Robert the Bruce and the struggle for Scottish independence/The Reign of John de Balliol

by Herbert Maxwell

⁠
Comyn, Earl of Buchan.⁠	Sir Aymer de Valence.

CHAPTER III.

THE REIGN OF JOHN DE BALLIOL.

A.D. 1291-1296.

THE commissioners appointed in June to decide the merits of the respective claims of de Brus and de Balliol, adjourned till August 2d, when they re-assembled at Berwick. Their proceedings have been so minutely examined and reported on by previous writers, that there is no occasion here to do more than briefly recapitulate the grounds on which they gave their verdict. Pleadings on behalf of the two competitors were opened at Berwick on June 2, 1292, and continued till June 25th.

John de Balliol claimed as the son of Devorguila, daughter of Margaret, eldest daughter of the Earl of Huntingdon, the youngest brother of Malcolm IV. and William the Lion. He was, therefore, great-grandson of the Earl, and great-grand-nephew of two Kings of Scotland.

Robert de Brus claimed as the son of Isabella, second daughter of the said Earl of Huntingdon. He was, therefore, grandson of the Earl, and grand-nephew of the two Kings.^[1]

It was a nice question, and one that had never, up to that time, been decided in feudal law, whether the succession ought to devolve on the more remote by one degree in descent from the elder sister (de Balliol), or on the nearer in degree from the younger (de Brus). So completely had Scotland become feudalised, that although the question involved was one of descent from her Celtic monarchy, the ancient Celtic law of Tanistry, by which succession had been wont to be regulated, does not seem to have been so much as mentioned. Under that law, succession went by descent from a common ancestor, but choice had to be made by the people of a man come to years fit for war and council, instead of the infant son or grandson of the last king.

The commissioners, having no precedent to guide them, felt unable to create one. They reported to the King on August 12th, that they had not been able to come to an agreement upon the question submitted to them, and declared "that they would not presume to give their advice in such a high matter without hearing the better judgment of the prelates, nobility, and other wise men of England."

The sitting was again adjourned, and Edward summoned a Parliament to meet at Berwick on October 15, 1292. Three questions were submitted for its decision on behalf of the King of England, to all of which Parliament returned unanimous answers. The tenour of these answers threw upon the King the responsibility of decision in the matter under dispute, according to the laws and usages of his kingdoms. If no such laws and usages existed, or if they differed in England and Scotland, then he should create new ones, with the advice of Parliament. The succession to the Crown should be regulated in the same way as succession to earldoms, baronies, and other indivisible inheritances.

Next, on November 6th, the two claimants-in-chief were heard at great length and in great detail; after which, all the other competitors, except de Hastings, having finally withdrawn their claims, King Edward proceeded to deliver judgment on November 17th.

"As it is admitted that the kingdom of Scotland is indivisible, and as the King of England must judge the right of his subjects according to the laws and usages of the kingdoms over which he reigns; and as by the laws and usages of England and Scotland in the succession to indivisible heritage, the more remote in degree of the first line of descent is preferable to the nearer in degree of the second, therefore it is decreed that John de Balliol shall have seisine of the realm of Scotland ... saving always the right of the said King of England and his heirs, whenever they shall choose to put it forward."

It is beyond all question that, according to the law of primogeniture, as it has since been interpreted and as it would take effect at the present day, this was an equitable decision. This law, however, was not firmly established at that time, and the Scottish chroniclers do not hesitate to impute bad faith to Edward in pronouncing judgment. Fordun and Wyntoun declare that the commissioners delivered their award in favour of de Brus, but that the Bishop of Durham dissuaded the King from ratifying it, because de Brus would prove far too powerful a monarch. They allege further, that the Earl of Gloucester stood before King Edward, holding his kinsman, de Brus, by the hand, and cried: "Recollect, O King! what kind of judgment thou hast given this day; and know that thou must be judged at the last." But there is no reason to suppose that Edward saw in de Balliol a more pliant vassal than in the aged de Brus. Bishop Fraser, at all events, had put him as much on his guard against one as against the other.

Of a truth there is not a shred of evidence to support the allegation that de Brus expressed any dissent from the award, whatever may have been his private feelings and those of his partisans. Of far greater significance is the fact that, in giving his award, Edward made no reference to that part of de Brus's case which, though the strongest of all, has been overlooked or set aside by all subsequent critics, until Sir Francis Palgrave pointed out its true bearing on the question. It was part of de Brus's pleadings, that in 1238, when King Alexander II. was in declining years, despairing of any issue of his body, he did with, and by the assent of the probi homines of his kingdom, acknowledge and designate the Lord of Annandale to be his lawful heir, as being nearest of blood to himself. Many of the barons who took part in this parliamentary act being still alive in 1292, de Brus claimed that they should be examined in support of his averment. De Balliol's answer to this was that, inasmuch as Alexander II. had died seised of the kingdom, and transmitted it by his death to a son, not in existence at the time he designated de Brus as his heir, no right could remain with Robert de Brus in virtue of such designation. Of our historians, Brady, Tyrrel, Hume, Turner, and Lingard are alike totally silent in regard to this remarkable part of de Brus's claim. Tytler mentions it, but without comment; Carte denounces it as "a mere pretence." Lord Hailes enters with some minuteness into its discussion, but concludes against its validity on grounds somewhat extraordinary for such a high judicial authority to take up. He says that de Balliol's answer ought to have been that the opinion and act of Alexander II. could not vary the rules of succession, and that "the constitution of Scotland, and the fate of the competitors, must not depend upon the testimony of witnesses concerning words cursorily heard more than a century ago.... The situation of Alexander II. renders it incredible that he ever uttered the words ascribed to him by Bruce, and which he pretends to prove by the evidence of witnesses, certainly superannuated, and probably not impartial."

But in fact Alexander's act was a proceeding far more deliberate and constitutional than Lord Hailes suspected. Since that writer compiled his Annals, the appeal of the Seven Earls, above quoted, has come to light; by which it appears that the line of defence recommended by Hailes was not open for de Balliol to take. So far from Alexander's words having been "cursorily" uttered or heard, they were spoken in and ratified by the National Assembly.

"The Great Council being assembled together, they decreed and adjudged by all their own laws, and by the imperial and other laws, that the son born of the second sister should inherit in preference to the daughter born of the eldest sister. And all present, Clergy as well as Laity, unanimously declared the same as the true judgment of the King. Such judgment having been given by the Great Council and accepted by the Sovereign, he, King Alexander, took Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale who now is, by the hand, and presented him to all the nobles and magnates, clerks, and laymen then and there present, as his true and legitimate heir to the kingdom of Scotland; and all such magnates, by the King's command and in his presence, took the oath of fealty to the Lord Robert de Brus upon the Holy Gospels. And this act or deed was duly recorded upon the rolls of the Treasury of Scotland: but the memorialists know not into whose hands it has fallen."^[2]

One cannot but suspect that, had the Lord of Annandale been less heavily stricken in years—"superannuated," to use Lord Hailes's expression,—this part of his claim would have been more stoutly supported. The fact that he had received the fealty of certain barons of Scotland then living, is quite enough to account for the rising in his favour on the death of the Maid of Norway, and certainly puts that transaction, hitherto so obscure, in a less ambiguous light. Nor can it have been absent from the thoughts of Annandale's grandson, the greater de Brus, when he resolved, after long hesitation, to enforce his claim to the throne.

Power was taken in the settlement for the King of England to interfere as Lord Paramount, in the event of de Balliol neglecting to rule his people justly. On November 19, 1292, the kingdom and castles of Scotland were handed over to King John. On the following day he did fealty to King Edward; the great seal used by the Guardians was broken in pieces, and the fragments deposited in the English Treasury, in token of the superiority of England over Scotland. It did not take long to cut a new seal, for the impression thereof remains attached to King John's letters patent, written from Newcastle-on-Tyne on December 24th, announcing to the Scottish people the fact that he had sworn fealty to King Edward on November 20th foregoing.^[3]

The coronation took place at Scone on St. Andrew's Day (November 30th), and once more King John did homage for his kingdom, on December 26th, at Newcastle-on-Tyne. The national manuscripts of Scotland were delivered to the new King, and an indenture taken. Most, if not all, of these papers, which would now be of incalculable value, have since perished.

On January 2, 1293, King John issued letters patent, releasing King Edward from all writings, agreements, promises, obligations, and penalties entered into during the time that the realm of Scotland was in his hands. It is notable that neither the seal of de Brus of Annandale, nor that of his son the Earl of Carrick, is to be found among those of the Earls of Buchan, March, Angus, and Athol, John Comyn of Badenoch, and many others appended to this document.

In depositing this instrument in Westminster, Edward executed a notarial protest, the tenour of which soon brought about a strain on the unworkable relations between the two Kings. It was to the effect that the King of England was not to be hindered by any interim promises already made from doing justice in appeals brought before his Court from Scotland.^[4] Consequently, in October of the first year of John's reign, proceedings were taken at Westminster on the appeal of Macduff, descended of a former Earl of Fife, against the judgment of the Bishop of St. Andrews, by which he had been dispossessed. There was also appeal made in another case, that of a burgess of Berwick. Further, on April 2, 1294, King Edward, as Overlord of Scotland, required his "beloved and faithful"^[5] John, King of Scotland, to appear at Westminster to answer to the claim of John Mazun, a merchant of Gascony, for wines, etc., supplied to the deceased King Alexander, to the amount of £2,000, and not paid for. Moreover, this summons was served upon King John in the most peremptory fashion, by the hands of the Sheriff of Northumberland.^[6] Besides this indignity, King John had, in the previous year, received Edward's commands to serve on the justice eyre of Yorkshire, just as if he had been any ordinary subject. John wrote to remonstrate against this duty being expected of him,^[7] but it does not appear that he obtained exemption, for events shortly took an acute turn.

On June 29th, Edward, whose orders always appeared under his title as Overlord of Scotland, commanded John, King of Scots, to join him in London, on September 1st, with eighteen of the magnates of Scotland, for operations against King Philip IV. of France. Now it was plainly intolerable, under any circumstances, that Scotland should be obliged to send forth her King, whom it had cost her so much trouble to get, and the flower of her chivalry, to fight the private quarrels of the King of England. But it happened to be peculiarly inconvenient at that particular moment, as King Edward was probably fully aware, for de Balliol (his reign was so short and inglorious that it is hardly necessary to refer to him as King John any more) had entered into secret negotiations with Philip. He had, no doubt, been convinced by the proceedings in the appeal cases that his relations with Edward could not endure very long, so he sagaciously set about cultivating the friendship of Edward's foe.

De Balliol paid no attention to Edward's summons. The secret treaty with Philip must have come to Edward's ears before its publication on October 23, 1295, for on the 16th orders were issued for the seizure of all de Balliol's lands and goods in England, as well as those of all Scotsmen who remained in Scotland.^[8] De Balliol, strong in the sense of his offensive and defensive alliance with the King of France, at last threw down the gauntlet to Edward. He wrote, in October, 1295, complaining of the injuries inflicted on his subjects, the violent occupation of his castles and possessions, the slaughter and imprisonment of the merchants and other men of his realm; wherefore he renounced the homage "extorted from him by violence."^[9] No doubt this was technically an act of rebellion, for both de Balliol and his barons had sworn fealty to the King of England. The "violence" referred to could only mean Edward's display of force at the conference of Upsettlington.

Both countries now prepared for war. On March 14, 1296, King Edward received the homage of the Earl of Lennox and ninety others, landowners in Scotland. Robert de Brus, the Competitor, was dead, having departed from this stormy scene, a very old man, before May, 1295;^[10] but Edward had, in October of the same year, appointed his son, known in future controversy as Robert de Brus "le viel," governor of the important castle of Carlisle.^[11] Strangely enough, it fell to his lot to strike the first blow for the monarch whose decision had shut him out from the throne of Scotland; for the army of de Balliol invaded Cumberland on March 26th, and invested Carlisle on the 28th. Here, too, were the Bruce and the Comyn first arrayed in battle against each other; for John Comyn, Earl of Buchan, commanded de Balliol's forces, and John Comyn, son of the Lord of Badenoch, and the same who afterwards fell by the dagger of Robert I., marched with him.

The attack on Carlisle was repulsed, and Buchan turned eastward, making a bloody raid on Tynedale, burning Hexham and Corbridge (April 8th), and, according to English accounts, perpetrating horrible cruelties. It is stated in a notarial instrument subsequently drawn up on King Edward's behalf, that "Herodian" barbarities were committed by the Scots on pregnant women, and that two hundred "little clerks" (school-boys) were burnt in the schools at Corbridge.^[12] Possibly this atrocious course was adopted in reprisal for what had been enacted at Berwick, which King Edward stormed on March 30th, massacring the inhabitants without distinction of age or sex.

The sack of Berwick claims more than passing notice, so deeply has it stained the reputation of Edward I. In the whole course of the War of Independence there was enacted nothing to approach the horror of it.

The King of England crossed the Tweed below Coldstream on March 28th; the Bishop of Durham crossing with another contingent lower down, at Norham. An attack by the English fleet had, some days previous, been repulsed by the people of Berwick with a loss, says Fordun, of no fewer than eighteen ships burnt, and their crews slain.

The combined English forces having been drawn up under the walls of Berwick, the town was summoned to surrender. Edward waited twenty-four hours for an answer; when it came, it was a proud refusal. He then withdrew towards Coldstream, where he encamped. As was customary before an important engagement, a grand parade was held for the creation of knights. Henry de Percy was the most distinguished of those so honoured on this occasion. The Admiral of the English fleet, which was lying off Berwick, seeing the army in battle array, concluded that an immediate assault had been ordered, and prepared to co-operate. Entering the river, his foremost vessel went aground, as did three others. All were burnt by the Scots, and the crews were killed.

This was followed by the storming of the town by the English. It is said that the assailants were greatly infuriated by derisive verses shouted at them from the ramparts. Of these the various versions preserved seem, if anything, deficient in salt, but doubtless they carried their sting at the time. Here is one of them:

"Kyng Edward!
⁠wanne thu hauest Berwic,
⁠pike the!
⁠wanne thu hauest geten,
⁠dike the!"

The defences of the town were weak and resistance was soon overcome. The Earl of Cornwall's brother Richard, raising his visor to get a better view of the yielding foe, was struck in the forehead by a dart and killed. This greatly enraged the King, who incontinently gave the order "No quarter!" The slaughter went on for two whole days. Scottish historians agree with the English writer, Walter of Hemingburgh, in putting the number of those slain at between seven and eight thousand. Wyntoun says that what brought the massacre to an end at last, was that Edward himself saw a woman, in the act of childbirth, being put to the sword. At this horrible sight he turned away, crying "Laissez, laissez!"

The Flemish merchants of Berwick possessed a strong building called Aula Rubra, or the Red Hall. By their charter they were bound to defend this to the last against the English. Right well did the gallant fellows fulfil their engagement. They held out, after the town had been taken, till evensong, when the English set fire to their Red Hall, and its thirty defenders all perished in the flames.

The garrison of the castle were allowed to depart, after swearing they would never again bear arms against England; but their commander, Sir William de Douglas, surnamed "le Hardi," was kept a prisoner.

If Edward intended to strike terror among those whom he regarded as his rebellious subjects, and to crush the resistance to his rule by a display of inhuman severity, never did a ruler more hugely miscalculate a result. He was to learn the same lesson which many of his successors had to lay to heart—that Scotsmen may be led, but they will never be driven.

But the Scots had not yet found a leader whom they could follow. The cause of de Balliol was lost at the battle of Dunbar, where, on April 28th, the Earl of Warenne won a complete victory. King Edward then began a progress through Scotland, exacting fealty from the nobles, and receiving their renunciation of homage to de Balliol and of the French alliance.

James the Steward of Scotland surrendered Roxburgh Castle on May 13th, and swore on the Gospels to aid King Edward against "John de Balliol, late King of Scotland."^[13] For Edward understood well how to play off the Bruce party against the Balliol. The true weakness of the national cause lay, at this time, in the civil dissension of the kingdom. But for that, King Edward, whose hands were full enough with the troubles connected with his French dominions, might not have been disposed to concern himself in Scottish affairs. Fordun attributes the loss of the battle of Dunbar to the action of the Earls of Mar and Athol, who, "through good will and love for Bruce," left the field without striking a blow, and rejoiced at the calamity which fell on the arms of "the Comyns and their whole abettors," who stood for Balliol. "But, alas!" he adds, with well-founded regret, "through this quarrel the harmless rabble, exposed to the ravenous bite of these wolves, lay mangled far and wide over the land."^[14]

The same chronicler also has a story how Edward, in order to secure the support of Robert de Brus, the Competitor's son, did about this time promise to place him on the Scottish throne in place of Balliol; and how, on de Brus claiming this promise after the battle of Dunbar, the King impatiently exclaimed: "Ne avonis ren autres chose a fer, que a vous reaymys ganere?"—"Have we nothing else to do but win realms for you?" But, as has been shown above, de Brus was already Edward's man, being at this moment the governor of Carlisle. De Balliol, too, had taken the surest means to alienate de Brus from his cause. After the sack of Berwick, he had declared all the partisans of England, and all neutrals, to be traitors, and their lands confiscated. He bestowed de Brus's lordship of Annandale upon Comyn, Earl of Buchan, who is believed actually to have entered on possesssion of Lochmaben Castle.

The fact is, this Robert de Brus "le viel" does, not seem to have been a very strong character in any respect. There was a more promising instrument for Edward's purpose in Robert de Brus "le jovene" or "le jeune," and upon him the English monarch laid the duty of receiving back to his peace the people of Annandale and Carrick. This young knight, grandson of the Competitor and, in right of his mother who died in 1292, Earl of Carrick, was now in his twenty-second year.

Thus the first appearance in history of the restorer of Scottish monarchy, was in the pay of the King of England, resisting the national party.

De Balliol's abdication has generally been dated July 2, 1296, the date of certain letters patent, in which he confessed his offences against his liege lord Edward, and delivered to him the Scottish kingdom and people.^[15] But this instrument was alleged by Fordun, on the authority of Baldred Bissett, the Scottish envoy at Rome, to be a forgery; and the fact that it is not recorded in the Ragman Roll seems to confirm this. But no suspicion attaches to another document executed at Stracathro on July 7th, attesting the renunciation by de Balliol of his treaty with the King of France; or to another done at Brechin on the 10th, whereby he made resignation of his kingdom and people, and of his royal seal. The latter he enclosed in a little purse under his privy seal, and delivered to the Bishop of Durham on behalf of the King of England.^[16]

Thus closed the reign of King John of Scotland, which had lasted three years and seven months, and a second interregnum began, though successive Regents continued to act in the name of the late King. The subsequent movements of the luckless ex-King may be traced in the Public Records of England. His first place of captivity was Hertford, where he remained till August, 1297. He was allowed to amuse himself in hunting, was provided with a suitable retinue, and received seventeen shillings a day for sustenance. From Hertford he was transferred to the greater security of the Tower. Even there he was not debarred from reasonable pleasure. His household contained two esquires, one huntsman and his page, a barber, a chaplain, a steward, a butler, two chamberlains, a clerk of the chapel, a washerwoman, and three lads. He had horses, no doubt, and mention is made of two greyhounds and ten hounds.

He remained an inmate of the Tower till August, 1299, when King Edward summoned him to his presence at Canterbury. Edward was then negotiating a treaty of peace with the King of France, and Rinaldo, Bishop of Vincenza, was the Pope's delegate for furthering the accomplishment thereof Balliol was committed to the custody of this prelate the result being that he was taken to France, and moved successively from Wissant to Cambrai, from Cambrai to Chatillon, and from Chatillon to a castle belonging to the abbot of Cluni, whence he was forbidden to remove without special leave. But in 1302 he was allowed to return to his paternal estates in Picardy, where he lived till his death, which did not take place before 1315.^[17]

King Edward advanced as far north as Elgin. Strict discipline was maintained in his forces; no private plundering was allowed, for it was now his rôle to conciliate a conquered people. But in token of the complete subjection of the country, the King caused the Coronation Stone to be removed from Scone to Westminster, where it has remained to this day.^[18] Besides this, he caused to be sent to London a number of the national jewels, relics, etc.; and, most important of all, one large, and two small coffers, filled with documents, no doubt the records of the kingdom.^[19]

Of King Edward's tour in the north, many interesting details have been preserved in the Placita Roll of his army. But there is one that transcends them all, as being, in all probability, the first public mention of an individual whose name was soon to be written large in the annals of his country. At the gaol delivery of Perth on August 8th, Matthew of York was accused of entering the house of a woman, in company with a thief, one William le Waleys (Wallace), and robbing her of 3s. worth of beer.^[20] Matthew was a priest and claimed benefit of clergy. Wallace seems to have escaped arrest, for he was not in the gaol. It is not possible to affirm the identity of this le Waleys with the patriot, but it is not improbable, and this escapade at Perth may account for the known fact that William Wallace was an outlaw when he made his appearance in the national cause.

King Edward held a Parliament at Berwick in this year, which has become famous from having produced the document known as the Ragman Roll. This was a submission to Edward as King of Scotland, and it was signed by nearly two thousand Scottish landowners and ecclesiastics, among whom were practically all those who afterwards fought on the Scottish side in the war of independence. Robert de Brus "le viel" and Robert de Brus "le jeovene," Earl of Carrick, signed on August 28th. One famous name may, however, be sought for in vain. There are three le Waleyses from Ayrshire and one from Berwick; but whether he was, as has been reported, an outlaw at this time for manslaughter, or whether he was already resolved on armed resistance, or for both reasons, William Wallace the Patriot never bowed the knee to King Edward. Perhaps it is not necessary to look further for cause of the absence of his signature from the roll than the fact that, being neither a landowner nor otherwise of importance, he was not required to sign.

As for the young Earl of Carrick, he stood high in royal favour at this time, for, on October 15th, the King commanded his debts to be "attermed" in the easiest way for him, "for the great esteem he [Edward] has for the good service of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick."

1. John de Hastings, grandson of Ada, the third daughter, was a competitor also; but he only claimed one third of the kingdom, on the ground that, like other inheritances, it was divisible. His claim was disposed of by the preliminary decision that the kingdom, unlike other inheritances, was indivisible.
2. Palgrave, Introduction xvii., and pp. 14-24, where the appeal of the Seven Earls will be found printed at length.
3. A large round seal in green wax. Obverse: the King in chain mail and surcoat, barred helmet crowned, and sword in hand, riding to sinister. The Scottish lion rampant double and tressure are on the shield and housings. Reverse: the King on a carved seat, sceptred. At dexter side, a shield charged with an orle (Balliol); at the sinister, one with a lion rampant (Galloway). Legend on both sides: Johannes Dei Gratia Rex Scottorum.
4. Bain, ii., 155.
5. Ibid., 160. "Beloved" was an afterthought; "magnifico principi"—magnificent prince—was written first, scored out, and "dilecto" substituted.
6. Bain, 160.
7. Ibid., 157.
8. Bain, ii., 166.
9. Ibid., 167.
10. Ibid., 164.
11. Bain, ii., 166.
12. Ibid., ii., 217.
13. Palgrave, 152. From James the Steward afterwards came the royal house of Stuart, by the marriage of his son Walter the Steward with Marjorie, daughter of Robert I. The title of the office became hereditary as a surname; but it is curious to remember its early etymology, i.e., the Anglo-Saxon stige ward—sty ward, master of the hogs. An important office in primitive times, the term became applied to the seneschal, or head of the royal household, and thence to the chief officer of State.
14. Fordun, xciii.
15. Fœdera.
16. Bain, ii., 188.
17. Stevenson, Introduction, xlix.
18. The Scottish Stone of Destiny is a small block of red sandstone with a few imbedded pebbles, which may now be seen under the coronation chair of British Sovereigns in Westminster Abbey. It was associated with the mythical origin of the Scottish nation, being reported to have served the patriarch Jacob as a pillow, to have been taken next to Spain, where it made the justice seat of Gathelus, the contemporary of Moses. This worthy was said to have married Scota the daughter of Pharaoh and was reputed the eponymus of the Gaedhal or Gael. With the Gaels it was brought to Ireland, whence Fergus, first King of Dalriadic Scots removed it to Dunstaffnage in Argyleshire. Kenneth II. removed it with him to Scone, and all the Scottish kings were crowned on it till 1293. In carrying it to Westminster, Edward, no doubt, hoped for the fulfilment of an ancient prophecy, that wherever the Stone of Destiny went, the monarchy of Scotland would go also. And so it has, but not in the sense that Edward supposed.
19. Bain, ii., 221.
20. Ibid., ii., 191.