Chapter XVI: Appendix: A (1)

ORIGINAL LETTER FROM SIR WILLIAM WALLACE AND SIR ANDREW MURRAY.

Page 11.

It affords the writer no little pleasure, to be able to lay before his readers the following authentic document, which establishes beyond a doubt the early and deep interest which Wallace took in the re-establishment of the commercial prosperity of Scotland. As this important writing, however, has not hitherto appeared in the works of either English or Scottish historians, nor even been alluded to in any former account of Wallace, it will be necessary to give some explanation respecting the source from which it has been obtained. In the Foreign Quarterly Review for August 1829, the following notice appeared:--“Our Scottish antiquarian friends will be gratified to hear, that Dr Lappenberg of Hamburg, in his researches among the ancient records of that city, has discovered a letter, of the date 1287, addressed by _Robert Wallace_ and Andrew Murray to Hamburg and Lubec.” An intimation of this kind could not fail to excite a considerable degree of interest in the writer; and the possibility that a mistake might have occurred respecting the date, as well as the name of one of the parties, encouraged the hope, that a letter of William Wallace and Andrew Murray, with which the public were unacquainted, might still be in existence. Under this impression, the writer communicated with an intelligent friend, through whose means application was made to Dr Lappenberg on the subject, who, with that genuine politeness which seldom fails to accompany distinguished merit, promptly communicated a copy of the letter in question, taken from the _original_, which still exists among the archives of the Hanseatic city of Lubec.[85] The letter is to the following effect:--

“Andreas de Morauia et Willelmus Wallensis, duces exercitus regni Scotie et communitas eiusdem Regni, prouidis viris et discretis ac amicis dilectis, maioribus et communibus de Lubek et de Hamburg salutem et sincere dilectionis semper incrementium. Nobis per fide dignos mercatores dicti regni Scotie est intimatum, quod vos vestri gratiâ, in omnibus causis et negociis, nos et ipsos mercatores tangentibus consulentes, auxiliantes et favorabiles estis, licet nostra non precesserent merita, et ideo magis vobis tenemur ad grates cum digna remuneracione, ad que vobis volumus obligari; rogantes vos, quatinus preconizari facere velitis inter mercatores vestros, quod securum accessum ad omnes portus regni Scotie possint habere cum mercandiis suis, quia regnum Scotie, Deo regraciato, ab Anglorum potestate bello est recuperatum. Valete. Datum apud Badsingtonam in Scotia, undecimo die Octobris, Anno gracie, millesimo ducentesimo nonagesimo septimo. Rogamus vos in super vt negocia Johannis Burnet, et Johannis Frere, mercatorum nostrorum promoueri dignemini, prout nos negocia mercatorum vestrorum promovere velitis. Valete dat: ut prius.”

TRANSLATION.

“Andrew Murray and William Wallace, commanders of the army of the kingdom of Scotland, and the community of the same kingdom--To the prudent and discreet men, and well-beloved friends, the Mayors and Commonwealths of Lubeck and of Hamburg, greeting, and perpetual increase of sincere friendship.

“To us it has been intimated, by trust-worthy merchants of the said kingdom of Scotland, that, as a mark of your regard, you have been favourable to, counselling and assisting in, all matters and transactions relating to us and said merchants, though [such good offices] may not have been preceded by our deserts, and on that account we are the more bound to tender you our thanks, and a suitable return. This we have willingly engaged ourselves to [perform towards] you, requesting, that in so far you would cause your merchants to be informed, that they will now have safe access to all the ports of the kingdom of Scotland with their merchandise, as the kingdom of Scotland, thanks to God, has during the war been recovered from the power of the English. Farewell.--Given at Badsington [Haddington?[86]], in Scotland, this eleventh day of October, in the year of grace one thousand twelve hundred and ninety-seven.--We have moreover to request, that you would condescend to forward the interests of our merchants John Burnet and John Frere in their business, in like manner as you may wish us to act towards your merchants in their commercial transactions. Farewell.--Dated as above.”

Dr Lappenberg, in his valuable communication, remarks, that this letter “appears to be the oldest document existing relative to the intercourse of Hamburg and Lubec, or other Hanseatic cities, with Scotland.”[87] As the reader will perceive,--a mistake had occurred in the date, and also in the name of Wallace.

From the above interesting muniment, various important points in our history may be established. In the first place, it seems evident, that Wallace and Murray, _up to the 11th October 1297_, acted only as “duces exercitus regni Scotie,” in behalf of the _community of said kingdom_; and that _the commission from John Baliol_, authorizing them to act under his sanction, must have been received by them _on their march to England_, or _during the time the devastation of that country was going forward_; that is to say, between the 11th _October_ and 7th _November_, on which day the charter was granted to the monks of Hexham,[88] where we find “the name of the illustrious Prince John, by the Grace of God King of Scotland,” is added to the authorities mentioned in the above letter. And again, that between the 7th _November_ 1297, and the 29th _March_ 1298, _another commision_ must have been forwarded from _Baliol_ to _Wallace_ constituting him the _sole Regent of the Kingdom of Scotland_, as we find him on _that day_ at Torphichen granting, in that capacity, a charter to Alexander Scrimgeor, and affixing to it the _seal of Baliol_; which circumstance is mentioned in the charter, while no mention is made of any seal being used in that at Hexham.[89]

From the circumstance of Andrew Murray’s name having precedence in the letter to the Hanse Towns, and in the charter of Hexham, it may with great probability be inferred, that these two documents were either written by Wallace himself, or under his direction. That he was qualified for the task is evident, from the care which had been bestowed on his education; first by his uncle, and afterwards at the seminary of Dundee. If Murray had either written them, or ordered them to be written, it is not likely that he would have placed his own name before one whose merits were so generally acknowledged, as to procure him the appointment of Regent in so short a time afterwards; while Wallace, in placing, or causing the name of Murray to be placed, before his own, appears acting in perfect consistency with those amiable traits in his character which we have already noticed. As these writings are also free from that monkish pedantry, and mystification which pervades in the literature of that age, they may with great probability be considered as the composition of the talented Liberator.[90]

It may be remarked, that the envy which a number of the magnates of Scotland entertained towards the Guardian, seems to have arisen after his appointment to the Regency. How Sir Andrew Murray demeaned himself on the occasion, does not appear; but the conduct and feelings of Cumyn, his near relation,[91] were too unequivocally expressed to be misunderstood.

The above letter, besides affording a good specimen of the diplomatic talents of our hero, is at the same time highly complimentary to the friendly feelings and mercantile integrity of the merchants of the two Hanse cities, and exhibits a singular contrast to the policy of Philip, who, though bound by treaties, allowed his allies to struggle on against their powerful adversary, without affording them the slightest assistance.

B.

MEMOIR OF PATRICK EARL OF DUNBAR.[92]

Page 13.

This powerful and warlike baron was descended from Gospatrick, the Governor of Northumberland, in the time of William the Norman, who deprived him of that office in consequence of his joining the Danes in 1069, on their invasion of England. He afterwards retired to Scotland, and sought the protection of Malcolm III., who conferred on him the Castle of Dunbar and the lands adjoining. In virtue of this grant, his descendants were styled Earls of March, and sometimes of Dunbar; the former title being derived from the lands, the latter from the name of the principal castle belonging to the family. They were also possessed of the castle of Coldbrands-path, a fortress of almost equal importance.

Patrick, or (Corspatrick, as he is sometimes called), the subject of the present notice, was the eighth Earl of Dunbar; he succeeded to his father in 1289, being then about forty-seven years of age. He was one of the nobles who consented to the projected marriage between prince Edward and Margaret the young Queen of Scotland. In 1291, he put in his claim to the crown, among the other competitors, founding his right on being the great-grandson of Ilda or Ada, the daughter of William king of Scots. On the commencement of hostilities between Edward and Baliol, he adhered to the former; but his castle of Dunbar being left in possession of his wife Margery, daughter of Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan, she delivered it over to Baliol--conceiving the duties she owed her country paramount to the injunctions of her husband.

Whatever blame may be attached to this Earl, for the active part he took against the interest of Scotland, still the merit of consistency must be awarded to him in the crooked line of policy he adopted; for, having sworn fealty to Edward in 1291, he adhered to the interests of his over-lord with zeal and fidelity. The answer[93] which he returned to Wallace and the Scottish barons assembled at Perth, is quite in accordance with that tone of independence assumed by the family, and which, according to Lord Hailes, was so prejudicial to Scotland.

After being driven from Scotland, as has already been stated, he continued to molest his countrymen as he found occasion. In 1298, he was actively engaged in the Scottish wars, and in November was appointed one of Edward’s Lieutenants in Scotland. In 1300, he and his son,[94] a youth at that time about 15 years of age, were present at the siege of Carlaverock castle, when he must have been at least 58 years old. In 33d Edward I., he was to have attended the parliament as one of the representatives of the Commons of Scotland; but from some reason or other, he did not appear. On the 30th September 1308, he was commanded by Edward II. to assist in suppressing the insurrection of Bruce, but what efforts he made, cannot well be ascertained. In the following year he died, and was succeeded by Patrick, his son by the daughter of the Earl of Buchan.

C.

CHARTER OF PROTECTION GRANTED TO THE PRIOR AND CONVENT OF HEXCELDSHAM.

Page 19.

“Andreas de Moravia et Willelmus Wallensis, _Duces exercitûs Scotiæ, nomine præclari Principis Domini Johannis, Dei gratiâ, Regis Scotiæ illustris, de consensu communitatis regni ejusdem_, omnibus hominibus dicti regni ad quos præsentes literæ pervenerint, salutem. Sciatis, nos, _nomine dicti Regis_, Priorem et Conventum de Hexhildesham in Northumbria, terras suas, homines suos, et universas eorum possessiones, ac omnia bona sua, mobilia et immobilia, sub firma pace et protectione ipsius Domini Regis, et nostra, justè suscepisse. Quare firmiter prohibemus, ne quis eis in personis, terris, seu rebus, malum, molestiam, injuriam, seu gravamen aliquod, inferre præsumat, super plenaria forisfactura ipsius Domini Regis, aut mortem eis, vel alicui eorum, inferat, sub pœna amissionis vitæ et membrorum; præsentibus post annum minimè valeturis. Dat. apud Hexhildesham, vii. die Novembris.”--_W. Hemingford_, t. i. p. 135.[95]

D.

Page 21.

The intentions of Edward to curtail the power of his barons, and render them more subservient to his will, were most unequivocally displayed in his proceedings towards Bigod, Earl of Norfolk, immediately after his return from the conquest of Scotland. The imperious language of the tyrant, and the bold and determined conduct of the vassal, the reader will find narrated in the extracts from Dr Lingard, inserted in the concluding chapter of the narrative. The plans of Edward for the extinction of British freedom, were such as have been generally resorted to by other despots, who have encroached upon the rights of their subjects or neighbours. While the Scots were summoned to fight his battles in France, the Welsh were marched to Scotland to assist in the subjugation of that country; and had the former remained passive under the yoke, there is every reason to believe that they would soon, in their turn, have been employed to enforce the arbitrary measures of the ambitious monarch upon the subjects of his native kingdom. Thus Scotland, England and Wales, would have mutually assisted in rivetting the fetters of each other.

E.

THE SETONS.

Page 26.

With respect to the fate of Christell of Seyton, some little inquiry may be necessary. It is well known, that a person of his name appears to great advantage in the history of the struggles of Bruce, and afterwards became a martyr in his cause; of course, he could not have been the individual mentioned in the text. It appears from various sources, that there were three of the Seyton family, of the name of Christell, grandfather, father, and son. If any of these were killed in the above battle, it must have been the second, for the first, “a man given more to devotion nor worldliness,” died in the reign of Alexander III. As the other two were both engaged in the contest for independence along with Wallace, the following account of them may be interesting to the reader. It is taken from the History of the House of Seyton, by Sir Richard Maitland of Lethington, and lately printed by the Maitland Club, from the MS. in the Advocates’ Library.

“OFF CHRISTELL SEYTOUN,

THE SECUND OF THAT NAME.

“Christell the secund of that name succedit to Christell the first, his father, in the tyme of Allexander the Thryd, and was ane nobill man, and did mony gud actis aganis the Inglismen, quhen the Crowne was desolat and in pley betuix the Bruce and the Balioll. Quhilk Christell, quhen he micht nocht brouk the lawland of Lowthyane, quhair was his duelling place, duelt and remainit wyth his kyn and freyndis in Jedburgh forrest, ay awating his tyme contrare the Inglismen; and deit in the tyme of William Wallace.”

“OFF CHRYSTELL SEYTOUN,

THE THRYD OF THAT NAME.

“Christell the thryd succedit to Christell the secund, his father, in the tyme of Williame Wallace; quhilk Christell was efter maid knycht be King Robert Bruce, and for his monye gude actis done againis the Inglismen, was callit Gud S^r Christell. Quha quhen King Robert Bruce was tane presonare in handis be the Inglismen at ane feild besyde Methven, and thay that tuke him cryit in scorne and derisioun, Quha will help the new maid King? quhilk cry the said S^r Chrystell hard, and come in all haist and straik at erd him that had the king in handis; and thair he and his freindis reskewit the said King Robert, and pat him to libertie. This Chrystell maryit the said King Robert Bruce sister, and thairfor the said King Robert gaif to the said S^r Chrystell the dowbil tresour of flour de lycis, to be worne about his armes and the armes of his posterité, lyk as the King weris thame. Efter mony grit and notabill actis done be the said S^r Chrystell contrair Ingland, he was tane at the last, and had to Londoun, and thair put to deid in maist cruell maner. In this mene tyme, King Robert Bruce hapnit to be in the toun of Dunfreis, and passand furth till ane lytill knoll besyd the said toun to tak the air, quhair the word and tythingis come to him of the crewell slauchter of the said S^r Chrystell, quhilk the king heirand maid grit lamentatioun wyth sum teiris, saying, It is ane pieté that sa nobill ane knycht suld die sa crewell ane deid. And incontinent, in the samin place quhair he wes standand quhen the tythingis come to him, gart found ane chapell in honour of the Virgene Marie; and in remembrance of the said S^r Chrystell foundit ane preist to do devyne service thairin perpetuallie, and pray for the said Schir Chrystell; and gaif to the said preist and his successouris the sowme of fyve pundis Streviling, to be tane of the baronie of Carlauerok, for thair sustentatioun. Quhilk fundatioun I haue had oft in my handis, and red it sindrie tymes. The quhilk chapell was standand haill and vndecayit in the yeir of God J^m v^c lii yeiris, as I saw my self; and as I beleve standis yit in the samin maner, and is callit be all the inhabitaris in that cuntre Christallis chapell.

“ANE EIK OF S^R CHRISTOPHER OF SETOUN,

THE THRID OF THAT NAME.

“It is to wit that efter that I had wryttin the Historie of the Hous of Setoun, I haue fund in the greit Cronicles of Ingland, set furth sen I wret the historie of Setoun, quhilk ar as efter followis:

“Efter this was the castell of Lochdore taiken, and wythin it Christopher Seitoun, that had maried the sister of Robert le Bruce; [and bicause he was no Scot, but an Englishman borne,] the King of Ingland commandit that he suld be led wnto Dunfreis, quhar he had killit on of the Kingis knychtis, and thair to be hangit drawin and quarterit: The wyf of this Christopher Seitoun he apoyntit to be keipit in the monesterie of Thixell in Lyndsay.”--“Morouer, the manor of Seitoun, in Quhytbestroud, he gaue wnto the Lord Edmonde de Mawlay, and those wther landis that belongeth to the said Christopher Seitoun in Northumberland he gaue wnto the Lord Williame Latemer.”

“And howbeit that I wret of before as I was informit for the tyme, That the first tyme that King Robert the Bruce com to Dunfreis efter that S^r Christopher Setoun was crewellie slane in Ingland, that in the sam place quhar the King was quhen the thydingis com till him he garde bige ane chapell, and dottit the samyng perpetuallie to pray for the said S^r Christopher; bot now it apeiris be the Inglis Cronicles, That quhan the said King com to Dunfreis, that quhan it was reportit till him be the inhabeturis of the said toun the crewell marterdome of the said S^r Christopher, that he garde bige the said chapell in the samyng place quhar the said S^r Christopher was pute to deid and executtit. Of the quhilk chapell I haue red the foundatioun and infythment of ane priest onder the saidis kingis greit seill; and hes hard Mes in the samyng chapell, quhilk standis as I beleif to this present day.”--P. 18-21.

F.

MEMOIR OF FITZ-MARMADUKE.

Page 33.

“This stern soldier was the eldest son of Marmaduke Fitz-Geoffrey, Lord of Hordene, in the bishoprick of Durham, who, in the 45th Henry III., 1260-1, obtained the King’s license to embattle his mansion-house there. In August 1282, John Fitz-Marmaduke, with nine other knights, performed services due from the Bishop of Durham, who styled him, on another occasion, “Nostre tres cher bachelier, Mons^r. Jehan le Fitz-Marmaduk;” but from that time nothing is recorded of him, until February 1301, when he was a party to the Letter from the Barons to the Pontiff, in which he is called “Lord of Hordene,” excepting that he was at the siege of Carlaverock in June 1300, where his bravery was particularly conspicuous. He came, we are told, to assail the castle with a great and full troop of good and select bachelors, and stood as firm as a post, and his banner received many a rent difficult to mend.

“It is most extraordinary, that for nearly twenty years, no notice can be found in the records of an individual who, at the end of that period, was a party to an instrument from the Baronage of the realm; and it was from this circumstance, the similarity of their arms, and his surname, that he was confounded with Marmaduke de Thweng in the “Synopsis of the Peerage.”

“In the 31st Edward I., Fitz-Marmaduke was commanded to appear before the King on the first Sunday in Lent, with full powers from the community of the Bishoprick of Durham, to accept his Majesty’s mediation between them and the Bishop; and, in April in the same year, he was appointed a Commissioner of Array. On the 30th September, 1st Edward II. 1307, he was ordered, with others, to proceed to Galloway, to repress the rebellion of Robert de Brus; and, in October following he was commanded to serve with horse and arms against the Scots; after which time his name does not occur among the writs of service. He continued in the wars of Scotland, “comme une estache;” and, on the 21st June 1308, was again enjoined to oppose the attempts of Bruce. On the 16th February, 3d Edward II., 1310, he was authorized, with others, to treat with the Scots for a truce. Fitz-Marmaduke died in 1311, at which time he was governor of St John’s Town of Perth; and a very curious fact is recorded respecting his funeral. He particularly requested to be interred within the precincts of the cathedral of Durham, but, as the state of the country prevented the removal of his corpse in the usual manner, his domestics adopted the expedient of dismembering the body, and then boiling the flesh from the bones; by which means they preserved his reliques, until an opportunity offered of transmitting them with safety across the border. For this outrage against an ecclesiastical canon, which had been promulgated in consequence of the frequency of the practice, Cardinal Berengarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, imposed on the offenders the mild penance of attending their master’s obsequies in the cemetery of the cathedral of Durham, having first used the authority of the church to ensure the quiet transportation of his remains.

“Fitz-Marmaduke was twice married; first, to Isabella, sister, and heiress of Robert Brus of Stanton, by whom he had Richard, his son and heir, and a daughter, Mary, who married ---- Lumley; and, secondly, Ida, who survived him, and was living his widow in 1313. Richard Fitz-Marmaduke was Seneschal of the Bishoprick of Durham, and was slain, in 1318, by his kinsman Robert Neville, on the Old Bridge of Durham, as he was riding to hold the county court, which event is described as “a most strange and detestable action.” Though married to Alianora ----, he died without children, when Mary, his sister, became his heiress. She left issue Robert Lumley of Ravensholm, who married Lucia, the daughter and co-heiress of Marmaduke de Thweng. They had issue a son, Marmaduke Lumley, whose representative is the present Earl of Scarborough.”

_Siege of Carlaverock._

G.

MEMOIR OF BRIAN FITZ-ALAN.

Page 38.

“Brian Fitz-Alan succeeded his father Brian before the 5th Edward I., and on the 6th April, 10th Edward I. 1282, and 14th June 1287, was summoned to serve with horse and arms in Wales. In the 19th Edward I., he obtained permission to make a castle of his house at Kilwardeby in Yorkshire; and in the following year, being one of King Edward’s vicegerents in Scotland, he, with others, received that monarch’s precept to give John de Balliol possession of the kingdom. He was a witness to that personage’s surrender of his crown on the 10th July 1296, about which time he was constituted the King’s Lieutenant in Scotland. Fitz-Alan was present at the siege of Carlaverock in June 1300; and in the ensuing February, was a party to the Letter from the Barons to Pope Boniface, in which he is styled, “Lord of Bedale.” His seal affixed to that document has been the subject of remark, for instead of containing his arms, it presents a whimsical assemblage of animals, apparently consisting of two birds, a rabbit, a stag, and a pig or boar, all of which are looking to the dexter excepting the latter, which is regarding the chief, and is inscribed with this curious legend,

TOT.CAPITA.TOT.SENTENCIE.

“The inference to be drawn from this singular seal tends to establish, that its owner was eccentric or satirical; for it must either have been used from unmeaning caprice, or with the intention of ridiculing the devices in the signets of his contemporaries. The allusion in the poem (The siege of Carleverock) to the arms of Fitz-Alan, is too important to be allowed to pass unnoticed. It not only informs us of an event in his life, by proving that he had been involved in a dispute with Hugh Poyntz, but shows that it was always one of the fundamental laws of arms, that no two persons should bear the same ensigns, and that there was then sufficient pride felt on the point to resent its infringement.

“All that is farther known of Fitz-Alan is, that he was summoned to Parliament from the 23d June 23d Edward I. 1295, to the 22d January, 33d Edward I. 1305, though he died in 1302. The name of his wife is not stated, but it is almost certain that he married late in life; for, according to a note of the inquisition held on his death, Maud his daughter was his heir; though, at the death of his brother Theobald Fitz-Alan, on the 1st Edward II. 1307-8, his heirs are said to have been Maud and Katherine, the daughters of his brother Brian Fitz-Alan, the former of whom was then aged seven years, and the latter five; so that Katherine, who made proof of her age on the 12th Edward II., was probably a posthumous child. A discrepancy, however, exists on the subject; for, agreeable to a note of the inquisition on the death of this baron, his daughter Maud was then eight years old, and Dugdale says that Katherine was at the same time aged six, which, if the other statement be correct, was impossible. Of these daughters, Maud married Sir Gilbert Stapleton, and, according to a pedigree in Dodsworth’s MSS., secondly Thomas Sheffield; and Katherine became the wife of John Lord Grey of Rotherfield. Brian Fitz-Alan was buried in the south aisle of Bedale church in Yorkshire, and a sumptuous monument was there erected to his memory, a beautiful engraving and accurate description of which are given in Blore’s “Monumental Remains.” Sir Brian is said to have possessed a very elegant figure, and manners highly polished for the age.”

_Siege of Carlaverock._

H.

MEMOIR OF AYMER DE VALENCE, EARL OF PEMBROKE.

Page 71.

“AYMER DE VALENCE was the third son of William de Valence, who was created Earl of Pembroke by his uterine brother King Henry the Third. He was born about 1280, and succeeded his father in his honours on the 13th June 1296, both of his elder brothers having previously died without issue. The earliest notice of him which is recorded, is, that on the 26th January, 25th Edward I., 1297, he was summoned to Parliament as a baron, though, according to modern opinions on the subject, he was fully entitled to the earldom of Pembroke, nor was the title ever attributed to him in public records, until the 6th November, 1st Edward II. 1307; and the first writ to Parliament addressed to him as “Earl of Pembroke,” was tested on the 18th of the following January. Upon this remarkable circumstance, some observations have been recently made; but it is wholly impossible to explain the cause of the anomaly in a satisfactory manner. Although never styled “Earl of Pembroke” until the accession of Edward II., it is manifest, that from the death of his father, he ranked above all barons excepting Henry of Lancaster, who being of the blood royal, is uniformly mentioned next to Earls; hence it appears, that notwithstanding his claim was not positively acknowledged, he was considered to be entitled to a higher degree of precedency than belonged to the baronial dignity. In the 25th Edward I., he was in the expedition into Flanders, and, in the same year, was appointed a commissioner to ratify an agreement between the King and Florence, Count of Holland, relative to some auxiliaries from the Count in that war; and was likewise one of the ambassadors sent by Edward to treat for a truce between England and France. In the 26th and 27th Edward I., he was in the Scottish wars, and in June 1300, in the 28th Edward I., was present at the siege of Carlaverock, when he must have been about twenty-one years of age; but the poet pays him no other compliment than what a pun upon his name suggested.

“Le Valence Aymars li Vaillans.”

“In the following year, he was a party to the Barons’ letter to the Pope, in which, though his name occurs immediately after that of the Earl of Arundel, and before Henry de Lancaster’s, he is only styled ‘Lord of Montiniac.’ Shortly afterwards, he was appointed to treat with the ambassadors of the King of France on the subject of peace. In the 31st Edward I., he was again in the wars of Scotland; and, in the same year, received permission to leave the realm upon his own affairs. He obtained a grant, in 1305, of the Castles of Selkirk and Traquair, and of the borough of Peebles in Scotland, to hold by the service of one knight’s fee, together with other possessions in that kingdom; and, in the 34th Edward I., was constituted Guardian of the Marches of Scotland towards Berwick, when he was intrusted with the sole command of the English forces which had been levied against Robert Bruce. In the instrument by which he was appointed to that important duty, as well as in most others, he is styled “Dilectum consanguineum et fidelum nostrum.” The appellation of “Cousin” was not then a mere title of honour, when addressed to a peer, but was used in its most literal sense; and Aymer de Valence’s claim to it is shown by the following slight pedigree.

Hugh le Brun, == Isabel, daughter, and heiress == King John,
Count of the | of Aymer, Count of | ob. 1216,
Marches of the | Angouleme. | 1st husband.
Aquitaine, 2d | |
husband. | |
| |
+--------+ +------------+
| |
William de Valence, created == K. Henry III. ob. 1272. ==
Earl of Pembroke, ob. 1296. | |
| |
+----------------------+ +---------------+
| |
AYMER DE VALENCE, Earl == KING EDWARD I. ob. 1307 ==
of Pembroke, ob. 1323. |
+-----------------+
|
KING EDWARD II.

“The successes which attended this nobleman against Robert Bruce, are described by a contemporary chronicler; and it is said that Valence, after a severe contest, pursued Bruce, and presuming that he would take refuge in Kildrummie castle, he gained possession of that place, but finding only Nigel de Bruce, brother of Robert, there, he caused him and all who were with him, to be immediately hung. This action has given rise to some pertinent remarks by the able biographer of the Earl in the beautiful work before noticed,[96] who has satisfactorily shown that Nigel was not put to death by him, but that at least the forms of law were practised on the occasion. On the deathbed of Edward I., Pembroke, with some other personages, received the King’s dying injunctions to afford his son their counsel and support, and not to permit Piers de Gaveston to return into England. His strict adherence to this command, naturally excited the favourite’s displeasure; and he is said, in derision of his tall stature and pallid complexion, to have termed him “Joseph the Jew.” In the first year of the young monarch’s reign, Valence was, as has been before observed, allowed and summoned to Parliament by his proper title of Earl of Pembroke; and at the coronation of that monarch, he carried the King’s left boot, but the spur belonging to it was borne by the Earl of Cornwall. In the same year, after performing homage upon the death of his mother for her lands, he was joined with Otho de Grandison in an embassy to the Pope; and in the 3d Edward II., was found heir to his sister Agnes, or more probably Anne. It has been considered, from the circumstance of the Earl being a witness to the instrument by which the King recalled Gaveston, and bestowed the possessions of the Earl of Cornwall upon him, that he approved of, or at least consented to, those acts; but this idea rests upon far too uncertain evidence to be relied upon; and if he ever changed his opinion it was of short duration, for in the 3d Edward II., he joined the Earl of Lancaster against Gaveston, and when he was banished the realm in 1311, the Earl of Pembroke was one of the persons deputed to petition the King that he should be rendered incapable of ever holding any office.

“In the 6th Edward II., he was again sent on a mission to Rome, and in the same year obtained a grant of lands in London, in which was included the New Temple. In the 7th Edward II. he was appointed Custos and Lieutenant of Scotland, untill the arrival of the King, and was present at the fatal battle of Bannockburn. Two inedited MSS. cited in the “Monumental Remains,” allude to the Earl’s conduct on that occasion, in words fatal either to his loyalty or his courage: the one stating that “Insuper Comes de Pembrok, Henricus de Bellomonte, et multi magnates, _cordetenus Pharisei_, a certamine recesserunt;” and the other, that “in pedibus suis evasit ex acie et cum Valensibus fugientibus se salvavit.” In all probability, however, the language was in both instances that of an enemy, and deserves but little credit; though, even if it were true, “there is no great disgrace,” as the learned biographer, from whose memoir these extracts are taken, has truly remarked, “in seeking safety by flight when defeat was inevitable, and the whole army pursued a similar course.”

“In the 9th Edward II., the Earl was a commissioner for holding a Parliament in the King’s absence, and he took an active part in the proceedings therein. Being sent to Rome on a mission to the Pontiff, a singular misfortune befel him, as he was taken prisoner on his return by a Burgundian called John de Moiller with his accomplices, and sent to the Emperor, who obliged him to pay a ransom of 20,000 pounds of silver, upon the absurd pretence that Moiller had served the King of England without being paid his wages. Edward used every exertion to procure the Earl’s liberty, and wrote to several sovereign princes, soliciting them to interfere on the subject; but he did not immediately succeed. In the 11th Edward II., Pembroke was once more in the Scottish wars, and was appointed governor of Rockingham castle; and upon the King’s purposed voyage in the 13th Edward II., to do homage to the King of France for the Duchy of Acquitaine, he was constituted Guardian of the realm during his absence, being then also Custos of Scotland. In the 15th Edward II., he sat in judgment on the Earl of Lancaster at Pontefract; and for his conduct on the occasion, was rewarded with the grant of several manors.

“In March 1309, the Earl of Pembroke was one of the peers appointed to regulate the royal household; in the 5th Edward II., he was commanded not to approach the place where the Parliament was held with an armed retinue, or in any other manner than was observed in the time of the late King; in the 8th Edward II., he was a commissioner to open and continue a parliament at York; in the 12th Edward II., he was sent to Northampton with others to treat with the Earl of Lancaster, for the better government of the realm, and was one of the peers then appointed to be about the King’s person, at which time he signed the agreement between the King and that Earl; he advised the reversal of the judgment against Hugh le Despencer the younger; by writ tested on the 19th January, 14 Edward II. 1321, he was appointed a commissioner to treat for peace with Robert de Brus; and in the 18th Edward II., the Earl, as Justice in Eyre of the Forest of Essex, claimed the appointment of Marshal thereof.

“The Earl of Pembroke accompanied Isabel, Queen of England to France in 1323; and is said to have lost his life in that year, at a tournament given by him, to celebrate his nuptials with his third wife, Mary, daughter of Guy de Chastillon, Count of St Paul’s; though, from the obscure manner in which his death is mentioned by some chroniclers, and the attempt which they have made to consider it as a mark of the vengeance of Heaven for his conduct relative to the Earl of Lancaster, Dugdale asserts that he was murdered on the 23d June 1324, “by reason he had a hand” in that affair. But the former statement his recent biographer considers to be corroborated by the following lines in a long MS. poem, containing a life of the Earl, in the Cottonian collection, written by Jacobus Nicholaus de Dacia, who calls himself a scholar of Mary de St Paul, Countess of Pembroke; by which he probably meant that he belonged to Pembroke Hall, which she had founded.

_Mors Comitem Comitum necuit, mors ipsa cruenta
Ipsa cruore rubrum campum facit et rubicundum._

“From the annexed account of the Earl’s death, however, by another contemporary writer, it would appear that he died of apoplexy:

“Ea vero tempestate primorum consultu direxit ad partes transmarinas Rex Almaricum de Valencia Comitem de Penbrokia, virum siquidem ad queque nepharia peragenda iuxta sue propinquitatis nequiciam continue paratum, regis Francorum presencie nuncium super dictis negocüs assistendum vt eiusdem regis Francorum animum ab inceptis, revocaret, ut ipsius benevolenciam affectum regis Anglorum varijs blandiciis inclinaret. Quo perveniente, ac iuxta proposita suorum verborum responsis acceptis, per Pykardiam rediens, ad quoddam municipium mi. villa, id est, _dimidia villa_, nuncupatum, tribus leucis a Compyne distans, in vigilia Sancti Johannis, declinavit pransurus, ubi Christus voluit virum sanguineum et dolosum non dimidiare dies suos. Sed finita refectionis hora thalamum ingreditur, deambulando statim in atrio corruit, ac sine confessione et viatico salutari infelicem animam subito in solo sufflavit.”[97]

The following account of the Earl of Pembroke is from the pen of Hutchinson. “This Earl” (Adomer de Valence) “seemed to have a divine interdict depending over him, and the immediate vindictive hand of Providence to be upon him and his posterity for his atrocious deeds. He was a tool to his prince, and servilely submitted to the mandate of the crown, contrary to the dictates of humanity, honour, and justice. He sat in judgment on Thomas Earl of Lancaster, and impiously acquiesced in his sentence. He was a chief instrument in apprehending the famous Scottish patriot Wallace in 1305; accomplishing his capture by the treachery of his most intimate associates, and those in whom he placed his utmost confidence, Sir John Menteith and others of infamous memory. _Adomer_, on his bridal day, was slain in a tournament, held in honour of his nuptials; and left a wife at once a _maiden_, _bride_ and _widow_. It is said that, for several generations of this family, _a father was never happy enough to see his son_, the proscribed parent being snatched off by the hand of death before the birth of his issue.” (_Hutchinson’s History of Northumberland._)

It may be also remarked as a singular coincidence, the fatality which attended the Stuarts after they came to the throne, not one of whom, for many generations, died a natural death. John Menteith was the son of Walter Stuart, Earl of Menteith, and of the same family which afterwards swayed the Scottish sceptre.

Aymer, or Adomer de Valence, is likewise charged by the Minstrel, as being the instrument made use of for corrupting the fidelity of Menteith; and he mentions, that the infamous bargain was finally concluded in “_Ruglyne Kirk_,” where the two met by appointment, and that Menteith received from Valence three thousand crowns of gold as the price of his friend. “_Ruglyne_” is situated nearly mid-way between Bothwell and Dumbarton castles; the former being the place where the Earl of Pembroke usually resided when in Scotland, and was quite convenient for his keeping an appointment at “_Ruglyne_” with the governor of Dumbarton Castle. When it is recollected, that John Comyn, who, according to “_Douglas’s peerage_,” married a sister of Valence, was hatching the treason which he afterwards put in practice against Bruce, at the time when his brother-in-law was tampering with the friend of Wallace, it will not be doing him great injustice, if we suppose him _at least_ in the secret of the infamous transaction with Menteith. In fact, both of these deeds of darkness appear to have been part of the same plan for placing Comyn, and consequently the sister of the Earl of Pembroke, on the Scottish throne.

The Earl was thrice married; first, to Beatrix, daughter of Ralph de Noel, Constable of France; secondly, to a daughter of the Earl of Barre; and thirdly, to Mary, daughter of Guy de Chastillon, Count of St Paul; but he had no issue; and the descendants of his sisters, Isabel, the wife of John Baron Hastings, and Joan, who married John Comyn of Badenoch, are consequently his representatives. His eldest sister, Anne, married, first, Maurice Fitz-Gerald; secondly, Hugh de Balliol; and, lastly, John de Avennes; and probably died, S. P. in the 3d Edward II.

Mary, Countess of Pembroke, is chiefly known to the present age by an action, which seldom fails to ensure immortality. She was the foundress of a College for the purposes of learning and religion, which still bears the name of Pembroke Hall; and was likewise a benefactress to several religious houses. She died about 1376; and on the 13th March in that year made her will at Braxted, in Essex, by which she ordered her body to be buried in the church of the sisters of Denny, where she had caused her tomb to be made; and bequeathed to the church of the Abbey of Westminster, where her husband was interred, a cross, with a foot of gold and emeralds, which Sir William de Valence, Knight, brought from the Holy Land.

The body of the Earl of Pembroke was conveyed to England, and buried in Westminster Abbey; but upon the beautiful tomb erected to his memory, it is unnecessary to say a single word, ample justice having been done to it by the artist and the author of a biographical notice, which accompanies a recent engraving of his tomb.

_Siege of Carlaverock._

I.

MEMOIR OF HENRY DE LACY, EARL OF LINCOLN.

Page 86.

“HENRY DE LACY was the eldest son of Edmund de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, by Alice, the daughter of the Marquess of Saluces in Italy. He succeeded his father in the earldom in 1257, at which time he was probably about nine years of age, his parents having been married in May 1247. The first circumstance relating to the Earl after his birth, of which we have any notice, was his marriage, in 1256, to Margaret, the eldest daughter and co-heiress of William de Longespee, the covenants of which are given by Dugdale. In 1269, the Earl became involved in a dispute about some lands with John Earl Warren, and each party prepared to establish his claim by force of arms; but their intention becoming known to the King, he commanded his Justices to hear and determine the cause, who decided it in favour of the Earl of Lincoln. William de Longespee, his wife’s father, died in the 52d Henry III.; and soon afterwards the Countess and her husband performed homage for, and obtained livery of, all the lands which had in consequence devolved upon her. In her right he is considered to have become Earl of Salisbury, the said William de Longespee having been entitled to that dignity, though he was never allowed it, as son and heir of William de Longespee, the natural son of King Henry II., by the well-known Rosamond Clifford, who obtained the Earldom of Salisbury by his marriage with Elizabeth, the daughter and heiress of William d’Evereux. On the feast of St Edward, 18th March 1272, the Earl of Lincoln received the honour of knighthood, and in the same year was appointed Governor of Knaresborough Castle. In 5th Edward I. he had livery of the fee which his ancestors had usually received ‘_nomine comitatûs Lincoln_’ with all the arrears from the time he was invested by King Henry III. with the sword of that earldom. Upon several occasions, between the 6th and 10th Edward I., he obtained grants of fairs, markets, and free-warrens in different parts of his domains; and in the year last mentioned, he accompanied the expedition then sent into Wales. Leland asserts that the Earl built the town of Denbigh, the land of which had been granted to him “from his having married into the blood of those princes, and that he walled it, and erected a castle, on the front of which was a statue of him in long robes; and that anciently prayers were offered in Saint Hillary’s chapel in that place, for Lacy and Percy.”

“Dugdale considers, that his surrender of the castle and barony of Pontefract to the King, with all the honours thereto belonging, in the 20th Edward I., arose from his “having been long married, and doubting whether he should ever have issue, but upon condition, as it seems,” for the king, by his charter, dated at Newcastle-on-Tyne, 28th December, 21. Edward I., re-granted the same to him and to the heirs of his body, with remainder to Edmund Earl of Lancaster, the King’s brother, and to the heirs of his body, failing which, to the king and his heirs. In almost the next paragraph, however, that eminent writer says, “that in the 22d Edward I., the Earl received a grant of several manors from the King, with remainder to Thomas, the son of Edmund Earl of Lancaster, and Alice his wife, sole daughter of the Earl, and to the heirs of their two bodies lawfully begotten, and failing such issue, to the right heirs of the said Thomas” from which it would appear, that, at the time of the surrender by the Earl of Lincoln to the King, the said Alice was living; and which is further confirmed by his saying, in a subsequent page, that she was 28 years of age at the death of her father in 1312, in which case she must have been above seven at the time in question. In the 20. Edward I., the Earl was sent as ambassador to the King of France, to treat on the subject of the restraint of those pirates who robbed some French merchants; and in the 22d year of that monarch he again attended him into Wales, and was likewise in the expedition sent into Gascony. He accompanied the Earl of Lancaster, in the 24. Edward I., into Brittany, and was present at various successes of the English forces. On the death of that nobleman, he succeeded him in his command, and besieged the town of Aux with great vigour, though without success, and was forced to retreat to Bayonne; from which place he marched, with John de St John, towards Bellegard, which was then besieged by the Count d’Artois. The engagement which took place in the vicinity of that town, does not, from Dugdale’s relation of it, appear to have added to the reputation of the Earl, as he informs us, upon the authority of Walsingham, that “approaching a wood about three miles from Bellegard, he divided his army into two parts, whereof the van was led by John de St John, and the rear by himself; but having past the wood where St John, meeting the enemy, began the fight, discerning their strength, he retreated to Bayonne, leaving the rest to shift for themselves, so that St John and many others were by reason thereof taken prisoners.” Whatever stain this circumstance might have cast upon his military character, seems to have been partially removed towards the end of that year, by his having obliged the enemy to raise the siege which they had laid to St Katherine’s, in Gascony; soon after which he proceeded into Flanders, and thence returned to England. In the ensuing year, 27. Edward I., he was summoned by writ, tested 17th September, 27. Edward I., 1299, to be at York, with horse and arms, on the morrow of the Feast of St Martin, to serve against the Scots; and, in the next year, he is stated to have been sent to the Pope, with Sir Hugh Spencer, to complain of injuries received from the Scots; and about the same time he was appointed Lieutenant of Gascony. In the 29. Edward I., he was made Governor of Corfe Castle, from which year until the 31. Edward I., when he was joined in commission with the Bishop of Winchester to treat of peace between England and France, Dugdale gives no account of him.

“It was, however, on the 24th June, in the 29. Edward I., anno 1300, when the Earl must have been above 50 years of age, that he commanded the first division of the army which besieged Carlaverock Castle. The only characteristic trait recorded of him by the poet, is that of valour, which, we are told, was the principal feeling that animated his heart, and in so rude an age, this attribute was perhaps the highest and most gratifying praise that could be imagined. His name does not afterwards occur in that production, from which we may conclude, that his services at the siege and assault were not very conspicuous. In 1305, the Earl was again employed on a mission to the Pope, being deputed with the Bishops of Lichfield and Worcester to attend the inauguration of the Pontiff at Lyons, and to present him, in the name of the King, with several vessels of pure gold. After having executed this command, it appears that he was once more in the wars in Gascony, and in the ensuing year was similarly employed in Scotland. Upon the death of the King, at Burgh in Cumberland, the Earl was one of the Peers who attended him in his last moments, and received his solemn request to be faithful to his son, and not to allow Piers de Gaveston to return into England. Immediately after Edward’s demise, he joined some Earls and Barons in a solemn engagement to defend the young King, his honour and authority; and at his coronation he is recorded to have carried one of the swords borne at that ceremony; shortly after which he was appointed Governor of Skipton Castle. His conduct seems to have secured the confidence of the new monarch, for, upon his expedition towards Scotland in the 3d and 4th years of his reign, the Earl of Lincoln was constituted Governor of the realm during his absence.

“The preceding account of this personage has been almost entirely taken from Sir William Dugdale’s Baronage. The only facts which have been ascertained relating to him, not stated in that work, are, that he was one of the Mainpernors for the Earl of Gloucester in 1292; that he was a Receiver and Trier of Petitions in 1304; that he was present in the parliament held at Carlisle in February, 35th Edward I., 1307; and that he was one of the Peers appointed to regulate the King’s household in May, 3d Edward II., 1309.

“His works of piety were proportionate to his extensive possessions, and, adopting this criterion of his religious sentiments, we may conclude that he was not behind his contemporaries in superstition or devotion. Amongst his more substantial gifts to the church, was his large contribution to the “new work” at St Paul’s Cathedral in London; and three gilt crosses and a carbuncle, and a cup of silver gilt, which was said to have belonged to the shrine of St Edmund, in the abbey of Salley.