X. PROLONGATION OF TROUBLES IN SCOTLAND—PARLIAMENTARY DISCUSSIONS IN ENGLAND, A.D. 1299–1302.

The rebellion commenced by Wallace had now been crushed, and that leader had been consigned to the obscurity from which he only emerged to ascend the scaffold; but the pacification of Scotland did not immediately follow. Edward had lost much of the elasticity of youth; the bloody fields of Stirling and Falkirk, and the ravage of Cumberland, in 1297, were not likely to make either Scotchmen or Englishmen more placable or friendly; and the disturbing elements introduced into the question by France, by the Papacy, and by a few discontented men at home, postponed for several years the final settlement of this now re‐opened question. We speak of it as “re‐opened,” for it was not long before two of the greatest lords in Scotland, who had submitted themselves and done homage to Edward in 1296, actually craved and obtained an audience, that they might entreat him to restore John Baliol to the throne again!—thus resigning, without any cause, all the results of the toils and conflicts of the past four years. Of all men living, Edward was one of the last to whom so irrational a proposal could, with any hope of success, be made.

But although the king’s mind could not thus easily be changed, a real obstacle to a restored and settled peace had been created by the late rebellion. It had been shown that by bringing together a few thousand men, all the English found in country parts and in open towns could be slain or driven away, many castles surprised or captured, and thus the hold of England upon Scotland reduced to the occupation of a few strong places. It had been shown also by the campaign of 1298, that even a mighty army, encouraged by a great victory, might find itself unable to re‐establish peace in Scotland. Edward had marched through the land, had found no enemy, and yet, as his army was not what in modern times we call a “standing army,” he could only, when the autumn appeared, disband his forces, leaving the kingdom still unsubdued.

The “great lords” of Scotland could not fail to discern in all this some hope of yet “preserving their independence.” We now know from experience that such an independence as they preserved, leaving room for frequent wars between Scotland and England (in which Scotland gained one victory and suffered seven defeats), was equally injurious to both countries; but the Scottish leaders had no such experience. Nor could the principal leader among them regard the question without being sensible of a deep personal interest in it.102 If Scotland remained a separate kingdom, and if the Baliol family, now in exile, were set aside, then the next heir would be John Comyn. It was impossible that this fact could ever be absent from the minds of the Comyn family, then the most potent family in Scotland, or that it could fail to exert an influence on all their movements and decisions. Accordingly we hear, in 1299 and 1300, of a regency set up in Scotland, of which Comyn and Soulis were the principal members, and of embassies sent to both the king of France and the Pope, to ask their aid against the aggressions of the English.

Nor was this the only difficulty in Edward’s path. The two great earls, Hereford and Norfolk, still led what we now term “a parliamentary opposition,” and Edward could not call his “lords and commons” together, without being certain of meeting them, prepared to advance fresh claims, objections, and propositions. Hume, and, following him, Hallam also, have, somewhat hastily, given to this opposition of the two earls the praise of “patriotism;” but surely it was patriotism of a very equivocal character.

The earl of Norfolk was the high marshal, and the earl of Hereford the high constable of England. Very naturally, therefore, the king had looked to these two potent peers for support in any just quarrel. Had not Philip of France, by his seizure of Gascony, a great and important province, done to England an unquestionable and grievous injury? Would England in the present day submit to such a fraud and wrong? Would not the nation exclaim with one voice that such an aggression must be repelled? How, then, can we regard with anything like approval the conduct of the two earls in refusing to assist their sovereign in this his dire extremity?

Refuse, however, they did; and not only so, they withstood and obstructed him in every stage of the controversy. And now, when the troubles in Scotland were not yet over, and the dispute with France was still undecided, the two earls attended every parliament, not to assist their sovereign, but to advance and urge against him new demands.

Hume, and, following him, several other historians, have represented Edward as striving to escape from the obligations of Magna Charta, and the two earls as “patriotically” insisting on its maintenance. Scarcely could misrepresentation be carried further than this.

From the very commencement of his reign, Edward, far from manifesting any desire to withdraw from the provisions of “Magna Charta,” had shown a willingness and a desire to go far beyond it. De Lolme justly remarks of that great document, that “it had only one article calculated for the interest of that body which was the most numerous in the kingdom.” It was, in fact, nothing more than an agreement between the great barons and the crown, for the future regulation of their respective rights and immunities. But Edward’s legislation, from the outset, had taken a far wider range. “The whole commonalty of the realm” was never absent from his thoughts. His statutes were made, and made most freely and voluntarily, “for the common weal, and for the remedy of all that were aggrieved.” In every statute passed in Edward’s reign, the purpose is manifest: not to evade or limit the operation of “Magna Charta,” but to go far beyond it.

What was the drift and meaning, then, of these contentions between the two earls and the king, which extended over three or four years, and which perplexed and harassed Edward during a very difficult period of his reign? It may be described in a very few words. Disliking the war with France in 1297, the earls withdrew themselves from any participation in it. But they wished also to withhold all aid either in money or in stores; and therefore they objected to the “prises and talliages” which the king’s officers had made. They desired “the charters” to be so confirmed and enlarged, as to deprive the king of the power of making “requisitions,” except under the express authority of parliament. Now, this limitation has been, doubtless, one of great value to the people, and for insisting upon it, the earls have been extolled as “patriots.” But if we reflect on the matter for a few moments, we shall see that the concession required of Edward was one which it might well seem difficult for him to make.

“Requisitions” and “forced loans” have been heard of in Europe for centuries after Edward’s time; nor have they quite ceased even to the present hour. Yet in his day, the power of taking what was imperatively needed for war‐purposes was far more necessary than it is now. A nation in the present day, on finding itself involved in war, has recourse to its banks and to its credit, and speedily provides itself with all that it finds needful. And yet, even now, “requisitions” are sometimes heard of. But in the thirteenth century, standing armies, and loans, and national debts were all alike unknown. A king, suddenly deprived, as Edward was, of a noble province, found it necessary to raise and equip and victual an army, as rapidly as possible; and his only resource was, to convene a parliament and to ask an aid, which aid it would require months to collect. Edward, therefore, had been forced to revive and call into exercise certain old rights or prerogatives of the crown, and to “take” what he needed; promising, of course, to pay for all he took, so soon as he should be able. This power the earls now desired to limit, or to abolish; and it cannot be questioned that such a limitation or abolition was a great gain to the people. Edward’s ground for hesitation, doubtless, was twofold. He always wished, and claimed, to leave the crown as potent as he found it. “Saving the rights of the crown of England” is a phrase which we often hear from his lips. And besides this, he might justly fear, lest the sovereigns of England, thus fettered, should be unable, in future years, to meet the aggressions of France as they required to be encountered.

The present Regius professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford has well and forcibly remarked, that “this great monarch was not likely to surrender without a struggle the position which he had inherited. For more than twenty years he reigned as Henry II. had done, showing proper respect for constitutional forms, but exercising the reality of despotic power. He loved his people, and therefore did not oppress them; they knew and loved him, and endured the pressure of taxation, which would not have been imposed if it had not been necessary.” “Until he is compelled by the action of the barons, he retains the substance of royal power: the right to talliage the towns and demesnes of the crown without a grant. Edward would not have been so great a king as he was, if he had not thought this right worth a struggle, nor if, when that struggle was going against him, he had not seen that it was time to yield; nor if, when he had yielded, he had not determined honestly to abide by his concessions.”103

There had been no new claim, or any stretch of the royal prerogative. We have already seen, that Mr. Hallam, who greatly praises the two earls, admits that “hitherto the king’s prerogative of levying money by name of ‘talliage’ or ‘prise’ from his towns or tenants in demesne had passed unquestioned.”104 The king, therefore, had done nothing more than bring into use an old right of the crown, which up to this time had never been disputed.

The two earls, however, disliked the war with France, and they disliked, very naturally, the “prises and talliages”—the requisitions of money, corn, and cattle—to which the king found it necessary to resort. They made these levies a matter of complaint in 1297, presenting to the king a remonstrance or complaint just before his embarkation for Flanders. When called to a parliament in Edward’s absence in the autumn of that year, they again brought forward this grievance of the king’s war requisitions; and in that parliament a new confirmation of the charters was adopted, in which all “prises and talliages” were forbidden, unless levied with the consent of the prelates, barons, knights, and burgesses. And, ever careful of themselves, the two earls added another document, by which the king was to grant a full pardon to them “for all manner of offences which they may have committed.” These two documents were accepted by the king while he was in Flanders, and now, in Lent, 1299, he meets his parliament again in Westminster. Again the earls revive the question of the charters, adding now a further demand for a new survey or “perambulation” of the royal forests.

The king granted the required confirmation of the charters, adding, however, the words, “salvo jure coronæ.” This proviso displeased the earls, and they quitted the parliament in anger. But Edward really wished for peace and unity at home, and, to content them, he held another parliament after Easter, in which he granted the confirmation of the charters unreservedly.

This “reserving the rights of the crown” has been censured by some writers, as if it betokened some equivocation on Edward’s part, but such a device was alien to his whole nature. A more frank or outspoken man is not to be found on any page of history. What he said he always really meant. It had been a ruling principle with him, from the very beginning of his public life, that he would not leave the realm of England, or the crown of England, diminished or lowered through any fault or neglect of his. This principle forced him, “slow as he was to strife,” into a war for the recovery of Gascony. He would not have it said of him in future times that he, by hesitation or want of energy, lost England’s noblest foreign possession. The same resolve had carried him into Wales and into Scotland. In each case he believed himself to be asserting the ancient rights of the crown of England, and through all his legislation the same thought continually appears. His first great statute closes with these words: “And forasmuch as the king hath ordained these things to the honour of God and holy church, and for the common weal, and for the remedy of such as be aggrieved, he would not that at any other time it should turn to the prejudice of himself or his crown, but that such rights as appertain to him should be saved in all points.” So also, when deciding the question of the Scottish succession, he does not forget that he himself is descended from Matilda, daughter of Malcolm Canmore, king of Scotland; and he notices this in his judgment, declaring “that John Baliol ought to have seizin of the kingdom of Scotland, reserving, however, the right of the crown of England, whenever he or his heirs shall see fit to assert it.” So also in the parliament of Lincoln, in 1301, we find him desiring those who attended it to settle the perambulation‐question, “so that their oaths and the oath of the king as to the rights of the crown may be saved.” Thus, at every turn we find him regarding “the rights of the crown” as a sacred trust committed to him, and which he had sworn to defend; and hence, in every concession made to him by the people, he is always ready to use the phrase, “salvo jure coronæ.”

The other claim made by the two earls, for a new perambulation (or survey) of the forests, opened a controversy of some duration; and we shall find it convenient to reserve it for a distinct chapter. But, besides these controversies, one main business of the session was, to receive from the king a statement of the result of the arbitration of pope Boniface, to whom, in the autumn of 1297, both kings had agreed to refer all matters in dispute. The pope’s award had been given; and a treaty with the king of France had been signed. Peace was to be restored between the two countries; Gascony was to be given back to England; and Edward was to marry Margaret, the sister of the king of France; while his son was to obtain the hand of Philip’s daughter, Isabel. In fine, all lands, territories, and goods were to be restored to their owners; compensation being made for waste or damage.

Such was the pacification agreed upon between the two kings, and now made known by Edward to his parliament. But even while that parliament was sitting, Philip made two further demands or applications. The first was, that John Baliol, the late king of Scotland, should be set at liberty. Edward felt no difficulty on this point, only stipulating that the ex‐king should not meddle in any way with the realm of Scotland. This proviso could not trouble or annoy Baliol; for he had, not long before, declared his resolution never again to set foot in a country “in which he had experienced so much malice, fraud, treason, and deceit.”105

The second point urged by Philip was, that the Scotch should be allowed a truce of seven months—a request to which Edward, having other matters in hand, felt no difficulty in acceding. In truth, one affair which he was very desirous of bringing to a conclusion, was his own marriage with the princess Margaret, Philip’s sister. He had now been a widower for more than eight years; and a lonely life after a happy wedlock of such long continuance, did not at all suit a man of so ardent and sincere a temperament. Peter tells us how, two or three years before this, while returning from Scotland,—

And shortly after this, he began to make inquiries, first as to the princess Blanche of France, and then as to her sister Margaret. The latter princess became, at last, his choice, and she was brought over by the duke of Bourgogne, landing at Dover on the 8th of September. The king, with the courtesy which never forsook him, went to meet her, and at Canterbury, in the cathedral, on the 10th of September, 1299, the marriage was celebrated; the archbishop himself officiating. A large number of foreign as well as of the English nobility were present. Queen Margaret, like her predecessor, seems to have been entirely devoted to her great consort. Like Eleanor, even in war she was always near the king, and his attentions to her were unremitting. Thus, of the Scottish campaign of 1301, Langtoft writes:—

A month or two was given to this marriage; but Edward soon remembered that Scotland would need his attention. The seven months’ truce claimed for Scotland by Philip would soon expire; and the king had friends in Scotland who needed his aid. He summoned, accordingly, his military tenants to meet him in York on the 10th of November. But when this meeting took place, the king found that his barons disliked the idea of a northern campaign in November and December, and their objections prevailed. The king postponed any active movements in Scotland until the coming spring.

Early in the following year, 1300, the king again met his parliament in Westminster. A new and extensive Statute on the Charters was here proposed and adopted. It enacted that the charters should be published by the sheriffs of all counties four times in each year. It ordained that “no prises” should be taken within the realm, save only the king’s takers or purveyors; and that these should be bound to exhibit the king’s warrant, and to pay or make agreement with those from whom the things were taken. It also made other good and desirable regulations, all tending to give greater security to property, against violence or illegal conduct on the part of men in office. In this parliament, as well as previously in that of 1299, urgent demands were made for a new perambulation of the forests; and the king promised to take measures for the accomplishment of that object; which promise he faithfully kept.

And now, as the spring advanced, the king prepared for another march into Scotland; reaching the border, this year, at an earlier period of the summer than on most of his former expeditions. The Scotch had now learnt the simple and generally effectual device of retiring on the approach of the English army without offering battle. Edward besieged and took Lochmaben Castle, and then proceeded to Caerlaverock, on the Solway‐Frith. This castle also capitulated on the second day. An account of this brief siege, in Norman‐French, from the pen of an eye‐witness, is among the Cotton MSS. in the British Museum. It is supposed by Sir Harris Nicholas to be the work of Walter of Exeter, a Franciscan friar, who is believed to have written the history of Guy, earl of Warwick, in 1292. The garrison, he tells us, threw themselves on the king’s mercy. “They were kept and guarded till the king commanded that life and limb should be given them; and also ordered that each of them should have a new garment.”

From Caerlaverock the king marched on to Galloway, where the bishop of that place came to speak of peace. It was not Edward’s wont to treat with rebels with arms in their hands; but it seems probable that he gave the bishop a safe‐conduct for John Comyn and the earl of Buchan; inasmuch as we find that these nobles, on the part, probably, of the regency, had an interview with him at this period. They rather absurdly proposed that he should let them have John Baliol back again, as king; and should restore the forfeited estates on payment of reasonable fines. Now, Baliol, when he was actually their king, was imprisoned by them in order that they might rule without him; and he, Baliol himself, as we have just seen, had recently declared that he would never again set foot in Scotland. This proposal, too, was made to a sovereign to whom they had taken, more than once, oaths of allegiance; and whose army they feared, at that very time, to meet in the open field. And upon what pretence, on what rational ground, could they make such an application? It was but some three or four years before, that all the nobles and gentry of Scotland had thronged around Edward, to offer him their homage as king of Scotland. And what had he done, since 1296, to forfeit their allegiance? Had his rule been tyrannical? Let the Scottish historians bear witness. “His conduct,” says Lord Hailes, “in all things bore the semblance of moderation.” “The measures he adopted,” says Mr. Tytler, “were equally politic and just. No wanton or unnecessary act of rigour was committed; no capricious changes introduced.”106 On the whole, this singular request, preferred to a victorious general at the head of his army—that he would quietly relinquish all the fruits of his victories, seems one of the most irrational of the measures of the Scottish leaders.

The king naturally parted from Comyn and the earl in anger, and marched to Irvine, where he waited for the arrival of his supplies by sea. The Scottish army showed itself on the opposite side of the river; but on preparations being made for an attack, it fled to the mountains and morasses. The king then fixed his head‐quarters at Dumfries, and employed himself in taking possession of the towns and castles of Galloway, and receiving the submission of the inhabitants of that district.

But now a fresh obstacle arose to an immediate settlement of the affairs of Scotland. The regents, as they were called—Comyn, Soulis, and the bishop of St. Andrew’s—had, as we have already remarked, taken measures to solicit the interposition both of the king of France and of the pope. Walsingham, himself a Benedictine monk of St. Alban’s, writes, that “about the beginning of this year, 1300, the Scotch, knowing all things to be saleable at Rome, sent over rich presents to the pope,” praying him to interfere in their behalf, and to stop the king of England in his proceedings against them. Such applications were generally successful at Rome, especially when, as in the present instance, they gave the papal court an opportunity for the assertion of some new claim. A mandate was, therefore, sent over to England, and consigned to the care of Winchelsey, the primate, who was charged with its delivery to the king in person; which mandate desired the king to abstain from all further proceedings against the realm of Scotland: which realm, said pope Boniface, “did, and doth still, belong in full right to the church of Rome.” Such a pretension, now for the first time advanced, might, and doubtless did, appear to all parties to savour of audacity; but Boniface well knew that he might advance it without fear. He had been, and still was, the umpire between Edward and Philip. The questions placed before him had not been finally decided, and Gascony was not yet actually restored. Hence, he knew full well, that however indignant Edward might feel, his practical sagacity would prevent him from actually defying the Roman see. For a certain “consideration,” the pope had promised to do the Scotch a certain service, and that compact he thus observed, caring little about the validity of the pleas advanced, which were only intended to serve the purposes of the hour.

In Winchelsey the pope found a prompt and willing agent. This able and artful prelate was always forward in any scheme for exalting the power of the church, and reducing that of the crown. He therefore very naturally undertook the commission assigned to him with evident pleasure; and his letter to the pope, recounting his zealous labours, in obedience to the papal instructions, is a most edifying document. He writes to Boniface, that, immediately on receiving his mandate, he prepared his baggage and carriages, and money for his expenses, and set forth to deliver the pontifical mandate to his lord the king, who was then twenty days’ journey from the place where he, Winchelsey, received the papal instructions. He then recounts the difficulties of the journey, and finally states, that he arrived in the presence of the king, who was then in the midst of his army, and at dinner. The king, he adds, was too much occupied with business to receive him that day, but appointed him an audience on the next day at noon.

Winchelsey, in proceeding to give an account of this audience, omits one characteristic incident which is related by Walsingham. The archbishop, on being introduced to the king, according to his appointment, first read, and presented, the papal mandate. But, to manifest his zeal still further, he proceeded to give the king, in addition, some admonitions of his own, garnished with certain flowers of ecclesiastical rhetoric, which, to a clear‐sighted and plain‐spoken man like Edward, must have been peculiarly nauseous. He counselled the king to yield a prompt and entire obedience to the commands of the Holy Father, inasmuch as “Jerusalem would not fail to protect her citizens, and to cherish, like Mount Zion, those who trusted in the Lord.” To which Edward replied, with evident disdain, that “neither ‘Mount Zion’ nor ‘Jerusalem’ should prevent him from maintaining what all the world knew to be his right.” At the same time, having regard to the peculiar nature of the application, and to the dignity of the pontiff, he first desired the archbishop to retire while he consulted his nobles, and then, recalling him, gave him, by the lips of his chancellor, a more formal reply: “That, since it is the custom of England, that in such matters as relate to the state of that kingdom, advice should be had with all whom they may concern; and since the present business not only affects the state of Scotland, but the rights of England also; and since many prelates, barons, and other principal men are now absent; it is my purpose, as soon as possible, to hold a council with my nobility, and by their joint advice and determination, to transmit an answer to his holiness by messengers of my own.”

The archbishop, in his report to the pope, is glad to be able to add some tokens of the success of his mission. He says, “I afterward heard that my lord the king, within four days after my departure, returned with his army into England; and his forces being dispersed, he purposes to stay at a certain abbey called Holme Cultram, on the border. And thus have I reverently executed your commission in every respect, with all the diligence that I was able to use.”

We have already stated, that from the peculiar position of his affairs, it would have been most undesirable for Edward to have any serious quarrel with Boniface at this moment. The negociations for peace, which had been carried on for two or three years past, were still unconcluded. Treaties had been signed; but other treaties were still under discussion. The decision of many important points was still in Boniface’s hands. Hence to have dealt with the Papal claims in a prompt and peremptory manner, might have driven the pope into Philip’s hands, and thrown many important questions into the greatest confusion. Edward, therefore, could only deal with these new pretensions in a respectful and temperate manner. He restored the bishop of Glasgow to his see, on his taking a fresh oath of fealty to him and his successors, kings of England. He complied with a request of Philip’s, and granted the Scots a new truce, until the Whitsuntide of 1301; and he issued writs, summoning a parliament to meet at Lincoln on the 20th of January of that year. Before that parliament he proposed to lay the letter or monition of Boniface; and to that parliament he also desired reports to be brought by the commissioners appointed to inquire into the boundaries of the forests. He also sent letters to the two universities, and to the principal religious houses, desiring them to send to Lincoln some of their most learned men, with copies of any archives or other records which might be in their possession, bearing upon the questions agitated in the papal mandate. Having thus taken every proper and expedient measure for meeting this new attack upon his position, the king retired to Northampton, where he spent the Christmas of 1300, surrounded by his queen and family; proposing early in the new year to remove to Lincoln; there to discuss and settle, if possible, both the affairs of Scotland, and also that more domestic question, which had latterly assumed an almost threatening aspect, “the perambulation of the royal forests.”

The parliament of Lincoln, A.D. 1301, deserves a high place among the notable events of English history. In it we find the parliamentary system firmly established, in all its dimensions, features, and characters. To its principal act—the reply to pope Boniface—we find appended the names and seals of no fewer than one hundred and four earls and barons; and as the prelates, and the Scottish barons, were, for obvious reasons, excused from taking part in this proceeding, we may safely estimate the attendance of the higher orders, or, what we now term “the house of lords,” at more than one hundred and fifty. To this parliament, also, there were summoned representatives from one hundred and thirty‐seven cities and boroughs. Probably, in the existing state of society, these merchants and traders,107 in the presence of the great barons of the realm, were generally modest and silent; but we cannot imagine so large a body of Englishmen—many of them independent in property and position108—executing a public trust in a spirit of absolute subjection and passiveness.

Lincoln, the scene of this great gathering, must have presented a lively and singular spectacle in the months of January and February, 1301. The royal court itself would have created a throng in any city of the second class. But the splendid trains which always attended the great barons and prelates must have far exceeded, in the aggregate, the officers and attendants on the court. And when to all these were added some two or three hundred borough‐representatives, all requiring both lodging and provisions, we may feel sure that this city of the fens must have been the scene of a turmoil, bustle, and commotion, which none of its inhabitants were likely ever to forget. Langtoft tells us that—

It probably would not be easy to ascertain how the victualling of all these hundreds, or rather, thousands, was accomplished; or in what way it became an affair of state. But the existing records show, not only that great provision was made beforehand; but that these matters were thought of by the king himself. From Dumfries, in the previous October, the king, so soon as he had determined on holding this parliament, sent writs to the sheriff of Lincolnshire, enjoining him many weeks beforehand, to provide, for the intended meeting, four hundred quarters of corn, four hundred quarters of barley, one thousand quarters of oats, and hay for four hundred horses for a month. The sheriff was also to provide one hundred cows and oxen, one hundred pigs, and three hundred sheep. And all this was, distinctly, for the parliament; while for the royal household a separate order was given, of four hundred quarters of corn, one hundred beeves, sixty pigs, and four hundred sheep. The king was probably able to procure the provender for his stables, by orders addressed to some of his own tenantry.

As the time of meeting drew near, other necessary matters were thought of. A writ, dated Worksop, December 2, 1300, enjoins the sheriff to procure sixty dozens of good parchment, for records of the matters to be agreed upon. Other orders of the same kind follow. Samuel Stanham, who was himself a representative of the city of Lincoln in this parliament, had at its close a demand against the king’s treasurer for £96 14s. 5d. for sugars, figs, etc.; and for £54 10s. for fish. He also claims £6 16s. for herrings and stock‐fish supplied to prince Edward, then scarcely seventeen years of age. Multiplying these sums by fifteen for the altered value of money, we shall perceive that they imply a liberal expenditure in the royal establishments.

The parliament being opened in the accustomed form, it appears that the two earls obtained precedence for their favourite questions—the perambulations and the disafforesting. These topics, urged by the constable and the marshal—Winchelsey being their prompter and secret adviser—led to prolonged and vehement debates. As these discussions form part of the great disafforesting controversy, we shall pass them over for the present, only observing that Edward’s skill, firmness, and moderation were taxed to the utmost on this occasion. He succeeded, however, after many days of fierce debate, in calming the troubled waters, and bringing the parliament to a practical result. What were termed “the reports of the commissioners of perambulation” were adopted, and orders for extensive disafforesting were given. Thus pacified, the barons consented to a grant of a fifteenth, to be paid by the feast of St. Michael next ensuing.

And now, these internal dissensions being for a time set at rest, the parliament took up the question of pope Boniface’s letter. Upon its audacious and baseless claims there seems to have been no difference of opinion. Edward’s law‐officers, aided by all the documentary evidence that could be discovered, had, there can be no doubt, prepared a complete answer to the papal assumptions; but it was prudently suggested that, in the king’s present circumstances, it was not desirable that he should appear as a personal rejector and oppugner of the pontiff’s pretensions. Hence, doubtless, arose the idea of the plan which was finally adopted. The whole array of the barons of England stepped between the pope and their king, and told the pontiff that he had asked more than his right; and that they could not permit their sovereign, even were he so inclined, to surrender the rights or the dignity of the crown of England. In this important document—after first denying the historical statements of the papal rescript, and wholly repudiating the idea that the kingdom of Scotland had ever, in any way or manner, belonged to the see of Rome—they go on to deal with the question, whether the king of England shall or may appear before the papal tribunal to defend his right, or in any way to acknowledge the pope as an arbiter or judge in this matter. On this point the hundred and four barons thus express themselves:—

“By a custom which has always been inviolably observed—a privilege arising from the pre‐eminence of the regal dignity—the kings of England have never pleaded, or been bound to plead, respecting their rights in the fore‐mentioned kingdom, or any other their temporal rights, before any judge, ecclesiastical or secular. Wherefore, after discussion and deliberation respecting the contents of your letters, it was our common and unanimous resolve, and by the grace of God shall for the future remain such, that with respect to the rights of his kingdom of Scotland, or other his temporal rights, our aforesaid lord the king shall not plead before you, nor submit in any manner to your judgment; nor suffer his foresaid right to be brought into question by any inquiry; nor send agents or procurators for that purpose into your presence. For such proceedings would be to the manifest disherison of the rights of the crown of England and the royal dignity, the evident subversion of the state of the kingdom, and the prejudice of the liberties, customs, and laws which we have inherited from our fathers—to the observance and defence of which we are bound by our oaths; and which we will maintain to the best of our power; and by the help of God will defend with all our might. Neither do we, nor will we, permit—as we neither can nor ought—our aforesaid lord the king to do, or attempt to do, even if he wished it, the things before mentioned; things so unwarranted by custom or obligation, so prejudicial, and otherwise so unheard of.”109

This was the substantial reply given to pope Boniface, and it was a fitting and worthy reply. That it was counselled and framed by the king’s ministers cannot be doubted, and we see in it a fresh proof of that remarkable feature in Edward’s character—his desire at every step to act in concert with his people, to move with them in every important step which required to be taken. But to this, the substantial reply, Edward thought it wise and expedient to add a private and friendly letter of his own. He sent this second communication, as he expressly says, “not in the form or shape of a judicial pleading,” but as an entirely unofficial communication from one equal to another. Its object, both professedly and really, was to obviate any possible ground of complaint or aggrieved feeling. In this letter the king touched upon the chief points in the history of the two countries, showing that a superiority had existed, and that homage had been paid from kings of Scotland to kings of England for centuries past, and he ended thus: “As, from the above‐named consideration, it is plain and notorious that the said kingdom of Scotland belongs to us in full right, and as we have never done anything which could in any way derogate from our rights over the same, we humbly entreat your holiness that you, weighing the arguments above stated, will deign to decide upon them according to the promptings of your own mind, in no way giving credit to the contrary suggestions of those who are jealous of us in this respect, but preserving and approving of our state and our royal rights, if it so please your paternal affection.”

The practical result, then, of the whole was, that Edward, firmly rejecting the papal claim, refused even to send commissioners for the purposes of discussing it. He was a sincerely religious man according to the obscured Christianity of his day, and he probably had never heard the pope’s claim to an universal primacy so much as questioned; but his own powerful and sagacious mind often enabled him to detect the unwarrantable pretensions of the ecclesiastics of all degrees, and when “he felt himself to be in the right,” as he told Winchelsey at Salisbury, he was “ready to go to the death” in defence of his position.

Having thus parried and averted the blow aimed through the papal power, the king that summer mustered his forces and entered Scotland; but the unsettled state of his affairs, and the negotiations still pending with France and with Rome, seem to have distracted his attention and weakened his efforts. He captured one or two strong places, but the Scotch still adhered to their former system of retiring at his approach, and laying waste everything before him. An early winter set in and cut short the campaign, and the king resolved to fix his residence for the winter at Linlithgow, so as to be ready to commence a spring campaign in 1302; but this plan was defeated by an absurd concession made by his agents in France. In prolonging the truce with Philip until November 30, 1302, they foolishly permitted the French ministers to claim the inclusion of the Scotch in this cessation of arms. Thus one whole year more was lost to Edward in his Scottish operations—a loss which, at his time of life, was of great and permanent importance. The final and entire reduction of Scotland was thus once more postponed until 1303–1304, when, as we shall presently see, it was entirely effected.

In the course of the year 1302 we observe the meeting of three parliaments. The first was held in London in March, and of it we have few particulars; another was held in July; and in September and October a third was held in London, at which there attended seventeen prelates and forty‐four abbots, nine earls and eighty‐two barons, two knights from each shire, and two citizens or burgesses from each city or borough, with full power to do “quod tunc de communi consilio ordinabitur.”