CONCLUSION.
The wisdom of the ancient Egyptians has been much celebrated, but in
no respect does it appear more conspicuous than in the uses to which
they applied the historical records of their country. By their laws,
the hand which kept a faithful transcript of passing events, and
registered with strict impartiality the transactions and characters
of their kings, was removed from the knowledge and influence of those
whose deeds were thus related. On the accession of every new monarch,
it was part of the ceremonial to read in his presence the records of
his predecessor’s reign. By this means he was apprised of the faults
he ought to avoid, and admonished of the virtues it was incumbent on
him to emulate; while the reflection arising from the certainty that
after death his name also would be consigned over to posterity--either
to receive the meed of grateful remembrance, or the impress of merited
reprobation, according to his actions--operated on the royal mind as a
useful and salutary restraint.
Other nations aspired to imitate the Egyptians; but national imitation
is too often like that among individuals. The faults and blemishes of
the original are more readily caught than its beauties and perfections.
Thus, while the grossness of Egypt’s mythology was most servilely
copied, _one_ practice which gave dignity and utility to her history
was entirely overlooked, and the pen of the historian, in place of
being wielded by the impartial, fearless, and untrammelled friend of
public virtue, was more frequently found in the hand of the needy
parasite; employed in the base and degrading occupation of varnishing
the enormities of the ermined tyrant, whose ambitious progress to
distinction had been marked by the subversion of the rights, and the
carnage of his fellow-men. This prostitution of the historic muse is
not unknown among modern authors, and may be often attributed to an
unworthy desire of administering to the feelings of a favourite party,
or a wish to conciliate the national prejudices of their readers.
Though compelled, by the general increase of knowledge, to give a more
faithful narrative of facts than the writers of antiquity, when it may
suit any of the purposes that have been mentioned, the subject of their
biography is seldom dismissed without being made to undergo a sort of
purgation in the general estimate of his character, and which is often
found to be at antipodes to the actions with which it stands connected.
Perhaps the annals of England cannot afford a more striking instance of
this perversion of all that is valuable in historical literature, than
in the portraits which some historians have drawn of Edward I.
Without attempting to delineate the character of this ambitious
disturber of the peace of Britain, the writer will merely notice a few
of the leading circumstances of his history, and leave the reader to
discover by what curious process of literary chemistry those crudities
have been made to harmonize, in order to produce so fair a display of
political sagacity and kingly greatness.
The littleness which appears to have been inherent in the mind of
Edward was laid open to the Londoners in 1263, by his breaking into the
treasury of the Knights Templars, and carrying off 1000_l._ deposited
there by the citizens. This robbery was looked upon by the people as an
act so thoroughly base, that they instantly flew to arms, and assaulted
the houses of those among the nobility who were supposed accessary to
the theft. Edward was at this time in his 26th year; of course youthful
indiscretion cannot be advanced as an excuse for the crime.
His aggression upon Scotland has been indulgently placed to the account
of those enlightened and statesman-like views which he entertained of
the true interests and general welfare of Britain, and the advantages
he discovered would result from the resources of the two countries
being consolidated under one head. This “reason of state,” has been
held up in extenuation of the nefarious means which he resorted to
for the accomplishment of his purpose. But by the extracts which we
are about to make from the pages of an author every way inclined to
treat the faults of Edward with lenity, the reader will perceive, that
though the enlightened views “which he took of the solid interests
of his kingdom,” may have found a place in the imagination of the
historian, they do not appear to have occurred to the monarch. The
extinction of every thing like rational liberty, and the establishment
of an extensive and uncontrollable autocracy, seem to have been the
undisguised objects of his ambition. In proof of which, we have only
to refer to his demeanour towards his barons, and the unwarrantable
appropriation of the effects of his subjects, mentioned in the extracts
alluded to. His conduct in respect to Scotland being thus stripped of
the only palliation that can be offered, it stands forward on the page
of history in all its native deformity, unrelieved by one solitary
extenuating circumstance, while the following transaction gives it, if
possible, a darker and more disgusting complexion.
In 1267, Henry and Prince Edward, being driven to the greatest
extremity by the Earl of Gloucester and other Barons, whom their
oppressions and unlawful exactions had forced to take up arms, when
every hope failed them, and even the Tower of London was besieged by
a numerous army of enraged assailants, they were very opportunely
relieved from their perilous situation by the assistance of 30,000
Scots, whom Alexander sent to their relief; and with these auxiliaries
they were enabled to withstand, and afterwards to subdue, their
exasperated and refractory subjects. The debt of gratitude which was
thus incurred, Edward had not an opportunity of discharging, till after
the death of Alexander, when the Scots, with a generous confidence,
which their own conduct naturally inspired, applied to him to act as
umpire in settling the succession to the crown. How honourably he
acquitted himself in the discharge of the duties of the trust thus
reposed in him, and how generous was the return he made for their good
offices, the reader requires not to be told. Two nations, who had for
nearly a century regarded each other with feelings of mutual good-will,
and had lived in a state of friendly intercourse highly beneficial
to both, were suddenly transformed into the most inveterate enemies;
and an implacable spirit of animosity engendered between them, which
it required the slow revolution of ages to soften and obliterate. The
guilty ambition of this short-sighted tyrant entailed upon the British
states a quarrel the most bloody, the most expensive, and the most
insane that perhaps ever existed between two nations. By the ridiculous
pretensions of the one, the improvement of both countries was retarded,
and their frontier populations demoralized into cut-throats or
plunderers, who wandered in search of their prey over a land barren as
the desert, which might otherwise have been teeming with the fruits of
honest and profitable industry.
Edward’s ideas of honesty we have already seen in the affair of the
Templars, and his feelings of gratitude in his conduct towards the
Scots. His sense of justice may be gathered from his proceedings
against the Jews. The silver pennies of the realm having been clipped,
the offence was traced to some of that unfortunate people, and in one
day 280 of both sexes were executed in London, besides a great many
more in different parts of the kingdom, where it seems simultaneous
measures had been taken against them. That this crime was confined
entirely to the Jews, is not likely. The implements by which it could
be committed were certainly not beyond the reach of English intellect;
nor could the latter be supposed, in every instance, superior to
the temptation which the gains presented. That the guilt of all who
suffered was ascertained, is impossible; and a wholesale butchery
of this kind, authorized by law, as it could not answer the ends of
justice, can only be considered as gratuitously administering to the
worst of human passions.
The estimation in which Edward held those arts which are calculated to
instruct, refine, and elevate the human mind, may be learned from his
treatment of the Minstrels of Wales. The remorseless and sanguinary
policy which suggested that unhallowed act, could only have found
place in the breast where every virtuous and honourable feeling had
disappeared before the withering influence of a selfish and detestable
ambition. In an age when the Minstrel’s profession was a passport to
the presence and protection of the great, and the persons of those who
exercised the calling were held sacred even among tribes the least
removed from barbarism, the mind must have reached a fearful state
of depravity, that could break through those barriers with which the
gratitude and veneration of mankind had surrounded the children of
genius, and thus immolate at the shrine of an heartless despotism, the
innocent and meritorious depositories of a nation’s lore.
* * * * *
The reader may form some idea of the treasures squandered by Edward in
the Scottish wars, from the Statement of Receipts and Disbursements for
the year 1300, inserted in Appendix M, at the end of this volume. The
military operations of that year were not on a more expensive scale
than those connected with the preceding and subsequent invasions; and
by this statement, it will be found, that the disbursements for the
campaign of 1300, exceeded, “within one department of the national
expenditure,” _one fifth_ of the national income. That the expenses
of this campaign pressed equally hard on other departments of the
exchequer, is sufficiently obvious from the singular expedients which
were resorted to for the purpose of carrying it on. The year 1300
is remarkable for the first attempt to depreciate the currency of
the realm, it having been then ordered that 243 pennies should be
coined out of the pound of silver, in place of 240 as formerly. In
this year, also, as will be seen by the statements already alluded
to, the Wardrobe department was in arrears to the amount of 5949_l._
4s. 3d., which circumstance--taken in connexion with the fact, that
Sir Simon Fraser and other knights soon after deserted the English
service, because their pay and other allowances were withheld--proves
that the treasury of England at this time must have been in a very
depressed state. This profitless expenditure was continued with little
interruption, from 1296 till 1320, in pursuit of an object, which,
happily for the future prosperity of both countries, was unattainable.
We have already alluded to the treacherous designs of Edward, regarding
the liberties of his own subjects; and, in illustration of the opinion
then expressed, we shall now subjoin the account of his behaviour,
after his triumphant return from the north, as it appears in the
pages of Dr Lingard, an author who certainly cannot be considered as
a friend to Scotland:--we wish we were able to call him a _candid_
adversary.
“Had Edward,” says this learned, though often disingenuous writer,
“confined his rapacity to the clergy, he might perhaps have continued
to despise their remonstrances; but the aids which he had annually
raised on the freeholders, the tallages which he so frequently demanded
of the cities and boroughs, and the additional duties which he extorted
from the merchants, had excited a general spirit of discontent. Wool
and hides were the two great articles of commerce; the exportation of
which was allowed only to foreign merchants, and confined, by law, to
eleven ports in England, and three in Ireland. In the beginning of his
reign, the duty had been raised to half a mark on each sack of wool;
but the royal wants perpetually increased; and, during his quarrel with
the King of France, he required five marks for every sack of fine,
three for every sack of coarse wool, and five for every last of hides.
On one occasion, he extorted from the merchants a loan of the value of
all the wool which they exported; on two others, he seized and sold
both wool and hides for his own profit. He even stretched his rapacious
hands to the produce of the soil, and the live-stock of his subjects;
and, to provision his army in Guienne, he issued precepts to each
sheriff to collect, by assessment on the landholders of his county, a
certain number of cattle, and two thousand quarters of wheat. Though
this requisition was accompanied with a promise of future payment, the
patience of the nation was exhausted: Consultations began to be held:
and preparations were made for resistance. Edward had assembled two
bodies of troops, with one of which he intended to sail for Flanders,
the other he destined to reinforce the army in Guienne, (1297, Feb.
24.) At Salisbury, he gave the command of the latter to Bohun Earl of
Hereford, the constable, and to Bigod Earl of Norfolk, the mareschal
of England; but both these noblemen refused the appointment, on the
alleged ground, that, by their office, they were bound only to attend
on the King’s person. Edward, in a paroxysm of rage, addressing himself
to the mareschal, exclaimed--‘By the everlasting God, Sir Earl, you
shall go or hang.’--‘By the everlasting God, Sir King,’ replied
Bigod, ‘I will neither go nor hang.’ Hereford and Norfolk immediately
departed: they were followed by thirty bannerets, and fifteen hundred
knights; and the royal officers, intimidated by their menaces, ceased
to levy the purveyance. Edward saw that it was necessary to dissemble,
and summoned some,--requested others, of his military tenants to meet
him in arms in London.
“The two Earls, in concert with the Archbishop of Canterbury, had
arranged their plan of resistance to the royal exactions. On the
appointed day the constable and John de Segrave, as deputy-mareschal,
(Bigod himself was detained at home by sickness) attended the King’s
court; but when they were required to perform their respective duties
(July 8th), they returned a refusal in writing, on the ground that
they had not received a legal summons, but only a general invitation.
Edward appointed a new constable and mareschal; and, to divide and
weaken his opponents, sought to appease the clergy, and to move the
commiseration of the people (July 11th). He received the primate
with kindness, ordered the restoration of his lands, and named him
one of the council to Prince Edward, whom he had appointed regent. On
a platform before the entrance of Westminster Hall, accompanied by
his son, the Archbishop, and the Earl of Warwick, he harangued the
people, (July 14.) He owned that the burdens which he had laid on them
were heavy; but protested that it had not been less painful to him to
impose, than it had been to them to bear them. Necessity was his only
apology. His object had been to preserve himself and his liege men from
the cruelty and rapacity of the Welsh, the Scots, and the French, who
not only sought _his_ crown, but also thirsted after _their_ blood. In
such case, it was better to sacrifice a part than to lose the whole.
‘Behold,’ he concluded, ‘I am going to expose myself to danger for
you. If I return, receive me again, and I will make you amends; if
I fall, here is my son; place him on the throne, and his gratitude
shall reward your fidelity.’ At these words the King burst into tears;
the Archbishop was equally affected; the contagion ran through the
multitude; and shouts of loyalty and approbation persuaded Edward that
he might still depend on the allegiance of his people. This exhibition
was followed by writs to the sheriffs, ordering them to protect the
clergy from injury, and to maintain them in the possession of their
lands.
“He now ventured to proceed as far as Winchelsey on his way to
Flanders. But here he was alarmed by reports of the designs of his
opponents, and ordered letters to be sent to every county, stating the
origin of his quarrel with the two earls, asserting that he had never
refused any petition for redress, and promising to confirm the charter
of liberties and charter of the forests, in return for the liberal
aid of an eighth which had been granted by the council in London.
Soon afterwards a paper was put into his hands, purporting to be the
remonstrance of the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors, the
earls, barons, and whole commonalty of England. In it they complained
that the last summons had been worded ambiguously; that it called on
them to accompany the King to Flanders, a country in which they were
not bound to serve by the custom of their tenures; that even if they
were, they had been so impoverished by aids, tallages, and unlawful
seizures, as to be unable to bear the expense; that the liberties
granted to them by the two charters had been repeatedly violated; that
the ‘evil toll’ (the duty) annually on wool amounted alone to one-fifth
of the whole income of the land; and that, to undertake an expedition
to Flanders in the existing circumstances, was imprudent, since it
would expose the kingdom without protection to the inroads of the Welsh
and Scots. Edward replied, that he could return no answer on matters
of such high importance, without the advice of his council, a part of
which had already sailed for Flanders; that if the remonstrants would
accompany him, he would accept it as a favour; if they refused, he
trusted they would raise no disturbance during his absence, (Aug. 19.)
Before his departure he appointed commissioners in each county with
powers to require security from all persons for the payment of aids
due to the crown, and to imprison the publishers of false reports,
the disturbers of the peace, and such of the clergy as might presume
to pronounce censures against the royal officers for the discharge of
their duty.
“At length the King set sail, accompanied by the barons and knights
who had espoused his cause; and two days later, Bohun and Bigod, with
a numerous retinue, proceeded to the exchequer. The constable, in
the presence of the treasurer and judges, complained of the King’s
extortions, of his illegal seizures of private property, and of the
enormous duty imposed upon wool; and forbade them, in the name of the
baronage of England, to levy the last eight which had been granted by
the great council, because it had been voted without his knowledge and
concurrence, and that of his friends. From the exchequer they rode
to the Guildhall, where they called upon the citizens to join in the
common cause, and to aid in wresting the confirmation of the national
liberties from a reluctant and despotic sovereign. The tears which
the Londoners had shed during Edward’s harangue, were now dried up;
considerations of interest suppressed the impulse of pity; and they
gave assurances of their co-operation to the barons, who immediately
retired to their respective counties. Both during their progress to the
capital, and their return from it, they had marched in military array.
But at the same time they had been careful to preserve the peace; and
had threatened, by proclamation, to punish every lawless aggressor with
immediate amputation of a hand, or the loss of the head, according to
the quality of the offence.
“The King was soon informed of these proceedings, and ordered the
barons of the exchequer to disregard the prohibition. But in a few
weeks his obstinacy was subdued by a succession of untoward events.
The people and clergy universally favoured the cause of the earls; the
Scots, after their victory at Stirling, had burst into the northern
counties; and Edward himself lay at Ghent in Flanders, unable to return
to the protection of the kingdom, and too weak to face the superior
force of the French king. In these circumstances, the lords who
composed the council of the young Prince, invited the archbishop, six
prelates, twenty-three abbots and priors, the constable and mareschal,
and eight barons, to treat with them on matters of the greatest moment,
and summoned a parliament to meet in London a week later (Sept. 30.),
and witness the confirmation of the two charters. In the conferences
which preceded, the two parties, though opposed in appearance, had the
same interests and the same views; a form of peace (so it was called)
was speedily arranged; and, to the ancient enactments of the charters,
were appended the following most important additions:--”No tallage
or aid shall henceforth be laid or levied by us or our heirs in this
our realm, without the goodwill and common assent of the archbishops,
bishops, and other prelates, the earls, barons, knights, burgesses, and
other free men in our realm. No officer of us or our heirs shall take
corn, wool, hides, or other goods, of any person whatsoever, without
the good will and assent of the owner of such goods. Nothing shall
henceforth be taken on the sack of wool, under the name or pretence of
the evil toll. We also will and grant for us and our heirs, that all
both clergy and laity of our realm shall have their laws, liberties,
and free customs, as freely and wholly as at any time when they had
them best; and if any statutes have been made or customs introduced by
us or our ancestors contrary to them, or to any article in the present
charter, we will and grant that such statutes and customs be null and
void for ever. We have, moreover, remitted to the Earl Constable, and
Earl Mareschal and all their associates, and to all those who have not
accompanied us to Flanders, all rancour and ill will, and all manner of
offences which they may have committed against us or ours before the
making of this present charter. And for the greater assurance of this
thing, we will and grant for us and our heirs, that all archbishops and
bishops in England for ever, shall, twice in the year after the reading
of this charter in their cathedral churches, excommunicate, and cause,
in their parochial churches, to be excommunicated, all those that
knowingly shall do or cause to be done, any thing against the tenor,
force and effect of any article contained in it.
“When the parliament assembled (Oct. 10.), these additions to the
charter were received with enthusiasm; and provided the King would
assent to them, the laity voted him an eighth, the clergy of Canterbury
a tenth, and the clergy of York a fifth. The prince, by a public
instrument, took the Earls and their associates under his protection;
and the Lords of the Council bound themselves to indemnify them against
the effects of the royal displeasure. A common letter was written to
the King, soliciting him to appease all differences by giving his
assent, and assuring him that his faithful barons were ready at his
command either to join him in Flanders, or to march against his
enemies in Scotland; but at the same time requiring, in a tone of
defiance, an answer against the sixth day of December. It cost the
haughty mind of Edward several struggles, before he could prevail
on himself to submit: three days were spent in useless deliberation
and complaints; but at last, with a reluctant hand, he signed the
confirmation of the two charters with the additional articles, and a
separate pardon for the Earls and their followers, (Nov. 5.)
“This was perhaps the most important victory which had hitherto been
gained over the Crown. By investing the people with the sole right of
raising the supplies, it armed them with the power of checking the
extravagance, and controlling the despotism of their monarchs. Whatever
jealousy might be entertained of Edward’s intentions, his conduct wore
at first the semblance of sincerity. As soon as an armistice had been
concluded between him and the King of France, he returned to England,
and appointed commissioners to inquire into the illegal seizures which
had been made previously to his departure. They were to be divided into
two classes. Where the officers acted without warrant, they were, at
their own cost, to indemnify the sufferers; where the goods had been
taken by the royal orders, their value was to be certified into the
exchequer, and prompt payment was to be made. Still it was suspected
that he only waited for a favourable moment to cancel the concessions
which had been wrung from him by necessity; and it was whispered that
among his confidential friends he had laughed at them as being of no
force, because they had been made in a foreign country, where he
possessed no authority. When he met his parliament at York, the Earls
of Hereford and Norfolk required that he should ratify his confirmation
of the charters. He objected from the necessity of hastening to oppose
the Scots, solemnly promised to comply with their request on his
return, and brought forward the Bishop of Durham and three Earls, who
swore ‘on his soul,’ that he should fulfil his engagements.” A. D.
1299. March. The victory of Falkirk and a long series of success gave
a lustre to his arms; but when the parliament assembled the next year,
the King was reminded of his promise. His reluctance employed every
artifice to deceive the vigilance, or exhaust the patience, of the
two Earls. He retired from the parliament in anger; he returned and
proposed modifications; at last he ratified his former concessions,
but with the addition of a clause, which, by saving the rights of the
Crown, virtually annulled every provision in favour of the subject.
Bohun and Bigod instantly departed with their adherents; and the King,
to ascertain the sentiments of the people, ordered the sheriffs to
assemble the citizens in the cemetery of St Paul’s, and to read to
them the new confirmation of the charters. The lecture was repeatedly
interrupted by shouts of approbation; but when the illusory clause
was recited, the air rung with expressions of discontent, and curses
were poured on the head of the prince, who had thus disappointed the
expectations of his people. Edward took the alarm; summoned a new
parliament to meet him within a fortnight; granted every demand; and
appointed a commission of three Bishops, three Earls, and three
Barons, to ascertain the real boundaries of the royal forests.”[83]
In the foregoing extract, we find Edward, on the 14th July, holding up
the Scots as a bugbear to terrify his subjects into an acquiescence
with his oppressive demands; and on the 30th September the English, in
turn, are found making the very same use of the Scots, for the purpose
of extorting from _their_ reluctant and unprincipled “Justinian,” the
confirmation of their national liberties. It did not, however, appear
to strike them that the subversion of freedom in Scotland was totally
inconsistent with its existence in the southern part of the island.
By the same author we are also told, that after the surrender of
Stirling Castle in 1304, Edward sent a secret deputation to the Pope,
craving that a dispensation might be granted him from the oaths he had
taken. This request appears to have been complied with; but the learned
author adds, “Whether the papal rescript did not fully meet the King’s
wishes, or that he was intimidated by the rebellion of the Scots, he
made no public use of its contents; but suffered the concessions,
galling as they were, to remain on the statute-roll at his death, and
descend to future sovereigns as the recognised law of the land. Thus,
after a long struggle, was won, from an able and powerful monarch,
the most valuable of the privileges enjoyed by the commons of England
at the present day. If we are indebted to the patriotism of Cardinal
Langton, and the Barons at Runnymead, the framers of the great charter,
we ought equally to revere the memory of Archbishop Winchelsey and
the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk. The former erected barriers against
the abuse of the sovereign authority; the latter fixed the liberties
of the subject on a sure and permanent foundation.”[84] In his list of
meritorious characters, the learned author ought certainly not to have
omitted the Knight of Elderslie and his patriotic followers, who, in
standing nobly forward for the independence of their own country, were
also instrumental in securing such invaluable and lasting privileges
for their neighbours.
From the evidence adduced in the quotations made, of the powerful
diversion effected in favour of English liberty by the stubborn
opposition of the Scots, it appears, that the success of the arms of
the latter was the palladium on which the most important of England’s
chartered rights depended. When the people of England, therefore,
think of erecting monuments to the characters the worthy Doctor has
enumerated, it is to be hoped that a tablet to the memory of the
Guardian of Scotland will not be forgotten, on which, with propriety,
may be inscribed
“LIBERTÉ CHERIE, quand tu meurs _en Ecosse_,
Certes, l’Anglais, _chez lui_, peut bien creuser TA fosse.”
APPENDIX.
A.
ORIGINAL LETTER FROM SIR WILLIAM WALLACE AND SIR ANDREW MURRAY.
Page 11.
It affords the writer no little pleasure, to be able to lay before
his readers the following authentic document, which establishes
beyond a doubt the early and deep interest which Wallace took in the
re-establishment of the commercial prosperity of Scotland. As this
important writing, however, has not hitherto appeared in the works
of either English or Scottish historians, nor even been alluded to
in any former account of Wallace, it will be necessary to give some
explanation respecting the source from which it has been obtained. In
the Foreign Quarterly Review for August 1829, the following notice
appeared:--“Our Scottish antiquarian friends will be gratified to hear,
that Dr Lappenberg of Hamburg, in his researches among the ancient
records of that city, has discovered a letter, of the date 1287,
addressed by _Robert Wallace_ and Andrew Murray to Hamburg and Lubec.”
An intimation of this kind could not fail to excite a considerable
degree of interest in the writer; and the possibility that a mistake
might have occurred respecting the date, as well as the name of one of
the parties, encouraged the hope, that a letter of William Wallace and
Andrew Murray, with which the public were unacquainted, might still
be in existence. Under this impression, the writer communicated with
an intelligent friend, through whose means application was made to Dr
Lappenberg on the subject, who, with that genuine politeness which
seldom fails to accompany distinguished merit, promptly communicated
a copy of the letter in question, taken from the _original_, which
still exists among the archives of the Hanseatic city of Lubec.[85] The
letter is to the following effect:--
“Andreas de Morauia et Willelmus Wallensis, duces exercitus regni
Scotie et communitas eiusdem Regni, prouidis viris et discretis ac
amicis dilectis, maioribus et communibus de Lubek et de Hamburg salutem
et sincere dilectionis semper incrementium. Nobis per fide dignos
mercatores dicti regni Scotie est intimatum, quod vos vestri gratiâ,
in omnibus causis et negociis, nos et ipsos mercatores tangentibus
consulentes, auxiliantes et favorabiles estis, licet nostra non
precesserent merita, et ideo magis vobis tenemur ad grates cum digna
remuneracione, ad que vobis volumus obligari; rogantes vos, quatinus
preconizari facere velitis inter mercatores vestros, quod securum
accessum ad omnes portus regni Scotie possint habere cum mercandiis
suis, quia regnum Scotie, Deo regraciato, ab Anglorum potestate bello
est recuperatum. Valete. Datum apud Badsingtonam in Scotia, undecimo
die Octobris, Anno gracie, millesimo ducentesimo nonagesimo septimo.
Rogamus vos in super vt negocia Johannis Burnet, et Johannis Frere,
mercatorum nostrorum promoueri dignemini, prout nos negocia mercatorum
vestrorum promovere velitis. Valete dat: ut prius.”
TRANSLATION.
“Andrew Murray and William Wallace, commanders of the army of the
kingdom of Scotland, and the community of the same kingdom--To the
prudent and discreet men, and well-beloved friends, the Mayors and
Commonwealths of Lubeck and of Hamburg, greeting, and perpetual
increase of sincere friendship.
“To us it has been intimated, by trust-worthy merchants of the
said kingdom of Scotland, that, as a mark of your regard, you have
been favourable to, counselling and assisting in, all matters and
transactions relating to us and said merchants, though [such good
offices] may not have been preceded by our deserts, and on that
account we are the more bound to tender you our thanks, and a suitable
return. This we have willingly engaged ourselves to [perform towards]
you, requesting, that in so far you would cause your merchants to be
informed, that they will now have safe access to all the ports of
the kingdom of Scotland with their merchandise, as the kingdom of
Scotland, thanks to God, has during the war been recovered from the
power of the English. Farewell.--Given at Badsington [Haddington?[86]],
in Scotland, this eleventh day of October, in the year of grace one
thousand twelve hundred and ninety-seven.--We have moreover to request,
that you would condescend to forward the interests of our merchants
John Burnet and John Frere in their business, in like manner as you may
wish us to act towards your merchants in their commercial transactions.
Farewell.--Dated as above.”
Dr Lappenberg, in his valuable communication, remarks, that this letter
“appears to be the oldest document existing relative to the intercourse
of Hamburg and Lubec, or other Hanseatic cities, with Scotland.”[87] As
the reader will perceive,--a mistake had occurred in the date, and also
in the name of Wallace.
From the above interesting muniment, various important points in our
history may be established. In the first place, it seems evident,
that Wallace and Murray, _up to the 11th October 1297_, acted only as
“duces exercitus regni Scotie,” in behalf of the _community of said
kingdom_; and that _the commission from John Baliol_, authorizing
them to act under his sanction, must have been received by them _on
their march to England_, or _during the time the devastation of
that country was going forward_; that is to say, between the 11th
_October_ and 7th _November_, on which day the charter was granted to
the monks of Hexham,[88] where we find “the name of the illustrious
Prince John, by the Grace of God King of Scotland,” is added to the
authorities mentioned in the above letter. And again, that between the
7th _November_ 1297, and the 29th _March_ 1298, _another commision_
must have been forwarded from _Baliol_ to _Wallace_ constituting him
the _sole Regent of the Kingdom of Scotland_, as we find him on _that
day_ at Torphichen granting, in that capacity, a charter to Alexander
Scrimgeor, and affixing to it the _seal of Baliol_; which circumstance
is mentioned in the charter, while no mention is made of any seal being
used in that at Hexham.[89]
From the circumstance of Andrew Murray’s name having precedence in
the letter to the Hanse Towns, and in the charter of Hexham, it may
with great probability be inferred, that these two documents were
either written by Wallace himself, or under his direction. That he
was qualified for the task is evident, from the care which had been
bestowed on his education; first by his uncle, and afterwards at the
seminary of Dundee. If Murray had either written them, or ordered them
to be written, it is not likely that he would have placed his own
name before one whose merits were so generally acknowledged, as to
procure him the appointment of Regent in so short a time afterwards;
while Wallace, in placing, or causing the name of Murray to be
placed, before his own, appears acting in perfect consistency with
those amiable traits in his character which we have already noticed.
As these writings are also free from that monkish pedantry, and
mystification which pervades in the literature of that age, they may
with great probability be considered as the composition of the talented
Liberator.[90]
It may be remarked, that the envy which a number of the magnates of
Scotland entertained towards the Guardian, seems to have arisen after
his appointment to the Regency. How Sir Andrew Murray demeaned himself
on the occasion, does not appear; but the conduct and feelings of
Cumyn, his near relation,[91] were too unequivocally expressed to be
misunderstood.
The above letter, besides affording a good specimen of the diplomatic
talents of our hero, is at the same time highly complimentary to the
friendly feelings and mercantile integrity of the merchants of the two
Hanse cities, and exhibits a singular contrast to the policy of Philip,
who, though bound by treaties, allowed his allies to struggle on
against their powerful adversary, without affording them the slightest
assistance.
B.
MEMOIR OF PATRICK EARL OF DUNBAR.[92]
Page 13.
This powerful and warlike baron was descended from Gospatrick, the
Governor of Northumberland, in the time of William the Norman, who
deprived him of that office in consequence of his joining the Danes in
1069, on their invasion of England. He afterwards retired to Scotland,
and sought the protection of Malcolm III., who conferred on him the
Castle of Dunbar and the lands adjoining. In virtue of this grant, his
descendants were styled Earls of March, and sometimes of Dunbar; the
former title being derived from the lands, the latter from the name of
the principal castle belonging to the family. They were also possessed
of the castle of Coldbrands-path, a fortress of almost equal importance.
Patrick, or (Corspatrick, as he is sometimes called), the subject of
the present notice, was the eighth Earl of Dunbar; he succeeded to his
father in 1289, being then about forty-seven years of age. He was one
of the nobles who consented to the projected marriage between prince
Edward and Margaret the young Queen of Scotland. In 1291, he put in
his claim to the crown, among the other competitors, founding his right
on being the great-grandson of Ilda or Ada, the daughter of William
king of Scots. On the commencement of hostilities between Edward and
Baliol, he adhered to the former; but his castle of Dunbar being left
in possession of his wife Margery, daughter of Alexander Comyn, Earl of
Buchan, she delivered it over to Baliol--conceiving the duties she owed
her country paramount to the injunctions of her husband.
Whatever blame may be attached to this Earl, for the active part he
took against the interest of Scotland, still the merit of consistency
must be awarded to him in the crooked line of policy he adopted; for,
having sworn fealty to Edward in 1291, he adhered to the interests of
his over-lord with zeal and fidelity. The answer[93] which he returned
to Wallace and the Scottish barons assembled at Perth, is quite in
accordance with that tone of independence assumed by the family, and
which, according to Lord Hailes, was so prejudicial to Scotland.
After being driven from Scotland, as has already been stated, he
continued to molest his countrymen as he found occasion. In 1298,
he was actively engaged in the Scottish wars, and in November was
appointed one of Edward’s Lieutenants in Scotland. In 1300, he and his
son,[94] a youth at that time about 15 years of age, were present at
the siege of Carlaverock castle, when he must have been at least 58
years old. In 33d Edward I., he was to have attended the parliament as
one of the representatives of the Commons of Scotland; but from some
reason or other, he did not appear. On the 30th September 1308, he was
commanded by Edward II. to assist in suppressing the insurrection of
Bruce, but what efforts he made, cannot well be ascertained. In the
following year he died, and was succeeded by Patrick, his son by the
daughter of the Earl of Buchan.
C.
CHARTER OF PROTECTION GRANTED TO THE PRIOR AND CONVENT OF HEXCELDSHAM.
Page 19.
“Andreas de Moravia et Willelmus Wallensis, _Duces exercitûs Scotiæ,
nomine præclari Principis Domini Johannis, Dei gratiâ, Regis Scotiæ
illustris, de consensu communitatis regni ejusdem_, omnibus hominibus
dicti regni ad quos præsentes literæ pervenerint, salutem. Sciatis,
nos, _nomine dicti Regis_, Priorem et Conventum de Hexhildesham
in Northumbria, terras suas, homines suos, et universas eorum
possessiones, ac omnia bona sua, mobilia et immobilia, sub firma pace
et protectione ipsius Domini Regis, et nostra, justè suscepisse. Quare
firmiter prohibemus, ne quis eis in personis, terris, seu rebus, malum,
molestiam, injuriam, seu gravamen aliquod, inferre præsumat, super
plenaria forisfactura ipsius Domini Regis, aut mortem eis, vel alicui
eorum, inferat, sub pœna amissionis vitæ et membrorum; præsentibus
post annum minimè valeturis. Dat. apud Hexhildesham, vii. die
Novembris.”--_W. Hemingford_, t. i. p. 135.[95]
D.
Page 21.
The intentions of Edward to curtail the power of his barons, and render
them more subservient to his will, were most unequivocally displayed
in his proceedings towards Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, immediately after
his return from the conquest of Scotland. The imperious language of
the tyrant, and the bold and determined conduct of the vassal, the
reader will find narrated in the extracts from Dr Lingard, inserted
in the concluding chapter of the narrative. The plans of Edward for
the extinction of British freedom, were such as have been generally
resorted to by other despots, who have encroached upon the rights of
their subjects or neighbours. While the Scots were summoned to fight
his battles in France, the Welsh were marched to Scotland to assist in
the subjugation of that country; and had the former remained passive
under the yoke, there is every reason to believe that they would soon,
in their turn, have been employed to enforce the arbitrary measures of
the ambitious monarch upon the subjects of his native kingdom. Thus
Scotland, England and Wales, would have mutually assisted in rivetting
the fetters of each other.
E.
THE SETONS.
Page 26.
With respect to the fate of Christell of Seyton, some little inquiry
may be necessary. It is well known, that a person of his name appears
to great advantage in the history of the struggles of Bruce, and
afterwards became a martyr in his cause; of course, he could not have
been the individual mentioned in the text. It appears from various
sources, that there were three of the Seyton family, of the name of
Christell, grandfather, father, and son. If any of these were killed in
the above battle, it must have been the second, for the first, “a man
given more to devotion nor worldliness,” died in the reign of Alexander
III. As the other two were both engaged in the contest for independence
along with Wallace, the following account of them may be interesting
to the reader. It is taken from the History of the House of Seyton, by
Sir Richard Maitland of Lethington, and lately printed by the Maitland
Club, from the MS. in the Advocates’ Library.
“OFF CHRISTELL SEYTOUN,
THE SECUND OF THAT NAME.
“Christell the secund of that name succedit to Christell the first,
his father, in the tyme of Allexander the Thryd, and was ane nobill
man, and did mony gud actis aganis the Inglismen, quhen the Crowne
was desolat and in pley betuix the Bruce and the Balioll. Quhilk
Christell, quhen he micht nocht brouk the lawland of Lowthyane, quhair
was his duelling place, duelt and remainit wyth his kyn and freyndis in
Jedburgh forrest, ay awating his tyme contrare the Inglismen; and deit
in the tyme of William Wallace.”
“OFF CHRYSTELL SEYTOUN,
THE THRYD OF THAT NAME.
“Christell the thryd succedit to Christell the secund, his father, in
the tyme of Williame Wallace; quhilk Christell was efter maid knycht
be King Robert Bruce, and for his monye gude actis done againis the
Inglismen, was callit Gud S^r Christell. Quha quhen King Robert Bruce
was tane presonare in handis be the Inglismen at ane feild besyde
Methven, and thay that tuke him cryit in scorne and derisioun, Quha
will help the new maid King? quhilk cry the said S^r Chrystell hard,
and come in all haist and straik at erd him that had the king in
handis; and thair he and his freindis reskewit the said King Robert,
and pat him to libertie. This Chrystell maryit the said King Robert
Bruce sister, and thairfor the said King Robert gaif to the said S^r
Chrystell the dowbil tresour of flour de lycis, to be worne about his
armes and the armes of his posterité, lyk as the King weris thame.
Efter mony grit and notabill actis done be the said S^r Chrystell
contrair Ingland, he was tane at the last, and had to Londoun, and
thair put to deid in maist cruell maner. In this mene tyme, King Robert
Bruce hapnit to be in the toun of Dunfreis, and passand furth till
ane lytill knoll besyd the said toun to tak the air, quhair the word
and tythingis come to him of the crewell slauchter of the said S^r
Chrystell, quhilk the king heirand maid grit lamentatioun wyth sum
teiris, saying, It is ane pieté that sa nobill ane knycht suld die
sa crewell ane deid. And incontinent, in the samin place quhair he
wes standand quhen the tythingis come to him, gart found ane chapell
in honour of the Virgene Marie; and in remembrance of the said S^r
Chrystell foundit ane preist to do devyne service thairin perpetuallie,
and pray for the said Schir Chrystell; and gaif to the said preist and
his successouris the sowme of fyve pundis Streviling, to be tane of the
baronie of Carlauerok, for thair sustentatioun. Quhilk fundatioun I
haue had oft in my handis, and red it sindrie tymes. The quhilk chapell
was standand haill and vndecayit in the yeir of God J^m v^c lii yeiris,
as I saw my self; and as I beleve standis yit in the samin maner, and
is callit be all the inhabitaris in that cuntre Christallis chapell.
“ANE EIK OF S^R CHRISTOPHER OF SETOUN,
THE THRID OF THAT NAME.
“It is to wit that efter that I had wryttin the Historie of the Hous of
Setoun, I haue fund in the greit Cronicles of Ingland, set furth sen I
wret the historie of Setoun, quhilk ar as efter followis:
“Efter this was the castell of Lochdore taiken, and wythin it
Christopher Seitoun, that had maried the sister of Robert le Bruce;
[and bicause he was no Scot, but an Englishman borne,] the King of
Ingland commandit that he suld be led wnto Dunfreis, quhar he had
killit on of the Kingis knychtis, and thair to be hangit drawin and
quarterit: The wyf of this Christopher Seitoun he apoyntit to be keipit
in the monesterie of Thixell in Lyndsay.”--“Morouer, the manor of
Seitoun, in Quhytbestroud, he gaue wnto the Lord Edmonde de Mawlay, and
those wther landis that belongeth to the said Christopher Seitoun in
Northumberland he gaue wnto the Lord Williame Latemer.”
“And howbeit that I wret of before as I was informit for the tyme, That
the first tyme that King Robert the Bruce com to Dunfreis efter that
S^r Christopher Setoun was crewellie slane in Ingland, that in the sam
place quhar the King was quhen the thydingis com till him he garde bige
ane chapell, and dottit the samyng perpetuallie to pray for the said
S^r Christopher; bot now it apeiris be the Inglis Cronicles, That quhan
the said King com to Dunfreis, that quhan it was reportit till him be
the inhabeturis of the said toun the crewell marterdome of the said S^r
Christopher, that he garde bige the said chapell in the samyng place
quhar the said S^r Christopher was pute to deid and executtit. Of the
quhilk chapell I haue red the foundatioun and infythment of ane priest
onder the saidis kingis greit seill; and hes hard Mes in the samyng
chapell, quhilk standis as I beleif to this present day.”--P. 18-21.
F.
MEMOIR OF FITZ-MARMADUKE.
Page 33.
“This stern soldier was the eldest son of Marmaduke Fitz-Geoffrey,
Lord of Hordene, in the bishoprick of Durham, who, in the 45th Henry
III., 1260-1, obtained the King’s license to embattle his mansion-house
there. In August 1282, John Fitz-Marmaduke, with nine other knights,
performed services due from the Bishop of Durham, who styled him,
on another occasion, “Nostre tres cher bachelier, Mons^r. Jehan le
Fitz-Marmaduk;” but from that time nothing is recorded of him, until
February 1301, when he was a party to the Letter from the Barons to
the Pontiff, in which he is called “Lord of Hordene,” excepting that
he was at the siege of Carlaverock in June 1300, where his bravery was
particularly conspicuous. He came, we are told, to assail the castle
with a great and full troop of good and select bachelors, and stood as
firm as a post, and his banner received many a rent difficult to mend.
“It is most extraordinary, that for nearly twenty years, no notice
can be found in the records of an individual who, at the end of that
period, was a party to an instrument from the Baronage of the realm;
and it was from this circumstance, the similarity of their arms, and
his surname, that he was confounded with Marmaduke de Thweng in the
“Synopsis of the Peerage.”
“In the 31st Edward I., Fitz-Marmaduke was commanded to appear
before the King on the first Sunday in Lent, with full powers from
the community of the Bishoprick of Durham, to accept his Majesty’s
mediation between them and the Bishop; and, in April in the same year,
he was appointed a Commissioner of Array. On the 30th September, 1st
Edward II. 1307, he was ordered, with others, to proceed to Galloway,
to repress the rebellion of Robert de Brus; and, in October following
he was commanded to serve with horse and arms against the Scots; after
which time his name does not occur among the writs of service. He
continued in the wars of Scotland, “comme une estache;” and, on the
21st June 1308, was again enjoined to oppose the attempts of Bruce.
On the 16th February, 3d Edward II., 1310, he was authorized, with
others, to treat with the Scots for a truce. Fitz-Marmaduke died in
1311, at which time he was governor of St John’s Town of Perth; and a
very curious fact is recorded respecting his funeral. He particularly
requested to be interred within the precincts of the cathedral of
Durham, but, as the state of the country prevented the removal of
his corpse in the usual manner, his domestics adopted the expedient
of dismembering the body, and then boiling the flesh from the bones;
by which means they preserved his reliques, until an opportunity
offered of transmitting them with safety across the border. For this
outrage against an ecclesiastical canon, which had been promulgated
in consequence of the frequency of the practice, Cardinal Berengarius,
Bishop of Jerusalem, imposed on the offenders the mild penance of
attending their master’s obsequies in the cemetery of the cathedral of
Durham, having first used the authority of the church to ensure the
quiet transportation of his remains.
“Fitz-Marmaduke was twice married; first, to Isabella, sister, and
heiress of Robert Brus of Stanton, by whom he had Richard, his son and
heir, and a daughter, Mary, who married ---- Lumley; and, secondly,
Ida, who survived him, and was living his widow in 1313. Richard
Fitz-Marmaduke was Seneschal of the Bishoprick of Durham, and was
slain, in 1318, by his kinsman Robert Neville, on the Old Bridge of
Durham, as he was riding to hold the county court, which event is
described as “a most strange and detestable action.” Though married to
Alianora ----, he died without children, when Mary, his sister, became
his heiress. She left issue Robert Lumley of Ravensholm, who married
Lucia, the daughter and co-heiress of Marmaduke de Thweng. They had
issue a son, Marmaduke Lumley, whose representative is the present Earl
of Scarborough.”
_Siege of Carlaverock._
G.
MEMOIR OF BRIAN FITZ-ALAN.
Page 38.
“Brian Fitz-Alan succeeded his father Brian before the 5th Edward I.,
and on the 6th April, 10th Edward I. 1282, and 14th June 1287, was
summoned to serve with horse and arms in Wales. In the 19th Edward I.,
he obtained permission to make a castle of his house at Kilwardeby
in Yorkshire; and in the following year, being one of King Edward’s
vicegerents in Scotland, he, with others, received that monarch’s
precept to give John de Balliol possession of the kingdom. He was a
witness to that personage’s surrender of his crown on the 10th July
1296, about which time he was constituted the King’s Lieutenant in
Scotland. Fitz-Alan was present at the siege of Carlaverock in June
1300; and in the ensuing February, was a party to the Letter from the
Barons to Pope Boniface, in which he is styled, “Lord of Bedale.” His
seal affixed to that document has been the subject of remark, for
instead of containing his arms, it presents a whimsical assemblage
of animals, apparently consisting of two birds, a rabbit, a stag,
and a pig or boar, all of which are looking to the dexter excepting
the latter, which is regarding the chief, and is inscribed with this
curious legend,
TOT.CAPITA.TOT.SENTENCIE.
“The inference to be drawn from this singular seal tends to establish,
that its owner was eccentric or satirical; for it must either have been
used from unmeaning caprice, or with the intention of ridiculing the
devices in the signets of his contemporaries. The allusion in the poem
(The siege of Carleverock) to the arms of Fitz-Alan, is too important
to be allowed to pass unnoticed. It not only informs us of an event in
his life, by proving that he had been involved in a dispute with Hugh
Poyntz, but shows that it was always one of the fundamental laws of
arms, that no two persons should bear the same ensigns, and that there
was then sufficient pride felt on the point to resent its infringement.
“All that is farther known of Fitz-Alan is, that he was summoned to
Parliament from the 23d June 23d Edward I. 1295, to the 22d January,
33d Edward I. 1305, though he died in 1302. The name of his wife is not
stated, but it is almost certain that he married late in life; for,
according to a note of the inquisition held on his death, Maud his
daughter was his heir; though, at the death of his brother Theobald
Fitz-Alan, on the 1st Edward II. 1307-8, his heirs are said to have
been Maud and Katherine, the daughters of his brother Brian Fitz-Alan,
the former of whom was then aged seven years, and the latter five; so
that Katherine, who made proof of her age on the 12th Edward II., was
probably a posthumous child. A discrepancy, however, exists on the
subject; for, agreeable to a note of the inquisition on the death of
this baron, his daughter Maud was then eight years old, and Dugdale
says that Katherine was at the same time aged six, which, if the other
statement be correct, was impossible. Of these daughters, Maud married
Sir Gilbert Stapleton, and, according to a pedigree in Dodsworth’s
MSS., secondly Thomas Sheffield; and Katherine became the wife of John
Lord Grey of Rotherfield. Brian Fitz-Alan was buried in the south aisle
of Bedale church in Yorkshire, and a sumptuous monument was there
erected to his memory, a beautiful engraving and accurate description
of which are given in Blore’s “Monumental Remains.” Sir Brian is said
to have possessed a very elegant figure, and manners highly polished
for the age.”
_Siege of Carlaverock._
H.
MEMOIR OF AYMER DE VALENCE, EARL OF PEMBROKE.
Page 71.
“AYMER DE VALENCE was the third son of William de Valence, who was
created Earl of Pembroke by his uterine brother King Henry the Third.
He was born about 1280, and succeeded his father in his honours on
the 13th June 1296, both of his elder brothers having previously died
without issue. The earliest notice of him which is recorded, is,
that on the 26th January, 25th Edward I., 1297, he was summoned to
Parliament as a baron, though, according to modern opinions on the
subject, he was fully entitled to the earldom of Pembroke, nor was the
title ever attributed to him in public records, until the 6th November,
1st Edward II. 1307; and the first writ to Parliament addressed to him
as “Earl of Pembroke,” was tested on the 18th of the following January.
Upon this remarkable circumstance, some observations have been recently
made; but it is wholly impossible to explain the cause of the anomaly
in a satisfactory manner. Although never styled “Earl of Pembroke”
until the accession of Edward II., it is manifest, that from the death
of his father, he ranked above all barons excepting Henry of Lancaster,
who being of the blood royal, is uniformly mentioned next to Earls;
hence it appears, that notwithstanding his claim was not positively
acknowledged, he was considered to be entitled to a higher degree of
precedency than belonged to the baronial dignity. In the 25th Edward
I., he was in the expedition into Flanders, and, in the same year, was
appointed a commissioner to ratify an agreement between the King and
Florence, Count of Holland, relative to some auxiliaries from the Count
in that war; and was likewise one of the ambassadors sent by Edward
to treat for a truce between England and France. In the 26th and 27th
Edward I., he was in the Scottish wars, and in June 1300, in the 28th
Edward I., was present at the siege of Carlaverock, when he must have
been about twenty-one years of age; but the poet pays him no other
compliment than what a pun upon his name suggested.
“Le Valence Aymars li Vaillans.”
“In the following year, he was a party to the Barons’ letter to the
Pope, in which, though his name occurs immediately after that of the
Earl of Arundel, and before Henry de Lancaster’s, he is only styled
‘Lord of Montiniac.’ Shortly afterwards, he was appointed to treat with
the ambassadors of the King of France on the subject of peace. In the
31st Edward I., he was again in the wars of Scotland; and, in the same
year, received permission to leave the realm upon his own affairs. He
obtained a grant, in 1305, of the Castles of Selkirk and Traquair,
and of the borough of Peebles in Scotland, to hold by the service of
one knight’s fee, together with other possessions in that kingdom;
and, in the 34th Edward I., was constituted Guardian of the Marches of
Scotland towards Berwick, when he was intrusted with the sole command
of the English forces which had been levied against Robert Bruce. In
the instrument by which he was appointed to that important duty, as
well as in most others, he is styled “Dilectum consanguineum et fidelum
nostrum.” The appellation of “Cousin” was not then a mere title of
honour, when addressed to a peer, but was used in its most literal
sense; and Aymer de Valence’s claim to it is shown by the following
slight pedigree.
Hugh le Brun, == Isabel, daughter, and heiress == King John,
Count of the | of Aymer, Count of | ob. 1216,
Marches of the | Angouleme. | 1st husband.
Aquitaine, 2d | |
husband. | |
| |
+--------+ +------------+
| |
William de Valence, created == K. Henry III. ob. 1272. ==
Earl of Pembroke, ob. 1296. | |
| |
+----------------------+ +---------------+
| |
AYMER DE VALENCE, Earl == KING EDWARD I. ob. 1307 ==
of Pembroke, ob. 1323. |
+-----------------+
|
KING EDWARD II.
“The successes which attended this nobleman against Robert Bruce, are
described by a contemporary chronicler; and it is said that Valence,
after a severe contest, pursued Bruce, and presuming that he would
take refuge in Kildrummie castle, he gained possession of that place,
but finding only Nigel de Bruce, brother of Robert, there, he caused
him and all who were with him, to be immediately hung. This action has
given rise to some pertinent remarks by the able biographer of the
Earl in the beautiful work before noticed,[96] who has satisfactorily
shown that Nigel was not put to death by him, but that at least the
forms of law were practised on the occasion. On the deathbed of Edward
I., Pembroke, with some other personages, received the King’s dying
injunctions to afford his son their counsel and support, and not to
permit Piers de Gaveston to return into England. His strict adherence
to this command, naturally excited the favourite’s displeasure; and
he is said, in derision of his tall stature and pallid complexion,
to have termed him “Joseph the Jew.” In the first year of the young
monarch’s reign, Valence was, as has been before observed, allowed and
summoned to Parliament by his proper title of Earl of Pembroke; and
at the coronation of that monarch, he carried the King’s left boot,
but the spur belonging to it was borne by the Earl of Cornwall. In the
same year, after performing homage upon the death of his mother for
her lands, he was joined with Otho de Grandison in an embassy to the
Pope; and in the 3d Edward II., was found heir to his sister Agnes, or
more probably Anne. It has been considered, from the circumstance of
the Earl being a witness to the instrument by which the King recalled
Gaveston, and bestowed the possessions of the Earl of Cornwall upon
him, that he approved of, or at least consented to, those acts; but
this idea rests upon far too uncertain evidence to be relied upon; and
if he ever changed his opinion it was of short duration, for in the
3d Edward II., he joined the Earl of Lancaster against Gaveston, and
when he was banished the realm in 1311, the Earl of Pembroke was one
of the persons deputed to petition the King that he should be rendered
incapable of ever holding any office.
“In the 6th Edward II., he was again sent on a mission to Rome, and
in the same year obtained a grant of lands in London, in which was
included the New Temple. In the 7th Edward II. he was appointed Custos
and Lieutenant of Scotland, untill the arrival of the King, and was
present at the fatal battle of Bannockburn. Two inedited MSS. cited
in the “Monumental Remains,” allude to the Earl’s conduct on that
occasion, in words fatal either to his loyalty or his courage: the
one stating that “Insuper Comes de Pembrok, Henricus de Bellomonte,
et multi magnates, _cordetenus Pharisei_, a certamine recesserunt;”
and the other, that “in pedibus suis evasit ex acie et cum Valensibus
fugientibus se salvavit.” In all probability, however, the language
was in both instances that of an enemy, and deserves but little
credit; though, even if it were true, “there is no great disgrace,” as
the learned biographer, from whose memoir these extracts are taken,
has truly remarked, “in seeking safety by flight when defeat was
inevitable, and the whole army pursued a similar course.”
“In the 9th Edward II., the Earl was a commissioner for holding a
Parliament in the King’s absence, and he took an active part in the
proceedings therein. Being sent to Rome on a mission to the Pontiff, a
singular misfortune befel him, as he was taken prisoner on his return
by a Burgundian called John de Moiller with his accomplices, and sent
to the Emperor, who obliged him to pay a ransom of 20,000 pounds of
silver, upon the absurd pretence that Moiller had served the King of
England without being paid his wages. Edward used every exertion to
procure the Earl’s liberty, and wrote to several sovereign princes,
soliciting them to interfere on the subject; but he did not immediately
succeed. In the 11th Edward II., Pembroke was once more in the Scottish
wars, and was appointed governor of Rockingham castle; and upon the
King’s purposed voyage in the 13th Edward II., to do homage to the King
of France for the Duchy of Acquitaine, he was constituted Guardian of
the realm during his absence, being then also Custos of Scotland. In
the 15th Edward II., he sat in judgment on the Earl of Lancaster at
Pontefract; and for his conduct on the occasion, was rewarded with the
grant of several manors.
“In March 1309, the Earl of Pembroke was one of the peers appointed to
regulate the royal household; in the 5th Edward II., he was commanded
not to approach the place where the Parliament was held with an armed
retinue, or in any other manner than was observed in the time of the
late King; in the 8th Edward II., he was a commissioner to open and
continue a parliament at York; in the 12th Edward II., he was sent to
Northampton with others to treat with the Earl of Lancaster, for the
better government of the realm, and was one of the peers then appointed
to be about the King’s person, at which time he signed the agreement
between the King and that Earl; he advised the reversal of the judgment
against Hugh le Despencer the younger; by writ tested on the 19th
January, 14 Edward II. 1321, he was appointed a commissioner to treat
for peace with Robert de Brus; and in the 18th Edward II., the Earl,
as Justice in Eyre of the Forest of Essex, claimed the appointment of
Marshal thereof.
“The Earl of Pembroke accompanied Isabel, Queen of England to France in
1323; and is said to have lost his life in that year, at a tournament
given by him, to celebrate his nuptials with his third wife, Mary,
daughter of Guy de Chastillon, Count of St Paul’s; though, from the
obscure manner in which his death is mentioned by some chroniclers,
and the attempt which they have made to consider it as a mark of the
vengeance of Heaven for his conduct relative to the Earl of Lancaster,
Dugdale asserts that he was murdered on the 23d June 1324, “by reason
he had a hand” in that affair. But the former statement his recent
biographer considers to be corroborated by the following lines in
a long MS. poem, containing a life of the Earl, in the Cottonian
collection, written by Jacobus Nicholaus de Dacia, who calls himself a
scholar of Mary de St Paul, Countess of Pembroke; by which he probably
meant that he belonged to Pembroke Hall, which she had founded.
_Mors Comitem Comitum necuit, mors ipsa cruenta
Ipsa cruore rubrum campum facit et rubicundum._
“From the annexed account of the Earl’s death, however, by another
contemporary writer, it would appear that he died of apoplexy:
“Ea vero tempestate primorum consultu direxit ad partes transmarinas
Rex Almaricum de Valencia Comitem de Penbrokia, virum siquidem ad
queque nepharia peragenda iuxta sue propinquitatis nequiciam continue
paratum, regis Francorum presencie nuncium super dictis negocüs
assistendum vt eiusdem regis Francorum animum ab inceptis, revocaret,
ut ipsius benevolenciam affectum regis Anglorum varijs blandiciis
inclinaret. Quo perveniente, ac iuxta proposita suorum verborum
responsis acceptis, per Pykardiam rediens, ad quoddam municipium mi.
villa, id est, _dimidia villa_, nuncupatum, tribus leucis a Compyne
distans, in vigilia Sancti Johannis, declinavit pransurus, ubi Christus
voluit virum sanguineum et dolosum non dimidiare dies suos. Sed finita
refectionis hora thalamum ingreditur, deambulando statim in atrio
corruit, ac sine confessione et viatico salutari infelicem animam
subito in solo sufflavit.”[97]
The following account of the Earl of Pembroke is from the pen of
Hutchinson. “This Earl” (Adomer de Valence) “seemed to have a divine
interdict depending over him, and the immediate vindictive hand of
Providence to be upon him and his posterity for his atrocious deeds. He
was a tool to his prince, and servilely submitted to the mandate of the
crown, contrary to the dictates of humanity, honour, and justice. He
sat in judgment on Thomas Earl of Lancaster, and impiously acquiesced
in his sentence. He was a chief instrument in apprehending the famous
Scottish patriot Wallace in 1305; accomplishing his capture by the
treachery of his most intimate associates, and those in whom he placed
his utmost confidence, Sir John Menteith and others of infamous memory.
_Adomer_, on his bridal day, was slain in a tournament, held in honour
of his nuptials; and left a wife at once a _maiden_, _bride_ and
_widow_. It is said that, for several generations of this family, _a
father was never happy enough to see his son_, the proscribed parent
being snatched off by the hand of death before the birth of his issue.”
(_Hutchinson’s History of Northumberland._)
It may be also remarked as a singular coincidence, the fatality which
attended the Stuarts after they came to the throne, not one of whom,
for many generations, died a natural death. John Menteith was the
son of Walter Stuart, Earl of Menteith, and of the same family which
afterwards swayed the Scottish sceptre.
Aymer, or Adomer de Valence, is likewise charged by the Minstrel,
as being the instrument made use of for corrupting the fidelity of
Menteith; and he mentions, that the infamous bargain was finally
concluded in “_Ruglyne Kirk_,” where the two met by appointment, and
that Menteith received from Valence three thousand crowns of gold
as the price of his friend. “_Ruglyne_” is situated nearly mid-way
between Bothwell and Dumbarton castles; the former being the place
where the Earl of Pembroke usually resided when in Scotland, and was
quite convenient for his keeping an appointment at “_Ruglyne_” with
the governor of Dumbarton Castle. When it is recollected, that John
Comyn, who, according to “_Douglas’s peerage_,” married a sister of
Valence, was hatching the treason which he afterwards put in practice
against Bruce, at the time when his brother-in-law was tampering with
the friend of Wallace, it will not be doing him great injustice, if we
suppose him _at least_ in the secret of the infamous transaction with
Menteith. In fact, both of these deeds of darkness appear to have been
part of the same plan for placing Comyn, and consequently the sister of
the Earl of Pembroke, on the Scottish throne.
The Earl was thrice married; first, to Beatrix, daughter of Ralph de
Noel, Constable of France; secondly, to a daughter of the Earl of
Barre; and thirdly, to Mary, daughter of Guy de Chastillon, Count of St
Paul; but he had no issue; and the descendants of his sisters, Isabel,
the wife of John Baron Hastings, and Joan, who married John Comyn of
Badenoch, are consequently his representatives. His eldest sister,
Anne, married, first, Maurice Fitz-Gerald; secondly, Hugh de Balliol;
and, lastly, John de Avennes; and probably died, S. P. in the 3d Edward
II.
Mary, Countess of Pembroke, is chiefly known to the present age by an
action, which seldom fails to ensure immortality. She was the foundress
of a College for the purposes of learning and religion, which still
bears the name of Pembroke Hall; and was likewise a benefactress to
several religious houses. She died about 1376; and on the 13th March in
that year made her will at Braxted, in Essex, by which she ordered her
body to be buried in the church of the sisters of Denny, where she had
caused her tomb to be made; and bequeathed to the church of the Abbey
of Westminster, where her husband was interred, a cross, with a foot
of gold and emeralds, which Sir William de Valence, Knight, brought
from the Holy Land.
The body of the Earl of Pembroke was conveyed to England, and buried in
Westminster Abbey; but upon the beautiful tomb erected to his memory,
it is unnecessary to say a single word, ample justice having been done
to it by the artist and the author of a biographical notice, which
accompanies a recent engraving of his tomb.
_Siege of Carlaverock._
I.
MEMOIR OF HENRY DE LACY, EARL OF LINCOLN.
Page 86.
“HENRY DE LACY was the eldest son of Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln,
by Alice, the daughter of the Marquess of Saluces in Italy. He
succeeded his father in the earldom in 1257, at which time he was
probably about nine years of age, his parents having been married
in May 1247. The first circumstance relating to the Earl after his
birth, of which we have any notice, was his marriage, in 1256, to
Margaret, the eldest daughter and co-heiress of William de Longespee,
the covenants of which are given by Dugdale. In 1269, the Earl became
involved in a dispute about some lands with John Earl Warren, and each
party prepared to establish his claim by force of arms; but their
intention becoming known to the King, he commanded his Justices to
hear and determine the cause, who decided it in favour of the Earl
of Lincoln. William de Longespee, his wife’s father, died in the 52d
Henry III.; and soon afterwards the Countess and her husband performed
homage for, and obtained livery of, all the lands which had in
consequence devolved upon her. In her right he is considered to have
become Earl of Salisbury, the said William de Longespee having been
entitled to that dignity, though he was never allowed it, as son and
heir of William de Longespee, the natural son of King Henry II., by the
well-known Rosamond Clifford, who obtained the Earldom of Salisbury
by his marriage with Elizabeth, the daughter and heiress of William
d’Evereux. On the feast of St Edward, 18th March 1272, the Earl of
Lincoln received the honour of knighthood, and in the same year was
appointed Governor of Knaresborough Castle. In 5th Edward I. he had
livery of the fee which his ancestors had usually received ‘_nomine
comitatûs Lincoln_’ with all the arrears from the time he was invested
by King Henry III. with the sword of that earldom. Upon several
occasions, between the 6th and 10th Edward I., he obtained grants of
fairs, markets, and free-warrens in different parts of his domains; and
in the year last mentioned, he accompanied the expedition then sent
into Wales. Leland asserts that the Earl built the town of Denbigh, the
land of which had been granted to him “from his having married into the
blood of those princes, and that he walled it, and erected a castle,
on the front of which was a statue of him in long robes; and that
anciently prayers were offered in Saint Hillary’s chapel in that place,
for Lacy and Percy.”
“Dugdale considers, that his surrender of the castle and barony of
Pontefract to the King, with all the honours thereto belonging, in
the 20th Edward I., arose from his “having been long married, and
doubting whether he should ever have issue, but upon condition, as it
seems,” for the king, by his charter, dated at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 28th
December, 21. Edward I., re-granted the same to him and to the heirs
of his body, with remainder to Edmund Earl of Lancaster, the King’s
brother, and to the heirs of his body, failing which, to the king and
his heirs. In almost the next paragraph, however, that eminent writer
says, “that in the 22d Edward I., the Earl received a grant of several
manors from the King, with remainder to Thomas, the son of Edmund Earl
of Lancaster, and Alice his wife, sole daughter of the Earl, and to the
heirs of their two bodies lawfully begotten, and failing such issue, to
the right heirs of the said Thomas” from which it would appear, that,
at the time of the surrender by the Earl of Lincoln to the King, the
said Alice was living; and which is further confirmed by his saying,
in a subsequent page, that she was 28 years of age at the death of her
father in 1312, in which case she must have been above seven at the
time in question. In the 20. Edward I., the Earl was sent as ambassador
to the King of France, to treat on the subject of the restraint of
those pirates who robbed some French merchants; and in the 22d year of
that monarch he again attended him into Wales, and was likewise in the
expedition sent into Gascony. He accompanied the Earl of Lancaster, in
the 24. Edward I., into Brittany, and was present at various successes
of the English forces. On the death of that nobleman, he succeeded him
in his command, and besieged the town of Aux with great vigour, though
without success, and was forced to retreat to Bayonne; from which place
he marched, with John de St John, towards Bellegard, which was then
besieged by the Count d’Artois. The engagement which took place in the
vicinity of that town, does not, from Dugdale’s relation of it, appear
to have added to the reputation of the Earl, as he informs us, upon the
authority of Walsingham, that “approaching a wood about three miles
from Bellegard, he divided his army into two parts, whereof the van
was led by John de St John, and the rear by himself; but having past
the wood where St John, meeting the enemy, began the fight, discerning
their strength, he retreated to Bayonne, leaving the rest to shift for
themselves, so that St John and many others were by reason thereof
taken prisoners.” Whatever stain this circumstance might have cast upon
his military character, seems to have been partially removed towards
the end of that year, by his having obliged the enemy to raise the
siege which they had laid to St Katherine’s, in Gascony; soon after
which he proceeded into Flanders, and thence returned to England. In
the ensuing year, 27. Edward I., he was summoned by writ, tested 17th
September, 27. Edward I., 1299, to be at York, with horse and arms,
on the morrow of the Feast of St Martin, to serve against the Scots;
and, in the next year, he is stated to have been sent to the Pope, with
Sir Hugh Spencer, to complain of injuries received from the Scots; and
about the same time he was appointed Lieutenant of Gascony. In the 29.
Edward I., he was made Governor of Corfe Castle, from which year until
the 31. Edward I., when he was joined in commission with the Bishop of
Winchester to treat of peace between England and France, Dugdale gives
no account of him.
“It was, however, on the 24th June, in the 29. Edward I., anno 1300,
when the Earl must have been above 50 years of age, that he commanded
the first division of the army which besieged Carlaverock Castle. The
only characteristic trait recorded of him by the poet, is that of
valour, which, we are told, was the principal feeling that animated his
heart, and in so rude an age, this attribute was perhaps the highest
and most gratifying praise that could be imagined. His name does not
afterwards occur in that production, from which we may conclude, that
his services at the siege and assault were not very conspicuous. In
1305, the Earl was again employed on a mission to the Pope, being
deputed with the Bishops of Lichfield and Worcester to attend the
inauguration of the Pontiff at Lyons, and to present him, in the name
of the King, with several vessels of pure gold. After having executed
this command, it appears that he was once more in the wars in Gascony,
and in the ensuing year was similarly employed in Scotland. Upon the
death of the King, at Burgh in Cumberland, the Earl was one of the
Peers who attended him in his last moments, and received his solemn
request to be faithful to his son, and not to allow Piers de Gaveston
to return into England. Immediately after Edward’s demise, he joined
some Earls and Barons in a solemn engagement to defend the young King,
his honour and authority; and at his coronation he is recorded to have
carried one of the swords borne at that ceremony; shortly after which
he was appointed Governor of Skipton Castle. His conduct seems to have
secured the confidence of the new monarch, for, upon his expedition
towards Scotland in the 3d and 4th years of his reign, the Earl of
Lincoln was constituted Governor of the realm during his absence.
“The preceding account of this personage has been almost entirely taken
from Sir William Dugdale’s Baronage. The only facts which have been
ascertained relating to him, not stated in that work, are, that he was
one of the Mainpernors for the Earl of Gloucester in 1292; that he was
a Receiver and Trier of Petitions in 1304; that he was present in the
parliament held at Carlisle in February, 35th Edward I., 1307; and that
he was one of the Peers appointed to regulate the King’s household in
May, 3d Edward II., 1309.
“His works of piety were proportionate to his extensive possessions,
and, adopting this criterion of his religious sentiments, we may
conclude that he was not behind his contemporaries in superstition or
devotion. Amongst his more substantial gifts to the church, was his
large contribution to the “new work” at St Paul’s Cathedral in London;
and three gilt crosses and a carbuncle, and a cup of silver gilt, which
was said to have belonged to the shrine of St Edmund, in the abbey of
Salley.
“The Earl of Lincoln closed a long and active career in 1312, at
Lincoln’s Inn,[98] in the suburbs of London, being then about
sixty-three or sixty-four years of age, and he is reported to have
called his son-in-law, the Earl of Lancaster, to him, upon his
death-bed, and, after representing how highly “it had pleased God to
honor and enrich him above others,” he told him that “he was obliged to
love and honor God above all things;” and then added, “See’st thou the
Church of England, heretofore honourable and free, enslaved by Romish
oppressions, and the King’s wicked exactions? See’st thou the common
people, impoverished by tributes and taxes, and, from the condition
of freemen, reduced to servitude? See’st thou the nobility, formerly
venerable throughout Christendom, vilified by aliens, in their own
native country? I therefore charge thee, by the name of Christ to stand
up like a man for the honor of God and his church, and the redemption
of thy country, associating thyself to that valiant, noble, and prudent
person, Guy, Earl of Warwick, when it shall be most proper to discourse
of the public affairs of the kingdom, who is so judicious in counsel,
and mature in judgment. Fear not thy opposers who shall contest against
thee in the truth, and if thou pursuest this my advice, thou shalt gain
eternal honour!” This patriotic speech, which is attributed to him by
Walsingham, who wrote in the fifteenth century, is worthy of attention,
as conveying the view taken of the affairs of the period by a monk
about one hundred years afterwards; for it would require extraordinary
credulity to consider that it was really uttered by the dying Earl,
whose whole life does not appear to present a single action indicative
of the sentiments there attributed to him. His body was buried in the
eastern part of St Paul’s Cathedral in London, between the chapel of
our Lady and that of St Dunstan.
“The Earl of Lincoln was twice married, first to Margaret de Longespee
before-mentioned, by whom he had a son, Edmond de Lacy, who was drowned
in a well in a high tower, called the Red Tower, in Denbigh Castle,
in his father’s lifetime; and a daughter, Alice, the wife of Thomas
Earl of Lancaster, who was his sole heiress, and, at the Earl’s death,
was twenty-eight years of age. His second wife was Joan, sister and
heiress of William Baron Martin, who survived him, and was remarried to
Nicholas Baron Audley.
“Alice, Countess of Lancaster, whose romantic life has been made the
subject of a popular novel, styled herself, as sole inheritrix of the
extensive possessions of her father and mother, Countess of Lincoln
and Salisbury. She was thrice married; first to the Earl of Lancaster;
secondly, to Eubolo le Strange; and, thirdly, to Hugh le Frenes; but
died without issue on the Thursday next after the feast of St Michael,
22d Edward III., _i. e._ 2nd October 1348, when the representation of
the powerful house of Lacy became vested in the descendants of Maud,
the sister of Henry Earl of Lincoln, who married Richard de Clare, Earl
of Gloucester.”
_Siege of Carlaverock._
K.
MEMOIRS OF RICHARD SIWARD, AND WALTER DE HUNTERCOMBE.
Page 97.
We shall here insert some account of Richard Siward and Walter de
Huntercombe, two characters who appeared on this occasion. The latter,
besides being at the siege of Carlaverock, where he attracted the
notice of the poet, who mentions him as the handsome Huntercombe,
bearing “ermine with two red gemmells,” was also governor of Edinburgh
castle, and engaged in almost every campaign which Edward made in
Scotland. The following notice, therefore, abridged from Mr Nicolas,
will be useful in supplying that information respecting him which it
has been inconvenient to give in the course of the narrative. It is
also the more necessary, from the circumstance of the writer being
pledged, in the advertisement of the “Life of Wallace,” to furnish
“biographical notices of contemporary English and Scottish warriors”
who figured in the contest between the two countries.
RICHARD SIWARD.--“Though this individual is frequently spoken of in the
records of his day, yet very few particulars are known that can throw
much light on his family pedigree. It has been conjectured, that he
was descended from Syward, the great Saxon Earl of Northumberland; but
of this, however, there is little certainty. His importance appears to
have been considerable; for we find that, on 18th November 1292, he
was appointed by Edward I. (in his character of Umpire on the question
of the Succession) to act as Governor of the Castles of Dumfries,
Wigton, and Kirkcudbright. On the 22d April, 1294, he obtained a grant
of the marriage of the widow of Simon Fresel, or Frazer; and on the
15th October, in the same year, he was summoned to attend the English
monarch, with all his retainers, in the expedition to Wales. Towards
the end of 1295, he affected to unite with the Scottish Barons in
their attempt to restore their King to the dignity of an independent
sovereign, and, in consequence, had the defence of the Castle of Dunbar
assigned to him. How he conducted himself on that occasion, has already
been noticed. His subsequent confinement in the Tower, has been adduced
by some writers as a powerful argument against the charge of treason
brought against him by his countrymen. We cannot, however, see it in
that light. His treachery was of the most profligate description. By
negociating the surrender of a fortress, which, from its strength and
importance, was reckoned in those days the key of the kingdom, and also
using it, at the same time, as a trap to ensnare the greater part of
the nobility, was conduct that required the exercise of some _ruse_
in order to lessen the odium it was calculated to excite even in the
estimation of the English nobility, who must otherwise have looked with
disgust on a man who could have acted in so base a manner towards
his own countrymen. By the following lines of Peter Langtoft, Siward
appears to have had for some time a private understanding with the
enemy:--
“A knycht was tham among, Sir Richard Seward,
Tille our faith was he long, & with kyng Edward.
Tille our men he com tite, & said, ‘the Scottis wilde
Thre dayes haf respite, & than the castelle zelde.
To the Baliol suld thei send, ther castelle to rescue,
Bi that bot he vs mend with for zow to remue
The castelle ze salle haue, without any delay.’”
Vol. ii. p. 274-5.
“For the performance of this agreement, hostages were given to the
English, and a messenger despatched to acquaint Baliol that a truce had
been obtained; which he was instructed to say, was effected entirely by
the dexterity of Siward, and his personal influence with a number of
the English nobles. Baliol was also advised to advance and attack the
English army while “at meat,” and that, at the same time, Siward would
make a sally to assist him in destroying the enemy--which the messenger
spoke of as a matter of certainty, and moreover counselled Baliol to
proceed immediately afterwards and plunder Northumberland.
“On the third day, Siward, from the battlements of Dunbar, discovered
the Scottish army rapidly approaching towards him; he therefore hastily
sought the English head-quarters, and proffered to go personally and
retard the advance of the Scots till the expiry of the time stipulated
for by the agreement. The English, however, were not inclined to
believe that he would carry his treason quite so far, and refused him
permission to proceed to the Scottish lines.[99]
“Siward, on being relieved from his confinement in the Tower, rose
high in the confidence of Edward. On 26th September 1298, 7th May
and 16th June 1299, he was summoned, by the title “Baron,” to serve
in Scotland. His name appears on several occasions in the Wardrobe
Account of 28th Edward I. In that year he received 41_l._ 5s. for the
services of himself and his followers in the garrison of Lochmaben.
Also an allowance of 2_l._ 13s. 4d. for the value of a horse killed
at Kirkcudbright; eight merks for a winter dress (robe); and the like
sum appears to have been paid to him for a summer dress. In the same
year he was again summoned for the Scottish war, and also in 1301. He
was made sheriff of Dumfries-shire in 1305, and was also aiding in the
suppression of Robert Bruce in 1308; in which year he was appointed to
the charge of a district in Galloway, under Edward II. In 1309 he was
governor or constable of Dumfries, and is supposed to have died in 1310.
By his wife Mary he had two sons, Richard and John. They both attained
the age of manhood; and John, in particular, appears to have followed
the crooked anti-patriotic policy of his father. He accompanied
the Earl of Pembroke in his invasion of Fife, as has been already
mentioned, and was rewarded by Edward with an appointment as Governor
of Perth. Little appears to have been known of Richard. He was married
to Elizabeth ---- in 1296. The arms of Siward, as has been already
noticed, were sable, a cross fleury, argent.
“WALTER DE HUNTERCOMBE succeeded his father in his lands in the 55.
Henry III., at which time he was of full age; and shortly afterwards
married Alice, third daughter and co-heiress of Hugh de Bolebec, and
who, in the 2d Edward I., was found to be one of the co-heirs of
Richard de Muntfichet, in right of her grandmother Margery, his sister.
In the 5th Edward I. he paid 50_l._ for his relief of the barony of
Muschamp; and on the 12th December in that year, was summoned to serve
with horse and arms against the Welsh: he received similar writs tested
6th April and 24th May, 10th Edward I., and 14th June, 15th Edward I.
He was one of the peers who were present in parliament in the 18th
Edward I., when a grant was made to the King, for the marriage of
his eldest daughter, of the same aid as had been given to Henry III.
for the marriage of his daughter the Queen of Scotland; and shortly
afterwards the Isle of Man was intrusted to his charge, but which he
only held three years, as, in obedience to the King’s commands, he
surrendered his trust to John de Baillol in the 21st Edward I. In the
19th Edward I., by writ tested the 16th April at Darlington, he was
ordered to be at Norham, equipped for the field by the ensuing Easter;
and obtained a charter of free-warren in all his demesne lands in the
county of Northumberland before the end of that year. On the 26th June
1294, Huntercombe was ordered to join the expedition then made into
Gascony. His military services, during the remainder of the reign of
Edward I. were incessant, for he was in the Scottish wars in the
25th, 26th, 28th, 31st, and 34th years of that monarch; was Governor
of Edinburgh Castle in the 26th; Lieutenant of Northumberland in the
27th Edward I.; and afterwards Warden of the Marches there. In the
28th Edward I. we find that he was at the siege of Carlaverock; and
in the next year he was a party to the letter to Pope Boniface, in
which he is called “Walter Lord of Huntercombe.” It appears from the
Wardrobe accounts of the 28th Edward I., that he was allowed 10_l._ as
a compensation for a black nag which was killed by the Scots at Flete,
on the 6th August 1299. But the nature and extent of Huntercombe’s
services are best shown by his own statement of them in his petition
to the King in the 35th Edward I., praying a remission of his scutage
for the expeditions in which he had been engaged, with which prayer
the crown complied. He says, that he had been in all the wars of
Scotland up to that time; namely, in the first war at Berwick with
twenty horse; then at Stirling with thirty-two horse, in the retinue
of the Earl of Warren; then at Le Vaire Chapelle with thirty horse in
the retinue of the Bishop of Durham; afterwards at Gaway with sixteen
horse; and that he sent eighteen horse to the last battle, though he
was not present himself, being then Warden of the Marches of Scotland
and Northumberland. From that year nothing more is known of this Baron,
excepting that he was summoned to parliament from the 23d June, 23d
Edward I., 1295, to the 16th June, 14th Edward II., 1311, and died in
1312; but after the 25th Edward I. he was probably prevented by age
from taking an active part in public affairs, for even allowing him
to have been but twenty-one in the 55th Henry III., he must have been
above sixty in 1307; which calculation makes him to have been about
fifty when he was at Carlaverock, and sixty-four at his decease. Though
he was twice married he died without issue. His first wife was Alice de
Bolebec, before mentioned; but we only know that the Christian name of
his second was Ellen, and that she survived him. Nicholas Newbaud, his
nephew, son of his sister Gunnora, was found to be his heir.
“The arms of Huntercombe were ermine, two bars gemells, gules.”
L.
MEMOIR OF SIR SIMON FRASER.
Page 113.