88 as freyndsome compositur—i.e., “as a friendly arbiter” (cf. Hemingburgh in previous note). Fordun urges that the appeal did not imply any confession of overlordship, but Edward was appealed to as a “friendly and distinguished neighbour” (amicabilis et vicinus præstantior), to settle the difference “in the manner of a friendly compositor and for the sake of neighbourliness” (Gesta Annalia, lxx.). The first notice in Sir Thomas Gray’s Scalacronica puts it that the Scots asked Edward to interfere in the interests of peace, and that he replied that he would consider the matter. At Norham the Scottish magnates are said to have asked him to try the case as sovereign lord (pp. 112, 119).
100 Walis ... Ireland. Edward I. crushed the main Welsh rising in 1282, and in 1284 annexed the principality. He took no special part in the conquest of Ireland, which belongs to the reign of Henry II. (1171).
103 ryn on fute. This, I take it, reflects the fact that Edward usually drew upon Wales and Ireland for the foot in his army. At Falkirk, indeed, Hemingburgh says that nearly all the English foot were Welsh. Cf. also XIII. 419 ff.
140 on Saracenys warryand. Edward was in England. His crusading took place before he ascended the throne (1270-1272). The Scalacronica says he was at Ghent (p. 112).
146 ane assemble. Edward met the prelates and barons of Scotland at Norham, May 10, 1291. In his safe-conduct granted to these, Edward declares “that this shall not be a precedent to the prejudice of Scotland” (Bain’s Calendar, ii., No. 474): i.e., their meeting him on English ground.
151 all the senyhowry. Edward had meanwhile (March 8, 23) sent writs to the cathedrals and chief monasteries of England, requesting to be furnished with extracts from histories and chronicles respecting the relations between England and Scotland. The responses are given in Bain, ii., No. 478, and Palgrave, pp. xcvii-cxv (see next note).
153 to Robert the Bruys said he. Palgrave points out that Bruce was the first to appeal to Edward as overlord, in conjunction with the “Seven Earls” with whom he was acting; all submitting themselves—relatives, friends, adherents, lands and goods—to the protection of the King and Crown of England (pp. xlviii, 15, 18). In this he finds nothing inconsistent with the speech here attributed to Bruce, which he takes, not from Barbour, but from Fordun, who gives the same account as Barbour of Edward’s offer and Bruce’s reply (Gesta, lxxii.). For Palgrave regards the original historic supremacy as a vague imperial relation, to which Edward tried to give a narrow feudal precision (p. xliii). Bruce, he says, could properly regard himself “as the Laensman of the Monarch who represented the Bretwald, the Emperor or Basileus of Albion, or of Britain, and not the vassal of the King of England and Duke of Normandy” (p. xlix). Bruce, indeed, in one section of his pleadings addresses Edward as “his Sovereign Lord and his Emperor” (p. 29, § 6), but his pleading was against the purely feudal relationship (see on 58), the holding “in cheyff” (154), which would allow Edward the dominium or ownership of Scotland, as contrasted with the suzerainty, which would grant a power of control. Edward insisted on the former.
169 Assentyt till him. After a delay of three weeks (June 2-3, 1292), nine of the Competitors made full acknowledgment of the supremacy of the King of England; the others acquiesced on August 3 (Bain, ii. 483, 507). The issue was finally narrowed down to a consideration of the respective claims of Balliol and Bruce. Barbour is misleading.
171 He was king. Judgment in favour of Balliol was given on November 17, 1292, at Berwick. Balliol resigned “his kingdom and people to” the King of England on July 7, 1296, “a litill quhile,” three years and seven months after.