OPPORTUNIST VACILLATION
Robert Bruce, the sixth Robert de Brus of Annandale and the seventh de
Brus of the Annandale line, was the eldest son of the preceding lord
and a grandson of the Competitor. He was born on July 11, 1274. The
place of his birth is uncertain--Ayrshire says Turnberry; Dumfriesshire
says Lochmaben. Geoffrey le Baker calls him an Englishman (_nacione
Anglicus_), and records that he was 'born in Essex,' to which another
hand adds, 'at Writtle,' a manor of his father's. Geoffrey, it is true,
like several other chroniclers, confuses Bruce with his grandfather,
the Competitor; and he may mean the Competitor, though he says the
King. Hemingburgh makes Bruce speak to his father's vassals before the
Irvine episode as a Scotsman, at any rate by descent. In any case Bruce
was essentially--by upbringing and associations--an Englishman. It was
probably in, or at any rate about, the same year that Wallace was born.
At the English invasion of 1296, they would both be vigorous young men
of twenty-two, or thereabouts. During most part of the next decade
Wallace fought and negotiated and died in his country's cause, and
built himself an everlasting name. How was Bruce occupied during this
national crisis?
Considering the large territorial possessions and wide social
interlacings of the family in England, their English upbringing, their
traditional service to the English King, their subordinate interest in
Scottish affairs, the predominance of the rival house of Balliol, and
the masterful character of Edward, it is not at all surprising that
Robert Bruce should have preferred the English allegiance when it was
necessary for him to choose between England and Scotland. On August 3,
1293, indeed, he offered homage to Balliol on succeeding to the Earldom
of Carrick. But on March 25, 1296, at Wark--three days before Edward
crossed the Tweed--he joined with his father and the Earls of March and
Angus in a formal acknowledgment of the English King; and on August
28 he, as well as his father, followed the multitude of the principal
Scots in doing homage to the conqueror at Berwick.
With this political subjection one is reluctant to associate a more
sordid kind of obligation. Some six weeks later (October 15) it is
recorded that 'the King, for the great esteem he has for the good
service of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick, commands the barons to
atterm his debts at the Exchequer in the easiest manner for him.' But
the elder Bruce continued to be designated Earl of Carrick in English
documents after he had resigned the earldom to his son, and it can
hardly be doubted that the debts were his. It is a small matter,
indeed, yet one would like to start Bruce without the burden.
Early in 1297, Scotland was heaving with unrest. Edward, while busily
arranging 'to cross seas' to Flanders, was also pushing forward
preparations for a 'Scottish War.' In May, Wallace and Douglas had
summarily interrupted the severities of Ormsby, the English Justiciar,
at Scone, and driven him home in headlong flight. About the same time,
or somewhat later, Andrew de Moray took the field in Moray, Macduff
rose in Fife, and Sir Alexander of Argyll set upon the adherents of
Edward in the West. On May 24, Edward had addressed, from Portsmouth,
a circular order to his chief liegemen north and south of Forth,
requiring them to attend certain of his great officers to hear 'certain
matters which he has much at heart,' and to act as directed. Bruce was
ordered to attend Sir Hugh de Cressingham and Sir Osbert de Spaldington
at Berwick. But before the order could have reached him, he must have
heard of the expulsion of Ormsby, and had probably conceived dynastic
hopes from the aspect of affairs. Indeed, he appears to have fallen
under English suspicions. For, no sooner did the news from Scone reach
Carlisle than the Bishop and his advisers--the Bishop was acting
governor in the absence of the elder Bruce at Portsmouth--'fearing for
the faithlessness and inconstancy of Sir Robert de Bruys the younger,
Earl of Carrick, sent messengers to summon him to come on a day fixed
to treat with them about the King's affairs, if so be that he still
remained faithful to the King.'
Bruce duly appeared with a strong following of 'the people of
Galloway,' and repeated the oath of fealty upon the consecrated Host
and upon the sword of St Thomas (à Becket). What more could the Bishop
want or do? But Bruce went a step further. He summoned his people, says
Hemingburgh, and, 'in order to feign colour, he proceeded to the lands
of Sir William de Douglas and burnt part of them with fire, and carried
off his wife and children with him to Annandale.' For all that, he was
already in secret conspiracy with the Bishop of Glasgow, the Steward
of Scotland, and Sir John of Bonkill, the Steward's brother. Douglas,
indeed, presently appears as one of the leaders in the rising; but his
relations with Bruce would be subject to easy diplomatic adjustment.
When the time for open action arrived, Bruce appealed to his father's
men of Annandale. He repudiated his oath at Carlisle as extorted by
force and intimidation, and professed a compelling sense of patriotism.
The Annandale men deferred reply till the morrow, and slipped away to
their homes overnight. With his Carrick men, however, he joined the
Bishop and the Steward, and began to slay and harry the English in the
south-west.
Engrossed in the outfitting of his expedition, Edward delegated the
suppression of the Scots to Warenne, Earl of Surrey, the Guardian of
Scotland, who sent ahead his kinsman, Sir Henry de Percy, with a strong
force. Percy advanced through Annandale to Ayr, and, two or three days
later, stood face to face with the insurgents near Irvine. There was
dissension in the Scots camp. Sir Richard Lundy went over to Percy,
'saying that he would no longer war in company with men in discord and
at variance.' Besides, the English force was no doubt much superior.
The insurgent leaders at once asked for terms. The provisional
agreement was that 'their lives, limbs, lands, tenements, goods and
chattels,' should be unharmed, that their offences should be condoned,
and that they should furnish hostages. Such was the humiliating fiasco
of July 7, 1297, at Irvine.
So far their skins were safe; and now, on the counsel of the Bishop,
they appealed to Cressingham and Warenne to confirm the agreement, and
to vouchsafe an active interest in their behalf with Edward. The full
flavour of their pusillanimity can only be gathered from the text of
their letter to Warenne.
They were afraid the English army would attack them to burn and
destroy their lands. Thus, they were told for a certainty that
the King meant to seize all the middle people of Scotland to send
them beyond sea in his war [in Gascony], to their great damage
and destruction. They took counsel to assemble their power to
defend themselves from so great damages, until they could have
treaty and conference with such persons as had power to abate
and diminish such kind of injury, and to give security that
they should not be exceedingly aggrieved and dishonoured. And,
therefore, when the host of England entered the land, they went
to meet them and had such a conference that they all came to the
peace and the faith of our Lord the King.
The hostage for Bruce was his infant daughter, Marjory. It would be
interesting to know why Douglas failed to provide hostages. It may be
that his native obstinacy was aroused by the objurgations of Wallace,
who then lay in Selkirk Forest, and who is said to have displayed
intense indignation at the ignominious surrender. Edward ratified the
convention; but somehow it was not till November 14 that powers were
conferred on the Bishop of Carlisle and Sir Robert de Clifford 'to
receive to the King's peace Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick, and his
friends, as seems best to their discretion.'
Midway between the shameful collapse at Irvine and the formal
submission at Carlisle lay September 11, 1297, and Wallace's memorable
victory at Stirling Bridge. In this great triumph of patriotism Bruce
had neither part nor lot. Neither was he present at the disastrous
battle of Falkirk on July 22, 1298. The Scottish chroniclers, indeed,
relate the popular story that the English victory was primarily due to
Bruce, who, with Bishop Bek, stealthily caught the Scots in the rear
and broke up the schiltrons. But this is a complete misconception, due
possibly to a confusion of Bruce with Basset, who, with Bek, delivered
the attack on the left wing, not on the rear, or with Bruce's uncle,
Sir Bernard, who fought on the English side. In any case, Bruce stands
clear of Falkirk. For English chroniclers relate that, when Edward
withdrew towards Carlisle, Bruce burnt Ayr Castle and fled away
into Carrick. Yet it seems all but certain that he was in Edward's
allegiance within three weeks before the battle. He had gone over
before the result reached him, possibly on learning the dire straits of
Edward immediately before, or on the strength of a false report of the
issue.
The stormy meeting of Scots nobles at Peebles on August 19, 1299,
discovers Bruce in a remarkable attitude. One object of the meeting was
to choose Guardians of the realm. The discussion was sufficiently warm;
for Sir John Comyn--the Red Comyn, afterwards slain at Dumfries--seized
the Earl of Carrick by the throat, and his cousin of Buchan tried a
fall with de Lamberton, Wallace's Bishop of St Andrews. The outcome
of the wrangle was a purely personal accommodation of an essentially
momentary character. It was settled that the Bishop of St Andrews, the
Earl of Carrick, and Sir John Comyn should be the Guardians, the Bishop
as principal to have custody of the castles. Bruce, through the Wallace
influence, had gained the upper hand. But it must have cost him a pang
to consent to act in the name of Balliol.
Bruce, with Sir David de Brechin, returned to the attack of Lochmaben
peel, where the Scots had been pressing Clifford since the beginning of
August. They were unsuccessful in direct assault, but they seriously
hindered the victualling of the place by infesting the lines of
communication. Bruce would seem to have been in consultation with his
colleagues in the Torwood on November 13, when the Guardians, who
were then besieging Stirling, despatched to Edward an offer to cease
hostilities on the terms suggested by the King of France. At any rate
he is named as Guardian, and it is to be noted that the Guardians write
'in the name of King John and the community of the realm.' Edward was
compelled to abandon Stirling to its fate, and Lochmaben fell in the
end of the year. Warenne's December expedition to the western March was
a failure. Edward, in fact, had been paralysed by his refractory barons.
During the next two years, while Comyn was doing his best in the field
and Wallace was busy in diplomatic negotiation, there is no trace of
Bruce in the records. He may have felt it too irksome to pull together
with Comyn. But he reappears--in a new coat--in 1301-2. On February 16,
Edward, 'at the instance of the Earl of Carrick,' granted pardon to a
murderous rascal, one Hector Askeloc. And by April 28, 1302, the King
had 'of special favour granted to the tenants of his liege Robert de
Brus, Earl of Carrick, their lands in England lately taken for their
rebellion.' And Bruce attended Edward's parliament towards the end of
October.
In the next year or two Bruce manifested special devotion to the
English King. When Edward was going north on the campaign of 1303, he
ordered Bruce to meet him about the middle of May at Roxburgh with
all the men-at-arms he could muster, and with 1000 foot from Carrick
and Galloway. On July 14, Bruce received an advance of pay by the
precept of Sir Aymer de Valence, the King's lieutenant south of Forth.
On December 30, he is Edward's sheriff of Lanark; on January 9, he
is Edward's constable of Ayr Castle. His star was deservedly in the
ascendant by diligent service.
His ardour steadily increased. After the surrender of Comyn and his
adherents in February 1303-4, he threw himself heartily into the
pursuit of Wallace. On March 3, Edward wrote to 'his loyal and faithful
Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick, Sir John de Segrave, and their
company,' applauding their diligence, begging them to complete the
business they had begun so well, and urging them, 'as the cloak is well
made, also to make the hood.' Wallace and Sir Simon Fraser were hotly
pursued southwards, and defeated at Peebles within a week.
About this time Bruce must have received news of the death of his
father, probably not unexpected. On April 4, 1304, he was at Hatfield
in Essex, whence he wrote to Sir William de Hamilton, the Chancellor,
asking him to direct quickly the necessary inquisitions of his father's
lands in Essex, Middlesex and Huntingdon, as he wished to go to the
King with them to do homage. On June 14, having done homage and fealty,
he was served heir. The succession to the paternal inheritance was
happily achieved.
Meantime, on his return north, Bruce had found Edward in hot eagerness
to commence the siege of Stirling, and worked with the energy of
gratitude that looks towards favours to come. He undertook the special
task of getting up the King's engines to Stirling. On April 16, the
King wrote him thanks for sending up some engines, and gave particular
instructions about 'the great engine of Inverkip,' which appears to
have been unmanageable for want of 'a waggon fit to carry the frame.'
Bruce seems to have been at Inverkip and Glasgow, and wherever else
any of the thirteen engines were lagging on the road to Stirling. His
energy operated in congenial harmony with the fiery expedition of the
King.
Yet there was something in the background of all this enthusiastic
service. On June 11, only three days before 'his loyal and faithful
Robert de Brus' did homage and fealty to Edward on succession to his
father, Bruce met Bishop Lamberton at Cambuskenneth and formed with
him a secret alliance for mutual aid and defence 'against all persons
whatsoever.' Seeing dangers ahead, and wishing to fortify themselves
against 'the attempts of their rivals,' they engaged to assist each
other to the utmost of their power with counsel and material forces in
all their affairs; 'that neither of them would undertake any important
enterprise without consultation with the other'; and that 'they would
warn each other against any impending danger, and do their best to
avert the same from each other.' No particular motives or objects, of
course, are specified. But the Bishop may have foreseen the likelihood
of an invasion of English ecclesiastics; and Bruce would not be slow
to perceive the possible value of the moral support of the Church, and
of the material aid derivable from the men and lands of the religious
houses of the wide episcopate of St Andrews. At such a moment neither
party would affect to forget the Bruce's royal pretensions. We shall
hear of this bond again.
Stirling surrendered on July 20, the last of the Scottish fortresses
that held out against Edward. Wallace, the last centre of opposition,
was a fugitive, dogged by emissaries of the English King. In March next
year, Bruce was with the King at Westminster, petitioning him for the
lands recently held by Sir Ingram de Umfraville in Carrick--a petition
substantially granted--and he attended Edward's parliament in Lent. It
is hardly any stretch of probability to believe that he was present, in
August, at the trial and execution of the illustrious Wallace--the man
that, above all others, paved the way for his elevation to the Scottish
throne.
* * * * *
Bruce was now in his thirty-second year. From his twenty-second year
onwards, through the ten years' struggle of Wallace and Comyn, he was
two parts of the time the active henchman of Edward, and during the
other part he is not known to have performed any important service
for Scotland. His action during this period--the period of vigorous
manhood, of generous impulses and unselfish enthusiasms--contrasts
lamentably with the splendour of Wallace's achievement and endeavour,
and gravely with the bearing of Comyn. One looks for patriotism and
heroism; one finds not a spark of either, but only opportunism,
deliberate and ignoble, not to say timid--the conduct of a 'spotted
and inconstant man.' Yet Bruce was tenaciously constant to the grand
object of his ambition. In the light of his kingly career this early
period has puzzled the historians very strangely; but one cannot affect
to be surprised that the friendliest critic is compelled to pronounce
the simple enumeration of the facts to be, 'in truth, a humiliating
record.'