Robert the Bruce and the struggle for Scottish independence/The Disputed Succession

by Herbert Maxwell

⁠
Sir John de Balliol.⁠	Sir Robert de Brus.

CHAPTER II.

THE DISPUTED SUCCESSION.

A.D. 1286-1291.

THE gravity of the crisis in Scottish affairs lay in the fact that Alexander III. had died childless. Two sons had predeceased him, and one daughter, Princess Margaret, who had married Eric, King of Norway. She left a daughter, also called Margaret, upon whom, on February 5, 1284, the succession to the throne of Scotland had been settled by the Parliament of Scone, "failing any children whom Alexander might have, and failing the issue of the Prince of Scotland."^[1]

Princess Margaret, or the Maid of Norway, as she is known in the mournful annals of these years, being an infant at her father's Court, a Regency was appointed immediately after the King's death, consisting of six Guardians of the realm. These were William Fraser, Bishop of St. Andrews, Duncan, Earl of Fife, and Alexander, Earl of Buchan, having authority over the dominions north of the Firths; and Robert Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow, John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, and James the Steward, for the country south of the Firths. Lord Hailes affirms that this was done by general consent, and is severe in comment upon the historian Buchanan for having said "affectedly and erroneously" that the business of the assembly at Scone was the question of creating a new King, whereas that had been already settled by the acknowledgment in 1284 of the Maid of Norway as presumptive heir to the throne. But in truth there is now good reason to doubt the unanimity of the consent to that settlement. King Alexander was only forty-four when it was made. The probability of his dying shortly, or without more issue, was remote. Assent was given to the settlement, no doubt, but nobody could foresee how soon it was to take effect, and some who might have objected probably did not think it worth while, seeing that the King was just about to take a second wife. Be that as it may, the fact has now come to light that, twelve days after King Alexander's death, the Bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow, and the magnates of Scotland addressed a letter to Edward I., asking his advice as the nearest relative of their infant Queen. Sir Francis Palgrave was the first to point out that civil war undoubtedly did break out in Scotland immediately after Alexander's death, and that it was caused by Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale, advancing his claim to the throne. Barbour, Fordun, and other chroniclers are all significantly silent on this head, but they did not write till long after the Brucian settlement, and it is only too much in accord with the practice of historians of every age, and especially of the Middle Ages, to suppress everything that might tell to the discredit of the reigning house. It is strange, however, that John de Balliol's averment, in pleading his claim to the Crown before King Edward, has received so little attention from later historians. He there alleged that—

"When the bishops and great men of Scotland had sworn to defend the kingdom for their Lady, the daughter of the King of Norway, ... Sir Robert de Brus 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 Botil.^[2] He then caused a proclamation to be made by one Patrick M'Guffok within the bailary of the said castle... Furthermore, the Earl of Carrick, by the assent and power of his father, took the Lady of Scotland's castle of Wigtown, and killed several people there."^[3]

Several passages may be quoted from the Records to prove that this allegation was strictly in accord with what had taken place. Sir William de St. Clair, Sheriff (vicecomes) of Dumfries, reported to the Chancellor that the lands of Bardonan in Galloway, a royal ward, had lain uncultivated for two years, because of the war ensuing on King Alexander's death.^[4] A similar report was made of the Crown lands in Wigtownshire by the sheriff of that county, John Comyn, Earl of Buchan, with the further note that the war was raised by the Earl of Carrick.^[5] Again, the breaking out of war is given as the reason for increased expenditure on the castles of Dumfries, Edinburgh, Jedburgh, and Ayr, in the year 1286.^[6] There can be no doubt that an attempt was made at this time to seize the kingdom for Robert de Brus, whom Alexander II. had designated as his heir in 1238. On September 20, 1286, certain nobles—Patrick, Earl of March, and his three sons, Walter Comyn, Earl of Menteith, and his two sons, Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale, and his two sons (Robert, Earl of Carrick, and Richard), James the Steward and his brother Sir John of Bonkil, Angus Macdonald and his son—assembled at Turnberry and entered upon a bond of mutual defence, in order to secure the royal succession according to the ancient customs hitherto observed in Scotland.^[7] There was not the slightest reference in this treaty (which is still in existence) to the child-queen Margaret, no doubt because the "ancient customs" did not permit of a female sovereign.

It must be left matter for speculation how the civil war was brought to a close. We have to resume the course of events in 1288, when the number of Guardians was reduced from six to four, by the assassination of the Earl of Fife by Sir Patrick Abercrombie and Sir Walter de Percy, and the death of the Earl of Buchan about the same time. Meanwhile, the far-sighted sagacity of King Edward had conceived the statesmanlike project of bringing about the union of England and Scotland under one Crown, and thus laying to perpetual rest the thorny question of the suzerainty, by marrying his son and heir to the young Queen of Scots. With this end in view, he entered into negotiations with King Eric of Norway, who owed him a large sum of money, and was by so much the more disposed to listen to Edward's proposals. The four Guardians of Scotland disagreed among themselves, probably on the question of the projected marriage, which, if carried into effect, would, of course, put an end to the cherished schemes of the parties of de Brus and de Balliol. King Eric sent plenipotentiaries in 1289 to treat with the King of England, who appointed the Bishops of Durham and Winchester and the Earls of Pembroke and Warenne to meet them. A conference took place at Salisbury on November 6th, at which the Scottish nation was represented by the Bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow, Comyn, Lord of Badenoch (being three out of the four Guardians), and Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale, who had composed their differences for the occasion. Here it was agreed on the part of the Norwegians that Queen Margaret should be conveyed immediately, either to her own realm of Scotland, or to England, but free from all matrimonial engagement. On the part of the English it was agreed that, if King Edward received Margaret from her father, he should deliver her free to the Scottish people, provided law and order were restored in that country (quant le reaume de Escosse serra bien asseuré et en bon pees, issi ke ele i puisse seurement venir et demorer.)^[8] A further clause provided that the Scots should bind themselves under security to the King of England not to bestow their Queen in marriage, except by his ordinance, will, and advice, and with the consent of King Eric, her father. Lastly, the Scots bound themselves to restore order in Scotland before the arrival of the Queen; to give security for her safety and freedom; to remove any of the Guardians or ministers of Scotland to whom the King of Norway should take exception, and to replace them by others chosen by the good men of Norway and Scotland. In the event of disagreement, King Edward was to appoint commissioners to decide between them.

Now it will be seen that this treaty placed the matter pretty completely in the power of King Edward, nor, perhaps, could it at that time have fallen into better hands. He was honestly anxious to bring about the best conclusion for the welfare of the two kingdoms. By the last-mentioned article it was put in his power to effect the removal of any of the Guardians likely to prove troublesome, for the King of Norway was so heavily in his debt that he would be ready to object to any who were objectionable to Edward. On this point Lord Hailes has remarked that, as three of the four Scottish signatories to this convention were Guardians of Scotland, this proviso was designed for the expulsion of the fourth Guardian, James the Steward. But Lord Hailes was writing in ignorance of the war which had been raised by the party of de Brus, of which James had been an active member, as his presence at Turnberry and his assent to the league had proved. The intention of this provision seems to have been generally to prevent any one of the Guardians using his official power to further schemes contrary to the interests of the Prince of England, as consort of the Queen of Scotland.

Still, nothing was expressed in this treaty about the betrothal of the Prince and the Queen. Edward, however, had already sent an embassy to Pope Nicholas IV., craving the necessary dispensation. This was granted on November 16th, and the news was allowed to leak out that it had been obtained. As soon as it reached Scotland, the four Guardians, forty-four ecclesiastics, twelve earls (including the Earl of Carrick), and forty-seven barons, signed a letter to King Edward, expressing a hope that the rumour was true, and offering their hearty consent to the alliance. On March 17th they addressed a letter to King Eric, praying him to send his daughter to be married to Prince Edward of England. A month later King Edward wrote to King Eric, informing him that he had obtained the Papal dispensation, and requesting him to send Queen Margaret to him in England. On July 18, 1290, a memorable treaty was concluded at Birgham on the Tweed, defining the relations between England and Scotland in the event of the marriage taking place.

It was agreed, among other things, between the English and Scottish commissioners:

"That the rights, laws, liberties, and customs of Scotland should remain for ever entire and inviolable ... that the kingdom of Scotland should remain separate and divided from England, free in itself and without subjection, according to its right boundaries and marches as heretofore, saving always the right of the King of England, and of all other (rights) which before the date of this treaty belonged to him, or any of them, in the marches or elsewhere, or which may justly belong to him, or any of them, in all time coming."^[9]

Of course, the two phrases printed in italics were utterly irreconcilable with each other, as was to appear hereafter.

Next, on August 28th, Edward appointed Anthony Beck, Bishop of Durham, as his lieutenant in Scotland "to act in concert with the Guardians, and by the advice of the prelates and nobles of the realm." Edward further demanded that all the fortresses of Scotland should be given up to him "because of certain perils and suspicions of which he had heard."^[10] This the Scottish commissioners refused to do, but they undertook to hand the castles over to the Queen and her intended consort as their joint sovereigns.^[11]

The fair project for the union of the two kingdoms was suddenly shattered by a calamity, of which it is impossible to write without chagrin, even after the lapse of six hundred years.

King Edward directed a large ship to be fitted out at Yarmouth to bring the Maid of Norway over to England. The victualling and decoration were entrusted to the King's chief butler, Matthew de Columbariis—Matthew of the dovecotes—and the accounts testify that this was done on a scale of profusion befitting the rank of the Queen of Scots. Besides such items as 31 hogsheads and one pipe of wine, 12 barrels of beer, 15 carcases of oxen, 72 hams, 400 dried fish, 200 stockfish, one barrel of sturgeon, 5 dozen of lampreys, 50 pounds of whale-flesh, and condiments in proportion, there was provided a little store of dainties for the special delectation of the Maid; such as sugar, walnuts, figs and raisins, and 28 pounds of ginger-bread.

The Abbot of Welbeck, Henry de Rye, and other messengers, sailed in this ship from Hartlepool on May 9th, arriving in Norway on the 25th. What happened afterwards is involved in mystery. It is certain that the vessel which Edward had prepared with so much care for his future daughter-in-law, returned without her. Probably King Eric, rather than expose his daughter to the long voyage to the English coast, preferred to send her to his own dominion of Orkney. That, at all events, was the course pursued. But it is part of the irony of history that, though we know all about the sweetmeats provided for the little Maid, and may even learn how much of them was eaten by the messengers, and wasted by the crew, of the manner of the end of the Maid herself we must remain in doubt. King Edward's ship returned on June 17th, bringing news that the Queen of Scots would land in Orkney, and be received there by the Scottish commissioners. Immediately Edward appointed the Bishop of Durham, the Earl of Warenne, and the Dean of York to repair to meet her on landing.

Meanwhile the Bishop of St. Andrews wrote a letter to King Edward on October 7th, so remarkable in the light which it throws on the attitude of de Brus and de Balliol, and on the general state of Scotland at this juncture that, although it has often been printed, it is given here in full once more.

"To the most excellent Prince and most revered Lord, Sir Edward, by the grace of God most illustrious King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guienne, his devoted chaplain William, by divine permission humble minister of the Church of St. Andrew in Scotland, wisheth health and fortunes prosperous to his wishes, with increase of glory and honour. As it was ordained lately in your presence, your ambassadors and the ambassadors of Scotland who had been sent to you, and also some nobles of the kingdom of Scotland, met at Perth on the Sunday next after the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel, to hear your answer upon those things which were asked and treated by the ambassadors in your presence. Which answer of yours being heard and understood, the faithful nobles and a certain part of the community of Scotland returned infinite thanks to your Highness. And your foresaid ambassadors and we set ourselves to hasten our steps towards the parts of Orkney to confer with the ambassadors of Norway for receiving our Lady the Queen, and for this we had prepared our journey. But there sounded through the people a sorrowful rumour that our said Lady was dead, on which account the kingdom of Scotland is disturbed. And the said rumour being heard and published, Sir Robert de Brus, who before did not intend to come to the said meeting, came with great power to confer with some who were there; but what he intends to do, or how to act, as yet we know not. But the Earls of Mar and Athol are collecting their army, and some other nobles of the land are drawing to their party; and on that account there is fear of a general war and a great slaughter of men, unless the Highest, by means of your industry and good service, apply a speedy remedy. My lords the Bishop of Durham, Earl Warenne, and I, heard afterwards that our foresaid Lady recovered of her sickness, but she is still weak; and therefore we have agreed among ourselves to remain about Perth, until we have certain news by the knights who are sent to Orkney what is the condition of our Lady—would that it may be prosperous and happy!—and if we shall have the accounts which we wish about her, and which we expect from day to day, we will be ready to set forth for carrying out the business committed to us to the best of our power. If Sir John de Balliol comes to your presence, we advise you to take care so to treat with him that in any event your honour and advantage be preserved. If it turn out that our Lady has departed this life—and may it not be so!—let your excellency deign if you please to approach towards the March for the consolation of the Scottish people, and the saving of the shedding of blood, so that the faithful men of the kingdom may keep their oath inviolate, and set over them for King him who of right ought to have the succession, if so be that he will follow your counsel. May your Excellency have long life, health and prosperity, and happiness.

"Given at Leuchars on the Saturday, the morrow of St. Faith the Virgin, in the year of our Lord 1290."^[12]

There will be occasion to refer to certain passages in the bishop's letter hereafter. Meanwhile, it may be remarked that it is the only known contemporary document in which allusion is made to an event of such enormous political importance as the death of the Queen of Scots. Still more strange is it that Barbour makes not the slightest reference to the Maid of Norway's death, although it was the circumstance from which arose directly the events he undertook to record. He only says:

"Quhen Alysandyre the King was dede,
That Scotland had to ster and lede,
The Land sex yhere and mayr perfay,
Lay desolate eftyr his day."

Fordun says the Queen died in 1291, and Wyntoun gives a wholly apocryphal account, how that Sir David of the Wemys and Michael Scot of Balwearie went to Norway to receive the Maiden, to conduct her to Scotland, and that on their arrival there they found that she had been put to death. In spite of Bishop Fraser referring to it as merely a rumour, it has been surmised that this was his diplomatic way of alluding to a circumstance already known to have taken place. There was wide-spread suspicion of foul play. It was known to be against the interests of more than one powerful individual in Scotland that Margaret should be crowned. The story that she had been kidnapped was almost universally believed in Norway, and obtained such currency elsewhere that when, ten years later, in 1300, a German woman, a native of Lubeck, gave out that she was Margaret Queen of Scotland, and was burnt as an impostor at Nordness in 1309, a church was erected on the site of her execution, in memory of the "martyred Maritte," as people called her. It continued for long to be a favourite place of pilgrimage, in spite of many edicts forbidding all persons to resort thither.

But there can be no reasonable doubt that Queen Margaret did die in Orkney, in the presence of Bishop Narve of Bergen, who took her remains back to Norway, where they were inspected and identified by her father.

With the Maid of Norway's life the line of Alexander was extinguished, and no provision had been made for the succession beyond his descendants.

There was no scarcity of claimants to the throne. Fordun's account of what ensued during the winter of 1290-91 is probably near the truth:

"The nobles of the kingdom, with its Guardians, oftentimes discussed among themselves the question who should be made their king; but they did not make bold to utter what they felt about the right of succession, partly because it was a hard and knotty matter; partly because different people felt differently about those rights, and wavered a good deal; partly because they justly feared the power of the parties, which was great, and partly because they had no superior who could, by his unbending power, carry their award into execution or make parties abide by their decision."

In short, the military and political weight of the chief claimants was so nearly balanced that any decision which might have been made would have been the signal for civil war. Matters had arrived at an impasse, and any attempt to solve it would have caused a conflagration. Under these circumstances, it is fair to enquire whether Bishop Fraser has merited the obloquy which has been heaped on his memory because of his letter to King Edward.

It has been mentioned above that dissensions had arisen early among the four surviving Guardians of the realm. The supreme authority seems to have passed into the hands of two of them, the Bishop of St. Andrews acting for the north, and John Comyn acting for the south. On the death of the Maid of Norway, the policy of the faction which these two Guardians represented was to elevate John de Balliol to the throne, on the understanding that the suzerainty of England should be acknowledged. The Bishop's allusion in his letter to "the faithful men of the kingdom keeping their oath inviolate" has always been interpreted to imply submission to the claims of England, though it is possible to understand therein a reference to the allegiance due to the legitimate successor of Queen Margaret, implied in the oath of his subjects to King Alexander. Even the temperate Hailes talks of Bishop Fraser's "dark and dangerous policy" and his "base proposal." The fact is that what Scotland stood in supreme need of at this juncture, was some strong and, if possible, disinterested power, to protect her from the violence of her own barons. Fraser was desperately anxious to save his country from the misery of civil war, and he took the course which offered the most hopeful means of doing so, by communicating with that monarch who had been for years, and was at that moment, in the closest and most friendly diplomatic relations with the Government of Scotland. The sole passage in this celebrated letter which lends itself plausibly to the imputation of underhand dealing between the King of England and the party represented by the bishop, is the reference to the choice of a king "that will follow your counsel." This, seeing that part of Edward's avowed policy had been to obtain the homage of the Scottish monarchy, is untrue to what afterwards came to be the principles and sentiments of patriotic Scotsmen; but it is impossible to show that there was any party in Scotland at that time which seriously disputed the King of England's claim. The executive, in the name of the nation, referred the dispute to him.

Lord Hailes throws discredit on the statements of Fordun, Hemingburgh, and others that the invitation sent to Edward I. to arbitrate in the disputed succession was one of a national character. He was not aware of the appeal made on behalf of the Seven Earls of Scotland, claiming to represent the pre-feudal, and therefore the true constitution of the realm.^[13] This is an instrument containing the minutes of proceedings instituted by the Seven Earls, and conducted for them by procurators appearing before the Bishop of St. Andrews and John Comyn, the operative Guardians. Herein it is set forth that, according to the ancient laws and immemorial usage of the kingdom of Scotland, it appertained to the rights and liberties of the Seven Earls and the "Communitas" of the realm, whensoever the throne should become vacant, to constitute the King and invest him with all the functions of government. And now, the throne being vacant by the death of Alexander III., and lest the Bishop of St. Andrews and John Comyn, acting as Regents of Scotland, together with the small portion of the "Communitas" adhering to them, should of their own authority appoint any King to the prejudice of the rights of the Seven Earls, and lest also John de Balliol should intermeddle in the kingdom or government of Scotland, appeal was hereby made to Edward King of England, on account of the injury thus received.

After further protest is lodged on behalf of Donald Earl of Mar against the damage and ravages committed in the district of Moray by certain deputies appointed by the Guardians, the Seven Earls proceed to appeal in the name and on behalf of Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale, claiming the Crown as the lawful and appointed heir of King Alexander. They complain that the Guardians, uniting with others of the kingdom, as well in prejudice of the rights of de Brus as in violation of the privileges of themselves as the Seven Earls, had intended to appoint John de Balliol to the vacant throne. Wherefore he, Robert de Brus, so appearing by his procurator, appeals to the presence of Edward King of England, and inhibits the proceedings of the Guardians, until the judgment of the said King can be obtained.

Commenting further on Hemingburgh's statement that the invitation to Edward was an act on the part of the Scottish nation, Lord Hailes says he does not doubt that many of the nobles, instigated by Bishop Fraser, may have invited the intervention of England; "but," says he, "I see no sufficient evidence that the measure was national." Seeing, however, that not only the Scottish Guardians, but the more ancient constitutional body of the Seven Earls, independently took the same course, it surely partook as much of the nature of a national act as the constitution of the nation admitted. It is easy for a historian to write about the "general consent" of a nation, but it is not so easy to prove that it is more than a mere phrase. No provision for a plebiscite existed under the feudal system, and it is impossible to imagine that the commonalty were able to take any intelligent interest in the question of succession to the throne. The estates, indeed, were held to represent the people, and they took a keen interest in the matter, but they were in no degree representative in our modern acceptation of that term. The national will was interpreted by the acts of a narrow, and chiefly alien, aristocracy, consisting of prelates and barons; and the fact that the commonalty of Scotland, many years after this, ratified the act of de Brus, representing one of many competitors, in seizing the Crown, is not enough to convict either Fraser and his colleagues or the Seven Earls of bad faith or want of patriotism, because they took measures to prevent de Balliol or de Brus, or any other competitor, dragging the country into civil war in support of his claim.

In the act of inviting Edward to arbitrate there was nothing to compromise the independence of Scotland. It was the practice at that time to settle controversies of this nature by reference to a foreign prince. Edward's reputation, both as a statesman and a knight, stood high; he had already, by the project of marriage of his son to the Queen of Scots, shown himself well disposed to the northern kingdom; and the two parties in Scotland adopted the most hopeful way out of the crisis. But in the transactions which followed, it soon became clear that the first use the King of England intended to make of his opportunity was to settle in his own favour the venerable dispute about the suzerainty. It happened to be a burning question with him just at the time, for he was at war with the King of France, who claimed his homage for the duchy of Aquitaine.

A conference between the prelates and barons of Scotland on one side, and King Edward and his ministers on the other, took place at Norham, on the English bank of the Tweed, on May 10, 1291. It was opened by a memorable speech on the part of the King of England, composed in Latin by William Hotham, Provincial of Predicant Friars, and delivered in French by Roger le Brabazom, Justiciary of England. It announced the King's acceptance of the office of arbitrator, "out of his good-will and affection to the whole nation, and to each individual in it; for in their defence he himself was interested." He had come, he said, as Superior and Lord Paramount of the kingdom of Scotland, and he required, as a preliminary act, that they should acknowledge him as such.

The Scots requested time to consider such a weighty demand; they were given twenty-four hours. Next day they asked for further delay. Edward granted them three weeks, by which time his demand would be emphasised by a display of force, for he had summoned the barons of northern England to assemble at Norham, cum armis et equis, on June 3d. It is to be noted that among his English lieges thus called to arms, there were included two, at least, of the competitors, namely, Robert de Brus and John de Balliol.

Besides these military preparations, Edward took pains to collect historical evidence in support of his claim to the suzerainty, and it is impossible for any impartial person to doubt the sincerity of his desire not to exceed what he believed to be his just rights. Religious houses were considered then the only authentic repositories of such material, and orders had been sent to all of them to extract and cite every recorded instance of homage done by the Kings of Scotland to those of England. These reports had been read at the preliminary conference on May 10th, and they remain to this day an interesting medley of historical fact and monkish legend. All the instances of partial conquest of Scottish territory by Saxon, Danish, and Norman kings, followed by homage done by the vanquished, were herein recited, down to the treaty of Falaise, by which William the Lion, in order to regain his freedom, surrendered the independence of his kingdom. But no mention was made of the treaty of Canterbury whereby it was restored by Richard Cœur de Lion; of the clause in Magna Charta defining the rights of the Scottish kings; nor of the recent obligation entered into by Edward himself at Birgham, to respect the independence of Scotland. The last, at any rate, must have been fresh in the recollection of all present.

The conference re-assembled on June 2d, this time on Scottish soil, at Upsettlington, on the north bank of the Tweed. Eight of the claimants to the throne were present, but not John de Balliol, who said he had mistaken the day.

The others were:

1. Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale.

2. Florence, Count of Holland.

3. John de Hastings, Lord of Abergavenny.

4. Patrick de Dunbar, Earl of March.

5. William de Ros.

6. William de Vesci (appearing by attorney).

7. Robert de Pinkeny.

8. Nicholas de Soulis.

The Bishop of Bath recited the proceedings at the former assembly, and added, in reference to the historical researches commanded by the King, that- "by various evidences, it was sufficiently apparent that the English kings were Lords Paramount of Scotland, and from the most distant ages had either claimed or possessed 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 they were stronger than his own.... That as the Scots had produced nothing, the King was resolved, as Lord Paramount, to determine the question of the succession." Then the competitors were called on to declare their concurrence.

Robert de Brus was first asked if he acknowledged the King of England as Lord Paramount of Scotland, and whether he was willing to ask and receive judgment of him in that character. De Brus gave his assent "definitely, expressly, publicly, and openly,"^[14] and the other competitors present answered these questions in the same way.

Next day, June 3d, John de Balliol made his appearance, and, having explained the cause of his absence at the appointed time, was asked if he was ready to make the same answer as the others. After some deliberation—merely formal, because he must have known what was coming^[15]—he replied that he was.

The English Chancellor then announced that, although King Edward "now asserted his right of superiority, with the view of giving judgment between the competitors, he must not be held to relinquish his right of property in the kingdom of Scotland, which might be claimed hereafter in fit manner and time convenient." It is not clear whether this ambiguous phrase referred to his legitimate claim to the earldoms of Lothian and Scottish Cumbria, for which homage had been so long and persistently claimed, or to the groundless claim to property in the Scottish realm as a whole.

The competitors then set their seals to the following acknowledgment:

"Forasmuch as the King of England has evidently shown to us that the sovereign seignory of Scotland, and the right of determining our respective pretensions, belong to him, we, therefore, of our own free will and without compulsion, have agreed to receive judgment from him as our Lord Paramount, and we become bound to submit to his award."^[16]

Besides the nine competitors named above, four others subsequently submitted their claims on August 3d, namely, Eric King of Norway, John Comyn Lord of Badenoch, Roger de Mandeville, and Patrick Galythly. It is remarkable, as shewing how complete was the Norman ascendency in the ancient land of the Gael and Pict, that although all these thirteen competitors for the throne of Scotland claimed in virtue of descent from daughters or sisters of Scottish kings (except King Eric, who founded on being the heir of his own daughter), only one, Patrick Galythly, was indeed a native Scot.

The claims of eleven of the thirteen competitors require no consideration here. From the first, those of John de Balliol and Robert de Brus were recognised as the most important, and were taken into consideration at once.

Each of these two was called on to nominate forty commissioners, who, with twenty-four appointed by the King, were to deliberate on the pleadings and make their report to him. The claims of the other competitors, though not withdrawn, were suspended until after the decision between de Brus and de Balliol.

On June 4th all the competitors consented to the surrender of the kingdom of Scotland and its fortresses into Edward's hands, on the pretext (for it could have been nothing but a quibble) that, inasmuch as the bestowal of the kingdom had been placed in his hands, he could not bestow that which he did not possess. Restitution was to be made within two months from the delivery of his award. This surrender was carried into effect on June 11th, whereupon Edward immediately restored the custody of the kingdom to the four Guardians, and the castles to the keepers. The only Scottish official who made the slightest difficulty over this manœuvre was Gilbert de Umfraville, Earl of Angus, who demanded and received an indemnity from King Edward before he would consent to deliver up his castles of Dundee and Forfar.

The Scottish nobles and prelates, on June 11th, presented Alan, Bishop of Caithness, as a fit Chancellor, and Edward appointed him, with his own clerk, Sir Walter de Amundesham, as colleague. He also, on June 13th, appointed Brian fitz Alan as an associate with the four Guardians, who now held their commission as regents from him as Overlord. These regents, with twenty-seven other earls and barons of Scotland, then swore fealty to Edward on the Holy Evangels, and proceedings were adjourned till August 2d.

Nothing could be more formal and complete than the absolute renunciation of Scottish independence which had now been performed. Upon Balliol and Bishop Fraser has been laid, by common consent of all Scottish historians, the odium, not only of being foremost in obsequious compliance with Edward's pretensions, but in subsequently resisting the national effort to regain independence. But in truth the records admit of no difference in this respect between the competitors at this period. They and the Guardians were unanimous in acknowledging Edward's superiority, and if there was any party in Scotland of a contrary view, no trace remains of any protest having been made at this time. If the proceedings at Norham and Upsettlington were, as Lord Hailes maintains, chapters in a disgraceful history, then the disgrace must be shared by all Scotsmen who took part in them. Their acts were the acts of the nation, as far as the constitution of the kingdom admitted of any act being national; nor is it easy to point out how they could have acted differently. Dissensions among themselves rendered war against Edward, who was the liege lord of most of them for their English possessions, a hopeless enterprise; in yielding voluntary submission they were anticipating the submission which must have been forced from them after a bloody contest. It is a bitter thing for a Scotsman, even at this distance of time, to have to admit that his country was helpless before the King of England's pretensions, but so it was. The fierce detestation of Edward of England, which generations of Scotsmen have learned to cherish, had no existence at the time of the proceedings of Upsettlington; it arose out of subsequent events. Hitherto he had been regarded, not as an aggressive tyrant, but as a powerful friend of Scotland, nearly related in blood to the lost line of Malcolm Canmore, and the most likely authority to deliver the realm from the evils of a disputed succession. That he should exact a substantial fee for his services as arbitrator, might be regretted, but there was no power to resist the demand. If this state of things be lost sight of, no clear view can be obtained of the momentous events of these years.

1. King Alexander's eldest son by Queen Margaret, Prince Alexander, married Margaret, daughter of Guy, Earl of Flanders, in 1282, and died in January, 1284.
2. Now called Buittle; de Balliol's residence in Galloway.
3. Palgrave, p. lxxx.
4. Exchequer Rolls, i., 35.
5. Exchequer Rolls, i., 39.
6. Ibid., 37, 38, 42, 44.
7. Stevenson, i., 22.
8. Fœdera.
9. Fœdera.
10. Ibid. Purs aucuns perils e suspecons que il avoyt entendu. These perils and suspicions were, no doubt, the attempt by de Brus's party, and probably that of de Balliol also, to revert to the ancient customs of Scotland, and set aside the succession of a female.
11. Ibid.
12. National MSS. of Scotland, vol. i., No. 70.
13. The document is printed in full in Palgrave, 14-23.
14. Finaliter, expresse, publice et aperte.—Fœdera.
15. Congrua deliberatione præhabita.—Fœdera.
16. Fœdera.