Life of Sir William Wallace of Elderslie, Vol. 1 (of 2)

by John D. Carrick

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.