CHAPTER II.

ON THE CLAIM OF ENGLAND TO THE FEUDAL HOMAGE OF SCOTLAND.

Scotland, at various periods of her history, has been placed in situations of imminent peril, from the encroachments and invasions of her ambitious neighbour in the South. Misled by an insatiable thirst for conquest, the English monarchs were either prosecuting their views of aggrandizement on the continent of Europe, or disturbing the tranquillity of Britain by endeavouring to subvert the liberty and independence of her states. The Welsh, after being driven from the most fruitful of their domains, continued an arduous, but ineffectual struggle for their freedom, amid the few barren rocks and vallies that remained to them of their ancient and once flourishing kingdom. The Scots, though always numerically inferior to the English, and, from the comparative poverty of their country, deficient in those internal resources which their richer neighbours possessed; yet, from their warlike propensities, their parsimonious habits, and that love of independence which formed so striking a feature in the character of all the tribes of which the nation was composed, were either prepared to guard the frontier of their kingdom, or retaliate an aggression by invading the territories of the enemy. This last measure was the mode of defence they chiefly resorted to; aware that, with the exception of Berwick, the English, without advancing farther into the country than was consistent with their safety, would find no booty equivalent to what could be driven by the Scots from the fertile plains of their more wealthy opponents. These hostilities were frequently embittered by a claim of superiority which the English urged against the crown and kingdom of Scotland; and as the attempts which were made, from time to time, to enforce it, have produced more misery and bloodshed than any other national quarrel that ever existed between the two countries, an inquiry into the nature and foundation of the alleged plea of vassalage, may be of importance in elucidating the conduct of the conflicting parties in the following narrative. In this inquiry, we shall dispense with any reference, either to “Brute the Trojan” on the one side, or to that no less questionable personage, “Scota, daughter to the King of Egypt,” on the other; and proceed, at once, to the only well-authenticated evidence that exists on the subject.

In the year 1174, William, King of Scotland, dissatisfied with the conduct of Henry II. of England, invaded Northumberland, instigated thereto by a sense of his own wrongs, real or imaginary, and those discontented barons who wished to place the young King on the throne,--an ambitious youth, whom his father had imprudently allowed to be crowned during his own lifetime. While the numerous army of William was spread over the adjacent country, wasting, burning, and slaying with that indiscriminate recklessness peculiar to the age; he, with a chosen band of his followers, besieged the Castle of Alnwick. The devastations committed by the marauding army of the Scots inflamed the minds of the Barons of Yorkshire with a generous indignation; and they determined to exert themselves for the relief of their distressed countrymen. Having congregated at Newcastle to the number of four hundred horsemen, encased in heavy armour; they, though already fatigued with a long journey, pressed forward under the command of Sir Bernard de Baliol; and, by travelling all night, came in sight of the battlements of Alnwick Castle by daybreak. William, it would seem, had been abroad in the fields, with a slender escort of sixty horse; and, mistaking the English for a detachment of his own troops, he was too far advanced to retire, before he became sensible of his danger. “Now it will be seen who are true knights,” said the intrepid monarch, and instantly charged the enemy. His efforts, however, were unavailing; he was soon overpowered, and, along with his companions, made prisoner.

The chivalry of Yorkshire thus secured for their monarch a valuable prize. The magnanimity of Henry, however, was not equal to the gallantry of his subjects; for, on getting possession of the unfortunate prince, he inflicted on him every possible mortification. Not satisfied with exhibiting his rival, like a felon, with his feet tied under his horse’s belly, to the rude gaze of the vulgar; he summoned all his barons to Northampton, to witness “the humiliating spectacle of a sovereign prince exposed in public to a new-invented indignity.”[28]

It may appear difficult to account for this treatment of a Royal Captive, taken under such circumstances, in an age when the honours of chivalry were eagerly sought after by all the crowned heads of Europe. When we reflect, however, that on the Thursday preceding the capture of William, Henry himself had been ignominiously scourged at the tomb of his formidable enemy, Thomas à Becket, his lacerated feelings might, perhaps, have found some relief in this public exhibition of his power to inflict, on a brother monarch, something of a similar degradation.

William was at first committed prisoner to Richmond castle, in Yorkshire; but Henry, either from apprehension of his being insecure among the scarcely-extinguished embers of the late insurrection, or wishing to enhance his value in the eyes of the Scots, by removing him to a greater distance, had him conveyed beyond seas, to Falaise in Normandy. Meanwhile, the Scottish army, thunderstruck at so unusual a calamity, after some ineffectual and misdirected attempts at revenge, abandoned their spoil, and hastily retreated to their own country. Alarmed, however, at the irregularities which the absence of the Head of their Government was likely to produce among the discordant and inflammable materials of which the kingdom was composed, they too hastily agreed to the ignominious terms proposed by the enemy; and submitted to their King becoming the _liegeman of Henry for Scotland, and all his other territories_; and further,

“The King of Scotland, David, his brother, his Barons, and other liegemen, agreed that the Scottish church should yield to the English church such subjection, in time to come, as _it ought of right, and was wont to pay_ in the days of the Kings of England, predecessors of Henry. Moreover, Richard Bishop of St Andrew’s, Richard Bishop of Dunkeld, Geoffrey Abbot of Dunfermline, and Herbert Prior of Coldingham, agreed that the English church should have that right over the Scottish _which in justice it ought to have_. They also became bound, that they themselves would not gainsay the _right_ of the English Church.”

“A memorable clause!” says Lord Hailes, “drawn up with so much skill as to leave entire the question of the independence of the Scottish church. Henry and his ministers could never have overlooked such studied ambiguity of expression. The clause, therefore, does honour to the Scottish clergy, who, in that evil day, stood firm to their privileges, and left the question of the independence of the national church to be agitated, on a more fit occasion, and in better times.”

“In pledge for the performance of this miserable treaty, William agreed to deliver up to the English, the castles of Rokesburgh, Berwick, Jedburgh, Edinburgh and Stirling, and gave his brother David and many of his chief barons as hostages.”

Thus stood the right of England to feudal homage over Scotland in 1175. A superiority acquired in such an ungenerous manner, was not likely to be long submitted to with patience. The Scots had always plumed themselves on being an _unconquered_ people, and able to preserve their independence against all who had attempted to invade them. _Vassalage_ implies _protection_;--It was therefore presumption in England to pretend to _defend_ Scotland against those enemies before whom she herself had been obliged to _truckle_.

It was not long before the conduct of William displayed that covered scorn of his _liege-lord_, which his late injuries were calculated to inspire. Countenanced by him, the Scottish bishops, at a council held at Northampton, boldly declared, in the presence of the Pope’s legate, “_that they had never_ yielded subjection to the English church, nor ought they.”

William also entered the lists with the Roman Pontiff,--before whose threats and anathemas Henry had so ignominiously crouched:--Yet though all the thunder of the Vatican was levelled against him,--and the Archbishop of York, armed with Papal authority, had not only excommunicated him, but placed the kingdom under an interdict; still he maintained his point with inflexible resolution, till the judgment of the apostolic father was annulled, and an honourable compromise obtained. The contrast thus exhibited by his _vassal_ could not be very consoling to the feelings of the English monarch.

In the year 1178, William, in the same spirit, founded and amply endowed an abbey at Aberbrothick, in honour of the holy martyr, Thomas à Becket,--a saint who had been thrust down the throat of his liege-lord with the salutary application of the whip. It would be doing William injustice to doubt the sincerity of the gratitude which instigated him to this act of munificence.

In 1189, Henry II. died, and was succeeded by his son Richard _Cœur de Lion_. Unlike his father, Richard, though haughty and imperious, was alive to all the noble and virtuous qualities which ought to constitute the character of a king. As soon after the obsequies of his father as decency would permit, he invited William to his court at Canterbury, and magnanimously restored Scotland to her independence. The important document runs thus--“That Richard had rendered up to William, _by the grace of God, King of Scots_, his castles of Rokesburgh and Berwick, to be possessed by him and his heirs for ever as their own proper inheritance.”

“Moreover, we have granted to him an acquittance of all obligations which our father _extorted from him by new instruments, in consequence of his captivity_; under this condition always, that he shall completely and fully perform to us whatever his brother Malcolm, King of Scotland, of right performed, or ought of right to have performed, to our predecessors.”[29] “Richard,” says Lord Hailes, “also ordained the boundaries of the two kingdoms to be re-established as they had been at the captivity of William.” He calls them, “the marches of the kingdom of Scotland, (_marchiæ regni Scotiæ_.”)

“He became bound to put William in full possession of all his fees in the earldom of Huntingdon or elsewhere, (_et in omnibus aliis_), under the same conditions as heretofore.”

“He delivered up all such of the evidences of the homage done to Henry II. by the barons and clergy of Scotland, as were in his possession, and he declared, that all evidences of that homage, whether delivered up or not, should be held as cancelled.”

“The price which William agreed to pay for this ample restitution, was ten thousand merks sterling.”

It is with difficulty a smile can be suppressed when we find, even in the 19th century, an author of such learning and talents as Dr Lingard, endeavouring to fritter away the meaning and import of the above deed of restitution, by such fallacious reasoning as the following: “The King’s” (Richard I.) “CHARTER to the King of Scots may be seen in Rymer, i. 64. It is NOT, as sometimes has been supposed, a FORMAL RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF SCOTLAND, but a recognition, on the part of Richard, of all those RIGHTS which Henry had extorted from William for his RANSOM. In lieu of them he received ten thousand pounds, probably the sum which William would have given to Henry. The respective rights of the two crowns, are now replaced on the same footing as formerly. William was to do to Richard whatever Malcolm ought to have done to Richard’s predecessors, and Richard was to do to William whatever _they_ ought to have done to Malcolm, according to an award to be given by eight barons, to be equally chosen by the two Kings. Moreover, William was to possess in England the lands which Malcolm had possessed: and to become the liegeman of Richard for all lands for which his predecessors had been the liegemen of the English Kings. The award was afterwards given, by which it appears that the words _libertates_, _dignitates_, _honores_, _debiti_, &c. mean the allowances to be made, and the honours to be shewn, to the King of Scots, as often as he came to the English court by the command of his lord the English King, from the moment that he crossed the borders till his return into his own territories, Rym. i. 87. This will explain the clause of _Salvis dignitatibus suis_, in the oath taken by the Scottish Kings, which some writers have ERRONEOUSLY CONCEIVED TO MEAN, SAVING THE INDEPENDENCE OF THEIR CROWN.”[30] If William was already the _vassal_ of Henry, where was either the policy or the necessity of the _latter_ bringing _his_ right of homage into question, by making it again a subject of negociation? and if it was not for “A FORMAL RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF SCOTLAND” that William paid the _ten thousand pounds_ (merks) to Richard, _for what purpose was that sum paid_? Henry extorted no money from William for his “RANSOM;” his vanity being amply gratified by the deed of homage. Richard had no claim to 10,000_l._ from William, without granting him what he considered an equivalent. This equivalent could _not_ have been the _independence of the Scottish church_; for even during the reign of Henry, we find, by a note appended by the learned author to his work, (vol. ii. p. 397, 3d Edit.), that when the obedience of the Scottish church was demanded by the Archbishop of York, “it was answered that none was due; and the answer, after a long controversy, was confirmed by Pope Clement III. in 1188.”

How “_Salvis dignitatibus suis_” can be explained so as _not_ to _include_ the _independence_ of the _monarch’s crown_, we are much at a loss to perceive. One thing, however, is sufficiently apparent, that the sophistry we have quoted ought not to have found a place in a publication of such acknowledged merit as that of Dr Lingard.

As he has evidently allowed the prejudices of the old English chroniclers to warp his judgment in this affair, we may be permitted, in order to place the question on its proper basis, to quote the following short passage from his own work, by which it will be seen that the LION of England, showed as little _pluck_ as HE of Scotland, when placed in a similar situation.--“In an assembly of the German Princes and English envoys, by the delivery of the cap from his head, he [Richard I.] resigned his crown into the hands of Henry; who restored it to him again to be held as a fief of the empire, with the obligation of a yearly payment of five thousand pounds.”[31] Had this claim been prosecuted against England with the same pertinacity as England advanced her absurd pretensions against Scotland, it is presumed they would have been repelled with similar scorn and derision.

Though the generosity of Richard towards William in the above transaction appears sufficiently conspicuous, yet there was that in the situation of his affairs which rendered it a matter of political expediency. From the arrangements necessarily connected with the crusade, in which he and his barons were about to embark, it became a matter of necessity, before he left Britain, to do something towards smoothing down the mane of the chafed Lion of Scotland. The gracious manner in which the boon was conferred, fixed its proper value in the estimation of the Scots, and “converted an impatient vassal and implacable enemy into a faithful and affectionate ally.”

English historians have, on this occasion, charged Richard with impolicy. Happy would it have been for both countries, if his successors had possessed half the sagacity he displayed on this occasion. The consequence of this prudent measure was a cessation of hostilities between the two nations for nearly a century. This tranquillity--uninterrupted except by the assistance which Alexander II. rendered the English barons, when engaged in protecting their liberties against the encroachments of King John--was highly beneficial to both kingdoms. Intermarriages took place among the nobility, and to such an extent, that there were few families of note but had their connexions; and many became possessed of lands under both governments. Trade rose to be an object of attention, and received encouragement from the legislature. The Scottish burghs emerged from obscurity; and money became so plenty, that, though William had given ten thousand merks for the resignation of the homage of Scotland, and a farther sum of two thousand,[32] to enable Richard to make up the ransom exacted from him by the Emperor, still he was able to offer fifteen thousand merks for Northumberland,[33] besides giving dowries upon the marriage of his two daughters,[34] amounting to fifteen thousand more. The burgesses of the towns had, in this short interval, so much increased their means, as to offer six thousand merks on this occasion. The nobles offered ten thousand; and on the supposition that both ranks tendered according to their ability, it may afford some criterion for judging of their relative situations in pecuniary matters. Though all these drains had been made on the treasury, yet Alexander II. was able to give ten thousand merks, besides lands, as a dowry to his second sister. He also sent[35] two bishops as envoys to Haco, King of Norway, to negociate the purchase of all the Western Isles, which they entreated him to value _in fine silver_. The overture, though declined by Haco, shows the state of the precious metals among the Scots of those days.

In the year 1234, though the resignation by Richard must have been still fresh in the memory of the English, Pope Gregory IX., at the request of Henry, exhorted Alexander to perform the conditions of the old treaty between Henry II. and William of Scotland. Alexander had too great a regard for the Head of the Papal Church, to let him remain long in ignorance of the impropriety of such exhortations; and with the same spirit which characterized the conduct of his father towards the See of Rome, refused, according to Lord Hailes,[36] “to receive a Legate, whose original commission respected England alone,” as it “might be interpreted in a sense prejudicial to the independency of the Scottish church. It is reported that Alexander consented to his admission, at the joint request of the nobility of both kingdoms, and that he insisted for, and obtained a written declaration from the Legate, that this should not be drawn into a precedent. Certain it is, that the Legate proceeded not beyond Edinburgh, and that Alexander avoided his presence.” It is added, “The Legate sojourned in the principal towns on this side the sea, and having collected a large sum of money, secretly, and without leave asked, he departed from Scotland.”

Lord Hailes continues, “Such was the magnanimity of Alexander II. that the high-spirited Pontiff, Gregory IX. submitted to soothe him by a detail of specious and affected reasons, tending to evince the propriety of a legation in Scotland.” The “church of Scotland,” says that Pope, “acknowledges the Romish see as her immediate mother in things spiritual. To leave her destitute of the consolation of a Legate from us, would be an indignity which we cannot in conscience allow. Were we, by our Legate, to visit the church of England, and yet neglect the neighbouring church of Scotland, she might think us destitute of maternal affection.”

In 1239, Alexander married Mary de Couci, daughter of a powerful baron in Picardy. The politics of this lady’s family were adverse to England, and Henry became jealous of her influence over her husband. Various circumstances occurred to foster the seeds of animosity in the mind of the English monarch; among other things, it was told him that Alexander had said, That “he owed no homage to England for _any_ part of his territories, and would perform none.” Henry secretly prepared for war, by soliciting succour from the Earl of Flanders, and instigating the Irish to invade Scotland; while he collected a numerous army at Newcastle, ready to co-operate with them.

Though the claim of homage was not put forth among the reasons for this display of hostility, yet the real ground of quarrel was well enough understood by the Scots; and on that account the war became so popular, that though Henry had intercepted troops sent to aid Alexander by John de Couci, his brother-in-law, he was enabled to confront his enemy with a formidable body of well appointed cavalry, and nearly one hundred thousand foot, all hearty in the cause, and animated, by the exhortations of their clergy, to the highest pitch of enthusiasm. Under these circumstances, Henry found it expedient to negociate; and his lofty pretensions were softened down to a very moderate and reasonable agreement, viz. “_Alexander became engaged to live in amity with England, and never to aid her enemies, unless the English should do him wrong_.”

With such a character, Henry found it was in vain to tamper. We, therefore, hear nothing more of Scottish homage till after the death of Alexander, who being succeeded by his son, a child of eight years old, Henry solicited a mandate from Pope Innocent IV. to the effect, “That Alexander, being his liegeman, should not be anointed or crowned without his permission. He also requested a grant of the tenth of the ecclesiastical revenues of Scotland.” To expect that the last request would have been granted, was preposterous; but Henry perhaps imagined, that by angling with two hooks, he might chance to catch one fish. “The Pope honestly and peremptorily rejected both requests; the _first_, as derogating from the honour of a sovereign prince; the _second_, as unexampled.” In the mean time, the Scots, without deigning to wait the decision of the Pontiff, proceeded with the coronation of their infant sovereign.

On the 26th December 1252, Alexander III., being about ten years of age, appeared at York, to celebrate his nuptials with Margaret, daughter of Henry III., to whom he had been betrothed in 1242. After doing homage for his estates in England, Henry also demanded that he should do homage for the kingdom of Scotland, as a fief holding of England, “according to the usage recorded in many chronicles.” The answer of Alexander showed that his instructors had not left him unprepared on the subject. He stated, “That he had been invited to York to marry the Princess of England, not to treat of affairs of state, and that he could not take a step so important, without the knowledge and approbation of his Parliament.”[37] Passing over the meanness of Henry, in endeavouring to circumvent _a child of ten years old_, the futility of thus practising upon a minor, ought to have prevented such a proposal; since he must have known, that although Alexander had even then reached the years of maturity, yet, without the sanction of his Parliament, his compliance was unavailing. Indeed Henry’s attempt to entrap the innocence of his son-in-law, would almost indicate that he was very far advanced in dotage.

Henry appears either to have seen his mistake afterwards, or to have become ashamed of his attempts on Alexander. In 1259, the Pope, having appointed his own chaplain, John de Cheyam, an Englishman, to the vacant see of Glasgow, Henry thus writes to Alexander, who intended the vacancy for Nicolas Moffat, Archdeacon of Teviotdale. “Although he is my subject,” said Henry, “I would not solicit you in _his_ behalf, could any benefit arise to you from your opposition to a man on whom the Pope has already bestowed ecclesiastical jurisdiction.”

In 1260, the Queen of Scotland became _enceinte_; and being desirous to lie-in at her father’s court, Alexander accompanied her, after the following clause was inserted in their safe-conduct, “That neither the King nor his attendants should be required to treat of state affairs during this visit.” Henry also made oath, that he would return the Queen and her child in safety to the Scots.

In 1263, Henry affected to use his influence with Haco, King of Norway, to desist from his hostile intentions against Scotland. Haco denied such intentions; and Alexander, who perhaps questioned the sincerity of Henry’s interference, sent the Steward of Scotland to demand payment of the arrears of his daughter’s dowry. Henry made a partial payment of five hundred merks, and promised the remainder in two instalments, one at Michaelmas 1263, and the other at Easter 1264. “I appoint such distant terms,” said he, “because I mean to be punctual, and not to disappoint you any more.” “To an English reader,” says Lord Hailes, “this might seem incredible; but the original instrument exists.”

In 1268, Prince Edward, son of Henry, being about to engage in a crusade, Pope Clement IV., at the instigation of the English court, ordered the Scottish clergy to pay a tenth of their revenues to the King of England, to aid the undertaking. This indirect attempt on their liberties was resisted by Alexander and his ecclesiastics, who spurned at the obnoxious assessment, though they declared their willingness to furnish their proper quota of crusaders. Adam Earl of Carrick, and David Earl of Athol, with other barons, engaged in the expedition.

On Michaelmas day 1278, Alexander, being present in the English Parliament, swore fealty to Edward, in general terms, for the lands held by him of the Crown of England. Edward accepted it, “saving the claim of homage for the kingdom of Scotland, whenever he or his heirs should think proper to make it;” an early development of the views of this ambitious monarch, which did not escape the notice of Alexander.

No further measures inimical to the independence of Scotland, appear to have been taken till 1284, when Edward applied to Pope Martin IV. for “a grant of the tenths collected in Scotland for the relief of the Holy Land.” The conduct of the Pontiff, however, showed the opinion he entertained of the request. He made the grant under these conditions, all equally unpalateable or inconvenient to the royal applicant: They were, “That Edward himself should assume the cross before Christmas,--obtain the consent of the King of Scots--and, out of the money levied, supply the Scottish crusaders.”

The following year, Scotland was deprived of the prudent and watchful guardianship of her monarch; who was killed by an accident, 16th March 1285-6. At a grand council held at Scone, 11th April 1286, a regency was appointed for the government of the kingdom. The lineage of Alexander had become extinct in his person, with the exception of an infant grandchild, daughter of Eric, King of Norway. This female, whose right to the crown had been solemnly acknowledged by the Scottish barons in 1284, was deemed by Edward a desirable match for his son; and he lost no time in despatching ambassadors to Scotland to negociate a marriage. From the comparatively good understanding that had prevailed between the two countries during the late reign, he found the Scots no way opposed to his views. The proposal was therefore entertained; and, on the 18th July 1290, the regents, clergy, and baronage of Scotland, having met the ambassadors of England at Brigham, situated on the north bank of the Tweed, between Coldstream and Kelso, a treaty was concluded, consisting of fourteen articles; in all of which not the slightest allusion is made to any superiority over Scotland, with the exception of the following clause:--“_Saving always the right of the King of England, and of all others which, before the date of this treaty, belonged to him, or any of them, in the marches, or elsewhere, or which ought to belong to him, or any of them, in all time coming_.”

In the salvo thus artfully introduced, we have a continuation of that quibbling, sinister, and narrow-minded policy, which marked the conduct of the English Government in this disgraceful affair. After the question had been so completely set at rest, it was extremely irritating for the Scots, whenever any national calamity befel them, to be annoyed by the perpetual recurrence of such barefaced attempts upon their liberties. Though the Kings of Scotland repeatedly did homage to the Kings of England, for the lands they held in that country, it was no more than what the latter submitted to do to those of France. When the English, therefore, strove, by such insidious measures, to entrap the inexperience of the Scottish Kings, and to encroach on the independence of their crown, it engendered among those who had the honour of their country at heart, a bitterness of spirit, which, as the attempts were persevered in, settled down to a deep-rooted and inextinguishable animosity. There was no scarcity of men in both countries, who had sufficient penetration to see, and judgment to appreciate, the advantages that might have been secured to _all_, were the whole island united under one head. But, from the ungenerous policy of the English, this desirable object could not be attained, except by a sacrifice on the part of the Scots, of all that honourable minds hold dear,--THE GLORIES OF A LONG AND UNCONQUERED LINE OF ANCESTRY, THEIR OWN INDEPENDENCE, AND THE CONSEQUENT DEGRADATION OF THEIR OFFSPRING. These were the terms which the English unjustly demanded; and such terms the Scottish nation as sternly rejected.[38] Events have shown the soundness of their judgment; and their posterity may learn, from the history of Ireland, the extent of gratitude to which their patriotism is entitled.

The question of homage has now been traced from its origin to the negociation of Edward with the Scots at Brigham. Had all other evidence respecting the independence of Scotland been destroyed, the existence of this treaty would alone have annihilated the pretensions of Edward: For, _if_ the King of Scots had been the _liegeman_ of the English monarch, his daughter, or any unmarried female succeeding to the throne of Scotland, would of necessity have been a _ward_ of the English crown. Can it, therefore, for a moment be supposed, that Edward I., a prince so feelingly alive to what he considered his prerogative, and whose political sagacity and intimate acquaintance with the whole system of jurisprudence had procured for him the title of the “ENGLISH JUSTINIAN,” would have so far forgotten what was due to himself, as to submit to _negociate_, where he had a right to _command_?

The views, however, of both parties in the above treaty, were not destined to be realized. The young Queen, the object of such solicitude, and on whom the hopes of the Scottish nation were suspended, sickened on her voyage, and died at Orkney about the end of September 1290. No provision had been made for the succession to the Scottish crown, beyond the offspring of Alexander; and, as Lord Hailes judiciously remarks, “the nation looked no farther, and perhaps it durst not look farther.” Under these circumstances, the sceptre of Scotland became a bone of contention between the leaders of two powerful factions; and there being no third party in the country able to control and enforce the submission of the unsuccessful claimant, it was deemed expedient to submit their pretensions to the arbitration of the King of England. Edward, who watched every opportunity of aggrandizing himself at the expense of his neighbours, had determined, whether solicited or not, to interfere in the disposal of the Scottish crown. Having summoned the barons of Yorkshire, Lancashire, Westmoreland, Cumberland, and Northumberland, (among whom were Bruce and Baliol, the two competitors for the Scottish throne), to meet him, with horse and foot, at Norham, on the 5th June, he desired the nobility and clergy of Scotland to assemble at the same place on the 10th May.

A conference accordingly was held, when Edward commanded Roger le Brabazon, Justiciary of England, to inform the assembly in his name, “That he had considered the difficulties in which the kingdom of Scotland was involved by the death of Alexander and his offspring, and the dangers arising from disputed succession: That his good will and affection to the whole nation, and to each individual in it, were sincere, _for in their defence he himself was interested_: That he had called the Scots to meet him at this place, with the view that justice might be done to all the competitors, and the internal tranquillity of the kingdom established: That he had undertaken a long journey to do justice, in person, to all, _as Superior and Lord Paramount of the Kingdom of Scotland_: That he meant not to encroach on the rights of any man; but, on the contrary, as Lord Paramount, to administer ample and speedy justice to all.”

That his purposes might be the more effectually accomplished, he required their hearty recognition of his title as _Lord Paramount_; and he declared his willingness to use their advice in the settlement of the nation.

The whole assembly stood motionless and silent. At length some one had the courage to utter these words:--‘No answer can be made while the throne is vacant.’ ‘By holy Edward!’ cried the King, ‘By holy Edward, whose crown it is that I wear, I will vindicate my just rights, or perish in the attempt!’”[39] The Scots requested a delay in order to inform those of their countrymen who were absent; and, in consequence, the proceedings were put off till the next day. A further delay was then requested; and they were allowed a term of three weeks. By that time, Edward knew that the barons he had summoned would be assembled in arms.

This power was, no doubt, intended to insure the submission of the Scots. Enemies, however, more dangerous than the English barons, were at work in their councils. Amongst the secret emissaries of Edward, William Frazer, Bishop of St Andrew’s, and one of the Regents, acted with treacherous duplicity towards his colleagues. A partisan of Baliol, he scrupled at no means, however disgraceful, provided they advanced the interest of his employer.[40] Conduct of this kind could not well be concealed; it quickly engendered animosity and distrust among those who adhered to the interest of Bruce. Weakened, therefore, by their jealousies, and disunited by their conflicting interests, the aristocracy of Scotland soon became as subservient as the crafty usurper could desire.

Edward, finding them in this manner moulded to his purpose, and wishing to take away the appearance of compulsion, appointed the Scots to meet him at Upsettlington, within the boundary of their own country. The Bishop of Bath, who was the Chancellor of England, resumed the proceedings of the adjourned meetings. He stated, that “by various evidences, it sufficiently appeared that the English Kings were Lords Paramount of Scotland, and, from the most distant ages,[41] had either possessed, _or_ claimed that right; that Edward had required the Scots to produce their evidences or arguments to the contrary, and had declared himself ready to admit them, if more cogent than his own, and upon the whole matter to pronounce righteous judgment; that as the Scots had produced nothing, the King was resolved, as Lord Paramount, to determine the question of _the succession_.”[42]

The Scots were right in refraining from the discussion of a question which they knew had long since been set at rest. Had they entered the arena, they would have found themselves but ill prepared to meet the lawyers of Edward,[43] who had possessed themselves of the chronicles and other writings that were kept in those Scottish monasteries, which had been under the charge of English ecclesiastics. These records were afterwards found to differ essentially from those kept in monasteries where Scottish churchmen had the superiority. In the muniments of the former, every thing favourable to Scotland, respecting the question, had either been suppressed, or rendered nugatory by interpolation; while in the archives of the latter, her ancient independence and unsullied reputation, were as clearly manifested. A reference, however, to these falsified documents, surprised and bewildered the inexperienced among the Scots.

It was part of the policy of Edward to increase the difficulties of coming to a decision, by encouraging new candidates to come forward; as their claims, though futile, alarmed the original competitors, and rendered them more obsequious to his will. At this meeting eight claimants appeared for the crown, and they were afterwards increased to ten; all of whom, including Bruce and Baliol, acknowledged Edward as Lord Paramount of Scotland, and agreed that seizine of the kingdom and its fortresses should be delivered to Edward; “because,” said they, “judgment cannot be without execution, nor execution without possession of the subject of the award.” Edward was to find security for the faithful restitution of his charge in two months from the date of his award.

In consequence of this agreement, Scotland and her fortifications were surrendered into the hands of her artful adversary on the 11th June 1291.

An universal homage was now required; and during the summer, many churchmen, barons, and even burgesses, swore fealty to the usurper.