Saint Bartholomew’s Eve, Monday 23 August 1305

 John Reuben Davies, Research Associate

William Wallace died on Monday 23 August 1305 at the Elms, an area of Smithfield in the City of London. The manner of Wallace’s end is generally known, not least because of a film released in 1995.[1] The more committed students of Wallace have descriptions written by fourteenth-century monastic chroniclers to inform them; these accounts give sufficient detail of the method of execution to unsettle any humane person. There is some slight difference between, on the one hand, the reported directions for Wallace’s punishment delivered by the justices at his trial and, on the other hand, the account of the execution itself given by the Westminster chronicler. The sequence of events can nevertheless be put together in the following way.[2] As a traitor, Wallace was drawn to the gallows on a hurdle by horses through the streets of London; as a robber and homicide he was hanged by the neck until not quite dead; still alive, although probably unconscious, he was cut down in order that, as a desecrator of churches, he could be deprived of his genitals and internal organs, which were then burned on a fire; finally, as an outlaw, his head was cut off. The spectacle complete, the head was displayed on LondonBridge and the rest of the body divided into four parts. The dismembered corpse was sent northwards to Scotland, with one quarter being deposited on the way for display at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the other three parts going in turn to Berwick-upon-Tweed, St Johnstone (that is, Perth), and Stirling (although the chronicler of Lanercost thought the last was Aberdeen).

Wallace’s execution is a classic scene from one of history’s great tragedies: the death of a national hero, a bloodthirsty judicial killing, the demonstrative and exemplary justice of an English king. The principal actors are at centre-stage, and the critics have laid down their review of the performance for posterity. Behind the set, meanwhile, rarely visible, history’s stagehands have been working the pulleys, preparing the costumes, prompting the actors. And all along, the master playwright has been composing and adjusting the script, adapting the plot as circumstances demand and as inspiration suggests.

Let us now return to the scene of Wallace’s most famous victory – a victory accomplished in conjunction with, if not under the leadership of, Andrew Murray – which led, upon Murray’s death, to Wallace’s sole guardianship of the realm of Scotland, and to the charges upon which he was condemned, and the crimes for which he was executed. One important account of the battle, written at Lanercost Priory in Cumberland, uniquely preserves an unsavoury episode, an act of bloodthirsty – and to the modern mind, even psychopathic – vengeance by Wallace, perpetrated in the dénouement of the confrontation between the Scottish ‘rebels’ and the forces loyal to King Edward.[3]

[The Scots] allowed as many of the English to cross the bridge as they could hope to overcome, and then, having blocked the bridge, they slaughtered all who had crossed over, among whom perished the Treasurer of England, Hugh de Cressingham, of whose skin William Wallace caused a broad strip to be taken from the head to the heel, to make therewith a baldrick for his sword.

It was in this beginning, it would seem, that Edward later decided Wallace should find his end.

The manner of William Wallace’s execution, by drawing, hanging,  evisceration, beheading, and quartering, was not a novelty. We know of several other men who had served as precedents for Wallace’s judicial butchering. The most closely analogous case, and one which showed that justice under Edward I had form in this respect, was Dafydd ap Gruffudd, prince of Gwynedd, who died at Shrewsbury in 1283.[4]

Because he was a betrayer of the lord king, who had made him a knight, he was drawn by horses at a slow pace to the place of hanging. Because he had committed the homicide of Fulk Trigald, and of other noblemen of England, he was hanged alive. Because he did it during Passiontide, on account of his blasphemy his innards were burned on the fire. Because he had plotted the death of the king in many places in England, his limbs were divided, and sent throughout the regions of England as a warning to evil-doers. And his head was placed on a very high stake in the Tower of London, facing outwards; and this was done during the eleventh year of the aforesaid lord, King Edward.

Edward I was not an innovator, however, in this variety of punishment. A man who had tried to kill Edward’s father, Henry III, had been drawn, hanged, beheaded and quartered in 1238. In the Pipe Roll for 1237–8, we find this ‘traitor’ hanged and drawn at Coventry; his dismembered body-parts sent to Northampton, Gloucester, Nottingham, as well as Coventry itself. Only in Matthew of Paris’s account do we have a full description of the crime, capture, and execution of this ‘literate man-at-arms’ (armiger literatus), who made an attempt on the king’s life.[5] In a related case, William Marsh was ‘divided and drawn through the cities [presumably of Westminster and London]’. Again, Matthew of Paris provides the full details of the capture, trial and execution, explaining that Marsh was implicated in the attempt made on the king’s life by the armiger literatus in 1238.[6] William Marsh seems to be the only precedent for a convict of treason being brought to London for execution. The most prominent rebel of Henry III’s reign, Simon de Montfort, was the victim of an ad hoc military assassination in the Battle of Evesham in 1265. The man-at-arms, Henry III’s would-be assassin, had been executed at Coventry; Dafydd, the Welsh traitor, at Shrewsbury; and another Welsh rebel, Rhys ap Maredudd, ‘the king’s enemy’, at York in 1291.[7] The bringing of the victim to London, rather than the more rapid execution at or near the place of capture, was not an established custom.

Wallace had been captured near Glasgow on 5 August, and could have been dealt with at any number of places in southern Scotland or northern England. Instead, Edward took the risk of having him transported to London over a period of nearly three weeks. One is forced to suspect that the English king had something special in mind.

And indeed he did, since William Wallace’s capture had occurred at a propitious moment. His execution could be timed to form the opening  pageant – a crowd-pleasing entertainment – for England’s largest communal event, the Bartholomew Fair, which began on Saint Bartholomew’s Eve, 23 August, and lasted a further two days. Hence the place of Wallace’s execution, outside the priory church of St Bartholomew the Great in the City of London; St Bartholomew being the patron saint of butchers; the church  being situated beside Smithfield, the famous meat market.[8]

There is, however, one further contrived coincidence in the timing of Wallace’s end. Saint Bartholomew the apostle is not only patron saint of butchers, but is famously the patron saint of tanners, for the apostle’s martyrdom had been perpetrated by flaying. In other words, like Hugh Cressingham, who had been the victim of Wallace’s vengeful trophy-hunting, Saint Bartholomew had been skinned by his persecutors. King Edward was pulling off what we might now call an act of poetic justice.

The chroniclers pointed to the date, to the vigil of Saint Bartholomew, but we must admit that no explicit association was made between the suffering of Saint Bartholomew and the quasi-martyrdom of Cressingham, who died as a witness to the truth of Edward’s claim to overlordship. Yet one cannot help thinking that Edward I had a fertile and associative imagination. Perhaps this was Edward’s private joke: one imagines the smug self-satisfaction of the English king who had written and directed the final scene of Wallace’s life to such dramatic effect.

But as Edward’s clerks inscribed ‘Exit Wallace’ at the end of the folio, others were taking up the pen; for if history is written by the victors, King Edward’s script for the Scottish war would soon become redundant.

Dauvit Broun (PI)

Attention was drawn in Ian Stone’s Feature of the Month for November 2012 (‘William Wallace: traitor to the king of Scotland?’) to how Edward I was referred to as ‘king of England and Scotland’ in a brief account of Wallace’s death-sentence given in a contemporary London source, Liber de Antiquis Legibus.[2] Edward, of course, never regarded himself as king of Scotland. As far as he was concerned, he was, as king of England, ‘superior and direct lord’ of Scotland, and as such had assumed direct rule after removing his vassal, King John Balliol, in 1296.[3] Indeed, Professor Archie Duncan has shown that Edward went to great pains in 1296–7 to ensure that the record of the Scots’ submission to him in June 1291, when he first pressed his claim to jurisdiction over Scotland as a condition of resolving the crisis in succession to the Scottish throne, was rewritten in order to establish that, from the very beginning, he had acted as ‘superior and direct lord’—something that Scottish leaders at the time sought desperately to deny.[4] And yet this hard won legal position was lost on the Londoner who wrote that Wallace was condemned for committing treason against Edward ‘king of England and Scotland’. As Ian Stone pointed out, in the Ordnance for the government of Scotland, drawn up at the parliament that assembled Westminster on 15 September 1305, Edward had even ceased to regard Scotland as a kingdom at all, referring to it simply as the ‘land of Scotland’.[5]

‘Unofficial’ views of Edward I’s rule of Scotland?

Ian Stone has identified the anonymous author of this section of Liber de Antiquis Legibus as probably someone connected with London’s local administration. Such a person would not have been ignorant of legal niceties. It is striking, nevertheless, that the author failed to take heed of the basis of Edward I’s governance of Scotland as this was asserted by Edward I himself. Looking again at what this London chronicler wrote, he did not need to say any more after writing ‘treason committed against the aforesaid Edward’; as Ian Stone pointed out, the addition of ‘king of England and Scotland’ is both unnecessary and unexpected. And yet this London clerk (humble or holding office, we cannot say)—no doubt writing straight onto the parchment, without any prior drafting—seems to have yielded to a desire to give some indication of Edward’s authority in Scotland. By referring to Edward as king of England and Scotland, he evidently envisaged Edward as ruler of a union of two kingdoms—an idea that could have been inspired by the symbolism of the incorporation of the Stone of Scone (on which Alexander III and John Balliol had been inaugurated as king of Scots) within the coronation chair of St Edward at Westminster Abbey, something that Londoners are bound to have known. Whether this London chronicler put in writing what was a common local perspective, or represented a view held by him alone, his extraordinary statement raises the question of how Edward’s rule in Scotland was understood more widely by the army of administrators (and others with the ability to write) who were such a prominent part of English public life revolving chiefly around the rhythms of royal government and law. How unusual was our chronicling clerk in London in 1305 in being so out of step with the ‘official’ view of Edward’s authority in conquered Scotland?

A clear answer to this question would be unlikely to emerge even if a thorough trawl of all the incidental references to Edward in Scotland could be accomplished. What survives would only give us direct access to a fraction of the writing-literate population. It would also be unsurprising if an inconsistent range of views were revealed. Nevertheless, the question is sufficiently intriguing to make it worthwhile keeping an eye out for other humble attempts in England to articulate Edward I’s position in Scotland. This Feature of the Month concerns one of these that came to light only last week in the National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth.

The item on Scottish history in NLW MS Peniarth 335

The manuscript has been identified by Daniel Huws, former Keeper of Manuscripts at the National Library of Wales, as largely the work of a single scribe writing in the mid-fourteenth century.[6] By the fifteenth century it was probably in the province of York (judging by a prayer at the end for the feast of the translation of St John of Beverley, on fo. 191v). In his description of the manuscript Daniel Huws has identified the first item (fos 3r–61r: fos 1 and 2 are old flyleaves) as a work attributed to Aristotle (Sectretum secretorum), followed (fos 61v–75v) by Brevis relatio de Willelmi nobilissimo comite Normannorum, ‘A brief account of William [the Conqueror], the most noble count of Normandy’,[7] finishing with a section praising Henry I, followed by the text on Scottish history (fos 76r–90v) whose first part is edited and translated below. The next item is a copy of Pope Innocent III’s De contemptu mundi (‘Despising the world’) followed by the apocryphal Life of Adam and Eve (fos 131r–140r), the legend of the oil of mercy and the wood of the Cross (fos 140v–146r), a verse on the three Marys (fo. 146r), and some more apocryphal texts (fos 146v–182v: one or more gatherings have been lost after fo. 165). The original scribe’s activity ends with a collection of religious verses (fos 182v–185v), to which a number of other verses of a similar nature have been added in the fifteenth century, concluding with the prayer for the feast of the translation of St John of Beverley (fos 186r–191v). The last piece of writing (also in the fifteenth century) is a short list of debts added on an old flyleaf (fo. 192r): most of it has been erased.

The item on Scotland (fos 76r–90v) consists largely of copies of documents prompted by Edward I or issued by him. The latest is the response by Edward, dated 7 May 1301, to Pope Boniface VIII’s bull condemning Edward’s attack on Scotland. The dossier is preceded by a list of kings of Scots from Cinaed mac Ailpín (d. 858) that concludes with an account of how Edward asserted his overlordship in 1291 following the extinction of the royal line on the death of Margaret, granddaughter of Alexander III (given erroneously as after Easter in 1291: Margaret in fact died in September 1290). In the course of the king-list Edward is referred to as the current king of England. This means that the text was originally composed before Edward I’s death on 7 July 1307. It can therefore be dated to sometime between 7 May 1301 and 7 July 1307.

As a piece of history-writing, the material prefacing the collection of documents is almost skeletal in its simplicity. When the prose stretches beyond the confines of the regnal list it soon becomes clumsy and the chronology confused.[8] The crude use of a word (gener) or phrase (maiores natu Scocie) is also notable, suggesting that the author had merely a functional grasp of Latin.[9] The only occasion when the text expands into something approaching a narrative is in its description of Edward I’s takeover of Scotland in May–June 1291. This is, if anything, even more strikingly ‘off message’ than the Londoner’s reference to Edward as ‘king of England and Scotland’.

Edward I’s takeover of Scotland, May–June 1291

What actually occurred in 1291, it seems, is that Edward I appeared at Norham on the border in belated response to the request of Scottish leaders for arbitration between the two claimants to the throne: John Balliol and Robert Bruce (grandfather of King Robert I). To the dismay of the Scots, Edward I then insisted that he was superior lord of Scotland, and demanded that this be acknowledged. After weeks of delays and negotiations, the impasse was broken when Edward’s lordship was recognised by all claimants to the Scottish throne: by then the number had risen from two to nine (at Edward’s prompting).[10] Even so, royal castles were only surrendered to Edward not as overlord but as a (tenth) claimant standing for the claimants as a whole: Edward threw his hat into the ring not with any real intent to become king of Scots himself (the basis of his claim was remarkably tenuous), but merely as a device in order to gain possession of the kingdom (which was vital if his lordship over Scotland was to be legally established).[11]

It will be recalled that Edward I, following his conquest of Scotland in 1296, commissioned a highly selective account of the proceedings in May–June 1291 (known as the ‘Great Roll’) to be written so that it would appear that the Scots had willingly acknowledged his claim to be their lord, yielding peaceful possession of the kingdom to him on that basis. Archie Duncan has argued that this ‘official’ account is so misleading that it is ‘truly the Great Illusion, inflated with rhetoric, riddled with suppressions, misstatements and chronological absurdities’.[12] Be this as it may, the crucial point is that, by 1296, it was necessary for Edward to present the events of May–June 1291 in this way because the Scots had by 1295 persuaded the pope to release them from their oaths to Edward, insisting that these had been given under duress.[13] For Edward to justify his conquest of Scotland in 1296, he had to establish that the oaths of fealty he had received in 1291 were given freely in full acknowledgement of his superior lordship. The ‘Great Roll’, as a notarial instrument, was the most legally potent form of record which could be deployed in order to achieve this.[14] The conquest of a neighbouring Christian kingdom—a kingdom whose separate existence had been acknowledged by popes for over a century—would, at the time, have seemed unnatural and alarming. Edward had every reason to bolster his position the best way he could for the eyes of Latin Christendom.

All this is lost on the author of our text. According to his account, the claimants submitted to Edward only because he had appeared with an army and threatened to crush the Scots and annex their lands if they continued to resist his ‘ancient right’ to take possession of Scotland as its lord. The more accomplished chroniclers were perfectly capable of describing the events of May–June 1291 in a way that Edward would have approved of thoroughly.[15] The brief account in this humble text stands in sharp contrast. Indeed, if Scottish leaders had read it, they would have endorsed it wholeheartedly. Scottish delegates at peace talks held at Bamburgh in 1321, for example, had claimed that Edward had threatened to use armed force to assert his lordship.[16] This immediately begs the question: could the text have been written in Scotland?

The origin of the item on Scottish history in NLW MS Peniarth 335

It will be recalled that there is some indication that the manuscript was in northern England in the fifteenth century. The manuscript itself is about a century older. Even if it could be demonstrated conclusively that it was produced in England, however, this would not show that the item on Scottish history, datable to 1301 × 1307, was written in England. The only evidence that is available to determine this is the text itself. On the face of it, the bald account of Edward’s bullying of the Scots into submission in 1291 points to a Scottish author. This would be especially persuasive if the documents, which form the bulk of the text, stopped with John Balliol’s homage to Edward, or with Pope Boniface VIII’s denial of Edward’s lordship of Scotland. The whole work could then be seen as a rather crude Scottish explanation of how they, despite being a kingdom for centuries, had ended up under Edward’s lordship. But the text does not end there. Instead it finishes with the English barons’ assertion that Scotland was a domestic matter that should be no concern of the pope’s, preceded by Edward’s detailed justification of his lordship of Scotland, and how the conquest of 1296 had been a necessary reaction to the disloyalty of the Scots. It would be a bit farfetched to suppose that an English copyist has added these but not altered the account of how Edward asserted his lordship in 1291. The text is, presumably, as we find it: a record of Edward’s ‘superior and direct lordship’ over Scotland. Looking again at how the events of 1291 are presented, there is no suggestion that Edward I was wrong to claim lordship. Even more to the point, the text was written after Edward had, in fact, used overwhelming force in 1296 to re-establish his authority in Scotland. The text could, indeed, have been written after Edward’s second conquest of 1304. For someone in England writing an unsophisticated account of the pivotal events of 1291 at least ten years afterwards, without access to written sources apart from a king-list and copies of at least six documents from 1291 to 1301, it could have seemed likely that, in 1291, the Scots resisted Edward and Edward had then cowed them into submission by threatening to do then what he later did to them in 1296.

What about the list of kings of Scots from Cinaed mac Ailpín? It might be expected that this would be more readily available to a Scottish rather than an English author. In fact, on closer inspection, it adds further weight to the growing suspicion that the text was written in England. There are many copies of Scottish king-lists available: this one has not been noted before. It is easy to make mistakes when copying a text of this kind. A king can be omitted, or kings can swap places; Roman numerals are particularly unstable, too. Most of the names in this instance are Gaelic, so there is the added risk that they will be garbled by scribes unfamiliar with them. There are examples of all these kinds of error in this copy of the king-list.[17] Some could have been caused by the scribe of the manuscript itself in the mid-fourteenth century, and others by the author of the king-list-plus-documents writing 1301 × 1307. Yet more could have been mistakes by the scribe of the exemplar of the king-list used directly as a source by our author. The most significant errors to look out for when analysing a copy of a king-list are those that are also found in other copies. By building up a profile of these shared mistakes it is possible to establish that copies belong to the same family that are descended ultimately from an earlier copy. Typically the ancestral copy no longer survives. In the case of the copy of the king-list in this text, it belongs to a family of seven other copies. All but one (a truncated copy written 1198 × 1214 and eventually inserted into the Chronicle of Melrose) are found in English manuscripts.[18] The earliest of these was written in 1291; the rest are fourteenth-century. Our manuscript-copy (NLW Peniarth 335) belongs to a branch of the family with four other copies.[19] All are English. Its closest relative is in a manuscript datable to probably 1380: its copy of the king-list is remarkable for reckoning Edward I as king of Scots for eleven years (presumably from 1296 to his death in 1307)—a parallel with the London chronicler who in 1305 (or very shortly thereafter) referred to Edward as ‘king of England and Scotland’ (as noted by Ian Stone).[20] Both this manuscript and the copy in our text are ultimately descended from a copy datable to the reign of Alexander III (1249–1286).[21] This in turn hails from a copy, datable to the reign of William the Lion (1165–1214), which was either written in England or taken to England from Scotland.[22] All in all, there seems to be little doubt that the exemplar of the king-list used by whoever combined it with the six documents from 1291–2 and 1301 to create our text, sometime in 1301 × 1307, was itself written in England from an earlier English copy of the Scottish king-list. This means that the Scottish king-list in our text, ironically, provides the firmest textual indication that our text was written in England.

Conclusions

Here, then, we have an unsophisticated English view of how Edward came to rule Scotland. Like the ‘Great Roll’, its version of events in May–June 1291 was conditioned by the fact of Edward’s conquest of Scotland in 1296. In complete contrast to the ‘Great Roll’, however, it presented 1291 as a bloodless occupation achieved by wielding military might. Instead of creating a picture of Scottish submission by their own free will that would provide a justification for the subsequent use of force, as in the ‘Great Roll’, it appears that the author read back from the conquest to explain how Edward had succeeded in securing the fealties and homage recorded in the first three documents copied in the text. In doing so, our author joined the chronicling London clerk in showing that Edward’s rule in Scotland could be understood by literate Englishmen in ways that would surely have horrified Edward and his government.

Finally, it is striking that both the London chronicler and the author of our humble text assumed that Scotland was a separate kingdom. In one case it was imagined that, if an English king exercised direct lordship there, he was presumably king of Scotland. In the other case the submission of a long-established kingdom in 1291 was best explained by supposing that overwhelming force had been threatened. It is possible to detect in each a deep-seated difficulty with the concept of one kingdom under the direct lordship of another king—the exact point which Edward I was so keen to emphasise in the ‘Great Roll’. Perhaps our authors failed to grasp this because it seemed unnatural. Like the Scottish leaders in 1291, they could contemplate one king performing homage to another. Anything more than this that disturbed a kingdom’s jurisdictional integrity may, however, have been too strange for them to comprehend.

These two examples are hardly sufficient to reach broad conclusions about a disjunction between the perspectives of government and people at large. They do, at least, show that this is a significant consideration when trying to understand Edward’s Scottish policy as this was understood at the time. This may be especially the case when considering the broader context of assumptions about kingdoms.

NLW MS PENIARTH 335 (olim Hengwrt 239)

TEXT

/fo. 76r/ Generacio Regum Scocie

Hec est generacio Regum Scocie post tempus Pixtorum.[23] Kynath filius Alpini fuit primus Rex Scotorum et regnauit .xv. annis Douenald’ filius Alpini regnauit .iiii^or annis. Constantinus filius Kynath; regnauit .xx. annis. Ath filius Kynath. regnauit vno anno. Girgus filius Dunegal; regnauit .x. annis. Duuenald’ filius Costestini. regnauit .xi. annis. Costestinus filius Ath; .xv. annis. Malculmus filius Douenald’ .xx. annis. Indolf filius Costentini; .ix. annis. Duf filius Malculmi; iiii. annis et vi. mensibus. Kynath filius Duf vno anno et iii mensibus. Culen filius Indolf. .iiii. annis et vi. mensibus. Malculmus filius Kynath. iii. annis. Duncan nepos suus .v. annis et ix mensibus. Matbeth filius Finley. .xvii. annis. Liclan[24] regnauit postea .iii. mensibus et dimidio. Malculmus filius Duncan. xxxvii. annis et dimidio et iiii mensibus. Iste fuit vir Sancte Margarete Regine Scocie. Douenald’ frater ipsius Malculmi regnauit .iii. annis et vi mensibus. Duncan filius Malculmi dimidio anno. Edgardus filius Malculmi .ix. annis. Alexander filius Malcolmi .xvi. annis et .iii. mensibus. Nobilis Dauid frater ipsius Alexandri xxxix. annis. Malcolmus filius comitis Henrici filii Regis Dauid .xii. annis dimidio. et iii. /fo. 76v/ mensibus. Nobilis Rex Willelmus frater Malcolmi. L. annis. Gentilis Rex Alexander filius ipsius Willelmi .xxxvi. annis. Nobilis Rex Alexander filius ipsius Alexandri .xxxiiii. annis. De quo Margareta quam gener de Margareta filia Regis Henrici filii Regis Johannis sorore scilicet Regis Edwardi nunc que Margareta filia predictorum Regis Alexandri et Regine Margarete nupsit Regi Norwagie qui genuerunt Margaretam que mortua est in virginitate sua anno domini millesimo cco. nonagesimo primo post Pascha. Cuius morte audita; dominus Edwardus Rex Anglie mandauit seisire in manu sua regnum Scocie saluo cuique iure suo tanquam dominus illius regni ex antique iure. Set Scoti resistebant ei nec sinebant sic fieri; Vnde ipse Rex Anglie indignatus post Pascha proxima sequens accessit in propria persona cum manu valida apud Norham, et ibi conuocauit omnes maiores natu Scocie, vt si vellent adhuc resistere ei vi opprimeret eos et terram eorum sibi subiceret. Qui agnoscentes eius insuperabilem potestatem et propriam debilitatem; fecerunt pacem cum eo in forma subscripta.

TRANSLATION

Descent of the kings of Scotland

This is the descent of the kings of Scotland after the era of the Picts.

Cinaed son of Ailpín was the first king of Scots and reigned for 15 years.

Domnall son of Ailpín reigned for 4 years.

Causantín son of Cinaed reigned for 20 years.

Aed son of Cinaed reigned for one year.

Giric son of Dúngal reigned for 10 years.

Domnall son of Causantín reigned for 11 years.

Causantín son of Aed, for 15 years.

Mael Coluim son of Domnall, for 20 years.

Illulb son of Causantín, for 9 years.

Dub son of Mael Coluim, for 4 years and 6 months.

Cinaed son of Dub, for one year and three months.

Cuilén son of Illulb, for 4 years and 6 months.

Mael Coluim son of Cinaed, for 3 years.

Donnchad his grandson, for 5 years and 9 months.

Mac Bethad son of Findlaech, for 17 years.

Lulach reigned afterwards for 3 months and a half.

Mael Coluim son of Donnchad, for 37 years and a half and 4 months. He was the husband of St Margaret, queen of Scotland.

Domnall brother of that Mael Coluim reigned for 3 years and 6 months.

Donnchad son of Mael Coluim, for half a year.

Edgar son of Mael Coluim, for 9 years.

Alexander son of Mael Coluim, for 16 years and 3 months.

Noble David brother of that Alexander, for 39 years.

Mael Coluim son of Earl Henry son of King David, for 12 years and a half and three months.

Noble King William brother of Mael Coluim, for 50 years.

Gentle King Alexander son of that William, for 36 years.

Noble King Alexander son of that Alexander, for 34 years, from whom Margaret, who was the offspring[25] of Margaret daughter of King Henry son of King John, i.e. sister of Edward now king. This Margaret, daughter of the aforementioned King Alexander and Queen Margaret, married the king of Norway, and begat Margaret, who died a virgin in the year of Our Lord 1291, after Easter. Hearing of her death, the Lord Edward, king of England, ordered the kingdom of Scotland to be taken into his possession from ancient right as lord of that kingdom, saving its right to whoever it be.[26] But the Scots withstood him, not allowing this to happen. As a result the king of England, enraged, advanced in person, after the next Easter following, with a strong force at Norham and there called together all the greater men of Scottish birth[27] so that, if they still wished to withstand him, he would crush them by force and annex their lands. They, recognising his insuperable power and their own weakness, made peace with him in the manner written below.

There then follows copies of documents:[28]

No. 1 (fos 76v–77r): agreement by competitors to receive justice from Edward I (Stones, Anglo-Scottish Relations, no. 17, pp. 112–15).

No. 2 (fos 77v–78r): grant of sasine of Scotland to Edward I (T. Rymer (ed.), Foedera, Conventiones, Litteræ, et cujuscunque generis Acta Publica inter Reges Angliæ et alios, i, part 2, 755).

No. 3 (fos 78r–79r): John Balliol’s homage to Edward I (Stones, Anglo-Scottish Relations, no. 20, pp. 126–9).

No. 4 (fos 79r–83r): Pope Boniface VIII’s bull, Scimus fili (Stones, Anglo-Scottish Relations, no. 28, pp. 162–75).

No. 5 (fos 83r–89v): Edward I’s letter to Pope Boniface VIII, 7 May 1301, in response to Scimus fili (Stones, Anglo-Scottish Relations, no. 30, pp. 192–219).

No. 6 (fos 89v–90v): letter of English barons in parliament in Lincoln, 12 February 1301, to Pope Boniface VIII, in response to Scimus fili (Rymer (ed.), Foedera, i, part 2, 926–7).

Dauvit Broun (PI)

This Feature of the Month is about the recent discovery of a complete text of a letter from Robert I to Edward II. (An edition and translation are given at the end.) It has previously been known only as a copy in the letter-book of Richard of Bury, a clerk in the household of the future Edward III.[2] Under Edward III he was promoted to high office, finally becoming chancellor in 1334; by that stage he was already bishop of Durham, a position he held until his death in 1345. In 1324–5, while still a humble clerk of the future king, he copied out many hundreds of items of diplomatic correspondence from recent decades which he obtained through his contacts in English royal administration.[3] These were chiefly in the original or, in the case of chancery letters, drafts.[4] It is a personal collection, and survives only in Richard of Bury’s own manuscript written in his expert hand.[5] It has been plausibly suggested that he intended it as a resource for what he hoped would be a career as a chancery clerk, when he would need to be familiar with a very wide range of forms of official correspondence.[6] He also took an interest in letters written in particularly stylish prose.[7] He appears to have worked at speed and inevitably made mistakes.[8] It is not surprising, therefore, that errors can be found in his copying of Robert I’s letter to Edward II.[9] It was also his habit to omit the dating clause at the end of a document: he was interested in form and style, so he was not inclined to spend time on detail that was only relevant to a particular letter. The date of a letter and place where it was produced is, however, exactly the kind of information a historian needs, of course. The most important aspect of the discovery of another copy of this letter from Robert I to Edward II is that it includes the dating clause. This means that it can now be identified as written on 1 October 1310 at Kildrum (which is now part of Cumbernauld).

Robert I’s letter to Edward II is likely to have been copied by Richard of Bury because of its highly calibrated prose. Reading the translation, the choice of high-flown words and phrases is readily apparent. It is only by reading the Latin out loud, however, that the full force of the language can be appreciated. In the middle ages it was normal to read aloud (even when reading on your own). This meant that prose was punctuated according to where you could take breath while maintaining the sense of what was being said. Particular attention was paid to the rhythm in the final five to seven syllables at the end of each breath. If this adhered to a code of practice known as ars dictaminis, then it was regarded as of the highest order. This top register of writing was mastered by only a few scribes: in England: special clerks were employed to produce documents in this style.[10] The only occasion when this would have been necessary in diplomatic correspondence was in writing to the papal curia, where this stylistic prose (known as Cursus Curie Romane, or ‘cursus’ for short) was used routinely. Professor Archie Duncan, in his discussion of Richard of Bury’s copy of this letter of Robert I to Edward II, pointed out that it has a high incidence of cursus.[11] (An analysis is given below.) This is remarkable for a brief letter from one king to another seeking to open negotiations. This led Archie Duncan to argue that it was intended as much for papal eyes as the king of England’s, and that it was associated with the letter of the barons of Scotland to Pope John XXII, dated 6 April 1320, known today as the Declaration of Arbroath.[12] The copy that has now come to light shows that this cannot be the case.[13] Instead, Robert I’s letter to Edward I is precious evidence of Robert Bruce’s attitude at a critical point in his reign, 1 October 1310, when he faced his first serious English invasion. It was not the only document written in this high prose style by a clerk of Robert I’s in the early years of his reign.[14] The fact that cursus was used in this letter, however, is crucial in assessing the impact that Robert I hoped it would have on Edward II.

The manuscript

The manuscript in which the new copy of this letter is found, British Library MS Cotton Titus A. XIX, was written by a series of scribes, probably all monks of the Cistercian abbey of Kirkstall in Leeds, in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries.[15] It has the appearance of a commonplace book, a manuscript where someone has, over a number of years, copied items that have caught their interest or noted information they wish to remember. Instead of being a personal collection, though, this seems to represent the activity of many monks over a number of decades, with probably more than one of them at a time contributing material—a commonplace book for the community, as it were.[16] Although it sometimes has the character of a scrapbook (with the difference that items have been copied rather than cut-and-pasted), the process was more complicated than simply having a blank volume that was filled in over the years. The addition of texts has sometimes involved expanding the manuscript with new gatherings. Some items may even have been physically removed from another book and inserted into this one. (The incomplete copy of the Life of Kentigern written for Herbert, bishop of Glasgow (1147–1164), could be an example.)[17]

The manuscript contains a variety of historical texts, mainly of local interest or relating to Britain. They range from poems to prosaic lists, and include legends of Arthur, Merlin, or the giants who first inhabited Britain, as well as documents and chronicles.[18] There are also occasional notes, for example on sayings and on cures for ailments. This extraordinary mix of material is also reflected in the range of handwriting: some texts have been copied neatly, but many have been written in what looks like a hurried scrawl. The ext block (the area of the page used for writing texts) can vary markedly even within a single text. The poor presentation adds to the personal feel of the manuscript: had they intended the book to stand proud in the abbey’s library, they would presumably have had the skill and resources to produce something more orderly and legible. It may, instead, have been stored with the abbey’s charters as a source of information about the past, in the same way as monastic chronicles are known to have been kept with charters.[19]

Dossier of letters

The letter from Robert I to Edward II appears in a series of correspondence between Edward III of England (1327–1377) and Pope Benedict XII (1334–1342), Philippe VI of France (1328–1350), John Stratford, archbishop of Canterbury (1333–1348), the emperor Ludwig of Bavaria (1328–1347), and Pope Clement VI (1342–1352) (fos 82r–96v). The task of copying these letters has been undertaken by two scribes, with the second taking over from the first at the top of fo.92r, in the middle of an item. The second scribe used significantly more of the page for writing than the first scribe, whose outer and inner margins are quite generous. The final item is a letter of Pope Clement VI dated 28 August 1343: on the face of it, it is likely that the collection copied by these two scribes ended here. The watermarks of the paper, however, show that the same batch (dated to 1473) was used up to fo.99.[20] Pope Clement’s letter is followed by more correspondence, beginning with a letter from Edward III’s council. These items have been copied into the manuscript by more than one scribe (including one of the principal scribes in the manuscript as a whole, whose writing varies, but is often particularly ungainly). The final letter (fo. 99r–v) is from Pope Innocent IV (1243–1254) to the archdeacon of Canterbury; it is followed by verses on Wales. The simplest explanation for how these letters came to be in Kirkstall is that the monks obtained a dossier of correspondence involving Edward III, probably finishing with Pope Clement’s letter of 1343, to which they added other items, beginning with more letters relating to Edward III.[21]

The letter not originally part of the dossier

Robert I’s letter appears early in the series, following a letter of Philippe VI to Edward III. In the catalogue of Cotton manuscripts published in 1802 it was identified as a letter of Robert II (1371–1390) to Edward III.[22] Given that all the other letters in the collection are to or from Edward III, this was a natural assumption. (The most recent detailed description of the manuscript inexplicably refers to the letter as from Robert II to Richard II.[23]) The appearance of the letter in Richard of Bury’s letter-book, datable to 1324–5, of course, establishes beyond doubt that it is a letter of Robert I, not Robert II.

Why does it appear in a dossier of Edward III’s correspondence? The explanation is revealed on the next folio. Let us first consider the page in which Robert I’s letter appears. It is the second letter on fo.87r, and is not in the handwriting of any other scribe who copied letters: the hand has not been traced elsewhere in the manuscript. The first item on fo.87r is a letter of Philippe VI to Edward III. Curiously, Philippe VI’s letter has been written by the scribe who took over from the first at fo.92r. Not only is it in the second scribe’s hand, but it has the narrower outer and inner margins that are characteristic of his work on the dossier: this stands out here next to the first scribe’s generous margins in the neighbouring folios. Another puzzle concerns the couple of lines that are immediately above Philippe VI’s letter on the page. These are the last two lines of the previous item, Edward III’s response to Pope Benedict XII’s letter concerning Edward III’s claim that he, not Philippe, should be king of France. This is also written by the second scribe. The exact same two lines that conclude Edward III’s letter to Benedict are found on the recto of the next folio (fo.88r), in the first scribe’s hand. There, however, they have been scored out. How can all this be explained?

What has happened is that fo.86v was originally followed by fo.88r. The first scribe then followed Edward III’s letter to Pope Benedict with the next item on fo.88r, letters between John Stratford, archbishop of Canterbury, and Edward III. By the time the second scribe had take over the task of copying the dossier it was realised that Philippe VI’s letter to Edward III had been omitted. It concerned Edward III’s claim to France, and naturally belonged immediately after Edward III’s reply to Benedict XII on this question. It was decided to insert a folio so that Philippe’s letter would appear in the appropriate place.[24] This also required the last two lines of Edward III’s response to Pope Benedict to be copied at the top of the new folio (fo.87), otherwise the end of Edward’s letter on fo.88r would be separated from the rest of the text on fo.86v. This meant, of course, that the top two lines of fo.88r made no sense and served no purpose. The solution was to score them out.[25]

As a consequence of inserting fo.87 for the sake of putting Philippe VI’s letter in its proper place in the sequence, the rest of fo.87r and all of fo.87v would have been left blank. In due course a wholly unrelated document (a testimonial declaration that Edward I was the firstborn son of Henry III) was copied into fo.87v. The space left in the bottom half of fo.87r, following Philippe VI’s letter, was used to copy Robert I’s letter. The hand is from the same era as the scribes engaged in writing the dossier into the manuscript. It is likely, therefore, that Robert’s letter was copied not too long after the others. There is no reason to think, however, that it was part of the dossier.

How did the letter survive?

It is very unusual for a letter like this, written as a part of what was intended to be a long-distance dialogue, to survive. Unlike the letters in the dossier, it does not include an explanation or assertion of rights that could be referred to in defending the king of England’s claims. There must have been a large number of letters of this kind sent by Robert I. None survive. The nearest are the detailed terms for the truces of 1319 and 1323, and the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1328—much more substantial documents than the letter we have here.[26] Unlike these documents, however, it was written in highly stylised prose. This alone is reason enough for it to have attracted attention and been kept and copied. It is impossible to know, of course, how either a copy or the original itself ended up in Kirkstall. It was a stroke of extraordinary good fortune that the monks there in the late fifteenth century had a lively interest in British history, spotted it, and thought it worth copying into their manuscript. Perhaps it was thought to be addressed to Edward III, and therefore considered appropriate for inclusion in the dossier. There is no obvious indication in the letter itself that Edward III was not the recipient. The greatest stroke of luck, however, was the omission of Philippe VI’s letter when the dossier was copied. The decision to insert a folio so that Philippe’s letter would appear in sequence created a space on the page that was not originally intended. We can be sure that, were it not for this accident, Robert’s letter would not have been copied.

The letter’s immediate context

The letter is a passionate plea by one king to another for peace between their peoples. It is striking how Edward is addressed in the most exalted terms, while Robert refers to himself with conspicuous humility. The writing is eloquent in its appeal for the restoration of what is presented as normal relations. Robert and his people, it claims, are ready to do anything in their power and give anything they can to achieve this. What needs to happen is that Edward stops persecuting Robert and ceases from devastating his kingdom. The letter is meant to show that Robert sincerely wishes to open negotiations, and is willing to discuss anything that would lead to establishing peace. This is not, however, an abject capitulation. One matter is not up for debate. The negotiations would be conducted between kings. Robert’s status as king, and the Scots’ existence as a people, is taken for granted throughout the letter. Unfortunately this was the issue which lay at the heart of the conflict. The vividly conciliatory words speak simultaneously of peace and of a steely determination to vindicate Robert’s claim to be king of an independent kingdom. It is an exceptionally well crafted explanation of Robert’s position in the face of English aggression.

There is a context that matches this precisely. The date given at the end of the text is 1 October ‘in the fifth year of our reign’—i.e., 1310. On 1 October 1310 Edward II was in Biggar, where he had arrived a few days earlier in his first major campaign against Robert Bruce.[27] The letter is dated at Kildrum, now part of Cumbernauld, not quite 35 miles from Biggar—a day’s horse-ride away. The place and time fits for Robert to have learnt of Edward II’s advance from Roxburgh (near the border) to Biggar, and then to have sent the letter to Edward II within a couple of days.[28]

The early years of Robert I’s reign[29]

When Robert Bruce was inaugurated king in March 1306 he will have known that the king of England would inevitably arrive in Scotland at some point at the head of an army. He will also have known that, if he survived the first campaign, he would inevitably face another, and another. But the situation was not hopeless. As each wave of English military might came and went, King Robert’s position was likely to improve. The king of England’s army on campaign was too large and expensive to be kept in the field indefinitely. The English strategy depended crucially on holding castles. If King Robert could withstand the pressure until another and yet another wave of English military force receded, the English garrisons—especially those far from the border—would lose heart that Scotland would ever be restored to English control. The more isolated they were, the more difficult it would be for the English administration to keep them paid and supplied. Once these garrisons fell, the hopes of Robert’s enemies in Scotland would also fade. There were probably many who were outraged at his ruthless audacity in killing his rival, John Comyn, and seizing the throne. When Robert returned in 1307 after fleeing for his life, his immediate priority had been to defeat his leading Scottish opponents—a task he accomplished in a breathtaking cross-country campaign in the following year. His enemies were left pinning their hopes on English power. If this ebbed away, they would have to brace themselves for life under a Bruce king, and either come to terms or flee. All in all, the longer that Robert I could hold his nerve, keep the discipline of his much smaller forces, and ride his luck, the better his chances were of emerging victorious.

Fortune smiled on Robert when the first English campaign fizzled out after Edward I’s death in July 1307 on the south bank of the Solway Firth within sight of Scotland. Edward II came quickly from London to take command, but reached no further than Cumnock before returning south. He had spent little over a month in Scotland. It was just over three years later before Edward II again crossed the border in September 1310. By then Robert Bruce had begun to assert himself as king: he started issuing charters in late 1308, and held his first parliament in 1309. As yet, however, nearly all the key castles were in English hands, not only in the south near the border, but also places such as Ayr, Banff, Dundee, Edinburgh, Perth and Stirling. There were signs that Robert Bruce was winning the battle for the hearts and minds of people at large: the English garrisons, driven to raiding those living nearby in order to get supplies, were becoming deeply unpopular. In 1310 Robert I’s position was, however, far from secure. A determined and well organised campaign by Edward II could use the strongholds in English power to reach at least as far as Perth and Dundee, if not further north as far as Banff on the Moray Firth. When Edward I got that far north in 1296 and 1303–4 Scotland was conquered. This remained a possibility in 1310.

But fortune smiled again on King Robert. Edward suffered poor luck. A force from Ireland was ready to land in English-controlled Ayr: had it attacked the west, Edward II would have been free to march north. But the weather was never good enough for the fleet to set sail. Edward was also handicapped by problems of his own making. This centred on his devotion to Piers Gaveston, who he treated like a brother. His first major act as king had been to promote Gaveston to the exalted position of earl of Cornwall. (The title had previously been held by Edward I’s brother, Edmund: Edward I, before he died, was said to have considered conferring the earldom to one of his younger sons.[30]) When Edward II led his father’s army as far as Cumnock in 1307, he held a feast there in Gaveston’s honour. That was the limit of his ambition for the campaign. Gaveston was deeply unpopular among the most powerful men of the realm, who felt threatened by the way Edward II allowed Gaveston to act like a ‘second king’.[31] By 1310 they were determined to get rid of him, and to assert control over Edward’s government. Edward’s opponents used London as their base. When Edward II led an army north in September 1310 it was not only to attack Robert Bruce, but to keep control of government by removing it as far as possible from Westminster. Above all, he was concerned to save Gaveston’s skin—a fear that was amply justified by later events, culminating in the killing of Gaveston in 1312. These mixed motives partly explain why the campaign only got under way in the autumn, when the weather would make it increasingly difficult to operate effectively on land and maintain supplies by sea. Edward’s arrival in Scotland was as much (or more) a response to a political crisis at home as it was an attempt to defeat King Robert.[32]

The letter and Edward II’s campaign of 1310–11

Robert I’s letter of 1 October was written at the beginning of Edward II’s advance deep into Scotland. It reveals that, not surprisingly, he tried (at the very least) to play for time. Robert will, no doubt, have recalled that Edward in 1306 had responded to Robert Bruce’s request for talks behind Edward I’s back.[33] It was not unrealistic to imagine, therefore, that Edward might have been willing to open talks. Playing for time would certainly have made sense: the campaigning season was almost over. If he could hold out for a couple of months, the immediate threat would fall away. Edward advanced in October as far as Renfrew before heading east to Linlithgow (presumably passing Kildrum on the way), reaching Edinburgh by the end of the month.[34] By 11 November he was back in Berwick, where he remained until the end of July 1311 (except for an excursion into Lothian following an attack there by Robert I).

It is known that, by December, Edward II had instructed negotiators to meet King Robert at Selkirk. A follow-up meeting was arranged at Melrose, but Robert failed to appear: it is said that he feared treachery. It has been assumed that these talks were initiated by Edward, and that perhaps he hoped to strike a deal that could have allowed Gaveston to find refuge with Robert.[35] The letter of 1 October shows that the initial approach for talks came from Robert I. There is no way of knowing how Edward responded: he may only have contacted Robert after returning to Berwick. At the very least, Edward would have known then, from Robert’s letter, that the king of Scots was willing to negotiate—albeit without conceding anything on the core question of Robert’s status. By mid-December, however, Robert is unlikely to have regarded Edward II as an imminent threat. He could afford to break off the talks.

Edward II’s campaign was effectively over. True: Gaveston was later sent with a force of 200 knights to Dundee and Perth. This was not, however, a determined assault with the potential to re-establish English power, such as Robert may have feared in late September when Edward led a force estimated as consisting of 1,700 cavalry and 3,000 infantry—smaller than Edward I’s great armies, but significantly greater than anything Robert I could have mustered at this time.[36] If we see, in the letter of 1 October 1310, Robert I facing the prospect of an irresistible English advance, then maybe we can also see, in his breaking off of negotiations in the week before Christmas, his realisation that the storm had been weathered. He would know that another English campaign was inevitable in the years to come. The failure of Edward II to reduce Robert’s power in 1310, however, was followed by the surrender of garrisons and taking of castles. As soon as Edward II headed south from Berwick, Robert launched raids into northern England in August and another in September. The tide had turned.[37]

The significance of the letter

The letter of 1 October gives us a rare sight of Robert I at a critical moment when he was still vulnerable to being overpowered by English might. It also offers us a glimpse of the combination of political acumen, bold inventiveness and steely determination that made him such an awesome opponent for the hapless Edward. A study of the letter’s Latin prose shows that it was not only designed to be an overtly reasonable appeal for peace without yielding anything on the core issue of Robert’s status as king of an independent kingdom; it was also intended to impress and even unnerve Edward II and his entourage. It was written in cursus rhythms that were a particular feature of diplomatic correspondence with the pope. The Declaration of Arbroath, sent to Pope John XXII in the name of numerous barons and the ‘community of the kingdom of Scotland’, is the most famous example of cursus writing from Scotland in this period. Other examples include the declaration in support of Robert I at the parliament of St Andrews in 1309, repeated by the clergy assembled in Dundee in 1310.[38]

The letter of 1 October 1310 was not, of course, addressed to the pope. The clerk who read it out to Edward II is bound to have recognised its display of cursus prose. This would surely have been quite unexpected. We can only guess what Edward II and his staff would have made of it. At the very least Robert Bruce must have hoped that Edward II would understand that, even though Robert had no intention of taking to the field of battle to defend his realm, he was no rebel skulking in the woods, but saw himself as a king in the fullest sense. Writing in the cursus, however, may also have been intended to emphasise that the conflict was not merely a domestic affair, but was worthy of the attention of Latin Christendom as a whole, and the papacy in particular. A copy, indeed, could readily have been kept by Robert’s clerks for this purpose. It may have been Robert’s hope that Edward II, recognising this, would hear in the letter’s cursus rhythms its potential echo in the Curia, and consider how his response—or lack of response—would appear to ‘God and public decency’ (to use the letter’s own phrase). In this context the letter’s striking reference to Robert I’s humility (humilitas) and Edward II’s eminence (sublimitas—a rather extreme word) could be read as placing the onus on the king of England to use his authority for good or risk appearing to display a haughty disregard for righteousness.[39] All in all, the letter shows, through and through, the skill and resourcefulness of Robert I and his chancellor, Bernard of Linton, in using every tool at their disposal so that, despite the vulnerability of their position, they could project a powerful image of kingship and a compelling sense of the reasonableness of their cause. It is conceivable that the letter’s rhetoric and high register prose contributed to Edward II’s decision to open discussions with Robert Bruce no more than a couple of months later.

Analysis of rhythmic endings in the letter’s prose

A crucial difficulty in analysing cursus—the rhythmic endings found in the highest register of Latin prose in this period—is identifying where the author intended the endings to be. This is frequently obscured if the text is punctuated for a modern reader. The policy adopted here is to use the manuscript’s punctuation as a guide.[40] This reveals 15 endings where cursus would be expected. (Nos 5 and 6 overlap; the analysis of no. 14 depends on which manuscript reading is preferred.)

1. regnáncium gúbernántur                       velox

2. móribus ádornátur                                velox

3. mátris ecclésie                                       tardus

4. prospérius dírigúntur                            velox

5. honestátem pre óculis                           tardus

6. óculis habéntes                                     trispondaicus (with irregular word division)

7. cessáre curétis                                       planus

8. sánguinis Chrístiáni                               velox

9. seruícia corpórum                                 trispondaicus (with irregular word division)

10. facére potérimus                                 tardus

11. redempcióne bone pácis                      trispondaicus

12. perpétuo pró<m>erénda                    velox

13. perficére puro córde                            trispondaicus

14. presénti<um> pórtitórem                   velox

[14. preséntis portitórem                           trispondaicus]

15. kyndrómyn’ in léuenax                        tardus

One point that emerges from this analysis is that there is only one instance of cursus planus. It may be assumed that this was deliberate, and was intended to make the ending with this rhythm stand out from the rest of the letter. The ending is no. 7, cessáre curétis, ‘you [Edward II] would take pains to cease’. This can readily be recognised as the letter’s central message, and would have been entirely appropriate for special emphasis.

Edition of Robert I’s letter to Edward II. Kildrum (parish of Cumbernauld), 1 October 1310.

A = London, British Library MS Cotton Titus A. XIX, fo.87r.

B = The Liber Epistolaris of Richard de Bury, ed. N. Denholm-Young, The Roxburghe Club (Oxford 1950), no. 463.

C = A. A. M. Duncan (ed.), Regesta Regum Scottorum, vol. v, The Acts of Robert I King of Scots 1306–1329 (Edinburgh 1988), no. 569.

Text in A[41]

Punctuated as in the manuscript (including use of capitals): punctus elevatus is represented by a semi-colon, punctus with a point, and line-breaks with a slash.

Where a reading in B is preferred to A, this is indicated by angled brackets.

Serenissimo[42] principi domino E. dei gracia Regi Anglie[43] illustri; Robertus[44] eadem gracia Rex Scot/torum[45] salutem in eo per quem troni regnancium gubernantur. Quum[46] sub pacis dulcedine mentes / fidelium exquiescunt[47] Christianorum vita moribus adornatur. Ac vniversa sancte matris ecclesie. / Regnorum quia[48] omnium negocia vbique prosperius diriguntur. Nostra duxit humilitas[49] vestram / celcitudinem[50] nunc et alias deuocius exorare quatinus deum[51] ac publicam honestatem pre oculis. / habentes. a persecucione nostri[52] et inquietudine populi regni nostri cessare curetis. vt cesset de cetero / clades et effusio sanguinis Christiani. Omnia quippe que [53]nos et populus noster per seruicia corporum. / per largicionem rerum facere poterimus. siue pati[54] pro redempcione[55] bone pacis.[56] et pro gracia vestre bene/uolencie perpetuo[57] pro<m>erenda:[58] parati sumus et erimus conuenienti modo et honesto perficere puro / corde. Et si super hiis nobiscum habere tractatum vestre cederit[59] voluntati nobis litteratorie / remandet vestra sublemitas[60] regia per present<ium>[61] portitorem.[62] [63]Scriptis apud kyndromyn’[64] / in leuenax. kalendas Octobri. Anno. regni. nostri.[65] quinto.

Translation[66]

To the most serene prince the lord Edward by God’s grace illustrious king of England, Robert by the same grace king of Scots, greeting in Him through whom the thrones of those who rule are governed. When, under the sweetness of peace, the minds of the faithful find rest, then the life of Christians is adorned with good conduct, and also the whole of Holy Mother Church, because the affairs of all kingdoms are everywhere arranged more favourably. Our humility has led us, now and at other times, to beseech your highness more earnestly so that, having God and public decency in sight, you would take pains to cease from the persecution of us and the disturbance of the people of our kingdom in order that devastation and the spilling of Christian blood may henceforth stop. Naturally, everything which we and our people will be able to do by bodily service, or to bear by giving freely of our goods, for the redemption of good peace and for the grace of your good will for all time, which must be earned, we are prepared and shall be prepared to accomplish in a suitable and honest way, with a pure heart. And if it accords with your will to have a discussion with us on these matters, may your royal eminence send word in writing to us, by the bearer of this letter. Written at Kildrum in Lennox, the Kalends of October in the fifth year of our reign [1 October 1310].

Andrew Smith, Former Research Associate[1]

As briefly discussed in previous features of the month, Scotland’s abbeys and priories were seriously affected by the wars of independence. The following feature of the month will survey all 200-plus of surviving documents which relate to the proprietary interests of Scottish religious houses between March 1296 and November 1314. In doing so, it will attempt to establish some generalizations about their economic practices as compared to those found in Scotland before the war.

Religious Houses as Beneficiaries

Following the outbreak of the conflict in 1296, there is little evidence that religious houses sought out or attracted many gifts of land or other property. In fact, only sixteen documents survive which record such transactions.[2] One such example is found in the Lindores cartulary and states that on 24 August 1302, Lindores was given two small portions of land in Collessie, Fife, by Elena, lady of Collessie, in her widowhood.[3] On 14 August 1305, Melrose Abbey was also given land in Peebles, and King Robert gave Kinloss Abbey a fishery in Findhorn in the second decade of the fourteenth century.[4] This said, one institution which does appear to have received substantial gifts of land and property was Coupar Angus Abbey. In fact, charters found in its cartulary account for over half of the sixteen charters mentioned. Around 1300, Coupar Angus was given the land of Little Pert and the land and common of Drimmie.[5] Around 1304, they were given the lands of Doonies and Alrick in Glenisla and a site for two cruives.[6] Individuals also granted Coupar Angus the land of Auchindorie, the land Cammock in Glenisla, and the land of Murthly during this period.[7]

Despite the lack of evidence for gifts of property, however, there does appear to have been efforts to provide Scotland’s monks and regular canons with financial resources. This manifested itself in several ways, the first of which was simply the gift of a lump sum of money.[8] Nevertheless, Scotland’s bishops had a far more innovative method of providing religious houses with the cash needed to carry out their day-to-day activities: they allowed them to ‘appropriate’ or acquire all of the income from their parish churches. In the middle ages, monks and regular canons frequently acquired rights to parish churches which would afford them certain fiscal benefits. For instance, acquiring the right of patronage (or advowson) would allow them to appoint the local vicar, and thus entitle them to a certain amount of parochial revenue.[9] There are eight documents in this study which relate to such a privilege.[10] On the other hand, the right of appropriation, which was far more lucrative, could be acquired by a religious house in one of two ways: the bishop could give a church’s income to a monastery at the same time that he granted (or confirmed) a lord’s donation of the same church, or the bishop could give both a church and its income directly to a religious house if they were part of his ‘mensa’ – i.e. his own property. Thirteen charters survive which record one of these two scenarios, and William Lamberton, bishop of St Andrews, was responsible for several of these donations.[11] On 12 December 1300, he granted Dunfermline Abbey the right to appropriate the parochial church of Dunfermline, and he also allowed Arbroath and Newbattle to appropriate the churches of Dunbog and Heriot, respectively.[12] On the other hand, Robert, bishop of Glasgow, allowed Inchaffray to appropriate the church of Balfron ‘in compassion for the plunderings, burning, and innumerable afflictions which the abbot and convent of Inchaffray had suffered through war’.[13] Moreover other bishops also permitted religious houses to acquire extra revenue through appropriation.[14] Furthermore, it is particularly noteworthy that Pope Clement V became involved in 1306 when he allowed Cambuskenneth to appropriate the church of Clackmannan.[15]

Expenses: Destruction, Arrears and Seized Property

One of the reasons that money and other sources of income were needed by religious institutions was because of the devastation that they suffered during the war.[16] Such destruction was common place during this period, and it is possible to see this reflected in many of the petitions that were made. Around 1296, several religious houses asked King Edward I for protection, and they also requested various forms of aid.[17] Between 1300 and 1307, Melrose Abbey petitioned King Edward to help their church because it was left in ruins and its inhabitants were ejected.[18] Between 1307 and 1308, the king of England also compensated Melrose for damage done at their parish church of Dunscore, and Sweetheart Abbey likewise petitioned the king for redress in relation to destruction caused in the southwest of Scotland.[19] One way that Edward aided these houses was by providing them with timber to help reconstruct their buildings, and there are several existing requests for such resources.[20] Edward also appears to have compensated houses for removing lead from their roofs, and in the case of the monks of Melrose Abbey, for using their facilities to store resources.[21]

Another reason for the institutions’ lack of income was the fact that their land and possessions were seized or alienated during the conflict, and twenty documents record such specifications.[22] Evidence of these events appear as early as September 1296 when the prioress of Haddington petitioned King Edward for land seized in Berwick.[23] Between 1298 and 1299, Jedburgh also requested that Edward remedy the fact that several of their animals were taken, and the king ordered that Newbattle’s lands and revenues be restored.[24] Later in his reign, Edward was also petitioned by Arbroath Abbey for forest land which King John Balliol had taken from them, and he told the prior of Coldingham that he had retaken land and possessions belonging to their institution.[25] Moreover, both the pope and King Robert were also involved. On 23 December 1307, Pope Clement V wrote to the dean of Dunblane asking him not to allow individuals to detain Newbattle’s property, and he also prohibited individuals from taking Scone’s possessions.[26] Thereafter, on 5 October 1308, Robert I wrote to his sheriffs and baillies in Forfar commanding them to revoke all alienations of the land belonging to Arbroath Abbey.[27]

A third reason for a lack of monetary resources was the fact that religious houses were having difficulty getting individuals or institutions to pay them the money which they were owed. Nevertheless, this was not a one-way street since payments owed by the monasteries also fell into arrears. Thirty-three documents record one of the two aforementioned issues, thus making this dilemma the largest single topic found in documents from this period.[28] The earliest example is from the 28 August 1296 when Paisley Abbey acknowledged that it owed money to Sempringham Priory.[29] Shortly thereafter, the prioress of Coldstream petitioned King Edward for rents, and Edward responded by ordering the relaxation of their taxes and a payment of eleven pounds.[30] On 2 January 1301, Pope Boniface VIII commanded that arrears be paid to Arbroath, and around the same time Melrose and Kelso reached an agreement over arrears of teinds (tithes) owed in Mow.[31] Moreover, on October 1303 King Edward also demanded that an inquisition be made into rents owed to Dunfermline, and in 1304 the prior of St Andrews petitioned Edward to aid them by doing the same.[32]

This said, during the reign of King Robert these problems also continued. In 1310, King Robert ordered that the pensions which Arbroath Abbey owed should be reduced because they were harming the abbey.[33] On 3 July 1312, Arbroath Abbey also had to request teinds which it was owed, and the bishop of St Andrews and Arbroath had to come to an agreement over arrears which the abbey owed to the bishopric.[34] Furthermore, on 29 July 1313, Paisley Abbey came to an agreement with a local lord over teinds, and Scone Abbey and May Priory also solved a dispute over tithe payments.[35]

Nevertheless, perhaps the most noteworthy phenomenon found in documents from this period are records of the appointment of procurators. Between 1303 and 1320, Scone Abbey appointed a canon named Hugh to be their procurator, who among other things was supposed ‘to ask for payments’.[36] On 3 February 1312, Arbroath Abbey also appointed a procurator to deal with ‘all their negotiations, lawsuits and disputes’.[37] One cannot help but see these appointments as being linked to the aforementioned problems, and indeed there are several examples of procurators acquiring money owed to religious houses during this period.[38]

Confirmations and Inspections

One ways that religious houses could prohibit unjust seisures, arrears and other issues was to get kings, bishops and lords to confirm or inspect their charters, and these types of documents comprise a large percentage of the existing case-study (20 and 16 documents, respectively).[39] Melrose received several confirmations relating to their rights in Eskdale, and these rights had been challenged during the war.[40] Between 1300 and 1307, Melrose also asked for a confirmation from King Edward, as did Arbroath and Coldingham.[41] Moreover, King Robert also issued several confirmations, including those to Scone and Arbroath in 1312 and 1313.[42]

The issuance of confirmation charters was particularly important because many documents had been destroyed during the war. In fact, Scone, whose entire charter trove was in tatters at the turn of the century, received the confirmation of a charter which had a damaged seal.[43] Inspections were likewise important and could also be used in the place of damaged originals. Religious houses sought inspections from all types of individuals, the earliest of which was issued to Cambuskenneth in 1300 by Bishop William Lamberton.[44] On 20 March 1305, King Edward also inspected a charter of a religious house, as did King Robert on several occasions.[45] Moreover, as discussed in a previous feature of the month, Kelso Abbey got the abbots of Melrose and Dryburgh to inspect charters related to the church of Cranston.[46] This church was later exchanged with the bishop of St Andrews for another parish church, and there is definite possibility that the inspected charter was a forgery.[47]

Conclusion

Ultimately, several other topics could have been explored in this discussion, such as the documents which recorded leases or rentals of lands or churches, the charters which recorded grants of rights such as freedom from tolls, the instruments which recorded quitclaims, or the documents which discussed the military service provided by religious institutions. However, what the reader should take away from this brief exploration is that there was both continuity and change in the way that religious houses interacted with other property holders before and after 1296. On the one hand, both before and after Edward I’s invasion, monasteries frequently sought confirmations and inspections to protect their property. Prior to the war, bishops also frequently granted these institutions the rights of presentation and appropriation. Moreover, it is often stipulated that the impetus for these grants was rooted in the fact that the institutions were having problems similar to those discussed above. For example, in 1295, Bishop William Fraser stated that he allowed St Andrews Priory to appropriate the church of Leuchars because of debt it had accrued as a result of the destruction of its church.[48]

However, there are also distinct differences in the way in which these houses sought to resolve problems over payments, alienations or seized property immediately before and after 1296. As discussed above, religious houses frequently sought aid from the current secular authority after this date, whether that be King Edward or King Robert. In the years leading up to the war, however, they relied almost exclusively on ecclesiastical authorities: i.e. the pope, the bishop or a panel of ecclesiastical judges known as ‘papal judges delegate’.[49] Moreover, it also appears that secular landholders in Scotland were more avid patrons of religious houses before the conflict. In fact, Kelso Abbey, which many historians consider to be the richest of all Scottish religious houses, attracted patronage on several occasions in the 1280s and early 1290s.[50] As mentioned, Coupar Angus was the only institution which was successful in attracting substantial benefactions during the war. Hopefully, future research will determine exactly what made this Cistercian house so successful during this turbulent period.

Part III: Cumberland and Northumberland

 Amanda Beam, Research Associate[1]

Part III of the feature on rebels looks at those who held lands in both Cumberland and Northumberland. As these seven cannot be definitively placed in either Part I or II, this third section has been created to discuss them. Of these men, three appeared on the Ragman Roll, and these same three were restored to their English lands. Also, given at the end of this section is a complete list of identified northern rebels who were forfeited for adhering to the Scottish cause.

John Balliol, king of Scots

King John himself held extensive lands in no less than thirteen English counties, including Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland. His baronies of Bywell and Woodhorn in Northumberland were seized in April 1296 along with those in other counties. His brother, Alexander, held the manor of Thackwaite in Cumberland and upon his death in 1278 this may have passed to John, although it was not listed in the sheriff’s report. He, like other rebels, had ties to a rebel of the 1260s, as his cousin, Guy de Balliol, had been Simon de Montfort’s standard bearer and died at the Battle of Evesham. John’s father, John (I) (d.1268), had been a loyal supporter of Henry III, though, and had provided an infantry contingent from Scotland to fight for the king at the battle of Lewes, in which John was captured. As king of Scots, he also held the royal liberties of Penrith and Tynedale. Following his abdication of the Scottish throne in July 1296, he was taken prisoner and sent to the Tower of London. In 1299, he was released into papal custody and in 1302 he was liberated to his French estates where he would die in 1314. His ancestral lands in Northumberland as well as elsewhere in England were given to John de Brittany, earl of Richmond and Edward I’s nephew, while the liberties of Penrith and Tynedale were handed over to Antony Bek, bishop of Durham. Although he submitted to Edward I in July 1296 and his resignation appears within the Ragman Roll documents, he did not actually append his seal to the documents as other Scots did.[2]

Alexander of Bunkle (d.1300) (RR)

Alexander, son of Ranulf of Bunkle, was a Berwickshire knight. He held the vill of Uldale in Cumberland and lands in Lilburn, Shawdon and two parts of Fenwick in Northumberland, which were seized in April and May 1296. Uldale was restored to Alexander almost immediately as he had come into the king’s peace, and it can be assumed that his Northumberland were also restored at this time. He appended his seal to the Ragman Roll at Berwick in August 1296 as ‘of the county of Edinburgh’, probably referring to his lands at Preston which he received in 1293. In May 1297, he went overseas to serve Edward I against France. Alexander was dead by April 1300 and his lands were taken into the king’s hands again as his daughter and heir, Margaret, ‘remains with the king’s enemies in Scotland’. She was the widow of John Stewart of Bunkle, who was killed fighting for the Scots at Falkirk in 1298. Her second husband was Sir David Brechin (d.1320) and in 1304 they submitted to King Edward and received Alexander’s lands in England. His widow, Christiana, lived until at least 1319, when she petitioned the king for the manor of Uldale, which she had leased to Alexander Stewart and which was seized by Edward II upon Stewart’s rebellion in 1314.[3]

Thomas of Moralee

Thomas of Moralee held lands in Broughton and Ellenborough, Cumberland, and the manor of Moralee, Northumberland, which he held with Aymer of Rutherford (see Part II: Northumberland). These lands were seized in April 1296, although it was stated that Thomas had not been in the king’s peace before Easter (which fell on 25 March that year). His Northumberland lands were in the hands of the bishop of Durham by late 1297, while his Cumberland lands were still in the hands of the sheriff in December 1298.[4] He does not appear on the Ragman Roll and his lands do not appear to have been restored.

William Murray of Drumsargard (RR)

William Murray, knight and lord of Drumsargard, Lanarkshire, held the hamlet of Houghton, in Cumberland, which was seized in April 1296. A few weeks later, Sir Robert de Tilliol was been given seisin of the lands. In August he appended his seal to the Ragman Roll at Berwick as ‘of the county of Lanark’, and at the same time served as a juror along with other rebels, John of Gelston and Gilbert of Southwick (see Part I: Cumberland), and John of Shitlington (see Part II: Northumberland), in an inquest into the lands of Helen de la Zouche (d.1296). He performed fealty again in March 1304. William was restored to unnamed lands in Northumberland in 1304, though it does not appear that Houghton in Cumberland was restored to him.[5]

Robert de Ros (d.1296)

Robert de Ros (or of Roos, Yorkshire) was the son of Robert de Ros (d.c.1274) and Margaret Bruce. His grandfather, also called Robert de Ros (d.1270), had been a supporter of Simon de Montfort for a time during the Barons’ War, but had submitted to Prince Edward in June 1265 and later pardoned and restored to his estates. Though his grandson, Robert, was serving Edward in 1291, he apparently joined the Scots in 1296 out of love for a Scottish woman. He held the important barony of Wark-on-Tweed and Haltwhistle in Northumberland as well as the vill of Cargo in Cumberland, which were seized in April 1296. In Scotland, he held Grieston in Peeblesshire, which was given after his death to Holm Cultram Abbey, and he also held lands of Alexander, son of John of Stirling, which were returned to Alexander in September 1296 when Alexander himself was restored. Wark was eventually given to William de Ros, a cousin of Robert’s from a senior line.[6]

Patrick of Selkirk, abbot of Melrose (RR)

Patrick was a former monk of Melrose who succeeded as abbot there in 1273. His lands in Trowupburn, Northumberland, were seized in April 1296. At Berwick, in August, he appeared on the Ragman Roll and was restored to unnamed lands in Northumberland and Cumberland. He was also restored to lands in the Scottish counties of Berwick, Ayr, Jedburgh, Peebles, Edinburgh, Roxburgh and Dumfries.[7] It is unknown how long Patrick served as abbot, but the next known abbot, William of Fogo, occurs in 1310.

Adam of Swinburne (d.1318)

Adam of Swinburne, in Northumberland, was the eldest son of John of Swinburne (d.c.1313). As mentioned in Part II, John’s lands were taken into the king’s hand perhaps as a precaution, but he was restored when it became clear he had not rebelled. Adam, however, was said to have been in the king’s peace ‘almost till Pentecost’ before he was forfeited for rebellion. He held the manor of Bewcastle, Cumberland and lands in Simonburn, Northumberland. In Scotland, the family had ties to lands in Ayrshire and Dumfriesshire. Adam’s father, John, appears on the Ragman Roll as ‘of the county of Ayr’, and in 1298 Adam was granted forfeited lands in that county by Edward I. He later petitioned for further lands in Dumfriesshire. Adam’s younger brother, Robert, also petitioned for lands in Ayrshire. At some point, Adam was held prisoner at Berwick Castle, but was released in May 1297 by the mainprise of Hugh de Cressingham and Alexander of Argyll. He served Edward I frequently and faithfully after this and appears in the Linlithgow garrison between 1298 and 1300. He was also constable of Dumfries in 1306, later served Edward II as constable of Rutherglen in 1308-9 and also later became sheriff of Northumberland.[8] He does not appear on the Ragman Roll and it is unclear if and when his lands were restored, though given his loyalty after 1297 we can assume he was either restored or compensated elsewhere.

Conclusions

This feature on the rebels of 1296 is intended to draw attention to the dilemma faced by cross-border landholders as well as by the gentry of Northern England when John Balliol and the Scots resisted the overbearing authority of Edward I. Before the outbreak of war, the areas of southern Scotland and northern England were a homogenous society, one that had become ‘extensively interconnected’ through cross-border marriages and landholding, ‘rather than being divided by the political boundary’.[9] Each cross-border landholder owed allegiance to two different kings, a behaviour that was neither uncommon nor atypical at this time. But the war between these two kings created an unprecedented dilemma of loyalties.

Within this context, there are a few conclusions and patterns which emerge when breaking down the rebels by statistics. Obviously, the majority of landholders at this time were men, but we see that 9% of the rebels in this study were women, which also equals the percentage of religious men who rebelled. Overall by county, there is a higher percentage of rebels who occur in Northumberland (65%) versus Cumberland (25%), while 10% of rebels held lands in both counties.

On a wider theme of rebellion over the thirteenth century, we see that five rebels (or 7% of the total) have possible family ties to men who rebelled against Henry III, Edward’s father, during the Barons’ War of the 1260s. In Cumberland, Alice, wife of Alan of Rule, may have been related by marriage to Roger of Rule, who died at the battle of Evesham in 1265, fighting with Guy de Balliol, a cousin of King John (see above). Sisters Margery and Idonea of Welton of Northumberland may have been related to Walter Scott of Welton, a Northumbrian landholder who also took part in the Barons’ War.[10] Moreover, Robert de Ros’ grandfather had also been forfeited because of his support for Simon de Montfort, though he submitted to Prince Edward in June 1265 and was restored. When we look even further back to the rebels of 1215-1218 who fought against King John of England, we find another possible eight men with ties to these later rebels (which would raise the total percentage of rebels with ties to earlier rebels to about 17%).[11]

Another pattern which emerges is seen especially in Cumberland, where several rebels can be connected to others, either by family ties or by landed associations. Out of the 68 rebels in Cumberland and Northumberland together, 16 (24%) had ties to southwest Scotland. But of these 16 rebels, 13 are found holding lands in Cumberland. Remembering that there were 24 rebels in all from Cumberland – 17 from Part I and 7 from Part III – this means that 54% of Cumberland rebels had landed connections in southwest Scotland, and several of these rebels were related themselves. For example, Walter of Corrie, Patrick of Southwick (father of rebel Gilbert) and Patrick Trump (father of rebel Patrick Trump of Kirklinton) were named heirs of Hawise of Kirklinton, wife of Eustace de Balliol, a cousin of King John. In 1299, when Richard of Kirklinton’s widow, Sarah, died, Walter of Corrie and Gilbert of Southwick were named with others as heirs of Richard.[12] Patrick Trump junior, Walter of Corrie, Thomas, bishop of Whithorn, David of Torthorwald and Robert de Ros also had ties to the powerful Bruce family, who held Annandale and Carrick. Gilbert of Southwick, a Cumberland rebel, and William of Bellingham, William of Whittingham and the Welton sisters of Northumberland can be linked to the Comyn family of Nithsdale.

Due to their proximity, it is not a surprise that half of Cumberland landholders had ties to this area of Scotland. But what is surprising is that the percentage of Northumberland landholders who can be associated with lands in the Scottish Borders is much lower, at 35%.[13] Only 18 Northumberland rebels could claim landed ties in the Borders, though the number rises to 30 (59%) when we include other areas of Scotland except the southwest. Perhaps the most extreme long-distance link between the two realms comes from John Prat, whose family maintained links between Northumberland and Moray – a distance of at least 160 miles – for over a century.

In terms of family ties, another noteworthy aspect is that of relationships and connections within documents, which is easily viewed in the PoMS database. Shortly before appending their seals to the deeds of fealty at Berwick in August 1296, four rebels served as jurors in the inquest concerning the lands of Helen de la Zouche. John of Gelston and Gilbert of Southwick inquired into Helen’s lands in Dumfriesshire, while John also inquired into her lands in Wigtownshire. William Murray of Drumsargard and John of Shitlington served as jurors for her lands in Berwickshire. Thomas of Torthorwald, son of the deceased rebel David, also served as a juror.[14]

The ratio between submitting to Edward and being restored to forfeited lands is also noteworthy. Performing homage and fealty to the English king did not guarantee that one’s lands would be restored. In terms of the rebels of Cumberland and Northumberland who are confirmed to have held lands in Scotland (of which there are 40), 30 (or 75%) appear on the Ragman Roll.[15] On the flip side of this, we find that 13 Scottish landholders in this study (19%) did not appear on the Ragman Roll. These numbers do not match up and this discrepancy comes from the fact that some Scottish landholders, such as David of Torthorwald and (presumably) Robert de Ros, died before the deeds of fealty were drawn up and therefore do not appear. Also, some rebels appear on the Ragman Roll, but they cannot be confirmed in possession of Scottish lands (e.g. John Comyn junior, who did not inherit his father’s Scottish lands until after his father’s death around 1302; as a member of a very prominent political family his submission was probably essential for Edward I). At least one rebel, Richard Siward, was in prison and not able to append his seal. However, some prisoners, such as John Comyn, do appear on the Ragman Roll. Indeed, there are 7 prisoners captured at the Battle of Dunbar who later appear on the Ragman Roll. Some of these, like the earl of Menteith, had already been released from prison. Others, though, are still documented as prisoners as late as 1300.[16] A conclusion we can draw is that these prisoners had their deeds of fealty drawn up and sealed by proxy.

Not all of those who performed fealty were restored to their forfeited lands in either England or Scotland. Eleven rebels who appear on the Ragman Roll were restored to lands either in England or Scotland almost immediately after performing fealty in 1296. Edward also restored lands to the widow and heir of one rebel (David of Torthorwald who died in the war), the son and heir of another (John of Gelston), and, years later, the grandson and presumed heir of a third rebel (William of Paxton). Another 9 rebels from the Ragman Roll were restored in 1304. Nine others who appear on the Ragman Roll (or 29%) were not restored at all. By comparison, 62% of the total rebels or their heirs/widows were restored to English and/or Scottish lands.[17]

The restorations may point toward perceived attitudes of the war which began in early 1296. By the time John Balliol abdicated in July, many rebels may have imagined this conflict was over and, being quick to submit to Edward, had hoped that a degree of normalcy would soon return. Indeed, twenty instances of restoration for our rebels in this study occur with a year of Balliol’s abdication. This includes those restored to English and/or Scottish lands. However, events over the next year sparked an even longer conflict that would not cease for some time. The next significant break in hostilities came in February 1304 when the Scots – led by former rebel John Comyn (d.1306) – submitted to Edward. Once again we see a surge of restorations, with 24 rebels restored to English and/or Scottish lands within a year of peace. The increase in restorations here might suggest that after eight years of war more landholders believed that the fighting was finally – and officially – over. Of course these figures only represent Northumberland and Cumberland, but if one were to look at all the English counties where rebels are found, the numbers would likely be comparable.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this study comes from examining the rebels in the context of cross-border landholding. Not all of those who rebelled against Edward I held lands in both kingdoms. Though a majority of them (40 total, or 59%) held lands in both England and Scotland, a surprising 41% had no known land holdings in Scotland. For those who had ties to rebels of previous generations, it could be argued that certain families had a tendency to rebel against royal authority. But, in a broader context, those whose lands lay within the Scottish kings’ liberties of Penrith and Tynedale fell into a different category of landholder. For our rebels discussed here, none held lands in Penrith except for John Balliol as king, but 16 held lands in Tynedale (which equals 31% of Northumberland rebels and 24% of total rebels). But even more surprising is that more than half of these (9 of 16) held no lands in Scotland. Did these 9 rebels identify themselves as Scottish, despite having no lands in that realm? Can the same be said for the 41% of all northern rebels who had no ties to Scotland? As Keith Stringer states, those in Tynedale who rebelled against Edward I highlight how limited Edward’s authority was in ‘directing identities and allegiances in [the] northern marchlands’ and that ‘despite…English power, old loyalties and values died hard’.[18] But what makes this more interesting is the case of John Somerville. He appears to have held no lands in Scotland or Tynedale, yet rebelled – twice – and was executed in 1306 for treason. Two other rebels, John Comyn (d.c.1302) and William Douglas, had lands re-seized for rebelling a second time, but their links to Scotland are obvious. Though there may be a familial link between John Somerville and other Somervilles who appear in the Borders, it is interesting that such a stalwart opponent of Edward I held no lands in Scotland.

Many rebels, particularly in Cumberland, were forfeited in 1296 for merely ‘remaining in Scotland’ and not necessarily acting out against Edward I. Most of these were restored to their lands after submitting to Edward, so this may have been simply a case of not appearing for military service against the Scots. If anything this could shed light on how landholding practices and values were changing. Indeed, in 1314 Robert I prohibited Scots from holding lands on both sides of the border, a concept that, until then, had been commonplace in medieval Britain. Were these rebels merely guilty of believing that old practices – in which they could simply pay a fine for non-appearance and move on – were still in place? This may be why the majority of rebels submitted at times when it looked as if the war was over and peace would be restored, specifically in the summer of 1296 and in early 1304.

It is hoped that this feature has gone some way in explaining – at least statistically – the complexities of cross-border society and Anglo-Scottish identities, two themes which are being investigated by the Breaking of Britain project. Within a context of rebellion, it is perhaps easier to highlight cross-border identities and loyalties and how the Scottish wars of independence brought with it a massive shift in landholding practices. Many of the rebels discussed here were Scottish by birth and therefore had a natural Scottish identity which led to their rebellion against Edward I. Also, as we have seen, rebellion was not limited to the aristocracy; those lower down the scale such as the gentry or middling folk and members of religious houses also rebelled. Therefore, a study in rebellion is fundamental to the project’s examination of the ‘breaking of Britain’ as it reveals the greyer areas of a homogenous Anglo-Scottish cross-border society.

The following is a complete list of those, English or Scottish, who were forfeited of their lands in Northern England by Edward I for their support of John Balliol. Hyperlinks will take you to the person’s page in the PoMS database. RR signifies that the person appears on the Ragman Roll.

• Henry of Anstruther (RR)
• David Arsyn
• John Balliol
• William of Bellingham
• Agnes of Blantyre
• John le Blund of Esbie (RR)
• Alexander of Bunkle (RR)
• Mary, wife of Alan of Camerton
• Gilbert of Carlisle (RR)
• Henry de Chartres
• William de Chartres (RR)
• Edmund Comyn of Kilbride
• John Comyn, lord of Badenoch (d.c.1302) (RR)
• John Comyn, lord of Badenoch (d.1306) (RR)
• Walter of Corrie (RR)
• Robert of Cresswell
• Thomas of Dalton or of Kirkcudbright, bishop of Whithorn (RR)
• William Douglas (RR)
• John of Drummond
• Abbot of Dundrennan
• Gilbert of Embleton
• Nicholas of Fawside (RR)
• Richard Fraser (RR)
• William of Gardyne (RR)
• John of Gelston (RR)
• Gilbert de Glenwyn/Gletiwin
• Peter de Glinquym
• Nicholas Graham (RR)
• Elias of Greenacres
• Aymer of Hadden (RR)
• Henry of Halliburton (RR)
• Richard, abbot of Kelso (RR)
• Michael of Lothian
• Henry of Malton
• Roger Marshal of Cowpen
• Mary, widow of William Melville
• Thomas of Moralee
• John Morel, abbot of Jedburgh (RR)
• Geoffrey de Mowbray
• William Murray of Drumsargard (RR)
• William of Paxton
• Hugh of Penicuik (RR)
• William Porter (RR)
• John Prat
• Robert de Ros
• Alice, wife of Alan of Rule
• Aymer of Rutherford (RR)
• Nicholas of Rutherford (RR)
• Patrick of Selkirk, abbot of Melrose (RR)
• Thomas of Selkirk (RR)
• John of Shilvington
• John of Shitlington (RR)
• Richard Siward
• John Somerville
• Thomas de Soulis (RR)
• Gilbert of Southwick (RR)
• Thomas of Stanton
• John, abbot of Sweetheart (RR)
• Adam of Swinburne
• David of Torthorwald
• Patrick Trump of Kirklinton
• John of Tynedale
• Hugh de Walle
• Thomas Walran
• Idonea of Welton
• Margery of Welton
• William of Whittingham
• John Wishart of the Carse

Part II: Northumberland

 Amanda Beam, Research Associate[1]

In Part II of this feature, we examine the rebels of Northumberland. There are a total of 44 rebels in this county, with another seven who held land in Northumberland and Cumberland, discussed in Part III. Of these 44, there are four women, 19 who appear on the Ragman Roll and 26 who were restored to their English lands. Two of the women were sisters and may have been related to a Northumbrian rebel of the 1260s. There are also four rebels who held land in Norhamshire on the Scottish border which, although today is part of Northumberland, at this time belonged to the bishop of Durham. It should be noted that although two men, Robert Bruce (the future king of Scots) and John of Swinburne, were restored to lands in Tynedale as well as in Scotland, for the purposes of this article only, these men are not considered rebels.[2]

As stated in Part I, our main source for these rebels is the sheriff’s account in the Pipe Rolls, CDS, ii, no. 736, CDS, iv, no. 1770, Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland, 1286-1306, ii, nos. 358, 359 (pp 40-49), Rotuli Scotiae, I, 24-50, as well as other sources as mentioned below. Within these documents, there are 68 rebels in total from the counties of Cumberland and Northumberland: 17 from Cumberland, 44 from Northumberland and seven who held lands in both. Six women were considered rebels; 30 men appear on the Ragman Roll in 1296; and only 37 men in total appear to have been restored to their English lands.

Northumberland

Henry of Anstruther (RR)

Henry of Anstruther, in Fife, was forfeited of the fourth part of the vill of Hetherington in Northumberland in 1296. He appeared on the Ragman Roll at Berwick in August 1296 but was not restored to his heritage in England until February 1303. In May 1304, the bishop of Durham – who held his Northumberland lands – was also ordered to release those to him. He was likely a relative of two other Henrys of Anstruther who appear at an earlier date in the PoMS database.[3]

William of Bellingham

William of Bellingham held two-thirds of the manor of Bellingham, as well as rights to lands at Abberwick, Akeld and Whittingham. However, his Bellingham property, which he held of the kings of Scots, had been delivered to the Comyns after the death of Alexander III in 1286. William was referred to as the king of Scots’ bailiff in January 1279 and also served as coroner in Tynedale. He appended his seal to a 1286 agreement between Gilbert of Sherburn, sacrist of Coldingham, and John of Smeaton. Alexander of Bellingham, likely a relative, was taken prisoner at the battle of Dunbar in April 1296. William does not appear in the main list of rebels identified in Stevenson or CDS, but rather appears in a later inquisition dated 1373, where it is mentioned that his lands at Bellingham were seized by the king as a forfeiture of war and later had been given by Edward III (r.1327-77) to his wife, Philippa (d.1369). His lands do not appear to have been restored.[4]

Agnes of Blantyre

Agnes of Blantyre, Lanarkshire, was restored to dower lands in the liberty of Norham, held by the bishop of Durham, in March 1304 because she had come into the king’s peace.[5] It is unclear what lands she held or when these were seized into the king’s hand.

Henry de Chartres and William de Chartres (RR)

Henry de Chartres held Wooden, Northumberland, of the bishop of Durham. When it was forfeited in April 1296, it was stated that Henry had given his land to William, his son. In 1298, Wooden was still held by the king ‘for [Henry’s] evildoings and rebellion’ but was granted to the bishop by the king’s grace. Henry’s son, William, performed fealty to Edward I as ‘of the county of Roxburgh’ at Berwick in August 1296. But by September 1300, he had been captured by the English and taken to York castle, later to be transferred to Nottingham Castle.[6] By November 1303, William was again in the king’s peace at which time Edward I commanded the sheriff of Roxburgh to inquire into his lands in that county. It was found that the land of ‘Appeltrerig’ should descend to William ‘as the heritage of Agnes de Vescy, his mother’. Half the manor of Wilton may also have fallen to William by this same inquisition. The following year, in March 1304, William again performed homage to Edward I.[7] Though it is not explicitly stated, the lands in Roxburghshire were probably restored. Throughout this period, he witnessed three charters relating to lands in Berwickshire and Roxburghshire. He may be related to another rebel, Andrew de Chartres, squire (RR), who was mentioned as being restored to his lands in Yorkshire and who also held Amisfield Castle and Dumgree in Dumfriesshire.[8]

Edmund Comyn of Kilbride

Edmund Comyn of Kilbride, knight, was taken prisoner at the battle of Dunbar on 27 April 1296 and held in Nottingham Castle. His manor of Newham, Northumberland, and his land in several other English counties were seized at this time. Newham was held of the bishop of Durham, and, like Henry de Chartres’ land of Wooden, was granted by the king’s grace to the bishop in June 1298. Although he was released from prison by August 1297, it was not until February 1304, after Edmund had performed homage and fealty to Edward I, that his lands in England – including land in the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Northumberland, Essex and Hertfordshire – and in Scotland were restored. Afterwards, he faithfully served Edward I.[9]

John Comyn, lord of Badenoch (d.c.1302) (RR)

A well-known figure in Scottish history, John Comyn was prominent in the governments of Kings Alexander III (d.1286) and John Balliol. After Alexander’s death, John served as one of six guardians until John Balliol’s reign began in 1292. He continued to be heavily involved in politics during Balliol’s reign. In Scotland, he held numerous lands in Atholl, Dumfriesshire, Dunbartonshire, Perthshire, Roxburghshire, Clydesdale and the Highlands, at Badenoch, Lochaber, and including Lochindorb castle where he would die in c.1302. In England, he held Tarset, Walwick and Thornton in Tynedale as well as lands in Lincolnshire. Walwick and Thornton had been given to his son (see below) by around 1295. In May 1296, these lands were seized on account of rebellion. He submitted to Edward I at Montrose in July 1296, following Balliol’s abdication, and was exiled to England. But, with Wallace’s uprising in 1297, King Edward sent Comyn back to Scotland to help restore order. However, by late 1297 he had joined the Scots and his lands in Tynedale were seized again.[10] They were not restored.

John Comyn, lord of Badenoch (d.1306) (RR)

Perhaps even more well-known than his father (above), this is the John Comyn who was killed by Robert Bruce in 1306. By about 1295, he had been given the manors of Walwick, Thornton and Henshaw in Tynedale, and after his father’s death in 1302, had received his estates named above. His lands in Northumberland were seized in April 1296 and he had been taken prisoner at the same time at the battle of Dunbar and held in London. He appeared on the Ragman Roll at Berwick in August 1296, but remained in prison until the end of July 1297, when he was mainprised by his father and others – a process similar to the modern concept of being ‘released on bail’ – to serve overseas for Edward I. His lands in Scotland and Northumberland were restored to him at this time. He returned to Scotland in 1298, and, like his father, became a guardian of Scotland – with Robert Bruce. He continued to fight for the Scottish cause and later led peace talks with Edward I in 1304 that resulted in the new governance of Scotland. He had married Joan de Valence, a cousin of Edward I, and following his rebellion and submission in 1296, she was granted 200 marks worth of her husband’s lands in Northumberland for her support.[11]

Robert of Cresswell

Robert of Cresswell, squire, was taken prisoner at the battle of Dunbar in April 1296 and subsequently his land of Hepburn was taken into Edward I’s hands. He was held prisoner at Harlech Castle, Wales, until August 1297, when he was mainprised by John of Menteith and released. His lands ‘acquired from John Daguillon and Joan, his wife’ were restored in 1304, though the source does not specify if this was Hebron or additional lands elsewhere in Northumberland.[12] He is perhaps related to an earlier Robert of Cresswell, knight of Northumberland.

William Douglas (d.1298) (RR)

William Douglas, lord of Douglas, is a rather infamous figure in Scottish history, so his rebellion should come as no surprise. In Northumberland, he held the manor of Fawdon. His second wife, Eleanor de Ferrers, widow of William de Ferrers (whom he had abducted in 1288 and later married), had dower lands in Essex as well as in Galloway. The lands in Northumberland, Essex and Hertfordshire were seized in April 1296 on account of his rebellion against Edward I. He appeared on the Ragman Roll twice, swearing fealty to Edward in June 1296 at Edinburgh and again at Berwick in August. That same month he was restored to his lands in Fife, Dumfriesshire, Wigtownshire, Berwickshire, Ayrshire and Midlothian in Scotland and to his Northumberland estates. He soon re-joined the Scots, though he would submit to Edward once more at Irvine in July 1297. His lands in Northumberland, and those of his wife in Essex, were seized again though a few months later, in October 1297, his wife was restored of the manor of Woodham Ferrers in Essex. At this point he was taken prisoner and kept in Berwick Castle before being transferred to the Tower of London in October 1297. He died still imprisoned in November 1298. After his death, the manor of Fawdon was delivered to Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus.[13]

John of Drummond

John of Drummond, Stirlingshire, was captured at the battle of Dunbar and taken prisoner to Wisbech Castle, Cambridgeshire, in May 1296. In August 1297 he was released on the mainprise of Edmund Hastings of Suffolk on condition that he serve the king in France. In 1304, as he and his wife, Helen, had come into the king’s peace, they received her dower in Northumberland.[14]

Gilbert of Embleton

Gilbert of Embleton was restored to the lands of his father, Robert, in Northumberland in March 1304. It is unknown what lands he held there or when they were seized, but they were likely in the vill of Embleton.[15]

Nicholas of Fawside (RR)

Nicholas of Fawside held land in Doddington, Northumberland, by right of his wife, Lora, which was restored in March 1304. He may be the same as Nicholas Fausy, who appeared on the Ragman Roll at Berwick in August 1296 as ‘of the county of Roxburgh’.[16] It is possible that his surname comes from Falside in East Lothian. It is unclear when his lands were seized.

Richard Fraser (RR)

Sir Richard Fraser, a Scottish knight, appears in a Scottish context from the early 1270s, witnessing seven charters in the PoMS database. He was nephew of William Fraser, bishop of St Andrews (d.1297), a pivotal figure in Scottish history. In July 1291, before his rebellion, Richard had recognised Edward I as overlord of Scotland, and the following year, Edward had granted him custody of the lands formerly held by Richard of Glen, recently deceased, which Richard held in Scotland and which fell to Edward I upon his death. In Northumberland, he held land in Adderstone, which was seized in 1296 on account of his rebellion. Richard also held lands in Stirlingshire, Berwickshire, Roxburghshire, Dumfriesshire, Peeblesshire and Midlothian, where the sheriffs were ordered to restore his lands in those counties in September 1296. Richard put his name to the Ragman Roll twice, once as ‘of the county of Dumfries’ and again as ‘of the county of Stirling’ at Berwick in August 1296. In May 1297, Richard was included with other Scots south of the Forth whom Edward I required to obey Hugh de Cressingham, his treasurer in Scotland, and Osbert de Spaldington. He served as surety for his cousin, Simon Fraser, to serve Edward I in Scotland against the king of France. Simon was later executed in 1306 for his rebellion against Edward I.[17] His English lands do not appear to have been restored.

Peter de Glinquym

Peter ‘de Glinquym, a Scottish rebel received to peace’ was restored to the lands in Northumberland of his mother, Joan de Blamyr, whose heir he was, in May 1304. It is unclear when these lands were seized. His surname is likely a corrupt form of Glenholm, Peebleshire, which would connect him to that family in Scotland and possibly to Gilbert de Glenwyn seen in Part I. Stephen of Glenholm appended his name to the Ragman Roll in August 1296.[18]

Nicholas Graham (d.1306) (RR)

Nicholas Graham was a Scottish knight who held lands at Dalkeith, Midlothian, and in Hassington, Berwickshire, as well as in other Scottish counties. In Northumberland, he held Belford, Lowick and half of Doddington. He married Mary, daughter of Malise, earl of Strathearn, and of Margery, daughter of Robert of Muskham (Muschamp in PoMS), and with her held half the barony of Muskham in Nottinghamshire. His Northumberland lands were seized in April 1296 following his rebellion against Edward I. He appeared on the Ragman Roll at Berwick in August 1296 as ‘of the county of Linlithgow’. In September, he was restored to his Scottish lands in the counties of Roxburgh, Edinburgh, Ayr, Peebles and Berwick, with some exceptions. Hassington, which he held of Patrick, earl of Dunbar, was evidently seized by the earl when the war began and leased to Sir William of Durham. Nicholas was still suing for the land as late as 1304, when he appears to have been successful. Also, Dalkeith was also evidently not released to him until March 1304. His lands in Northumberland had been placed in the hands of the bishop of Durham in 1296, and were not restored until March 1304. Nicholas was dead by May 1306 and was succeeded by his son, John.[19]

Elias of Greenacres

Elias does not appear in the main list of rebels, but he does appear alongside William of Bellingham (above), in an inquisition dated 1373. He and William were both forfeited of lands in Bellingham due to the war, and the lands were later given by Edward III (r.1327-77) to his wife, Philippa (d.1369). His lands do not appear to have been restored and he does not appear elsewhere.[20]

Aymer of Hadden (RR)

Aymer of Hadden, Roxburghshire, held lands in Midlothian and Roxburghshire, as well as land by right of his wife in the liberty of Norham. He appeared on the Ragman Roll as ‘of the county of Edinburgh’ in August 1296. It is unclear when his lands were seized. In March 1304, he once again performed homage to Edward I and that month was restored of seisin of the lands of Isabella, his wife, in the liberty of Norham, held by the bishop of Durham. By 1312, however, he was once more a rebel with other Scots, and had lands in Midlothian seized and given to Robert Hastang, sheriff of Roxburgh.[21]

Henry of Halliburton (RR)

Henry was a Scottish knight from Halliburton in Berwickshire, held 122 acres and half the mill in Spindleston and land in Budle, ‘waste through the Scots war’, which were seized in April 1296. He also had claims to land in Etal. Half of Spindleston was released to William de Vescy by the king’s writ. In August 1296, at Berwick, he appeared on the Ragman Roll. However, in February 1300, he and his wife Agnes, widow of William Colville, were still considered rebels who ‘burned churches and killed men in England when the king’s Scottish enemies laid waste [to] the county’. Lands in Northumberland given to Agnes by her first husband were delivered to Robert Colville, her former brother-in-law. By 1306×7, he appeared to have come into King Edward’s peace, and was given money for certain expenses that year. He also was addressed in a royal letter to several bishops and nobles to obey the earl of Richmond while the king travelled to Boulogne.[22] However, his lands do not appear to have been restored.

Richard, abbot of Kelso (RR)

Richard, abbot of Kelso, occurs as abbot as early as May 1285. His lands in Northumberland at Marchingley (represented now by March Burn) were seized in May 1296 but following his submission at Berwick in August 1296, his lands, including others in Berwickshire and Roxburghshire, were released to him. His fealty would not last long, though, as in August 1299, Edward I granted Kelso Abbey licence to elect a new abbot due to ‘the continued and voluntary absence of their late abbot, Brother Richard, a rebel and enemy’.[23] It can be assumed that his lands were seized again and not restored.

Michael of Lothian

Michael of Lothian in Scotland held land at ‘Wottone’ in Northumberland, which was seized in May 1296.[24] Michael does not appear in the PoMS database, and it is unknown if the lands were restored.

Roger Marshal of Cowpen

In 1304, Roger Marshal of Cowpen was restored to his lands in Northumberland which were of his heritage and also those acquired from John Gripedale of Cowpen, perhaps a relative.[25] It is unknown what lands he held or when they were seized, though his surname points to lands in Cowpen. He may be the same or related to a Roger, son of Walter of Cowpen who appears in 1304.

Mary, wife of William Melville

Mary was restored to dower lands in the liberty of Norham, held by the bishop of Durham, in March 1304. She was the widow of William Melville, lord of Tartraven (d.1298), who appeared on the Ragman Roll twice, once as of the county of Peeblesshire and once as of the county of Roxburghshire. William died in 1298 in the ‘faith and peace’ of the king and was succeeded by his son, William. The lands in Norham must have been seized after William’s death due to Mary’s own rebellion, as he does not appear among the original rebels of 1296.[26]

John Morel, abbot of Jedburgh (RR)

John Morel is found as abbot of Jedburgh from 1275. He held unknown lands in Northumberland which were seized in April 1296, and in August of that year appeared on the Ragman Roll at the same time as the abbots of Melrose, Kelso and Dryburgh. He was then restored to unnamed lands in Berwickshire and Roxburghshire. He resigned shortly afterwards, in September 1296, and was replaced as abbot by William of Yarm, Yorkshire. He appears to have remained supportive of the Scottish case, however, and later appears at the court of King Philip IV of France.[27]

William of Paxton

William of Paxton, Berwickshire, first appears in the PoMS database witnessing charters from about the 1270s and 1280s. He held a messuage and carucate of land in Abberwick in Northumberland of Robert of Bellingham (see William of Bellingham above). This land was seized in April 1296. He does not appear on the Ragman Roll, but evidently remained in Scotland and died there by August 1300. In June 1304, his lands in Northumberland were restored to his grandson, Robert.[28]

Hugh of Penicuik (RR)

Hugh, ‘a Scottish rebel’ from Penicuik, Midlothian, held unknown lands in Northumberland, which were seized at an unknown time. He had appeared on the Ragman Roll in August 1296 at Berwick as ‘of the county of Edinburgh’ and again in March 1304 where he was given the title ‘Sir’.[29] His lands were restored to him at this time.

William Porter (RR)

William was restored to the heritage of his wife, Alice, in Northumberland in May 1304, though it is unclear what lands these were or when they were seized. Though the surname is quite common, he may be the same as William Porter ‘of the county of Lanark’ who appeared on the Ragman Roll at Berwick in August 1296.[30]

John Prat

In 1296, John Prat, son of Bertram Prat, was a minor in the custody of John Wishart (see below), who had bought his wardship as early as May 1288. He held Knarsdale in Northumberland which was seized in May 1296 and was not restored. However, it appears that he was restored of certain lands elsewhere as the escheator beyond the Trent was ordered to restore his lands in October 1305. He does not appear on the Ragman Roll, perhaps because he was a minor. In May 1315, Edward II gave to Robert of Swinburne ‘for good service in Scotland’ the manor of Knarsdale, ‘forfeited by John Prat an enemy and rebel’.[31] He is likely a descendant of Reginald Prat of Tynedale who appears in Scotland in the 12^th century, but is probably also related to an earlier John Prat, son of Bertram, who held lands in Nairnshire and appears in the 1250s-90s. The Prat family seems to have maintained links between Tynedale and Moray for over a century.

Aymer of Rutherford (RR)

Aymer of Rutherford in Roxburghshire held lands in Moralee and Brierdene, Northumberland, which were seized in April 1296. It appears he held the manor of Moralee along with Thomas of Moralee (see Part III). His lands at Brierdene were released to Robert Balliol, sheriff of Northumberland. In August 1296, he appeared on the Ragman Roll at Berwick as ‘of the county of Roxburgh’. In late 1297, the lands were still forfeited.[32] It is unclear if they were later restored.

Nicholas of Rutherford (RR)

Nicholas of Rutherford, Roxburghshire, was a Scottish knight who held lands in Doddington, Northumberland, seized in May 1296. He appeared on the Ragman Roll at Montrose in July 1296. Nicholas had a daughter, Margaret, who also appeared on the Ragman Roll at Berwick in August 1296 as ‘of the county of Berwick’. He had previously appended his seal to a document datable between 1269 and 1289 regarding lands in Roxburghshire and was a frequent witness to documents of the period concerning lands in Roxburghshire, Berwickshire and Peeblesshire.[33] It is unknown if his lands were restored.

Thomas of Selkirk (RR)

Thomas of Selkirk, a Berwick burgess, held lands in Berwickshire and in the old county of Norhamshire, now part of Northumberland. He appeared on the Ragman Roll at Berwick in August 1296 and, in 1304, was restored to unknown lands acquired by Thomas Murray in Norham, held by the bishop of Durham. It is unclear when these were seized. Thomas married a woman named Matilda, and by her had at least one son, Peter.[34]

John of Shilvington

John held the land of Shilvington, Northumberland, which was seized in May 1296.[35] He does not appear in the PoMS database and it is unknown if he was restored to his lands.

John of Shitlington (RR)

John was a Northumbrian knight who held the land of Shitlington, which was seized in April 1296. He appeared on the Ragman Roll in August 1296 at Berwick as ‘of the county of Edinburgh’. At the same time, he appeared with other rebels, John of Gelston and Gilbert of Southwick (see Part I: Cumberland), as a juror in the inquest into the lands of Helen de la Zouche.[36]  He does not appear to have been restored.

Richard Siward (d.c.1311)

Richard was a Scottish knight and lord of Kellie (Fife). Before 1292, Richard had been keeper of the castles of Dumfries, Kirkcudbright and Wigtown. It also appears that before war broke out between England and Scotland, his lands in Southampton had been seized by Edward I, but restored in December 1295. Richard was forfeited of his lands in Northumberland (at Espleywood) and in Worcestershire in April 1296. Both Richard and one of his sons, Richard junior, were taken prisoner at the Battle of Dunbar in late April 1296. Richard senior was sent to the Tower of London, while his son to Bristol castle. As prisoners, neither Richard appeared on the Ragman Roll. His Northumberland lands were evidently delivered to the bishop of Durham with those of other rebels. He spent more than a year in the Tower but was released in July 1297 with his other son, John, being given as surety, in order to serve Edward overseas in France. At the same time his lands in Northumberland, Northamptonshire and Scotland were restored to him. Following his service in France, he returned to Scotland to assist in the English occupation there and remained in Edward’s service. Again he was placed in authoritative positions in Dumfriesshire as keeper of Nithsdale and later as sheriff and constable of Dumfries, as well as sheriff of Fife. In 1306, he was taken prisoner by Robert Bruce’s men, but was no doubt released soon afterwards, when Edward executed several rebellious Scots following John Comyn’s killing by Bruce that year. Richard was also active in Northern England. In November 1305 he was appointed justice with Robert Tilliol and William of Muncaster, sheriff of Cumberland, to try David of Brechin in Cumberland on charges of trespass. Earlier in his life, in 1266, he appears in a Westmorland case. He had two sons, John and Richard, one daughter, Agnes, and other children from a first marriage. His second wife, Mary, survived him after his death before April 1311. His son, Richard junior, who remained a prisoner until at least May 1298, died in 1307.[37]

John Somerville

John Somerville held 100s. of lands in Hedgeley, Northumberland, by the gift of his father, William, which were forfeited in 1296 but restored in March 1304. He was probably the same as the clerk of that name taken prisoner at the battle of Dunbar in April 1296. However, following his restoration, John had quickly rebelled again. He was captured at the Battle of Methven in 1306 and condemned to be hanged, having been charged ‘with killing the king’s lieges at the said battle under Robert de Bruce’. He was executed in August 1306 at Newcastle. His lands, which had been held of Sir William of Felton, were granted to the king’s valet, Walter de Gilling.[38]

Thomas de Soulis (RR)

Thomas de Soulis, or Soules, a Scottish knight, first appears in the PoMS database witnessing a document dateable between 1265 and 1280. He was younger brother of William de Soulis, justiciar of Lothian, who died in 1292 or 1293. He held the land of Heugh, Northumberland, which was seized in April 1296. Thomas first appeared on the Ragman Roll at Elgin in July 1296, and again at Berwick in August as ‘of the county of Roxburgh’. By 1300, he was a prisoner in Exeter Castle. He was dead by March 1304, when his widow, Lady Alice, performed homage and fealty to Edward I.[39] It is unknown if his lands were restored.

Thomas of Stanton

Thomas had lands seized in Northumberland in April 1296.[40] Presumably, these may have been in Stanton. It is unclear if the lands were restored.

John of Tynedale

In 1304, an order was given to the bishop of Durham, who held many of the lands of Northumberland rebels, to restore lands which John of Tynedale held of the gift of Adam of Haltwhistle, chaplain. Although it is not specified, the lands were surely in Northumberland. It is unknown when they were seized.[41]

Hugh de Walle

In May 1296, Hugh de Walle was forfeited of his lands of Chipchase, Northumberland, following his rebellion against Edward I. He was restored to his lands in August 1297 for his service to Edward I overseas. Hugh does not appear in the PoMS database.[42]

Thomas Walran

Thomas Walran, who held unknown lands in Northumberland, was restored to those lands in August 1304 after he had come into Edward I’s peace.[43] It is unclear when these were seized into the king’s hand.

Margery of Welton and Idonea of Welton

Sisters Margery and Idonea held Thornley in Northumberland which was seized by May 1296. At the request of Edward I’s cousin, Joan, wife of John Comyn junior, with whom the sisters were staying in Scotland, their land was restored in September. They may be a relation of Walter Scott of Welton, a Northumbrian landholder who rebelled against King Henry III in 1265.[44]

William of Whittingham

Although not given in the main list of rebels, William of Whittingham in Northumberland was imprisoned in 1296 ‘as a Scottish traitor, for absenting himself from his lands to avoid serving in the army against the Scots’. It was said he was in the company of John Comyn of Badenoch (d.c.1302), ‘the king’s enemy’.[45] He does not appear elsewhere in the PoMS database.

John Wishart of the Carse

Sir John Wishart, often called ‘of the Carse’ (Stirlingshire), held the wardship of John Prat, who was forfeited of his manor of Knarsdale (see above). In addition to the wardship of lands at Knarsdale and the advowson of the church there, Wishart also held the land of Moneylaws in Northumberland, and had leased to Helen of Prenderleith 20 marks of land there. Because of his rebellion, she was only able to have possession of it for half a year. In September 1304, it was said that the land was still in the king’s hands. In October 1305, the sheriff of Northumberland was commanded to restore to John his lands there.[46]

In Part III of this feature, to be published shortly online, we look at the seven rebels who held lands in both Cumberland and Northumberland. Part III also discusses the final conclusions on all the northern rebels and looks more in depth at the issue of cross-border landholding during the first Scottish wars of independence.

during the Scottish campaign of 1296

John Reuben Davies, Research Associate

One of the most important features of the People of Medieval Scotland, common to prosopographical databases, is the ability not only to search, but also to browse the database by name. It was through this function that I noticed a significant number of Welsh names cropping up in our sources. Many of these Welsh names, some of them well-known figures in the landscape of thirteenth-century Welsh history, appear in the pact between Walter Comyn, earl of Menteith, and the magnates of his faction, on the one side, and Llywelyn ap Gruffudd on the other, on 18 March 1258; a familiar text from Littere Wallie printed in Rymer’s Foedera (PoMS, 4/42/2, Foedera, I, i, 370). Other instances include an instruction from Henry III to Llywellyn ap Gruffudd (prince of Wales), Owain ap Gruffudd, the king of Norway, and Alexander III, on 4 April 1253, to stop invading the lands of Magnus, king of the Isles (PoMS, 1/26/9, CDS, i, no. 1917). Or there is the declaration of obedience by Thomas of Kirkcudbright, bishop elect of Whithorn, to the archbishop of York, done in the presence of the bishop of St Asaph in October 1294 (PoMS, 2/12/35, Reg. Romeyn, ii, no. 1407). But by far the most interesting occurrence of Welsh names comes from a plea roll of Edward I’s army from the campaign of 1296.

Between the middle of May and the end of August 1296, Edward I and his army rode unopposed through Scotland. This journey of more than three months’ duration was the postlude to the defeat of the feudal host of Scotland at Dunbar on 27 April, and the surrender of Roxburgh castle by James the Stewart a week or so later. But it was also the prelude to the great parliament of Berwick on 28 August, when the English king formally received into his goodwill and faith the prelates, earls, barons, nobles and the civic communities which constituted the realm of Scotland. Edward’s journey of summer 1296 has no parallel that I can think of in the history of the British Isles: and I am hard pressed to think of a parallel in the history of western Europe. The English king proceeded without hindrance until he reached the Moray Firth; on the way, the king of Scots, John Balliol, was deposed, ritually and ceremonially humiliated, and taken prisoner; and finally, at the end of the journey, nearly every person and community of significance in Scotland performed fealty once again, and the tenants-in-chief did homage.

The campaign of 1296 was a triumphant success, and the expedition developed into little more than a grand royal and military progress around the Scottish kingdom. Edward followed an eastern coastal route, via Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Forfar, Montrose, Kincardine, Aberdeen, Banff and Elgin, returning via a similar route, and taking in Kildrummy, Brechin, Arbroath, Dundee, and St Andrews, until he reached Berwick-upon-Tweed again on Wednesday 22 August.

As we follow the king on his tour of Scotland, the plea roll of his army allows us one perspective onto life in a late-thirteenth-century army, a view of the trouble-makers, and the kind of trouble they got into.

The document in question lives at The National Archives in Kew as part of the Exchequer series of Scottish Documents, E39. The shelf-mark is E39/93/15. It was printed in the Scottish History Society’s eleventh Miscellany in 1990, edited by Cynthia Neville. It is made up of nine parchment membranes, and a contemporary note sewn to it reads, ‘Roll of King Edward, delivered in the Wardrobe at Tweedmouth by sir William de Beccles, clerk of the Earl Marshal’.

Now, all men who broke ranks, robbed, caused disturbances within the host, or committed any other offences while in battle array, were referred to the marshal and constable for punishment. Both the Earl Marshal, Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, and the Constable of England, Humphrey de Bohun, earl of Hereford, were present on this campaign, and witnessed the performance of fealty by Scottish landholders. Also present was John Lovell, the deputy Marshal, who heard some of the cases. Two entries reveal that the jurors who were summoned to the sessions were men in the king’s immediate entourage (his court), and others from the army at large.

The first feature to be noticed is that the pleas and commissions of gaol delivery happen where the king is. They follow his otherwise-known itinerary through Scotland. The first was at Roxburgh, 10 May 1296.[1]

Pleas of the lord king’s army at Roxburgh, on the Thursday after the feast of the Ascension of the Lord, in the the 24th year of his reign [10 May 1296].

71           Ralph of Togston was attached to answer Llywelyn ab Ithel on a plea of trespass. He complains that on the Tuesday after the feast of the Holy Trinity, Ralph unlawfully took a sword from him worth 4 s., and a mantle worth 2 s. 4 d., and he removed the sword and mantle, ‘to the grievous damage’ of Llywelyn, and ‘against the peace’ etc. Ralph ‘came and defended the force and injury’. He said that he bought the mantle in the king’s market at Roxburgh, and that that he did not acquire it with malice. He seeks inquest to be made. About the sword, he said that he seized no sword from Llywelyn, nor did he remove it, as he has charged. Ralph now requests that inquiry be made; and Llywelyn likewise. (The sheriff) is therefore instructed etc. Afterwards, Llywelyn presented himself, and Ralph did not come; therefore he and his sureties, namely John fitz Richard of Ednam and John his son are liable to amercement.

(Amercement of 2 s.)

We should suppose that Ralph came from Togston in Northumberland, but that he had local connections in Roxburghshire, for he was able to call upon John fitz Richard and his son, also John, of Ednam, near Kelso. Perhaps they were not such good friends with Ralph after their amercement for 2 shillings.

The next session constituted pleas of gaol delivery at Roxburgh, 17 May 1296

Pleas of gaol delivery at Roxburgh on the Thursday in Whitsun week in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward [17 May 1296]

97           Richard of Gateshead was attached to answer Cynwrig ap Dafydd on a plea of trespass. He complains that when on the Thursday after the Octave of Trinity he arrived on the king’s road at the town of Roxburgh, Richard came and with a premeditated assault attacked him and wounded him in the head with a staff [or axe] to his grievous damage of £20, and against the peace. Richard came and defended the force and injury; he said that he did not come there, nor did he assault or wound Cynwrig, as he charged. He now requests that inquest be made; and Cynwrig likewise. Afterwards, Cynwrig let the suit fall; he is therefore liable to amercement.

(Amercement of 2 s.)

The army then moved on to Edinburgh, and there gaol deliveries and pleas of the king’s army were heard on 12 June 1296.

Gaol delivery at Edinburgh and pleas of the lord king’s army there on the Tuesday after the feast of Saint Barnabas in the 24th year of King Edward’s reign [12 June 1296].

108         A day is given between Gruffudd Crakeyl and his company, men of the earl of Hereford, plaintiffs on the one side, and Warin of Staundon and others of Nicholas of Audley’s men, defendants on the other side, and is allowed until the next day, on the request of the parties. Afterwards they are licensed to agree. Broyl de Turberville put himself (on the country). The sureties for amercement are Gruffudd ap Rhys and Hywel ab Einion, men of the earl of Hereford. (Amercement) is remitted at the instance of Sir Gilbert de Bohun.

(On the request of the parties)

Staundon is in Herefordshire, and Audley in Staffordshire. Gilbert de Bohun was the brother of the earl of Hereford. The Turbervilles were a significant Marcher family in Glamorgan. Gruffudd ap Rhys was leader of the Welshmen of North Wales and fought in Gascony in 1297 (Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1292–1301, p. 335: Sandwich, 15 March 1297/8, safe conduct for 15 days for Welsh men of North Wales returning home from Flanders).

109         Cynwrig ap Madog (and) Iorwerth ab Owain were charged at the king’s suit for a homicide committed at Jedburgh, that they killed a Welshman, one of their company; they say that they are not guilty, and put themselves (on the country) for it. The jurors say upon their oath that they are not guilty. Therefore they are acquitted.

(Acquitted)

111         Therenard Barth was charged by the lord king because he killed Einion Fychan, a Welshman. He puts himself (on the country). The jurors say upon their oath that he killed Einion feloniously; and they say that he has no chattels.

 (To be hanged, no chattels)

113         Dafydd ap Cynwrig was attached at the suit of Henry of Lancaster. It is claimed that David took a horse from Henry on the Friday before the feast of Saint Barnabas the apostle, in a field at Edinburgh, against the peace of the lord king to the grievous damage of Henry of half a mark. Dafydd comes and defends the force and injury, the damage etc. He says that he bought the horse at Carlisle at the time the Welshmen were on their way to Scotland. He requests that inquest be made on the matter; and Henry likewise. Therefore the matter is put to inquest.

   (Inquest)

This Henry of Lancaster appears to be the Henry of Lancaster who was grandson of Henry III. He was the third earl of Lancaster and third earl of Leicester (d.1345), second son of Edmund (Crouchback), earl of Lancaster (1245–1296), the youngest son of Henry III, and Blanche (d. 1302). If so, this is the earliest reference to him on military service, probably aged 16. We know that he served in the king’s army in Flanders in 1297–8, and was knighted in 1301. Henry became lord of Monmouth upon his father’s death in June 1296, and held Grosmont, Skenfrith, and Whitecastle, two Gloucestershire manors, and Monmouth. (Edmund had died only a week earlier than this this case, at Bayonne.)

Edinburgh, 8 June 1296

Pleas of the lord King’s army at Edinburgh on the Friday before the feast of Saint Barnabas the apostle in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward [8 June 1296].

138         Ithel ap Kaclyn of Whitchurch was attached to answer Roger the servant of John of Swinburn on a plea of trespass. Later they are licensed to agree. Ithel puts himself on the country. He makes a fine of 2 shillings.

(Amercement 2 s., paid)

Ithel was a Welshman of the Powys-Shropshire March. John of Swinburn was a tenant in chief of Edward I in Scotland, and performed homage and fealty at Berwick in August 1296.

141         Peter de Mompelers, Robert the servant of Gilbert, Alan of Henton, Eustace Mowere, Gilbert Collier and Walter de Fernacles appealed Meurig ab Ieuan the Welshman in respect of the death of William, of their company, and of the theft of a tunic and a sword. Peter and the others have not prosecuted; and one stood surety for the other; and they have not prosecuted; therefore they are to be seized.

With respect to the king’s suit, Meurig says that he is a good and loyal man and is in no way guilty, and he puts himself on the country. The jurors say, upon on their oath, that he is a good and loyal man and is no way guilty; therefore he is acquitted.

(Seized and acquitted)

142         William Fiddler and Matilda of Waketon were attached to answer Meurig on a plea of trespass. He complains that on the Saturday before the quindene of Trinity, the aforesaid William came and shot at him with an arrow and wounded him badly, to Meurig’s gave damage and against the peace.

William says that he neither shot at Meurig nor injured him as he accused. He asks for inquest to be made. And Meurig likewise. The jurors say, upon their oath, that William and Maud are not guilty but that if they did do this, they did it in self-defence. Therefore it is considered that William and Maud are acquitted. Meurig is liable to amercement. His surety is Sir John le Strange.

(Amercement 12 d.)

Sir John Le Strange, presumably son of Roger Le Strange, Lord Le Strange of Knockin, Shropshire, who was heavily involved in the Welsh wars.

150         John de Banet was attached to answer John de la Reil, constable of Sir Walter de Beauchamp’s Welshmen on a plea of trespass. And John de la Reil has not prosecuted; therefore he and his sureties for prosecuting are liable to amercement.

(Amercement 12 d.)

Sir Walter de Beauchamp was constable of Gloucester castle and steward of the king’s household.

151         John Russel, Madog Gen, Mordach of Frodsham and Goronwy the Welshman were attached to answer Dafydd ap Thomas and Madog ap Goronwy on a plea of trespass. They complain that on the Friday which was the feast of Saint Peter, John and the others came to Clunie, and assaulted them, and wounded them badly, to their grave damage etc., and against the peace. They bring suit upon it.

John and the others come and say that they did not come there, nor did they assault those men, as they are charged. They ask for inquest to be made. Dafydd and Madog have not prosecuted. Therefore they are liable to amercement.

                                                   (Amercement 2 s.)

Eleven days later, the scene is transported to Stirling, and so into Scotia proper.

Stirling, 19 June 1296

Gaol delivery at Stirling on the Tuesday before the feast of Saint John Baptist in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward [19 June 1296].

117         Iorwerth the Welshman[2] is attached at the suit of Ralph fitz Ralph for the death of a man. His sureties for prosecuting are William Athelston and Roger Hayward.

Clunie, 28 June 1296

Gaol delivery at Clunie on the Thursday, the vigil of the apostles Peter and Paul, in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward [28 June 1296].

119         Iorwerth the Welshman is attached for the death of William fitz John. And being charged upon this at the lord king’s suit, he says that he is not guilty of William’s death. He puts himself upon the country. And the jurors say, upon their oath, that Iorwerth is not guilty of William’s death. He is therefore acquitted.

(Acquitted)

This appears to be the same case as no. 117.

121         Ralph of Ireland was attached to answer John Lovell on a plea that when John came to Edinburgh to settle the dispute between the Welsh and the English, Ralph came and wounded John’s destrier under him, to his damage etc. Ralph comes and defends the force and injury etc. He asks for inquiry to be made; John likewise. The jurors say, upon their oath, that Ralph wounded John’s destrier as he charged him. Therefore Ralph is condemned to prison etc.

(To prison)

John Lovell was deputy marshal in King Edward’s army.

Gaol delivery at Aberdeen on the Wednesday next before the feast of Saint Margaret the virgin, in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward [18 July 1296]

129         Henry Woodward, William Carter, William de Berneston, Henry le Tene, and John Organ, were attached for the death of a Welshman killed in Roxburgh, namely one of the earl of Hereford’s company. Those charged over this matter say in the presence of the steward that they are not guilty of the Welshman’s death. And they put themselves on the country concerning this. The jurors say, upon their oath, that Henry and the others are not guilty of the death of the Welshman and are therefore acquitted.

(Acquitted)

By 10 July, the army is making its way along the east coast, and has reached Montrose.

Pleas of the lord king’s army at Montrose on the Tuesday after the feast of Saint Thomas the martyr, in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward [10 July 1296].

159         William Park was attached to answer Dafydd Whanwhan on a plea respecting a mule. The sureties for prosecuting are Llywelyn Foel and Geoffrey Messenger. William presented himself. And Dafydd has let the suit fall. And Dafydd and his pledges are liable to amercement.

(Amercement of 12 d.)

A fortnight after the pleas at Montrose, on 28 July 1296, the king and his army have reached their northern limit at Elgin in Moray, before the return journey to Berwick.

Gaol delivery at Elgin on the Saturday after the feast of Saint James the apostle in the 24th year of the reign of King Edward [28 July 1296].

132         Ieuan of Gelli-gaer was attached for the death of a boy named John. Being charged with this at the suit of the king he says that he is not guilty of John’s death; and he puts himself on the country. The jurors say, upon their oath, that Ieuan is not guilty of the death of the aforesaid John. Therefore he is acquitted.

(Acquitted)

So far as the Welshmen involved in these pleas and gaol deliveries go, the proceedings came to nothing. None of the defendants was found to be culpable, and the worst that happened was that a number of them were amerced for not pursuing a suit. The one sentence of hanging was handed down for the murder of a Welshman, Einion Fychan, by an Englishman. And the sentence of imprisonment was imposed upon an Irishman who wounded the deputy marshal’s horse. Yet we see a range of charges and sometimes some amusing defences.

I have not been able to identify many of the Welshmen involved; only Gruffudd ap Rhys crops up elsewhere as leader of the Welshmen of North Wales in the Gascony campaign the following year. Yet, from their epithets, and their associates, we can surmise that those mentioned were drawn from the Marches and south Wales, in line with J. E. Morris’s interpretation of the other evidence.

As I have already said, this is not a newly discovered text, and perhaps I am not the only one to have noticed the number of Welshmen contained in it. But so far as I can see, it has been overlooked in the historiography of Welsh armies. As a more general principle, I suspect that there remains much more still to be discovered about the Welsh in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in The National Archives at Kew.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Joseph Bain (ed.), Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, 5 vols (Edinburgh, 1881–8) [CDS]

The Register of John le Romeyn, lord Archbishop of York 1286–96, ed. W. Brown (Surtees Society 123 (London, 1913) [Reg. Romeyn]

Calendar of Patent Rolls. Edward I, A.D. 1292–1301 (London, 1895)

Adam Chapman, ‘Welshmen in the Armies of Edward I’, in The Impact of Edwardian Castles in Wales. The proceedings of a conference held at Bangor University, 7–9 September 2007, ed. Diane M. Williams and John R. Kenyon (Oxford, and Oakville, CT, 2010), 175–82

Littere Wallie, ed. J. Goronwy Evans (Cardiff, 1940)

J. E. Morris, The Welsh Wars of Edward I. A Contribution to Mediaeval Military History (Oxford, 1901)

‘A plea roll of Edward I’s army in Scotland, 1296’, ed. C. J. Neville, in Miscellany of the Scottish History Society. Eleventh Volume (Edinburgh, 1990), 7–133

Thomas Rymer (ed.), Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae et Cuiuscunque Generis Acta Publica, Record Commission edition, 17 vols (London, 1816–69) [Foedera]

Part I: Cumberland

 Amanda Beam, Research Associate

The outbreak of war between England and Scotland in 1296 was not simply a case of England versus Scotland. Many people, men and women, held lands on both sides of the border and thus had to choose whether to support one king or the other. Naturally, the majority of English landholders supported Edward I rather than John Balliol. But this was not a foregone conclusion. The following feature[1] aims to examine some Northern English landholders who, though not necessarily holding Scottish lands, sided with John Balliol and the Scots. For their rebellion against Edward I, they were forfeited. While many were restored shortly after performing homage and fealty to King Edward, some were not restored for as many as eight years later, and some not at all.

What follows focuses on these rebels in a Northern English and Scottish context as related to the People of Medieval Scotland and Breaking of Britain projects, and does not discuss other lands held elsewhere in England. Specifically, this feature examines a few documents that survive which enumerate these rebels and their lands, while also using other sources currently available in the People of Medieval Scotland database. For Cumberland there is the account of Michael de Harclay, sheriff, of ‘issues of lands of men from the kingdom of Scotland holding lands, tenements, goods and chattels in England and remaining in Scotland, and not in the kingdom of England, taken into the king’s hand on occasion of the war between the lord king and the king of Scotland, by writ, from the feast of All Saints, year 23, up to Michaelmas year 24 (i.e., 1 November 1295 to 29 September 1296)’.[2] This pipe roll account can be compared to Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, ed. J. Bain, ii, no. 736 and J. Stevenson, ed., Documents illustrative of the history of Scotland, 1286-1306, ii, no. 358 (pp. 40-47), and to various writs of restoration in Rotuli Scotiae, volume I, pp. 24-50.

Within these documents, there are 68 rebels in total from the counties of Cumberland and Northumberland: 17 from Cumberland, 44 from Northumberland and seven who held lands in both. Six women are included, as are six religious men; 30 men appended their seals to deeds of fealty to Edward I in 1296; deeds which were later incorporated in the Ragman Roll, and only 37 rebels in total (or in some cases, their heirs or widows) appear to have been restored to their English lands, though many were restored to their Scottish lands. Surprisingly, there are no rebels who held lands in Westmorland, where about 35 rebels are mentioned from the rebellious times of 1260s England. We can assume, though, that some Westmorland lands were seized, as a writ to the sheriff there commanded that Christiana, widow of David of Torthorwald, be restored to her dower from the lands of William of Kirkton, her first husband. Her lands in Cumberland were seized on account of David’s rebellion in 1296.[3] These 68 rebels are divided into three different Features of the Month. Part I will cover those who are mentioned as holding land in Cumberland only; Part II for those who held lands in Northumberland; Part III, Cumberland and Northumberland, with a complete list of Northern rebels at the end.

Cumberland

The records show a total of 17 rebels who held land in Cumberland, with another seven, to be discussed in Part III, who held lands in Cumberland and Northumberland. Of these 17, one can be linked to a rebel in the 1260s, two were women and eight would later appear on the Ragman Roll (signified by (RR) below). Only eight appear to have been restored of their English lands.

David Arsyn

David Arsyn is mentioned as forfeited in the Harclay account of 1296. Various issues were taken from his goods and chattels found at Corby, though it is unclear what lands he held there.[4]

John le Blund of Esbie (RR)

John of Esbie, a Dumfriesshire man, held half of Blencogo in Cumberland, which was seized by Edward I in April 1296. John was said to be ‘staying in Scotland’ when the lands were seized, according to the Harclay account. He is one of the men from Cumberland who swore fealty to Edward I at the Berwick parliament on 28 August 1296, for which his lands in Midlothian were restored to him on 3 September 1296.[5] It is unclear if his lands in England were also restored.

Mary, wife of Alan of Camerton

Mary, or Mariota, held the third part of the hamlet of Camerton in dower by the heritage of her husband, Alan, which was seized in April 1296 because she was ‘staying in Scotland’.[6] The lands do not appear to have been restored to her. An Alan of Camerton, who appears in the PoMS database in the early thirteenth-century, may have been related to her husband.

Gilbert of Carlisle (RR)

Gilbert held lands in Dale and Tarraby, which were seized in April 1296 on account of his being ‘of the kingdom of Scotland and remaining there.’ He swore fealty to Edward I at the Berwick parliament as ‘of the county of Dumfries’, but his lands in Cumberland do not appear to have been restored until March 1304.[7] He may be related to William of Carlisle, knight, who held Kinmount (Dumfriesshire), and was given land by Robert Bruce (d.1304) in Yorkshire.[8]

Walter of Corrie (RR)

Walter of Corrie, a Dumfriesshire knight, held lands in Kirkandrews-on-Eden and Kirklinton, the latter said to be ‘burnt and … waste’. From an inquisition dated 1275, we learn that he was heir of Hawise of Kirklinton, wife of Eustace de Balliol, and could claims his lands in Kirklinton as her heir, along with several others, including Patrick of Southwick (father of Gilbert below), Patrick Trump (father of Patrick below) and Matilda, widow of Roland of Carrick. Walter was called ‘of Corrie and Kirklinton’ in the Harclay account of lands seized, in which it is said that Kirklinton, having been seized on account of his staying in Scotland, was released to him at Pentecost 1296 ‘saving the king’s right’. However, it appears that before the lands were released they had been given to William English, the king’s valet. Walter performed fealty to Edward I in June 1296 at Stirling. During this period, he witnessed Bruce’s charter mentioned above to William of Carlisle, in which Bruce gave William a piece of land from the common pasture of Bruce’s holding in Newby (Yorks). Along with Gilbert of Southwick and others, he received a sixth of the lands of Kirklinton as nephew and heir of Richard of Kirklinton following the death of Richard’s widow, Sarah, in 1300.[9]

Thomas of Dalton or of Kirkcudbright, bishop of Whithorn (RR)

Thomas, bishop of Candida Casa (or Whithorn), called both ‘of Dalton (Yorkshire)’ and ‘of Kirkcudbright’ (Kirkcudbrightshire), was a former clerk of Robert Bruce (d.1295) and was elected to the bishopric in 1294. He performed fealty to Edward I at the Berwick parliament in August 1296. He was known to hold lands in Dumfriesshire, and a writ to the sheriff of Cumberland in September 1296 for the restoration of his lands point to holdings in that county as well.[10]

Abbot of Dundrennan

An abbot of Dundrennan appears to have been restored to lands in Berwickshire and Cumberland in September 1296.[11] He is unnamed but may be Walter, who appears in 1296.

William of Gardyne (RR)

William Jardine, or de Gardino, from Gardyne in Angus, also had his lands seized in April 1296. The Harclay account mentions that Lowthwaite was seized because he was ‘of the kingdom of Scotland and remaining there’. In June 1296 at Stirling and again at Berwick in August, he performed fealty to Edward I. On 3 September 1296, lands in Midlothian which he held of John de Vaux were restored to him. According to CDS, in 1298, the new sheriff of Cumberland was ordered to take William’s lands in Lowthwaite and Camerton into custody from Michael de Harclay, but the Camerton lands were likely a mistake as the editor of CDS had already mistakenly transcribed the third part of the hamlet of Camerton (belonging to Mary, wife of Alan of Camerton above) as part of Jardine’s lands when they were seized in April 1296. In 1303/4, Jardine petitioned the king and his council to restore his lands as he was ‘not in the first Scots war nor since … for which at another time he petitioned in Parliament … and Sir John de St John was to make inquiry.’[12] These lands in Cumberland do not appear to have been restored.

John of Gelston (RR)

John of Gelston in Kirkcudbrightshire held the ward of Hutton John, Cumberland, seized in April 1296. Later that year, he was a juror for the inquest into the lands of Helen de la Zouche, recently deceased. And in the same year, he appeared on the Ragman Roll at the Berwick parliament as ‘of the county of Dumfries’.[13] John also appears as a witness to three charters of the period related to Holm Cultram Abbey (Cumberland) and Kirkcudbrightshire.[14] In the Harclay account, it was noted that the ‘manor of Dougal of Gelston in Hutton John, [was] taken into the king’s hand because he remained in Scotland and because he held the same by the concession of John of Gelston, his father, up to the legal age of the heir of William of Hutton’. The manor was released to Dougal on 8 September 1296 by writ of the king and at the request of Master John of Caen. Dougal, for his part, seemed to have been loyal to the English as in 1307 it was recorded that he had lost a horse in pursuit of Robert Bruce, for which he was paid an unknown sum of money by the English treasury.[15]

Gilbert de Glenwyn/Gletiwin

Gilbert’s lands of Brampton were taken into the hands of Michael de Harclay in April 1296, as he was ‘of the kingdom of Scotland and remaining there’. In December 1298, the new sheriff of Cumberland was ordered to take these lands, and others, from Harclay’s custody. His name is once given as ‘Cutbert’, though this is likely a mistake for Gilbert. His surname may be a corrupt form of Glenholm, Peebleshire, which may connect him to that family in Scotland. Stephen of Glenholm appeared on the Ragman Roll in August 1296, and Peter de Glenwyn (likely of Glenholm) had lands in Northumberland seized at this time (see Part II).[16] Gilbert does not appear in the PoMS database, and his lands do not appear to have been restored.

Henry of Malton

Henry of Malton (Yorks.) held land in Kirklinton, probably near that of Walter of Corrie (above), which was also ‘burnt and waste’ when it was seized in April 1296. Henry held the land from the son and heir of Patrick Trump.[17] In 1298/9, Henry appears as ‘steward of Annandale’ and also appears in the wardrobe accounts for 1309-11, evidently having stayed loyal to the crown after the seizure of his land. He was dead by February 1327, when his lands in Yorkshire and Cumberland were given to Dougal Macdowall. He appears to have had a son, John, who also had a son, Thomas. When Thomas inherited, it was mentioned that Henry held lands in Nithsdale and Dumfries, likely given to him after 1296 for his service to Edward II. Indeed, he does appear petitioning for lands in the area in 1298.[18] However, he does not appear on the Ragman Roll, nor in the Harclay account, where Patrick Trump of Kirklinton appears in his own right (see below). The lands were evidently released to Patrick, therefore Henry does not appear to have been restored of any lands.

Geoffrey de Mowbray

Geoffrey de Mowbray, knight, is a well-known figure in Scottish history. A witness to many charters of the period, he begins appearing in the records from the mid-1270s. In Scotland, he was justiciar of Lothian in 1294 and held the manor of Eckford in Roxburghshire which was seized by Edward I and given to Robert Hastang, the English-appointed sheriff of Roxburgh. Mowbray’s others lands in Scotland were given to the earl of Warwick in 1298. In Cumberland, ‘Sir’ Geoffrey de Mowbray held the manor of Bolton, as well as some lands in Yorkshire. Bolton was given to William of Muncaster in July 1299 for a period of ten years, but the following year, after Geoffrey had died, Muncaster was given the manor for life. Geoffrey had died before June 1300, and was succeeded by his son, John, who had been captured by the English in 1297.[19] He does not appear on the Ragman Roll and his lands do not appear to have been restored.

Alice, wife of Alan of Rule

Alice held land in Dovenby in dower, which was seized in April 1296. An Alan of Rule appears between 1203 and 1205, but it is very unlikely this was her husband. Her husband may have been a relation of Roger of Rule, who held land in Dovenby, which was lost by Roger’s rebellion against Henry III during the Barons’ War. Roger died at the battle of Evesham in 1265, fighting with Guy de Balliol.[20] There are several Rules in Roxburghshire who may also be related. Dovenby does not appear to have been restored.

Gilbert of Southwick (RR)

Gilbert, from Southwick in Kirkcudbrightshire, was the son and heir of Patrick of Southwick, and was born in 1270 in Tinwald, Dumfriesshire. Before receiving his inheritance in England, he had already received lands ‘held of the earl of Buchan’ in Scotland.[21] In Cumberland, he held lands in Skelton and Kirkandrews, which were seized in April 1296 as Gilbert was ‘of the kingdom of Scotland and remaining there’. These lands appear with others in the hands of Michael de Harclay, sheriff of Cumberland, and his successor two years later. He performed fealty to Edward I in July 1296, at Elgin, and again at Berwick in August as ‘of the county of Dumfries’. His lands do not appear to have been restored. But, he was nephew and co-heir of Richard of Kirklinton and after the death of Richard’s widow, Sarah, in 1300, he and his co-heirs, including Walter of Corrie above, each received a sixth of Richard’s lands in Cumberland. However, two of his co-heirs, sisters Matilda and Emma of Carrick, nieces of Richard, were denied their share of the lands as they were ‘dwell[ing] with the enemy in Scotland.’ In 1302, Matilda was restored along with her nephew, Patrick Trump (see below). With John of Gelston above, Gilbert served as a juror for the inquest into the lands of Helen de la Zouche after her death that year.[22]

John, abbot of Sweetheart (RR)

John appears as abbot of Sweetheart in Dumfriesshire between 1280 and 1290 and again on 28 August 1296 when he appeared on the Ragman Roll at Berwick. A writ was issued shortly afterwards to the sheriff of Carlisle to restore his lands, although it is unknown what lands he held.[23]

David of Torthorwald (d.1296)

David of Torthorwald, a Dumfriesshire knight, held the manor of Cumrew in Cumberland by heritage of Christiana, his wife, and also seemed to have held the manor of Cargo with 14 bovates of land. Cumrew was seized in April 1296, but it was said David ‘had died in the Scottish war and, after the death of the said David, the said manor was restored by writ of the king to Christiana, his wife’ in September 1296. Cargo and the other lands were seized at the same time, and were restored to William of Carlisle by writ of the king.[24] It is unclear how David came in to possession of Cargo, as the manor was evidently held by Robert de Ros (d.c.1274), though it was disputed by William of Carlisle, who claimed that his mother, Sapienta, widow of William of Carlisle junior, demised the land to Robert. Indeed, in 1296, Robert de Ros (d.1296) is recorded as holding the vill, which was seized by the king (see part III).[25] Before his death, David appeared frequently in the PoMS database from about 1273, including as steward of Annandale in 1272×73. As he was dead by April, he does not appear on the Ragman Roll. On 25 May 1297, Edward I commanded John de Warenne, his guardian of Scotland, to restore to Thomas, son and heir of David, lands of his father in Scotland, as Thomas had come into Edward’s peace.[26]

Patrick Trump of Kirklinton

Patrick Trump was the son of Patrick Trump ‘of Carrick’ and was also related in some way to both Gilbert of Southwick and Walter of Corrie (above). He was a tenant of Robert Bruce, earl of Carrick. His lands in Kirklinton, held in wardship of Henry of Malton (see above) were seized in April 1296 because he was remaining in Scotland, and they were released to him by writ of the king in December 1296, at which time he appears as ‘falconer’. He does not appear in the Ragman Roll. In 1302, it was attested that Patrick and his aunt, Matilda of Carrick (see above under Gilbert of Southwick), had come into Edward I’s peace and claimed rights to land in the manor of Kirklinton. He and Matilda, as well as other ‘tenants of [the king’s] liege, Robert de Bruce, earl of Carrick’, were restored to that land at the same time.[27]

As mentioned earlier, these 17 men and women do not represent all of those rebels who held lands in Cumberland. Seven men were said to hold land in Cumberland and Northumberland and they will be discussed in Part III of this feature together with final conclusions on all the rebels. They include John Balliol, king of Scots, Alexander of Bunkle, Thomas of Moralee, William Murray of Drumsargard, Robert de Ros, Patrick of Selkirk, abbot of Melrose, and Adam of Swinburne. In Part II of this feature, which will be published online shortly, we will examine the 44 rebels who held land in the county of Northumberland.

Ian Stone, King’s College London

Liber de Antiquis Legibus has been much used by historians of the thirteenth century. It has been little used, however, by students of fourteenth-century events. The Liber is a manuscript, now kept at the London Metropolitan Archives, which was almost entirely compiled under the direction of the London alderman Arnold fitz Thedmar between 1257 and 1274; it brings together various statutes, lists of office-holders, accounts from history, miracle stories, and most importantly, the ‘Chronicle of the Mayors and Sheriffs of London’.[1]  This chronicle, written contemporaneously from 1264 provides the most detailed and intelligent account of the period of ‘reform and rebellion’ in England, and the final fifteen-year period of Henry III’s rule. As well as affording, at times, a day-by-day account of national events, it also shines a light on the social history of London, with its vivid descriptions of daily life and recollections of tumultuous events in England’s largest town. It has been twice edited, but neither edition is satisfactory.[2]

The chronicle, covering folios 63v–144v of the Liber, ceases in August 1274, owing to the death of its author. We cannot be clear about what then happened to the manuscript, but there seems to have been a twenty-five year hiatus before any additions were made to it. From about 1299, two main scribes began to add to the various chapters of the Liber, often in a seemingly haphazard way. The rather disordered nature of many of these additions, along with the general unsatisfactory nature of both of the printed editions, has not endeared the manuscript to historians of the period after 1274, and to the best of my knowledge, it has been seldom used in the study of events after that date.

And yet within these later additions, the general themes of the manuscript’s preceding text have been followed. The earlier author’s interest in weights and measures is maintained. There are also brief annalistic entries for the majority of years from 1299 to 1327, which occasionally are expanded into more detailed accounts. Not only are they all written by someone in London, but the names of the mayors and sheriffs of London continued to be entered, as were those of the archbishops of Canterbury and bishops of London (although not the other sees). One of the three notes stitched to the recto of folio 146 again suggests a fourteenth-century London connection. This is a note ordering that treasure recovered from the robbery of King Edward I’s treasury at Westminster in April 1303 was to be presented at the Guildhall before the mayor and sheriffs of London. It is therefore likely that someone connected with city government or administration, or at least someone interested in the city’s laws and customs, had ownership of the Liber and was adding to it as he saw fit, as well as inserting documents he considered of interest. It may lack the detail and sophistication provided by fitz Thedmar, but it is still a source of value to the historian, particularly of events in London.

On folio 61v, one of the continuers, writing in French, close to the time of events, provides the following account of an episode in London of considerable note in August 1305.

Memorandum ke Lundi par le welle Seyn Bertermeu, lan du Rey Edward xxxiij fut Willeme le Wales, iuwaler Decose, ajeuagge en la sale le rey a Neuwouttel dettre treyne, pendu, decole, le boues hars, le cors demembre, en iiij parties decose, la tette au pont de Londres en hanse pour trayson fet a lawantdit Edward Rey Degleterre e Decose.

Translated, this reads,

Be it remembered that on Monday, the Vigil of Saint Bartholomew, in the thirty-third year of king Edward, William Wallace, knight of Scotland, was condemned in the king’s hall at New Palace to be drawn, hanged, beheaded, his bowels burnt, his body dismembered, torn apart into four pieces, his head on London Bridge on a pike, for treason committed against the aforesaid Edward, king of England and Scotland.

The account is mostly correct in its essentials. That should not surprise us, because the fullest account of William Wallace’s sojourn in London, his trial (if it can be called one) and grisly execution, is provided by another London chronicler, most probably an officer of city administration, in the Annales Londoniensis. The two accounts agree on 23 August 1305 as the date, they agree that judgment was given in the king’s hall (although the Annales is more specific that this was at Westminster), and they agree with the details of Wallace’s demise and subsequent dismemberment. The Annales provide much more detail, including copies of the commission to try the case, and a record of the judgment given. What makes the continuation of the Liber unique is the last line. Wallace, it says, was condemned ‘for treason committed against the aforesaid Edward, king of England and Scotland’.

To be sure, there was a definite vagueness about Scotland’s governance in 1305. The ordinance for the good order of Scotland issued in that very year attempted to deal with many of the practicalities of the situation as it then was, being mostly concerned with the appointment of sheriffs, coroners, justices, constables and other officers of government. It had, though, nothing to say about the contentions over land that a decade of war had led to in Scotland. The greatest omission in this settlement, moreover, was its absolute silence over the issue of kingship. Since the deposition of John Baliol in 1296 Scotland had been without a king. Much has, of course, been made of the description in the Ordinance of Scotland as a ‘land’ (la terre d’Escoce) as opposed to ‘a kingdom’, yet in it the wording remains quite clear; Edward is referred to as ‘le roy’, but never ‘le roy d’Escose’.[3] Neither is he so styled in the chancery records of the period, nor in the other chronicle accounts. War had originally broken out as a result of Edward’s insistence on recovering his royal rights, which included an acceptance by the Scots of his position as overlord of the king of Scotland. Edward had also previously sought to marry his son, Edward, to the Maid of Norway and thereby bestow the title ‘king of Scotland’ on his heirs. But such a title was never one that he sought or used himself.

It is true that this is not the only fourteenth-century source to refer to Edward as king of Scotland. Dauvit Broun has shown that there is at least one other manuscript, the MS. Arundel 202 at the British Library in London, which also styles Edward king of Scotland. This was, however, written around eighty years later in the decade or so after 1380. The Liber is seemingly unique, then, in being a contemporary source for the events of 1305, in which the author refers to Edward quite clearly as king of both England and Scotland. What then do we make of this claim?

It could have been a slip on the chronicler’s part, but a slip nevertheless of some consequence. The Liber was a tremendous repository of information, and one that in later years was often used by great officials of London, such as John Carpenter, Common Clerk of London and founder of the City of London School for Boys, as source material for the history and laws of England and London. The manuscript has been annotated throughout by city officials with tags such as nota or nota bene et lege where important issues of national history or local custom are referred to. It is likely that even quite early in its adventures, it was being used in just such a way as a reference tool by city officials. By continuing its key themes, whoever was adding to the manuscript in the first quarter of the fourteenth century must have been doing so knowing that it would most likely be used by generations following him. How else does one account for his entering each year, with metronymic regularity, the names of the mayor and sheriff for those years? Although the entries can be terse, and might appear haphazard and clumsy, with frequent misspellings, they nevertheless remain a valuable source for events in the city and country during these years. The anonymous chronicler was eager to record detail for posterity. The description of Edward as king of Scotland, which is not corrected or erased as another mistake could easily have been, should not be dismissed as a mere slip.

The entry on Wallace’s execution, moreover, was written at the very time of Edward’s greatest power. Robert Bruce’s murder of John Comyn and rebellion were yet to come, and indeed, the next entry in the manuscript, written in a different stint, refers to Bruce having himself crowned as king in March 1306. In 1304 Edward had, however, brought a decade of war with Scotland to a close. Perhaps the author of this entry wrote it having recently witnessed the king’s power manifested at close quarters? Certainly, the Annales Londoniensis tell us that Wallace was lodged at the home of a London alderman, William Leyre, and that the great and the good of London both ‘led and followed’ Wallace to his judgment. A similar procession saw him taken back through the city, and a sizeable crowd gathered for his execution at Smithfield.

Nor was this the sole demonstration of Edward’s might in London. In late 1282 Llwelyn ap Gruffudd had been killed and his head placed upon a pole at the Tower of London. A year later, his brother Dafydd’s head was placed next to that of his brother. Eighteen months after this, Edward responded to an outbreak of disorder in London by enclosing the ancient site of the citizens’ assembly and taking the city into his hand. Had our continuer been present in London for some, even if not for all of these events of the last twenty years, we might imagine the impact this would have had on his mind as a contemporary Londoner. He would have seen at first hand Edward’s firm imposition of his will on the city, and then witnessed the brutal death of Scotland’s last major rebel and, with his execution, the apparent end of Scottish resistance. We need not be surprised that the continuer of this London chronicle thought of Edward I as king of both England and Scotland.

Andrew Smith (Hamburg; former Research Associate)[1]

The suggestion that a ‘war clause’ existed in medieval Scottish charters may strike some readers as odd. However, no designation is probably more appropriate to describe a particular type of diplomatic feature, like the following, which asserted that the repercussions of war – would, could or would not – affect the terms of a proprietary arrangement:

If the land ‘X’ may have been destroyed by war, ‘Y’ will provide ‘Z’ with some (or no) reprieve from his/her obligations.

This feature of the month will explore the use of ‘war clauses’ in medieval Scotland. Among other things, it will examine the forms and contexts in which they were used, as well as the dates in which they appear.

Context

War and its repercussions is not an uncommon subject in medieval Scottish charters. In the late twelfth century, King William I confirmed to Matthew, son of Robert, his chaplain, land and rights in Whitfield, Northumberland, as fully and well as he held them ‘anytime before the war’ (aliquo tempore ante warram).[2] At the turn of the fourteenth century, William of Lamberton, bishop of St Andrews, allowed Kelso Abbey to fully control the revenues of the church Greenlaw because of the affects that war (gwerram) had had on the abbey.[3] Moreover, King Edward I referred to the war (guerre) when he ordered the chamberlain of Scotland to ensure that Dryburgh Abbey received the alms which it was owed before conflict began.[4] However, diplomatic features which include the word ‘war’ as part of a conditional statement, or ‘if’ clause (like the above example), are considerably less common. In fact, a survey of surviving Scottish charters has thus far only uncovered twenty-nine examples which predate the death of King Robert I in 1329.[5]

Of the twenty-nine examples that have been identified, twenty-six are found in charters which focus on money. [6] As will be discussed below, the clauses themselves are also overwhelmingly concerned with fiscal considerations. However, it is noteworthy that the belief that war could disrupt a financial arrangement was not a product of the wars of independence. In fact, eleven of the records which contain ‘war clauses’ appear to have been produced before its outbreak in 1296. The earliest example which has been identified is in the Kelso Abbey cartulary and dates from the turn of the thirteenth century.[7] Several other war clauses can be found in mid-thirteenth-century charters, as well as two charters which date from the early 1290s.[8] This said, the eighteen remaining examples were produced between 1296 and 1329. Hence, nearly double as many war clauses survive from this thirty-three year period as survive from most of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

In terms of location, no concrete statement can be made about whether or not context played a role in the decision to include these features in a charter. Indeed, documents pertaining to virtually every region in the kingdom have the clause. War clauses can be found in charters which relate to property in the Scottish Borders[9], Dumfriesshire[10] and Stirlingshire[11] in the south, and Perthshire,[12] Inverness[13] and Nairnshire[14] in the north.

Forms

The form of the war clause varies from charter to charter. Nevertheless, the clauses do appear to fall into one of three categories: clauses which alter the terms of an agreement in times of war, clauses which state that war does not affect the terms of an agreement, and clauses which potentially cancel the terms of an agreement in times of war. Instances which state that the terms of an arrangement could be altered in times of war are by far the most common, and indeed, nineteen of the twenty-nine examples fall into this group.[15] A few examples simply state that the terms of a financial agreement should be abided by except during wartime, and many of these examples date from the mid-thirteenth century. For example, an agreement between Lindores Abbey and Robert de Champagne in 1260 states that Robert and his heirs should pay three marks to the abbey ‘unless general war may exist in the land’ (nisi generalis guerra fuerit in terra).[16] However, these brief conditional statements are more the exception than the rule. Indeed, it was far more common, especially following the advent of the wars of independence, for scribes to explain the process whereby a financial obligation could be altered.

A prime example can be found in the Kelso Abbey cartulary:

However, if the land of Dumfries is destroyed by war, the abbot and monks [of Kelso Abbey] will provide to the aforementioned Martin [clerk of Dumfries] some relief from his payment [of twenty marks] according to the assessment of good men.[17]

It is noteworthy that the stipulation in which ‘good men’ or ‘worthy men’ would oversee a decision process is a common theme in war clauses. A charter in the Melrose collection which dates from 1309 states that William the Englishman’s payment during times of war would be determined by the assessment of good men (per visum bonorum hominum).[18] A charter in the Dunfermline abbey cartulary states that any disruption to the vicar of Stirling’s pension would be assessed through the arbitration of bishops (ordinariorum arbitrio).[19] Moreover, a 1329 charters states that Fergus son of Duncan would not be compelled to pay a ferme to Arbroath Abbey unless worthy men (viros fidedignos) were able to prove that he acquired produce from the land.[20]

This said, not all beneficiaries were so lucky as to have their claims evaluated by ‘good men’. In fact, several of the extant ‘war clauses’ (six in total) state that the terms of an agreement were to be followed in times of ‘peace or war’.[21] Four of these instances can be found in the Newbattle Register, and an illustrative example dates from 21 September 1314:

Sir William [Bisset of Merton] and his heirs or assignees will pay the said forty [shillings] every year at the feast of Saint James, viz. to the said religious men in all circumstances, whether there be peace or war, in perpetuity.[22]

Moreover, some of the war clauses were stricter still. Several charters state that should an individual default on his payment in times of war, his/her holdings would be seized by the benefactor.[23] A good example can be found in a 1323 charter which records an agreement between Dunfermline Abbey and John Campbell and Mary de Brus. In this charter the monks give to John and Mary their lands of Moulin in Athol for an annual render, and the war clause says the following:

If, however, he stops making the said payment, at its deadlines and in the approved manner, because of war or any other event, in part or in total, at any year or by a deadline; the same John and his heirs, as is permitted, will lose right and possession of the said lands, and the said land will freely revert to the said religious men and the aforesaid monastery, without any impediment, in perpetuity.[24]

Concluding Remarks

As demonstrated in this brief survey of ‘war clauses’, they are not linked to a particular context in the history of the kingdom of Scotland. They can be found as far south as the Scottish borders and as far north as Inverness. Moreover, they also appear in documentation as early as the turn of the thirteenth century. However, as noted, they do appear more frequently in charters produced during the wars of independence, and they also appear to become more detailed as time goes on. With regards to the latter, it may be noteworthy that some of the more detailed pre-1296 clauses are found in collections which have had their veracity questioned. As noted in the feature of the month from June 2011, there is a lot of evidence which causes one to question the veracity of the information in the Kelso Abbey cartulary.[25] Alasdair Ross has also demonstrated that the published edition of the Moray Register is lacking in many editorial respects.[26] Hence, it may be noteworthy that the only pre-1296 examples of war clauses which state that the effects of war should be assessed by ‘good and worthy men’ (i.e., jurors at an inquest) are found in these two collections.[27]  Hopefully, future research will be able to assess to what extent Scottish war clauses are an accurate representation of the original documents upon which they were based.