The History Of Scotland - Volume 2: From The Death Of Wallace To James III. E-Book

Andrew Lang

• Herausgeber: Jazzybee Verlag
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Seitenzahl: 372

Beschreibung

This is volume 2, covering the time from the death of Wallace to James III. In many volumes of several thousand combined pages the series "The History of Scotland" deals with something less than two millenniums of Scottish history. Every single volume covers a certain period in an attempt to examine the elements and forces which were imperative to the making of the Scottish people, and to record the more important events of that time.

Leseprobe

The History Of Scotland – Volume 2

From The Death Of Wallace To James III.

Andrew Lang

Contents:

To The Death Of Wallace.

The Wars Of Bruce.

The Reign Of David

The Early Stuart Kings.

James I.

The Conflict With The Nobles -  James II. – James III.

THE HISTORY OF SCOTLAND – VOLUME 2, Andrew Lang

 Jazzybee Verlag Jürgen Beck

86450 Altenmünster, Loschberg 9

Germany

ISBN: 9783849604622

www.jazzybee-verlag.de

[email protected]

TO THE DEATH OF WALLACE.

THE death of Alexander III. left Scotland under the curse, " Woe to the kingdom whose king is a child." Queen Margaret, the accepted heiress of the crown, was an infant in " Noroway over the faem," separated from her own country by dangerous seas. Men therefore looked at once to Edward on Alexander's death. The Bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow, in the names of all present at the king's funeral, sent to the English king two priests with a secret verbal message. Six custodians of the realm were appointed the Bishop of St. Andrews (Frazer), the Earl of Fife, and the Earl of Buchan (Alexander Comyn), the Lord of Badenoch (John Comyn), the Bishop of Glasgow (Wishart), and James the Steward. Three took charge north and three south of Forth. The distinction nay, enmity between the Scots north of the Scots water and the English subjects of Scotland south of the Scots water still existed. Of this a curious proof may be given. In 1296, the burghers of Stirling appended the common seal of the burgh to the record of their oaths extorted by Edward I. The seal represents the stone bridge over Forth. There is a crucifix in the centre, like La Belle Croix on Orleans Bridge (1429). On our right, men with spears aim them at men with bows on our left. Above the spearmen we read, Hie armis bruti Scoti stant; above the bowmen, Hie cruce tuti. Thus the bruti Scoti (" Hieland brutes") are distinguished from their neighbours and foes, the Christians south of Forth. Such was the temper of the disunited realm! Five of the Guardians, including the Steward (Fitz-Alan), appear to have been of Norman lineage. These Normans were in a sense the making, in a sense the curse, of Scotland. Lords of Anglo-Norman descent, even when they had a strain of Celtic blood through heiresses, lords holding lands " in England and in Scotland both," could have little or no " national sentiment." " Patriotism " must inevitably be a meaningless word to them. The prelates, on the other hand, had a definite interest in maintaining the independence of the Scottish Church. The commons, we may be sure, had no love of more Norman masters or of cruel English laws.

Thus the coming resistance to England was essentially a popular and clerical movement, at the head of which, later, the Anglo-Norman Bruce only placed himself in stress of personal danger. The succession was not likely to be undisputed. The Council of Regency already described had been appointed at Scone on April 1, 1286. Within six months a group of nobles met at Bruce's castle of Turnbery in Carrick the place at which, later, the tide of Robert Bruce's fortunes turned and entered into a " band " to support each other, "saving their fealty to the King of England and the person who shall obtain the Scottish kingdom being of the blood of Alexander III., and according to the ancient customs of Scotland." This phrase appears to contemplate some other successor than the Maid of Norway some successor elected in accordance with " ancient Scottish customs." The nobles who made this band were Patrick, Earl of Dunbar, and his sons (House of Cospatric); Walter Stewart, Earl of Menteith; Bruce, Earl of Annandale, and his son, the Earl of Carrick; James, the Steward of Scotland (Senescallus), son-in-law of the Earl of Dunbar; Angus Mor Macdonald of the Isles, with Alexander, his son; Richard de Burgh, Earl of Ulster; and Thomas de Clare, brother of the Earl of Gloucester, a nephew of the wife of Bruce. This band can only have been meant to support the claims of Bruce, who clearly contemplated an appeal to arms, and regarded himself, for reasons to be assigned later, as "of the blood of Alexander III." and also as heir "according to the ancient customs of Scotland." His party was of great and manifest strength.

Thus Margaret's accession, despite the oath to accept her, was not undisputed. In John Balliol's plea for the crown later, he alleges that Bruce and his son, the Earl of Carrick, attacked the castle of Dumfries and expelled the royal forces, also attacking the " chastel de Bot . . " Botil or Buittle apparently Balliol's own hold. Bruce was pushing his claims by force: what they were we shall see later. He tried to override the decision of the meeting at Scone.

The parties of Bruce and Balliol were obviously at open feud for two years. Scotland, in 1289, was thus on the verge of anarchy and civil war. This was Edward's opportunity. Had he believed in his own claims he ought, as a matter of right, to have administered Scotland as a fief during Margaret's minority. This he did not attempt. His first idea, like that of Henry VIII. on the death of James V., was to procure a marriage between his son (later, Edward II.) and the infant Queen of Scotland, then in Norway. He sent to the Pope for a dispensation, the parties being cousins-german. There seemed no better solution of the difficulties; and Edward had not, like Henry VIII., been constantly bullying Scotland and tampering with traitors. Before an answer to the request for a papal dispensation had been received, and before Edward's idea was made public, Eric of Norway, who owed Edward money, sent plenipotentiaries in the interests of his daughter, the infant queen. At Edward's request three of the Scottish Guardians Frazer, Wishart, and Comyn with Robert Bruce (father of the Earl of Carrick), went to Salisbury to meet the Norwegians and four English commissioners. The Scots were to negotiate, "saving always in all things the liberty and honour of Scotland," and "without prejudice." In the meeting at Salisbury (November 6) it was decided that the queen should be carried to Scotland or England: if to England, Edward was to deliver her to the Scots if Scotland was peaceful; and that it should be peaceful the Scots promised.

Now the news of the Papal dispensation (granted on November 16) arrived; the Guardians met at Birgham, and welcomed the glad intelligence in a letter purporting to convey the felicitation of " the whole community." They also asked Eric to send the queen his daughter to England for the marriage. There were delays, but on July 18, 1290, a treaty was concluded at Birgham. It was agreed (1) That the rights, laws, liberties, and customs of Scotland should remain for ever inviolable, . . . saving always the rights of the King of England, which belonged, or ought to belong, to him. This was Edward's invariable loophole; he used it, in the matter of the Forest Laws, against his English subjects, to their indignation. (2) Failing Prince Edward and Margaret, or either of them, and in the case of failure of offspring, and in any case whereby the kingdom should revert lawfully to the next heirs, " wholly, freely, absolutely, and without any subjection, it shall be restored to them, if perchance the kingdom of Scotland comes into the hands of our king or his heirs, nothing by this provision being taken from, or added to, what the king possesses. The kingdom shall remain separate, divided, free in itself, without subjection, as it has hitherto been, still saving the right of our own king." No Parliament is to be held on Scottish affairs beyond the marches. There are many other provisions, such as a separate Great Seal, always to be held by a Scot. No native of Scotland shall be compelled to answer at law out of the kingdom. But the phrase " saving the right of our king " really seems to leave the whole question as to what that right "is or may be " uncomfortably open. So it seems to a layman, but the attorney-like Edward later made all secure by causing Balliol to cancel this treaty.

A recent writer, Mr. Hume Brown, justly remarks, " In the number and precision of its clauses, the marriage treaty bears signal testimony to the sensitive patriotism of the Scots." It does, indeed, but of what Scots? As we shall presently see, the nobles, men of mixed blood, and often holding lands north and south of Tweed, were nothing less than patriotic. No more patriotic were the Celts, some of them presently to be the waged men of Edward. The burgesses and commons, patriotic enough, cannot have dictated the terms of the Treaty of Birgham. Who did draw up the treaty? " The Churchmen had almost a monopoly of legal learning." "The Churchmen were the educated class." The Churchmen were united, and always had been united, in resistance to England, unless Frazer of St. Andrews is an exception. Others fell off, on occasion, in times to come. Thus we explain the " sensitive patriotism " of the treaty, in contrast with the reckless self-seeking of the nobles. The clergy saved Scotland's freedom. They later preached for it, spent for it, died for it on the gibbet, and imperilled for it their immortal souls, as we shall see, by frequent and desperate perjuries. Without them Bruce must have warred in vain. Scottish independence was, in part, the gift of "Baal's shaven sort," Knox's "fiends" (friars), and " bloudie bishops." Times were to alter, creeds were to change, but we must not forget these unequalled services of the Churchmen to the national cause.

Scotland, peers, bishops, barons, and " all the community," accepted the treaty. They were not so keen, centuries later, for a marriage between their child queen and the son of Henry VIII.

In August, Edward took a strong and unwarranted step; he sent the Bishop of Durham " to hold the place of the queen in Scotland," and to act with the Guardians, among whom he might come to have a casting vote. The bishop demanded, in the king's name, " by reason of certain perils and suspicions whereof he had heard," the ward of the castles of Scotland! This was later the aim of Henry VIII. The Guardians declined to give up the castles, save to the queen and her husband when they arrived. Edward had meanwhile sent a ship for the queen's voyage, and we have the most copious accounts of its furniture, down to the sweetmeats. The ship returned without her, on June 17, 1290. She was to sail in a Norway vessel, by way of the Orkneys. She did sail, reached the Orkneys, and news of her arrival there was carried to Edward by William Playfair (August 19).

But to Scotland the queen never came.

On October 7, the Bishop of St. Andrews wrote from Leuchars in Fife, where an ancient Norman church still remains, a letter to Edward. There had been, he says, at Perth, a meeting of the Scottish envoys lately in England, and of nobles, to consider certain ideas of Edward's. " The faithful nobles and a certain part of the communitas" thank Edward. His envoys, and the bishop, were starting for the Orkneys to meet the queen, when a dolorous whisper arose among the people that the queen was dead, wherefore the kingdom is disturbed, and the communitas out of all hope (disperata). Bruce, who had not meant to attend the meeting, now hurried in, says the bishop, with an armed force. His intentions are unknown, but the nobles are raising their men. Civil war is at hand if Edward does not bring some remedy. It is hoped that the rumour of the queen's death is false. Meanwhile, if John Balliol comes to Edward, the king should be wary, says the bishop, to treat with him so as to secure his own honour and advantage. If the queen is really dead, Edward should come to the marches, that the rightful King of Scotland may be chosen, " so long, that is, as he chooses to adhere to your advice." No other document inviting Edward's approach is known to exist. The queen had actually died in the Orkneys, unless we believe in a woman who, in 1301, was burned in Norway for alleging that she was the queen, who had been kidnapped and sold by Ingebioerg, wife of Thore Hakonsson. The events between the death of the Maid of Norway (September 1290) and the conference at Norham (May-June 1291) are obscure. Edward's queen, Eleanor, died soon after the death of the Maid of Norway, and his grief is famous, attested as it was by architectural monuments. On October 14, Edward announced his intention of going, when possible, on a long-meditated crusade, having received from the Pope, Nicholas IV., six years' revenue of the tithes of Scotland, in addition to those of England, Ireland, and Wales. But it appears that, soon after the death of the Maid of Norway, partisans of John Balliol were in arms for his cause. The celebrated appeal of Bruce le vie!, and of the Seven Earls, is dated at the end of 1290. These nobles protest against the conduct of Frazer, Bishop of St. Andrews, and Sir John Comyn, Guardians. These partisans have ravaged Murray cruelly, have oppressed the Earl of Mar, and aim at securing the crown for John Balliol. Thus the excesses committed by Bruce's party, after the death of Alexander III., are being imitated by the party of Balliol. Bruce's adherents, calling themselves "The Seven Earls," assert certain electoral privileges as to which nothing is now certain. The Seven Earls, therefore, now place their kin and property under the protection of Edward. Bruce, and the rest, assert his claims to the Scottish crown, based on an alleged choice of himself as heir (being nearest in blood) by Alexander II., about 1238, when the king was childless. This choice was accepted, they urge, by the Great Council, and recorded, but the record has disappeared. The strength of their case is that proximity in blood (Bruce's) is, by Scottish custom, preferred to remoter connection with the elder branch of the royal line, as in Balliol's claim. There is also an unsigned letter, plainly by Bruce le viel, who promises obedience to Edward, and offers to procure evidence (probably in favour of Edward's superiority) from " the ancient men " of Scotland. It thus appears that, towards the end of 1290, and after certain intrigues and onfalls, Bruce, with the rest of the Seven Earls, appealed to Edward as their legal protector and superior.

That Edward soon determined to settle the affair is clear, for, as early as March 8, 1291, he sent demands for chronicles and documents to the English cathedrals and monasteries. Numbers of pieces of various value, from Brut's expulsion of the Giants to the submission of Malcolm Canmore (1072), were sent to the king. But "the honest English chronicle" is not once cited. Edward now (April 16) summoned the lords of the northern counties to meet him at Norham, fully armed, on June 3. His purpose was transparent. He was inviting the magnates of Scotland with the Bishop of Glasgow (Bruce's man) and of St. Andrews (Balliol's man) to a conference at Norham, on May 10. They were allured by the distinct promise that their approach to him, on English ground, should not be construed as a precedent prejudicial to the realm of Scotland. It was Edward's purpose to proclaim, himself Lord Paramount, for he already had the votes of Bruce and his party. The other Scots would ask time to consider the question, and, when the time was over, Edward would be surrounded by his army. All occurred as he had planned. The conference met on May 10.

Edward declared, in the opening speech of his Justiciary, that he came as Lord Paramount, and asked if he was so acknowledged. According to an English chronicler, some one answered that no response could be given while the throne was vacant. The reply was to the point. Who had a right to throw away the freedom of the King of Scots? Edward swore: "By Saint Edward! whose crown I wear, I will maintain my just right, or die in the cause." Edward had no right, nor the shadow of a right, to the position of Lord Paramount, which, when yielded to him, he exercised to the fullest extent. To the incidents of homage or submission by Scottish to English kings we have given attention as the cases arose, and they do not sanction Edward's claims. A distinction should doubtless be taken between cases occurring before, and after, the full development of feudal law in England. Thus there is the alleged Commendation of Scotland to Eadward in 924. Supposing the statement in the English Chronicle to be correct in essence, despite the patent inaccuracies in detail, that Commendation would not, when made, carry the full powers now claimed by Edward I. This is frankly acknowledged by Mr. Freeman. Edward I., "as feudal superior, received appeals from the courts of the kingdom of Scotland. . . . We can hardly suppose that any such right was contemplated in the original Commendation (924): it is a notion essentially belonging to a later time. But it was no arbitrary invention of Edward's; he did but receive the appeals which Scottish suitors brought before him of their own accord. The truth is that, when the commendatory relation had, in the ideas of both sides, changed into a strictly feudal one, the right of appeal would seem to follow as a matter of course, and neither side would stop to ask whether it was really implied in the ancient Commendation." Now, in the Treaty of Birgham (1290), it is expressly stipulated that no Scot shall be obliged, in any legal cause, to answer " outside of the kingdom of Scotland contrary to the laws and customs of that kingdom, as has heretofore been reasonably observed." The case, contrary to Mr. Freeman's opinion, was foreseen, and was safeguarded. But under Edward I. the King of Scots himself was soon to be compelled to "answer" in legal cases outside of his kingdom. This was explicitly a novelty, and a contravention of all previous freedom. No English king had hitherto exercised any such power over Scotland as Edward now claimed, except under the short-lived Treaty of Falaise, the marked and momentary exception which proves the rule.

For all submission of Scotland to England, even before the full development of feudal ideas, we have only the evidence of the English Chronicle, evidence not cited at Norham. The statements by later chroniclers, as Florence of Worcester, introduce feudal technicalities, alien to the English Chronicle and to early times. These novelties are not evidence. The undoubted submission of Scotland to Cnut, in 1031, is really, in details, a dubious affair, Macbeth being introduced as a king, by the English Chronicle, before he was even a mormaor. "That he held only a little while," says the Chronicle, and all such vague submissions did hold but a little while. It is not possible to accept the statement of the Chronicle, inaccurate in detail, as proof that, in 1031, Malcolm became "the liegeman of the King of all England for Scotland, Lothian, and all that he had" (Freeman), and that such were, henceforth, the relations of Scottish to English kings. As a matter of plain fact, the feudal rights of England, involved in such relations, were never either acknowledged or exercised. The whole affair of submission, before the Conquest, was vague, and, in each case, " held but a little while."

After the Conquest, we have Malcolm Canmore's submission to William, at Abernethy (1072). Malcolm became the Conqueror's " man," but what that implies is debated, as we have seen, between Mr. Freeman and Mr. Robertson. And it is certain that, far from submitting to be judged by the courts of William Rufus (which would have been in accordance with the claims of Edward I.), Malcolm went home, raised war, and perished. For certain manors in England, and a subsidy, Malcolm was ready to obey Rufus in the same sense, and to the same extent, as he had obeyed the Conqueror, for the same rewards. In neither case was submission to English courts part of that obedience. It follows that Malcolm did not hold Scotland as a fief of the English crown, in consequence of the "submission" at Abernethy. Had he done so, he would, necessarily, have been judged in English courts. The Treaty of Falaise, by the express statement of Richard I., "extorted" liege homage from William the Lion for Scotland, "per novas cartas," William being a captive. That treaty was absolutely rescinded, and its mere existence is a proof that the submission " extorted " by it was a short-lived novelty. In 1237, at York, Alexander II. did homage to Henry III., for the lands received by him in settlement of his claims on Northumberland.  In 1278, Alexander III., at Westminster, did homage to Edward I. in these words (according to the English document in the ' Foedera '), " I, Alexander, King of Scotland, become liegeman of Edward, King of England, against all folk." This statement Edward, we read, " received, saving his right and claim to homage for the kingdom of Scotland, whensoever they desire to treat thereof." But we have proved the invalidity of that record.

Thus the case stands: and we see that Edward had presented a 'tentative claim over Scotland even while Alexander III. lived, whether we accept the Scottish or the unauthentic English version of Alexander's homage. Again, when Alexander died, Edward, as the Pope later reminded him, did not venture to administer Scotland as a fief, during the minority of little Queen Margaret, as was his clear and undeniable right, if he believed in his own claim which he probably did. He preferred to try his marriage project, as it saved discussion and dispute. But, the Scottish queen dying, he saw his chance and took it. He put forward his claim to be Lord Paramount, which must be accepted before he would save Scotland from civil war by deciding on a king. Edward was a strong, valiant man, with " a thread of the attorney " in his nature. He was strictly upright, in this sense he had the faculty, invaluable to a moral politician, of being able to believe in the justice of his own cause, the flawless integrity of his own character, and the excellence of his own aims. He " sought extended opportunities of doing good " to " a race which needed his control."

All this is very English. Thus was the empire won. Had the Scottish race been content to accept Edward on his own terms, the Highlands would have been civilised, and the united isle would have been irresistible. Other peoples, confused and distracted as Scotland then was, ought, no doubt, to be grateful to England for annexing them and introducing them to the benefits of her sterling civilisation. They will kick, however, against the salutary pricks, and Scotland, to the detriment of her " progress," but to her eternal honour, kicked successfully. Scotland was, in fact, much too English to be subdued by England, as, later, America was too English for colonial dependence.

We left the assembly at Norham (May 10, 1291), at the moment when Edward, after asking whether he was accepted as Lord Paramount, swore his great oath that he was Lord Paramount, and would fight for his rights. The Scots asked for a delay, to consider the question. Twenty-four hours were granted to them, and then Edward offered a respite of three weeks. In three weeks his army, already summoned for June 3, would be around him. What the Scots did or debated in this interval is unknown. On June 2 the Scots met Edward at Upsettlington, opposite Norham, on Tweed. The question was, " Did they acknowledge Edward as Lord Paramount?" No demur is mentioned in "The Great Roll of Scotland," but Mr. Burton points out that the version of the Great Roll in the Chronicles of St. Albans contains a passage which fills up a blank in the version in ' Foedera.' This passage, after stating that while the bishops, earls, and nobles sent in nothing against Edward's paramountcy, adds that a reply, in writing, was given, in the name of the communitas of Scotland. "Nothing to the purpose" (efficax) "was put in by the said communitas." Nor is the communitas later mentioned as being again consulted. The reply of the communitas to Edward's claim is thus burked, and was looked on as a thing that might be neglected. Now the communitas consisted (apparently) of the free-holders, probi homines. How they met, apart from the magnates, how they consulted with each other, what precise form of protest they entered, we do not know. But they were Scots (in the modern sense), not Normans, and it is pretty plain that protest they did, though their missive has not been preserved, and is not chronicled, even in the Great Roll's official version. This must not be forgotten. There was patriotism among the Scots. It had declared itself in the minute precautions to guard our freedom, at the Treaty of Birgham. It declared itself again in the reply of the communitas, probably drafted by clerical hands. What other hands could draft it?

While the competitors, eight being present, accepted Edward's claims at Upsettlington, the communitas had demurred. Their demurrer was cast aside as "not to the purpose." But they caused it to seem very much to the purpose, shortly, when the spears of the North took up the argument abandoned by the voices of the Anglo-Norman lords.

These lords, one by one, admitted the claim of Edward. The astute monarch then announced that, though as superior he was deciding on the claims of competitors for the Scottish throne, he did not, thereby, resign his own hereditary rights to the whole kingdom as property. This meant the averment that Scotland returned to him, as property, from defect of heirs male, whereas he was acting as judge between competitors whose rights were those of heirs female. The competitors made no protest, but invited Edward's judgment on their respective .claims.

A brief list of dates, now to be given, will illustrate the march of events after June 3, 1291, when, on Scottish soil, and in presence of an English army, the competitors, finally twelve in number, submitted to the claims of overlordship urged by Edward. On June 3 full submission to English supremacy was made. The cause was to be tried on August 2. On June 4 the competitors agreed to deliver seisine of Scotland to Edward, restitution to be made by him two months after his award. On June 5 were delivered the names of eighty men forty selected by Balliol and Comyn, forty by Bruce who should take cognisance of and discuss the various aspects of the claims and laws, and aid Edward in forming a decision. He himself named twenty-four other assessors. On Bruce's list we notice the Bishop of Glasgow, the Steward, and Colin Campbell. Balliol has the Bishop of St. Andrews, and is strong in clerical support. He has also Alexander of Argyll (later so hostile to Bruce), and Murray of Tullibardine, and Herbert Maxwell. A curious chapter might be written on the loyalties and veerings of the eighty Scottish assessors. All castles were delivered up by the Guardians on June 11: Edward restored them to office, but the Bishop of Caithness, an Englishman, was added as Chancellor. On June 13 the Guardians, with many nobles, swore fealty. At this date a characteristic intrigue was woven. Florence, Count of Holland, was a competitor who had no valid claim, and no chance. Nevertheless, Bruce, Earl of Annandale, entered into a "band" with him on June 14. Each is to aid the other, and he who, of the worthy pair, succeeds to the crown is to hand over a third of Scotland to the other. The witnesses to this patriotic arrangement were the Bishop of Glasgow, Gilbert de Clare (the Earl of Gloucester), James the Steward, and others. Bruce's object, doubtless, was to secure the aid and goodwill of these witnesses. Universal homage, even down to that of burgesses and prioresses, was next demanded by Edward, and was received, the king himself marching through the land as far as Perth. There was, and could be, no centre of resistance, so powerful were the competitors who had sold Scotland for a chance of a vassal crown. These competitors put in their claims on August 3, 1291, the reading being deferred to June 2, 1292, at Berwick.

A number of the claims rested on the alleged legitimacy of descendants of the royal Scottish house, through whom competitors claimed; and, in one case, Florence, Count of Holland, boldly argued that David of Huntingdon (from whom Balliol and Bruce traced their pedigree) was an attainted traitor, and that his blood, therefore, was disqualified. But the contest really lay between the descendants of David of Huntingdon, the younger brother of William the Lion. He had married Matilda, daughter of Ranulf, Earl of Chester. His eldest daughter, Margaret, wedded Allan of Galloway, and their daughter, Devergoil or Deverguila, was wife of John Balliol, a lord of lands both in Normandy and England. This lady's foundation of Balliol College in Oxford, and her bridge over the Nith at Dumfries, were the chief good deeds of the Balliols to Scotland. Her son John (himself perhaps a Balliol man) was now claimant of the throne.

Earl David.

I

Margaret of Galloway.

I

Devergoil, wife of John Balliol.

I

John Balliol.

John Balliol was thus great-grandson of the younger brother of William the Lion. But Bruce, le viel, the competitor, was a degree nearer to David of Huntingdon, being, not his great-grandson, but his grandson by his second daughter. David's second daughter, Isobel, married Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale, as well as of great English estates. Their son was the competitor: an old man, with a middle-aged son, and a grandson, Robert Bruce, later king. The Bruce competitor, in addition to his nearness by degree, relied on that famous choice of himself as heir by Alexander II. before he became the father of Alexander III., a selection apparently not proved, for lack of records, and extreme old age of witnesses. The next, and, in one way, most interesting claim, was that of Comyn, Lord of Badenoch. As regards the stock of David of Huntingdon, he was only descended from a younger sister of Devergoil, named Marjory. But " the gracious Duncan," slain by Macbeth, had a son, Donald Ban, for a brief while crowned king of Scotland after the death of Malcolm Canmore. The daughter of Donald Ban, Bethoc, wedded the Comte de Pol, and had issue a daughter Hextilda, married to Richard, great-grandson of Robert de Comyn sometime Earl of Northumberland after the Conquest. Of this Richard, Comyn the competitor was great-grandson, and was father of the Red Comyn, later slain by Robert Bruce in the Greyfriars' Kirk at Dumfries.

Putting ourselves at the point of view of a Pictish legitimist, Comyn seems the most eligible man. Comyn, however, withdrew or stood apart, and only Balliol, Bruce, and Hastings (who contended that the kingdom was divisible, and he heir to a third a contention later, but fruitlessly, adopted by Bruce) were left in the field. In 1292, June 2, the petitions were read at Berwick, and the auditors charged to determine the case as between Bruce and Balliol. At Berwick, on October 15, 1292, Bruce and Balliol urged their pleas. Bruce alleged (as we have seen) first, that Alexander II., in 1238, despairing of issue, had acknowledged Bruce as his heir. Bruce averred that Alexander made this choice by the consent of the probi homines of his realm, he regarding Bruce as nearest to him by blood. Lord Hailes shows, with much relish, how Balliol's counsel should have replied: The evidence is remote, the witnesses superannuated. The measure, if Alexander wanted to take it, must, to be legal, have been done in the great Council of the nation.

But to this the Memorial of the Seven Earls answers that Alexander did appoint Bruce his heir before the great Council, who took oaths of fealty, which are recorded on the Rolls of the Treasury.

But the earls have no idea as to what has become of this record.

It is not necessary to go further into the pleadings. Balliol was grandson of the eldest daughter of David of Huntingdon, brother of William the Lion. Bruce was son of David's second daughter. There is not a shadow of doubt that, setting aside Bruce's unevidential plea about Alexander II., Balliol was the rightful claimant. On November 17, 1292, Edward, at Berwick, gave judgment in favour of Balliol. He received seisine, and on November 20, at Norham, swore fealty to Edward. John was crowned at Scone on St. Andrew's Day, again doing fealty to Edward on December 26.

Here, then, the great case was settled, and, as far as the modern rule of primogeniture is concerned, settled with perfect justice. Any king but King John Balliol, descendants of any king not of John's line, saving the Houses of MacWilliam and MacHeth, if extant, was, from a legitimist point of view, a usurper. But King John was predestined to failure. We know very little about the man, but (perhaps especially if he was over -educated at Balliol) he seems to have been the least Scottish, the least stalwart, of the competitors. Bruce probably, Comyn certainly, would have made his nobles understand that he meant to be obeyed. In the St. Albans Chronicle we read that the Scots cried, " Nolumus hunc regnare super nos!" "But he, as a simple creature, opened not his mouth, fearing the frenzied wildness of that people, lest they should starve him, or shut him up in prison. So dwelt he with them a year, as a lamb among wolves."

Edward took advantage of John's lamblike character. He had not been king a month when, on a burgher's suit, he was informed that he must answer in Edward's courts. On January 2, 1292-93, a writing was put in, sealed by many lords, but not by the Bruces, whereby John acquitted Edward of all promises made by him to the king and nobles of Scotland. Edward also entered an indenture, protesting that he should not be hindered by any " interim promises," " while the realm was in his hand," " from doing justice in any appeals brought before him from Scotland." This was Edward's idea of pactum serua! Thus he trampled on the treaty of Birgham. The greatest of the Plantagenets, the brave warrior, the open-handed friend, the true lover, the generally farsighted politician, was not the false and cruel monster of early Scottish legend. But he was mortal. Clement by disposition and policy, his temper could be stirred into cruelty by opposition. He had in his nature, too, as we have said, that thread of the attorney which the good and wise Sir Walter Scott remarked in his own noble character. This element is undeniably present in Edward's dealings with Scotland. He took advantage of her necessities, and of the weaknesses and ambitions of her Anglo-Norman foreign leaders, to drive the hardest of all conceivable bargains. Having decided the pleas in favour of Balliol, as was just, it was now in Edward's power to support Balliol, and to treat him with generous and statesmanlike forbearance. That course, and that alone, might have merged Scotland with England in "a union of hearts," and of interests. Edward took precisely the opposite course. "To Balliol, the vassal, he was uniformly lenient and just; to Balliol, the king, he was proud and unbending to the last degree." Not satisfied with suzerainty, he was determined to make Scotland his property, his very own. The easiest way to do that was to goad even Balliol into "rebellion," and then to confiscate the kingdom of Balliol. This was what Edward deliberately did. The result was, that, far from winning Scotland, Edward converted that nation into a dangerous enemy, and presented France with a serviceable ally. Edward's end, to unite the whole island, was excellent. The end, however, did not justify the means, for the means were to press, in a pettifogging spirit, every legal advantage, to the extreme verge, or beyond the extreme verge, of the letter of the law.

It is unnecessary to set forth at length the humiliations which Edward designedly heaped on King John. He was summoned to appear in Edward's courts, in a territorial suit of the Macduff's house, in 1293. Again, Edward instructed the sheriff of Northumberland personally to summon the king to London, on a Gascon wine-merchant's bill for wine sold to Alexander III.! Contrary to the Treaty of Birgham, actions of earls (as of Macduff of Fife), and tradesmen's bills, were constantly made excuses for dragging John into Edward's courts. He had to stand at the bar like a private person, and crave leave to consult his Estates before replying. Meanwhile, Edward himself was summoned into the court of his own feudal superior, the King of France (1293), on the score of a sea-fight between subjects of France and England. Edward refused to obey the summons, was declared contumacious, and "disseised" of his French possessions. He determined to resist, and King John of Scotland attended his Parliament in London, promising military aid (May 1294). Edward now denounced his own homage to France, and, in 1294, was fighting in Gascony. John was summoned to attend Edward in Gascony, with eighteen of his magnates (June 29). But John and his subjects, who met at Scone, had endured more than was tolerable. A kind of committee of " Twelve Peers " was appointed, according to the English chroniclers. John entered into negotiations with France, for an alliance, and a marriage between his son, Edward, and the niece of the French king. The Bishops of St. Andrews and Dunkeld, with two laymen, Soulis, and Umfraville, of the house of Angus, negotiated this affair. The clergy had no reason to love a king like Edward, who, in the following year, outlawed his own ecclesiastics for refusing to pay a tax.

The result of Edward's Scottish policy now was, that he had driven Scotland into the arms of France. For centuries no English king invaded France, as Henry V. admitted, but he found a Scot in his path. From Bauge to the field of Laffen (1748), leaders of the English or Hanoverian royal lines were to fall or fly, like Clarence and the Butcher Cumberland, before Scots in French service.

Edward avenged himself on John by seizing his English property, and the English property of his subjects. John replied by reciting his grievances, and renouncing his homage, as " extorted from him by violence." He began to expel the English landholders out of Scotland, giving the lands of Robert Bruce (the future king's father: the competitor was dead) to John Comyn, Earl of Buchan. Edward held the castles of Berwick, Edinburgh, and Roxburgh. The Scots replied by slaying English merchants at Berwick. Then Edward collected a large force at Newcastle, while the Scots, under Comyn, Earl of Buchan, and a son of Comyn, Lord of Badenoch (John Comyn, later murdered by Bruce), besieged Carlisle, which was held for England by Robert Bruce, father of the future king. There was thus already rivalry between the Bruces and Comyns. The Scots failed before Carlisle, and, meanwhile, Edward took Berwick, and, provoked by rhymed taunts, he ordered a general massacre (March 30, 1296). The women seem to have been protected in some degree, 49 and Sir William Douglas, the commander, was held a prisoner. With him the Douglasses, perhaps of Flemish origin, first come prominently into the field where they were to play so many parts of honour and of shame. This William was a high-handed ruffian, who had deforced the magistrates, and had beheaded one prisoner, while another died in his dungeons. Balliol now formally sent in his refusal of allegiance (April 5, 1296), and the Scots avenged Berwick by wasting and burning Tynedale as far as Hexham. But they had no leader of genius, and no discipline. The English, under Warenne, were besieging Dunbar, recently taken by the Scots, when a huge disorderly array of Scots appeared on the high ground. Supposing that the English were retreating, they left their position, exactly as they were to do in Cromwell's day, were met, routed with a loss of 10,055 m en, and pursued almost as far as the Forest of Ettrick. Edward took the Red Comyn, Atholl, Ross, and Menteith. Thenceforward Edward's march through Scotland was a procession. Moved by pietas, he had invited all the outlaws and criminals of his realm to join his army. The Steward surrendered Roxburghe, and swore fealty; young Robert Bruce (the future king) received back the people of Annandale to the king's peace. On July 7, Balliol resigned his kingdom, and went into captivity. He lay for some time in the Tower, and was finally permitted to retire to his French estates. The nobles raced for the privilege of doing homage to Edward. Among others whose letters of submission are recorded, we find Patrick, Earl of March (and Dunbar), and Gilbert de Umfraville, Earl of Angus. They ought not, therefore, to be reckoned as traitors, if, later, they give intelligence to Edward. The two Bruces also submitted, and took the oaths. Edward then marched about Scotland, seizing what he would, among other things some documents, the Stone of Scone, the Black Rood, and a portion of the True Cross, once St. Margaret's. This, as he conceived, would be a useful talisman to take Scottish oaths upon, but the Scots always broke them. Edward went as far as Elgin, receiving copious homages recorded in the "Ragman Rolls." " Simplicity," says Thucydides, " is no small element in noble minds." Edward, who had calmly repudiated all his own promises, was nobly simple enough to suppose that the Scots were likely to keep theirs. The Scots greatly perjured themselves whenever they saw an opportunity. Edward, despite his motto pactum serva, whenever he saw an opportunity, broke his promises.

During Edward's marches through the disunited country which, as Balliol says, he "conquered" in twenty -one weeks, several private incidents occurred, and were recorded. These also, as pictures of life, are parts of history. William of Lodelaw (Will Laidlaw) was accused by three soldiers of "concealing a red horse, which they found when plundering the king's enemies." He urged that "it was so weak he could not drive it away." Aymer de Rutherford recovers two horses seized by the Marshal at Roxburgh. Robert of Ercildoune (of the Rymer's line?) and John the Hermit are acquitted on a charge of highway robbery (we think of the Clerk of Copmanhurst); probably John was one of the vagrom scoundrels whom Edward had invited to join him. William of Lonsdale, accused of breaking prison, says that he walked out by the open door. (Hanged.) Thomas, chaplain in Edinburgh, excommunicated the king, as Mr. Cargill did Charles II. much later. Patrick (of Ireland), accused of stealing 3 dozen hoods, says they were given to him. (Hanged.) Thomas Dun, accused of stealing books at Elgin, says he found them under ground. (Hanged.) The jury did not believe Thomas. Scotland, at all events, had trial by jury now.

Matthew of York and " William le Waleys, a thief," are charged with forcefully stealing beer from a woman who kept a tavern at Perth. William le Waleys escaped; Matthew pleaded his clergy. Such were the proceedings of Edward's army, partly composed of malefactors and broken men. The documents show that crime, even in such a host, was strictly punished.

On his return from Elgin (farther north Edward saw no reason for going), he tarried some time at Berwick, receiving submissions. An interesting monument of this age is the "Ragman Roll," containing some 2000 names of landholders who vowed fealty to Edward. The names of the Bruces occur, but not the name of William Wallace, who, to be sure, was no landowner, and may have been an outlaw. Except in Galloway, not many Celtic names occur. Earls, barons, and bishops received back their lands, on condition of attending the English Parliament at St. Edmunds, on November 1. In October 1296 Edward went southward, leaving Cressingham as Treasurer, Warenne, Earl of Surrey, as Guardian, and Ormsby as Justiciary. The castles were held by English subjects. Risings must have begun at once, for, on January 31, 1297, Warenne is ordered to forbid any man to leave Scotland, and to arrest all who carry letters. The documents, up to July, show signs of agitation, but the exact nature and occasion of the rising are unknown. On June 4, Edward, who was going abroad, raised the levies of Lancaster, Westmoreland, Northumberland, and Cumberland, to put down "conventicles" in Scotland (conventicula}. Clifford and Percy are to lead. A sum of £2000 is sent to Cressingham.