History
Scottish Independence
1286 to 1329
Advanced Higher
7906
.
September 2000
HIGHER STILL
History
Scottish Independence:
1286 to 1329
AH
Support Materials
Acknowledgements
The Higher Still Development Programme gratefully acknowledges the following
sources: Edward I by MC Prestwich, published by Yale University Press, 1997;
Scotland: The Later Middle Ages by Ranald Nicholson, published by Mercat Press,
1989; Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland, Third Edition, by
GWS Barrow, published by Edinburgh University Press, 1988; The Nation of Scots
and the Declaration of Arbroath by AAM Duncan, published by The Historical
Association, 1970; Anglo-Scottish Relations 1178-1328: Some Selected Documents,
edited and translated by ELG Stones (1970), © ELG Stones 1965, reprinted by
permission of Oxford University Press; The Thirteenth Century 1216-1307 by Sir
Maurice Powicke (Second Edition 1962), © Oxford University Press 1962, reprinted
by permission of Oxford University Press; The Political Development of the British
Isles 1100-1400 by Robin Frame (1995), © Robin Frame 1990, 1995, reprinted by
permission of Oxford University Press; Independence and Nationhood by Alexander
Grant, published by Edward Arnold/Edinburgh University Press, 1984; Under the
Hammer: Edward I and Scotland 1286-1307, by Fiona J Watson, published by
Tuckwell Press, 1998; extracts from ‘The Chronicle of Pierre Langtoft’ from English
Historical Documents 1189-1327 by H Rothwell, published by Eyre and
Spottiswoode, 1975; Scotichronicon, Volume 6, by Walter Bower, edited by DER
Watt, published by Mercat Press, 1991; The Bruce by John Barbour, edited by AAM
Duncan, published by Canongate, 1997.
Every attempt has been made to gain permission to use extracts from the appropriate
copyright owners. The Higher Still Development Programme apologises for any
omission which, if notified, it will be pleased to rectify at the earliest opportunity.
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part for educational purposes provided that no profit
is derived from the reproduction and that, if reproduced in part, the source is acknowledged.
First published 2000
Higher Still Development Unit
PO Box 12754
Ladywell House
Ladywell Road
Edinburgh
EH12 7YH
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
General Aims
This Advanced Higher context has to fulfil the overall aims for this level of historical
study i.e.:
• To acquire depth in the knowledge and understanding of historical themes.
• To develop skills of analysing issues, developments and events, drawing
conclusions and evaluating sources.
Course Content
The content to be covered is described in the following terms:
Scottish Independence 1286 - 1329
A study of the changing nature of the Scottish nation, threats to the independence of
the nation, responses to those threats and the consequences for the Scottish nation,
focusing on the themes of authority, conflict and identity.
The background to the conflict, including: the nature of royal authority under
Alexander III; relationships between Scotland and England.
Edward I and Scotland, including: the reasons for the first submission of Scots to
Edward I; the Great Cause and the reign of John Balliol; Edward’s government in
Scotland, the uprising of Wallace and its consequences; Wallace’s guardianship,
support for Wallace; English invasions and the second submission of the Scots.
Bruce and the war for independence, including: Bruce’s seizure of power; support for
and opposition to him; his campaigns and tactics, both military and diplomatic.
Bruce in power, including: his government of Scotland; the making of truces and
peace; the economic and social impact of the wars.
Assessment
Course requirements describe the criteria that students are expected to meet as
consisting of the ability to:
• handle detailed information in order to analyse events and their relationship
thoroughly
• use this analysis to address complex historical issues including consideration of
alternative interpretations
• draw a series of judgements together by structured, reasoned argument reaching
well-supported conclusions.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
1
Learning Experiences
The kinds of activities expected of a student who is taking an Advanced History
course are outlined as follows:
Students should:
• engage in wide-ranging, independent reading relevant to their historical studies
• interpret and evaluate historical source material, relating it precisely to its
context in order to show awareness of the complexity and elusiveness of historical
truth
• become aware of different interpretations of history by different historians and the
reasons for these
• record systematically information derived from a variety of sources, such as
books, notes, lectures, audio-visual materials
• make use of historical terms and concepts encountered in the study of complex
primary and secondary evidence
• take part in formal and informal discussion and debate based on and informed by
historical evidence and knowledge
• develop the skills of extended communication for a variety of purposes including
descriptive and analytical essays or oral responses, responses to source-based
questions and a Dissertation; opportunities should be provided for revision and
redrafting of extended writing following critical review
• develop individual and independent learning skills, especially those relating to the
preparation and production of a Dissertation.
It is important that the students should understand the historical themes that run
through the chosen topic and not simply learn about a series of discrete historical
issues.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
2
2 USING THIS UNIT
The material in this unit is intended to support students’ work on this course by:
• expanding the course content to provide a more detailed framework for student
study
• providing stimulus material to encourage debate and discussion
• providing source handling exercises appropriate to the course requirements
• making reference to suitable texts.
Teachers may wish to:
• Provide an introductory lecture for an aspect of the course, this introduction to be
followed by purposeful note-taking by students investigating the relevant aspect
more fully.
• Raise a question/problem/issue to be discussed, followed by note-taking, and
concluded with further discussion.
• Raise an issue for students to explore, given an assigned case to argue, to be
followed by formal debate.
• Provide stimulus materials in any appropriate form, to be followed by detailed
research of the issue through student note-making.
• Select essay titles for collaborative planning of an essay outline.
• Use sources for collaborative work on handling sources effectively.
Sources
It is essential that sources are used regularly and are drawn from all parts of the
course.
Sources should include extracts from the works of historians. Where appropriate,
differing interpretations by historians should be used and the reasons for these
differences carefully considered.
Students’ study of historians’ works should include identifying and describing
historians’ viewpoints.
The student material which follows is structured to:
• introduce each section of the course
• raise issues to form the basis for student research and to use for discussion, debate
and essay/practice
• provide a framework for the course which students can use to develop more
detailed notes
• provide a selection of primary sources
• provide brief extracts from historians’ works
• provide appropriate activities.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
3
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
4
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE 1286 – 1329
STUDENT MATERIALS
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
5
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
6
SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE 1286 - 1329
Events from the death of Alexander III to that of Margaret
1286
18 March
late April
7 August
15 September
20 September
25 November
1 December
Winter 12861287
1289
16 February
1 April
29 April x 1
June
10 September
3 October
6 November
16 November
1290
28 January
20 February
14 March
17 March
17 April
15 May
Death of Alexander III
Election of six Guardians (two bishops, two earls, two barons) in a
parliament at Scone
Dispatch of Scottish envoys to Edward I to ask for advice and
protection
The envoys meet Edward at Saintes in Gascony
The Turnberry Band (involving Robert Bruce the Claimant, Robert
Bruce, earl of Carrick, James the Steward and others).
The envoys report back to the Guardians
Edward I orders an enquiry into the claim of John Mazun that
Alexander III owed him money
Civil war: seizure by the Bruces of the Balliol castle of Buittle and
the royal castles of Wigtown and Dumfries. This revolt suppressed
by the Guardians
Edward I orders an enquiry into the arrest by the sheriff of York of
the bishop of St Andrews and other Scots envoys travelling to meet
Edward
Eric II of Norway sends ambassadors to raise with Edward I the
question of the marriage of Margaret with Edward’s son, Edward of
Caernarfon
death of earl of Buchan (Guardians reduced to five)
Murder of earl of Fife (Guardians reduced to four)
The Guardians appoint magnates to treat with envoys of the king of
Norway in the presence of Edward I, at the latter’s request
Treaty of Salisbury
Bull of dispensation allowing Margaret to marry Edward of
Caernarfon
Death of Devorguilla, mother of John Balliol
Edward I orders Antony Bek, bishop of Durham, to take possession
of the Scottish king’s lands in Penrith and Tynedale
Scottish council or parliament at Birgham ratifies Treaty of
Salisbury
The Guardians, prelates and other magnates of Scotland write to
Edward I expressing joy at the rumour of a dispensation to allow the
marriage.
The Guardians write to Eric II asking him to send Margaret to
England
Edward I urges Eric to send Margaret to England
Edward binds himself to pay the Guardians 3000 marks if Margaret
does not arrive by 1 November
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
7
4 June
18 July
28 August
Late
September/ear
ly October
Edward I assumes control of the Isle of Man, a possession of the
Scottish Crown, and takes the islanders under his protection
(returned to King John, 5 January 1293)
20 June Edward empowers Bishop Bek to receive the men of the
Western Isles into Edward’s peace
Treaty of Birgham
Edward ratifies the Treaty of Birgham at Northampton. He appoints
Bek as lieutenant in Scotland for Margaret and Edward of
Caernarfon and commands the Guardians to obey him. He appoints
plenipotentiaries to treat with Eric II about the marriage.
Death of Margaret en route for Scotland
Source A
The Scotichronicon of Walter Bower on events following Alexander III’s death:
In 1286, fifteen days after Easter, a parliament was held at Scone where the six
Guardians were appointed… Nevertheless when the right of succession to the
kingdom of Scotland was keenly contested by Robert Bruce senior (that is the
grandfather of King Robert), and John de Balliol, John said that he himself had the
stronger claim to the kingship because he was the son of Devorguilla the elder sister
of the daughter of (David) earl of Huntingdon (the younger brother of King William)
and his mother was still living, namely the first sister. Robert de Bruce on the other
hand replied that it should not be John but himself, because although he was the son
of the second sister, he was nevertheless the first male and one degree nearer, for he
was the grandson of the said Earl David, and someone in the female line ought not to
succeed as long as a male is to be found, nor ought a great-grandson to be placed
before a grandson. When very spirited allegations of this kind had been heard from
both sides, a great division arose in the kingdom, among both the clergy and people,
between the parties of Robert Bruce and John.
Source B
Extracts from the Exchequer Rolls 1288-1290:
Dumfriesshire: …the land of Bardonan…lies uncultivated on account of the war
levied after the death of the king for two years…
To the watchman and gate-keeper ex gratia on account of greater castle guard by
reason of the war levied after the death of the king.
It was decided to grant £4 to William (Sinclair, justiciar of Galloway) …for castle
guard because that was more greatly needed after the death of the king than during
his lifetime.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
8
The account of John Comyn of Buchan, sheriff of Wigton: he did not answer for (the
revenue due) since land lay uncultivated on account of the war levied by the earl of
Carrick after the death of the king.
Edinburgh: …to another two watchmen, placed in the castle on account of the danger
of war, and for the greater and necessary castle guard, 48 shillings.
Jedburgh: …for messengers sent to various places in time of war on the business of
the kingdom 13/4.
Lanark: Memorandum: that (the sheriff of Lanark) asked to be allocated 40 marks
which he spent by the advice of W(illiam) de Soules, then justiciar, on account of the
defence of our native land after the death of the king.
Source C
Charter of James the Steward to Melrose Abbey:
…Know all of you that while, through the death of the lord Alexander, illustrious king
of Scots… the tranquillity of the peace of the kingdom was disturbed and dissension in
public affairs threatened, we proposed to the men of the abbot and convent of Melrose
living in their land of Kyle , which they held from us and our predecessors…, a
wapinschaw and support for the protection of the public peace and the kingdom and
the defence of our land and theirs in Kyle. Although the abbot and convent at first
resisted because, since they held by free alms, they had no obligation of that kind from
the lands of Kyle, at length, having considered the public good of preserving peace
and tranquillity and the defence of the lands of the kingdom and ours and theirs in
such an emergency, on that occasion the abbot and convent granted to us as a special
favour that we should have the help of their men dwelling in their land of Kyle.
Wherefore we …concede on behalf of us and our heirs that…no prejudice will be
created in future towards the abbot and convent or their liberties with regard to their
land of Kyle…
Source D
Extract from the pleadings of John Balliol during the Great Cause:
…when the bishops and the great men of Scotland had sworn to their lady, the
daughter of the king of Norway, to keep and preserve the land of Scotland and that the
peace of the land should be maintained, and swore fealty to her as to their liege
lady… Sir Robert de Brus in person and the earl of Carrick, his son, took the castle of
the aforesaid lady of Scotland at Dumfries by force of arms and with banners
displayed…and from there the aforesaid Robert went as far as the castle of
Buittle…The earl of Carrick, with the assent and forces of his father took the castle of
the aforesaid lady at Wigtown in Galloway…
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
9
ACTIVITIES
Q1. What pieces of evidence does Source A provide to show that the conflicting
claims of Balliol and Bruce predated 1290?
Q2. What light does Source A throw on the position of the Maid of Norway in
1286?
Q3. To what extent do Sources B and C support the view that the Guardians dealt
effectively with the outbreak of trouble after Alexander III’s death?
Q4. How far do Sources B and C support the allegations made by Balliol in
Source D?
Essay: How successful were the Guardians as rulers of Scotland between 1286 and
1290?
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
10
WHY WAS THERE A PROBLEM ABOUT THE SUCCESSION?
Until the Eleventh Century, the succession to the Crown tended to alternate among
branches of the royal house. From 1097 the succession proceeded in what might be
regarded as a form of primogeniture, son succeeding father, or brother succeeding
brother when there was no son. How far this provided a theory of primogeniture is
unknown, even when the minor Malcolm IV succeeded his grandfather David I in
1153. David had made it clear that his son, Earl Henry, was his intended successor; on
Henry’s death in 1153, Malcolm was taken round the kingdom to be shown as the
heir. However, even after that, King William I sought public recognition of the future
Alexander II as heir. It might be argued that the pre-Twelfth Century arrangement was
less hazardous, since all the eligible males were not likely to die out, whereas
primogeniture depended on the survival of the main line; Alexander Grant has pointed
out, using evidence about the English and French nobilities of the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Centuries, that families died out in the main line on average every three or
four generations. Perhaps the House of Canmore was lucky to survive till 1286, and
might be compared to the Capetians in France, who had an unbroken line of father to
son succession from 987 to 1314 and died out in the main line only in 1328.
Up to 1286 the Scottish royal house had produced few legitimate male children.
David I (1124-53) had only one son who lived to be an adult. That son, Earl Henry,
died in 1152, but left three sons. Of these, Malcolm IV (1153-65) died unmarried;
William I (1165-1214) was king for 21 years before marrying and was married for 12
years before fathering a son; Earl David had four sons, none of whom had any
legitimate children. Alexander II (1214-49) had one legitimate son, born when he was
over forty. Alexander III (1249-86) had two sons who predeceased him. The elder,
Alexander, although married to Marguerite of Flanders, had no children at his death in
1284; by that date all the king’s children were dead. The marriage negotiations with
the count of Flanders showed that a female might succeed to the throne. In 1284 the
lay magnates put their seals to a document in which they accepted that the king’s
grand-daughter, Margaret, the Maid of Norway, was the king’s rightful heir, if
Alexander III had no children by a second marriage. (The problems which might arise
from excluding females from the succession are illustrated by the fact that in France
in 1589 it was necessary to go back to the Thirteenth Century to find the common
ancestor of Henry III and his successor Henry IV).
Despite marrying Yolande of Dreux, Alexander III had no children when he was
killed in 1286. It was possible that the queen might be pregnant, but if that was the
case, either she miscarried or the child was still-born (there is no certainty about this).
When Alexander died, his grand-daughter was aged three or four and was in Norway,
where her father Eric II was king. Her death, on the way to Scotland in 1290, left no
obvious heir to the kingdom.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
11
THE PROBLEM OF HAVING A FEMALE CHILD AS NOMINAL QUEEN
There was no precedent in Scotland for a queen ruling in her own right. The issue did
not arise until Alexander III’s attempts to settle the succession after the death of his
son Alexander. However, the succession of a female, even as an adult, was fraught
with potential difficulties. In England in 1135 the intended succession of Henry I’s
daughter, Matilda, supported as it was by the oaths of the magnates of the kingdom,
was thwarted by the late king’s nephew, Stephen, who seized the crown. For much of
the period 1139 to 1153 there was civil war in England. The Scots might well be
aware of this lesson from history, since David I had been involved on several
occasions and had taken advantage of the periods of civil war to acquire territory. The
Scots might not have known of the career of Queen Urraca of Castile (1109-1126),
but it would no doubt have provided another warning of possible disorder under a
female ruler. Neither Matilda nor Urraca had had the additional disadvantage of being
a child (which required some form of regency), and in neither case had marriage
strengthened her position.
About two weeks after Alexander III’s death, a parliament at Scone appointed six
magnates as Guardians of the kingdom: two bishops, two earls and two barons. There
is some doubt as to whether Margaret was queen of Scots (though she was described
as queen in some documents) or merely “Lady of Scotland” who would bring the
crown to her husband. It was at any rate thought desirable to arrange a marriage for
her. The uncertainty of the situation was emphasised by the outbreak of civil
disturbance in 1286-7 when Robert Bruce, lord of Annandale (the future claimant to
the throne) and his son Robert Bruce, earl of Carrick, seized the royal castles of
Dumfries and Wigtown and the castle of Buittle, which belonged to the Balliol
family. The Guardians acted to restore order. Perhaps the lesson to be drawn from
these events was that the marriage of Margaret to a Scottish nobleman was likely to
create more dissension; marriage to a foreign prince was potentially less harmful.
Given the close connection between England and Scotland during the reigns of
Alexander II and Alexander III (both had married English princesses as their first
wives), the choice of an English prince was hardly surprising.
Edward I of England left England less than two months after Alexander III’s death
and spent the next three years in Gascony. It has been suggested that a letter written
by Alexander to Edward in 1284 hinted at a marriage between Margaret and a
member of Edward’s family. An obvious candidate was Edward of Caernarfon,
Edward I’s oldest surviving son. As far as we know, however, the initiative came
from Eric II, for in April 1289 a Norwegian embassy was appointed to raise the matter
with Edward, who was still in Gascony. At Edward’s request, the Guardians
appointed four magnates to conduct negotiations with the Norwegians in his presence.
From the Guardians’ point of view, the marriage would give Edward I a direct
interest in preserving the peace in Scotland, and it would remove one reason for King
Eric’s reluctance to send Margaret to Scotland. From the latter’s standpoint, a
marriage alliance with the English was plainly desirable. (Michael Prestwich,
Edward I, p.360).
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
12
The Norwegians asked Edward to ensure that Margaret, who was after all his greatniece, should be obeyed by the Scots; for the time being the question of marriage
seems to have been set aside. It was agreed in the Treaty of Salisbury (1289) that
Margaret was to come to England or Scotland by November 1290; she would then be
in Edward’s custody, but he would send her to Scotland free from any obligation to
marry. The Scots agreed not to arrange her marriage without the advice and consent of
Edward and the consent of Eric. In March 1290 a Scottish council or parliament at
Birgham ratified the treaty, and the Scots wrote to Edward expressing pleasure at the
rumour that the pope had granted a dispensation for the marriage of Margaret and
Edward of Caernarfon and agreeing to the proposed marriage. The bull was actually
dated 16 November 1289 and was necessary because the two parties were otherwise
too closely related to marry. In July 1290 the Scottish magnates again met at Birgham
to negotiate with representatives of Edward I about the marriage of Margaret and the
young Edward. The resulting agreement is usually called the Treaty of Birgham. Its
main points are as follows:
The rights, laws, liberties and customs of the kingdom of Scotland… shall
be…preserved for all time… saving always the right of our lord king (Edward I).
• Scotland was to remain separate from England.
• Elections of prelates were to take place only in Scotland.
• No one holding of the Scottish Crown was to be compelled to leave Scotland in
order to do homage or fealty or pay relief.
• No Scot was to answer for any crime committed in Scotland except in Scotland
itself.
• No parliament dealing with Scottish affairs was to be held outside Scotland.
• The final clause declared that by this treaty the rights of neither kingdom are in
any way to be increased or decreased.
(A full translation by G. W. S. Barrow is printed in SHR, lxix (1990), pp.137-141)
Comment on the Treaty of Birgham:
Ranald Nicholson: The reservations expressed by the English negotiators nullified the
safeguards devised by the Scots and reflected adversely on Edward’s goodwill. His
aim was not a settlement by which both kingdoms would share a common ruler yet
preserve their identity. His ideal was an incorporating union under the English
crown, a union in which the kingdom of Scotland would disappear; and he refused to
recognise that this was unacceptable to most Scots. Stubborn adherence to an
impracticable project was the reverse of statesmanship. (Scotland: The Later Middle
Ages, p.34).
G. W. S. Barrow: Birgham contained no hint of English overlordship. (Kingship and
Unity, p.159).
The treaty has often been praised as a document of wise statesmanship and
patriotism, but …it was essentially a cautious, protective document… The Guardians
were reluctant to take the full responsibility which could be borne only by king and
council. (Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland, 3rd. edn., p.28).
A. A. M. Duncan comments that the document looked like a charter of baronial
liberties but that the liberties of other Scots were, in contemporary eyes, protected by
those of the barons; the treaty should have secured the kingdom from English
exploitation, and at the same time preserved it from English hostility and the domestic
upheaval threatened by Bruce. But homage was owed to the king and commands
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
13
flowed from him; in accepting an English king, therefore, the Scots were
acknowledging a trust and understanding which grew out of peace and common
language. Scots were not so different from Englishmen that allegiance to one king
was unimaginable. (The Nation of Scots and the Declaration of Arbroath, p.11).
Michael Prestwich: It …does full credit to the care with which the Scottish negotiators
approached their task. (Edward I and the Maid of Norway, Scottish Historical Review
LXIX, p.169).
At this stage the issue of any possible claims to overlordship of Scotland by Edward
was not, perhaps, very significant, for if the crowns were to be linked by marriage,
then the English would not need any other justification for intervention in Scottish
affairs. (Edward I, p.361).
ACTIVITIES
Headings for note-taking:
• The succession problem posed by Alexander III’s death
• Close relations of England and Scotland during the 13th. Century
• The nature of Scottish government 1286-1290
• The behaviour of the Bruces
• Negotiations for the marriage of the Maid of Norway
• Edward I’s policies towards Scotland in 1289-90
• Terms and significance of the Treaty of Birgham
Essay: Did Scotland or England stand to gain more by the Treaty of Birgham?
Discussion: Why did the Scots consult Edward I?
How far had a law of succession been established by 1286?
The wisdom of making the Treaty of Birgham.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
14
THE COMPETITORS OR CLAIMANTS
Seven of the fourteen claimants to the Scottish throne (some of them English barons)
were related to the royal house only through illegitimate lines of descent. Their claims
were therefore hardly worth consideration and their motive (for we do not know) may
have been simply to have their names recorded in case another succession dispute
arose in the future. A. A. M. Duncan calls them the “no-hopers”, and has hinted that
some were prompted to claim so that Edward I would have an excuse to judge all the
claims rather than simply to arbitrate between Balliol and Bruce. At least one possible
claimant of illegitimate descent, William of Brechin, did not put forward a claim.
Robert de Pinkeny claimed descent from a sister of William I called Marjorie. If this
were true, she might have been an unrecorded illegitimate half-sister of King William;
A. A. M. Duncan suggests that she might have been an illegitimate daughter of David,
earl of Huntingdon. King Eric II of Norway may also be dismissed, since he was not
descended from the royal house and claimed as heir of his daughter Margaret.
That leaves Florence, count of Holland, descended from King William’s sister, Ada;
John Comyn, descended from the daughter of Donald III; and descendants of three
daughters of David, earl of Huntingdon, brother of King William: John Balliol, Robert
Bruce (grandfather of the future king), and John Hastings. Edward I reserved the right
to make a claim, and eventually did so. (This was a separate issue from his claim to be
overlord of Scotland.) He was descended from Malcolm III, one of whose daughters
had married Henry I of England. Thus all those who might be regarded as serious
claimants claimed through females. John Comyn’s claim was the most remote.
However, he had married John Balliol’s sister and supported Balliol; there was an
obvious advantage to him if his brother-in-law became king. He stated that he did not
want his claim to prejudice Balliol's in any way, and they nominated Balliol's 40
auditors between them. Count Florence alleged that Earl David, from whom Balliol,
Bruce and Hastings were descended, had resigned his right to the succession. He also
alleged that King William had declared that his sister Ada, countess of Holland should
succeed him if he had no children, and that the Scots barons had sworn fealty to Ada.
There is, however, no contemporary evidence for this story. During an adjournment of
the Great Cause from August 1291 to June 1292, Edward I ordered a search to be
made for documentary evidence to support Florence’s story. (Edward was still paying
sums of money to Florence as a result of a treaty of 1285 by which one of Edward’s
daughters was to marry Florence’s son.) No document was found, but two versions of
what appear to be the missing document are in the archives at The Hague. Grant
Simpson has suggested that this document (which has unusual features and is likely to
be a forgery made up at the time of the Great Cause) was not presented as evidence
because Florence was bought off by Balliol. There is no evidence for such a payment,
and Florence seems to have been on better terms with Bruce.
Balliol’s claim was based on primogeniture, as he was descended from the eldest
daughter of Earl David. Bruce, descended from the second daughter, argued that he
had the better claim: Balliol was three generations removed from Earl David, but
Bruce only two. Bruce was therefore nearer in degree. (Once Bruce the Competitor
was dead, however, his son would be the same in degree as Balliol, and Balliol
represented the senior line). Bruce also claimed that, at a time when Alexander II was
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
15
childless, that king had recognised him as his heir. There is no contemporary
evidence for this story. John Hastings, as a descendant of the third daughter of Earl
David, clearly had a poorer claim than Balliol or Bruce; it therefore suited him to
argue that Scotland should be divided among the three of them.
When it became clear that Balliol was likely to be successful, Bruce cast round for
ways of achieving something from the proceedings. Abandoning his former assertion
that Scotland could not be divided, he claimed that Scotland should be treated as a
barony and that he should have one third. He struck a deal with Count Florence: if one
became king, he would grant the other one third of the royal demesne; if Bruce were
successful, he would grant Florence lands in England equivalent in value to one third
of the Scottish royal demesne. The purpose seems to have been to use the count to
defeat Balliol’s argument of primogeniture, for, if Florence’s story were true, he
would set aside Balliol’s right by descent from Earl David, but not Bruce’s story that
he had been recognised as heir by Alexander II. The marriage of Bruce’s granddaughter, Isabel, to Eric II in 1292 seems also to have been a manoeuvre on Bruce’s
part. Florence and Eric were probably to be used to play for time. Eric stood to have
help to recover debts owed to him by the Scottish Crown. A. A. M. Duncan suggests
that Mandeville and Galightly (claimants who were descended from illegitimate
children of William I) also had links with Bruce.
The question as to which law to use to judge the case was a problem: imperial law,
English law, Scots law or “natural law”. Edward was advised that if none of these
provided a solution, he might make new law on the subject. It might be argued that
primogeniture was established in Scotland in 1153 when David I’s eldest grandson,
Malcolm IV, though still a minor, was accepted as king, and that the acceptance in
1284 of Margaret as Alexander III’s heir (which Bruce had agreed to) put paid to any
doubt about the claims of a female. Both of these arrangements resulted from
primogeniture, and it is not surprising that the court found in favour of Balliol.
However, Bruce might have cited two recent documents to support his argument of
proximity. The treaty of 1281 which preceded the marriage of Alexander III’s son
Alexander to Marguerite of Flanders made very complex and not completely clear
arrangements (all in the end hypothetical) for the succession. Parts of it suggest that if
there had to be a choice between two female claimants to the throne, preference would
be given to the one nearer in degree to the previous king. The succession arrangement
of 1284 suggested that a daughter of any second marriage of King Alexander would
take precedence over the Maid of Norway, Alexander’s grand-daughter. It is curious
that Bruce cited neither of these documents in his pleading, for his son, the earl of
Carrick, had set his seal to both of them.
Source E
Extract from a letter of Robert Bruce the Competitor to Edward I (1290):
…Then came Richard I who sold the homage of the king of Scotland…but we do not
think that this sale is of any validity because the English king and council are so wise
that they shall soon be advised whether one can dismember the Crown of such a limb.
And since the Crown must be held undivided, let him (Edward I) know by Elias de
Hautville that, when he wants to make his claim in legal form, I shall obey him, and
help him with all my friends and my kin… And I beseech your grace for my right and
my truth which I want to demonstrate before you…
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
16
Source F
That part of the Appeal of Seven Earls which was addressed to Bishop Fraser of St
Andrews and John Comyn (1291):
Since you, William, bishop of St Andrews, and John Comyn, who are acting … as
Guardians of the realm of Scotland, to preserve and defend the established laws and
customs of the realm, and to render to each person the right which should belong to
him by law (though we, Robert Bruce, lord of Annandale, as the legitimate and true
heir designate to the rule of the realm of Scotland, have put forward a claim
concerning the right which we have in the realm of Scotland, and are urgently
pursuing our right, as we are bound to do); you, with some persons of the realm of
Scotland supporting you, and falling in with your wishes, intend and propose to make
John Balliol king in the realm of Scotland, and to confer on him the rights and
honours which go with the rule of the kingdom, to our prejudice and the hindrance of
our right, and also to the prejudice and injury of the right and liberty of the seven
earls of Scotland, which they have and have had from time immemorial, with the
community of the realm supporting them, of making the king and setting him on the
royal throne in the realm of Scotland, whenever the royal throne of Scotland was
vacant in law and in fact: therefore, because of your default and the injury done by
you to us, and to the seven earls, we appeal by this document to the assistance of Lord
Edward, by the grace of God the illustrious king of England, and to the royal crown
of England, for pursuing and obtaining our right which we have in the realm of
Scotland, and on behalf of the right of the seven earls. And lest you should proceed in
any manner, in prejudice of our right, and of the liberty of the seven earls, to make
anyone king in the realm of Scotland before we receive full judgement of our right in
the presence of the king of England (and this judgement in no way do we wish to
receive at your hands), we appeal once again, as before, by this document, to the king
of England and to his royal crown. We place ourselves, in particular, and the seven
earls, and all of their relatives and kindred, and of their and our particular friends
who support us and the earls, and all of our and of their lands and possessions, and
all of our and of their property, movable and immovable, wherever it is, under the
special peace, protection and defence of the king of England and of his royal crown,
lest you do any further injury or hurt to us or… to the seven earls…
ACTIVITIES
Q5. How much do Sources E and F tell us about the intrigues of Robert Bruce, the
Competitor, during the Interregnum of 1290-1292?
Headings for note-taking:
• Claimants of illegitimate descent
• Eric II of Norway
• John Comyn
• John Balliol
• Robert Bruce
• John Hastings
• Edward I
• The issue of succession to the Scottish throne.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
17
Essay: Who had the better claim to the throne in 1290 – Balliol or Bruce?
Discussion: The relative merits of the claims of Balliol and Bruce in 1286 and in
1290-2.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
18
THE AWARD OF NORHAM AND THE GREAT CAUSE
The following timetable is based on “Edward I and the Throne of Scotland” by E. L.
G. Stones and Grant G. Simpson. In 1995 A. A. M. Duncan published a paper on the
Award of Norham in which he cast doubt on some of the dates in the official Great
Roll of proceedings compiled by John of Caen. Since then he has had further thoughts
on the subject, and these are incorporated into what follows.
1290
7 October:
28 November:
1291
20 January:
8 March:
16 April:
6 May:
10 May:
11 May:
2 June:
4 or 5 June:
5 or 6 June:
6 June:
12 June:
Bishop Fraser of St Andrews writes to Edward I about a rumour that
the Maid of Norway has died and asks for help if the rumour should
prove true.
Death of Queen Eleanor of England.
Bishop Bek of Durham and two other envoys ordered to go to
Scotland.
Edward writes to the abbot of Evesham for historical information to
support his claim to be overlord of Scotland (the first of several
letters of this kind).
Edward orders troops to assemble at Norham on 3 June.
Meeting of English parliament at Norham.
(?) Meeting of Scots community at Berwick.
Part of the Scots community comes to Norham. Speech of Roger
Brabazon on behalf of Edward requiring the Scots to recognise
Edward as overlord of Scotland. The Scots are granted an
adjournment until next day.
The Scots are granted an adjournment of three weeks to allow them
to produce written evidence against Edward’s claim.
Meeting at Holywell Haugh. Speech of Robert Burnell, Edward’s
chancellor, declaring Edward’s claim as overlord. The Scots say that
they have no authority to reply to Edward’s claim.
Bruce, Hastings, Count Florence and other claimants are persuaded
to accept Edward’s overlordship.
Balliol arrives with Comyn and they agree to accept Edward’s
overlordship.
Award of Norham: nine claimants issue a document accepting
Edward’s overlordship and jurisdiction (one name is omitted and
three others have yet to put forward their names). The claimants
agree that Edward shall have seisin of Scotland so that he may make
judgement in the case.
Edward enters Scotland. The Guardians and keepers of castles
surrender the castles to Edward as a claimant on behalf of all the
claimants.
The bishop of Caithness, having been chosen by the Guardians and
appointed by Edward, is sworn in as chancellor.
Edward declares that the award will be made in Scotland, and
guarantees to hand over Scotland to the new king within two months
of a judgement.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
19
13 June:
(?)16 June:
3 August:
12 August:
1292
2 June:
14 June:
(?)16 June:
21 June:
25 June:
14 October:
24 October:
6 November:
7-15
November:
15 November:
Edward takes formal possession of Scotland.
He adds an Englishman, Brian fitzAlan, to the Guardians. The
Guardians and many magnates take an oath of fealty to Edward.
Edward asks the claimants to name a time and place for the hearing
of the case. They choose Berwick and accept Edward’s suggestion
of 2 August.
It is agreed that auditors should be appointed.
Meeting in Berwick Castle; then a meeting of claimants and auditors
in the church of the disused Dominican friary. Presentation of
petitions by 12 claimants. Count Florence to be given time to find a
document which would support his claim.
Case adjourned till 2 June 1292.
Resumption after the adjournment.
Eric II submits a claim as his daughter’s heir.
Agreement between Bruce and Florence to help each other’s claim.
The auditors hear arguments by the claimants. Edward decides that
the case is proceeding too slowly and orders that a decision between
Balliol and Bruce should come first; the claimants agree to this in
Edward’s presence.
Edward asks by what laws and customs the case should be judged.
The Scottish auditors, unable to agree, ask for help from the English
auditors.
During an adjournment, to last till 14 October, all involved are to
consider the case.
Letter of the auditors saying that there was enough evidence about
the claims of Balliol and Bruce to allow Edward to declare which
was the better claim.
Balliol and Bruce appear before Edward and declare that he could
now make judgement between them. The absence of a judgement on
this date suggests that it could not be decided which law was
applicable. The pleadings are collected and lie until October.
Resumption.
Edward asks his council by what laws and customs he should judge.
This discussion is probably complicated by the opinions received
from Paris.
The case is adjourned till 6 November.
Judgement is pronounced against Bruce, but Balliol’s claim cannot
proceed until the arguments of the other claimants are heard. Edward
adjourns the case till 17 November when he will give judgement
after discussion with his council.
Pleadings before the auditors by various claimants, some in writing,
some by attorney. Bruce appears before the auditors and puts
forward a claim to all or part of Scotland. Hastings also claims part
of Scotland.
The king’s council examines the written pleadings of Bruce and
Hastings.
The Scottish auditors, asked if Scotland can be divided, say no.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
20
17 November:
20 November:
30 November:
26 December:
The assembly resumes. Eight claimants, including Count Florence,
withdraw their claims. Three others, including King Eric, are
declared not to have pursued their petitions. The claims of Bruce and
Hastings for part of Scotland are rejected.
Balliol is awarded the kingdom of Scotland.
Balliol swears fealty to Edward.
Balliol is inaugurated at Scone as King John.
King John does homage to King Edward.
Headings for note-taking:
• Edward I’s actions and claims, 1290-91
• The Scots’ response to Edward’s claims to overlordship
• Claimants accept Edward’s overlordship
• Edward takes control of Scotland
• Proceedings during the Great Cause 1291-92
• Possible division of Scotland
• Judgement in Balliol’s favour.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
21
EDWARD I’S INTENTIONS TOWARDS SCOTLAND
There is no doubt that the nature of Edward I’s intentions towards Scotland is one of
the most difficult questions relating to this period. So much written since these events
has been affected by hindsight, one of the great pitfalls in writing about the past.
Edward did not record his views until the Great Cause itself, and, as with so many
people in this period, we have to try to deduce his intentions from his actions. It is
unwise to assume that Edward’s policy towards Scotland was fully formed in 1286 or
even 1290; perhaps even his belief in his overlordship was not formed in his mind by
the time of the death of the Maid of Norway. Immediately after Alexander III’s death
he seems to have been more pre-occupied with continental matters; the Treaty of
Brigham made concessions to the separate existence of Scotland which Edward would
later claim had been superseded by the Maid’s death. It is not unreasonable to
conclude that Edward’s policy developed as time went on and was shaped by events.
E.L.G.Stones and Grant G.Simpson: To imagine that in 1291 his heart was set on
securing Scotland as the dearest ambition of his closing years, is a very parochial
view. Nevertheless, he did become more and more absorbed, as time passed, in
Scottish affairs, and the time came when he was obsessed with the desire to assert,
and to maintain, his alleged rights. In time it proved to be an evil day for him, as well
as for Scotland, that had brought him there; but we think that his obsession was the
final result, not the first cause, of his intervention. (Edward I and the Throne of
Scotland, vol. i, p.11).
E.L.G.Stones: It is remarkable how little feeling of crisis seems to have arisen after
the death of Alexander III. Less than two months afterwards, Edward I set out for
Gascony, where he stayed, with apparent unconcern, for three years… The death of
the Maid in the autumn of 1290… is the beginning of a period of eight critical months
which is very dark in the records… We have no document in which the Scots actually
ask Edward to settle the disputed succession, no record of his acceptance, and none of
whatever summons he issued to the claimants, and to the magnates of both realms, to
assemble for the hearing of the ‘Great Cause’. In these circumstances it is rash to be
dogmatic at any point.
The assumption of some Scottish historians that Edward planned the subjugation of
Scotland from the first is hardly borne out by the evidence of his inactivity in these
crucial months. The absence of records is probably due in the main to his
preoccupations, especially with the illness, death, and funeral of his beloved wife,
Eleanor, after which he actually went into retirement for five weeks. (Anglo-Scottish
Relations 1178-1328: Some Selected Documents, pp. xxiv-xxv).
F.M.Powicke : King Edward had no exalted ideas about the nature of Scottish
kingship and no illusions about the state of the kingdom. He respected without
question the customs and institutions of Scotland. He maintained the king both as king
and as an English baron in all his rights; but he was also determined, as sovereign
lord, to maintain order and justice in Scotland as in England. Although his attitude
may seem strange to us, he was convinced of his rights, not seeking by subterfuge
things which he knew were not his to claim… Gradually the legend grew that Edward,
a foe in the guise of a friend, had struck down a trustful and defenceless people. (The
Thirteenth Century, 2nd. edn., pp.610-611).
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
22
Michael Prestwich: There have, inevitably, been doubts cast upon the propriety of
Edward’s actions in obtaining recognition of his lordship, and seisin of Scotland,
from the competitors, when this had been refused by the Guardians and the assembled
Scottish magnates. Pope Boniface VIII in 1299, echoing arguments put to him by the
Scots, implied that Edward had used improper force, and the charge was made
explicit by 1321. Certainly…Edward had asked sixty-seven northern magnates to
attend at Norham, with their feudal quotas of armed men. There was also a small
force of crossbowmen and archers…and an English fleet… Yet such a force was
hardly sufficient for the purposes of conquest, and was perhaps recruited to provide
the king with a substantial formal retinue, or simply to assist in the preservation of
public order. Edward’s rejection of the Scots’ refusal to acknowledge his
overlordship has been described as ‘the first thoroughly discreditable action in his
dealings with the Scottish nation’. (G.W.S.Barrow) Yet, from the English point of
view, if the succession to the Scottish throne was to be resolved without bloodshed, it
was essential that Edward should hear the case, and it was impossible for him to act
unless those concerned recognised his right of jurisdiction. Simply to have acted as an
arbitrator would have meant Edward neglecting what he regarded as his right of
feudal overlordship. It is plain that he was determined to use the opportunity
presented by the disputed succession to establish that overlordship, as the elaborate
arrangements that were made for him to receive fealty from as many Scots as
possible...show. Overlordship for Edward was not a mere legal fiction that would
allow him to hear the case, but a right that he was anxious to establish and exercise,
by obtaining seisin of Scotland. (Edward I, pp. 365-366).
G.W.S.Barrow: Edward I was almost certainly less concerned about the individual
competitors than about ensuring the peace of Scotland during the vacancy of the
throne and obtaining an authoritative admission by the Scots of his feudal
overlordship over the Scottish kingdom. Because of the subsequent turn of events the
legend rapidly established itself in Scotland, and survives, indeed, to the present day
that Balliol was a puppet nominated by King Edward to the Scots kingship in defiance
of the national belief that Bruce had the better claim. There is no evidence to support
the first part of this legend, and the second part is untrue. The legend obscures the
true and therefore really damaging charge against King Edward that he first took
advantage of the leaderless state of Scotland to extract something approaching the
admissions he required, and then harried the new king into a relationship with himself
which emphasised his new-found feudal superiority in the most humiliating manner
possible. (Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland, 3rd. edn., p.30).
It seems well within the bounds of possibility that behind the English urge to reform
Scotland, expressed at Salisbury and Northampton, there lay the beginnings of a
conscious policy on King Edward’s part to claim suzerainty over the Scottish realm.
Behind the decision to keep hold of Penrith and Tynedale (not to mention the honour
of Huntingdon) there may have lain the thought that a future ruler of Scotland could
not take refuge in the’ homage only for English lands’ argument if he possessed no
estate in England. (A Kingdom in Crisis: Scotland and the Maid of Norway, Scottish
Historical Review LXIX, pp.134-135).
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
23
Robin Frame: Opinions about Edward I’s aims and actions differ sharply. The
failure of heirs in the Scottish royal house has been variously seen as a gift that
provided him with a perfect excuse to bring about the subjugation of Scotland that
had eluded his ancestors, and as a nuisance that carried with it unwanted local and
international complications, and was also by the early 1290’s distracting him from
organising the crusade that was to be the culmination of his life. Edward’s behaviour
after 1292 was certainly abrasive and ill-judged… In the years 1290-92 Edward I
dealt with the Guardians, never questioned the integrity of the kingdom, and from
time to time himself employed the phrase communitas regni Scotiae.
The death of the Maid of Norway… led to an unparalleled crisis in Anglo-Scottish
relations. That it did so cannot be attributed simply to Edward I… It would be naïve
to suppose that Edward was reluctant to seize the chance to enlarge his authority
when it appeared. But it is unhelpful to view his actions in terms of abstract rights
and wrongs. Conditions had changed abruptly with the Maid’s death; they were soon
to do so again upon the outbreak of the French war. (The Political Development of
the British Isles 1100-1400, pp.162-165).
Source G.
Letter of King John renouncing homage to Edward I (April 1296):
…You yourself, and others of your realm (to your own knowledge, for surely you
should not be ignorant of what they do) have (as everyone knows) inflicted over and
over again, by naked force, grievous and intolerable injuries, slights, and wrongs
upon us and the inhabitants of our realm, and indeed have caused harm beyond
measure to the liberties of ourselves and of our kingdom, and in a manner which
offends against God and against justice; for instance by summoning us outside our
realm at the mere beck and call of anybody, as your own whim dictated, and by
harassing us unjustifiably; by seizing our castles, lands and possessions, and those of
our people, within your realm, unjustly and without any fault on our part; by taking
away, and receiving within your realm, both by land and sea, our chattels and those
of our subjects; by slaying merchants and other inhabitants of our realm; and by
forcibly seizing the men of our realm, taking them into your own, and keeping and
imprisoning them there. We have often sent our envoys to you to discuss the
amendment of these things, yet, up to the present, the injuries not only persist as they
were, but even have offences added to them which are worse than the first, by you and
your subjects, as one day succeeds another. For now you have come to the frontiers of
our realm in warlike array, with a vast concourse of soldiers, and with an army
openly assembled, to disinherit us and the inhabitants of our realm, and have crossed
beyond into our realm, and brutally committed acts of slaughter and burning, as well
as aggression and acts of violence both by land and by sea. We cannot any longer
endure these injuries, insults, and grievous wrongs, nor these hostile attacks, nor can
we remain in your fealty and homage (which, be it said, were extorted by extreme
coercion on your part) and we desire to assert ourselves against you, for our own
defence and that of our realm, to whose defence and safe-keeping we are constrained
by the bond of an oath; and so by the present letter we renounce the fealty and
homage which we have done to you, and which any other person among our faithful
subjects, the inhabitants of our realm has done…
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
24
Source H.
The Chronicle of John of Fordun on the divisions among the Scots at the time of the
battle of Dunbar in 1296:
It should be noted, moreover, that from the initial raising of the matter of the feud
between those noble men – Bruce and Balliol – about the right of succeeding to the
kingdom of Scotland, that kingdom was torn in two. For all the Comyns and all their
supporters stood by Balliol; while the earls of Mar and Athol, with the whole strength
of their power, held fast, in the firm league of kinship, to the side of Robert de Bruce,
who was steadfastly tended in the indissoluble bond of love by Robert, bishop of
Glasgow. It was for this reason – according to the general opinion – that the
aforesaid earls with their troops, through good-will and love for Bruce, fled
unscathed from the field, on the day that the aforesaid battle (Dunbar) was fought;
and thus the other party was exposed to utter ruin, and the enemy of both gained so
happy and welcome a victory. And, even as afterwards, while King Robert de Bruce
was making war, all Balliol’s followers were looked on with distrust in that king’s
war, so also, in this Balliol’s war, the aforesaid bishop and earls, with all the
supporters of Bruce’s party, were generally considered traitors to their king and
country.
Source I.
The capitulation of Irvine (7 July 1297):
(1) To all those persons who shall see or hear this letter, Henry de Percy and Robert
de Clifford send greeting in Our Lord.
Whereas of late… lord Robert by the grace of God bishop of Glasgow, Sir Robert de
Brus, earl of Carrick, Sir James Stewart…(have risen against the) king of England,
burnt and destroyed towns and castles…, desiring that this disturbance and
disagreement should be pacified in some good way, to avoid greater danger, (we)
have received the said bishop (and the others, and those) who were of their party and
on their side in their enterprise…(and we have promised them on behalf of) the king,
their lives, limbs, lands, tenements, goods and chattels, and that they will not be
imprisoned for any trespass nor for any (offence done) since Sunday (7 July)…We
have (promises from) Earl Robert and James Stewart and all the community of the
realm of Scotland, that they have fully from this time forward (accepted) all the
(commands) of our lord the king of England…
(2) Memorandum from the rebels at Irvine (July 1297):
…they were told for a certainty that the king (Edward I) would have seized all the
middle people of Scotland to send them beyond the sea in his army, to their great
damage and destruction. They took counsel to assemble their forces to defend
themselves from such great damages, until they could have treaty and conference with
such persons as had power to abate and diminish such a kind of disturbance, and give
them security that they should not be too much aggrieved and dishonoured. And
therefore, when the English army entered the land, they came to meet them, and had
such a conference that all of them (came into) the peace and fealty of our lord the
king… whereof the said bishop (Wishart), the earl of Carrick and the Steward of
Scotland will assure you always… And for the preservation of the peace, and for the
profit of the king, they have sent you this advice…
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
25
ACTIVITIES
Q6. How justified were the complaints made by King John in Source G?
Q7. How complete an explanation for Scottish defeat in 1296 is given in Source H?
Q8. What light does Source I throw on the concerns and outlook of those Scots who
made the Irvine agreement, and of those they claimed to represent?
Essay: How sinister were Edward I’s intentions towards Scotland between 1289 and
1292?
Discussion: The extent to which the aims of Edward I with regard to Scotland
changed in response to events.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
26
WILLIAM WALLACE
By tradition, William Wallace was the son of Malcolm Wallace and was born in
Elderslie (Renfrewshire). The discovery in the Mitchell Library in Glasgow of metal
casts of his seal throws doubt on both of these traditions. The original seal is attached
to the letter which Wallace and Andrew Moray sent to the city of Luebeck. The casts
were made in 1911 when the letter was in Scotland for an exhibition. Since then the
original seal has deteriorated and so the cast now gives a clearer reading of the
inscription. The inscription reads Wilelm(us) filius Alani Walais. Although William’s
brother was certainly called Malcolm, the seal shows that his father’s name was Alan.
An Alan Wallace, tenant of the king in the sheriffdom of Ayr, did homage to Edward
I in 1296, and William’s birthplace may therefore have been in Ayrshire rather than at
Elderslie. Two other Wallaces from Ayrshire are also recorded during this period. The
reverse of the seal shows the use of a bow and arrow, which suggests that Wallace
was an archer.
The list below shows how little is really known about Wallace. The difficulty of
discovering the facts has in the past been complicated by the existence of a fifteenthcentury poem about him by an author known as Blind Har(r)y. It has not been
possible to show that the poem has any genuine information about Wallace’s life.
May 1297:
Late summer:
July:
July/August:
11 September:
11 October:
18 October:
October/
November:
3 November:
November:
11 November:
29 March
1298:
29 March:
22 July:
22 July x
December;
August
1299(?):
Murder of William Hesilrig, sheriff of Lanark.
Joins forces with Andrew Moray.
Raid on Scone in company of Sir William Douglas.
Raid on Bishop Wishart’s house at Ancrum, following the
capitulation of Irvine.
In the Forest of Selkirk with a force.
Move across Perthshire and Fife; siege of Dundee Castle.
Battle of Stirling Bridge.
Surrender of Stirling Castle to Wallace.
Move to Berwick.
Berwick (Edinburgh and Roxburgh) in Scots hands, but not their
castles.
Letters to Luebeck and Hamburg.
Invasion of Northumberland.
Invasion of Cumberland and Durham; assault on Carlisle.
Election of William Lamberton as bishop of St Andrews at
Wallace’s instigation.
Letter of protection to the canons of Hexham.
Decision to turn back from County Durham; ravaging of Tyndale.
Before this date Wallace was knighted and appointed Guardian.
Grants charter to Alexander Scrymgeour.
Battle of Falkirk.
Wallace ceases to be Guardian.
Wallace intending to go abroad, probably on a diplomatic mission,
Perhaps to Norway (or the Orkneys), France and Rome.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
27
24 August
(perhaps
1299)
November/
December
1299:
7 November
1300:
June 1303:
c. 10
September:
Unknown date
in 1304:
September
1304:
3 August
1305:
22 August:
23 August:
Cuts off supplies to English garrison of Stirling Castle.
Wallace in France
After this date journey to Rome.
In Selkirk Forest; raids into Annandale, Liddesdale and Cumberland
with John Comyn and Simon Fraser.
Skirmish with English troops involving Wallace and Fraser.
Defeat of Wallace and Fraser at Happrew (Fraser’s lands near
Peebles).
Fight with English troops under de Valence at Ironside near Dundee.
Capture by Sir John Menteith near Glasgow.
Arrives in London.
Execution.
Source J.
Letters of protection issued by Wallace and Moray (1297):
We, Andrew Moray and William Wallace, the leaders of the army of the realm of
Scotland, in the name of the eminent prince Lord John, by the grace of God the
illustrious king of Scotland , with the agreement of the community of the realm, give
greeting to all of that realm to whom the present letter shall come. We inform you that
in the name of the king we have duly received into the firm peace and protection of the
king and of ourselves the prior and the convent of Hexham in Northumberland, with
their lands and their men, and all their possessions, and their property, movable and
immovable. Therefore we strictly forbid anyone to presume to inflict on them, in their
persons, lands, or chattels, any ill, interference, injury, or hurt, on pain of incurring
plenary forfeiture to the king himself; or to cause the death of them, or of any one of
them, on pain of loss of life and limb. The present letter is to be of no value after one
year. Hexham, 7 November.
Source K.
Statement issued by Antony Bek, bishop of Durham, and attributed to King John (1
April 1298):
John Balliol…, of his own accord, in the presence of … the witnesses named below
(among other observations which he made) uttered a statement in French, to this
effect: namely, that when he possessed and ruled the realm of Scotland as king and
lord of the realm, he found in the men of that realm such malice, deceit, treason, and
treachery, arising from their malignity, wickedness and stratagems, and (from)
various other execrable and detestable actions by those who, as he had good grounds
to believe were plotting to poison him, who was then their prince, that it is not his
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
28
intention to enter or go into the realm of Scotland at any time to come, or to interfere
in any way with it, or its appurtenances, through his own agency, or through that of
any other person or persons, or even (for the reasons given and for many others) to
have anything to do with the Scots.
Source L.
Descriptions of the battle of Falkirk (22 July 1298):
(1) The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough:
At daybreak the king mounted and they rode on through the town of Linlithgow. When
they lifted their eyes and looked at the hill opposite they saw on the upper slope of the
hill many pikemen. And believing that the Scots army was there, they hastened to
ascend by brigades, but when they got there they found no one. They fixed a tent there
and the king and the bishop heard the mass of (St Mary) Magdalene, for it was that
feast day. While the holy rites were being carried out and men could recognise each
other in clear day, our men saw the Scots from afar getting ready for war and
drawing themselves up for battle. The Scots fixed all their folk in four brigades in the
manner of round circles, on the hard field and on one side of a little hill next Falkirk.
In these circles there were placed pikemen with their pikes held up at an angle; each
was coupled to another and their faces were turned to the circumference of the
circles. Between these circles were intermediate spaces in which the archers were
placed. And on the flank behind was their cavalry. When he had heard mass and was
told this, the king hesitated and intended to pitch tents until his men and animals had
eaten something, for they had eaten nothing since the third hour of the preceding day.
But they said to him, “It is not safe, O king, because between these two armies there is
only a little stream …Let us ride in God’s name, for the field is ours and the victory”.
The king said “Let it be so…”. And at once the earls with the leading brigade …
threw their brigade at the enemy, not knowing of a muddy loch which lay between.
When they saw it, they went round it to the west and so were in part held back. But the
second brigade, under the bishop of Durham, made up of 36 chosen bannerets, knew
of the obstacle of that loch and went to the east to get round it… They hurried on,
soon after encountered the first circle of Scots, and the earls with the first brigade met
it from the other side. And when our men came, the Scots’ mounted men fled without
striking a sword’s blow; only a few stayed, and these drew up circles of infantry,
circles which are called schiltroms. Among them the brother of the Steward of
Scotland had drawn up the archers of Selkirk Forest, but fell from his horse and was
killed among those archers. For the archers stood around him and, men of good
appearance and well-built, fell with him. With the destruction of the archers, our men
turned on the Scottish pikemen who, as has been said, were placed in circles with
sloped lances and like a thick wood. While the horsemen could not enter because of
the multitude of lances, they smote the outer ones and pierced several with their
lances. But our infantry shot arrows at them and some threw stones, having brought
round stones, of which there was a copious supply there. And so when many were
killed and some struck who were on the outside of the circles, those remaining on the
outside fell back on the others, and the horsemen entered, laying everything waste.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
29
(2) The Lanercost Chronicle:
So on the feast of St Mary Magdalene the Scots gave him battle with all their forces at
Falkirk, William Wallace being their chief commander, putting their chief trust, as
was their custom, in their infantry pikemen, whom they placed in the first line. But the
armoured cavalry of England, which formed the greater part of the army, moving
round and outflanking them on both sides, routed them, and, all the Scottish cavalry
being quickly put to flight, there were slain of the pikemen and infantry, who stood
their ground and fought manfully, sixty thousand ...; nor was there slain on the
English side any nobleman except the Master of the Templars, with five or six
esquires, who charged the schiltrom of the Scots too hotly and rashly.
(3) The Chronicle of Pierre Langtoft:
On the day of the Magdalen, after Midsummer,
The wretched people of Scotland and Galloway,
As many as were bred and born in the Marches,
Each with a spear in fist ready to do mischief,
Are come to Falkirk in a morning,
Arranged in order of battle against the English.
In their vanguard back was placed against back,
And point of lance on point, in squadrons so serried,
Like castle in plain surrounded with wall.
The multitude was so very fierce,
And so eager to destroy the English.
……………………………………
King Edward sees them coming down the meadow,
He shouts to his barons, “Let us advance in God’s name!”
Then earls and barons spur their steeds;
He who can run quickest goes into battle.
The knights on the other side who were mounted,
…………………………………………………..
Now fled and left without aid
All their infantry, have abandoned and lost them.
The army of the common soldiers was now severed
By the power of the English, who had no mercy;
Like flies there died there a hundred thousand by sword blows;
The others fled, the place was cleared
Of all the race between prime and none,
And not one of the English was killed or left on the field,
Except brother Brian de Jay, a knight of worth,
Appointed high master of the Temple on this side the sea.
He pursued the Scots to a slough,
And, following without succour, there was slain.
The Welsh gave no assistance in the battle.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
30
Source M.
Extracts on Wallace from the Chronicle of John of Fordun:
… Though, among the earls and lords of the kingdom, he was looked upon as lowborn, yet his ancestors rejoiced in the honour of knighthood. His elder brother also
was girded with the belt of knighthood, and inherited a landed estate which was large
enough for his status, and which he bequeathed, as a holding, to his descendants…
Gaining strength daily, in a short time, by force and by dint of his prowess, he
brought all the magnates of Scotland under his sway, whether they wanted to or not.
Such of the magnates, moreover, as did not thankfully obey his commands, he took
and browbeat, and handed over to custody, until they should utterly submit to his
good pleasure… But after the aforesaid victory (Falkirk), which was granted to the
enemy through the treachery of Scots, the aforesaid William Wallace, perceiving, by
these and other strong proofs, the glaring wickedness of the Comyns and their
abettors, chose rather to serve with the crowd than to be set over them, to their ruin
and the grievous wasting of the people. So, not long after the battle of Falkirk, at the
water of Forth, he, of his own accord, resigned the office and charge which he held,
of Guardian.
ACTIVITIES
Q9. What does an examination of the date and wording of Source K and the
involvement of Bishop Bek reveal about its purpose?
Q10. Use the three extracts in Source L to write an account of the battle of Falkirk.
Q11. What light do Sources J and M throw on the extraordinary nature of Wallace’s
position as leader of the army and as Guardian?
Headings for note-taking:
• Wallace’s origins
• The first stages of his rising, May- August 1297
• The battle of Stirling Bridge
• Wallace as Guardian
• The battle of Falkirk
• Wallace’s diplomatic efforts after 1298
• The last stages of his career.
Essay: What does the career of William Wallace tell us about Scotland between
1297 and 1305?
Discussion: How much do we really know about Wallace?
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
31
DIPLOMACY 1294-1304
1294
Outbreak of war between France and England.
Revolt of Madoc ap Llewelyn in Wales.
1295
July:
22 October:
23 October:
1296
23 February:
1297
11 October:
1299
June:
Scots embassy to Paris.
Treaty between France and Norway: Norway to provide ships for
invasion of England (paid for by France), and not to make war on
the Scots.
Scots agree not to go to war with Norway.
Treaty between France and Scotland (beginning of the Auld
Alliance):
• Mutual military aid against England
• Peace not to be made separately
• Edward Balliol to marry Jeanne de Valois, niece of Philip IV.
Ratification of the Treaty by King John and the community,
including burgess representatives.
Letters of Wallace and Moray to Luebeck and Hamburg declaring it
safe to resume trade.
28 June:
Treaty of Montreuil-sur-Mer: settlement of dispute over Gascony
between England and France; Edward I to marry Philip IV’s sister,
Margaret.
The bull Scimus Fili issued by Boniface VIII.
July:
King John released by Edward I into papal custody.
1300
31 October:
Truce between England and Scotland to last till 21 May 1301.
1301
26 March:
8 April:
25 April:
21 May:
Safe-conducts issued by Edward I to Scots envoys to meet English
and French envoys at Canterbury on 16 April.
The conference apparently in session.
Edward announces that the discussions have been broken off.
May: Scottish delegation, including Mr. Baldred Bisset, putting the
Scottish case to Boniface VIII.
Expiry of Anglo-Scottish truce.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
32
Summer:
24 August:
Release of King John from papal custody; he returns to his ancestral
lands in Picardy under the protection of King Philip.
Robert Bruce (the future king) returns to Edward I’s allegiance.
Letters of credence on behalf of English envoys to negotiate a truce
with Philip IV.
Archbishop Winchelsea delivers the bull Scimus Fili to Edward I.
1302
Deepening quarrel between Boniface VIII and Philip IV. Boniface takes up Edward’s
cause and orders the Scottish bishops (specifically the bishop of Glasgow) to submit.
Truce of Asnieres-sur-Oise:
26 January:
• Truce between England and Scotland till 1 November 1302
• French to hold lands in Scotland taken by the English; these are
to be handed over by 16 February and held for the duration of
the truce.
Major defeat of the French by the Flemings at Courtrai.
11 July:
Safe-conducts issued to Scots envoys to meet envoys of Philip IV.
5 August:
23 November: Letter of King John giving Philip a free hand in negotiations with
England.
1303
20 May:
1304
11 January:
19 January:
5 February:
6 February:
16 February:
Peace treaty between England and France, excluding the Scots.
Edward of Caernarfon to marry Isabella, Philip’s daughter.
Letter revealing a preliminary meeting at Kinclaven between English
representatives and John Comyn.
Discussion of surrender terms at Kinclaven.
English negotiators sent to Strathord to finalise terms with the
Scottish government.
Copy of draft terms sent to Edward I.
Scots magnates do homage to Edward.
Source N.
Extracts from the draft of pleadings to be used at the papal curia by Master Baldred
Bisset (c.1301):
As part of the case of the king and kingdom of Scotland there is in the first place the
common law, since under common law one consulship is not subject to another, nor
one bishopric to another, nor one kingdom to another, nor one king to another. And,
as the Lord Innocent IV observes, it is almost against natural law and astonishing for
someone who enjoys legal independence to be subjected to the authority of someone
else…
… if the land of Scotland had been subject to the king of England, the king of England
himself, on being granted a tenth in all the lands subject to him, would not have
petitioned for a tenth in Scotland in particular, nor would that lord pope who had
awarded him this grant have denied him it in the land of Scotland.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
33
The earlier conversion of the Scots to the Catholic faith supports the same case; they
accepted the faith 500 years before the conversion of the English people, and thirtysix Catholic kings reigned freely in the kingdom of Scotland before the English were
converted… From that time also the king and inhabitants of the kingdom of Scotland
recognised the Roman church, in which they had accepted the faith, both in temporal
and spiritual matters as their lord based on direct lordship. But this lordship residing
in the Roman church was not an empty authority of no particular use, for there was
frequent exercise of the due power of this lordship among the Scots… When a certain
noble lady then holding the earldom of Menteith in the kingdom of Scotland by
hereditary right was taken to litigation concerning the earldom , in the court of the
king of Scotland, she obtained an unfavourable sentence. On the grounds that it was
unjust she appealed to the holy see as her superior lord. Here she obtained an
apostolic letter for this appeal case, on the strength of which the judges who had been
appointed conducted hearings publicly on the merits of the said case over a long
period with the knowledge of the king of England, who did not protest.
… (Edward I) admitted that the kingdom of Scotland is a kingdom quite separated
from the kingdom of England, and entirely free from any kind of subjection or
lordship of the kingdom and king of England. This admission indeed was drawn up in
an authentic instrument… and as further evidence we have a copy here… no proofs
exist of an offer of subjection by us to them, but rather very many trustworthy men still
remember a refusal of subjection to those English. For when the last Henry, king of
England had asked Alexander king of Scotland his son-in-law to provide help against
Simon de Montfort and his accomplices, he acknowledged in a letter composed for the
purpose that he did not receive this help as a matter of obligation, but as a special
favour.
… The Guardianship of the same kingdom, when it was vacant by the death of the
aforesaid King Alexander, did not fall to that king of England (Edward I) as if to its
direct lord as has been the custom with fiefs; but a fixed number of four or six
guardians were elected freely by the magnates of the same kingdom to rule it. With
the knowledge and support of the king of England who made no claim then that he
possessed a right in the said kingdom, and also with no obstacle presented by him,
these men had charge of the government for six years and more…
After (Margaret’s) death, on hearing of the discord stirred up amongst the Scots, the
same king of England, pretending that he wished to negotiate a peaceful settlement
among the Scots, thrust himself forward in sheep’s clothing without being asked
(whatever he writes), and cunningly attracted the support of one group of the
magnates of the same kingdom of Scotland belonging to a party which had no right in
the kingdom of Scotland at that time. And with the other party too weak to resist him,
he first took over the guardianship of the same kingdom de facto, and afterwards
(asserted) superior lordship so notoriously by oppression, force and fear such as can
overtake (even) resolute men….
The king by force and fear extracted similar fealty and homage also from our king
John de Balliol himself after his appointment, who, on succeeding by hereditary right
in the kingdom of Scotland justly and legitimately according to the usages and
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
34
laudable customs of the kingdom (which had finally been deservedly approved as
reasonable and laid down in this matter by all the inhabitants of the kingdom), was
peacefully holding that kingdom of Scotland.
Source O.
The Scotichronicon of Walter Bower on the battle of Roslin (February 1304):
When John Comyn and Simon Fraser came to know of (the English) presence, in their
eagerness to surprise their enemies rather than be surprised by them, they marched
rapidly with very few of their followers from Biggar to Roslin in the space of one
night, a distance of nearly sixteen miles, and with picked men who preferred to die
rather than be shamefully subjected to the English nation they boldly rushed suddenly
against the foe. But a little earlier some sentries had been alarmed, and all those in
the first contingent (of the English) seized their arms and stoutly faced up to their
enemies as they burst in. In the end, however, the English were beaten, some being
captured, some slain, and some taking flight to other contingents; and at once, while
the Scots were dividing the booty, there came upon them a second contingent larger
than the first and all ready for battle. When the Scots saw this they were alarmed in
their hearts, but took courage from the brief admonition of their leaders; slaying their
prisoners and arming their followers with the spoils of the dead, and driving away the
unfit horses and mounting the stronger ones, they hastened with fearless hearts
readily to the fight. Once the enemy had been beaten (though not without difficulty)
and the Scots thought they had finished, there appeared before the Scots a more
numerous third contingent, stronger than its predecessors and more finely armed. At
the sight of this the Scots were stunned. Greatly worn out by the fatigue of the
journey, lack of sleep and also by lack of food, and overheated by the continual toil of
battle, they had removed their helmets and gone apart to expose themselves to the
fresh air; grievously affected by bruises from blows which they had received and by
their wounds, they began to falter, lose heart more than one would credit, and make
ready to flee. Amid these doubts the said leaders John and Simon … inspired their
forces for the fight, consoling them with their words, encouraging them with
promises, and reminding them of the nobility of freedom, of the shame of subjection,
and of the tireless labours freely undertaken by their fathers and themselves for the
liberation of their country. Taking heart with vigour from these and other similar
words, they laid aside all cowardice; and renewing their strength they slew their
captives and took their horses and arms; as new men they fiercely advanced to the
fight along with followers armed with the spoils of the earlier fight, placing their faith
in the Lord. Their attack was so heavy and savage that many had their armour
pierced and were deprived of their lives, whilst some on each side, after severe
wounding from lances, grievous beatings and heavy blows from maces, and suffering
on either side from weariness after a long-lasting battle, withdrew in groups of one
hundred, forty and twenty in turn from the battle line to the mountains and hills and
other suitable places. After exposure to the winds by removing their helmets and
being cooled by the fresh air, and after replacing their wounded horses with other
fresh ones, the Scots (overcame) the attacks of their enemies with the help of divine
strength rather than human power.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
35
WHY DID THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT SURRENDER IN 1304?
• Lack of help from Philip IV after his treaty of 1303 with England.
• Boniface VIII had quarrelled with Philip and was therefore more favourable to
Edward, Philip’s enemy. Boniface died in 1303 after a confrontation with Philip’s
envoy, who may even have struck the pope. His successor, Benedict XI, was pope
for only a few months. After that there was a gap of eleven months before the
election of Clement V in June 1305.
• Edward I no longer had a serious French war to deal with, nor did he have
opposition from the papacy.
• It seemed increasingly unlikely that King John would ever be restored.
• It seems likely (though documentary evidence simply does not exist) that the
Scottish government was finding it difficult to continue, since parts of Scotland
were under English control and therefore revenues from these areas went to
English officials.
• It may be that people in parts of southern Scotland had come to accept English
government since it was the only authority able to provide them with protection
and enforcement of law.
• It seems likely that there was considerable war-weariness.
• The more effective English campaign of 1303-04 which penetrated farther north
than before and struck into territory under Scottish government.
• The north-eastern ports, which had maintained the Scottish government’s links
with Continental Europe, were now in English hands.
Source P.
Agreement between Bruce and Bishop Lamberton (1304):
Memorandum that in 1304, on St Barnabas day (11 June), the reverend father in
Christ the lord William de Lamberton, by God’s grace bishop of St Andrews, and the
nobleman the lord Robert de Brus, earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale, meeting at
Cambuskenneth, conferring on future mutual dangers and wishing to avoid them as
far as possible and to resist prudently the strivings of rivals, entered a treaty of
friendship in the following form: namely, that they will faithfully consult mutually in
whatsoever their business and dealings at whatever times and against whatever
persons and will bring aid or help by themselves and their men with all their strength
for ever and without dissembling; that neither of them will try any difficult business
without consulting the other and that each of them will forewarn, or cause to be
forewarned, the other of imminent dangers as soon as he can consider them and will
cause them to be impeded with all his strength. And faithfully to hold, fulfil and
observe all these things fully and without any dissembling they have bound themselves
with mutual faith and an oath taken in their persons, upon pain of £10,000 to be
applied to the Holy Land…
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
36
Source Q.
The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough on the siege of Stirling Castle (1304):
(Edward I) wintered at Dunfermline… after which he attacked the castle, for he had
wooden machines throwing many stones of 100, 200 or 300 pounds. They struck the
walls and demolished the tops of the walls with continual blows, but still the besieged
would not yield, but strongly defended themselves with their machines and killed
many. The king ordered the ditch to be filled in with branches and wood, but they
burned everything… He ordered machines by which they could climb the walls, and
they filled in the ditch with stones and earth. When they saw this, the besieged several
times sought life and limb to surrender, but the king heard them not, nor would he
listen unless they submitted simply to his grace and the judgement of his men. They
put things off, fearing death, but at last beaten and not wanting to put up with more,
they surrendered to the king’s grace and gave up the castle on the day of St Margaret
the Virgin (20 July). He ordered them to be kept securely until his parliament in
London; they numbered more than 140, and they were imprisoned in various places.
COMMENT ON THE EVENTS OF 1304 AND 1305
F.M.Powicke: The settlement… was, indeed, wise and indulgent. Oaths of fealty and
homage were to be renewed and fines of redemption were to be arranged; no lands
were to be forfeited, no hostages given, no judicial action taken on past offences. The
Scottish leaders might be required, however, to go into exile for a time. Only William
Wallace and the garrison in Stirling castle, who had refused to surrender, were
excluded from the terms. They were judged in parliament, according to rightful
process and by the law of Scotland, to be outside the law…
All the evidence available about Edward’s plans suggests that he intended the
government of Scotland to be similar to that of Ireland. The magnates of Scotland,
assembled in parliament… would deal with affairs and matters referred to them from
England. The official element would be derived in part from England, but mainly from
Scotland. Scottish, like Irish and Gascon, petitions would be received in parliament in
England, to be answered there by the triers or sent with instructions to the king’s
lieutenant and other high officials in Scotland. Statutes made in England might be
enforced, if the king wished, in Scotland as they were in Wales and Ireland. (The
Thirteenth Century, 2nd. edn., p.709).
Ranald Nicholson: Time-servers, as always, hastened to make their peace. Edward
astutely played on the fears of those who wavered, offering lenient terms to all who
would submit before 2 February 1304… Comyn was hardly in a position to dictate
conditions: all that was saved from the political wreck of Scotland was a stipulation
that laws, customs and privileges be observed as in the days of Alexander III… Most
Scottish leaders accepted these terms and the lenient personal penalties that went
with them… Edward showed himself gracious towards time-servers, vindictive
towards staunch opponents. (Scotland: The Later Middle Ages, pp. 66-67).
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
37
Fiona J. Watson: Edward had also learned a few hard lessons. He would certainly
never admit it, nor make any concessions regarding his right to do as he liked with his
reconquest; however, the basic leniency of the surrender terms, together with the
presence of many former ‘rebels’ in the new administration, attests to the success of
the Scottish government in keeping the great Plantagenet at bay for so long. This
ability to learn, adapt and compromise – always with an eye on the main prize in the
long run – was perhaps what defined Edward’s greatness. On the other hand,
although this was undoubtedly a defeat for the Scots in general, and the Comyns in
particular, the political community does not seem to have experienced the sense of
shame and bewilderment that affected it after Dunbar in 1296. (Under the Hammer:
Edward I and Scotland 1286-1307, p.194).
G.W.S.Barrow: Much of the most interesting passages in the terms set forth by
Comyn are those which show the defeated Guardian speaking, however falteringly,
the language of the Treaty of Birgham and of his own predecessors in the days when
Scotland had powerful allies and enjoyed some success in arms. There was more
dignity in Comyn’s submission than there had been in Balliol’s abject surrender eight
years before. In 1304 the demands of the defeated side were made ‘on behalf of the
community of Scotland’ … The terms on which Comyn actually surrendered… did not
amount to a restoration of things as they had been in the good old days of King
Alexander, yet they were not excessively harsh…
In his last years Edward became a hard man who believed that it was his duty to bend
the Scots to his will. It would be wrong to think of him acting in Scotland as a mere
tyrant, if by tyrant we mean a ruler whose arbitrary whims are law, who pays no
regard to local feeling and opinion, or for whom cruelty towards his subjects had
become settled policy. If we look at the situation in 1304 as it appeared to Edward, we
must in fairness admit that his attempted settlement was both mild and statesmanlike.
In his view, he had to deal with a nation which had rebelled against his lordship for
many years, had given aid and comfort to his enemies, and had been decisively
defeated in war. How many kings or governments emerging as the victors of long and
bloody wars in the seventeenth, eighteenth or even nineteenth centuries treated their
vanquished foes as prudently and leniently as Edward I treated the Scots in 1304 or
1305?…
The political wisdom of King Edward is shown by his resolve to consult the Scottish
leaders on the new constitution to be devised for the country and to give them some
measure of responsibility for making it work… Edward, in other words, had learned
part of the lesson of 1296-7. As it happened, he had not learned the most important
part, but it was no small achievement for this elderly, conventional, conservative,
unimaginative man that he had learned anything at all. (Robert Bruce and the
Community of the Realm of Scotland, 3rd. edn., pp.129-130, 132, 134).
A. A. M. Duncan: … Edward I… after the submission of 1304 tried to create the
conditions for a settlement of astonishing moderation. The Scots were consulted – not
merely the aristocracy but freeholders were present at an assembly at Perth in 1305…
The consequent ordinance of 1305 for governing Scotland appointed Englishmen to
the three central offices but with a council of Scottish prelates and barons, paired an
Englishman and a Scot in each of four commissions of justiciary and gave most local
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
38
offices to Scotsmen. This measure, which contrasts with the intrusion of Englishmen
in 1296, may be regarded as conciliatory towards the office-holders (mainly Scottish
barons) but it is also a recognition that the local communities of freeholders resented
English officials and that these communities could not be ignored. (The Nation of
Scots and the Declaration of Arbroath, pp.17-18).
ACTIVITIES
Q12. How far could one accept the accuracy of the case put forward in Source N?
Q13. How typical of the warfare and weapons of the period was the engagement
described in Source O?
Q14. Why did Edward I use the agreement in Source P in his accusations against the
bishop?
Q15. How typical of siege warfare of the period is the siege described in Source Q?
Headings for note-taking:
• Edward I distracted by events in France and Wales
• Treaty between France and Norway
• Treaty between France and Scotland
• Treaty of Montreuil-sur-Mer
• The bull Scimus Fili
• Position of King John 1299-1301
• Baldred Bisset’s diplomatic mission to the pope
• Truces 1300-01 and 1302
• Effect of the quarrel between Philip IV and Boniface VIII
• Effect of French defeat at Courtrai
• Effect of Anglo-French peace treaty of 1303
• Terms agreed between Edward I and the Scottish government, 1304
• Reasons for Scottish surrender in 1304.
Essay: Why did diplomacy ultimately fail to help the Scots between 1295 and 1304?
Why did the Scottish government seek terms from Edward I in 1304?
Discussion: The value of France as an ally between 1295 and 1304.
The persuasiveness of the arguments drafted by Baldred Bisset.
Could Scottish resistance have been effectively continued after 1304?
Comparison of Edward I’s behaviour towards Scotland in 1295/6 with
that in 1305.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
39
SCOTTISH OPPOSITION TO ROBERT I
It is important to remember that, after Robert Bruce’s assumption of the kingship in
1306, he had to fight against Scottish opponents as well as the English. There was no
single reason for opposition to him, but he was a usurper, third in line to the throne
after King John and the king’s son, Edward. Many may have been suspicious of him
as an ambitious adventurer, out for his own gain. There were those who accepted him
as king only reluctantly: Thomas Randolph, the son of Robert’s half-sister, had
previously accepted the decision of 1292 that John was the rightful king. His father
had had connections with the Balliol family: he had acted as executor of Devorguilla’s
will and as John’s attorney during the Great Cause. Thomas, captured in 1308, was
reconciled by 1309, when he attended parliament as lord of Nithsdale. Most magnates
had taken oaths of fealty to Edward I after the surrender of 1304 and such oaths were
regarded as binding; moreover these oaths had been taken willingly (unlike previous
occasions where deception or military defeat had given them little choice) because
that seemed the best course of action. Earl Malise of Strathearn, confronted by the earl
of Atholl on behalf of King Robert, declared that his loyalty to Edward I was not “as
fragile as glass”; he was finally reduced to submitting after being seized while under
safe-conduct and threatened with forfeiture and death. Many of the earls were hostile
at first. We must allow, too, for private motives, even if few are now known. Donald,
earl of Mar, long a prisoner in England, brought to Newcastle to be released after
Bannockburn, refused to leave England. He had grown up in the court of Edward of
Caernarfon (Edward II) and had become a close friend. He returned to Scotland only
after Edward’s deposition in 1327. There were, of course, those, like the Comyns,
who were related to King John, and in whom family loyalty and belief in the
judgement of 1292 were combined. Presumably they were also outraged by Bruce’s
sacrilegious murder of John Comyn in the church of the Franciscan friars at Dumfries.
Opposition in Galloway might be explained by the fact that it was not only a Balliol
lordship, but had long had a strong sense of separate identity.
After his defeat at Methven (1306) and a further skirmish at Loch Tay, Robert fled
westwards, only to be defeated again, this time by John Macdougall of Lorn and the
“barons of Argyll” at Dail Righ near Tyndrum. This battle was significant because
after it Robert’s men scattered and he ceased to have a recognisable military force.
Later in the year, William, earl of Ross, captured Robert’s daughter, Marjory, and his
second wife, Elizabeth, at Tain and sent them to Edward I.
In the west, the Macdougalls, related to the Balliol and Comyn families, were firm
opponents of Robert I. This meant that their rivals, the Macdonalds, formerly proEnglish, now supported Robert. Alexander Macdougall and his son, John of Argyll or
of Lorn were uncle and cousin to John Comyn.
In February 1307, Robert sent his brothers Thomas and Alexander, dean of Glasgow,
(either from Ireland or from Kintyre) to Galloway. Despite support from “a certain
Irish sub-king” and the lord of Kintyre, they were defeated by Dungal Macdowall.
The Bruces were sent to England and executed. After his victory at Loudoun Hill
(1307), Robert mounted a campaign against Galloway, where Comyn of Badenoch
held lands based on the caput of Dalswinton. In September 1307 he defeated the
Gallovidian leaders, Dungall Macdowall and Donald MacCan, took tribute from
Galloway and forced many to seek refuge in Cumberland.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
40
After the Galloway campaign, Robert marched against the castle of Inverlochy, which
belonged to Comyn of Badenoch, At the same time galleys moved along Loch
Linnhe. As a result, John of Lorn agreed to a truce. Inverlochy Castle was captured in
October. The subsequent march up the Great Glen, the capture of the castles of
Urquhart and Inverness, and the burning of Nairn forced the earl of Ross to make a
truce to last until 2 June 1308. Just before Christmas 1307, Robert moved his troops to
Slioch near Huntly. On Christmas Day there was an exchange of arrow fire with the
men of the earls of Buchan and Atholl. The earls returned on 31 December, but
believed Robert’s army too strong to be attacked. In the early months of 1308, Robert
attacked Balvenie Castle and destroyed the castles of Duffus and Tarradale; one of his
supporters captured Skelbo Castle. Later, at a date which is uncertain (perhaps 23
May), Robert completely defeated the earl of Buchan somewhere between Inverurie
and Old Meldrum, the main fight perhaps at the latter. The harrying of Buchan
followed: men loyal to the earl were killed, and the countryside laid waste (June
1308). The earl, who died later that year, and his surviving associates fled to England.
The earl of Ross, now isolated, submitted on 31 October at Auldearn. He was won
over by concessions which allowed him to keep his lands with additions, including the
burgh of Dingwall.
In an undated letter (perhaps March 1308) to Edward II, John of Lorn reported that
Robert had approached his territory in Argyll, and that two truces had been agreed
between them. It seems probable that the second had expired by August 1308 when
Robert advanced into Argyll. He defeated John of Lorn’s men in a battle traditionally
said to have taken place in the Pass of Brander. In the notes to his edition of Barbour,
A. A. M. Duncan argued that this action took place on the northern slope of Ben
Cruachan, but has since modified the views expressed there: he now places the action
on the northern side of the north-western arm of Loch Awe, but still prefers the name
Ben Cruachan for this engagement. King Robert then besieged Dunstaffnage Castle
(though A.A.M. Duncan argues that the siege may have taken place in 1309, John’s
father, Alexander Macdougall, having come to terms with the king and kept the castle
in 1308). John fled by galley to one of his castles, perhaps Inchchonnell, and
subsequently to England. Alexander attended parliament in St Andrews in 1309, but
he later took service with Edward II.
During the summer of 1308 Edward Bruce, now King Robert’s only surviving
brother, and one of an inner core of trusted commanders which included Randolph
and Douglas, attacked Galloway. Donald MacCan was captured. Dungal Macdowall
and his relatives fled; his island stronghold, probably Threave, was burned. With the
Gallovidians defeated, Bruce had then to confront the English forces; A. A. M.
Duncan has suggested that there was only one battle, the Gallovidians providing the
infantry, and the English the cavalry. Despite a victory on the River Dee, Bruce could
not take the English-held castles, though A.A,M,Duncan argues that the English hold
on Galloway had been largely destroyed.
Both John of Lorn and Dungal Macdowall were active against Robert I and on behalf
of Edward II. MacDowall was given command of Dumfries Castle, but was forced to
surrender it to Robert on 2 February 1313. John was given command of a special fleet
based on a port in eastern Ireland, and MacDowall was briefly commander of Rushen
on the Isle of Man. Neither prevented Robert from overrunning Man in 1313.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
41
Although John recovered Man in 1315, it was recaptured by Thomas Randolph in
1317. Their actions are typical of the situation of Scottish opponents of Robert I from
about 1308 or 1309: they were obliged to take service with the English king. Edward
II was not able to support them as effectively as they would have liked; like his father,
he lacked adequate revenue to prosecute the war vigorously. For much of his reign
(1307-1327), he was also the victim of considerable opposition on the part of an
important section of the baronage, and since the first outbreak of that was in 1308, it
gave Bruce an opportunity to establish himself in the early stages of his revolt. Two
subsequent outbreaks of civil war made Edward’s problems even greater.
King Robert was anxious to win as much support as possible and was therefore
prepared to be generous to those who would recognise him as king, with the exception
of members of the Comyn/Balliol family and their supporters: William, earl of Ross,
who had handed over Bruce’s wife and daughter to the English, was received into the
king’s peace without loss of land or status. However, King Robert’s position, even
after Bannockburn, was not as secure as his propaganda or appearances suggested. In
1320 a plot to kill the king was revealed. The sources are contradictory. The
alternative king, it was alleged, was to be William Soules, son of one of the
competitors of 1290-92. His supporters seem to have been men (and one woman,
Soules’ aunt, the dowager countess of Strathearn, a Comyn) who favoured the Balliol
claim. It therefore seems much more likely that the aim was to put Edward Balliol on
the throne (King John had died in1313). If Soules were the intended king, it is odd
that he was not executed, though some lesser figures were. It is hard to avoid the
conclusion that Robert wanted to be rid of Sir David Brechin (whose mother was
sister to the countess of Strathearn); he had been in English service as late as 1312,
and was executed for knowing of the plot but not revealing it to the king. A plot six
years after Bannockburn seems surprising, but the plot may go back at least to 1318
when an act was passed against conspirators and inventors of tales or rumours, and
when King Robert was excommunicated and his kingdom laid under an interdict
(repeated in 1319 and 1320). The succession was not at all secure. King Robert had no
living children: his daughter had died; the future David II had not yet been born.
Edward Bruce, the king’s designated successor, had been killed in Ireland. The king’s
heir after 1318 was his grandson, Robert Stewart who cannot have been more than
four at most in 1320. Edward Balliol was an adult. Another factor may have been the
method used to secure the seals of the magnates for the Declaration of Arbroath in
1320. Since it was not sealed at a great occasion with all those named in the document
present, the seals must have been collected in some way. It may be that the method
employed was high-handed and therefore resented, though, since there is no evidence,
this must remain speculation. The plotters included six whose seals were attached to
the Declaration. What seems more likely is resentment at the redistribution of land
forfeited since Bannockburn. The principal losers in this were the Balliol and Comyn
families and their supporters, and the areas affected were largely those in which the
Balliols and Comyns had been influential. In this matter the death of Edward Bruce,
who had been made lord of Galloway, may have been crucial. Following his death,
extensive grants of land were made in Galloway and also in the south-east to men like
Sir James Douglas, Walter Stewart, Robert Boyd and Robert Keith. It may be that
Soules, who was not a beneficiary, resented these grants. In addition, the Bruce failure
in Ireland may have damaged King Robert’s reputation.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
42
Source R.
A letter about Bruce’s uprising (March 1306):
… Sir, the news in these parts is this, that the earl of Carrick holds the king’s castles
of Dumfries and Ayr, and the castle of Dalswinton, which belonged to John Comyn,
and the castle of Tibbers…; and of the victuals which were in the castle of Ayr, there
are, in the town in the hands of merchants, a good hundred casks of wine, and other
victuals in great plenty. He has had his castle of Loch Doon in Carrick, and the castle
of Dunaverty in (Kintyre) victualled for a long period… The earl of Carrick has made
war in Galloway to cause the people to rebel with him, but they have answered in
accord that they will never rebel against the king for any man living…
Sir, the earl of Carrick has been at Glasgow and Rutherglen, and in those districts,
and has received the fealty of the people where he has come, and has charged them
(to be ready?) to go with him with rations for nine days, whenever they receive notice
of a day and a (night?). The wicked bishop remains at Glasgow as his chief adviser,
and the earl comes often, and they take… their counsel together, and they are
mustering all the support they can from every quarter. And Robert Boyd, coroner of
Clydesdale, has seized the castle of Rothesay by sea.
Sir, John Mowbray is in Liddesdale with Ingram de Umfraville, and they have
gathered their power, and will ride as soon as they have news, which will be very
soon, for they conduct themselves well and loyally and are preparing themselves to
ride. The earl of Buchan, and the earl of Athol, have agreed and sworn together to
remain… when they can, together with Alexander of Abernethy and David and their
force, to ride very soon, as well as them.
… We are at Berwick, reinforcing the peel, and the guards of the town and of the
castle outside the town, whom we find of good will, (and we believe?) that you will
have good news very soon if those who remain on the side of the king are (true to
their promises?), on which matter I do not dare to pledge myself.
Sir, he is having taken from the castles of Dumfries, Ayr, Dalswinton, and Tibbers
whatever he has found to be good, and he is causing his own castles to be garrisoned,
and he intends to destroy those other castles as soon as the power of the king reaches
those parts. On the day that this letter was written, John of Menteith informed me that
the earl of Carrick had crossed the sea (the Firth of Forth) with 60 men-at-arms. And
sir, if the people on the other side are trustworthy, which I do not misdoubt, he will
have but a short stay with them… when he came to Dumbarton he ordered Alexander
Lindsay and Walter Logan to demand the surrender of the castle, and that John of
Menteith should (go?) out under truce to talk to them. He would not agree, but
allowed them (to come?) under truce so close that he could hear from inside what
those outside wanted to say. They came and (demanded) the surrender of the castle
for the use of their lord, and John replied that he held the castle by commission from
(the king and from?) no other person, and he would not render it except to the king, if
(the claimant) did not bear a letter under the king’s great seal, so that he should be
acquitted in the same manner in which he had been commissioned…
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
43
Source S
Charges made by Edward I against the bishop of Moray (1306):
The bishop of Moray preached and exhorted, as much as he could, all in his bishopric
to rise with the lord Robert de Brus against the lord…king, and harangued them, and
does not cease to harangue them… so that all those parts of Moray who came
together to help the said Robert and still hold themselves with him, did this at the
haranguing, preaching and exhortation of the said bishop because he gave them to
understand in his preaching (to the peril of his soul) that those who rise with the lord
Robert to help him against the king of England and his men, and who help the party of
Robert, cannot merit less than if they had gone to the Holy Land against the pagans
and Saracens…
Source T
Record of dealings between Robert Bruce and the earl of Strathearn (1306):
When Sir Robert de Brus was made king, on the next Monday he sent letters of
credence to the earl of Strathearn by the abbot of Inchaffray and the said abbot said
to the earl that he should come to Sir Robert and do homage and fealty to him, and
the… earl said that he would not come, for he had nothing to do with him. When sir
Robert… had heard how the earl had answered, he rode out for war and the earl of
Athol with him, and their force, to Fowlis in Strathearn. And he commanded to be sent
to the earl of Strathearn a letter of safe-conduct that he could come there and go
safely. On this safe-conduct the earl … came to Crieff wood where his people were
assembled. And when the earl was taking advice with his people, at the same time
Malcolm of Innerpeffray came from Sir Robert de Brus, and he and others of his party
advised the earl to go and speak with Sir Robert… since he had letters of safeconduct. And the earl, for the salvation of his lands and above all to escape the very
great peril of his body and life because of the alliance with the Comyns, went in this
manner to Sir Robert… And when he had come, Sir Robert demanded homage and
fealty of him, and the earl said that he had not come to do this, and asked him to let
him go as his safe-conduct allowed. And when Sir Robert heard that he did not want
to do homage, he said to him to come the next day to speak to him at Muthil about this
conduct. Then the earl of Athol came and said to the earl of Strathearn that he should
do the king homage and fealty as they had already done. (Strathearn replied) that he
would not be as glass, as he (Athol) was, to break his faith against… the king of
England. At these words the earl of Athol hurried and said to his king to break his
safe-conduct and to assign certain men to keep the earl… In this way the earl was
taken… and led with them to Inchmahome, and in this way the safe-conduct was
betrayed and broken. When they came to Inchmahome he still would not do homage,
and Sir Robert Boyd said to his king that he should give away his lands and should
put him to death and cut off his head and (the heads of ) all the others who grumbled
about doing homage. When the earl heard this he wavered, did their will and they let
him go…
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
44
ACTIVITIES
Q16. Do Sources R, S and T suggest that there was widespread support for Bruce in
1306?
Q17. How complete an account of the reasons for opposition to Bruce in 1306 is
given by Source T?
Headings for note-taking:
• Reasons for opposition to Bruce in 1306
• Initial reverses suffered by Bruce
• Success in Galloway and Argyll
• Campaigning in the north-east
• Defeat of the Macdougalls
• Defeat of opposition in Galloway
• The fate of King Robert’s opponents
• Failure of Edward II to support Robert’s opponents effectively
• The Soules Conspiracy of 1320.
Essay: Why was Robert I able to defeat his Scottish enemies?
Discussion: Did Robert Bruce’s seizure of the Crown spring from patriotism or
self-interest?
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
45
THE GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND UNDER ROBERT I
The king: the centre of government, who made policy with the advice of his great
men. He upheld the law and organised the defence of the kingdom. Scotland was not
strongly centralised (unlike England) and so central government had less to do. The
king could, however, use his position as the fount of patronage to balance one family
against another (or others) in particular areas. Robert I’s redistribution of land began
rather moderately: grants were made predominantly to members of his own family,
such as his brother Edward, and his nephew, Thomas Randolph. It is significant that
long-term supporters like James Douglas did not receive large grants of land in the
first decade of the reign, presumably because the king did not want to upset the status
quo after the defeat of the Comyns. However after Edward Bruce’s death in 1318, the
king found it necessary to intrude loyal men, such as Douglas, Stewart, Boyd and
Keith into the south-east and south-west. By the end of the reign there had been a
major shift in political and landholding power, particularly in favour of the Stewarts
and the Douglases. There was greater trust on the part of the king that the magnates
could be relied on to run the localities than there was in England. The new king was
traditionally inaugurated at Scone, but was granted by the pope the right to be
anointed (i.e. consecrated as God’s representative in the work of government) only in
June 1329. Anointing was therefore first used at the coronation of David II.
The Council: of very great importance in the work of government. Its composition
was not fixed, but presumably consisted of whichever great men the king chose to
consult. No records of its proceedings from this period survive.
The Household: this existed partly to serve the domestic needs of the king and his
family, and partly to deal with aspects of government. It had various departments
under particular clerks. Money collected locally by government officials such as the
sheriffs was either spent locally or forwarded to Household officials.
The King’s Chapel: the chancery or writing office under the control of the
chancellor, who kept the Great Seal. It issued formal documents, such as charters, and
brieves (writs) for initiating law-suits, for which a payment had to be made. Brieves
had to be returned to the Chapel by the appropriate official, as did reports from local
juries (retours). This was perhaps the first part of royal government to be restored
after the upheavals of 1306-7, and was of great importance in the restoration of royal
authority. The first surviving acts date from 1308. Under Robert I, there was an
increase in less formal documents such as letters patent and unwitnessed letters. There
was a new type of charter, the inspection: when the king confirmed a grant made by
someone else, his charter would include the whole text of the original grant instead of
simply referring to its terms. There was a revival of the practice of recording
documents on parchment rolls. While Abbot Bernard of Arbroath was chancellor, the
Chapel was fixed at Arbroath Abbey.
Seals: used to authenticate documents. Robert I had three Great Seals. The first seems
to have been crudely made; by about 1311 or 1312 there was one based on the English
seal; the third probably came into use about 1316 and was based on the French seal.
The Privy Seal was used much more in Robert’s reign than previously. It was used to
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
46
authorise the king’s immediate commands, and was normally kept by an official who
accompanied the king. It was certainly in existence by 1309 and there were four or
five versions during the reign. Its greater use was probably the result of the long
period of warfare, when the king was often on campaign.
The Exchequer: an accounting office. There, about once a year, the chancellor, with
councillors and clerks, audited the accounts submitted by the sheriffs and constables
of castles.
Finance: the main source of revenue was rents from Crown lands, including the royal
burghs. There were customs duties on exports of wool and leather. There were feudal
incidents, due to the king from those who held land directly from him (e.g. the relief
payable when an heir inherited). Much royal revenue was paid in produce, used to
feed the royal household, rather than in coin. Taxation on the population was rare: in
Robert’s reign only the contributions which the king asked for in the Cambuskenneth
parliament of 1326 and which were only for the duration of King Robert’s life, and
the money which had to be raised to pay for the peace treaty of 1328. Revenue was
needed to pay for the royal household, the maintenance of castles, diplomacy, salaries
and expenses of officials and the costs of the Exchequer audit. There were also the
grants made by the king to laymen and the Church. Despite grants of land to
supporters, which reduced revenue from the Crown lands, by the 1320’s royal
finances were in good order. That was due to the grant for life made in 1326 and also
to the fact that fines financed the judicial system and armies were unpaid.
The Chamberlain: the most important financial official. He was responsible for the
collection and payment of government revenue. In the Inchture parliament of 1312
Robert gave an assurance that he would continue to deal with the burghs through the
Chamberlain. The Chamberlain was responsible for supervising the royal burghs
through the ayre or inspection held, in theory, annually, to see that justice was done in
their courts, that they were well governed and that they were paying their due revenue
to the king.
Parliament: passed laws (e.g. the legal code of 1318), ratified treaties, granted direct
taxation (though that was rare), supervised government finance, defence and justice,
and considered petitions presented to the king and council. It was the supreme law
court, and it also had power to try cases of treason (e.g. in 1320). The surviving
records suggest that its main concern was important matters of state: support for the
new king, forfeiture of the king's enemies, the succession, granting tax, and the peace
treaty of 1328. The king and council would be present, but other magnates (bishops,
abbots, earls and barons) also attended. Taxation was almost certainly the reason for
including burgesses and lesser landowners. Representatives of the royal burghs were
present in 1326 when a grant of taxation for the king’s lifetime was made, and also in
1328 when money had to be raised to pay for the peace treaty, and when the writ of
summons made it clear that they had to have power to commit their communities to
pay tax. Lesser landowners were summoned under various names (“freeholders” in
1318). The idea may have arisen from Edward I’s assembly of 1305, but they were
certainly included in 1309, 1312, 1314 and 1315 before “freeholder” became the
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
47
norm. Their presence was presumably another sign of Robert’s need for wide political
support. Since all members sat as one body, the “freeholders“ may not have attended
in large numbers, and the magnates probably dominated proceedings. All members
were summoned collectively through the sheriffs; there was no individual summons.
Justiciars: Alexander III’s system of justiciars was restored by the middle of Robert’s
reign. There were normally two, both great magnates, one responsible for the
kingdom north of Forth, and the other for southern Scotland. In theory they inspected
each sheriffdom twice a year and investigated complaints against local officials. Their
courts alone could deal with major crimes committed within their areas, and heard
appeals from lower courts.
Sheriffs: held courts to deal with lesser crimes. They arrested criminals, and if the
crime were serious, the sheriff was responsible for handing over the accused to the
justiciar. They collected the revenues from Crown lands and accounted for them at the
Exchequer. They held inquests into the inheritance of land. They helped to recruit and
to lead the men of the sheriffdom in wartime. Their many duties meant that there were
subordinate officials to help them. A new sheriffdom of Argyll (part of the proposed
increase in the number of sheriffdoms by King John) was created during the reign.
Courts: the judicial system was highly localised. Justiciars, sheriffs and barons (for
their own tenants) summoned and presided over courts rather than acting as judges.
They profited from fines and forfeitures and enforced the courts’ decisions, but
judgement was pronounced by suitors of the court who represented their communities
– in effect, by juries. Judgement was pronounced by one of the suitors (or jurors) who
acted as dempster.
Regalities: a great man who had been granted a regality had powers equivalent to a
justiciar. They were subject to royal authority, but justiciars and sheriffs had no power
in a regality. Few grants of this type were made by Robert I. The most important were
to Thomas Randolph and applied to the earldom of Moray, the Isle of Man and the
lordship of Annandale.
Baronies: within their baronies, barons had powers equivalent to those of the sheriff.
Burghs: each town which had been granted the status of a burgh was run by aldermen
or provosts and bailies. Each burgh had a court for its citizens. Custumars collected
customs revenue for the king. Robert I began granting charters laying down a fixed
annual sum (the ferme) to be paid in future by the burghs (before 1306 only Berwick
had this privilege). It was up to the town government to decide how to raise the
money, and for that they were answerable to the Chamberlain.
The armed forces: all able-bodied men were under an ancient obligation to perform
military service without pay. All had to bring or buy provisions. Earls led out the
armies of their earldoms. During the peaceful conditions of the Thirteenth Century,
Scotland had allowed its military capacity to wither away through disuse; Robert I not
only revived it but breathed new life into raising forces. The laws of 1318 prescribed
the equipment each man was to have, and sheriffs were to hold annual inspections of
the equipment (wapinschaws). Each lord was to come with foodstuffs or cash. In the
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
48
wartime conditions of Robert I’s reign, magnates were sometimes given formal rights
of leadership by the king. There were several changes from thirteenth-century practice
in the kind of service required from those holding land from the king: a shift in
emphasis from heavy armed cavalry to knights who fought on foot; the new
importance attached to archer service, the form of service most frequently required;
and the demand for galley service. However, the impositions were small: a quota of
ten archers or knights was untypically large. The Scottish Crown thus avoided the
major financial difficulties which warfare imposed on the English and French
governments.
ACTIVITIES
Headings for note-taking:
• Central government
• Government administration
• The role of parliament
• Local administration
• Military and naval forces
Essay: How much effective control of government did Robert I have?
Discussion: The role of different social groups in government under Robert I.
The effectiveness of the methods of raising military forces under
Robert I.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
49
RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND, FRANCE AND THE PAPACY 1306-1329
1307
7 July:
Death of Edward I; accession of Edward II.
1308
November:
Attempt by Philip IV to obtain a truce for the Scots.
1309
January:
16 March:
7 July:
1312
29 October:
1313
January:
30 November
Truce to last till 1 November; then a series of truces till March 1310.
Scottish reply to a letter of Philip asking for help in a crusade: not
possible till Scotland was free and at peace.
Letter of Philip to Edward II referring to Robert as king of Scots.
Treaty of Inverness with Norway: Treaty of Perth (1266) renewed;
mutual compensation for incidents between the two countries.
Abbot of Inchaffray given safe conduct to visit Edward II.
Bishop of St Andrews given safe conduct by Edward II to go to
Philip IV.
1314
October:
November:
Exchange of prisoners following the battle of Bannockburn.
Death of Philip IV; accession of Louis X.
1316
20 April:
June:
7 August:
Death of Pope Clement V.
Death of Louis X; accession of Philip V.
Election of John XXII (Pope 1316-1334).
1317
August or
September:
Two legates sent to Britain by John XXII. Robert I refuses to
negotiate with them until papal letters address him as king.
1318
Late May:
1319
18 November:
Robert I and his supporters excommunicated; Scotland placed under
interdict.
December:
Four Scottish bishops ordered to appear before the pope by 1 May
1320 (order ignored).
Negotiations at Newcastle: two year truce agreed.
1320
6 April:
26 August:
Scottish barons’ letter to the pope (Declaration of Arbroath)
Reply from John XXII urging both sides to make peace.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
50
1321
January:
March/April:
1322
January:
6 January:
1323
3 January:
25 February:
2 March:
30 May:
1324
13 January:
2 July:
August:
3 November:
25 November:
Edward II appoints envoys to treat for peace.
Negotiations at Bamburgh involving Scots, English, French and
papal representatives.
Death of Philip V; accession of Charles IV.
Expiry of Anglo-Scottish truce.
Negotiations between Robert I and Andrew Harcla, earl of Carlisle,
at Lochmaben.
Harcla arrested by the English government.
Execution of Harcla.
Truce to last 13 years concluded at Bishopsthorpe.
Pope writes to Edward II to say that he would call Robert king to
help bring peace nearer.
English mission to the pope to secure maintenance of papal
sanctions against the Scots.
Edward Balliol given safe-conduct to come to England.
Outbreak of fighting in the “War of St Sardos” between England and
France.
Safe-conduct for Scottish envoys to go to York to treat for peace.
Edward II has letters to the pope drawn up asking that the Scots be
absolved during the peace negotiations.
1325
Peace between England and France.
1326
26 April:
1327
20 January:
6 March:
9 October:
18 October:
30 October:
October/
November:
Treaty of Corbeil between Scotland and France: mutual support
against England.
Deposition of Edward II; accession of Edward III (regency).
English government unilaterally confirms the thirteen-year truce, but
Scots regard it as broken because of Edward II’s deposition.
English envoys appointed to treat for final peace.
Reply from Robert I, setting out basis for peace.
Edward III agrees that negotiations should begin.
Peace negotiations.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
51
1328
1 March:
17 March:
4 May:
July:
October:
Letter of Edward III renouncing English claims to Scotland.
Treaty of Edinburgh (a series of documents):
Edward renounced his claim to overlordship over Scotland
Marriage arranged between Prince David and Edward’s sister, Joan
Military alliance between Scotland and England, saving the FrancoScottish alliance
made in the Treaty of Corbeil
Robert to pay Edward £20,000 to secure peace, to be paid in three
annual instalments
The English government to seek an end to papal excommunication
of Robert and his
supporters.
Treaty ratified by the English parliament at Northampton.
Marriage of David and Joan solemnised.
Excommunication lifted by the pope.
Source U
The Lanercost Chronicle on the siege of Carlisle (1315):
… On the feast of St Mary Magdalene, the king of Scotland, having mustered all his
forces, came to Carlisle, invested the city and besieged it for ten days, trampling down
all the crops, wasting the suburbs and all within the bounds, burning the whole of that
district, and driving in a very great store of cattle for his army from Allerdale,
Coupland and Westmorland. On every day of the siege they assaulted one of the three
gates of the city, sometimes all three at once; but never without loss, because there
were discharged upon them from the walls such dense volleys of darts and arrows,
and also stones, that they asked one another whether stones bred and multiplied
within the walls. Now on the fifth day of the siege they set up a machine for casting
stones near the church of Holy Trinity, where their king stationed himself, and they
cast great stones continually against the Caldew gate and against the wall, but they
did little or no injury to those within, except that they killed one man. But there were
seven or eight similar machines within the city, besides other engines of war which
are called springalds, for discharging long darts, and staves with sockets for casting
stones, which caused great fear and damage to those outside. Meanwhile, however,
the Scots set up a certain great berefrai like a kind of tower, which was considerably
higher than the city walls. On perceiving this, the carpenters of the city erected upon
a tower of the wall against which that engine must come, if it had ever reached the
wall, a wooden tower loftier than the other; but neither that engine nor any other ever
did reach the wall, because, when it was being drawn on wheels over the wet and
swampy ground, having stuck there through its own weight, it could neither be taken
any farther nor do any harm.
Moreover, the Scots had made many long ladders, which they brought with them for
scaling the wall in different places simultaneously; also a sow for mining the town
wall, had they been able; but neither sow nor ladders availed them aught. Also they
made great numbers of fascines of corn and herbage to fill the moat outside the wall
on the east side so that they might pass over dry-shod. Also they made long bridges of
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
52
logs running upon wheels, such as being strongly and swiftly drawn with ropes might
reach across the width of the moat. But during all the time the Scots were on the
ground, neither fascines sufficed to fill the moat, nor those wooden bridges to cross
the ditch, but sank to the depths by their own weight.
…On the ninth day of the siege, when all the engines were ready, they delivered a
general assault upon all the city gates and upon the whole circuit of the wall,
attacking manfully, while the citizens defended themselves just as manfully, and they
did the same next day. The Scots also resorted to the same kind of stratagem whereby
they had taken Edinburgh Castle; for they employed the greater part of their army in
delivering an assault upon the eastern side of the city… in order to draw thither the
people who were inside. Sir James Douglas, a bold and cautious knight, stationed
himself, with some others of the army who were most daring and nimble, on the west
side… where no attack was expected because of the height and the difficulty of access.
There they set up long ladders, which they climbed, and the bowmen, of whom they
had a great number, shot their arrows thickly to prevent anyone showing his head
above the wall. But… they met with such resistance there as threw them to the ground
with their ladders, so that there and elsewhere round the wall some were killed,
others taken prisoner and others wounded…
Wherefore on the eleventh day… whether because they had heard that the English
were approaching to relieve the besieged or whether they despaired of success, the
Scots marched off in confusion to their own country, leaving behind them all their
engines of war.
Source V
The Chronicle of Lanercost on Scottish invasions of Northern England after
Bannockburn:
(1314): Shortly afterwards, namely about the feast of St Peter’s Chains (1 August),
Sir Edward Brus, Sir James of Douglas, John de Soules and other nobles of Scotland
invaded England by way of Berwick with cavalry and a large army, and, during the
time of truce, devastated almost all Northumberland with fire, except the castles; and
so they passed forward into the bishopric of Durham; but there they did not burn
much, for the people of the bishopric ransomed themselves from burning by a large
sum of money. Nevertheless, the Scots carried off booty of cattle and what men they
could capture… they returned by Stainmoor, from which they carried off an immense
booty of cattle. Also they burned the towns of Brough, Appelby and Kirkoswald, and
other towns here and there on their route, they and their beasts trampling down the
crops as much as they could, and so, passing near the priory of Lanercost, they
entered Scotland, having many men prisoners from whom they could extort ransom at
will. But the people of Coupland, fearing their return and invasion, sent envoys and
appeased them with much money…
At this time also the Scots again wasted Northumberland; but from Christmas until
the Nativity of St John the Baptist (24 June (1315)) the county of Cumberland alone
paid 600 marks tribute to the king of Scots.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
53
(1316): About the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist (24 June) the Scots
invaded England, burning as before and laying waste all things to the best of their
power; and so they went as far as Richmond. But the nobles of that district, who took
refuge in Richmond Castle and defended it, compounded with them for a large sum of
money so that they might not burn that town, nor yet the district, more than they had
done already. Having received this money, the Scots marched away some sixty miles
to the west, laying waste everything as far as Furness, and burned that district, to
which they had not come before, taking away with them nearly all the goods of that
district, with men and women as prisoners. Especially they were delighted with the
abundance of iron which they found there, because Scotland is not rich in iron.
(1322): … The king of England, who was then in Rievaulx Abbey… fled in fear…, in
his haste leaving behind him in the monastery his silver and much treasure. Then the
Scots, arriving immediately after, seized it all and plundered the monastery, and then
marched on to the Wolds,… laying waste that country nearly as far as the town of
Beverley, which was held to ransom to escape being burned by them in the same way
as they had destroyed other towns.
Source W
Agreement between Robert I and Andrew Harcla, earl of Carlisle (3 January 1323):
…that each kingdom may be distinct and separate, governed with its own laws
customs and rights by different and separate kings so that neither king shall presume
in any way to occupy or usurp or subjugate the other’s kingdom to the detriment or
diminution of him or his kingdom… the lord King Robert and his heirs… shall have
and hold the said kingdom of Scotland in full right, free and immune from all service,
exaction or demand of the king of England or the community of his kingdom . For the
procuring, promotion and maintaining of these things,… the lord Carlisle and his
heirs, with all his adherents, firmly and faithfully bound himself to the aforesaid lord
King Robert and his heirs and the community of his kingdom, and the same lord King
Robert and his heirs, with all the community of his kingdom, bound himself firmly to
the said lord earl and his heirs and his followers and their heirs…
…If it happens that the said lord king of Scotland should lead or send an army into
the kingdom of England, according to the form of the above-mentioned agreement, he
will show, and cause to be shown, that care and diligence for the safety of the goods
of the said earl and his followers to the extent of punishing wrong-doers as he does,
or is accustomed to do, in a similar case in his kingdom. And the lord earl and his
followers shall do the same to him if it happens that they lead an army into Scotland
at the instance of the king of Scotland.
No conventions, confederations or associations shall be made on the part of the said
king or earl or their men which may be contrary to the said agreement, or which
could in any way vitiate the same agreement in whole or in part.
The aforesaid lord king of Scotland shall give to the king of England, if he will accept
the aforesaid peace agreement within a year from now and confirm it with due
guarantee, forty thousand marks sterling to be paid within ten years, namely four
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
54
thousand marks each year, and the same king of Scotland will found a monastery
within the kingdom of Scotland to the value of five hundred marks in annual revenue
for the souls of those killed in the war, and will concede to the king of England the
marriage of his male heir into his family in a suitable place, if it seems to the lord
king of Scotland and the lord earl …to be expedient for the profit of both kingdoms…
… And it should be known that… if the aforesaid peace between the aforesaid kings is
confirmed … neither of the kings shall be obliged to receive in his kingdom anyone
who took part in war against him, nor give back or restore to him lands which he or
his ancestors held in his kingdom unless he wants to do that by his special grace…
Comment on the Declaration of Arbroath
The Declaration, in form a letter to the pope from the barons of Scotland, may be seen
as a propaganda document, setting out King Robert's case. This may be compared to
other propaganda documents produced during the wars of independence: the
Processus of Baldred Bisset of 1301, also intended for the papacy; the Declaration of
the Clergy of 1309 in favour of Robert I and intended to blacken the character of King
John; and the statement of the Scottish position produced for the negotiations at
Bamburgh in 1321. It also has to be pointed out that Robert consistently referred to
Alexander III as his predecessor, as though the Maid of Norway and King John had
never existed.
Ranald Nicholson: By any standards the Declaration of Arbroath is an impressive
and eloquent manifesto with a universal relevance. It is the solemn protest of a small
country against the aggression of a more powerful neighbour, an appeal not only on
behalf of national freedom but on behalf of a kind of personal freedom which is
coupled with it. It may therefore seem cynical to question whether such language and
sentiments arose spontaneously in the mouths and breasts of the eight earls and
thirty-one barons in whose name it ran… Most probably they merely complied with a
royal request to bring or send their seals for the authentication of the document. That
the letter was an essay in propaganda can hardly be doubted. (Scotland: The Later
Middle Ages, pp.100-101).
Alexander Grant: The Declaration, which had several precedents in other countries,
was a piece of political rhetoric intended to defuse a particular diplomatic crisis. It is,
nevertheless, a brilliant, inspiring, and justly famous assertion of Scottish
independence. (Independence and Nationhood, pp.14-15).
Robin Frame: It contained an impassioned statement of the kingdom’s ancient right
to independence, based on the Scota story and other legendary matter, and roundly
condemned Edward I’s opinions. Thus far it articulated what were undoubtedly the
feelings of most of those living in Scotland. The Declaration’s purpose was, however,
to support Robert Bruce’s cause at Avignon against the representations of the
English, and to persuade the pope to accept his kingship as legitimate. When its
signatories went on to explain that Robert had become king by ‘divine providence, the
succession to his right according to our laws and customs which we shall maintain to
the death, and the due consent and assent of us all’, they skated on some very thin ice.
Even in 1320 Robert could not count on universal support. His agents had been
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
55
successful in getting wide endorsement for the document. But not only were there
dispossessed magnates (such as the earls of Mar and Atholl) in exile in England;
several of the signatories, led by William Soules, who came from an old Balliol
family, actually rose against him before the year was out. (The Political Development
of the British Isles, p.195).
G.W.S.Barrow: Although it was official and served the purposes of the Scots king
and his government, the Declaration of Arbroath was indisputably national and not
merely governmental… In 1320 the king and community combined to produce a clear
statement of their mutual relationship which was at the same time a declaration of the
independence of Scotland, the most eloquent statement of the case for national
independence to be produced anywhere in medieval Europe. (Robert Bruce and the
Community of the Realm of Scotland, 3rd. edn., pp.306, 308).
ACTIVITIES
Q18. Explain the methods of siege warfare used by the Scots, as described in
Source U.
Q19. What were the advantages and disadvantages to the Scots of the type of
warfare described in Source V?
Q 20. How far does the text of the agreement in Source W explain the arrest and
execution of the earl of Carlisle?
Q21. To what extent does the agreement in Source W foreshadow the final
settlement in the Treaty of Northampton of 1328?
Headings for note-taking:
• Importance of Edward I’s death
• Role of Philip IV of France
• Importance of the Treaty of Inverness, 1312
• Difficulties with the papacy
• Declaration of Arbroath
• Negotiations at Bamburgh, 1321
• Robert I and Andrew Harcla
• Importance of the Treaty of Corbeil
• Importance of Edward II’s deposition
• Treaty of Edinburgh/Northampton
Essay: What part did diplomacy play in securing Scottish independence by 1328?
Why did it take so long after the victory at Bannockburn to secure English
recognition of Robert I as king of Scots?
How far do you agree that the Declaration of Arbroath was “national and not
merely governmental”?
Discussion: The importance of France and the papacy in Robert I’s diplomacy.
The extent to which the Declaration of Arbroath was a work of
propaganda.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
56
IRELAND
Background
As earl of Carrick, an earldom inherited from his mother, Robert Bruce (the future
king) held lands in Ireland. So, too, did John Balliol; these were inherited from his
mother as lady of Galloway. The Turnberry Band (1286) bound Robert Bruce the
Competitor, James the Steward, the lord of Islay and others to support the earl of
Ulster and Thomas Clare against their enemies in Ulster. The second wife of Robert
Bruce (the future king) was Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter of the earl of Ulster. James
the Steward acquired lands in Ireland by his marriage to Egidia de Burgh, and became
uncle by marriage to Robert I’s queen. It is possible, but by no means certain, that for
part of the winter of 1306-7, Robert took refuge on Rathlin Island.
The resources of Ireland
During the war of independence, Ireland was used by the English Crown as a source
of troops, supplies and money. Robert I’s seizure of the Scottish Crown in 1306
almost immediately led Edward I to seek supplies and money from Ireland, as he had
done on previous occasions. However, both Edward I and Edward II found it very
difficult to obtain resources from Ireland. Rebellion and private war led not only to
destruction, but also to economic decline generally and interruption of collection of
money. The government’s measures included resumption of all Irish customs revenue,
which had been assigned to the merchant banking firm of Frescobaldi. Ireland ceased
to produce enough revenue to pay for its own government. Major rebellions in 1309
and 1312 diverted resources. In 1322 Edward II succeeded in having Irish troops and
foodstuffs sent to Scotland, but financial difficulties made it impossible after that date
to have either.
Reasons for Scottish invasion of Ireland
The presence in Ireland of exiles from Argyll and Galloway, notably John of Argyll
and Dungal Macdowall. John captured the Isle of Man in February 1315, and
commanded a fleet in the Irish Sea. Macdowall was driven from Dumfries and
Rushen, and eventually was in command of the garrison of Carlisle. One of Edward
Bruce’s objectives may have been to destroy Irish sources of supply for John's fleet
based on the Isle of Man, and possibly also to deprive him of harbours such as
Carrickfergus. John was to take command of a military and naval expedition with
Irish troops against the Scots in April 1315. Edward Bruce’s invasion forestalled that,
whether deliberately or by chance is not known.
It might be seen as a two-pronged movement, in which Edward’s invasion of Ireland
was matched by Robert I’s campaign in the west after the council meeting at Ayr
in1315. The fleet which transported Edward to Ireland was then used against Argyll.
The establishment of a new sheriffdom based at Tarbert may be seen as part of this
policy. This two-pronged movement would reduce Macdougall influence in Argyll
and secure the south-west of Scotland from attack by the exiles.
It may have been intended to put pressure on the English garrison of Carlisle. The
English had relied heavily on Ireland to sustain their occupation of south-west
Scotland between 1299 and 1306, and Ireland continued to supply Carlisle with grain
between 1307 and 1314. There was also a significant number of Irish troops on the
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
57
western part of the Anglo-Scottish border. Edward’s destruction of Irish resources
weakened not only the English position in Ireland, but also the garrison of Carlisle. It
may be significant that Carlisle was besieged by Robert I while Edward was besieging
Carrickfergus.
Edward addressed a letter to the Welsh, inciting them to revolt against the English. He
promised military aid and offered himself as prince of Wales. A Welsh magnate,
Gruffydd Llwyd, actually replied to the letter, but was arrested by the English. There
was a separate revolt in Wales in February 1316, and, although there is no evidence
of direct Scottish involvement in it, Colm McNamee thinks that it is difficult to
account for some aspects of the Irish campaign without reference to Wales. The
winter campaign of 1315-16, a surprising time in itself, coincided with the Welsh
revolt of 1316. It could also explain why the Scots seemed to be in a hurry to conquer
Ireland, and why they were interested in south-eastern Ireland.
The ambitions of Edward Bruce: Barbour took an unfavourable view of Edward’s
character and ambition. (Barbour might, however, have praised King Robert at the
expense of Edward because by the time he was writing Robert’s grandson was king
and Edward had no descendants).He claimed that Edward set off for Ireland because
Scotland was not big enough for both him and King Robert. J.H.Lydon has doubted
this explanation, but Colm McNamee argues that Edward’s desire for glory was
probably the most powerful motive for the invasion of Ireland. He became high king
of Ireland, suggested that he might become prince of Wales, and wanted to rule the
Western Isles. Although Edward had been declared heir presumptive in Scotland, the
queen had returned from captivity in England (January 1315) and Robert might have
male children. Moreover, if a regency became necessary, it was the earl of Moray and
not Edward who was to be regent, as though Edward were not expected to be in
Scotland. The Irish annals agree that Edward became high king in 1315, that is, early
in the campaign; that suggests that the kingship was an important objective for him.
The fact that King Robert personally took part in the Irish campaigns suggest that
perhaps the kingdom of Scotland came second to the ambitions of the Bruce family. It
was very dangerous for both the king and the heir to the throne to be out of the
kingdom at the same time: how dangerous is clear from Edward’s death.
The Irish believed that King Robert was invited to Ireland by Domnall O’Neill, king
of Tyrone. Perhaps his motive was to revive the high kingship; he renounced his own
claims to that office in a letter to the pope in 1317. What seems a more likely motive
is a desire to secure his own position against rivals. J.H.Lydon has suggested that
calling in the Scots was simply a continuation, if on a grander scale, of the traditional
practice of bringing galloglasses from Scotland to Ireland.
Neither defeat at Bannockburn nor the raids into northern England with the extortion
of protection money had forced the English government to come to terms with King
Robert. Ireland could be seen as a new strategy for bringing the war to an end.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
58
Events of 1313-1318
In May 1313 Rushen on the Isle of Man surrendered to Robert I, and the earl of Ulster
was forced to buy a truce. Later in the month the king came to Ulster, allegedly with
the permission of the earl, who was the king’s father-in-law, but, despite rumours,
almost certainly loyal to Edward II. A gap in the sequence of royal charters between
March and October 1313 makes such an absence from Scotland possible. However,
when Robert’s galleys came to collect tribute later, the Ulstermen repelled them. It is
not clear if this episode has any connection with the invasion of 1315, but it shows an
interest in Ireland, if only as part of the lands bordering the Irish Sea.
Another forerunner may have been a letter addressed to the Irish generally by Robert
I. It stressed the common ancestry, customs and (Gaelic) language of Scots and Irish
in order to encourage solidarity against the English. The date of the letter is unknown,
and it has usually been ascribed to early1315. G.W.S.Barrow, J.H.Lydon and
J.R.S.Phillips place it probably in 1315, but more recently Colm McNamee and Sean
Duffy have suggested that it was written during Robert I’s exile in the winter of
1306-7.
In May 1315 Edward Bruce landed in Ireland, probably at Larne. His invasion
coincided with a run of very wet weather, bad harvests, famine and general ill-health
which affected much of western Europe (1315-17). In Ireland, winter brought
unusually heavy snow. Edward was therefore unable to live off the land or even to be
well supplied by his Irish allies. Those who were not his allies came to hate the Scots
as extra mouths to feed in a period of severe hardship.
After landing, Edward seized Carrickfergus, though it took a year to capture the
castle. From there he extended his control of Ulster, and leaving men to besiege the
castle, marched south to secure his base. Although he met opposition in Moyry Pass,
he brushed it aside and seized Dundalk (29 June). Killing, plunder and burning
followed; Dundalk, even including its churches, was destroyed. The surrounding
countryside and other towns were dealt with in the same way. Probably about this
time, Edward was installed as high king of Ireland. The justiciar of Ireland, Edmund
Butler, gathered an army to attack the Scots, but the earl of Ulster refused to let the
army enter Ulster. It was his earldom, which he had a duty to protect, but he may also
have feared the damage which the army might do to his lands. Edward retreated,
drawing the earl northwards, and defeated him convincingly at Connor (10
September). Secure in Ulster, Edward now pressed on with the siege of Carrickfergus
Castle.
The English government was nervous about a possible attack on Wales. Alarm was
increased when Thomas Dun sailed into Holyhead and seized a cargo ship. Edward II
ordered defence of the Welsh coast and provisioning of the Welsh castles. Money
intended for the English garrisons in Scotland was diverted to supply Irish castles and
to pay the army. During the winter, Edward Bruce, with Scottish reinforcements
brought by the earl of Moray, again moved south. A winter campaign is surprising,
but it might have been to support a revolt in Wales. The English position in Ireland
seemed threatened. There were risings in Connacht and Meath, Roger Mortimer, lord
of Trim, was defeated, and Kells and three other towns which were centres of English
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
59
lordship were burned. Walter and Hugh de Lacy of Meath joined the Scots. Another
English army was defeated at Skerries, and as a result there was an uprising in
Desmond against the English. Despite these successes, Edward was driven back to
Ulster by famine, and many of the Scots died of hunger and cold.
Moray returned to Scotland. This may have been because it was intended to halt
campaigning for the time being or perhaps because the truce on the Anglo-Scottish
border was about to expire. While O’Neill tried to secure greater support from the
chiefs of Gaelic Ireland, Edward consolidated his position in Ulster and besieged the
major castles there. In April 1316 Thomas de Mandeville arrived with fifteen ships to
try to relieve the siege of Carrickfergus Castle. After initial success, he was killed and
some of his ships captured. The earl of Ulster commandeered eight supply ships
bound for Carrickfergus and sent them to Scotland to ransom a nephew. The garrison
was eventually forced by hunger to surrender (September 1316). One Irish annal
records that King Robert came to Ireland in 1316 and that Carrickfergus surrendered,
and so perhaps to Robert rather than to Edward. Since there is a gap in the sequence
of royal charters between 18 July and 30 September, it is just possible, but if so, the
king’s time in Ireland must have been brief.
While the English government was distracted by revolt in Leinster and making
unsuccessful efforts to provide enough money to pay troops and to defend Dublin,
Edward and Moray returned to Scotland. Presumably as a result of discussion with
them, King Robert crossed to Ireland in January 1317. The Scots controlled the sea
between Ireland and Scotland, despite Edward II’s attempts to combat them: shipping
was ordered to search for Thomas Dun, and Genoese galleys were hired, though they
did not reach the Irish Sea. King Robert confirmed his grant of the Isle of Man, still in
English hands, to Moray. This was consented to by Edward, whose interests were
affected, since he was both high king of Ireland and lord of Galloway.
In February 1317 the Scots again marched south, ravaging the country. This may have
been to forestall an English offensive, since Roger Mortimer had been appointed the
English king’s lieutenant in Ireland, but Dublin appears to have been the objective.
The earl of Ulster fled to Dublin, but was arrested by the mayor on suspicion of
helping his son-in-law, King Robert. Dublin was unprepared for attack: buildings
were hastily demolished for stone to build a new wall along the River Liffey, and the
bridge broken. When the Scots arrived on the far side of the river, the suburbs facing
them were burned to deny them cover. The Bruces, probably unprepared for a long
siege, moved south, by-passing walled towns. Their aim may have been to link up
with the Irish of Thomond and Desmond. The army of the justiciar, Edmund Butler,
shadowed the Scots. Limerick refused to let the Scots in, and on the Shannon they
were opposed by Gaelic Irish under Muirchertach O’Briain. Hunger was a problem,
and additional English troops under Mortimer arrived in April 1317. King Robert
returned to Scotland in May. Thomas Dun was captured by the English and executed
in July: Scottish control of the sea route between Ireland and Scotland was therefore
threatened. Edward remained inactive in Ulster for the next seventeen months, while
the English re-asserted their control over the rest of Ireland.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
60
Edward II complained to the new pope, John XXII, about the pro-Bruce activities of
some of the Irish clergy. The minister of the Irish Franciscan friars was sent to
Avignon to complain to the head of the Franciscan Order that some of the friars had
been preaching in favour of Edward Bruce. The pope condemned Bruce’s supporters,
and was answered by Domnall O’Neill’s letter on behalf of the Irish (1317).
It is not known what Edward was doing between May 1317 and October 1318. It may
be that shortage of food made the Scots’ position difficult, but there was a good
harvest in 1318 and food prices fell. In October 1318 Edward, with reinforcements
from Argyll and the Hebrides and the support of the de Lacys, moved south. He was
opposed by an army led by John de Bermingham which included the archbishop of
Armagh and many local magnates, though it seems to have been assembled hastily.
Near Faughart they fought a major battle. Edward’s Gaelic allies seem to have held
back from the battle, and in the course of the Scottish defeat Edward was killed.
Bermingham’s reward for such a significant victory was the earldom of Louth.
Carrickfergus was re-taken by the English, but the Scots seem to have been active at
sea, at least between 1319 and 1322.
Robert I and Ireland in the later 1320’s
When Edward II was deposed in 1327, Robert took that as a pretext for ending the
thirteen year truce concluded in 1323. In April 1327 Robert crossed to Ireland. This
was part of a strategy which included raids into northern England. Ireland’s part in
this was not merely to stir up trouble for the English government there, but also to use
it as a base to invade Wales and rouse it against England. This came to nothing, but
Henry Mandeville, the seneschal of Ulster, bought a truce from the Scots which was
to run for a year from 1 August 1327: Robert was recognised as king of Scots, Ulster
would provide the Scots with barley and wheat, and Robert’s supporters in Ulster
would be protected by the truce. The king invited the earl of Kildare, the justiciar of
Ireland, to meet him to draw up a peace between Ireland and Scotland, but the
justiciar refused. The invitation is sometimes ascribed to 1318, but as Colm McNamee
points out, it makes more sense in 1327 before the conclusion of the Treaty of
Edinburgh-Northampton. At some point during this period, Robert was very ill, but he
recovered and returned to Scotland.
In 1328 Robert returned for the last time to Ireland. His father-in-law, the earl of
Ulster, had died in 1326, and the king was escorting the new earl, his nephew by
marriage, to secure his position as earl. As Robert had granted his son David the
earldom of Carrick before his wedding to Princess Joan of England, it is possible that
he was also attempting to recover the Irish lands of the earldom. This episode shows
how weak English rule in Ireland was.
Source X.
Barbour’s explanation of Edward Bruce’s invasion of Ireland:
Sir Edward, earl of Carrick, who was stronger than a leopard and had no desire to
live in peace, felt that Scotland was too small for both him and his brother; therefore
he formed a purpose that he would become king of Ireland. To that end he sent and
negotiated with the Irishry of Ireland who, in good faith, undertook to make him king
of all Ireland, provided that he could overcome by hard fighting the Englishmen who
dwelt in the land then, while they would help with all their might.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
61
ACTIVITIES
Q22. How convincing is the explanation in Source X of Edward Bruce’s reasons for
going to Ireland?
Headings for note-taking:
• Scottish connections with Ireland
• Value of Ireland to the English government
• Reasons for Scottish invasion
• Forerunners of the invasion
• Edward Bruce secures Ulster
• The winter campaign of 1315-16
• Carrickfergus Castle
• King Robert’s intervention in Ireland, 1317
• English initiatives in 1317
• Edward Bruce’s campaign of 1318
• Robert I’s interventions in Ireland,1327-28
Essay: Account for the failure of the Bruce intervention in Ireland.
Discussion: The role of Ireland in overall strategy.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
62
THE PROBLEM OF THE SUCCESSION IN ROBERT I’S REIGN
Robert I was married twice. His first wife was Isabel, daughter of Donald, earl of Mar.
She was the mother of Marjory (born before 1297), and died at some unknown date
before 1302. In 1302 Robert married Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter of Richard, earl of
Ulster. The marriage remained childless for the next four years, and from 1306 to
1314 the queen was a prisoner in England, as was her step-daughter, Marjory. After
her return, she bore two sons, David and John, and two daughters, Matilda and
Margaret. Only David’s date of birth is known, and John died in childhood.
The first attempt to settle the succession was the tailzie of 26 April 1315. Marjory had
returned from captivity, and although the return of Queen Elizabeth offered hope that
the king might have more children, and especially a son, Marjory was for the time
being his only child. His brother Edward was about to set out for Ireland. The
succession was to be: the king’ male heirs; failing them, Edward Bruce and his male
heirs; failing them, the succession was to revert to Marjory, as long as she was
married with the consent of the king, or, failing him (i.e. if Marjory was still
unmarried when he died), with the consent of the majority of the community of the
realm. This arrangement was made with the consent of the king and of Marjory,
described as his heir apparent. If there were a minority, Thomas Randolph, earl of
Moray, was to be regent. Marjory’s right as the king’s only child was thus set aside.
She seems to have been treated as a mere pawn in the game of succession (A. A. M.
Duncan has pointed out that she was given no title in the tailzie, not even as the Lady
Marjory), though the lack of sources for her life make it hard to judge. A. A. M.
Duncan comments: The arrangement is neither lawful nor logical, but a political
decision overriding law and custom by force of widespread consent. (Regesta Regum
Scottorum vol. v, The Acts of Robert I, p.63).
Between the tailzie of 1315 and the revised arrangements of 1318, Marjory married
Walter Stewart, gave birth to the future Robert II, and died. The dates of these events
are unknown. The king’s charter to Walter on his marriage is undated. The story that
Marjory fell from her horse near Paisley, gave birth to Robert and died, first appeared
in 1710 in Crawfurd’s History of Renfrewshire. The supposed date, Shrove Tuesday,
2 March 1316, first appeared in 1759 in a footnote to Walter Goodall’s edition of
Scotichronicon; the footnote seems to have been written by Goodall himself, since it
does not appear in any of the surviving manuscripts of Scotichronicon. In any case,
the date is impossible, since 2 March was not Shrove Tuesday in 1316 or in any other
possible year. Although this story and the date do not appear in modern scholarly
books, it has to be emphasised that there is no evidence for either. Barbour calls 1375
(presumably 25 March 1375 x 24 March 1376) Robert II’s sixtieth year. If correct,
that would place his birth between 25 March 1316 and 24 March 1317. According to
the Chronicle of Pluscarden, Marjory died in the year before 1318, and presumably
therefore between 25 March 1317 and 24 March 1318. Marjory was still unmarried
when the tailzie of 26 April 1315 was drawn up. Even if she married immediately
after that, the future Robert II is not likely to have been born before February 1316.
Therefore, if we place Robert’s birth in 1316 and Marjory’s death in 1317, we may
not be far wrong, but we can be no more precise.
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
63
By the time of the new arrangements for the succession on 3 December 1318, Edward
Bruce and Marjory were both dead (she is referred to as of good memory). Under its
terms, Robert I’s heirs would succeed. If the king left no surviving male heir, Robert
Stewart, Marjory’s son, would succeed. If there were a minority, the earl of Moray
would be regent or, failing him, Sir James Douglas.
The birth of the future David II on 5 March 1324 appeared to secure the succession in
the Bruce dynasty, and the arrangements of 1318 were confirmed in 1326. In one
sense David’s birth complicated the question, because there was a minority when
Robert I died in 1329. It also merely postponed the accession of the Stewart dynasty,
since David died childless in 1371 and was succeeded by Robert Stewart as Robert II.
ACTIVITIES
Headings for note-taking:
• Robert I’s children
• Tailzie of 1315
• The role of Marjory Bruce
• Revised arrangements for the succession in 1318.
Essay: Why was the succession to the throne a major issue during Robert I’s reign?
Discussion: How successful were Robert I’s arrangements for the succession?
History Support Materials: Scottish Independence: 1286 - 1329 (AH)
64