Researching our family history and the subtleties and nuances behind it, is both time consuming and exciting. There is a well known 28 year border feud between the Hatfields and McCoys along the West Virginia – Kentucky border between 1863 and 1891, but it doesnt even come close to the one in the Anglo-Scottish border region of the West March. That of the feud between the families of Johnston and Maxwell.
These were two families who were competing for power, land and dominance in the 16th century. At the time Maxwell dominated the lower Annandale and Johnston upper Annandale, with the border between them fiercely contested. This put Carruthers in a difficult position,as our estates sat in the central Annandale valley exactly between these clans. We had Hoddom/Caerlaverock, i.e. Maxwell in the South, and the power base of Johnston located in the north in Lockwood and Lockerbie.
This was a time when border law, feudal loyalty and loyalty to a family superseded that of any monarch or judiciary outside the border code, where they vehemently followed ‘an eye for an eye‘ form of justice. But what made our chosen allegiance stand, one over the other?
Mist of time
The beginnings of the hostilities between Johnston and Maxwell are lost in the mists of time, some say going back to the early 1400’s. However, there is solid reference of the hostilities between these two families to the early 1500’s, culminating in the battle of Dryffe Sands in 1593 and beyond. It was this battle, an ambush by the Johnstons (600-800 men) on the Maxwells (1500-2000 men) that saw the progressive demise of the Maxwell power in the area and the rise of of the Johnstons who were to become themselves, Lords of Annandale.
This conflict was no simple tit for tat, this was down and out hatred and a genuine attempt by both families to commit genocide on the other and, as always was the case in medieval Scotland, religion may have played its part. During the reformation, whereby Scotland broke away from the Roman Catholic Church to form the Protestant Church of Scotland, the Maxwells retained strong allegiance to the papacy in Rome, while the Johnstons were strong in their Protestant beliefs.
It is said that this very personal conflict lasted over 100 years, leading to much violence and death to both families and devastation to their lands. However, during the Pacification of Perth in 1573, the Lord Maxwell at the time and Sir James Johnston of that Ilk entered a bond of amity while George 6th of Holmains, acted as a witness. This treaty was not specific to these families but had within it a wider remit as will be shown later. It was in full an attempt to end any conflict between the Catholic supporters of Mary, Queen of Scots and the Protestant Lords, who forced her abdication in favour of James VI.
This treaty did three things, it ended any possibility of Mary returning to the Scottish throne, it pacified and offered the Catholic Lords a full pardon and a return of their lands, and further and very importantly for the future of the country, it reinforced the position of the post reformation Protestant church in Scotland. (It was because of the reformation that the celebration of Christmas was banned in Scotland. It only became recognised as a national holiday in 1958)
Sadly, the hatred between these two border families was hard to extinguish and a further attempt at reconciliation in 1608 ended violently. It was here that Lord Maxwell shot Sir James Johnstone leading to Maxwell’s eventual execution for treason in 1613. What did finally bring to an end this infamous feud was the progressive decline of the old reiving ways, brought to the fore during the period of Union of the Crowns. It was this, rather than mutual agreement that led to pacification over time.
But what role did Carruthers play in this?
Border life was intricate in its functionality. It was built on its own laws of honour, loyalty, family and basic survival. Carruthers were not a large family, but large enough to be noticed and offer support, but not large enough to raise armies or hold the office of high nobility. As such they were politically astute in their decisions which, like the direction of other border families, could change depending on the situation presented to them. This was especially true for us as our lands sat squarely between two intense warring factions. The proof is in the pudding as they say, as unlike some families of the border whose name, power and influence waned and disappeared with time, Carruthers of Holmains’ lost their lands through bad fiscal management and the financial disaster in 1772 of the Ayr Bank (Douglas, Heron & Company) rather than intrique and conflict.
Why Maxwell?
Allegiances were never simple in the borders and although we talk of loyalty within families, murder, violence and destruction of property occurred even between cadets and in fact within the same house, although not necessarily the norm. External alliances were of course far more complicated but were governed by one thing, survival.
If support was based on close family ties alone, we know that there were some intermarriages between Carruthers and Johnston, but not a lot of evidence of strong marital ties with the Maxwells? Nevertheless, there is evidence of the Holmains line marrying into families, which like themselves, came under the feudal lordship of Clan Maxwell. Those were in many cases not necessarily based on love but designed to augment stronger family ties to the feudal lords, even when the bride was not herself of for instance, a Maxwell by name.
Further as Foresters, Bailies, Local Officers and Keepers of Church and Hospitaller lands under the feudal system, Carruthers historically came under the robust authority of the feudal Lords at the time. During the feud, this was to be the Maxwells.
In 1544 when the English constable John Musgrave of Bewcastle was captured by a group of Bells and Irvings under the control of Holmains, which was led by David Irving of Trailtrow, the Constable was delivered to the Holmains keep. David Irving was a servant of Holmains and reported along with his captive, back to his feudal superior. Bewcastle himself, was eventually moved from Holmains to Lochmaben Castle by Robert Maxwell, eldest son of the 5th Lord Maxwell, who was Warden of the West March at the time and the feudal superiors to Carruthers. This is simply how things worked.
When the Maxwells are in fact mentioned in the ‘Records of the Carruthers Family‘, they appear as feudal lords, protectors, or allies and are not directly named as relations. So, a simple family tie was not the initiator of any loyalty in this particular instance. Looking deeper into it, the link couldn’t have been based on religion either i.e. Catholic supporting Catholic, as although some Carruthers had retained Catholicism, it seems the majority followed the Protestant church.
‘Records’ do confirm that there was a close relationship between both families by stating ‘so close was the connection between the Earl (Maxwell) and the Laird of Holmains that George (6th of Holmains) is described as Captain of Threave Castle‘, which was under the Maxwells at the time. George’s son, Charles was a Coronet in the mounted garrison during this period and rode with his father in support of Maxwell.
Therefore what was this connection to Maxwell? Was the link between those two families far more involved and included marital allegiances (the old Scottish term of ‘cockinecitness’ springs to mind), intertwined with feudal responsibility and possibly even instructions from the monarch themselves. It is obvious that the Carruthers – Maxwell link was seen as being necessary for the preservation and safety of that part of the border. This was a known major factor as Carruthers at the time were recorded as being subject to continual feudal military service in its defence.
Although directions from the Monarch did carry weight, based on the intricacies of the border way of life, these families were still a law unto themselves. As such the wishes of the crown could be ignored at will and again shows the Carruthers loyalty. The case of the Maxwell ‘deposition’ of the monarch’s favourite James Hamilton, Earl of Arran’ in 1585, springs to mind. Lord Maxwell, in support of the ‘Ruthven Lords’ was assisted by a troop of cavalry led by George Carruthers 6th of Holmains. (The Ruthven Lords were protestant nobles who were opposed to the Catholic Arran and became dominant in the government of James VI).
These troops under George 6th of Holmains helped in a large part, in the capture of James Hamilton and the stripping of his offices and power. All parties involved however, obtained remission for this action from the Crown as well as other actions, as previously mentioned, under the Act of Parliament known as the Pacification of Perth. The support of the Ruthven Lords only strengthened Maxwell’s power base in Annandale, and as such further intensified the Johnston-Maxwell feud.
Our family obviously also acted as ‘buffer lords’ between the lands of Maxwell and Johnston and had to make careful decisions which occasionally may have involved neutrality and even administrative usefulness, although they clearly stood militarily in many instances with the Maxwell family. It can also be suggested that the supply of food, passage and intelligence possibly offered to both sides (through the house of Dormont to the Johnstons), and their use of diplomacy when required, further ensured their personal survival while other larger houses in the region did not.
Although great supporters of Maxwell, there is no evidence that we were at the decisive battle of Dryffe Sands, which was to be disastrous to the Maxwell family and saw the beginning of the ascendancy of the Johnston clan in the area.
Was this decision by accident or design? Either way, it will have saved many Carruthers lives and possibly affected our future existance.
The way of life in the border during the 13th to the 17th centuries was an intricate weave of politics, loyalty and family ties.
The Carruthers support of Maxwell, is a typical example. We were protestants in the main, yet supported our Catholic feudal Lords, we were intermarried with the Johnstons but on the norm did not offer them allegiance in their feud, although Dormont did offer occasional support. We were loyal to the Crown, fighting on its side in many battles when called upon to do so, yet chose to stand against it when politics and feudal loyalty dictated. The support may have simply been based on the hand of ongoing friendship, and in those days, that may have been enough.
This was a tumultuous time when astute leadership was required but with hind sight not always given. However, looking back, we were a family that did make a difference, we held high rank but not high nobility, we were highly respected but not always leaders, we made decisions that helped and augmented change and although not necessarily initiating it, we were always integral to it, it seems.
The decisions made by our ancestors, whether good or bad and whether explainable or not, have given us the history and heritage which has allowed us to achieve what we have to date, and we remain thankful for that. As always, interesting times, many of which long gone.
Promptus et Fidelis