CHAPTER XIII.CONCLUSION.The wisdom of the ancient Egyptians has been much celebrated, but in no respect does it appear more conspicuous than in the uses to which they applied the historical records of their country. By their laws, the hand which kept a faithful transcript of passing events, and registered with strict impartiality the transactions and characters of their kings, was removed from the knowledge and influence of those whose deeds were thus related. On the accession of every new monarch, it was part of the ceremonial to read in his presence the records of his predecessor’s reign. By this means he was apprised of the faults he ought to avoid, and admonished of the virtues it was incumbent on him to emulate; while the reflection arising from the certainty that after death his name also would be consigned over to posterity—either to receive the meed of grateful remembrance, or the impress of merited reprobation, according to his actions—operated on the royal mind as a useful and salutary restraint.Other nations aspired to imitate the Egyptians;but national imitation is too often like that among individuals. The faults and blemishes of the original are more readily caught than its beauties and perfections. Thus, while the grossness of Egypt’s mythology was most servilely copied,onepractice which gave dignity and utility to her history was entirely overlooked, and the pen of the historian, in place of being wielded by the impartial, fearless, and untrammelled friend of public virtue, was more frequently found in the hand of the needy parasite; employed in the base and degrading occupation of varnishing the enormities of the ermined tyrant, whose ambitious progress to distinction had been marked by the subversion of the rights, and the carnage of his fellow-men. This prostitution of the historic muse is not unknown among modern authors, and may be often attributed to an unworthy desire of administering to the feelings of a favourite party, or a wish to conciliate the national prejudices of their readers. Though compelled, by the general increase of knowledge, to give a more faithful narrative of facts than the writers of antiquity, when it may suit any of the purposes that have been mentioned, the subject of their biography is seldom dismissed without being made to undergo a sort of purgation in the general estimate of his character, and which is often found to be at antipodes to the actions with which it stands connected. Perhaps the annals of England cannot afford a more striking instance of this perversion of all that is valuable in historical literature, than in the portraits which some historians have drawn of Edward I.Without attempting to delineate the character ofthis ambitious disturber of the peace of Britain, the writer will merely notice a few of the leading circumstances of his history, and leave the reader to discover by what curious process of literary chemistry those crudities have been made to harmonize, in order to produce so fair a display of political sagacity and kingly greatness.The littleness which appears to have been inherent in the mind of Edward was laid open to the Londoners in 1263, by his breaking into the treasury of the Knights Templars, and carrying off 1000l.deposited there by the citizens. This robbery was looked upon by the people as an act so thoroughly base, that they instantly flew to arms, and assaulted the houses of those among the nobility who were supposed accessary to the theft. Edward was at this time in his 26th year; of course youthful indiscretion cannot be advanced as an excuse for the crime.His aggression upon Scotland has been indulgently placed to the account of those enlightened and statesman-like views which he entertained of the true interests and general welfare of Britain, and the advantages he discovered would result from the resources of the two countries being consolidated under one head. This “reason of state,” has been held up in extenuation of the nefarious means which he resorted to for the accomplishment of his purpose. But by the extracts which we are about to make from the pages of an author every way inclined to treat the faults of Edward with lenity, the reader will perceive, that though the enlightened views “which he took of the solid interests of his kingdom,” may have found a place in the imagination of the historian, they donot appear to have occurred to the monarch. The extinction of every thing like rational liberty, and the establishment of an extensive and uncontrollable autocracy, seem to have been the undisguised objects of his ambition. In proof of which, we have only to refer to his demeanour towards his barons, and the unwarrantable appropriation of the effects of his subjects, mentioned in the extracts alluded to. His conduct in respect to Scotland being thus stripped of the only palliation that can be offered, it stands forward on the page of history in all its native deformity, unrelieved by one solitary extenuating circumstance, while the following transaction gives it, if possible, a darker and more disgusting complexion.In 1267, Henry and Prince Edward, being driven to the greatest extremity by the Earl of Gloucester and other Barons, whom their oppressions and unlawful exactions had forced to take up arms, when every hope failed them, and even the Tower of London was besieged by a numerous army of enraged assailants, they were very opportunely relieved from their perilous situation by the assistance of 30,000 Scots, whom Alexander sent to their relief; and with these auxiliaries they were enabled to withstand, and afterwards to subdue, their exasperated and refractory subjects. The debt of gratitude which was thus incurred, Edward had not an opportunity of discharging, till after the death of Alexander, when the Scots, with a generous confidence, which their own conduct naturally inspired, applied to him to act as umpire in settling the succession to the crown. How honourably he acquitted himself in the discharge of the duties of the trust thus reposed inhim, and how generous was the return he made for their good offices, the reader requires not to be told. Two nations, who had for nearly a century regarded each other with feelings of mutual good-will, and had lived in a state of friendly intercourse highly beneficial to both, were suddenly transformed into the most inveterate enemies; and an implacable spirit of animosity engendered between them, which it required the slow revolution of ages to soften and obliterate. The guilty ambition of this short-sighted tyrant entailed upon the British states a quarrel the most bloody, the most expensive, and the most insane that perhaps ever existed between two nations. By the ridiculous pretensions of the one, the improvement of both countries was retarded, and their frontier populations demoralized into cut-throats or plunderers, who wandered in search of their prey over a land barren as the desert, which might otherwise have been teeming with the fruits of honest and profitable industry.Edward’s ideas of honesty we have already seen in the affair of the Templars, and his feelings of gratitude in his conduct towards the Scots. His sense of justice may be gathered from his proceedings against the Jews. The silver pennies of the realm having been clipped, the offence was traced to some of that unfortunate people, and in one day 280 of both sexes were executed in London, besides a great many more in different parts of the kingdom, where it seems simultaneous measures had been taken against them. That this crime was confined entirely to the Jews, is not likely. The implements by which it could be committed were certainly not beyond the reach ofEnglish intellect; nor could the latter be supposed, in every instance, superior to the temptation which the gains presented. That the guilt of all who suffered was ascertained, is impossible; and a wholesale butchery of this kind, authorized by law, as it could not answer the ends of justice, can only be considered as gratuitously administering to the worst of human passions.The estimation in which Edward held those arts which are calculated to instruct, refine, and elevate the human mind, may be learned from his treatment of the Minstrels of Wales. The remorseless and sanguinary policy which suggested that unhallowed act, could only have found place in the breast where every virtuous and honourable feeling had disappeared before the withering influence of a selfish and detestable ambition. In an age when the Minstrel’s profession was a passport to the presence and protection of the great, and the persons of those who exercised the calling were held sacred even among tribes the least removed from barbarism, the mind must have reached a fearful state of depravity, that could break through those barriers with which the gratitude and veneration of mankind had surrounded the children of genius, and thus immolate at the shrine of an heartless despotism, the innocent and meritorious depositories of a nation’s lore.*****The reader may form some idea of the treasures squandered by Edward in the Scottish wars, from the Statement of Receipts and Disbursements for the year 1300, inserted in Appendix M, at the end of this volume. The military operations of thatyear were not on a more expensive scale than those connected with the preceding and subsequent invasions; and by this statement, it will be found, that the disbursements for the campaign of 1300, exceeded, “within one department of the national expenditure,”one fifthof the national income. That the expenses of this campaign pressed equally hard on other departments of the exchequer, is sufficiently obvious from the singular expedients which were resorted to for the purpose of carrying it on. The year 1300 is remarkable for the first attempt to depreciate the currency of the realm, it having been then ordered that 243 pennies should be coined out of the pound of silver, in place of 240 as formerly. In this year, also, as will be seen by the statements already alluded to, the Wardrobe department was in arrears to the amount of 5949l.4s. 3d., which circumstance—taken in connexion with the fact, that Sir Simon Fraser and other knights soon after deserted the English service, because their pay and other allowances were withheld—proves that the treasury of England at this time must have been in a very depressed state. This profitless expenditure was continued with little interruption, from 1296 till 1320, in pursuit of an object, which, happily for the future prosperity of both countries, was unattainable.We have already alluded to the treacherous designs of Edward, regarding the liberties of his own subjects; and, in illustration of the opinion then expressed, we shall now subjoin the account of his behaviour, after his triumphant return from the north, as it appears in the pages of Dr Lingard,an author who certainly cannot be considered as a friend to Scotland:—we wish we were able to call him acandidadversary.“Had Edward,” says this learned, though often disingenuous writer, “confined his rapacity to the clergy, he might perhaps have continued to despise their remonstrances; but the aids which he had annually raised on the freeholders, the tallages which he so frequently demanded of the cities and boroughs, and the additional duties which he extorted from the merchants, had excited a general spirit of discontent. Wool and hides were the two great articles of commerce; the exportation of which was allowed only to foreign merchants, and confined, by law, to eleven ports in England, and three in Ireland. In the beginning of his reign, the duty had been raised to half a mark on each sack of wool; but the royal wants perpetually increased; and, during his quarrel with the King of France, he required five marks for every sack of fine, three for every sack of coarse wool, and five for every last of hides. On one occasion, he extorted from the merchants a loan of the value of all the wool which they exported; on two others, he seized and sold both wool and hides for his own profit. He even stretched his rapacious hands to the produce of the soil, and the live-stock of his subjects; and, to provision his army in Guienne, he issued precepts to each sheriff to collect, by assessment on the landholders of his county, a certain number of cattle, and two thousand quarters of wheat. Though this requisition was accompanied with a promise of future payment, the patience of the nation was exhausted: Consultations began to be held: and preparationswere made for resistance. Edward had assembled two bodies of troops, with one of which he intended to sail for Flanders, the other he destined to reinforce the army in Guienne, (1297, Feb. 24.) At Salisbury, he gave the command of the latter to Bohun Earl of Hereford, the constable, and to Bigod Earl of Norfolk, the mareschal of England; but both these noblemen refused the appointment, on the alleged ground, that, by their office, they were bound only to attend on the King’s person. Edward, in a paroxysm of rage, addressing himself to the mareschal, exclaimed—‘By the everlasting God, Sir Earl, you shall go or hang.’—‘By the everlasting God, Sir King,’ replied Bigod, ‘I will neither go nor hang.’ Hereford and Norfolk immediately departed: they were followed by thirty bannerets, and fifteen hundred knights; and the royal officers, intimidated by their menaces, ceased to levy the purveyance. Edward saw that it was necessary to dissemble, and summoned some,—requested others, of his military tenants to meet him in arms in London.“The two Earls, in concert with the Archbishop of Canterbury, had arranged their plan of resistance to the royal exactions. On the appointed day the constable and John de Segrave, as deputy-mareschal, (Bigod himself was detained at home by sickness) attended the King’s court; but when they were required to perform their respective duties (July 8th), they returned a refusal in writing, on the ground that they had not received a legal summons, but only a general invitation. Edward appointed a new constable and mareschal; and, to divide and weaken his opponents, sought to appease the clergy, and to move the commiserationof the people (July 11th). He received the primate with kindness, ordered the restoration of his lands, and named him one of the council to Prince Edward, whom he had appointed regent. On a platform before the entrance of Westminster Hall, accompanied by his son, the Archbishop, and the Earl of Warwick, he harangued the people, (July 14.) He owned that the burdens which he had laid on them were heavy; but protested that it had not been less painful to him to impose, than it had been to them to bear them. Necessity was his only apology. His object had been to preserve himself and his liege men from the cruelty and rapacity of the Welsh, the Scots, and the French, who not only soughthiscrown, but also thirsted aftertheirblood. In such case, it was better to sacrifice a part than to lose the whole. ‘Behold,’ he concluded, ‘I am going to expose myself to danger for you. If I return, receive me again, and I will make you amends; if I fall, here is my son; place him on the throne, and his gratitude shall reward your fidelity.’ At these words the King burst into tears; the Archbishop was equally affected; the contagion ran through the multitude; and shouts of loyalty and approbation persuaded Edward that he might still depend on the allegiance of his people. This exhibition was followed by writs to the sheriffs, ordering them to protect the clergy from injury, and to maintain them in the possession of their lands.“He now ventured to proceed as far as Winchelsey on his way to Flanders. But here he was alarmed by reports of the designs of his opponents, and ordered letters to be sent to every county,stating the origin of his quarrel with the two earls, asserting that he had never refused any petition for redress, and promising to confirm the charter of liberties and charter of the forests, in return for the liberal aid of an eighth which had been granted by the council in London. Soon afterwards a paper was put into his hands, purporting to be the remonstrance of the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors, the earls, barons, and whole commonalty of England. In it they complained that the last summons had been worded ambiguously; that it called on them to accompany the King to Flanders, a country in which they were not bound to serve by the custom of their tenures; that even if they were, they had been so impoverished by aids, tallages, and unlawful seizures, as to be unable to bear the expense; that the liberties granted to them by the two charters had been repeatedly violated; that the ‘evil toll’ (the duty) annually on wool amounted alone to one-fifth of the whole income of the land; and that, to undertake an expedition to Flanders in the existing circumstances, was imprudent, since it would expose the kingdom without protection to the inroads of the Welsh and Scots. Edward replied, that he could return no answer on matters of such high importance, without the advice of his council, a part of which had already sailed for Flanders; that if the remonstrants would accompany him, he would accept it as a favour; if they refused, he trusted they would raise no disturbance during his absence, (Aug. 19.) Before his departure he appointed commissioners in each county with powers to require security from all persons for the payment of aids due to the crown, and to imprison the publishers of falsereports, the disturbers of the peace, and such of the clergy as might presume to pronounce censures against the royal officers for the discharge of their duty.“At length the King set sail, accompanied by the barons and knights who had espoused his cause; and two days later, Bohun and Bigod, with a numerous retinue, proceeded to the exchequer. The constable, in the presence of the treasurer and judges, complained of the King’s extortions, of his illegal seizures of private property, and of the enormous duty imposed upon wool; and forbade them, in the name of the baronage of England, to levy the last eight which had been granted by the great council, because it had been voted without his knowledge and concurrence, and that of his friends. From the exchequer they rode to the Guildhall, where they called upon the citizens to join in the common cause, and to aid in wresting the confirmation of the national liberties from a reluctant and despotic sovereign. The tears which the Londoners had shed during Edward’s harangue, were now dried up; considerations of interest suppressed the impulse of pity; and they gave assurances of their co-operation to the barons, who immediately retired to their respective counties. Both during their progress to the capital, and their return from it, they had marched in military array. But at the same time they had been careful to preserve the peace; and had threatened, by proclamation, to punish every lawless aggressor with immediate amputation of a hand, or the loss of the head, according to the quality of the offence.“The King was soon informed of these proceedings,and ordered the barons of the exchequer to disregard the prohibition. But in a few weeks his obstinacy was subdued by a succession of untoward events. The people and clergy universally favoured the cause of the earls; the Scots, after their victory at Stirling, had burst into the northern counties; and Edward himself lay at Ghent in Flanders, unable to return to the protection of the kingdom, and too weak to face the superior force of the French king. In these circumstances, the lords who composed the council of the young Prince, invited the archbishop, six prelates, twenty-three abbots and priors, the constable and mareschal, and eight barons, to treat with them on matters of the greatest moment, and summoned a parliament to meet in London a week later (Sept. 30.), and witness the confirmation of the two charters. In the conferences which preceded, the two parties, though opposed in appearance, had the same interests and the same views; a form of peace (so it was called) was speedily arranged; and, to the ancient enactments of the charters, were appended the following most important additions:—”No tallage or aid shall henceforth be laid or levied by us or our heirs in this our realm, without the goodwill and common assent of the archbishops, bishops, and other prelates, the earls, barons, knights, burgesses, and other free men in our realm. No officer of us or our heirs shall take corn, wool, hides, or other goods, of any person whatsoever, without the good will and assent of the owner of such goods. Nothing shall henceforth be taken on the sack of wool, under the name or pretence of the evil toll. We also will and grant for us and our heirs, that all both clergy and laity of our realmshall have their laws, liberties, and free customs, as freely and wholly as at any time when they had them best; and if any statutes have been made or customs introduced by us or our ancestors contrary to them, or to any article in the present charter, we will and grant that such statutes and customs be null and void for ever. We have, moreover, remitted to the Earl Constable, and Earl Mareschal and all their associates, and to all those who have not accompanied us to Flanders, all rancour and ill will, and all manner of offences which they may have committed against us or ours before the making of this present charter. And for the greater assurance of this thing, we will and grant for us and our heirs, that all archbishops and bishops in England for ever, shall, twice in the year after the reading of this charter in their cathedral churches, excommunicate, and cause, in their parochial churches, to be excommunicated, all those that knowingly shall do or cause to be done, any thing against the tenor, force and effect of any article contained in it.“When the parliament assembled (Oct. 10.), these additions to the charter were received with enthusiasm; and provided the King would assent to them, the laity voted him an eighth, the clergy of Canterbury a tenth, and the clergy of York a fifth. The prince, by a public instrument, took the Earls and their associates under his protection; and the Lords of the Council bound themselves to indemnify them against the effects of the royal displeasure. A common letter was written to the King, soliciting him to appease all differences by giving his assent, and assuring him that his faithful barons were ready at his command either tojoin him in Flanders, or to march against his enemies in Scotland; but at the same time requiring, in a tone of defiance, an answer against the sixth day of December. It cost the haughty mind of Edward several struggles, before he could prevail on himself to submit: three days were spent in useless deliberation and complaints; but at last, with a reluctant hand, he signed the confirmation of the two charters with the additional articles, and a separate pardon for the Earls and their followers, (Nov. 5.)“This was perhaps the most important victory which had hitherto been gained over the Crown. By investing the people with the sole right of raising the supplies, it armed them with the power of checking the extravagance, and controlling the despotism of their monarchs. Whatever jealousy might be entertained of Edward’s intentions, his conduct wore at first the semblance of sincerity. As soon as an armistice had been concluded between him and the King of France, he returned to England, and appointed commissioners to inquire into the illegal seizures which had been made previously to his departure. They were to be divided into two classes. Where the officers acted without warrant, they were, at their own cost, to indemnify the sufferers; where the goods had been taken by the royal orders, their value was to be certified into the exchequer, and prompt payment was to be made. Still it was suspected that he only waited for a favourable moment to cancel the concessions which had been wrung from him by necessity; and it was whispered that among his confidential friends he had laughed at them as being of no force, because they had been made ina foreign country, where he possessed no authority. When he met his parliament at York, the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk required that he should ratify his confirmation of the charters. He objected from the necessity of hastening to oppose the Scots, solemnly promised to comply with their request on his return, and brought forward the Bishop of Durham and three Earls, who swore ‘on his soul,’ that he should fulfil his engagements.” A. D. 1299. March. The victory of Falkirk and a long series of success gave a lustre to his arms; but when the parliament assembled the next year, the King was reminded of his promise. His reluctance employed every artifice to deceive the vigilance, or exhaust the patience, of the two Earls. He retired from the parliament in anger; he returned and proposed modifications; at last he ratified his former concessions, but with the addition of a clause, which, by saving the rights of the Crown, virtually annulled every provision in favour of the subject. Bohun and Bigod instantly departed with their adherents; and the King, to ascertain the sentiments of the people, ordered the sheriffs to assemble the citizens in the cemetery of St Paul’s, and to read to them the new confirmation of the charters. The lecture was repeatedly interrupted by shouts of approbation; but when the illusory clause was recited, the air rung with expressions of discontent, and curses were poured on the head of the prince, who had thus disappointed the expectations of his people. Edward took the alarm; summoned a new parliament to meet him within a fortnight; granted every demand; and appointed a commission of three Bishops,three Earls, and three Barons, to ascertain the real boundaries of the royalforests.”83In the foregoing extract, we find Edward, on the 14th July, holding up the Scots as a bugbear to terrify his subjects into an acquiescence with his oppressive demands; and on the 30th September the English, in turn, are found making the very same use of the Scots, for the purpose of extorting fromtheirreluctant and unprincipled “Justinian,” the confirmation of their national liberties. It did not, however, appear to strike them that the subversion of freedom in Scotland was totally inconsistent with its existence in the southern part of the island.By the same author we are also told, that after the surrender of Stirling Castle in 1304, Edward sent a secret deputation to the Pope, craving that a dispensation might be granted him from the oaths he had taken. This request appears to have been complied with; but the learned author adds, “Whether the papal rescript did not fully meet the King’s wishes, or that he was intimidated by the rebellion of the Scots, he made no public use of its contents; but suffered the concessions, galling as they were, to remain on the statute-roll at his death, and descend to future sovereigns as the recognised law of the land. Thus, after a long struggle, was won, from an able and powerful monarch, the most valuable of the privileges enjoyed by the commons of England at the present day. If we are indebted to the patriotism of Cardinal Langton, and the Barons at Runnymead, the framers of the great charter, we ought equally torevere the memory of Archbishop Winchelsey and the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk. The former erected barriers against the abuse of the sovereign authority; the latter fixed the liberties of the subject on a sure and permanentfoundation.”84In his list of meritorious characters, the learned author ought certainly not to have omitted the Knight of Elderslie and his patriotic followers, who, in standing nobly forward for the independence of their own country, were also instrumental in securing such invaluable and lasting privileges for their neighbours.From the evidence adduced in the quotations made, of the powerful diversion effected in favour of English liberty by the stubborn opposition of the Scots, it appears, that the success of the arms of the latter was the palladium on which the most important of England’s chartered rights depended. When the people of England, therefore, think of erecting monuments to the characters the worthy Doctor has enumerated, it is to be hoped that a tablet to the memory of the Guardian of Scotland will not be forgotten, on which, with propriety, may be inscribed“LIBERTÉ CHERIE, quand tu meursen Ecosse,Certes, l’Anglais,chez lui, peut bien creuserTAfosse.”
The wisdom of the ancient Egyptians has been much celebrated, but in no respect does it appear more conspicuous than in the uses to which they applied the historical records of their country. By their laws, the hand which kept a faithful transcript of passing events, and registered with strict impartiality the transactions and characters of their kings, was removed from the knowledge and influence of those whose deeds were thus related. On the accession of every new monarch, it was part of the ceremonial to read in his presence the records of his predecessor’s reign. By this means he was apprised of the faults he ought to avoid, and admonished of the virtues it was incumbent on him to emulate; while the reflection arising from the certainty that after death his name also would be consigned over to posterity—either to receive the meed of grateful remembrance, or the impress of merited reprobation, according to his actions—operated on the royal mind as a useful and salutary restraint.
Other nations aspired to imitate the Egyptians;but national imitation is too often like that among individuals. The faults and blemishes of the original are more readily caught than its beauties and perfections. Thus, while the grossness of Egypt’s mythology was most servilely copied,onepractice which gave dignity and utility to her history was entirely overlooked, and the pen of the historian, in place of being wielded by the impartial, fearless, and untrammelled friend of public virtue, was more frequently found in the hand of the needy parasite; employed in the base and degrading occupation of varnishing the enormities of the ermined tyrant, whose ambitious progress to distinction had been marked by the subversion of the rights, and the carnage of his fellow-men. This prostitution of the historic muse is not unknown among modern authors, and may be often attributed to an unworthy desire of administering to the feelings of a favourite party, or a wish to conciliate the national prejudices of their readers. Though compelled, by the general increase of knowledge, to give a more faithful narrative of facts than the writers of antiquity, when it may suit any of the purposes that have been mentioned, the subject of their biography is seldom dismissed without being made to undergo a sort of purgation in the general estimate of his character, and which is often found to be at antipodes to the actions with which it stands connected. Perhaps the annals of England cannot afford a more striking instance of this perversion of all that is valuable in historical literature, than in the portraits which some historians have drawn of Edward I.
Without attempting to delineate the character ofthis ambitious disturber of the peace of Britain, the writer will merely notice a few of the leading circumstances of his history, and leave the reader to discover by what curious process of literary chemistry those crudities have been made to harmonize, in order to produce so fair a display of political sagacity and kingly greatness.
The littleness which appears to have been inherent in the mind of Edward was laid open to the Londoners in 1263, by his breaking into the treasury of the Knights Templars, and carrying off 1000l.deposited there by the citizens. This robbery was looked upon by the people as an act so thoroughly base, that they instantly flew to arms, and assaulted the houses of those among the nobility who were supposed accessary to the theft. Edward was at this time in his 26th year; of course youthful indiscretion cannot be advanced as an excuse for the crime.
His aggression upon Scotland has been indulgently placed to the account of those enlightened and statesman-like views which he entertained of the true interests and general welfare of Britain, and the advantages he discovered would result from the resources of the two countries being consolidated under one head. This “reason of state,” has been held up in extenuation of the nefarious means which he resorted to for the accomplishment of his purpose. But by the extracts which we are about to make from the pages of an author every way inclined to treat the faults of Edward with lenity, the reader will perceive, that though the enlightened views “which he took of the solid interests of his kingdom,” may have found a place in the imagination of the historian, they donot appear to have occurred to the monarch. The extinction of every thing like rational liberty, and the establishment of an extensive and uncontrollable autocracy, seem to have been the undisguised objects of his ambition. In proof of which, we have only to refer to his demeanour towards his barons, and the unwarrantable appropriation of the effects of his subjects, mentioned in the extracts alluded to. His conduct in respect to Scotland being thus stripped of the only palliation that can be offered, it stands forward on the page of history in all its native deformity, unrelieved by one solitary extenuating circumstance, while the following transaction gives it, if possible, a darker and more disgusting complexion.
In 1267, Henry and Prince Edward, being driven to the greatest extremity by the Earl of Gloucester and other Barons, whom their oppressions and unlawful exactions had forced to take up arms, when every hope failed them, and even the Tower of London was besieged by a numerous army of enraged assailants, they were very opportunely relieved from their perilous situation by the assistance of 30,000 Scots, whom Alexander sent to their relief; and with these auxiliaries they were enabled to withstand, and afterwards to subdue, their exasperated and refractory subjects. The debt of gratitude which was thus incurred, Edward had not an opportunity of discharging, till after the death of Alexander, when the Scots, with a generous confidence, which their own conduct naturally inspired, applied to him to act as umpire in settling the succession to the crown. How honourably he acquitted himself in the discharge of the duties of the trust thus reposed inhim, and how generous was the return he made for their good offices, the reader requires not to be told. Two nations, who had for nearly a century regarded each other with feelings of mutual good-will, and had lived in a state of friendly intercourse highly beneficial to both, were suddenly transformed into the most inveterate enemies; and an implacable spirit of animosity engendered between them, which it required the slow revolution of ages to soften and obliterate. The guilty ambition of this short-sighted tyrant entailed upon the British states a quarrel the most bloody, the most expensive, and the most insane that perhaps ever existed between two nations. By the ridiculous pretensions of the one, the improvement of both countries was retarded, and their frontier populations demoralized into cut-throats or plunderers, who wandered in search of their prey over a land barren as the desert, which might otherwise have been teeming with the fruits of honest and profitable industry.
Edward’s ideas of honesty we have already seen in the affair of the Templars, and his feelings of gratitude in his conduct towards the Scots. His sense of justice may be gathered from his proceedings against the Jews. The silver pennies of the realm having been clipped, the offence was traced to some of that unfortunate people, and in one day 280 of both sexes were executed in London, besides a great many more in different parts of the kingdom, where it seems simultaneous measures had been taken against them. That this crime was confined entirely to the Jews, is not likely. The implements by which it could be committed were certainly not beyond the reach ofEnglish intellect; nor could the latter be supposed, in every instance, superior to the temptation which the gains presented. That the guilt of all who suffered was ascertained, is impossible; and a wholesale butchery of this kind, authorized by law, as it could not answer the ends of justice, can only be considered as gratuitously administering to the worst of human passions.
The estimation in which Edward held those arts which are calculated to instruct, refine, and elevate the human mind, may be learned from his treatment of the Minstrels of Wales. The remorseless and sanguinary policy which suggested that unhallowed act, could only have found place in the breast where every virtuous and honourable feeling had disappeared before the withering influence of a selfish and detestable ambition. In an age when the Minstrel’s profession was a passport to the presence and protection of the great, and the persons of those who exercised the calling were held sacred even among tribes the least removed from barbarism, the mind must have reached a fearful state of depravity, that could break through those barriers with which the gratitude and veneration of mankind had surrounded the children of genius, and thus immolate at the shrine of an heartless despotism, the innocent and meritorious depositories of a nation’s lore.
*****
The reader may form some idea of the treasures squandered by Edward in the Scottish wars, from the Statement of Receipts and Disbursements for the year 1300, inserted in Appendix M, at the end of this volume. The military operations of thatyear were not on a more expensive scale than those connected with the preceding and subsequent invasions; and by this statement, it will be found, that the disbursements for the campaign of 1300, exceeded, “within one department of the national expenditure,”one fifthof the national income. That the expenses of this campaign pressed equally hard on other departments of the exchequer, is sufficiently obvious from the singular expedients which were resorted to for the purpose of carrying it on. The year 1300 is remarkable for the first attempt to depreciate the currency of the realm, it having been then ordered that 243 pennies should be coined out of the pound of silver, in place of 240 as formerly. In this year, also, as will be seen by the statements already alluded to, the Wardrobe department was in arrears to the amount of 5949l.4s. 3d., which circumstance—taken in connexion with the fact, that Sir Simon Fraser and other knights soon after deserted the English service, because their pay and other allowances were withheld—proves that the treasury of England at this time must have been in a very depressed state. This profitless expenditure was continued with little interruption, from 1296 till 1320, in pursuit of an object, which, happily for the future prosperity of both countries, was unattainable.
We have already alluded to the treacherous designs of Edward, regarding the liberties of his own subjects; and, in illustration of the opinion then expressed, we shall now subjoin the account of his behaviour, after his triumphant return from the north, as it appears in the pages of Dr Lingard,an author who certainly cannot be considered as a friend to Scotland:—we wish we were able to call him acandidadversary.
“Had Edward,” says this learned, though often disingenuous writer, “confined his rapacity to the clergy, he might perhaps have continued to despise their remonstrances; but the aids which he had annually raised on the freeholders, the tallages which he so frequently demanded of the cities and boroughs, and the additional duties which he extorted from the merchants, had excited a general spirit of discontent. Wool and hides were the two great articles of commerce; the exportation of which was allowed only to foreign merchants, and confined, by law, to eleven ports in England, and three in Ireland. In the beginning of his reign, the duty had been raised to half a mark on each sack of wool; but the royal wants perpetually increased; and, during his quarrel with the King of France, he required five marks for every sack of fine, three for every sack of coarse wool, and five for every last of hides. On one occasion, he extorted from the merchants a loan of the value of all the wool which they exported; on two others, he seized and sold both wool and hides for his own profit. He even stretched his rapacious hands to the produce of the soil, and the live-stock of his subjects; and, to provision his army in Guienne, he issued precepts to each sheriff to collect, by assessment on the landholders of his county, a certain number of cattle, and two thousand quarters of wheat. Though this requisition was accompanied with a promise of future payment, the patience of the nation was exhausted: Consultations began to be held: and preparationswere made for resistance. Edward had assembled two bodies of troops, with one of which he intended to sail for Flanders, the other he destined to reinforce the army in Guienne, (1297, Feb. 24.) At Salisbury, he gave the command of the latter to Bohun Earl of Hereford, the constable, and to Bigod Earl of Norfolk, the mareschal of England; but both these noblemen refused the appointment, on the alleged ground, that, by their office, they were bound only to attend on the King’s person. Edward, in a paroxysm of rage, addressing himself to the mareschal, exclaimed—‘By the everlasting God, Sir Earl, you shall go or hang.’—‘By the everlasting God, Sir King,’ replied Bigod, ‘I will neither go nor hang.’ Hereford and Norfolk immediately departed: they were followed by thirty bannerets, and fifteen hundred knights; and the royal officers, intimidated by their menaces, ceased to levy the purveyance. Edward saw that it was necessary to dissemble, and summoned some,—requested others, of his military tenants to meet him in arms in London.
“The two Earls, in concert with the Archbishop of Canterbury, had arranged their plan of resistance to the royal exactions. On the appointed day the constable and John de Segrave, as deputy-mareschal, (Bigod himself was detained at home by sickness) attended the King’s court; but when they were required to perform their respective duties (July 8th), they returned a refusal in writing, on the ground that they had not received a legal summons, but only a general invitation. Edward appointed a new constable and mareschal; and, to divide and weaken his opponents, sought to appease the clergy, and to move the commiserationof the people (July 11th). He received the primate with kindness, ordered the restoration of his lands, and named him one of the council to Prince Edward, whom he had appointed regent. On a platform before the entrance of Westminster Hall, accompanied by his son, the Archbishop, and the Earl of Warwick, he harangued the people, (July 14.) He owned that the burdens which he had laid on them were heavy; but protested that it had not been less painful to him to impose, than it had been to them to bear them. Necessity was his only apology. His object had been to preserve himself and his liege men from the cruelty and rapacity of the Welsh, the Scots, and the French, who not only soughthiscrown, but also thirsted aftertheirblood. In such case, it was better to sacrifice a part than to lose the whole. ‘Behold,’ he concluded, ‘I am going to expose myself to danger for you. If I return, receive me again, and I will make you amends; if I fall, here is my son; place him on the throne, and his gratitude shall reward your fidelity.’ At these words the King burst into tears; the Archbishop was equally affected; the contagion ran through the multitude; and shouts of loyalty and approbation persuaded Edward that he might still depend on the allegiance of his people. This exhibition was followed by writs to the sheriffs, ordering them to protect the clergy from injury, and to maintain them in the possession of their lands.
“He now ventured to proceed as far as Winchelsey on his way to Flanders. But here he was alarmed by reports of the designs of his opponents, and ordered letters to be sent to every county,stating the origin of his quarrel with the two earls, asserting that he had never refused any petition for redress, and promising to confirm the charter of liberties and charter of the forests, in return for the liberal aid of an eighth which had been granted by the council in London. Soon afterwards a paper was put into his hands, purporting to be the remonstrance of the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors, the earls, barons, and whole commonalty of England. In it they complained that the last summons had been worded ambiguously; that it called on them to accompany the King to Flanders, a country in which they were not bound to serve by the custom of their tenures; that even if they were, they had been so impoverished by aids, tallages, and unlawful seizures, as to be unable to bear the expense; that the liberties granted to them by the two charters had been repeatedly violated; that the ‘evil toll’ (the duty) annually on wool amounted alone to one-fifth of the whole income of the land; and that, to undertake an expedition to Flanders in the existing circumstances, was imprudent, since it would expose the kingdom without protection to the inroads of the Welsh and Scots. Edward replied, that he could return no answer on matters of such high importance, without the advice of his council, a part of which had already sailed for Flanders; that if the remonstrants would accompany him, he would accept it as a favour; if they refused, he trusted they would raise no disturbance during his absence, (Aug. 19.) Before his departure he appointed commissioners in each county with powers to require security from all persons for the payment of aids due to the crown, and to imprison the publishers of falsereports, the disturbers of the peace, and such of the clergy as might presume to pronounce censures against the royal officers for the discharge of their duty.
“At length the King set sail, accompanied by the barons and knights who had espoused his cause; and two days later, Bohun and Bigod, with a numerous retinue, proceeded to the exchequer. The constable, in the presence of the treasurer and judges, complained of the King’s extortions, of his illegal seizures of private property, and of the enormous duty imposed upon wool; and forbade them, in the name of the baronage of England, to levy the last eight which had been granted by the great council, because it had been voted without his knowledge and concurrence, and that of his friends. From the exchequer they rode to the Guildhall, where they called upon the citizens to join in the common cause, and to aid in wresting the confirmation of the national liberties from a reluctant and despotic sovereign. The tears which the Londoners had shed during Edward’s harangue, were now dried up; considerations of interest suppressed the impulse of pity; and they gave assurances of their co-operation to the barons, who immediately retired to their respective counties. Both during their progress to the capital, and their return from it, they had marched in military array. But at the same time they had been careful to preserve the peace; and had threatened, by proclamation, to punish every lawless aggressor with immediate amputation of a hand, or the loss of the head, according to the quality of the offence.
“The King was soon informed of these proceedings,and ordered the barons of the exchequer to disregard the prohibition. But in a few weeks his obstinacy was subdued by a succession of untoward events. The people and clergy universally favoured the cause of the earls; the Scots, after their victory at Stirling, had burst into the northern counties; and Edward himself lay at Ghent in Flanders, unable to return to the protection of the kingdom, and too weak to face the superior force of the French king. In these circumstances, the lords who composed the council of the young Prince, invited the archbishop, six prelates, twenty-three abbots and priors, the constable and mareschal, and eight barons, to treat with them on matters of the greatest moment, and summoned a parliament to meet in London a week later (Sept. 30.), and witness the confirmation of the two charters. In the conferences which preceded, the two parties, though opposed in appearance, had the same interests and the same views; a form of peace (so it was called) was speedily arranged; and, to the ancient enactments of the charters, were appended the following most important additions:—”No tallage or aid shall henceforth be laid or levied by us or our heirs in this our realm, without the goodwill and common assent of the archbishops, bishops, and other prelates, the earls, barons, knights, burgesses, and other free men in our realm. No officer of us or our heirs shall take corn, wool, hides, or other goods, of any person whatsoever, without the good will and assent of the owner of such goods. Nothing shall henceforth be taken on the sack of wool, under the name or pretence of the evil toll. We also will and grant for us and our heirs, that all both clergy and laity of our realmshall have their laws, liberties, and free customs, as freely and wholly as at any time when they had them best; and if any statutes have been made or customs introduced by us or our ancestors contrary to them, or to any article in the present charter, we will and grant that such statutes and customs be null and void for ever. We have, moreover, remitted to the Earl Constable, and Earl Mareschal and all their associates, and to all those who have not accompanied us to Flanders, all rancour and ill will, and all manner of offences which they may have committed against us or ours before the making of this present charter. And for the greater assurance of this thing, we will and grant for us and our heirs, that all archbishops and bishops in England for ever, shall, twice in the year after the reading of this charter in their cathedral churches, excommunicate, and cause, in their parochial churches, to be excommunicated, all those that knowingly shall do or cause to be done, any thing against the tenor, force and effect of any article contained in it.
“When the parliament assembled (Oct. 10.), these additions to the charter were received with enthusiasm; and provided the King would assent to them, the laity voted him an eighth, the clergy of Canterbury a tenth, and the clergy of York a fifth. The prince, by a public instrument, took the Earls and their associates under his protection; and the Lords of the Council bound themselves to indemnify them against the effects of the royal displeasure. A common letter was written to the King, soliciting him to appease all differences by giving his assent, and assuring him that his faithful barons were ready at his command either tojoin him in Flanders, or to march against his enemies in Scotland; but at the same time requiring, in a tone of defiance, an answer against the sixth day of December. It cost the haughty mind of Edward several struggles, before he could prevail on himself to submit: three days were spent in useless deliberation and complaints; but at last, with a reluctant hand, he signed the confirmation of the two charters with the additional articles, and a separate pardon for the Earls and their followers, (Nov. 5.)
“This was perhaps the most important victory which had hitherto been gained over the Crown. By investing the people with the sole right of raising the supplies, it armed them with the power of checking the extravagance, and controlling the despotism of their monarchs. Whatever jealousy might be entertained of Edward’s intentions, his conduct wore at first the semblance of sincerity. As soon as an armistice had been concluded between him and the King of France, he returned to England, and appointed commissioners to inquire into the illegal seizures which had been made previously to his departure. They were to be divided into two classes. Where the officers acted without warrant, they were, at their own cost, to indemnify the sufferers; where the goods had been taken by the royal orders, their value was to be certified into the exchequer, and prompt payment was to be made. Still it was suspected that he only waited for a favourable moment to cancel the concessions which had been wrung from him by necessity; and it was whispered that among his confidential friends he had laughed at them as being of no force, because they had been made ina foreign country, where he possessed no authority. When he met his parliament at York, the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk required that he should ratify his confirmation of the charters. He objected from the necessity of hastening to oppose the Scots, solemnly promised to comply with their request on his return, and brought forward the Bishop of Durham and three Earls, who swore ‘on his soul,’ that he should fulfil his engagements.” A. D. 1299. March. The victory of Falkirk and a long series of success gave a lustre to his arms; but when the parliament assembled the next year, the King was reminded of his promise. His reluctance employed every artifice to deceive the vigilance, or exhaust the patience, of the two Earls. He retired from the parliament in anger; he returned and proposed modifications; at last he ratified his former concessions, but with the addition of a clause, which, by saving the rights of the Crown, virtually annulled every provision in favour of the subject. Bohun and Bigod instantly departed with their adherents; and the King, to ascertain the sentiments of the people, ordered the sheriffs to assemble the citizens in the cemetery of St Paul’s, and to read to them the new confirmation of the charters. The lecture was repeatedly interrupted by shouts of approbation; but when the illusory clause was recited, the air rung with expressions of discontent, and curses were poured on the head of the prince, who had thus disappointed the expectations of his people. Edward took the alarm; summoned a new parliament to meet him within a fortnight; granted every demand; and appointed a commission of three Bishops,three Earls, and three Barons, to ascertain the real boundaries of the royalforests.”83
In the foregoing extract, we find Edward, on the 14th July, holding up the Scots as a bugbear to terrify his subjects into an acquiescence with his oppressive demands; and on the 30th September the English, in turn, are found making the very same use of the Scots, for the purpose of extorting fromtheirreluctant and unprincipled “Justinian,” the confirmation of their national liberties. It did not, however, appear to strike them that the subversion of freedom in Scotland was totally inconsistent with its existence in the southern part of the island.
By the same author we are also told, that after the surrender of Stirling Castle in 1304, Edward sent a secret deputation to the Pope, craving that a dispensation might be granted him from the oaths he had taken. This request appears to have been complied with; but the learned author adds, “Whether the papal rescript did not fully meet the King’s wishes, or that he was intimidated by the rebellion of the Scots, he made no public use of its contents; but suffered the concessions, galling as they were, to remain on the statute-roll at his death, and descend to future sovereigns as the recognised law of the land. Thus, after a long struggle, was won, from an able and powerful monarch, the most valuable of the privileges enjoyed by the commons of England at the present day. If we are indebted to the patriotism of Cardinal Langton, and the Barons at Runnymead, the framers of the great charter, we ought equally torevere the memory of Archbishop Winchelsey and the Earls of Hereford and Norfolk. The former erected barriers against the abuse of the sovereign authority; the latter fixed the liberties of the subject on a sure and permanentfoundation.”84In his list of meritorious characters, the learned author ought certainly not to have omitted the Knight of Elderslie and his patriotic followers, who, in standing nobly forward for the independence of their own country, were also instrumental in securing such invaluable and lasting privileges for their neighbours.
From the evidence adduced in the quotations made, of the powerful diversion effected in favour of English liberty by the stubborn opposition of the Scots, it appears, that the success of the arms of the latter was the palladium on which the most important of England’s chartered rights depended. When the people of England, therefore, think of erecting monuments to the characters the worthy Doctor has enumerated, it is to be hoped that a tablet to the memory of the Guardian of Scotland will not be forgotten, on which, with propriety, may be inscribed
“LIBERTÉ CHERIE, quand tu meursen Ecosse,Certes, l’Anglais,chez lui, peut bien creuserTAfosse.”
“LIBERTÉ CHERIE, quand tu meursen Ecosse,Certes, l’Anglais,chez lui, peut bien creuserTAfosse.”
“LIBERTÉ CHERIE, quand tu meursen Ecosse,Certes, l’Anglais,chez lui, peut bien creuserTAfosse.”