Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 8.djvu/330

Rh 312 ENGLAND [HISTORY. Edward s first warfare with Scotland. In this interval much of the legislation of Edward s reign went on. He visited Gascony, and confirmed his power there ; and in 1290 he freed England from the presence of the Jews. The next year began those negotiations with Scotland which led to war between the two kingdoms of Britain, to the momentary conquest of Scotland, and to its final independ ence. Position Rightly to understand this great controversy, we must of the look back to the older relations in which the various posses- severa s ( - ns O f the Scottish crown stood to the crown of England, sions These were threefold. Between Scotland proper and of the England the relation was that degree of dependence, what- Scottish ever it might be deemed to be, which arose out of the old gs commendation to Edward the Elder. The special burthens imposed by Henry II. had been withdrawn by Richard. Over Scotland proper the utmost claim that could be made was that of a mere external supremacy, a supremacy older than the feudal law and undoubtedly carrying with it none of the recently devised feudal incidents. Scottish Cumber land, on the other hand, was a territorial fief in the strictest sense, though again a fief older than the later feudal juris prudence. Lothian or northern Northumberland was in strictness an earldom within the English kingdom, just as Northumberland in the latest sense was when that earldom too came for a while into the hands of the Scottish kings. Here then, in strictness, were three distinct relations for three different parts of the Scottish dominions. But it had never been the interest of either side to define the claims very strictly. As long as the two kingdoms were at peace, as they had been through a large part of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the English king had been satisfied to receive the homage of the Scottish kings, without defining very strictly for what territories or on what terms it was rendered. In any case, English interference in the internal affairs of any part of those dominions was unknown. The distinction between the different tenures of Scotland, Strathclyde or Cumberland, and Lothian, passed out of sight. It was remembered on the English side that some kind of homage was due from all. It was remembered on the Scottish side that the kingdom of Scotland at least was no territorial fief of the crown of England. But while the relations of the two kingdoms were in this uncertain state, the whole feudal jurisprudence had grown up, and neither side could any longer look on the matter in its strict historical bearing. The different tenures of different parts of the Scottish dominions were forgotten on both sides, and the question finally took the shape, Are the Scottish dominions, as a whole, a fief of the English crown or not ? It was hardly possible that the question should take any other form ; yet such a form altogether confused ancient rights and distinctions. In claiming the ordinary superiority of a feudal lord over the] whole Scottish dominions, Edward claimed more than his historic right over the kingdom of Scotland. He claimed less than his historic right over the earldom of Lothian. But the confusion was natural and unavoidable. It was only according to the ordinary work ings of human nature, that the full feudal claims should be asserted on the one side, and that, on the other side, the only question should seem to be between accepting of denying them in their fulness. But it is eminently characteristic of Edward s mind that, while his evident policy was to seize every opportunity for bringing the whole of Britain into a more perfect union, he should take care to be guided throughout by the rules of at least a formal justice. His first attempt to unite the kingdoms was by the obvious means of a marriage between his son Edward and the Scottish queen Margaret. This scheme was put an The d end to by the young queen s death. Then came the dis- P uted puted succession, a dispute which Edward was in 1291 s ^ called on to decide. Such an opportunity was not to be award lost ; Edward demanded to be first of all formally recognized Edwai as superior lord of the crown which he was called on to dis pose of. He was so recognized ; the claims of the competitors were fairly heard before a mixed commission; and the judg ment given was strictly according to the laws of hereditary succession, as they were now beginning to be understood. The question between John Balliol and Robert Bruce was a question between primogeniture and nearness of kin. That question was in truth settled by the decision in favour of Balliol. The crown of Scotland was assigned to the candidate to whom it would have passed by the later law either of England or of Scotland. The decision in truth created that later law. The new king John at once entered into a relation of homage which involved a more complete dependence on England than any Scottish king had ever before acknowledged. But, though it was to Edward s manifest interest to have three weaker vassals rather than a single powerful one, he at once rejected the demand of Bruce and Hastings that the kingdom should be divided. It must be remembered that all three competitors, Bruce no less than Balliol and Hastings, though they held Scottish estates and came by female descent of the Scottish royal family, were essentially English barons, who felt no kind of degradation in a renewed homage to their own king. But it is plain that they did not carry with them Bivis the general feeling of what we must now begin to call the Scottish people. The older names of things are now strangely reversed. The English of northern Northumber land, so long under Scottish rule, had adopted the Scottish name, and had learned to feel a national patriotism, distinct from, and even hostile to, southern England. They were the Scots from whom the English kings had to endure so stubborn a national resistance. The true Celtic Scots, the men of the highlands and islands, had in truth but little to do with the matter. Whenever they had any share in fhe disputes of the time, dislike to the king of Scots, the nearer enemy, commonly drove them to the English side. In 1292 John of Balliol received the Scottish crown as a vassal of England. A claim which we may be sure was John without precedent, but which was strictly according to the rules of the feudal jurisprudence which had grown up, was before long brought to bear upon him. From the courts of the vassal there was, according to that jurisprudence, an appeal to the courts of the lord. Scottish subjects, dis satisfied with the justice which they got in the courts of King John, appealed to the courts of King Edward. Just as in the case of the arbitration, an opportunity was thrown in Edward s way, of which it was not in human nature to refuse to take advantage. John, having acknowledged himself a vassal, refused to do what was now held to be a vassal s duty. He was presently found to be negotiating against his lord with that lord s foreign enemies. That war followed was not wonderful ; that, when John renounced his allegiance, he was held to have forfeited his fief was according to received feudal notions. The fief was forfeited; the kingdom was conquered; the separate king dom of Scotland was abolished; it was incorporated with England, and was meant to have some share of representa tion in that parliament of England to which Edward had just given its perfect form. In 1304 the whole island of Ecto Britain, so far as its most northern parts could be said to con ^ be under the obedience of any one, was under the obe- j^ dience of the English king. In all this Edward simply acted as any man would act in Estir. his view of the case. He carried out the law as he under- of hl ; stood it. There is thus far nothing to wonder at, nothing con