SIR
WILLIAM
WALLACE
FAMOUS SCOTS SERIES
_The following Volumes are now ready_--
THOMAS CARLYLE. By HECTOR C. MACPHERSON.
ALLAN RAMSAY. By OLIPHANT SMEATON.
HUGH MILLER. By W. KEITH LEASK.
JOHN KNOX. By A. TAYLOR INNES.
ROBERT BURNS. By GABRIEL SETOUN.
THE BALLADISTS. By JOHN GEDDIE.
RICHARD CAMERON. By Professor HERKLESS.
SIR JAMES Y. SIMPSON. By EVE BLANTYRE SIMPSON.
THOMAS CHALMERS. By Professor W. GARDEN BLAIKIE.
JAMES BOSWELL. By W. KEITH LEASK.
TOBIAS SMOLLETT. By OLIPHANT SMEATON.
FLETCHER OF SALTOUN. By G. W. T. OMOND.
THE BLACKWOOD GROUP. By Sir GEORGE DOUGLAS.
NORMAN MACLEOD. By JOHN WELLWOOD.
SIR WALTER SCOTT. By Professor SAINTSBURY.
ROBERT FERGUSSON. By A. B. GROSART.
MUNGO PARK. By T. BANKS MACLACHLAN.
DAVID HUME. By Professor CALDERWOOD.
WILLIAM DUNBAR. By OLIPHANT SMEATON.
SIR WILLIAM WALLACE. By Professor MURISON.
SIR
WILLIAM
WALLACE
[Illustration]
BY
A. F.
MURISON
[Illustration]
FAMOUS
SCOTS
SERIES
PUBLISHED BY
CHARLES
SCRIBNER'S SONS
NEW YORK
TO
THE MEMORY OF
THE COMRADES AND HELPERS
OF
SIR WILLIAM WALLACE
MEN OR WOMEN
DISTINGUISHED OBSCURE OR NAMELESS
_Quod de re publica non desperassent_
'My son, I tell thee soothfastlie,
No gift is like to LIBERTIE;
Then never live in slaverie.'
'For FREEDOM'S battle, once begun,
Bequeath'd by bleeding Sire to Son,
Though baffled oft, is ever won.'
PREFACE
'The ignorance of some otherwise well-informed persons respecting the
claims of Wallace as a national patriot,' wrote Dr. Charles Rogers, 'is
deplorable.'
The documentary authorities are, indeed, fragmentary, and exceptionally
perplexing. Some are clearly trustworthy; many are conflicting,
dissimulatory, falsified, false, biassed in all degrees, and full of
inference and hearsay set forth in the guise of indubitable fact.
The researches of English historians--even when they happen to be
Scotsmen--have not yet rendered further investigation superfluous.
The fact is, that a large critical undertaking must form the basis of
any adequate account of Wallace. In a brief narrative the writer must
resign himself to the simple if somewhat perilous course of telling
his story as it has shaped itself in his mind during perusal of the
available authorities, with but occasional and slight indications of
the shaping process.
The noble poem of Blind Harry, thanks largely to the _ingenium
perfervidum_ of the minstrel himself, has been much--we may say
wholly--discredited as history. Harry has been very cavalierly dealt
with, however; it is more by a grin than otherwise that he has been
vanquished. Stevenson's tentative protest is here emphasised. For the
present sketch, however, Harry is used rather by way of illustration
than as a source of facts. He is cited without any claim to credence,
except on grounds definitely specified. But such reservation is
provisional, and conditioned by such rational criticism as may one day
yet be applied. The citations in the text have been conservatively
modernised. All students of Harry's poem owe their most grateful
acknowledgments to Dr. James Moir and the Scottish Text Society.
One is reluctant to believe that there are no more references to
Wallace still lying dormant in the muniment rooms of Scottish families.
One is no less reluctant to suppose that any patriotic Scot would leave
a solitary corner of his muniments unsearched for every possible glint
of light upon the great man that has stood forth for six centuries, and
will in all probability stand forth for ever, as incomparably the most
heroic and most fateful figure in the history of Scotland--a Hero and a
Patriot second to none in the recorded history of the nations.
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I
THE ENGLISH AGGRESSION 11
CHAPTER II
WALLACE'S FAMILY AND EARLY YEARS 41
CHAPTER III
GUERRILLA WARFARE 56
CHAPTER IV
THE DELIVERANCE OF SCOTLAND 72
CHAPTER V
WALLACE GUARDIAN OF SCOTLAND 89
CHAPTER VI
WALLACE IN FRANCE 111
CHAPTER VII
THE LEADERSHIP OF THE BARONS 116
CHAPTER VIII
THE BETRAYAL AND DEATH OF WALLACE 134
CHAPTER IX
THE PATRIOT HERO 151
SIR WILLIAM WALLACE
CHAPTER I
THE ENGLISH AGGRESSION
'Quhen Alysandyr oure Kyng wes dede,
That Scotland led in luẅe and lé,
Away wes sons of ale and brede,
Off wyne and wax, off gamyn and glé:
'Oure gold wes changyd in to lede.
Cryst, borne in to Vyrgynyté,
Succoure Scotland and remede,
That stad [is in] perplexyté.'
WYNTOUN, VII. _fin._
A most fateful date in the history of Scotland was the 19th of March
1285-86. In the dusk of that memorable day, King Alexander III., riding
along the coast of Fife, near Kinghorn, was thrown over a precipice
and killed. He was only in the forty-fifth year of his age, though in
the thirty-seventh year of his reign. If we take our stand at Kinghorn
on the next melancholy morning, and gaze backwards and forwards on
the history of the country, we shall witness the most impressive
contrast of peace and war that is presented in the annals of Scotland,
or perhaps of any civilised nation in the world. This awful contrast
forms a most essential element in determining the judgment of history
on the policy of the Scots and of the English kings. At the death of
Alexander, Scotland was a most prosperous country, steadily advancing
in the arts of peaceful life--'more civilised and more prosperous,'
says Innes, with the common assent of historians, 'than at any period
of her existence, down to the time when she ceased to be a separate
kingdom in 1707.' The policy of Edward I., however motived, was the
prime cause of this lamentable subversion of the tranquillity of a
hundred years.
THE PROJECT OF MARRIAGE
The shadows of coming trouble had fallen upon Scotland before the death
of Alexander III. The family of the King had been swept away by death.
His first queen, Margaret, eldest daughter of Henry III. and sister
of Edward I. of England, had died in 1275. His younger son, David,
had died in 1280. His elder son, Alexander, who married Margaret,
daughter of Guy, Count of Flanders, in 1282, had died without issue
early in 1283-84. His only daughter, who married Eric II., King of
Norway, in 1281, had also died early in 1283-84, leaving a daughter.
Alexander was little over forty. Still there is no assurance of length
of days; and if he should die there would be a minority, probably a
disputed succession, possibly an active revival of the English claim to
over-lordship. In these circumstances, Alexander at once proceeded to
take such precautions as he could. He summoned a Parliament at Scone
on February 5, 1283-84, and obtained from his nobles their solemn
acknowledgment of Margaret, Princess of Norway, as heiress of Scotland,
failing issue of himself and of his late son. Towards the end of next
year, he also married a second wife, Joleta (or Iolande), daughter of
the Count de Dreux; but she bore him no child. Alexander must have
often and anxiously reflected upon the likelihood of a recurrence of
such baronial rivalries as had proved a grave danger to the country
during his own minority. On his tragic death on March 19, 1285-86, the
hopes of the nation were left to rest upon the fragile Maid of Norway.
For a short period the affairs of the kingdom maintained a placid
course. On April 11, 1286, the magnates assembled at Scone, and
selected six of their number to act as a Council of Regency, with the
official designation of 'the Guardians of the Kingdom of Scotland
appointed by the common advice.' The Bishop of St. Andrews and the
Earls of Fife and Buchan were to administer the districts north of the
Forth; the Bishop of Glasgow, Comyn of Badenoch, and James the Steward
of Scotland, were to rule the lands south of the Forth. No question
was raised as to the succession of the little princess, and ostensibly
there was every disposition on the part of the barons to fulfil the
solemn pledges they had made to her grandfather two years before. It
may, however, be open to doubt whether intrigue had not commenced to
operate by the time that Alexander III. was laid to rest at Dunfermline.
For one thing, there is extant a letter of credence, dated Dunfermline,
March 29, 1286, addressed to King Edward by the Bishops of St. Andrews
and Glasgow, 'in their own name, and in the name of the clergy,
earls, barons, and all others of the realm of Scotland, who had been
present at the burial of the lord Alexander of good memory, the late
illustrious King of Scotland,' and commending to Edward's confidence
the two bearers, the Prior of the Dominicans of Perth and brother
Arnold. The two friars were to deliver an oral communication, and bring
back the King's answer. There remains no record of the matter of either
message or reply. It is not easy to suppose that the business was of no
deeper import than formal and complimentary intercourse. In view of the
circumstances, it all but certainly must have borne reference, in part
at least, to the settlement of the succession. The political record
of the Bishop of St. Andrews is not calculated to disarm suspicion.
Edward, at any rate, appears to have been satisfied, for he presently
embarked for France, and remained away for more than three years.
Again, a few months later, Bruce of Annandale--ex-Chief-Justice
of England, smarting under his recent supersession--Bruce and his
principal adherents took quiet action in view of contingencies.
On September 20, at his son's castle of Turnberry, fourteen Scots
nobles--Patrick, Earl of Dunbar, and three sons; Walter, Earl of
Menteith, and two sons; Bruce, lord of Annandale, and two sons; James,
Steward (and one of the Guardians) of Scotland, and John his brother;
and Angus, son of Donald of the Isles, and his son--entered into a
stringent bond, obliging them to give faithful adherence to Richard de
Burgh, Earl of Ulster, and Lord Thomas de Clare (brother of Gilbert,
Earl of Gloucester, Edward's son-in-law and Bruce's brother-in-law),
'in their affairs.' The nature of these affairs is not indicated,
neither is there any other record of them. There is a suggestive
clause saving their fealty to the King of England, and to 'him that
shall obtain the kingdom of Scotland through blood relationship with
King Alexander of blessed memory, according to the ancient customs in
the Kingdom of Scotland approved and observed.' There is no direct
reference to the child queen. It is useless to inquire what was the
business that Richard de Burgh and Thomas de Clare had on hand or in
contemplation. Plainly the instrument was simply a diplomatic process
of binding all the parties together in support of such action as Bruce
might take on the advice of a majority of their number, for advancing
his pretensions to the throne of Scotland, when opportunity should
serve. There is nothing to show that Edward ever had knowledge of this
bond.
Somewhere about this time, moreover, Bruce passed from speculation
to action. Balliol, in his pleadings before Edward in 1291, averred
that, in violation of their oath of fealty to Queen Margaret, 'Sir
Robert Bruce and the Earl of Carrick, his son, attacked the castle of
Dumfries with fire and arms, and banners displayed, and against the
peace expelled the forces of the Queen, who held the same. Hence Sir
Robert advanced to the castle of Buittle. He then caused a proclamation
to be made by one Patrick M'Guffock, within the bailiary of the said
castle,' with the result that good subjects were driven from the land.
'Furthermore,' the allegation ran, 'the Earl of Carrick, by the assent
and power of his father, took the Lady of Scotland's castle of Wigton,
and killed several of her people there.' A number of entries in the
Exchequer Rolls combine to support Balliol's charge, and even to show
that the wave of disturbance was felt on the eastern seaboard. How
Bruce was brought back to peaceable ways does not appear.
The temporary stir occasioned by Bruce's eagerness was the only
ripple on the face of affairs for some three years. Early in 1289,
however, Edward seems to have made up his mind to strengthen his hold
on Scotland by a marriage between the young Queen and Prince Edward
of Wales. The proposed parties, being cousins-german, were within the
degrees prohibited by the canon law; and on May 8, Edward despatched
Sir Otho de Grandison to Rome, with letters from himself and a petition
from the Prince, soliciting from Pope Nicholas IV. the necessary
dispensation. The idea may have presented itself to Edward's mind two
years earlier; for on May 27, 1287, he had obtained a Bull from Pope
Honorius IV. permitting him to marry his children to relatives in the
fourth degree of affinity or consanguinity. However this may be, in
April and May 1289, envoys passed to and fro between Edward and Eric on
'certain affairs,' which were no doubt affairs tending in the direction
of the marriage. On November 6, commissioners representing the three
countries concerned met at Salisbury, and concluded a treaty. Eric was
to send the Queen to England or to Scotland by November 1 next year,
free from matrimonial engagement. If she came to England, Edward would,
on the establishment of security and peace in Scotland, and on the
demand of the Scots nation, send her to Scotland, in like manner free
from matrimonial engagement, provided 'the good nation of Scotland'
gave 'sufficient and good security' to Edward not to marry her without
the appointment and advice of himself and the assent of the King of
Norway. The Scots envoys engaged to establish such order as to secure
the Queen in the quiet enjoyment of her realm. The preamble of the
treaty is framed so as to convey that Eric was the prime mover in the
business. He is represented as having applied to Edward for aid and
advice, the object being to secure for Edward's niece the obedience of
her subjects and the free exercise and enjoyment of her royal powers,
after the manner of other kings in their own kingdoms. On receiving
this appeal, Edward, in his zeal for the peace of Scotland, and for
the establishment of his niece in her rightful position, invited the
Guardians to send commissioners to the Salisbury convention. But there
can be no doubt that Edward himself was the prime mover. Eric certainly
was loth to part with his child; he had made no representation on her
behalf to the Scots Guardians, nor had they indicated any wish to
have her in Scotland. On the other hand, Edward's project of marriage
would naturally require her presence on this side of the North Sea;
and his influence with Eric was backed by a recent loan of 2000 marks
with easy arrangements for repayment, which seems not to have been
yet discharged. It may be greatly doubted whether Edward was taking
all this trouble out of disinterested anxiety for the welfare and
royal status of his niece, or for the security of peace on the English
border. The treaty gives no hint that the Salisbury commissioners
had before them the marriage contemplated by Edward; the terms of
the engagement of the Scots, as well as the absence of an express
statement, would seem to negative the idea. Sufficient reason may be
found in the fact that the dispensation had not then been granted, as
well as in Edward's desire to proceed with most cautious steps. It is
to be remarked that not only in the treaty, but also in the Prince's
petition to the Pope, and in a communication of Edward's addressed
to the Scottish people on the same day as the treaty was made, and
counselling the obedience of all to the Guardians, the great object
of the peace and reformation of Scotland is dwelt on with suspicious
emphasis. Sir Otho de Grandison returned to London on December 31.
With the irony of fate, the dispensation, which had been granted (and
acknowledged handsomely in gold florins) on November 16, did not arrive
in the form of a Bull till October 9, 1290, almost simultaneously with
the arrival of the rumour of the Queen's death.
At a conference held at Brigham on March 14, 1290, the treaty of
Salisbury was confirmed. Three days later, the Guardians, who had now
at least been informed of Edward's intention and of the dispensation,
addressed a letter to Edward assenting to the proposed marriage, and
another letter to Eric urging him to send Margaret at once to England.
It may seem strange that they should not have asked him to send her to
Scotland; but Edward obviously had laid great stress on the alleged
risks of the unsettled condition of the country; his solicitude,
from a family point of view, was not at all unreasonable; probably
enough he had impressed Eric with anxiety on the same ground; and the
Guardians seem to have had no serious anticipation that their Queen's
grand-uncle would infringe the international friendship of a century.
The Guardians' letter to Eric was followed by one from Edward in
the same sense, on April 17. Already the King's butler was down at
Yarmouth, preparing and victualling 'a great ship' to carry Edward's
plenipotentiary, Antony Bek, the astute and magnificent Bishop of
Durham, with an imposing retinue, to Norway. The preparations took
forty days; and at length Bek sailed from Hartlepool on the 9th of
May. Bek was an adept in smoothing the diplomatic path; he distributed
judicious annuities to Norwegian friends to the extent of £400 a year
till the Queen should attain the age of fifteen. Presumably the grand
outfitting of the ship implies that the Queen was expected to come over
in it; but it returned without her in June. It was not till September
that Eric set out with his daughter. In the beginning of September,
accordingly, Edward again despatched Bek, this time to Orkney, to meet
the Maid. He was also attentive enough to send an ample variety of
jewels for the Queen's use. At almost every step in the proceedings,
the records betray his eager haste. The Guardians exhibited no such
fervour; it was not till October 3 that they accredited their envoys,
and already they had been urged to action by Edward.
Meantime the Guardians had been taking thought for the security of
the kingdom. The negotiations with Edward issued in the treaty of
Brigham on July 18, 1290. By this treaty it was provided that the
laws, liberties, and customs of Scotland should remain inviolate for
ever, and that the realm should remain separate from, and entirely
independent of, England. No parchment terms could have done more to
secure independence. There was, indeed, an insidious saving clause,
steadily recurrent, which reserved such rights as Edward or others
might have; but whether intended to neutralise the specific provisions
or not, it must be regarded as purely formal.
The ardent development of Edward's care for his grand-niece and his
son ought to have been at least suggestive. There remain two striking
documents, dated August 28. In one of them, the Guardians agree to
deliver the castles of Scotland under certain conditions to their Queen
and Prince Edward; and in the other, Edward notifies the Guardians of
his appointment of Bishop Bek to act in concert with them as lieutenant
of the royal couple. For it was incumbent upon him to respect his oath
to maintain the laws of Scotland. He even appears to have gone so far
as to demand the surrender of the castles to himself, but this demand
the Guardians refused.
The whole of the laborious structure was levelled to the ground on
October 7, when the Bishop of St. Andrews reported to Edward the rumour
of the Queen's death at Orkney. The Queen had died on the passage from
'Norrowa' o'er the faem.' The details are unknown. The very fact,
indeed, has been questioned; for a young woman claiming to be Margaret,
and telling a circumstantial story of her being kidnapped at Orkney
on the voyage to Scotland, was burnt at the stake at Bergen in 1301
as an impostor. Be this as it may, the luckless Margaret now passes
out of the history of Scotland, leaving a divided kingdom face to face
with the aroused cupidity of a determined, astute, and unscrupulous
neighbour.
THE ASSERTION OF OVER-LORDSHIP.
Who should now succeed Margaret on the Scottish throne? Fordun relates
that Malcolm, the first 'rex Scotiae,' decreed a change in the
principle of succession. This enactment is said to have provided that
thenceforth each king should be succeeded by whoever was, at the time
being, the next descendant; that is, a son or a daughter, a nephew or
a niece, the nearest then living. It is not at all unlikely that the
disturbance of the balance of the kingdom by the acquisition of Lothian
may have rendered the substitution of the Teutonic for the Keltic law
of succession expedient, or even necessary. The claims of Balliol
and Bruce alone need to be considered; and if this law was formally
established, the letter of it would be a strong support to Bruce's
candidature, whatever the spirit of its intention. For the present
purpose, however, we are not concerned with the validity of the claims
of either competitor, but mainly with the process whereby the final
decision was reached. The essential point is to discern the real spirit
governing the evolution of events.
The death of Margaret at once urged the competitors to fresh activity.
The Guardians were divided in their sympathies, and the division no
doubt ran deep into the community. The first overt movement, so far as
existing documents indicate, was made by Bruce. It was an indirect,
tentative operation. Towards the end of the year (1290), an appeal
was preferred to Edward by 'the seven earls' and the community of the
realm of Scotland against the Bishop of St. Andrews and Sir John Comyn
in respect of their action as Guardians. The appellants asserted their
privilege of placing the King of Scotland on the throne, complained of
acts of oppression exercised by the Guardians on Donald Earl of Mar
and the freemen of Moray, narrated the recognition of Robert Bruce of
Annandale as next heir to the throne by Alexander II., and alleged some
minor grievances. At this time there were only four Guardians, the
Earl of Fife having been murdered and the Earl of Buchan having died;
and the two not inculpated, the Steward of Scotland and the Bishop
of Glasgow, were fast friends of Bruce. Mar and Moray also leant to
Bruce's faction. Evidently the appeal was promoted in the interests of
Bruce, and with his knowledge, if not positively at his instigation.
There is no record of any answer.
There is a glimpse of still earlier action by Bruce in the letter
of the Bishop of St. Andrews to Edward, reporting the rumour of the
Queen's death. The rumour arrived when the Estates were sitting to
receive Edward's answer to the refusal to surrender the castles to
him. Bruce, the Bishop says, had not intended to be present, but, on
hearing the rumour, had appeared with a strong following. His ultimate
intentions the Bishop could not tell. Then follows a significant point.
Should it unhappily prove true that the Queen is dead, the Bishop
urges Edward to come to the marches without delay, with the view of
preventing bloodshed, and of aiding the faithful of the land to place
on the throne the man that possesses the proper title--meaning, of
course, Balliol. To interpret the Bishop as merely currying favour with
the King is probably a large stretch of charity. He certainly stood in
a small minority in desiring Edward's intervention. The chroniclers,
indeed, relate how the community of the realm, impressed by the ancient
friendship between the two kingdoms and the particular cordiality of
Alexander III. and Edward, invited the English King to arbitrate on
the claims of the competitors. But no such invitation is traceable
in the records, and, on that ground alone, apart from the strong
probabilities, it may safely be believed that such an invitation was
never sent. There was not the least occasion for it, on either side. It
certainly would not have represented the true feeling of the community
of Scotland; and no doubt Edward was fully aware of the fact, for, in
the whole transaction, he studiously treated that body with very scant
regard.
The Waverley Annalist states that in March 1291, on the day after
Ascension, Edward declared to his nobles, in the presence of nine of
the competitors, who at the same time submitted their claims to him,
that he was resolved to subdue Scotland as he had recently subdued
Wales. But Edward was now on the peaceful tack of legal process. The
competitors, though mostly great Scots nobles, were also mostly the
liegemen of Edward for large possessions in England; and not one of
them could dare to claim the throne of Scotland without regard to
Edward's opinion. It was quite inevitable that every one of them
should submit to his judgment. Besides their material interests in
England, they were of Norman descent and of Norman upbringing and
Norman sympathies, and thus they were largely alien to the mass of
the Scottish population. Their interest in Scotland was little, if
anything, more than a matter of land and lordship. They were quite
content to take the kingdom of Scotland as a bigger fief. It was
therefore the most natural thing in the world for them to leave the
decision of the case in the hands of their liege lord, the King of
England. For the community of Scotland the question wore a wholly
different aspect.
Edward had taken good care not to allow the matter to slumber through
the winter. He had sent forth his commands to all the religious
houses of the land, requiring them to search diligently in their
chronicles, and to transmit to him speedily extracts of all such
passages as might bear on the relations of England and Scotland.
Such of these extracts as had come to hand, he caused to be recited
before his Parliament assembled at Norham on May 10. By the mouth of
his Justiciary, Sir Roger le Brabazon, he set forth his solicitude
for the peace of Scotland and his anxiety to do justice to all, and
required the Scots prelates and nobles to recognise his superiority and
direct lordship--a claim affirmed to be 'clear, from chronicles found
in different monasteries and other places in England and Scotland,
from other sources of information, from certain documents, and on
most evident reasons.' The Scots nobles present, although previously
informed of Edward's intentions, represented their inability to reply
without further consultation with nobles and others not then present.
The meeting was adjourned till next day, when Bishop Bek, not Edward
personally, announced that they might take three weeks, at the end of
which time they would be expected to produce any evidence they might be
able to find against the King's claim of superiority.
Meantime the returns from the religious houses continued to pour in.
The Scots nobles also must have exhibited anxiety for the independence
of Scotland; for on May 31 Edward made them a declaration that the
coming of the magnates and the Community of Scotland to Norham should
not be drawn into a precedent in prejudice of the liberties of the
realm. Then, on June 2, the Scots nobles assembled on Upsetlington
Green--Holywell Haugh--on the north side of the Tweed, opposite to
Norham Castle. The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Chancellor of England,
with the usual preliminary flourish about the gracious feelings and
intentions of Edward, informed them that the Kings of England from the
remotest times had held the over-lordship of Scotland. They themselves,
he pointed out, had not even now brought forward any evidence in
disproof of Edward's claim. Edward, therefore, in the exercise of
his right, would proceed to investigate and decide the rights of the
claimants. Eight of these, who were present, formally acknowledged
Edward's supremacy.
Next day the proceedings were resumed on the English side of the Tweed,
in the parish church of Norham. Balliol, who had been absent on the
previous day, now made his acknowledgment. The Bishop of Bath and
Wells advanced Edward's pretensions another step; he explained that
Edward did not construe the possession and exercise of his right of
over-lordship as excluding his hereditary right of lordship. Then, as
to the mode of proceeding towards the determination of the claims of
the competitors, Edward suggested that the chief claimants, Balliol and
Bruce, should each, on behalf of themselves and such other competitors
as should agree, nominate forty arbiters or auditors, the King himself
being content to nominate twenty-four, more or less, to hear the
evidence and to report to him, whereupon he would give his decision.
The one hundred and four arbiters were appointed accordingly on July 5;
and next day they fixed the hearing to take place at Berwick, the King
himself appointing August 2 as the date.
The 11th of June had been a memorable day. The Guardians formally
resigned the kingdom and its castles to Edward as over-lord. The Bishop
of Caithness, on the nomination of the Scots nobles, was appointed by
Edward Chancellor of Scotland; and with him was associated the King's
own clerk, Sir Walter de Amundesham (Amersham), who was presently
(August 18) succeeded by Adam de Botingdon. Two days later, Sir Brian
Fitz Alan was associated with the Guardians in Edward's interest;
the first batch of Scots prelates and barons swore fealty on the
Holy Evangels; and Edward, 'as over-lord of Scotland,' ordered the
governors of castles in Scotland to deliver them over to governors of
his own appointment, the common consent of the Scots Guardians and of
the competitors being recorded; and Edward, as over-lord, proclaimed
his peace. On June 17 a general order was issued that all freeholders
should swear fealty to Edward. The terms of the ordinance as to homage
and fealty, which had been settled on June 12 at Norham by Edward 'with
the advice of the prelates and magnates of Scotland there present,'
were comprehensive and precise. They applied to 'all, both clerical and
lay, who would have been bound to make homage and fealty to a living
king of Scotland.' All that came were to be admitted; those that came
and refused were to be arrested till performance; those that did not
come, but excused themselves for good reason, were to be allowed till
next Parliament; those that neither came nor excused themselves were
to be 'more straitly distrained' till they conformed. Thus, to all
appearance, Edward held Scotland in the grip of his iron hand--the
reward of a patient diplomacy.
The great process was resumed on August 3 at Berwick. The competitors,
now increased to twelve, presented their claims in technical form
before the hundred and four auditors. The first object was to decide
the point of law at issue between Balliol and Bruce, namely, whether
the nearer descendant by the younger child or the more remote
descendant by the elder child had the preferable title. 'Perhaps,' as
Burton says, 'the policy of the arrangement lay in this, that in Bruce
and Balliol, and those they might bring with them, the Lord Superior
knew whom he had to deal with personally; among a set of miscellaneous
strangers, bringing their friends and supporters into the controversy,
he might find troublesome people.' The question, if in some sense 'a
by-question between two claimants,' nevertheless went to the root of
the claims of the two competitors that were obviously first in the
running. The proceedings went on, without getting much farther forward,
till August 12, when Edward adjourned the sittings to June 2, 1292.
It had been alleged that some document founded upon by the Count of
Holland was missing, and this gave the King a welcome opportunity of
further demonstrating his resolution to do justice to the last iota.
On this 12th of August he appointed certain commissioners to examine
all documents presented by suitors or 'in any way touching us and
our kingdom,' whether in Edinburgh Castle or elsewhere in Scotland.
Under the order many papers were carried away and deposited in Berwick
Castle. It does not appear that anything of importance or of immediate
relevance was discovered. Certainly Edward found nothing to support his
claim of over-lordship, otherwise he would have utilised it, and had
it carefully recorded. Whatever his real intention in directing the
search, his subsequent dealings with Scotland gave colour--and probably
quite false colour--to later allegations charging him with the express
purpose of wantonly destroying the national records. During the next
five or six days (August 13-18), Edward manifested his satisfaction
with events in a manner peculiarly pleasing to some half-dozen Scots
magnates. There remains a record of certain grants he made to the
Bishop of Glasgow, James Steward of Scotland, Earl Patrick of Dunbar,
Sir John de Soulis, Sir William de St. Clair, Sir Patrick de Graham,
and Sir William de Soulis. These grants are expressed to be made for
various expenditure, and 'also for the zeal' the grantee 'had and has
to promote peace and tranquillity among the people' of Scotland. The
record, however, is cancelled in the Rolls, for the very sufficient
reason that the particular grants were not made after all, equivalents
being given instead. Every reader may make his own comment.
While English counsels ruled the policy of the Guardians, and English
castellans stretched their mailed hands over Scotland from the
strongholds, the great cause dragged on. At length, June 2, 1292,
came round, and Edward resumed the process at Berwick. A thirteenth
competitor now presented himself--Eric, King of Norway. Edward
professed anxiety to reach a decision, for was he not moved by the
sore desolation of Scotland? Still the contest surged about the
claims of Bruce and Balliol. How to arrive at the right decision? The
Scots auditors would greatly assist the King to expedite matters if
they would inform him on what laws and customs he is to proceed. The
Scots auditors are helpless to decide without further consideration
and advice; perhaps the English auditors would aid them? The English
auditors join in consultation, but they shrink from answering without
further and more precise advice, which they might perhaps obtain from
the prelates and nobles of England. Apparently, then, there must be
a further adjournment. Edward accordingly fixed October 14 for next
meeting, and stated that in the meantime he and the rest of the parties
interested would take the best advice to be found anywhere in the two
kingdoms.
It is not relevant to the present purpose to pursue the arguments of
the October meeting. On the 15th the case was closed, no doubt after
private diplomatic dealing with the competitors. On November 17, Edward
announced his decision in great state in the hall of Berwick Castle--in
favour of Balliol. Thereupon he issued orders to the Guardians to
deliver seisin of the kingdom to the new King, and to the castellans
of the twenty-three chief strongholds to deliver them over to Balliol
or his representatives. On the 20th, Balliol swore fealty to Edward
at Norham; on the 30th he was enthroned at Scone; then he went back
to Newcastle-on-Tyne, and, having eaten his Christmas dinner with his
over-lord, did homage to him next morning as an invested King. On
January 2, by letters patent, sealed by Balliol, by two great prelates,
and by ten of the principal nobles of Scotland, Edward was acquitted of
all obligations incurred by him while the country was in his hands; and
two days later he acknowledged that his rights in Scotland were limited
to homage and its pertinents. Some special favours of a pecuniary
nature within the next few months intimate Edward's satisfaction with
his royal henchman. But these marks of the over-lord's pleasure were
far from counterbalancing the dissatisfaction openly and ominously
manifested in his kingdom of Scotland.
Two or three points in this prolonged process invite particular remark.
In the first place, as Burton justly points out,
'What confers a strange interest on the selfish squabble and
the array of technicalities and pleadings called out by it, is
that there is no more allusion to the rights of the Community
of Scotland, or the way in which a decision may affect them,
than there need be in any private litigation. They have no
more place in the question than the tenants on an estate while
the settlements are disputed. So far as one can gather from
the terms of the documents, it never seems to have occurred
to the greedy litigants themselves or their astute technical
advisers, that there was a fierce self-willed people, nourished
in independence and national pride, who must be bent or broken
before the subtleties and pedantries of the Lord Superior's
court would be of any avail. Totally unconscious they seem also
to have been that the intricate technicalities which dealt
with a sovereign independent State as a mere piece of property
in search of an owner, formed an insult never to be forgiven,
whatever might be the cost of repudiation and vengeance.'
Edward himself, however, was gifted with a deeper insight than all the
rest. He at least was thoroughly aware of the deeper elements of the
problem, and of their difficult character. At the Upsetlington meeting,
while the prelates and nobles had nothing to urge against Edward's
claims--for Wyntoun's record of the Bishop of Glasgow's bold denial
of the pretended right of superiority must be held in suspense--the
'Community' of Scotland undoubtedly presented a protest. What this body
had to say on the point, most unfortunately we do not know. It finds
no place in the very full record of proceedings preserved in the Great
Roll of Scotland. There is, however, no doubt at all that some answer
was made, and that it was set aside as 'nothing to the point' (_nihil
efficax_). But Burton's comment deserves to be carefully borne in mind.
'Transactions,' he shrewdly remarks, 'are profusely recorded, as if
for the purpose of courting all inquiry into doubts or difficulties
that might affect conclusions, yet one ever feels, throughout all
this candour, that the truth is to be found somewhere behind, and
that the abundance of punctilious record is devised to conceal it.'
The exclusion of all notice of the action of the Community from the
official record must be taken to have been deliberate. But it was an
act of policy, not of inappreciation, on the part of the King.
There is another element in certain documents of the time that confirms
this conclusion in a very striking manner. In the official record of
the case, Edward is designated Lord Superior at every turn. There
is a marked contrast, however, in the order he directed to each of
the Scots castellans to deliver over their strongholds to English
successors. 'In the preamble,' Burton points out, 'Edward does not
make display of his office of Lord Superior, as in the documents which
were not to go to Scotland. He is Edward, King of England, Lord of
Ireland, and Duke of Guienne; and he demands delivery of the fortress
by assent of the Guardians and of the several candidates, and only
towards the conclusion does he briefly bring in his title of "Soveryn
Seygnur."' In this order, as well as in the order as to fealty, he
judiciously associates with himself the prelates and magnates of the
realm of Scotland. Obviously, he exercised sleepless discretion in the
pushing of his claims, with a careful eye on the possible effects in a
high-spirited community.
A word may also be said on the functions of the auditors. From the
record of their appointment, it would seem to be plain enough that
they were intended to sit together as a single board of referees. The
magnanimity of Edward and his confidence in the justice of his cause
were not ignored by the English chroniclers; eighty to twenty-four
manifests a generosity of fairness. But then we have already seen that
the auditors did not, at any rate always, act as a single body. At a
late stage of the proceedings, two questions arose: By what law should
the question be tried--by the Imperial (that is, the Civil or Roman)
law, or by the laws and customs of England or Scotland? Is there any
specialty in rank or dignity of this kingdom of Scotland that should
exempt it from being adjudicated upon like the other tenures of the
realm? 'On these two questions,' says Burton, 'King Edward's own
council of twenty-four were alone consulted. "Those of Scotland,"
as the persons selected by Bruce and Balliol were termed, had no
opportunity of recording their opinion on these, which, of all the
questions put, were the most eminently national in their character.'
This is a somewhat startling result, in view of the expectations
raised by the terms of appointment. 'Yet,' Burton proceeds, 'it was so
managed that they too should appear to have had a voice. It was put
to the claimants, Balliol and Bruce, and to the eighty of Scotland
selected by them, whether they could show any cause why the kingdom of
Scotland--a fief of the King of England--should be treated differently
from earldoms, baronies, and other tenures. Under nice distinctions in
the ways of putting questions, the broad fact can be distinctly traced,
that the twenty-four of England were advisers or referees of the
supreme judge, Edward himself, as to the judgment to be given, while
the eighty of Scotland were merely the advisers of the two claimants
as to the position they should take up as litigants--what they should
admit, and what they should dispute. Accordingly, the eighty are not
heard in answer to the questions put; the competitors, Balliol and
Bruce, give the answers.' Even, however, if the apparent intention to
constitute a single board of 104 had been consistently maintained, the
result would have been practically the same. The Balliol and the Bruce
men would have neutralised each other, and the English twenty-four
would have decided every point--and that, too, inevitably in the sense
conformable to the mind of the King of England. The whole process was
a gigantic palaver, impressing the grandeur, the legality, and the
considerateness of Edward, while utilised as a cloak and a means for
the remorseless prosecution of his designs upon the independence of
Scotland.
It remains to inquire briefly into the substantial validity of the
claim of over-lordship. It might augur industrious adventure to
penetrate to the misty age of Brute the Trojan and Scota the daughter
of the King of Egypt. It would be little less futile to trace the
records of the chronicles collected by Edward from the time of Edward
the Elder down through four centuries. It is hardly worth while
even to deal with the submission of William the Lion when he was
accidentally captured in 1174, before Alnwick Castle, on a raid into
the north of England. The facts have been obscured by the greater
anxiety of historians to fit them in with their preconceptions than to
ascertain precisely the meaning of the plain record. If the release
of William's obligations by Richard for 10,000 marks, to eke out his
preparations for a crusade, has any meaning at all, it means clearly
the restoration of the absolute independence of Scotland. The treaty
of Falaise 'created the new condition of vassal and superior from that
date'; and the Canterbury transactions released William from all the
engagements that Henry II. thereby 'extorted from him,' as Richard's
charter phrases it, 'by new deeds and by consequence of his captivity.'
The competitor that submitted to Edward that Richard could not legally
release the homage of Scotland, was either praise-worthily exhaustive
or hopelessly barren of argument. It seems to demand a facile credulity
to believe that William gave 10,000 marks to be released from one
ground of an obligation that still remained valid against him on
another ground not even specified in express terms, or that Richard
placidly went off to the crusade, leaving on the northern marches of
England an inviting opportunity to an active and aggrieved neighbour.
That William should do homage for his estates in England was a matter
of course, but quite a different matter.
Henry III. appears indeed to have entertained the claim of
over-lordship. There is no reference to homage, however, in connection
with the treaty of Newcastle. Henry and Alexander II. simply engaged
not to abet each other's enemies, and not to invade each other's
territories without just provocation. Nor, when Alexander III.
succeeded to the throne in 1249, at the age of seven, did Henry put
forward any claim of wardship--a fact especially significant of the
relations between the kingdoms. It is no doubt true that Henry prayed
Pope Innocent IV. to prohibit the anointing and crowning of the child
King of Scots, on the ground that Alexander was his liege vassal; for
so much appears from the Pope's letter of refusal, dated 1251. But
Henry does not seem to have proceeded further in the matter. It is
stated that, on the occasion of Alexander's marriage with his daughter
Margaret in 1252 at York, Henry demanded homage for Scotland as a fief
holden of England; and that the reply of the boy King, that he could
not take such an important step without the knowledge and assent of his
parliament, closed the question. The reply bears evident witness to the
vigilance of Alexander's advisers. The like vigilance is to be remarked
in the terms of the safe-conduct of Alexander and his queen to England
in 1260. Neither the King nor his attendants should be required to
treat of State affairs during the visit. In fact, Henry III., whatever
his theoretical claims, never exercised the right of over-lordship. On
the contrary, whenever he did interfere in the affairs of Alexander's
kingdom, it was in the capacity of a friendly father-in-law, and under
the style of 'Principal Councillor to the illustrious King of Scotland.'
The case of 1278 is strikingly illustrative. In that year Alexander
did homage to Edward I. at Westminster, and the fact is recorded in a
transcript of a Close Roll in absolute terms: 'I, Alexander, King of
the Scots, become liege man of the Lord Edward, King of the English,
against all nations.' Allen verified the entry, and found that the
writing was upon an erasure. The suspicion aroused by the erasure
is not lightened by the record of the proceedings preserved in the
register of Dunfermline Abbey. There the scribe expressed the homage
of Alexander very differently: 'I become your man for the lands which
I hold of you in the kingdom of England, for which I owe you homage,
saving my kingdom.' Furthermore, it is added: 'Then said the Bishop
of Norwich, "And saving to the King of England, if he right have,
your homage for your kingdom," to whom the King instantly replied,
saying openly, "To homage for my kingdom of Scotland no man has right,
except God alone, nor do I hold that kingdom otherwise than of God
alone."' The vague and insidious use of such expressions as 'if he
right have,' or 'whatever right he may have,' or 'whenever he chooses
to exercise his right,' fostered the tendency to elevate a claim into
a right. It indicates that there actually existed no right capable of
definite formulation on firm grounds, or at any rate no right capable
of assertion. The gross falsification of such records permits us to
hold the Dunfermline scribe as at least an equal authority with the
Westminster scribe. This convenient vagueness of suggestion of right
reappears with like tameness in the tail of the treaty of Brigham.
Did King Edward honestly believe that he was entitled to the homage
of the new King of Scots? The question may be least ungraciously
answered by another question: Supposing the sides reversed, would
Edward have submitted with intellectual conviction to the same claim
advanced against himself on the same grounds? We decline to libel his
intelligence. It is impossible to believe that he cared one atom for
the chronicles he marshalled so industriously, except for indirect
purposes. It is easy enough to understand that his conceptions of
policy could readily justify a wrong as ministerial to what he
conceived to be a higher right.
THE TRIUMPH OF AGGRESSION.
Uneasy lay the head that wore the crown of Scotland. The flatteries of
King John's friends could not blind him to his isolation. The formal
respect rendered to him often betrayed, not merely reluctance, but
defiance and contempt. The leading men of the dissident factions soon
proceeded to remove his friends from his side and to surround him
with strangers, and even to take out of his control the direction of
affairs. The St. Albans Annalist records that John dare not open his
mouth, lest his people in their rage should starve him or throw him
into a dungeon; 'he was like a lamb in the midst of wolves.'
John's uneasiness was not mitigated by the action of his suzerain.
Edward mixed his early complaisances with disagreeable reminders. Thus,
on December 31, 1292, he required John to attend at Newcastle on the
appeal of Roger Bartholomew, a burgess of Berwick. It was in vain
that John pointed Edward to the convention of Brigham, under which no
Scotsman was to be required to plead in any legal proceeding out of
the realm of Scotland; Edward insisted on the cancelment, not only of
the convention, but of every document, known or unknown, calculated to
restrict in any way the free exercise of his superiority. Again, on
March 8, John was cited to answer in the English court for denial of
justice to the indefatigable John Mazun, a merchant of Gascony, who
had a big claim against the late Alexander III. In a fortnight's time,
March 25, John was again cited to appear before the English parliament
to answer an appeal of Macduff of Kilconquhar from a decision of the
Scots parliament in February. John did not appear. He was again cited
to appear on October 14. He did appear then, but the only answer to
be extracted from him was that he dare not act without consultation
with the Estates of his realm--an answer probably put in his mouth
by his Stirling parliament in August. He was cast in heavy damages;
and, on the principle that the wrongdoer should be curtailed in the
means of wrongdoing, it was resolved that the three principal castles
in Scotland, with their towns, should be delivered over to the Lord
Superior till his vassal should have purged his contumacy. John humbled
himself, however, before judgment was formally given, and Edward
granted a further postponement. Meantime, in June and September, two
more summonses had come; and two more followed in November. The English
parliament had, indeed, passed certain standing orders, including one
that admitted no excuse of absence from either party. John was bound to
be constantly trotting up and down, on the most trivial matters. Edward
was undoubtedly within his technical rights, and, as Lord Hailes says,
he was bent on exercising them 'with the most provoking rigour.' 'It
is easy to see,' as Burton remarks, 'that his immediate object was to
subject his new vassal to deep humiliation.'
Meantime the King of France was preparing to mete out to Edward the
same measure as Edward was meting out to John. He summoned Edward
to answer before the Twelve Peers in December for certain acts of
aggression of Englishmen upon French subjects in the preceding spring.
Regarding the summons as a pretext for the annexation of his French
dominions, Edward stayed at home and temporised; but in February
Philip declared him contumacious, and in May pronounced forfeiture of
his fiefs. Edward kept up negotiations, but prepared for war; and,
as over-lord of Scotland, he summoned Balliol and twenty-one Scots
magnates to join him with their forces at London on September 1, 1294.
John attended the English parliament, and contributed three years'
rental of his large English estates. But his magnates disregarded the
summons, and, when pressed, alleged their inability.
Edward's difficulties between France and Wales, as well as at home,
furnished both encouragement and opportunity to the discontent seething
in Scotland. A parliament was held at Scone. The Estates dismissed all
English court officials, and appointed a Council of Twelve, probably
after the model of the Twelve Peers of the King of France, to conduct
the government. John was formally reduced to a figure-head. Urged by
his Council, and stung by the humiliations heaped upon him by Edward,
he entered into a secret alliance, offensive and defensive, with Philip
of France, under which his son and heir, Edward Balliol, was to marry
Philip's niece, the eldest daughter of Charles, Count of Valois and
Anjou. John accredited his envoys to Philip in July 1295; the treaty
was signed by Philip in October; and John ratified it at Dunfermline
on February 23, 1295-96, with the assent, not only of his prelates
and nobles, but also of the chief burgh corporations and other public
bodies of the kingdom. The scheme was carefully placed 'on a broad
popular basis,' and it seems to have been arranged with as little
publicity as was consistent with a wide representation of the nation.
'This was the starting of that great policy which had so much influence
for centuries on both sides of the British Channel--the policy of
France and Scotland taking common counsel against England.'
In the course of the early autumn of 1295, it is likely that
Edward got wind of John's treasonable doings. He issued summonses
for his memorable parliament of November. Perhaps as a feeler, he
required John to expel all Frenchmen and Flemings, his enemies, from
Scotland; otherwise, to put in his hands the three castles and towns
of the eastern frontier--Berwick, Roxburgh, and Jedburgh. The first
alternative was firmly refused; but it appears from an existing
document that the castles were delivered over to the Bishop of
Carlisle. On October 16, there are two remarkable records: one is the
engagement of Edward to his 'beloved and faithful' John to redeliver
the three castles and towns at the end of the French war; the other is
a circular order to all the sheriffs in England to take into the King's
hand all the lands and goods of Balliol and of all other Scotsmen
staying in Scotland, within their respective jurisdictions. Were these
castles ever delivered to Edward? That is to say, was the engagement
of October 16 (with the order to the Bishop to take delivery, dated
October 12) only anticipative, and never operative? There is, indeed,
strong historical support to the view that the Scots absolutely
refused both alternatives, and shook in Edward's face Pope Celestine's
absolution of them from homage and fealty. The confiscation order
was probably Edward's counterstroke. It was followed up on February
13 by an order for the sale of all goods on such lands, excepting
only agricultural stock and implements, the proceeds to go into the
Exchequer.
The inevitable collision was precipitated by an outbreak at Berwick,
in which some English merchants were killed and their goods seized.
On February 23, Edward issued urgent orders to hurry up the forces
appointed to meet him at Newcastle-on-Tyne, directing that 'neither
for assizes, gaol deliveries, or any other business' is the Sheriff
of York to hinder the men of his county from arriving on the day
fixed, apparently March 1. He summoned John to Newcastle to answer for
the Berwick riot and his breaches of allegiance, but of course John
declined the invitation.
About the middle of March, Edward moved to Wark, just abandoned by the
romantically traitorous Robert de Ros; but he appears to have had
scruples about commencing the invasion of Scotland till Easter was
past. Then, on March 28, he passed the Tweed with 30,000 foot and 5000
armed horse, and on March 30 he took Berwick town without any effective
opposition. As Burton records--
'There is an awful unanimity of testimony to the merciless use
made of the victory. The writer who knew best of all describes
the King as rabid, like a boar infested with the hounds, and
issuing the order to spare none; and tells how the citizens
fell like the leaves in autumn, until there was not one of the
Scots who could not escape left alive, and he rejoices over
their fate as a just judgment for their wickedness.'
The gallantry of the Flemings in defence of their Red Hall only ensured
their destruction. 'Thus it was on the community among whom the
protection of the Lord Superior was first sought that his vengeance
first fell.' Berwick, 'the great city of merchant princes,' a 'second
Alexandria,' was reduced to a common market-town. 'Such a massacre,'
says Pearson, 'had not been witnessed within the four seas since the
ravage of the North by the Conqueror. From this time a sea of blood
lay between the English King and his Scottish dominion.' The castle
was surrendered the same day by Sir William Douglas, on guarantee of
the lives of the garrison. Edward remained at Berwick nearly a month,
actively refortifying the town.
It was in Berwick Castle, on April 5, that Edward received John's
formal renunciation. John bluntly complained that he had been
vexatiously cited to England at the trifling instance of anybody
and everybody; that, without fault on his part, Edward had taken
possession of his and his subjects' castles, lands, and possessions
within his kingdom of Scotland; that Edward had taken his and his
subjects' goods by land and sea, and resetted them in England; that
Edward had killed merchants and other inhabitants of his kingdom; that
Edward had forcibly carried off subjects of his from Scotland, and
detained them in prison in England; that Edward had paid no heed to his
representations; and that Edward had publicly summoned his army, and
had now come with 'an innumerable multitude of armed men' to strip him
and his subjects of their inheritance, and had approached with hostile
intent the boundaries of his kingdom--nay, had crossed them, and had
committed atrocities of slaughter, arson, and violence by land and sea.
John therefore resigned fealty and homage on behalf of himself and all
others of his realm that might adhere to him. 'Has the felon fool done
such a silly thing?' the King is said to have exclaimed. 'If he will
not come to us, we will go to him.' But it is far from apparent why
Edward should have manifested any such surprise.
On March 26, while Edward lay at Wark, a large body of Scots, under
Comyn, Earl of Buchan, made a foray from Annandale into Cumberland,
assaulting Carlisle (where Bruce of Annandale was governor), and
burning a large part of the city. On April 8, too, a foray was made by
the same body from Jedburgh into Northumberland, wasting Coquetdale
and Redesdale, and burning Corbridge, Hexham, and Lanercost. These
expeditions were futile and inglorious efforts of retaliation. The
troops returned to Jedburgh, and then took possession of Dunbar Castle,
to reduce which Edward despatched a strong force under Warenne. The
governor of the castle, Sir Richard Siward, agreed with Warenne to
surrender unless relieved within three days. On the morning of the
third day, Balliol's army came in sight, and, mistaking an irregularity
of movement of the English troops for a retreat, rushed upon them from
a stronger position, and was defeated, with fearful slaughter. Barons
and squires crowded for refuge in the castle; Sir Patrick de Graham,
whose fruitless valour extorted the unanimous admiration of Englishmen,
died sword in hand. The castle surrendered next day to Edward himself,
who consigned the flower of the fighting strength of Scotland to a
score of castles in England and Wales. There is much reason to doubt
whether Siward did not prove a traitor; and it looks as if the Scots
nobles were entirely ignorant of his agreement for surrender.
Scotland lay prostrate before the invader. Having appointed constables
of the eastern border castles, Edward marched on Edinburgh, which
surrendered after an eight days' siege. At Stirling he encountered
no opposition: all had fled. Yet the record of the gaol delivery at
Stirling on June 19 affords an interesting glimpse of the spirit of
resistance. Thomas, the chaplain of Edinburgh, who was charged with
publicly excommunicating the King with bell and candle, confessed
frankly that he did so in the King's despite; and Richard Gulle,
charged with ringing the bell, likewise confessed. Both culprits were,
by order of Edward, delivered to the Archdeacon of Lothian.
On July 7, in the churchyard of Stracathro, John renounced his treaty
with the King of France. And on July 10, in Brechin Castle, he formally
resigned his kingdom and people, with his royal seal, to the Bishop of
Durham, on behalf of the King of England. There was an end of 'Toom
Tabard' as King of Scotland. He was kept in England at Hertford, the
Tower, and elsewhere, till July 18, 1299, when he was delivered by
Sir Robert de Burghersh, Constable of Dover, to the Papal Nuncio,
Reynaud, Bishop of Vincenza, at Wissant in France, 'for disposal by his
Holiness.' He lived to hear of the decisive victory of Bannockburn.
From the middle of March onwards to autumn, homage and fealty were
performed up and down Scotland to Edward and his representatives.
Edward himself passed north to Elgin, and after a triumphal progress
of twenty-one weeks returned to Berwick on August 22. He appointed
John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey and Sussex, Governor of Scotland; Sir
Hugh de Cressingham, Treasurer; and Sir William de Ormsby, Justiciar.
He committed the subordinate wardenships, castles, and sheriffdoms to
English officers. He made arrangements for the establishment of a new
Treasury at Berwick, on the model of the Treasury at Westminster. He
broke in pieces the ancient Great Seal of Scotland, and substituted a
new seal. He had enforced his 'property and possession' of the realm of
Scotland. Yet he left behind him the active germs of retribution.
Among Edward's spoliations were two notable national possessions. One
was the Black or Holy Rood, 'a certified fragment of the true Cross
preserved in a shrine of gold or silver gilt.' It had been brought over
by St. Margaret, who left it as a sacred legacy to her descendants
and their realm. The other, an even more honoured possession, was the
Stone of Destiny--'the palladium of Scotland.' It was reputed to have
been Jacob's pillow what time he saw the vision of the angels ascending
and descending the ladder, and to have been brought to Scotland by
the eponymous Scota the daughter of Pharaoh. It was enshrined in the
coronation chair of the Kings of Scotland. Edward had it similarly
enshrined in a chair that became the coronation throne of the Kings of
England. His superstition might have been overawed by the prophetic
couplet--Boece says inscription--
'Ni fallat fatum, Scoti, quocunque locatum
Invenient lapidem, regnare tenentur ibidem.'
That is to say:
'Unless the Fates are faithless grown,
And prophet's voice be vain,
Where'er is found this sacred stone,
The Scottish race shall reign.'
For a hundred years before the death of Alexander III., the peaceful
administration and firm policy of the Scottish kings had immensely
strengthened Scotland both in her internal organisation and in her
external influence. It had inspired respect in the strongest of
contemporary English sovereigns. Between Alexander III. and Edward
I. there prevailed a genuine cordiality, based not more on family
relationship than on political conduct. On the unexpected death of
Alexander, the active mind of Edward must very promptly have perceived
a great opportunity of annexing Scotland, as he had just annexed
Wales. But strong-handed and imperious as he was, he was also governed
by ideas of legal procedure, and still more by policy. Warrior as he
was, he would still prefer to attain his ends by politic address.
He could not in decency raise his mailed hand against the infant
granddaughter of his own sister, or arbitrarily pick a quarrel with a
friendly nation at accidental disadvantage by the tragic and premature
death of his amicable brother-in-law. The project of marrying the
child Queen to his eldest son was a stroke of policy of the happiest
conception for the peaceful attainment of his purposes. The death
of the Queen and the rivalry of the competitors threw him on fresh
lines of action, plausibly justifiable by the necessity of protecting
his own kingdom from the results of internal discord on the northern
border. The prolongation of the dispute as to the succession appears
to have been very much due to his waiting for the opening up of
the smoothest line of advance. The preference of Balliol, after an
ostentatiously elaborate process of legal formality, not only wore the
aspect of a profound homage to law, but also placed on the throne of
Scotland the candidate that would be most plastic in his hands. The
successive steps show clearly, from the first idea of the marriage at
least, the gradual and deliberate tightening of a resolute grasp upon
the kingdom of Scotland. If Edward had really believed that he was
entitled to the over-lordship of Scotland, it is extremely difficult
to understand why he did not at once claim the wardship of the infant
Margaret. The enforcement of such a claim would have been awkward
enough at a moment when he needed all his force elsewhere; but he
might at least have put it forward. He could not have been unaware
of this right if it had actually existed. Again, as Macpherson says,
'it seems very surprising that he did not claim the crown of Scotland
for himself as heir of Malcolm Kenmore, whose grand-daughter Mald was
his great-great-grandmother.' Such an astute intellect as his could
not have been impressed with the documentary authorities arrayed by
patriotic priests and supported by sycophantic officials. It is not
easy to resist the conclusion that the claim was neither more nor less
than a fraudulent contrivance of a semblance of legality to cover
the aggression of a rapacious ambition. If the persecution of John
was purely the outcome of Edward's 'exasperating legality,' it does
as little credit to his political capacity as the atrocity of his
vengeance at Berwick and his tyrannical settlement of the conquered
country. Already, however, in the breast of an obscure young man in an
obscure district of the west of Scotland there were surging turbulent
feelings of personal and patriotic resentment, destined eventually to
overturn all these calculations of ambitious aggression. That young man
was William Wallace of Elderslie.