M. (Paul) Rapin de Thoyras.

The history of England : written in French (Volume 1) online

. (page 156 of 360)
Online LibraryM. (Paul) Rapin de ThoyrasThe history of England : written in French (Volume 1) → online text (page 156 of 360)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

ton, the youngeft of whom was his mother.

Robert de Ros called himfelf Iffue of Ifabella, e'deft
Daughter of King William, and Sifter of Alexander II.

John Comyn derived his claim higher, namely, from
Donald formerly King of Scotland.

John Baliol fet forth, that he was Son of Deverguld, el-
deft daughter of Margaret, the eldeft of the daughters of
David Earl of Huntington; and the race of King H> 'illiam
being extinct-, he was the next heir to the late Queen. It
mult be obferved, he took it for granted in his petition,
that Marjory and Ifabella, eldeft daughters of Alexander U,
died without lfiue, though Nicholas de Soules called himfelf
Son of the firft. After that, paffing over in filence Henry
IJabella, Ilda, Margaret, and Africa, children of King
William, from whom Galythly, Ros, Dunbar, Vefcy, and
Mandeville, profeffed themfelves defcendants, he proceeded
to the family of David, younger Brother to King William.
His filence leaves room to prefume, either theie competi-
tors had fallely fet forth their genealogies, or thofe from
whom they derived their defcent were baftards, otherwife
their iftue would have had more right to the crown than
David's. Accordingly we fhall fee in the fequel, that
their pretenfions were not regarded at all. It may be far-
ther oblerved, this favours what is faid by Buchanan, that
Edward ingaged eight candidates, befides Baliol and Bruce,
to demand the crown, on purpole to puzzle the caufe'
And indeed it is eafy to fee, that of all the above-named,
Baliol excepted, there was not one that had the Ieaft title
to the (ucceffion, fuppofing, as is very likely, that they
were defcended from baftards, and that Nicholas de Soules
had not truly fet forth his genealogy.

Robert Bruce alledged, that he was by one degree nearer
than Baliol, fince he was grandfon of David, whereas his
rival was only grandfon of his daughter. That indeed
Deverguld was in the fame degree with himfelf, but could
not claim the crown, becaufe it was the cuftom to prefer
the Males before the Females, in the fame decree of con-
fanguimty. To ftrengthen his title, he added" that Alex-
ander II, declared him his heir, in cafe he died without
liiue, and offered to prove it by living witnefles. More-
over, he maintained that Alexander III, always looked
upon him as his preemptive heir, and declared it to fuch
as were familiar with him.

All thefe petitions being read, and the King, fays the
Journal, willing to give the commiffioners time to ex-
amine them, appointed the fecond of June of the enfuine
year 1292 for another aflembly (3), where the candi-
dates might more fully urge their refpe&ive rights.

I fhall make ufe of this Interval to examine as briefly as
poffible, the grounds on which Edward built his right of
fovereignty o\er Scotland. We find them at laro- c in a
Memorial drawn by that Prince's order. And becaufe
this Memorial is frequently alledged by the Englijh authors
as^ containing the juftifying proofs of the right of fove-
reignty enjoyed immemorially by England, over Scotland
it will not be amifs to give an abftract thereof, to the end
the reader may be perfeaiy informed concernins; this mat-
ter. °


PROOFS alledged HjEdwakdI. to
ejlablij}) the Right of Sovereignty
of the Kings of EN G LAN D over

IN the year 901, Edward the Elder, King of Enrland
fubjeaed to his dominion the Kings of the Scots, Hum- II. p. ."59.
brians, and ll'eljh (4), as appears in the hiftories of Maria- M - Weft -
nus Scot us, Roger de Hovcdeu, and William of Mahmbury w 4 |t°' &c "
In the year 921 , the King of Scotland, Reginald King KniehtL
of the Danes, the Englijh of Northumberland, the King of

(1) None took theOath of Allegiance on 7^12, except Alan Bifhop of Caithnefs, the new Chancellor, and his Affociate. The Coimm.W. ,
ether I erlons, took .t the next Day, June .3. See Ryme.'s Toed. Tom. II. p. 557, 55S. Competitors, a

(2) In the mean time tie cliet Perfons in the Kingdom of Scotland, and the Citizens and Burgefles of each City and Town therein a-a a ■
AT^Jr ""r ?"V Wear *?•*»»■ t0 Ki "« *H*dl ^d the Inhabitants o< Ber,e,ci in particular, on June \o ZS>^ ^'^ '

ed Ralph Phelype, Robert Oliver, John de Knaptone, Thomas le Barber, Sec. See Rymor\ Feed. Tom. II. p. rt 7 - -c™. S ° m "" m ' nt '°

(3) A Parliament. Ibid. p. 5 So. * ' ■"

M It is in the Original StrtgetoaUonm, the fame as are called in the Saxon Annals, Stra-cledwcal.as. They were the Peonle ,„,, ■ k u: a l
llt'ilZfiZ "' and bei " S PCrPCtUa " y harraffed WUh thc lMUrfi0nS of thc ** and StM > mmi int0 ***** »b~t the RiVr Ct$ Set t




Book IX.



tgai. Wales and his fubjefls, chofc Edward the Elder for their
Father and Lord, and made a Itricl alliance with him.
Marianus Scotus, Roger de Hoveden.

In the Year 924, the lame Edward reigned over all
the inhabitants ot' Gnat-Britain, Englijh, Scots, Cumbri-
ans, Danes and Britons. Marianus Scotus, Roger de Ho-

In the Year 926, King Atheljlan, Son of Edward,
vanquifhed Conjlantine King of Scotland, together with
the King of the Wenti (t), and compelled them to fly.
After the victory they took an oath to him, and conclu-
ded an alliance with him at Emothc, July the 4th. Ma-
rianus Scotus, Roger de Hoveden.

We find in the Hiftories of William of Malmsbury,
Henry of Huntington, and Ralph de Diceto, that Athel-
jlan forced Conjlantine King of Scotland, to quit his
crown ; and afterwards gave him leave to refume it, on
condition he fhould hold it of the Kings of England,
faying, It was more glorious to make Kings, than to be

In 934, the fame Atheljlan vanquifhed Conjlantine, who
had revolted, and ravaged Scotland as far as Dunjerd.
Conjlantine gave him his Son in hoftage, with great pre-
fents, and a peace was concluded between them. Maria-
nus Scotus. Roger de Hoveden, Henry de Huntington,
Ralph de Diceto.

In the Year 937, Eugenius King of Cumberland, and
Conjlantine King of Scotland, met Atheljlan at Dacor, and
fubmitted to his mercy. Atheljlan, commanding Conjlan-
tine to caufe his Son to be baptized, flood godfather him-
lelf. William of Malmsbury.

In 940, Atheljlan was fucceeded by Edmund, who
reigned four years, during which the Scots revolted not.

In 947, Edred, Brother and Succcflbr of Edmund,
having vanquifhed the Northumbrians, carried his arms
into Scotland. The Scots fcized with fear, fubmitted
without refiflance, and fwore the fealty that was due to
him. Edred fet over the Scots a King, called Trie. Ma-
rianus Scotus, William of Malmsbury, Henry of Hunting-

In the Year 95;, Edwy was King of England after
Edred, and reigned four years, without any revolt of the

In 997, Edgar King of England having fummoned to
his court Keneth King of Scotland, Malcolm of Cumber-
land, and fix other Kings, made them row in his barge,
which he himfelf fleered. He faid upon that occafion, as
it is affirmed, that his fuccefiors might now boall of be-
ing really Kings of England, fince they enjoyed fo great a

Another time the fame Edgar being informed, that Ke-
neth had fpoken ill of him, fent for him to his court, and
walking with him into the fields, offered him the choice
of two Swords, to fight with him. Keneth refufed it, and
cafting himfelf at Edgar's feet, begged his pardon, and
obtained it. Marianus Scotus, Roger of Hoveden, Willi-
am of Malmsbury, Henry of Huntington, Ralph de Diceto.

During the reigns of Edward the Martyr, Ethelred II,
and Edmund lronfide, the Scots did not revolt.

In 1 01 7, Canute the Great, at his return from Rome,
in the 15th year of his reign, fubdued Scotland with eafe,
which had revolted, and King Malcolm was fubject to him.
Canute was King of England, Denmark, Norway and Scat-
land. Marianus Scotus, William of Malmsbury, Henry of
Huntington, Ralph de Diceto.

It does not appear that the Scots revolted, during the
reigns of Harold II, and Hardicanute.

In the reign of Edward the Confffor, Siward Earl of
Northumberland vanquifhed Mackbcth King of Scotland,
and flew him. After which, by the command of King
Edward, he placed Malcolm, Son of the King of Cum-
berland, on the throne of Scotland. Ibid.

There arc likewife thefe words in the hiftory of Wil-
liam of Malmsbury, King Edward gave the kingdom of
Scotland to Malcolm, Son of the King of Cumberland, ;■;
hold it of the Crown c/England.

There is nothing concerning the Scots, whilft Harold II
was on the throne of England.

William the Bajlard having marched into Scotland, in
the fixth year of his reign, Malcolm met him at Abcrncth,
where he did him homage, or became his Man. Chron.
of St. Albans.

In the fame chronicle it is faid, that William returned 1 291.
into England, after receiving the homage of Malcolm, and
fome holtages.

In the third Year of William Rufus, Malcolm revolting
and ravaging Northumberland, William, accompanied by
Robert his Brother, led hi-, army into Scotland, and made
peace with Malcolm, on condition that Malcolm fhould
obey him, as be obeyed William his Father. Mariai.u
Scotus, Roger de Hoveden.

Henry of Huntington fays, Malcolm, fcized Willi fear,
became King William's Man (2).

The fame King dethroned David of Scotland, and
placed Edgar, Son of Malcolm, in his room.

Edgar King of Scotland dying, Alexander I. his Bro-
ther, fucceeded him, by the content of Henry I, King of
England. Henry of Huntington.

Stephen King of England having demanded homage of
David King of Scotland, and upon his refuting it, becaufe
he had taken an oath to Matilda, Henry his Son did ho-
mage to King Stephen. Marianus Scotus, Henry of Hunt-
ington, Roger de Hoveden.

William King of Scotland, David Earl of Huntington
his Brother, the Earls and Barons of Scotland, did homage
to Henry II, King of England, and fwore fealty (3) to

In the Year 1 1 74, IVilliam King of Scotland ravaging
England, was taken prifoner and delivered to King Hen-
ry II, who fet him at liberty, on condition he fhoulu do
him homage for the kingdom of Scotland.

As the treaty between thefe two Kings has been fpoken of
elf where, it is ncedlefs to repeat it here. It fitfficcs :o Jay in
a word, that William, to obtain his liberty, was forced to
promife to do full homage to Henry II for the kingdom of
Scotland, and performed his word. This is the bjl prooj
in favour of Edward, and accordingly he chief y inji/ls upon
it in the Memorial ; entering into a long detail, which
amounts to what is above-related.

In the reign of Richard, the Scots are not found to re-
volt. On the contrary, William came to Canterbury, to
do homage to Richard.

Edward wifely pajfes over here in filence the Letters Pa-
tents of Richard I, whereby he relinquijhed the fovcreignty of
the kingdom of Scotland.

The fame William came and did homage to King John
at Lincoln, and fwore fealty to him upon the crols of Hu-
bert Archbifhop of Canterbury. Roger de Hoveden.

The fame King John would have made war upon Wil-
liam, for having, without his confent, married his Daugh-
ter to the Earl of Boulogne. This is extant in the chroni-
cle of the Monaftery of Bridlington. It is faid alio in the
chronicle of the Abbey of Kyngefwode, that William gave
his two daughters in hoftage to King John.

Henry III, in the 3 5th year of his reign, came to Yo> k,
to marry his Daughter to Alexander King of Scotland, and
the latter did there homage to the King of England. The
guardianfhip of the young King, and the regency of the
kingdom, were conferred on Robert de Ros and John Ba-
liol, by the advice of the great Men of both kingdoms.
Chron. of St. Albans.

To ftrengthen all thefe proofs, Edward heaped together
fome paffages, extracted from divers charters and feveral
Bulls, and from a Book intitled, The Life of St. John of

In a charter of Edgar King of Scotland, granted to
the Church of Durham, that Prince acknowledges, he
holds the Land of Londoney, and the whole kingdom of
Scotland, by the grant of William King of England his

In another charter, William King of Scotland grants
to King John of England his dear Lord, the power of
marrying Alexander his Son, Prince of Scotland, to whom
he pleafed. Moreover he promiies King John, that,
whatever happens, he and Prince Alexander his Son,
will be true to Henry, Son of John, as their Sovereign

In a brief of Gregory IX, that Pope ordered the Barons
of Scotland to join with the King of England againll their
own Prince, in cafe the latter fhould break the treaty
made with Henry II.

The fame Pope in another brief commanded the Arch-
bifhop of York, and the Bifhop of Carlijle, to perfuade
the King of Scotland to keep the treaty.

(.) In our printed Copies of Htmcdat, tbey are called Wtrtcrm. Seepage***. Edit. .1601. Probably Smtb-Wekt.

* That is, did him Homage, the Form ot which jou have in the feeond Statute « 7 Ed-.,. I. When a Freeman (hall do Homage, he ft U WJta
H.ind\ together between the Hands of his Lord, and Ihall fay thus on his Knees : / We your Man from tb.s OpfM, for Ljfi.fi 'f"Jj "" d J"
worldly Honour, and fall o-we you my Faitbfo, the Land I bold of you, favitg 1 be Fattb I owe to our Sovereign Lord the King, and:. my «*ri«* '«
ZK\cbMrkthy, in&ezi oil beiom, your Man, 1 do you Ihmage, and to you jhall be fa,tlful and loyal. ■■

(3) Fealty, from the Latin, F.dJtas : The Form ofit lee in Anno .4. £A». I. Stat. 2. When a Free-Man flulldo F, sally, he ft all J<dd h« R ,hr
Hand over the Book, and fay : Hear you, my Lord, that I A. B. /ball be to you faithful and true and/hall owe my Fealty H : . t ■ • « %**"* 1**
7fym, and truly JbJldoyou, be Cujlomt and Servioe, that I ought to doyou at tbetermt ajj.gned, fo be/f mtCcd, atdttttUSaintt. He .hat hoideth Land
ky this Oath only, holdeth in the freed manner that any Man in England under the K.ing may hold.


N» 19. Vol. I.



37 o

In another directed to the King of Scotland, the fame
' Pone told him, that fince he was Liege-Man of the King
of England, and hadfworn fealty to him, he ought not
to attempt any thing againft him.

Pope Clement writing to Henry King of England in be-
half of the Bifliop of St. Andrews, difpoffefled of his See
by the King of Scotland, requires him among other things,
to warn, exhort, and if neceilary, to force that Prince, by
the power committed unto him, to reftore the Bifhop.

The Proof taken from the Life of St. John of Beverly,
the author whereof is unknown, confifts of this narrative.
King Atheljtan carrying his arms into Scotland, meets by
the way certain people, who were juft cured of blindnds
and lamenefs, by the intercemon of St. John of Beverly.
Whereupon, he refolves to go and perform his devotions
in the Church where the body of this Saint lay. After
faying his prayers, he left his dagger on the altar, as a
pledge of what he had promifed the Saint, in cafe he fuc-
ceeded in his undertaking. Then entering Scotland, St.
John appears to him and affures him of his affiftance.
Upon this aflurance Atbcljlan attacks the Scots, and gains
a fignal victory. After that, he fubdued the whole king-
dom of Scotland, and frayed there three years. In his re-
turn to England, a great rock flood in his way, and he
brought God, through the mediation of St. John of Be-
verly, to give him fome flgn, whereby the fpedtators
might know, the Scots were juftly fubdued by the Englijh,
and the conquered kingdom ought for ever to pay tribute
to his fucceffors. Then drawing his fvvord, lie flruck
the rock, which yielded like butter, and made a hole in
it an ell deep. Whereupon the author adds, that this is
an evident fign Scotland was fubjected by the Englijh.

Edward produced fome other tefti monies, but without
naming his authors, to mew, the Lords of Galloway had
done homage to the King of England.

In 1 185, Roland Lord of Galloway fubmitted to the
King of England, fearing, as it is prefumed, fays the au-
thor, the power of that monarch, who was advancing
with a great army to make war upon him.

Henry II, King of England, having received the ho-
mage of Alan of Galloway, and of David Brother of King
William, returned into his dominions.

In the 2 2d year of Henry II, Gilbert Son of Fergus
Lord of Galloway came with the King of Scotland into
England; where he became Liege- Man of Henry the Fa-
ther, and fwore fealty to him. Which done, in order to
gain his good- will, he gave him a thoufand Marks of Sil-
ver, and his Son Duncan in hoftage.

Thcfe arc the proofs ufed by Edward to juftify his right
of fovcreignty ever Scotland. As it pafies for certain
among fcveral Englijh hiflorians, that Edward undeniably
proved his right from ancient chronicles, I imagined, the
reader would not be difpleafed to be able to judge for him-
ielf, without being obliged to recur to the writers of both
parties. For which reafon I have retrenched none of thefe
proofs, though fome of them are far enough from being

Certainly, there is reafon to think it ftrange that the
Scots fhoukl find nothing to object to thefe proofs, the
greateft part whereof are very weak, not to fay entirely
trifling. But it muff be confidered, they were in Eng-
land, ever-awed by the prefence of the King ; and that
Bruce and Baliol, who were in great credit, 'did all that
lay in their power to prevent any incidents that might re-
tard the decifion of the main affair. However, fince Ed-
ward fupported his pretenfions by the proofs fet forth in
the Memorial; and the Homage required of the Kings of
Scotland, was the fole caufe of the war which was after-
wards kindled between the two nations; it will not be
needlefs toclesr this matter a little, by adding what the Scots
might have alledged againft the proofs, if powerful mo-
tives had not induced them to keep filence; and what they
actually did object, in more favourable circumftances.

In the firft place, they might fay, it was neceffary to
diftinguifh two things, which Edward affected to con-
found in this Memorial ; namely, the fuperiority of the
forces of the Kings of England, and their frequent advan-
tages over the Scots, from the pretended acknowledgment
made by the Kings of Scotland, that they held their crown
of the Kings of England. The latter was the main point
in difpute, and yet the proofs alledged in the Memorial
chiefly relate to the former.

2. The bufinefs was not to prove in general, that the
Kings of Scotland were frequently conftrained to make dif-
advantagious treaties, and afterwards fwear to them: The
acts themfelves mould have been produced, and fhewn to
contain an exprefe acknowledgment of the fbvereignty of
the Kings of England over Scotland. It was farther necef-

Vol. L

fary to prove the continuation of this acknowledgment by r iql.
the homages of the Kings of Scotland upon every new ac-
ccilion to the thrones of both kingdoms, according to the
conftant cuftom practiled by Vaf'.ais for many ages fince.
But this was not done by Edward.

3. When Edgar, King of Scotland, owned in his char-
ter to the Church of Durham, that he held his kingdom of
William Rufus, that acknowledgment did not import a
confelTion that the crown of Scotland depended on that
of England. It was only a declaration, that by the af-
fiftance of the King of England he had mounted the
throne of Scotland, feized by an ufurper, as appears in the

4. This fame charter, one of Edward's principal proofs,
is affirmed to be a forgery by the Scotch writers, and op-
pofed with fuch ftrong chronological arguments, as fcem
to demand our aflent.

5. As to what paffed between Henry II, and William. Anderfon'i
King of Scotland, it is very true, William did full ho- E Jf^.'
mage for his whole kingdom. But it is no lefs certain, it

was in confequence of a treaty, where that homage was
exprcfly ftipulatcd for the captive King's liberty. And
therefore it is evident, he was not fubject to it before, fince
there was need of binding him to it by a treaty. And this
is what would never have been thought of, unlefs the war
had been undertaken on account of that homage, which is
not tact. Befides, this homage, which was only a confe-
quence of William's captivity, was not continued by his
fucceffors; fince Richard, Son of Hem y, entirely renoun-
ced it, as we have feen in the reign of that Prince.

6. As for the reft of the proofs, which are much weaker,
they are not only taken from Englifn writers, or fubjects
of England, who for the moft part lived long after the
events they relate ; but are founded on uncertain expref-
fions, which do not necefiarily bear the fenfe contended
for by Edward.

7. Had Edward no other proofs to alledge, but the
teftimonies of fome partial hiflorians ? Why did he not
produce the homages of the ancient Kings of Scotland,
as he did that of William to Henry II ? If the thing
had been only to prove the homage for the Earldom of
Huntington, he would have, had no cccafion to rummage
the hiflorians ; his own records would have fupplied him
with proofs. What is the reafon then, that it was more
difficult to preferve the homages for the kingdom of
Scotland ? If the King of France could have proved his
fovereignty over Guienne, and the Earldom of Pcnthicu,
only by gafiages taken from French authors, there is room
to qucftion, whether Edward would have fubmitted to da
hiin homage for thefe two Provinces.

8. The Scots might aliedge, that when Henry III de-
manded the King of Scotland's affiftance againft the Earl
of Lciccjhr, he owned in exprel's terms, that the af-
fiftance was given him out of friendfhip, and liot out
of duty.

9. The fame Henry would have had Alexander III, his
Son-in-law, do homage for the Kingdom of Scotland; but
Alexander refilled it, and would not do it for the Lands he
held in England.

10. Edward himfelf being defirous, that the fame Alex-
ander III, his Brother-in-law, fhould affift at his coio-
nation, gave him Letters Patents ; acknowledging, that
the prefence of that Prince was not of duty, and that
lie affifted at the folemnity only out of friendfhip, and
to do him honour, without being any ways obliged

1 1 . When the fame Alexander did homage to Edward^
he made an authentick declaration, that he did not mean
to do homage for the kingdom of Scotland, but only for
the Lands he held in England, and his homage was recei-
ved with that limitation.

1 2. The Scots might fay farther, that the homage done
for the Lands in England, though paid by a Scoiijb King,
had no manner of relation to the kingdom of Scotland. In
like manner, the King of England, in doing homage to
the Kings of France, did not intend to make the kingdom.
of England dependent on the crown of France, but only to
acknowledge the dependency of the Lands they held in that

13. Laftly, Homage was frequently paid for penfions;
for inftance, the Earls of Flanders did it to the Kings of
England upon that account, as did the Earl of Savoy,
for a penfion of two hundred Marks. So that barely
to fhew that the Kings of Scotland did homage to the
Kino's of England, was no proof of the point in que-
ftion. It fhould have been proved, that thefe homages
were for the kingdom of Scotland, either by Letters Pa-
tents of the Kings of Scotland themfelves, or by the In-
ftruments of the homager well attefted, according to the
ufuaJ cuftom. But Edward produced no other act, but


Book IX.

9. E D W A R D I.


- 1 1



StQUtl of the

Affair of the
June 12.
Act. Pub.

ilfaeflion pro-
fofediy Eii-
ward, and
left undeci-

He propofa
three Que-

oaob. 13,


Rrafctis al-
ledgedby Wo-
fcert Bruce.

tliat of William's forced homage, renounced by King Ri-

As to the pallages extracted from the Papal Bulls, they
could amount to no proof, fmce the Sots did not deny
that their Kings were Vafials to Evgland. for the Earldom
of Huntington, and other Lands on the Frontiers. But
they denied them to be ft) for the kingdom of Scotland,
which the Bulls did not affirm.

I fay nothing of the extract taken from the Life of St.
John of Beverly, fince there is reafon to doubt that Ed-
ward ferioufiy intended to draw a proof from fo ill-at-
teftcd, or feather fo ridiculous a miracle, and from a hi-
ftory, whole author is unknown.

Thele anfwers are not arguments made by me for the
Scots. • .The greater! part arc the fame that Boniface VIII
ul'ed in his Letter to Edward, to diiiuade him from any
attempt upon Scotland, as will he leen hereafter. Let us

Online LibraryM. (Paul) Rapin de ThoyrasThe history of England : written in French (Volume 1) → online text (page 156 of 360)