk, and reach the haugh in time to direct the 
 first disposition of his troops. It was too late, but he made a gallant effort to 
 retrieve by hard fighting what he had lost by bad generalship. To oppose the 
 advance of Leslie's compact legions, he was able to get into order a small body 
 of horsemen and a few companies of foot. The former he constituted his right 
 wing, resting on the river, and the latter his left wing, flanked by a steep bank. 
 For a while the horsemen, few in number but composed for the most part of 
 loyal nobles and gentlemen, as brave as they were skilful, kept the Covenant- 
 ing trained bands at bay ; but in the end ' Providence declared itself on the 
 
 ' This intliviilual is, of course, the same Walter Scott stated his real name was 
 
 as the "Wat Pringle" of Hogg's tale and Brydone. See footnote to verse 5 of the 
 
 the "aged father" of the ballad and the ballad, 
 "veteran soldier'' of present history. Sir
 
 NOTES. 127 
 
 side of the stronger battalions.' Montrose's left wing gave way, swinging round 
 upon the farmhouse, whence their guns began to play upon the enemy's soldiers 
 as they pushed up the valley. About this time the Royalists, becoming aware 
 of the column sent round by Linglee Hill to take them in flank and rear, 
 realised that all was lost, and sauve qui pent became the order of the day." 
 
 Mr Craig-Brown mentions also that Montrose cut his way through the enemy 
 and galloped off by Minchmuir to Traquair. 
 
 We see from the above that Mr Craig- Brown agrees with Sir Walter that 
 the division into two portions of the Covenanting army occurred during the march 
 from Melrose while they were still on the right bank of the Ettrick ; but whereas 
 the latter states that Leslie crossed over to the left bank with his main body, 
 leaving 2000 cavalry on the right bank with orders to carry out a great turning 
 movement, presumably to the south of Montrose's army,i it appears from the former 
 that Leslie and the main body remained on the right bank, while the cavalry were 
 sent across to the left bank to carry out a somewhat similar turning movement to 
 the north of Montrose's army. We are told that the horsemen went up the Nettly 
 burn, round Linglee Hill, and fell upon the flank of the Royalists at Philip- 
 haugh, which, we are informed, stood near the present cricket-ground. To have 
 done this, they must have come down Philhope and concluded their march through 
 the hills to the haugh at the very point where, according to Hogg, they left the 
 haugh to go into the hills. Of the three versions regarding this alleged extra- 
 ordinary flank march, Mr Craig-Brown's is, on the whole, the least impossible. 
 
 Allusion has already been made to the difficulties which would have attended 
 the march of the troopers as it is described by Hogg, and similar difficulties, though 
 possibly not so great, would have been present here : the extreme improbability, also, 
 for General Leslie to have detached so large a portion of his army has been pointed 
 out,- and it seems therefore unnecessary to say anything further on this point. 
 
 Ixt us now consider what Mr Craig-Brown tells us with regard to Leslie's main 
 body. 
 
 We are told that Leslie, when on the march from Melro.se, or from the direction 
 of Melrose, towards Selkirk, detached his cavalry, or a portion of it, — the strength is, 
 I think, not given, but I assume reference is made to the 2000 troopers of Wishart, 
 Scott, &c., — through " Will's Nick," ^ and sent them across the river. Now, from 
 this it is surely to be inferred that the main body remained on the right bank 
 
 ' See Note E, p. 119, footnote 2. the present ford is slightly below "Will's 
 
 - See Note E, p. 119. Nick." Troops marching from Melrose with 
 
 * If troopsmarched through " Will's Nick" the intention of crossing to the left bank 
 
 at all, they are more likely to have done so would be going slighlly out of their course 
 
 from the left bank, as related by Wishart, for if they moved by "Will's Nick."
 
 128 THE BATTLE OF PHJUPHAUGH. 
 
 and continued, for a time at least, its march up that bank. No definite statements 
 are made regarding their subsequent movements, but we are told that, in order to 
 oppose Leslie's "compact legions," Montrose collected a force of horse and foot, 
 which he placed with their right resting on the Ettrick. Now it is, of course, 
 impossible for this to have been done on the right bank if the troops were facing 
 down-stream, and therefore, since we know from Wishart that Montrose did so 
 dispose of a force on the left bank, we have the right to conclude that Mr Craig- 
 Brown's theory is that Leslie's main body itself crossed to the left bank of the river 
 at some point between where the cavalry had already done so and that part of the 
 haugh where Montrose's troops were in bivouac, and that they were on the left bank 
 at the time when Montrose was preparing to receive their " compact legions " — that 
 is to say, before the actual fighting had commenced. So, then, Mr Craig-Brown puts 
 all the combatants of both armies on one and the same side of the stream, and in 
 this he differs from Wishart and Scott, and even from Hogg. This, of course, in 
 no way proves he is wrong : there are, however, reasons for thinking he is so. 
 
 For reasons which have been given in Note D, there can be little doubt that 
 Leslie never went to Melrose at all, and that he was, therefore, at no time on the 
 right bank of the river ; but putting this aside, and admitting for the sake of argu- 
 ment that he did go to Melrose, and did march thence towards the enemy's position 
 on Philiphaugh, it is difficult to think that he would not have crossed the river — as 
 Sir Walter Scott evidently thinks he did — at some point considerably lower down- 
 stream than that indicated by Mr Craig-Brown ; and it is surely paying Leslie's 
 generalship — though he was merely a leader of " trained bands " — a very poor com- 
 pliment to suggest that he passed the main body across the Water at a point higher 
 up — and consequently nearer to the enemy — than where the cavalry of his advanced 
 guard had forded it. If the movement of the cavalry was, as is said, screened by a 
 thick fog, that of the main body required a dense one indeed ! 
 
 It may here be remarked that the thicker the fog the greater would have been 
 the danger to Leslie in dividing his army into two portions and separating them by 
 some miles of rough mountainous country, and the less likely would it have been for 
 him to adopt such a measure. But what authority is there for saying there was a fog ? 
 Wishart certainly writes that the morning was shrouded in darkness and dense fog, 
 but no further reference is made to it ; and hence it may fairly be inferred that it did 
 not have much, if any, influence on the actual operations of either army, beyond a 
 possible postponement of the hour for Leslie's army to leave their bivouac. The 
 Covenanters' Account mentions that " our forces marched towards the enemy and 
 came within view of them about ten in the morning," but there is not a word about 
 fog, and we may surely assume that there was none worth speaking about when the 
 enemy came "in view." 
 
 It is unfortunate that neither Sir Walter Scott, nor Hogg — he, however, can well
 
 , ^ .' ,/ ,Tcr*o<>dl*« V " ^ ' 
 
 PHIUPHAU&K. 
 
 I3'"'* 8efir«i.»U«r, I6(»5- .
 
 NOTES. 129 
 
 be excused, since he was not writing history — nor Mr Craig-Brown should have quoted 
 their authority for many of their statements. What is the authority for the assertion 
 that Leslie went to Melrose ? or for saying that he detached a large force on an 
 important, difficult, dangerous flanking movement? or that this force went up Nettly 
 burn ? or that it went round Linglee Hill ? or that it went up Philhope ? or that it 
 came down Philhope? &c., &c. Are these statements mere conjectures, or are they 
 based on some authority which the writers have not thought necessary to name ? Some 
 are, perhaps, based on tradition, and tradition ought not to be despised, since it has 
 probably some truth for a foundation ; but it is easily misunderstood, and there is 
 often, I think, a tendency to exaggerate its meaning, more especially when it relates 
 to deeds of arms. This is conspicuously the case here. Indeed, not only has the 
 natural meaning of tradition been distorted by exaggeration, but so also has that of 
 authentic, written, contemporary accounts. The battle of Philiphaugh was in a 
 military sense — I am not referring to its important military and political results — a 
 very insignificant combat, and the contemporary writers to whom we are indebted for 
 the few details we know regarding it do not attempt to make it appear in any other 
 light. The facts related are neither improbable in themselves nor inconsistent with 
 each other or with local geography, and therefore — with the exception of certain 
 particulars mentioned in the ballad, which may be excused on the usual plea of 
 poetical licence — may be regarded as true, or at all events not imaginary on the 
 part of the writers, who may themselves have made mistakes, or may have been 
 misinformed on certain points, or may have misunderstood their informants. 
 
 But our modern historians have given free rein to their imagination, and have 
 allowed themselves to be run away with by the desire to add to the glory of their 
 chosen hero by painting a brilliant picture of a paltry fight. The brilliant picture 
 required a great battle — the great battle necessitated an extensive position — the flanks 
 of this extensive position were confounded with the flanks, only a few hundred yards 
 apart, of the actual fighting men — this false idea demanded a great flanking movement 
 — the great flanking movement, so easily manufactured by misunderstanding the few 
 words in the ballad relating to a small tactical manoeuvre on the field of battle, re- 
 quired a fog to screen it — and Wishart's words supplied the fog. Of a truth, the fog 
 has thickened greatly since the day of battle, and has proved far more efficacious in 
 magnifying the view of modern historians than ever it was in obscuring that of the 
 combatants.
 
 IV. 
 
 ON BORDER VERSE RELATING TO 
 FLODDEN TRADITIONS
 
 ON BORDER VERSE RELATING TO 
 FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 
 
 It may, perhaps, at first sight appear curious that although the 
 battle of Flodden was fought on the very Border — the Borderers 
 themselves playing a most important part in it, — and almost within 
 that district of Scotland which has, perhaps, been more productive 
 of song than any other in this island, there has not come down to 
 us from the olden times one verse of local origin — with the ex- 
 tremely doubtful exception of three poor stanzas entitled " The 
 Souters of Selkirk " — commemorative either of it or of the events 
 which followed it. 
 
 Nevertheless, Flodden, in being thus ignored by our ballad- 
 makers, has, after all, only met the same fate as almost every other 
 great historical event which has taken place on the Borders. Even 
 Otterburn cannot be quoted as an exception to this general rule, 
 since the ballad can hardly be claimed of Scottish Border origin ; 
 and the release of Kinmont Willie, again, from Carlisle Castle, 
 although a matter of some historical importance in that it gave rise 
 to considerable friction between the two countries, cannot be looked 
 upon in itself as anything more than an exceptionally dashing raid. 
 
 Of the old ballads which have come down to us, there are none 
 having any relation whatever to the greater events, such as the
 
 ,34 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 sieges of Roxburj^h Castle or of Berwick, Henry VIII.'s raids, the 
 battle of Ancrum Moor, &c. The only exception to this statement 
 that I am aware of — without, however, going so far as to say that 
 no other exists — is the ballad of the battle of Philiphaugh. I am, 
 of course, also aware of the tradition — for it is, in fact, no more than 
 a tradition — that there at one time existed a ballad relating to 
 Flodden, sung, we are told, to "a strikingly beautiful and popular 
 tune " entitled " The Flowers of the Forest." But to this subject 
 I shall presently advert, and merely observe here that if such a 
 ballad ever existed, — and this I do not believe, — it formed another 
 exception to the rule ; and, moreover, the fact of its having passed 
 away completely from the memory of the Border people, while 
 mere doggerel verses relating to, comparatively speaking, unim- 
 portant matters, — to the fighting of maidens on their stumps, to 
 the hamstringing of horses, to the capture of a few kye, — have 
 been remembered, would reflect little credit either on the taste or 
 on the patriotism of our forbears. 
 
 I must now endeavour to sketch as briefly as possible the 
 effect which the battle of Flodden had upon the inhabitants of the 
 Middle Marches of Scotland. 
 
 It will be quite unnecessary to enter into the details of the 
 battle, concerning which no true picture could be given without 
 a close study of the numerous and conflicting accounts which 
 have been written regarding it. I may remark here that no 
 one account that I have read is consistent with possibility, nor 
 intelligible to any one who has gone seriously into the question. 
 
 It will suffice to recall to memory the indisputable fact that at 
 the moment the two armies engaged battle the Scots were facing 
 their base — that is to say, facing towards Scotland, — with their left 
 flank stretching towards, though some miles distant from, Cornhill 
 on the Tweed, the general direction of which river here is north-
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 135 
 
 east. This flank of the Scottish army was, then, the vital point : 
 if defeated or turned, the whole army would be cut from its base. 
 The troops on that flank consisted partly of Highlanders and 
 partly of the Borderers under Lord Home, and were successful 
 not only in maintaining their position but in defeating the English 
 division opposed to them. The rest of the Scottish army, after a 
 gallant fight entailing terrible loss, fell back during the night in 
 rear of the Borderers, and so across the Tweed into Scotland. 
 
 Next morning the Borderers still occupied the ground they 
 had held the previous day. What they then did we do not know 
 with any certainty ; but they do not appear to have re-entered 
 Scotland quite immediately, for, a few days later, when the captured 
 Scottish guns were being removed by the English, the latter were 
 harassed by a body of Scots who, there can be no question, 
 belonged to Home's command. 
 
 That the injury inflicted on the left flank of the Scottish 
 army was but slight seems probable not only from the fact that 
 it had been victorious, — for victors in those days as a rule suffered 
 wonderfully little loss, — but from an examination into the strength 
 and probable losses of the other Scottish divisions engaged. Of 
 course, to form an accurate, or nearly accurate, computation would 
 be impossible, since there is no certainty either as regards the 
 number of troops engaged or the total number killed. Nevertheless, 
 it may be interesting to form a rough guess at the loss suffered 
 by the Borderers. 
 
 Assuming the strength of the Scots to have been, as Fraser- 
 Tytler puts it, about 38,000 combatants, and assuming that the 
 left wing numbered 10,000, — and this is the strength assigned to 
 it, I think, by all authorities, — and assuming, once more, that the 
 right wing was of the same strength as the left wing, we should 
 have 18,000 men remaining for the centre and reserve.
 
 136 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 Now as to the losses. From the lists taken up through the 
 counties of Scotland, the loss of the Scots exceeded 5000 men 
 (Buchanan). But the county authorities could not possibly have 
 differentiated, had they even wished to do so, between men who 
 had fallen in the battle itself and during other periods of the 
 campaign — at Millfield, Norham, Wark, Etal, &c. ; and since at 
 the first-mentioned fio^ht the Scots are said to have lost between 
 500 and 600 men, we may safely conclude, if the county lists are 
 to be relied upon, that the actual number of men killed at Flodden 
 itself cannot have exceeded 4000. This is the lowest estimate I 
 know of. 
 
 The highest estimate is 17,000: this is given on a monument 
 at Thetford to the Duke of Norfolk. It is impossible to credit 
 these figures, which would nearly equal half the army engaged in 
 about three hours' fighting. 
 
 ' The Original English Gazette,' which is not likely to have 
 erred in under- estimating the Scottish loss, puts the number at 
 10,000; and though this number is probably in excess of the 
 truth, I shall accept it as a basis for arriving at the probable 
 loss suffered by the Borderers. 
 
 Well, so much has been said and sung regarding the desperate 
 nature of the fighting by the Scottish centre around their king, 
 that I hardly like to suggest that their loss could have been less 
 than 75 per cent; but since this would be an impossibility on the 
 basis of the figures I have selected, I shall, at the risk of hurting 
 the amour propre of some enthusiastic fellow - countryman who 
 estimates the gallantry displayed in battle merely by the death- 
 rate, put it at only 50 per cent, — a by no means particularly large 
 loss for a fraction of an army, more especially in those times. This 
 would leave a loss of 1000 men to be distributed between the 
 two wings; but we may be certain that the defeated, routed, and
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 
 
 137 
 
 pursued right wing will have lost three or four times as many 
 men as the victorious left. This would leave a loss of between 
 200 and 250 men to the latter division, and assuming that the 
 Borderers and Highlanders composing it suffered equally, each 
 party would have lost between 100 and 125 men. Pitscottie 
 certainly implies — but I do not think we ought to take his words 
 too literally — that the whole of the loss of this division fell upon 
 the Borderers. He writes that they — i.e., the Borderers — " fought 
 cruelly with uncertain victory," but at last the Highlanders 
 "wrought so manfully, that they defeat the Englishmen, with- 
 out any slaughter on their side." But really, whether the 
 Borderers lost 50 men, or 100, or 200, or even 500 or more, is 
 of little importance ; the main point I wish to press is, that in 
 all probability their loss was trifling.^ Of the leaders, hardly any 
 
 ' I know that a contrary opinion is very 
 commonly held, and that a very general 
 belief exists that the Borderers suffered 
 heavily at Flodden. A definite statement 
 to this effect is made in a well-known 
 Border work which was published not many 
 years ago, where we are told that nearly 
 the whole of the Hawick contingent, num- 
 bering 200 men, were killed in the battle. 
 What evidence there is — and I fully admit 
 it is by no means conclusive — against the 
 truth of the belief in the severe losses 
 suffered by the Borderers as a whole I 
 have already mentioned, and I have been 
 unable to find any in support of it. The 
 specific statement, however, regarding the 
 Hawick losses is worth examination. 
 
 In Ridpath's 'Border History' (footnote 
 to p. 488) it is related, on the authority of 
 Godscroft, that after James IV. had in- 
 sulted Angus, on the eve of Flodden, by 
 saying to him that " if he was afraid, he 
 might go home," the Earl quitted the 
 
 camp, leaving behind him his two sons, 
 who "both fell in the battle with 200 
 gentlemen of the name of Douglas." 
 
 In the 'Annals of Hawick' (James 
 Wilson : Edinburgh, 1850) it is stated 
 (see p. 17) that "Sir William Douglas of 
 Drumlanrig, superior of the burgh [i.e., the 
 burgh of Hawick], with 200 gentlemen of 
 that name, were killed in the engagement." 
 
 In ' Upper Teviotdale and the Scotts of 
 Buccleuch ' (J. Rutherford Oliver : Hawick, 
 1887) we find this statement : " Tke muster 
 from Hawick is stated in the 'Annals of 
 Hawick ' to have been about 200, who 
 marched under the banner of Douglas of 
 Drumlanrig. But as no authority is cited, 
 the statement must be regarded as tradi- 
 tional, or conjectural perhaps ; but there is 
 no reason to doubt that it is appro.ximatc 
 to truth. Sir William Douglas was killed 
 in the battle, and it is asserted that his 
 followers were nearly exterminated." 
 
 Thus from Godscroft's statement that 200
 
 138 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 are mentioned as having fallen. In Hall's Chronicles, in the list 
 of Scottish persons of note who were killed, are two Homes and 
 one Elliot. In Abercromby's list the name of Sir Alexander 
 Scot of Hassendean appears ; and in a letter from Lord Dacre 
 to the English Council, dated 17th May 15 14, a William Carr 
 is also mentioned as having been killed at Flodden. No doubt 
 Hall's and Abercromby's lists are far from being complete; never- 
 theless, they afford strong grounds for believing that very few 
 of the important men of the Border clans belonging to the East 
 and Middle Marches fell that day, and it was only men of these 
 two Marches who are likely to have fought under Lord Home ; 
 indeed, Mr Armstrong, in his ' History of Liddesdale,' considers 
 the Elliots and other Liddesdale men are more likely to have 
 been with Bothwell, who commanded the reserve in rear of the 
 king's division, than with Home. 
 
 Having now given some reasons for the belief I hold that 
 the Borders of Scotland were not affected seriously by losses 
 sustained at Flodden, I shall pass on to <;onsider what the con- 
 dition of the country was during the remainder of the war. 
 
 There is a very general, though in my opinion an absolutely 
 erroneous, belief that during the rest of the war the Middle 
 Marches of Scotland were raided, harried, devastated by the 
 English ; there was 
 
 ■t) 
 
 "... nae mair lilting at the ewe-milking, 
 Women and bairns are heartless and wae. 
 Sighing and moaning on ilka green loaning, — 
 The Flowers of the Forest are weeded away." 
 
 gentlemen of the name of Douglas fell at author of the 'Annals of Hawick' made 
 
 Flodden is manufactured a tradition that no such statement as that imputed to him 
 
 thai number of Hawick men fought and by the author of ' Upper Teviotdale,' &c. 
 fell there ! So far as I can find, the
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 139 
 
 Now, we know that immediately after the great battle the 
 English army was disbanded, and consequently the alleged de- 
 vastations cannot have been carried on by the soldiery, but only 
 by such local forces as the English Warden, Lord Dacre, could 
 collect. Lord Dacre was solely responsible for all English raids 
 into Scotland : none were organised without his sanction, or at 
 all events his knowledge. We may, then, be certain that no 
 English subject was able to give fuller or better information 
 regarding the events which succeeded Flodden than he ; and it 
 is for this reason chiefly that the letters which he wrote at this 
 period to Henry VIII., to the English Council, and the Bishop 
 of Durham are of peculiar interest. They show that not a man 
 was sent into Scotland till somewhere between the loth and 
 22nd of October — that is to say, not until five or six weeks had 
 elapsed from the date of the great English victory at Flodden ! 
 Again, the last raid into Scotland of which Lord Dacre makes 
 any definite mention occurred on the loth November. Conse- 
 quently, either the "devastations" we have heard so much of 
 must have occurred during that one short month, or Lord Dacre 
 has omitted to mention them in his reports, and this too at a 
 time when he was defendinaf himself against accusations of not 
 retaliating on the Scots for raids which they had been sending 
 into England. 
 
 It should be noticed that Lord Dacre was opposed to the 
 principle of "great raids." In reply to a letter from the Bishop 
 of Durham urging him to undertake a "great raid," he points 
 out that when the Duke of Gloucester, "a king's broder," and 
 the Earl of Northumberland were wardens, they looked upon a 
 raid into Teviotdale as a serious undertaking ; and again he 
 writes that "my lords of Norfolk, Winchester," and others, "and 
 1000 soldiers, supported by Berwick and Norham, found it as
 
 I40 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 much as they could do to make a raid into Tevydale." Never- 
 theless, he says, although a man of much less substance than 
 they, he will, at the king's desire, make an attempt.^ 
 
 Now, the most important point to notice here is the evident 
 fact that it had not occurred to Lord Dacre, at the time of 
 writing, that Teviotdale was in a condition less able to offer 
 resistance than at the previous periods to which he refers, — the 
 idea of the Borders of Scotland having been materially weakened 
 by the battle of Flodden had not crossed his mind. 
 
 Well, " at the king's desire " he organised a great raid, the 
 forces composing which crossed the frontier at two different points 
 on the loth November, with the intention presumably of com- 
 bining for some important, though unnamed, operation. After 
 doing no more than burn one or two peels and " towns," they 
 joined hands on the afternoon of the same day at the Belling, 
 and, although they numbered in all 4000 horse and 400 bowmen, 
 retreated forthwith into England.^ Why was this .-• Simply because 
 they found the Scots too powerful to admit of their continuing 
 further with their enterprise. 
 
 This is an instance exemplifying well the thorough efficiency 
 of the Scottish system of defence. Before the English raiders 
 had been more than a few hours across the Border, a force of 
 nearly 3000 men under the Scottish Warden, Lord Home, had 
 not only been collected but brought face to face with their 
 enemies. The figures given are Lord Dacre's, or perhaps it 
 would be truer to say they are what / understand them to have 
 been from his letters, for possibly I may have misunderstood him 
 in one or two particulars ; and it certainly is somewhat difficult to 
 believe that 4400 English — and here Lord Dacre's figures are 
 
 ' Dacre to Ruthal (Bishop of Durham), ^ Dacre to King Henry VIII., 13th Nov- 
 
 20th October 1513 (Calig., Bk. III. 12). ember 1513 (Ellis' Original Letters).
 
 RELATING TO FLO D DEN TRADITIONS. 141 
 
 unmistakable — should have retired before only 3CK)0 Scots, and 
 I consequently think it probable that this last number may be 
 too low, and that in fact Lord Home's force equalled, or more 
 than equalled, that of Lord Dacre. But whether the former 
 brought 3000, or 4000, or 5000 men into the field, the feat was 
 in any case one — and this is the point I wish to emphasise — 
 which fully proves the great capacity, the great power, of the 
 Scottish Borderers to repel invasion. Of inability, of hesitation, 
 of weakness, there is no sign whatever. 
 
 Another point to be noticed in connection with this raid is 
 that it was not only, as I have already said, the first great effort 
 made by the English since Flodden to invade the Middle Marches 
 of Scotland, but it was also the last. And more than this, there 
 is nothing in Lord Dacre's letters to show that even minor raids 
 were sent across the Border at a later date, while inferences 
 may fairly be drawn indicating there were none. Objection, 
 I am aware, may be raised to this statement. It may be said 
 that in a well-known letter which he wrote to the English Council 
 on the 17th May 15 14 he referred to raids which had occurred 
 in the early part of that year ; but I do not think so. Lord 
 Dacre wrote that letter with the object of defending himself 
 against the charge of not retaliating on the Scots for raiding 
 England, and in so defending himself he relates the damage 
 done by certain raids into Scotland which he specifies ; but there 
 can be little doubt that these raids are identical with those of the 
 previous autumn. However, it must not be thought that Lord 
 Dacre was intentionally misleading in this respect. His defence 
 of his conduct amounts practically to an admission of the charge 
 of not retaliating on the Scots, but to a refutation of this being 
 due to negligence — in short, he pleaded inability. 
 
 The only evidence — if it may be called such — of an English
 
 142 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 raid into the Middle Marches after November 151 3 is that of 
 what is called the Hawick Tradition. 
 
 This tradition was no doubt originally merely to the effect 
 that shortly after Flodden a body of Hawick men defeated a 
 band of Enelish raiders on the banks of the Teviot some few 
 miles below Hawick and captured their standard or pennon. 
 There is nothing improbable in the story as thus told, and I can 
 see no reason whatever to doubt its truth. But, in order that 
 belief in it may be consistent with the views I have expressed, 
 it is also necessary to believe, firstly, that the English party was 
 a detached foray from a larger raid, — for if I am right in saying 
 that Teviotdale was comparatively secure from English raids, no 
 small party could have penetrated so far into Scotland, — and, 
 secondly, that it occurred previous to November 15 13. There 
 are, indeed, plausible grounds for the belief that the English foray 
 formed part of a raid which Lord Dacre refers to as having entered 
 Teviotdale in October 15 13, but it is not necessary to enter into 
 this question here : suffice it to say that the tradition, as I have 
 told it, is perfectly consistent with Lord Dacre's letters and with the 
 view I have expressed of the condition of the Scottish Borders 
 after Flodden. 
 
 But unfortunately the tradition, as it is told in these present 
 times, contains details which are not consistent with this view. 
 An allegation that the combat occurred in 15 14 is one of these 
 details. I do not think that in the original tradition any date is 
 likely to have been specified, for do traditions ever specify dates ? 
 I know of cases where certain days are referred to, even months, 
 but not years. In none of our Border ballads — which are merely 
 traditions — will you find a date of a year mentioned, though to 
 many these have been subsequently affixed by historians. In 
 my opinion the date attributed to the combat at Hornshole is
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 143 
 
 wrong. But assuming that I am wrong, and that it in fact took 
 place in 15 14, it is, after all, evidence only as to one raid having 
 occurred in that year, and of a foray, detached from that raid, 
 having met with disaster. This does not materially weaken my 
 argument as to the Borderers having been fully able to protect 
 themselves at this period of the war, and to prevent the English 
 from doing much damage to the country. 
 
 Curiously enough, Selkirk also boasts of a Flodden tradition, 
 which is sometimes used as a foundation for the assertion as to 
 the serious nature of the English raids at that period, although 
 the tradition itself refers solely to the exploits of the Selkirk 
 men at the battle. Sir Walter Scott relates the story as 
 follows : — 
 
 " The ancient and received tradition of the burgh of Selkirk affirms 
 that the citizens of that town distinguished themselves by their gallantry 
 on that disastrous occasion. Eighty in number, and headed by their town- 
 clerk, they joined their monarch on his entrance into England. James, 
 pleased with the appearance of this gallant troop, knighted their leader, 
 William Brydone, upon the field of battle, from which few of the men of 
 Selkirk were destined to return. They distinguished themselves in the 
 conflict, and were almost all slain. The few survivors, on their return home, 
 found, by the side of Lady-Wood Edge, the corpse of a female, wife to one 
 of their fallen comrades, with a child sucking at her breast. In memory of 
 this latter event, continues the tradition, the present arms of the burgh bear 
 a female, holding a child in her arms, and seated on a sarcophagus, decorated 
 with the Scottish lion ; in the background a wood." 
 
 He also gives the following extract from Mr Robertson's 
 " Statistical Account of Selkirkshire " : — 
 
 "'Of one hundred citizens who followed the fortunes of James IV. on the 
 plains of Flowden, a few returned, loaded with the spoils taken from the 
 enemy. Some of these trophies still survive the rust of time and the effects
 
 144 <^^ BORDER VERSE 
 
 of negligence. The desperate valour of the citizens of Selkirk, which on 
 that fatal day was eminently conspicuous to both armies, produced very 
 opposite effects. The implacable resentment of the English reduced their 
 defenceless town to ashes, while their grateful sovereign (James V.) showed 
 his sense of their valour by a grant of an extensive portion of the forest, the 
 trees for building their houses, and the property as the reward of their 
 heroism.' — A note is added by Mr Robertson : 'A standard, the appearance 
 of which bespeaks its antiquity, is still carried annually (on the day of 
 riding their common) by the corporation of weavers, by a member of which 
 it was taken from the English in the field of Flowden. It may be added 
 that the sword of William Brydone, the town-clerk, who led the citizens 
 to the battle (and who is said to have been knighted for his valour), is 
 still in the possession of John Brydone, a citizen of Selkirk, his lineal 
 descendant.' " 
 
 After replying to certain arguments intended to show that the 
 ballad of " The Souters of Selkirk " did not relate to the battle of 
 Flodden, upon which subject I shall remark later on, Sir Walter 
 continues his interesting prefatory note thus : — 
 
 " The total devastation of this unfortunate burgh, after the fatal battle 
 of Flodden, is ascertained by the charters under which the corporation hold 
 their privileges. The first of these is granted by James V., and is dated 
 4th March 1535-6. The narrative or inductive clause of the deed is in these 
 words : ' Sciatis quia nos considerantes et intelligentes quod Carte Evidencie 
 et litere veteris fundacionis et infeofamenti burgi nostri de Selkirk et 
 libertatum ejusdem burgensibus et communitati ipsius per nobilissimos 
 progenitores nostros quorum animabus propicietur Deus dat. et concess. 
 per guerrarum assultus pestem combustionem et alias pro majore parte 
 vastantur et distruuntur unde mercantiarum usus inter ipsos burgenses 
 cessavit in eorum magnam lesionem ac reipublice et libertatis Burgi nostri 
 antedict. destruccionem et prejudicium ac ingens nobis dampnum penes 
 nostras Custumas et firmas burgales ab eodem nobis debit, si subitum in 
 eisdem remedium minime habitum fuerit — Nos igitur pietati et justicia moti 
 ac pro policia et edificiis infra regnum nostrum habend. de novo infeodamus,' 
 &c. The charter proceeds in common form to erect anew the town of 
 Selkirk into a royal burgh, with all the privileges annexed to such corpora-
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 145 
 
 tions. This mark of royal favour was confirmed by a second charter, 
 executed by the same monarch after he had attained the age of majority, 
 and dated April 8, 1538. This deed of confirmation first narrates the 
 charter which has been already quoted, and then proceeds to mention other 
 grants which had been conferred upon the burgh during the minority of 
 James V., and which are thus expressed : — 
 
 " ' We for the gude trew and thankful service done and to be done to 
 ws be owre lovittis the baillies burgesses and communite of our burgh of 
 Selkirk and for certaine otheris reasonable causis and considerationis moving 
 ws be the tennor hereof grantis and gevis license to thame and thair suc- 
 cessors to ryfe out breke and teil yeirlie ane thousand acres of their common 
 landis of our said burgh in what part thairof thea pleas for polecy strength- 
 ing and bigging of the samyn for the wele of ws and of liegis repairand 
 thairto and defence againis owre auld innemyis of Ingland and other wayis 
 and will and grantis that thai sail nocht be callit accusit nor incur ony 
 danger or skaith thairtrow in thair personis nor gudis in ony wise in time 
 cuming. . . . Gevin under owre signet and subscrivit with owre hand at 
 Striveling the twenty day of Junii The yere of God ane thousand five 
 hundreth and thretty six yeris and of our regne the twenti thre yere.' 
 
 " Here follows another grant : ' We Understanding that owre burgh of 
 Selkirk and inhabitants thairof continualie sen the Field of Flodoune hes 
 ben oppressiit heriit and owre runin be theves and traitors whairthrow the 
 haunt of merchandice has cessit amangis thame of langtyme bygane and 
 thai heriit thairthrow and we defraudit of owre custumis and dewites. — 
 Thairfor,' &c." (This grant is dated 1536.) 
 
 Sir Walter Scott, after giving another extract, which it is not 
 necessary to refer to here, then continues : — 
 
 "From these extracts ... it may be safely concluded, ist, that Selkirk 
 was a place of importance before it was ruined by the English ; and, 2nd, ' that 
 the voice of merchants had ceased in her streets,' in consequence of the fatal 
 field of Flodden. But further, it seems reasonable to infer that so many 
 marks of royal favour, granted within so short a time of each other, evince 
 the gratitude as well as the compassion of the monarch, and were intended 
 to reward the valour, as well as to relieve the distress, of the men of Selkirk. 
 Thus every circumstance of the written evidence, as far as it goes, tallies 
 with the oral tradition of the inhabitants." 
 
 K
 
 146 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 I shall not discuss the justice or otherwise of the inference 
 drawn that these grants evinced the gratitude and compassion of 
 the monarch ; suffice it to remark that they may have resulted 
 from other motives, such as a mere desire to increase the pros- 
 perity of the town, or to secure himself from being any longer 
 "defraudit of our customs and duties." But with regard to the 
 conclusions drawn from the extracts, I ask. Where is there evi- 
 dence that Selkirk was ruined by the English? or that "the voice 
 of merchants had ceased in her streets " z'w consequence of the fatal 
 field of Floddcn? The words "per guerrarum assultus pestem 
 combustionem et alias " show that Selkirk had been exposed to 
 evils other than "guerrarum assultus," and even these can hardly 
 be imputed solely to wars with England, more especially when 
 we recollect that in 1529-30, only a few years before the grant 
 was issued, the king, at the head of a large army, had marched 
 through this very district with a view to " make the rush 
 bush keep the cow," or, in other words, to make war on the 
 Borderers — on the very people who, after Flodden, had proved 
 how incorrect was the statement that 
 
 " shiver'd was fair Scotland's spear, 
 And broken was her shield," 
 
 but who, for some years previous to this time, 1529, had doubt- 
 less kept their hand in for fighting against their auld enemies 
 of England by an occasional tussle amongst themselves. In this 
 respect their misdemeanours, which doubtless were great, appear 
 to have been eclipsed in the eyes of the people by the memory 
 of their former deeds against the common enemy, for, referring 
 to the barbarous treatment to which they were subjected by 
 James V. and his army, and to the numerous executions — or 
 "murders," as Professor Veitch writes — wrought upon them, the
 
 RELATING TO FLO D DEN TRADITIONS. 147 
 
 old ballad-maker no doubt expressed the general sentiment of the 
 time — a sentiment which still survives — when he wrote, 
 
 " But Scotland's heart was ne'er sae wae, 
 To see sae mony brave men die 
 Because they saved their country deir 
 Frae Ensrlishmen ! . . ." 
 
 The later grant refers to Selkirk and its inhabitants having 
 been " continually since the Field of Flodden oppressed, harried, 
 and overrun by thieves and traitors." The expression " thieves 
 and traitors " is more applicable to Scottish subjects than to 
 English enemies, — indeed it seems incredible that these grants 
 should have been given to make amends for the suffering the 
 people had been put to by the English twenty-one or twenty-two 
 years before, or to reward them for the gallantry which they or 
 their fathers had then displayed. If the grants were, in fact, 
 given either to make amends for losses they had sustained, or to 
 evince gratitude on the part of the king, or to reward them for 
 valour, it is much more probable that the losses were the losses 
 they had suffered from their immediate neighbours, — from Cockburn 
 of Henderland, from Scott of Tushielaw, and from the turbulent 
 Border clans, — that the gratitude was gratitude for the assistance 
 they had given the king a few years before in his onslaught on 
 these enemies of theirs, and that the valour was valour shown on 
 that occasion. 
 
 When Sir Walter writes that Selkirk was devastated " after 
 the fatal battle of Flodden," I understand him to mean — and most 
 readers would understand liim to mean — that this occurred as an 
 immediate result of the battle, and at all events before the con- 
 clusion of peace in 15 15. A similar interpretation, surely, must 
 be put on his statement " that the voice of merchants had ceased
 
 148 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 in her streets, in consequence of tlie fatal field of Flodden." Of 
 course, it is possible that Sir Walter may have used the terms 
 "after" and "in consequence of" in a wider sense. Selkirk may 
 have been raided by the English during the war which commenced 
 in 1523. Some of Surrey's raids at that period penetrated many 
 miles into Scotland. Smailholm, for instance, was burnt. Pos- 
 sibly — though I have never heard of it — Selkirk may have been 
 devastated then by the English also ; but if this is Sir Walter's 
 meaning, then the evidence which he has given in the prefatory 
 note to the ballad of "The Souters of Selkirk" as to the destruc- 
 tion of that town by the English in no way affects my argument 
 that the Scottish Borders were not seriously ravaged by the 
 English after Flodden — that is to say, during the period between 
 the battle and the peace. 
 
 And yet after Flodden there was undeniably great trouble 
 throughout the length and breadth of the land. Now, why was 
 this if the loss at the battle was indeed insignificant, — if the tales 
 of devastation are really untrue ? The trouble was due not to 
 the loss of the battle but to the death of the king, with the con- 
 sequent result that the government was for many years in the 
 hands of hostile factions. Had the king lived, and had England 
 then refrained — as she did in fact refrain either through inability 
 or through political reasons — from following up her victory, James 
 would quickly have restored confidence to the country, have 
 quickly rallied his forces, and indeed quite possibly have effected 
 this during the very night after the fight, and have placed himself 
 once again in line with Home's Borderers, ready to resume the 
 battle next morning. But, on the other hand, had Flodden proved 
 the same barren victory to Scotland that in fact it had been to 
 England, and had the king fallen, the result to Scotland would 
 have been much what it really was — the reins of government
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 149 
 
 falling now into the hands of the queen, now into those of Albany. 
 Referring to this period, Pitscottie writes that King James IV. 
 had " brought his barons to such a point, through his wilful mis- 
 governance, that they were all cruelly murdered and slain," but 
 he says not a word indicative of misery having fallen upon the 
 people generally. Continuing, he relates that when Henry VIII. 
 heard of King James's death he gave "command to his nobles 
 and Borderers of England that none of them should pass in Scot- 
 land, . . . notwithstanding the Borderers of Scotland were ever 
 doing what they might " to raid the English Marches. " Yet soon 
 afterhend there came great trouble in Scotland among ourselves, — 
 partly for the authority who should be highest and have the realm 
 in government, and partly for old fead and slaughter, . . ." but 
 there is not a word regarding " trouble " caused to the population 
 by the English. 
 
 Again, Ridpath writes that "the state of Scotland in conse- 
 quence of the defeat at Flodden was deplorable," but this was not 
 by reason of losses suffered at the battle or of its effects, but 
 " because the king was an infant, about seventeen months old ; 
 and many of the heads of the principal families were either in 
 their nonage, like their sovereign, or in the period next to it — wild 
 and inexperienced youth." 
 
 The spirit in which the Scots entered into negotiations for 
 peace should not be passed by unnoticed. In April 1515 a treaty 
 was arranged between England and France, in which Scotland 
 was, as an ally of the latter, to be included, provided that after a 
 named date she should refrain from certain specified acts of hos- 
 tility. It was necessary, of course, for the French Government 
 to communicate the proposed terms of peace to the Scottish 
 Government, and to ask their acceptance of them. With this 
 object a letter was despatched to Scotland in May, which elicited
 
 ISO ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 a reply, signed by a large number of the Scottish nobility and 
 clergy, which is thus epitomised in Ridpath's ' Border History' : — 
 
 "They accepted and ratified the offered peace, moved thereto, as they 
 said, by the earnest solicitations of their ancient ally the French King, by 
 their regard to their Holy Father, Pope Leo, . . . and that it might appear 
 that the Scots could forgive their private injuries for the sake of bringing 
 about a general union of Christian potentates against the Turks. They 
 take notice, in this letter, of their late heavy misfortunes, known to all the 
 world ; but affirm that their successful conflicts since that time with their 
 enemies had taught them to entertain better hopes, and to repay the 
 damages they had sustained; adding, that at present, while the sense of 
 their sufferings was recent in their memories, and they had learned to 
 dread less the strength of their foes, it would not have been wonderful 
 if they, who had not hitherto thought even of a truce with their enemies, 
 should have refused the peace that was now offered them." 
 
 This same spirit is testified to in a letter, also quoted by 
 Ridpath, from the Duke of Albany to the King of Denmark. 
 The Duke writes 
 
 "that at his arrival in Scotland from France to assume the Regency, in 
 May 15 1 5, the nobles and common people of the Kingdom despised and 
 opposed a truce with the King of England, because they breathed after 
 either a revenge of their late misfortunes or death; that they had had 
 frequent and successful rencounters with the enemy ; had done more damage 
 to the English than they had received from them; and had with small 
 numbers resisted a proud and exulting enemy, altho' their king was a child, 
 the governor abroad, and a faction of the Queen opposed their proceedings 
 or divided their nation." 
 
 I have now concluded my sketch of the condition of the 
 Border country immediately after Flodden, and what I have 
 said may be briefly summed up thus: (i) Lord Home's division 
 of Borderers was not materially weakened by the battle, and 
 their morale is more likely to have been raised by their own
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 151 
 
 success than diminished by the calamity which befell the rest 
 of the army. After the battle the Borderers not only successfully 
 protected their country from English raids, but sent raids into 
 England. (2) The losses sustained by the Borderers at Flodden, 
 as well as the injuries committed by the English subsequently, 
 were insignificant, and afforded no cause for any general lamenta- 
 tion. (3) The general spirit of the people was adverse to peace, 
 a spirit which was engendered by their successes since their 
 defeat at Flodden. 
 
 But if this be a true picture of the times, whence arose 
 the conception common to us all, — the conception which is ob- 
 servable in every line that has been written, whether prose or 
 verse, regarding the tragedy of Flodden, and which is so beauti- 
 fully expressed in the words, " The Flowers of the Forest are 
 a' wede awae," and echoed again in " I've heard a lilting at 
 the ewe - milking," and once again in "I ride single on my 
 saddle," all of which lines belonged, so we are told, to an 
 ancient ballad sung to a beautiful tune relating to Flodden.-* 
 "Wail" is, perhaps, the word which best expresses the note 
 that is most observable in all writings on the subject ; it is a 
 word Sir Walter Scott uses in the concluding lines of his beauti- 
 ful description of the battle in "Marmion" — 
 
 "Tradition, legend, tune, and song, 
 Sliall many an age tliat wail prolong: 
 Still from the sire the son shall hear 
 Of the stern strife, and carnage drear 
 
 Of Flodden's fatal field, 
 Where shiver'd was fair Scotland's spear 
 
 And broken was her shield ! " 
 
 But how does it happen, if the conclusions above drawn are
 
 152 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 not outrageously false, that " tradition, legend, tune, and song " 
 should all bear this peculiar note of woe ? 
 
 I have already shown that in Lord Dacre's mind no thought 
 had arisen that 
 
 "shiver'd was fair Scotland's spear, 
 And broken was her shield ! " 
 
 I have shown that no such thought could have been present to 
 Lord Home and his victorious Borderers, and that it would 
 have been out of keeping not only with the true state of affairs 
 on the Borders, but with the spirit which animated the whole of 
 Scotland. The thought, then, did not originate until all sight 
 had been lost of the fact that though the commencement of the 
 war had been marked by disaster, its termination had been 
 equally marked by success — until, in short, an entirely wrong 
 impression of what had occurred had, for some reason or another, 
 taken hold of the public mind. Again, the traditionary wailings 
 originated probably at a time when the memory of the Scottish 
 successes after Flodden had been obliterated by the fearful ex- 
 cesses of the English soldiery under Hertford a generation later. 
 Then, indeed, good cause existed for woe and lamentation 
 throughout the land ; and I think that it is more probable that 
 any old tunes and songs bearing this peculiar note, which may 
 have come down to us from the olden times, should have re- 
 ferred rather to this later period than to that of Flodden. It is 
 indeed hardly possible to believe that the woe and misery caused 
 by these later wars should have remained unsung by the people, 
 that all memory of them should have passed away from their 
 children and their children's children, while "tradition, legend, 
 tune, and song" should continue to bewail calamities of a prior 
 date and of an infinitely less acute nature,— calamities, moreover,
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 153 
 
 which, if my view of the then condition of the Scottish Borders 
 be correct, must have been truly insignificant and more than 
 amply avenged for at the time. 
 
 That an ancient ballad referring to Flodden, and sung to 
 the tune entitled "The Flowers of the Forest," had in old days 
 been known in the Border country is mentioned by many writers 
 on the subject, — by Sarah Tytler in her ' Songstresses of Scot- 
 land,' by Professor Veitch in his ' History and Poetry of the 
 Scottish Border,' by the Hon. George Elliot in his ' Border 
 Elliots and the Family of Minto,' — but unfortunately they do not 
 mention any authority for the statement, probably conceiving it 
 to be a matter of common knowledge. But that it was not 
 common knowledge towards the end of the eighteenth century 
 is clear from the fact that even Sir Walter Scott did not know 
 that either the tune or certain lines — the three lines which have 
 already been quoted — now generally asserted to have belonged 
 to the " original ballad," were ancient, until so informed by 
 Dr Somerville. 
 
 That the belief in the existence in former times of this 
 old ballad is now general is probably due to the fact that in the 
 poem by Jean Elliot (daughter of the second Sir Gilbert Elliot 
 of Minto), entitled " The Flowers of the Forest," ^ two of the 
 lines referred to occur, both of which are older than the rest of 
 her poem, and one of them unquestionably belongs to a ballad 
 formerly sung to an old air. 
 
 When Jean Elliot's lyric first appeared, it was universally 
 assumed to be an original old ballad, " the manner of the ancient 
 minstrels being so happily imitated," said Sir Walter Scott, that 
 it required the most positive evidence to assure him that it was 
 
 ' For which see p. 166.
 
 154 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 of modern date. It was Dr Somerville, the minister of Minto 
 and intimate acquaintance of Jean Elliot, who produced this evi- 
 dence, and convinced him that the whole was entirely her own 
 composition with the exception of the two lines, " I've heard a 
 lilting at the ewe-milking " and " The Flowers of the Forest are 
 a' wede awae," which were, he said, "ancient" It is not clear 
 that Dr Somerville himself used this expression, but even if he 
 did, he may well have meant no more than that they were older 
 than the other lines. His communication to Sir Walter Scott 
 referred only to the one subject which he desired to make clear — 
 namely, that Jean Elliot was the author of the song. He cannot 
 therefore be claimed as an authority for the assertion that the 
 lines are " ancient " in the sense of their dating from a period 
 not remote from Flodden. It may be noticed that Sir Walter 
 does not even represent him as saying this, nor, indeed, that 
 the lines had any connection the one with the other. 
 
 Sir Walter Scott further mentions that "some years after 
 Jean Elliot's song was composed" — it was composed fifteen years 
 before Sir Walter was born, and forty-seven years before the 
 time of his writing — "a lady repeated to him another imperfect 
 line of the original ballad, which represents a simple and affect- 
 ing image to the mind — ' I ride single on my saddle.' " 
 
 It appears to be chiefly upon the above statements that later 
 writers have built the theory that there had formerly existed 
 an ancient ballad referring to Flodden to which the lines men- 
 tioned above belonged. They first jump to the conclusion that 
 the three lines are fragments of one and the same ballad, and 
 then that the said ballad was of " ancient " composition, and 
 then that it referred to Flodden. 
 
 Now, with regard to the first point, is it quite clear that
 
 RELATING TO FLOOD EN TRADITIONS. 155 
 
 the lines do belong to the same ballad ? Possibly they do, but 
 without some evidence — and none, so far as I know, exists — it 
 is rather difficult to think that the lines, " I've heard a lilting 
 at the ewe-milking " and " I ride single on my saddle," belong 
 to the same song. 
 
 Then as to the second point — are they ancient ? Professor 
 Veitch says definitely that they — all three — are fragments of a 
 song as old as about the date of the battle of Flodden, but he 
 quotes no authority for this bold statement, nor does he give 
 any reason in favour of it. And yet the lines do not sound so 
 old ; there is a something in them — a pathos, a symbolism — not 
 observable in old Border verse. On this point Professor Veitch 
 himself, in another part of his delightful work where he is referring 
 to old Border poetry generally, writes: "We have but few traces 
 in the old Border poetry, or ballad minstrelsy in general, of a 
 direct feeling for nature in its softer or more beautiful side. . . . 
 And of nature as the symbolism of human life we have no trace 
 whatever." 
 
 It should also be noticed that no such song is to be found 
 in the list of " sum of the sweit sangs " — thirty-eight are given — 
 in 'The Complaynt of Scotland' (1549). Now, if the author 
 of this work was, as has been confidently stated,^ a Scottish 
 Borderer, the omission of one, and particularly of one so beautiful 
 as this is alleged to have been, relating to the condition of the 
 Border land after Flodden, is so remarkable as to be easiest 
 explained by its non-existence. 
 
 With reference to the third point — namely, that the supposi- 
 titious ballad referred to Flodden, — it should be remembered that 
 popular songs relating to actual events are almost certain to have 
 been composed immediately or very soon after these occurred. 
 
 ' 'A Literary History of Scotland,' by J. H. Millar (1903).
 
 156 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 Yet in this instance no such ballad is heard of for more than a 
 hundred years after the battle of Flodden, the earliest known 
 mention of "The Flowers of the Forest" occurring, I believe, 
 in " the Skene Manuscript," a collection of ancient Scottish 
 melodies by Sir John Skene of Hallyards, compiled between 
 1615 and 1620. 
 
 The belief, then, that the old ballad referred to Flodden 
 appears to be of modern growth, and probably arose subsequent 
 to the publication of Jean Elliot's verses, which are doubtless 
 responsible for the difficulty we now find in connecting the words 
 " The Flowers of the Forest are a' wede awae " with any subject 
 other than Flodden. 
 
 As bearing upon this, a tradition may be mentioned, related 
 by Sarah Tytler in her ' Songstresses of Scotland,' regarding the 
 occasion which gave cause to the composition by Alison Ruther- 
 ford (Mrs Cockburn) of the very beautiful song also entitled "The 
 Flowers of the Forest," and which is, or at all events was, very 
 commonly believed to refer to Flodden. Sir Walter Scott, how- 
 ever, who was an intimate friend of the authoress, states that it 
 was written without any relation to that event, and in this Sarah 
 Tytler fully bears him out. The tradition runs thus : — 
 
 " A gentleman, passing down one of the remoter glens round Fairnalee 
 (Alison Rutherford's home on the Tweed), heard a solitary shepherd, on 
 the lea, play on the flute a plaintive air, which struck the stranger's fancy. 
 He asked the name of the air, and found that it was ' The Flowers of the 
 Forest.' Having sufficient skill to catch the air by hearing it played several 
 times, the gentleman repeated it to Alison Rutherford, and begged her to 
 write a copy of verse to suit it. She recognised the air, and recalled a 
 few lines of the old ballad ; and, in compliance with the gentleman's entreaty, 
 produced her ' Flowers of the Forest' " 
 
 So here then is a lady, a native of the Forest, and full, 
 doubtless, of Forest lore, who, on being asked to write verses
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 157 
 
 suitable to the old tune and in harmony with the words " The 
 Flowers of the Forest are a' wede awae," — words which she re- 
 called as belonging to the old ballad sung to the old tune, and 
 which ballad we are now told was a wail over Flodden, — composed 
 lines " without peculiar relation to any event " ! — lines, moreover, 
 of exquisite beauty, and well worthy of the theme which has falsely 
 been attributed to them. This is surely inconceivable, except on 
 the hypothesis that neither tune nor lines conveyed to her mind 
 a thought of Flodden. 
 
 Though her song was written some twelve or thirteen years 
 before Jean Elliot wrote hers, it was not made public till later. 
 Had it been published first, the idea of connecting it with Flodden 
 would not, I think, have occurred to any one. 
 
 The truth appears to be that both Alison Rutherford and 
 Jean Elliot utilised the few lines each could remember of this 
 old ballad to suit her own subject, and that the latter's subject 
 happened to be the battle of Flodden was purely accidental. It 
 came about in this manner. One evening in 1756 she and her 
 brother. Sir Gilbert Elliot, were driving home to Minto, when, 
 the conversation turning on the battle of Flodden, he remarked 
 what a fine theme it would be for a poet. It is said that he laid 
 her a wager of a pair of gloves that she could not write a ballad 
 or song upon it, and that she then sat back in the corner of the 
 carriage and composed the well-known verses before reaching 
 home. 
 
 There is yet another Border ballad, or portion of one, claim- 
 ing to be of ancient composition and to refer to Flodden — namely, 
 "The Souters of Selkirk."^ The verses so entitled, numbering 
 only three, are held by the citizens of Selkirk as unquestionably 
 
 ' For which see p. 164.
 
 iSS ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 relating to the gallant behaviour of their ancestors at Flodden 
 field. Tradition tells us that these numbered 80 or 100 men, 
 and that the king was so pleased with their appearance that he 
 knighted their leader, William Brydone, the town -clerk. Nearly 
 all are said to have been left dead on the field, but the few who 
 returned to Selkirk brought with them a flag taken from the 
 English. While the details of this story may well be questioned, 
 I do not see any reason to doubt the essential part of it — namely, 
 that the Selkirk men gallantly captured a flag from the English 
 at Flodden. They belonged to the one Scottish division which 
 had gained any success that day, and there is nothing improbable 
 in their having taken a colour. But granting this, where does 
 the connection lie between the verses and the tradition ? I can 
 see none. Sir Walter Scott, in the Minstrelsy, inclines, I should 
 say, on the whole, to the view that the lines refer to Flodden, 
 but he quotes Mr Robertson, the author of the " Statistical Account 
 of the Parish of Selkirk," as an authority for a different opinion. 
 Mr Robertson asserts that the lines referred to a football match 
 between the Souters of Selkirk and the men of Home, in which 
 the former completely gained the victory. 
 
 On the other hand, Mr Plummer, who was sheriff-depute of 
 Selkirk and a well-known antiquarian, contradicts this statement 
 of Mr Robertson's, and says, " There is every reason to believe 
 that they [the verses] allude to Flodden." The important point 
 to notice, however, is that both these champions of antagonistic 
 views are agreed that the verses are not " ancient " ; but if not 
 ancient — that is to say, if not composed shortly after the battle — 
 they lose absolutely all interest. 
 
 There is, indeed, a difficulty in believing them to be ancient 
 in this sense : it is difficult to believe that lines, of which the 
 predominant note is one jubilant of victory, could have been com-
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 159 
 
 posed in relation to, and shortly after, the greatest calamity that 
 has ever befallen our country, and it is even more incredible that 
 they should have become popular. 
 
 It should be remembered that Lord Home did not command 
 merely the men of the Merse, but the Borderers generally, in- 
 cluding presumably the men of the Forest, — indeed if the latter 
 captured an English flag, it proves that they served with the one 
 victorious Scottish division, Lord Home's, — and therefore until 
 this fact had been lost sight of, until Lord Home had become 
 identified solely with the men of the Merse, it seems unlikely 
 that a song should have been composed anywhere on the Borders 
 throwing discredit on the part their own division had played in 
 the battle, a part which I have already pointed out was quite 
 the reverse of discreditable. Indeed, if we accept the view that 
 these verses do in fact refer to Flodden, it will be reasonable, as 
 well as more agreeable, to think that they cannot have been com- 
 posed until the sense of a great national misfortune and danger 
 had passed away from the men of the Forest, and had given place 
 to a local feeling of justifiable pride in the deeds of their own 
 ancestors. If this was indeed the case, however, it is nevertheless 
 to be regretted that the expression of this feeling, most laudable 
 in itself, should have included a sneer at the men of the Merse, 
 who had stood shoulder to shoulder with their fellow- Borderers 
 on the day of battle. 
 
 The next ballad or song, taken chronologically, alluding to 
 Flodden is Jean Elliot's. The occasion which gave rise to its 
 composition has already been mentioned, and there is no need 
 to say more regarding it except to recall the fact that it was not 
 written till two and a half centuries had passed since the battle, 
 and that, therefore, its interest to us lies solely in its intrinsic
 
 i6o ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 beauty. But it was not its beauty, but a mistaken belief in its 
 being ancient, that appears first to have awakened interest in 
 the general public. Why this should have been so is not very 
 evident, for although Sir Walter Scott declared it to be an ex- 
 cellent "imitation of the manner of the ancient minstrels," it 
 would be difficult to name any ballad composed in the early part 
 of the sixteenth century at all resembling it. The truth is, that 
 Sir Walter was as inclined to see antiquity in every rhyme re- 
 lating to the olden time as he was to see — so the Ettrick Shepherd 
 tells us — a gallant helmet in every broken pot, — 
 
 " One broken pot alone was found 
 Deep in the rubbish under ground, 
 In middle of the ancient fane, 
 ' A gallant helmet split in twain ! ' 
 The truth was obvious ; but in faith 
 On you all words were waste of breath." 
 
 But, to my mind, admiration is due less to the excellence of 
 the imitation — if, indeed, it is an imitation at all — than to the 
 completeness with which the authoress disconnected herself from 
 the present and knitted herself in spirit to the past, so as to 
 seem to hear with her very ears the wailings and lamentations 
 of a stricken people, to see with her very eyes the desolation of 
 the land, and then in exquisitely simple homely words to fix 
 for ever the picture of her dream. 
 
 About half a century after Jean Elliot's song was composed 
 a long string of very poor verses was written, which have ever 
 since been sung annually at Hawick on the occasion known as 
 " The Common Riding." But though these songs are modern, 
 they have, possibly, been founded on older verses, and these 
 again on others still older. The ancient and, probably, uncouth
 
 RELATING TO FLO D DEN TRADITIONS. iGi 
 
 rhymes may well have met with a fate similar to that which 
 befell the pennon, and have been thrown away as "altogether 
 useless," ^ being replaced by newer ones shaped to the taste of 
 a tasteless day. This thought has doubtless occurred to many 
 who have read the "Mounting Song" by Arthur Balbirnie and 
 " The Colour " by James Hogg. Balbirnie was not a native of 
 Hawick, but resided there at the end of the eighteenth century. 
 Hogg was a native of Hawick : he was born there in 1 780, and 
 died there in 1S38. The two songs, therefore, must have been 
 written at much the same period. Now, in both are lines of a 
 marked resemblance ; for instance, in Balbirnie's song occurs the 
 
 line — 
 
 " Up wi' a' the Border bowmen," 
 
 and in Hogg's — 
 
 " Imitating Border bowmen." 
 
 Again, in the former are the lines — 
 
 " Our ancestors of martial order, 
 To drive the English o'er the Border," 
 
 and in the latter are the lines — 
 
 "Off they ni.Trclied in martial order, 
 Down by 'I'eviot's flowery border.'' 
 
 And again, the one has — 
 
 ■' U]) wi' Hawick's richts and Common," 
 
 and the other has — 
 
 " Aye defend your rights and Common." 
 
 ' Kxtrnct iVom the Hawick Council pencil should be bought, ... in respect 
 
 Records: "1707, May 9. The said day that the old ane was altogether torn and 
 
 the Pi.Tilies and Council did unanimously useless, and to that effect to U|)lift and 
 
 agree that ane new colour, standard, or take of the readiest burgess money."
 
 ,62 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 Similarities such as these can hardly be explained by the sugges- 
 tion that the later writer, presumably Hogg, was guilty of 
 plagiarism. Common as this offence may be, it is usually more 
 or less wrapped up, and it is difficult to believe that in such a 
 small community as that of Hawick, in the early years of last 
 century, one versifier should have ventured to insert into his 
 song lines written only a few years previously in the same town 
 by another. It seems, then, to be very fairly certain that the lines 
 I have quoted must have been suggested to both Balbirnie and 
 Hogg by words they were acquainted with belonging to some 
 old song. 
 
 That the original pennon to which reference has already 
 been made was taken in gallant fight shortly after the battle of 
 Flodden is surely unquestionable ; that it, or its copy, has been 
 carried round the Town Marches annually since then is also, I 
 believe, unquestionable ; and that this ceremony should have been 
 accompanied from the earliest days by triumphant song is almost 
 certain, — and hence it appears to me that there can be no doubt 
 that the Common Riding songs of to-day are lineally descended, 
 so to speak, from their old forebears of Flodden days, — and mark, 
 though the flesh is new, that the spirit is old. Although the 
 words are new, and give expression to a belief which I am sure 
 has grown up long since the time of Flodden, — I refer to the lines 
 descriptive of the laying waste of the Scottish Borders by the 
 English troops, — yet there exists in them a spirit which, if the 
 view I have expressed of the ability of the Borderers to repel 
 invasion at that time be correct, one would expect to find. The 
 spirit certainly differs essentially from that contained in the wails 
 usually associated with "tradition, legend, tune, and song" re- 
 lating to b'lodden. Read the Mounting Song. There is no note
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 163 
 
 of woe and lamentation there. On the contrary, the verses 
 recall to the memory of the people their successes, recall the fact 
 
 that their 
 
 " ancestors of martial order 
 Drove the English o'er the Border," 
 
 and exhort them, even after defeat, to stand steady in defence of 
 their rights and to face the foe like men. 
 
 This paper would hardly be complete were no reference made 
 in it to Leyden's well-known stanzas. I shall, however, only remark 
 upon these that they seem to reflect the true old Border spirit — and 
 long may it flourish ! — of vengeance on their enemies. He appears 
 to regret the hitherto prevailing note of woe when he writes — 
 
 " Alas ! that Scottish maid should sing 
 The combat where her lover fell ! 
 That Scottish bard should wake the string, 
 The triumph of her foes to tell ! " 
 
 — preferring rather, for himself, to sing of 
 
 " Rude Border chiefs, of mighty name 
 And iron soul, who sternly tore 
 The blossoms from the tree of fame, 
 
 And purpled deep their tints with gore," 
 
 and finally to exhort us to lament no more, — 
 
 " Lament no more the warrior's doom ! 
 Blood, blood alone, should dew the hero's tomb 
 Who falls, 'mid circling spears, to save his native land." 
 
 ■•^f
 
 i64 ON BORDER VERSE 
 
 THE SOUTERS OF SELKIRK. 
 
 {From the ' Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border'.^ 
 
 Ul' vvi' the Souters o' Selkirk, 
 And doun wi' the Earl of Home ; 
 
 And up wi' a' the braw lads, 
 That sew the singlc-soled shoon. 
 
 l'"yo upon yellow and yellow, 
 
 And fye upon yellow and green, 
 But up wi' the true blue and scarlet, 
 
 And up wi' the singlc-soled sheen. 
 
 Up wi' the Souters o' Selkirk, 
 
 For they are baith trusty and leal ; 
 
 And up wi' the men o' the Forest, 
 And doun wi' the Merse to the deil. 
 
 The colours mentioned in the beginning of the second verse 
 are those of the House of Home. 
 
 One of the objections advanced to the belief in the antiquity of 
 the above verses is the reference to " the Earl of Home," for the 
 earldom was not created till a century after Flodden. With refer- 
 ence to this Aytoun published, in his ' Ballads of Scotland,' a version 
 which had appeared in 'Johnson's Musical Museum,' and wrote as 
 follows : " But if the version given in the notes to ' Johnson's Musical 
 Museum ' is the correct one (as the editor of that work, who was 
 born and educated in the neighbourhood of Selkirk, positively asserts 
 to be the case), there can be no room for doubt. He says, ' The 
 words, as well as the simple air of the ballad, both of which have
 
 RELATING TO FLODDEN TRADITIONS. 165 
 
 been shockingly mutilated and corrupted, are here restored, as the 
 editor heard them sung and played, by the Border musicians, in his 
 younger days. The version is certainly very spirited, and much 
 superior to that which is commonly printed." 
 
 " Up wi' the Souters o' Selkirk, 
 
 And down wi' the fazart lord Home ! 
 But up wi' ilka braw callant 
 
 That sews the single-soled shoon ; 
 And up wi' the lads o' the Forest 
 
 That ne'er to the Southron wad yield ; 
 But deil scoup o' Home and his menzie. 
 
 That stude abeigh on the field ! 
 
 Fye ! on the green and the yellow, 
 
 The craw-hearted loons o' the Merse ; 
 But here's to the Souters o' Selkirk, 
 
 The elshin, the lingle, and birse. 
 Then up wi' the Souters o' Selkirk, 
 
 For they are baith trusty and leal ; 
 And up wi' the lads o' the Forest, 
 
 And down wi' the Merse to the deil ! " 
 
 The elshin, &c., are implements of the Souters' craft. 
 
 With reference to this version I shall merely remark tiiat it is 
 desirable to look upon all "restorations" with extreme caution, more 
 especially when they overcome difficulties pointed out as occurring 
 in versions previously accepted as original. My knowledge of human 
 nature, I fear, also tells me that the expression "fazart lord Home" 
 is not likely to have been corrupted into "the Earl of Home" ; the 
 reverse is not so improbable. 
 
 Of the two versions, the one published in the Minstrelsy has, 
 to my ear, the older ring.
 
 166 BORDER VERSE RELATING TO FLOOD EN TRADITIONS. 
 THE FLOWERS OF THE FOREST. 
 
 {From a AIS. copy at Alinto.) 
 
 [The authoress, Jean Elliot, was the daughter of the second Sir Gilbert Elliot 
 of Miiito (Lord Justice-Clerk). She was born at Minto in 1727, and died 
 at Monteviot in 1S05. She was buried at Minto.] 
 
 I. 
 
 I've heard a lilting at the ewe-milking. 
 
 Lasses a-lilting before dawn of day. 
 But now there's a moaning on ilka green loaning, 
 
 The Flowers of the Poorest are weeded away. 
 At bughts in the morning nae shepherds are scorning, 
 
 Lasses are lonely and dowie and wae; 
 Nae daffin', nae gabbin', but sighin' and sabbin', 
 
 Ilk ane lifts her leglin and hies her away. 
 
 II. 
 
 In hairst at the shearing nae blythe lads are jeering, 
 
 Ban'stcrs arc wrinkled and lyart and grey ; 
 At fair or at preaching, nae wooing, nae fleeching, 
 
 The Flowers of the Forest are weeded away. 
 At e'en in the gloamin' nae youngsters are roamin' 
 
 'Bout stacks with the lasses at bogle to play. 
 But ilk maid sits dreary, lamenting her deary, — 
 
 The Flowers of the Forest are weeded away. 
 
 III. 
 
 Dool and wae was the order sent our lads to the Border, 
 
 The English for ance by guile won the day ; 
 The Flowers of the Forest, that aye fought the foremost. 
 
 The prime of our land, arc cauld in the clay. 
 We'll hear nae mair lilting at the ewe-milking. 
 
 Women and bairns are heartless and wae, 
 Sighing and moaning on ilka green loaning, — 
 
 The Flowers of the Forest are weeded away.
 
 PRINTFD PV WtlllAM PI ACKWOOn AND SONS
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388 
 
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 
 
 Return tliis material to the library from which it was borrowed. 
 
 1
 
 UU0 455 017 4 
 
 nn'n "'^'n''>!"'iiiii!iiiiiiiii 
 
 CALIFORNIA 
 
 L 
 
 GELES 
 LIBRARY