Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:14:16.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Bruces in Ireland, 1315–18

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

Robin Frame
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 26 May 1315 a Scottish army commanded by Edward Bruce, recently created earl of Carrick, landed near Larne in County Antrim. From this date until his death at Faughart on 14 October 1318 there was a Scottish presence in Ireland. We are told that Edward was crowned king of Ireland near the scene of his eventual defeat soon after 1 May 1316; his supporters certainly regarded him as king, and he himself used the title. In reality, however, his control never extended beyond the lands of the earldom of Ulster, which he used as a base from which to launch destructive expeditions to other parts of the country. Yet at least until the retreat of the Bruces from Limerick in April 1317 a Scottish conquest of Ireland must have appeared to be within the bounds of possibility; it is hardly too much to say that during this brief period the future political shape of the British Isles depended on the outcome of an often obscure series of campaigns and alliances in Ireland.

Type
Research Article
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 19 , Issue 73 , March 1974 , pp. 3 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I am grateful to Professor G. W. S. Barrow of the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne for reading this paper in draft and making a number of helpful comments and suggestions.

2 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 345.

3 No formal acts of his £ reign ’ appear to have survived, but an official Scottish document refers to him in this style in September 1316 ( Barrow, G.W.S., Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland (London, 1965), p. 412).Google Scholar

4 The outlines of the invasion are now firmly established, and I have taken them for granted. The clearest account is in Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., pp 224–39.Google Scholar Further detail may be found in Orpen, Normans, iv, ch. 37, and (less reliably) in Armstrong, O., Edward Bruce’s invasion of Ireland (London, 1923).Google Scholar

5 Vita Edwardi secundi, ed. Denholm-Young, N. (London, 1957), p. 61 Google Scholar; Chronicon Henrici Knighton, ed. Lumby, J.R. (Rolls Series, 1889), 1, 411 Google Scholar; Flores historiarum, ed. Luard, H.R. (R.S., 1890), 3, 168–9,Google Scholar Johannis de Trokelowe… chronica et annales, ed. Riley, H.T. (R.S., 1866), p. 91 Google Scholar; The chronicle of Lanercost, ed. Maxwell, H. (Glasgow, 1913), pp 212–3Google Scholar; Thomas Walsingham, Historia Anglicana, ed. Riley, H.T. (R.S., 1863), 1, 144.Google Scholar

6 Louth Arch. Soc. Jn., i (1904–7), pp 78–81. There is no modern critical edition of this tract, which survives only in a late recension. But although the details of the battle of Faughart itself probably owe much to imagination, the account of the earlier stages of the invasion seems accurate where it can be tested; where it cannot, its details are at least plausible. There appears to have been an offer of the crown, from similar motives, to the king of Norway in 1263 (see Mac Neill, E., Phases of Irish history (Dublin, 1919), pp 332–3),Google Scholar and when O’Neill later wrote to a fellow chieftain he indeed stressed the sorry divisions of the Irish ( Wood, H., ‘Letter from Domnal O’Neill to Fineen MacCarthy, 1317’ in R.I.A. Proc., 37, C (1926), pp 142–3).Google Scholar

7 The letter is undated, but all commentators agree in assigning it to 1315 ; even were this not so, it would still give a valuable insight into Robert’s likely line of approach to the Irish. See Nicholson, R., ‘A sequel to Edward Bruce’s invasion of Ireland’ in Scot. Hist. Rev., 42 (1963), PP 38–9Google Scholar (text) ; Barrow, , Robert Bruce, pp 434–5Google Scholar (translation), Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., p. 225.Google Scholar It is just possibly relevant that a certain ‘Henry messenger of Robert le Bruys, felon and enemy’ was in prison in Dublin castle from 16 February 1315 (Hist. & mun. doc. Ire., p. 388).

8 Vita Edwardi, Knighton, Lanercost, Flores historiarum and Walsingham, pp cit.; Chronica monas terii de Melsa, ed. Bond, E.A. (R.S., 1867),Google Scholar 333; Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden, ed. Lumby, J.R. (R.S., 1882), 8, 306 Google Scholar; Annales monastici, ed. Luard, H.R., 4 (R.S., 1869), 344.Google Scholar Trokelowe (p. 91) is the sole maverick: he says that Edward was sent ut terras Regis Angliae in partibus Ulis depopularet, et vires ejus, si exercitum ad partes illas defendendas transmitter et, enervaret (for comment see Lydon, J.F., ‘The Bruce invasion of Ireland’ in Hist. Studies, 4,Google Scholar 112 and note 11). But this hardly excludes, or permits us to set aside, the views of the others.

9 Annals of Ireland by Friar Clyn and Thady Bowling, ed. Butler, R. (Dublin, 1849),Google Scholar P. 12 (hereafter cited as Clyn).

10 P.R.O., Chancery Warrants, G. 81/93/3594E & F (Milo’s letter is on m.F). Those that are dated come from between September and November 1315, and none of them tells of events later than the autumn of 1315.

11 The Bruce, ed. W. W. Skeat (Scot. Text Soc, 1894), book xiv, lines 1–11.

12 Chronica gentis Scotorum, ed. Skene, W.F. (Edinburgh, 1871), 1, 348.Google Scholar

13 The view is expressed by (in order of diminishing conviction) Dunlop, R.,‘Some notes on Barbour’s Bruce, books xiv–xvi and xviii’ in Essays in mediaeval history presented to T. F Tout, ed. Little, A.G. & Powicke, F.M. (Manchester, 1925), pp 277–8Google Scholar; Orpen, , Normans, 4, 162 Google Scholar; Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., p. 224 Google Scholar; Lydon, ‘Bruce invasion’, p. 112. Professor Barrow considers Edward’s role in the whole affair ‘sinister’ (Robert Bruce, p. 436).

14 The Bruce, book ii, lines 19–24 & 476–7 (‘his brodir alwayis wes him by, schyr Eduuard, that wes sa hardy’); v, 64–70; vii, 276; viii, 311; ix, 49–52 & 187–8.

15 Ibid., ν, 466–71; ix, 472–671; χ, 495–505 & 791-825. Though it seems that Barbour exaggerates his success in Galloway (see Barrow, , Robert Bruce, pp 258–9).Google Scholar

16 The Bruce, xi, 212–15, 314–20 & 448; xii, 345–6 & 495–533; xiii, 165–8, 311–12 & 669–76.

17 Ibid., xi, 31–68 at line 58.

18 See especially the denunciation in book xvi, 321–30. He does however speak of the sorrow in Scotland at the news of Edward’s death (xviii, 205–8). ,

19 See, e.g., the slightly uncomfortable statement of Sir Herbert Maxwell, who described the Irish venture as ‘the sole blunder committed by Robert the Bruce from the day he finally took up the cause of Scottish independence’ (Robert the Bruce (London, 1897), p. 228).

20 The arrangement is fully discussed by Barrow, , Robert Bruce, pp 411–21.Google Scholar

21 The difficulty is illustrated by a remark of Professor Barrow’s (ibid., p. 436) : ‘the idea that Robert I hankered after a conquest of Ireland or even an Irish kingdom subordinated to his own can be rejected, yet some disquiet remains ’.

22 See his ‘Bruce invasion’, pp 112–13 & 121 ; and for English use of Irish resources his ‘Edward II and the revenues of Ireland in 1311–12’ in I.H.S., xiv (1964), pp 39–57 and The lordship of Ireland in the middle ages (Dublin, 1972), chapter 6.

23 Duncan, A.A.M., The nation of Scots and the Declaration of Arbroath (Historical Association pamphlet, 1970), pp 22 & 30,Google Scholar building on the analysis of Robert’s position after Bannockburn in Barrow, op. cit., pp 333–69.

24 The possibility of an attack through Wales suggested itself to the author of the Vita Edwardi (p. 61), and the spectre was to be raised again on the occasion of Robert’s landing in Ulster in 1327 ( Nicholson, ,‘Sequel to Edward Bruce’s invasion’, pp 32 & 39 ).Google Scholar One English chronicler described the Welsh in 1315 as audaciam resistendi a victoria Scotorum sibi assumentes, foedusque et fiduciam cum eis ineuntes (Trokelowe, p. 92).

25 See Lucas, H.S., ’The great European famine of 1315, 1316 and [317’ in Carus-Wilson, E.M. (ed.), Essays in economic history, 2 (London 1962), PP 58–9.Google Scholar

26 These questions are discussed below.

27 Ann. Inisf., p. 419.

28 Ann. Conn., p. 233.

29 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 300. Cf. Clyn, p. 13.

30 P.R.O.I., MS Calendar Justiciary roll 11 Edw II (R[ecord] Commission], no. 116), pp 70–1 & 124; Irish Pipe roll 12 Edw II (N.L.I., MS 760, p. 360). See also Lydon, ‘Bruce invasion’, p. 118.

31 See, e.g., Hewitt, H.J., The organisation of war under Edward III (Manchester, 1966), pp. 93–139.Google Scholar

32 For this aspect of the invasion see Watt, J A., ‘Negotiations between Edward II and John XXII concerning Ireland’ in I.H.S., x (1956), pp 1–4,Google Scholar and his The Church and the two nations in medieval Ireland (Cambridge, 1970), PP 183–9.

33 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 346–7.

34 Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, ed. Rothwell, H. (Camden Society, 1957), pp. 397 Google Scholar (misdated).

35 The idea that winter was deliberately chosen because it suited the Scottish foot soldiers and not the ‘feudal cavalry’ (Orpen, Normans, iv, 193–4) is not persuasive: Irish armies consisted very largely of hobelars and foot and contained relatively few ‘feudal cavalry ’; the Anglo-Irish were quite used to fighting the Irish in the winter ; moreover, it is hard to see how any commander in his right mind would have freely chosen to campaign in the early months of 1316 or 1317.

36 See Barrow, , Robert Bruce, p. 339 Google Scholar and Duncan, , Nation of Scots, p. 22.Google Scholar

37 The Bruce, book xviii, lines 31–6. O’Neill’s letter to Mac Carthy, apparently written in late March 1317 (see note 42 below), speaks of Robert returning with a ‘fresh army’ at some future date (Wood, ‘Letter from Domnal O’Neill to Fineen MacCarthy ’, pp 142–3).

38 This was to prove the stumbling-block in the papacy’s attempts to organize a truce in 1317 ( Barrow, , Robert Bruce, pp 349–50).Google Scholar

39 Though this was probably the result of political paralysis rather than good judgement. The fleet of the Cinque Ports had been sent in the late summer of 1315 (see, e.g., Rotuli parliamentorum (London, 1783). i, 389) ; but the virtually bankrupt Dublin government had to pay as much as £466-13s~4d towards its upkeep (P.R.O., Issue roll of the Irish exchequer, E.101/237/4).

40 Long ago Maxwell faced the problem squarely: ‘for what goal can he be straining in roaming so far from his proper sphere? what strategy is he pursuing in allowing an enemy so powerful to occupy all the ground between him and his base of operation?’ (Robert the Bruce,PP 242–3).

41 Lanercost, p. 217. Cath Fhochairte Brighite says that the Bruces were desirous of ‘assuming immediately the whole government of Ireland’ (Louth Arch. Soc. Jn., i, 84–5).

42 Wood, , ‘Letter from Domnal O’Neill to Fineen MacCarthy’, pp 141–4.Google Scholar The only surviving (18th century) copy of this letter gives the date as 25th March 1316. Since it mentions John XXII who did not become pope until August 1316 and news of whose election did not reach Ireland until November (Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 297), the editor sensibly assigned it to 25 March 1317 Such an error seems the more likely since 25 March O.S. was new year’s day. By late March it must have been clear that the expedition was a failure (the Scots retreated early in April). If O’Neill was with them, he must have written the letter not from Ulster as the editor assumed, but within Munster itself. We know that the Scots reached Cashel on or just after 19 March (P.R.O., S.C.6/1239/13). Could the puzzling ‘Ulech’ from which the letter is dated be a corruption of ‘mlech’ (Emly)? For a possible identification of Fineen see Hand, G.J., ‘Two hitherto unpublished membranes of Irish petitions presented at the midsummer parliament of 1302 and the Lent parliament of 1305’ in R.I.A. Proc, 49, sect C (1971), pp 12–13.Google Scholar

43 There is no satisfactory printed text of the document, but there is an accessible translation, based on the MS text, in Curtis, E. & McDowell, R.B. (ed.), Irish historical documents, 1172–1922 (London, 1943), pp 38–46.Google Scholar

44 In a continuation of Fordun’s Scotichronicon (ed. Goodall, W, (Edinburgh, 1759), 2, 259–68)Google Scholar

45 It has even been suggested that it may share a common author with the Declaration (see Nicholson, R., ‘Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath’ in Edinburgh University Jn., Autumn 1965, p. 143).Google Scholar See also Curtis, , Med. Ire. [2nd, ed., 1938), p.191 Google Scholar and Hand, Eng. law in Ire., p. 198.

46 Cf. Armstrong, , Edward Bruce’s invasion, pp 98–101.Google Scholar

47 Sayles, G.O., ‘The siege of Carrickfergus castle, 1315–165 in I.H.S., 10 (1956), pp 94–100.Google Scholar

48 See, e.g., Calendar of documents relating to Scotland, ed. Bain, J. (Edinburgh, 1881–8), 3, nos. 132, 191, 203, 216–17, 355, 415, 447, 450 and 912Google Scholar; P.R.O., Issue roll, E.101/237/2.

49 See Barrow, , Robert Bruce, p. 412,Google Scholar and, for Robert and the west it general, pp 405-10. There may have been rivalry between Moray ami Edward; nonetheless Moray seems to have co-operated fully in the Irish venture.

50 Anglo-Scottish relations, 1174–1328, ed. Stones, E.L.G. (Oxford, 1965), P. 167.Google Scholar

51 Any idea that the Bruces were interested in Ulster only, or above all else, seems to be ruled out by the fact that Edward moved south in 1315 before securing his hold on Ulster, and by the brothers’ actions during Robert’s visit.

52 Robert Bruce, p. 436.

53 See note 23 above, and also Campbell, J., ‘England, Scotland and the Hundred Years War’ in Hale, J., Highfield, R. & Smalley, B. ed.), Europe in the late middle ages (London, 1965), pp 184–216.Google Scholar

54 The Bruce, book xi, lines 39–52.

55 Lydon, , Lordship of Ireland, p. 154.Google Scholar Cf. Trokelowe, pp 336–7.

56 One can see a search for recognition and a favourable peace as a constant theme in Robert’s career between 1314 and 1328 ( Barrow, , Robert Bruce, p. 333).Google Scholar Nevertheless we ought not to confuse the king di 1314-15, in his prime and still surrounded by his victorious companions’ in-arms, with the ailing monarch of 1327-8, anxious to protect the interests of an infant heir.

57 Trokelowe, p. 91; Lanercost, pp 212–13; Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin ii, 344.

58 Louth Arch. Soc. Jn., i, 78–9.;

59 See Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., pp 224–5Google Scholar, and Nicholls, K., Gaelic and gaelicised Ireland in the middle ages (Dublin, 1972), p. 3.Google Scholar Political and military links between 1306 and 1315 are elucidated in Lydon, ‘Bruce invasion’ pp 113–16.

60 Interestingly, the ‘Dunmalys’ where Edward Bruce landed in 1315 (see Orpen, Normans, iv, 162 note 3) seems to have been claimed as a manor of the Carrick inheritance (Common pleas of the Dublin Bench, 31 Edw. I in P.R.O.L, R.C. 7/10, p. 39).

61 Barrow, , Robert Bruce, pp 239–40.Google Scholar

62 Ann. Conn., p. 231.

63 Louth Arch. Soc. Jn., i, 80–1.

64 The Bruce, book xiv, lines 105–32 (see Orpen, Normans, iv, 163 note 4). The story rings true. the names are correct ; the pass of ‘Endwillare’ (Moiry) was MacCartan territory (cf. Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 385) ; this was the Scots’ likely route. According to Cath Fhochairte Brighite, MacCartan was among those who had originally mustered; but the arrival of the Scots (and O’Neill) in his own territory may have struck him as rather a different matter.

65 Ann. Conn., p. 233.

66 Ann. Inisf., pp 419–21.

67 This tale has often been recounted. What follows is merely an outline, designed to provide a comparison with what happened between Bruce and the Irish in other areas. The details come from Ann. Conn., PP 233–47, broadly confirmed by Hy Many, pp 136–9.

68 He ‘did homage to Edward Bruce through ill-will towards the Earl and Felim O’Conor, who was with him’ (Ann. Inisf., p. 421).

69 See Orpen, , Normans, iv, 122–5.Google Scholar

70 Hy Many, p. 138. Though it is only fair to point out that Eoghan O’Madden, patronized by the de Burghs, was hostile to the Scots. Many local Irish leaders who had fallen foul of recent events gathered round the earl (Ann. Conn., pp 235–7).

71 The government had mounted expeditions against the Irish of the mountains in 1306, 1308 (twice), 1309 (twice), 1311 and 1312–13. This warfare had been absorbing between 10% and 60% of the annual revenue (see, e.g., P.R.I. rep. D.K. 39, pp 24 and 34; P.R.O., Issue rolls, E. 101/235/20 and 24, 236/3 and 6). In the west the O’Conors had normally been fought by the local lords, but with large exchequer subsidies. For instance in 1314–15 John fitz Thomas and John de Bermingham had received grants of 500 marks apiece (P.R.O.I., Justic. roll 6–7 Edw- II, m.64; P.R.O., Issue roll, E.101/236/7). The government was therefore already under very heavy pressure in these areas.

72 Hist. & mun. doc. Ire., p. 457. ‘Bree’ is Bray, county Wicklow.

73 P.R.O.I., Memoranda roll of the Irish exchequer, 13–14 Edw II, mm 21 and 32d. Hugh also received authority to treat with the Irish and permission to chastise his own followers—an admission that the normal processes of law had broken down (see Hand, Eng. law in Ire., PP 35–6).

74 Hist. & mun. doc. Ire., p. 372.

75 Mem. roll 16–17 Edw. II (P.R.O.I., R.G. 8/13, pp 210–12).

76 MacMurrough, the traditional leader, does not seem to have reacted to the invasion. In 1312-13 he had been firmly in the government’s pay (P.R.O.I., Justic. roll 6–7 Edw II, mm iod, i8d and 4od; P.R.O., Issue roll, E. 101/236/7).

77 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 348–9; Clyn, p. 12.

78 See Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., pp 218–20.Google Scholar

79 For the local defence measures see Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 650 and Hist. & mun. doc. Ire., pp 375–83. Edmund Butler led an Spedition later in 1316 (ibid., pp 355-7; Mem. roll 9 Edw II in P.R.O.I., ,.C. 8/10, pp 799–802), and Mortimer one in 1317 (Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 356–7).

80 Ibid., p. 349. Scoti tantam famem patiebantur quod plures eorum fame moriebantur, et eadem de causa iter occulte arripuerunt versus Fowr m Midia. Die Dominica seguenti taliter debilitati fuerunt, quid de fame quid de labore, ut plures eorum moriebantur.

81 The Bruce, book xiv, lines 329–70. Although the incident is misplaced in Barbour’s narrative (he omits this winter campaign altogether) it has a tempting ring of truth. O’Dempsey’s territory lay in the path of the Scottish retreat; the description emphasizes the Scots’ lack of provisions; O’Dempsey was a chieftain not infrequently in the/pay of the government (e.g., Cal. doc. Ire., 1252–84, p. 258; Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1305–7, PP 215–16). See Dunlop, , ‘Notes on Barbour’, pp 279–80 and 283.Google Scholar

82 It is worth remarking that when the de Lacys later defended themselves on a charge of guiding Bruce into Leinster, they claimed o have led him among the Irish, inter quos per quatuor dècim c & t magnum numerum hominum et equorum suorum in itinerando versus amisit (Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 408).

83 P.R.O.L, Justic. roll n Edw. II, m.17 See Westropp, T.J., ‘The Desmonds’ castle at Newcastle Oconyll’ in R.S.A.I. Jn., 39 (1909), p. 48 Google Scholar for further details of the case from a roll destroyed in 1922.

84 Caithr. Thoirdh., ii, 83. For the historicity of the Caithrêim and comments on its value for this period see MacNamara, L.F., ‘An examination of the medieval Irish text Caithrêim Thoirdhealbhaigh ’ in N Munster Antig. Jn., 8 (1961), pp 182–92.Google Scholar Its remarks on the invasion are entirely credible, and do not conflict with what we know from other sources.

85 Ann. Inisf., pp 425–7 ‘Saingel’ is Singland, near Limerick.

86 For further details of the events and their background see Orpen, , Normans, 4, 80–8Google Scholar and Westropp, , ‘The Normans in Thomond’ in R.S.A.I. Jn., 21 (1891), pp 381–7 and 462–72.Google Scholar The dispute broke out after the death of Turlough Mor in 1306 and lasted long beyond 1317

87 Caithr. Thoirdh., ii, 83–4 and 117.

88 See above, notes 6 and 42.

89 Chronica gentis Scotorum, i, 347. See also Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 302 : venit le Brus… prope Trym… et ibidem mordm fecit per septimanam et amplius ad perendinandum homines suos, qui fame et labore fere perierunt quamplures; ibi moriebantur circa mille.

90 See, e.g., Orpen, , Normans, 4, 194 Google Scholar; Lydon, , ‘Bruce invasion’ p.113 Google Scholar and Watt, , Church and two nations, p. 184.Google Scholar

91 E.g., Ann. Conn., p. 253: ‘for in this Bruce’s time… falsehood and famine and homicide filled the country, and undoubtedly men ate each other in Ireland’ It is not impossible that Edward’s cause suffered through some residual association of kingship with fertility (see in genere] Binchy, D.A, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon kingship (Oxford, 1970), pp 9–10.Google Scholar

92 For instance O’Donnell seems to have joined rapidly in the disturbances of 1315, razing Sligo castle (Ann. Conn., p. 241)

93 See, e.g., the stimulating comments of Warren, W.L., ‘The interpretation of twelfth-century Irish history’ in Hist. Studies, 7, 4–9 and 15–16.Google Scholar

94 Irish historical documents, pp 44–6.

95 Between 1315 and 1325 the annual revenue averaged a pitiful £2,370 ( Richardson, H.G. and Sayles, G.O., ‘Irish revenue, 1278–1384’ in R.I.A. Proc., 42, C (1962), p. 94.Google Scholar It is worth remarking that English historians accept poverty and the famine as a major cause of the absence in the north of any ‘consistent and rational policy of defence against the Scots’ ( Phillips, J.R.S., Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307–24 (Oxford, 1972), p. 289 Google Scholar; Maddicott, J R., Thomas of Lancaster, 1307–22 (Oxford, 1970), pp 160–74, 185–7).Google Scholar The Irish government has sometimes been judged by altogether higher (and quite unreasonable) standards.

96 His movements can be traced on P.R.O.I., MS Cal. justic. roll 8-9 Edw. II, pp 30–45.

97 Otway-Ruthven, J., ‘Royal service in Ireland’ in R.S.A.I. Jn. 98 (1968), p. 44.Google Scholar

98 For the receipts see Lydon, , ‘Bruce invasion’, p. 124 Google Scholar note 65.

99 Hist.& mun. doc. Ire., pp 327–8 and 343–50 (misdated 1314).

100 P.R.O., Issue roll, E.101/237/2. Sums delivered later to the clerk of wages bring the total to £3,668 (P.R.O., Pipe roll, E.372/166, m.25).

101 Mem. roll 9 Edw- II (P.R.O.I., R.C. 8/10, pp 453–5, 471 and 524–5); P.R.O., C.81/93/3594E and F. The de Verdons had been in rebellion as recently as 1312 (Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1308–14, pp 237–8).

102 Ann. Conn., pp 231–3 (= A.L.C., i, 565–7). The annals, coming mostly from Ulster/Connacht, are interested primarily in the doings of the local Anglo-Irish lord and hardly at all in the remote Dublin government. They have distorted our view.

103 P.R.O.I., MS Cal. Justic. roll 8-9 Edw. II, pp 58–9.

104 P.R.O., C.81/93/3594E and F.

105 P.R.O., Issue roll, E.101/237/4. Bruce had stormed Dundalk on 29 June.

106 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 345–6.

107 Ann. Conn., p. 233; Ann. Inisf., p. 419. See also Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., p. 226.Google Scholar The government had been accustomed to entrust local military operations to the magnates (cf. note 71 above). In 1308, for example, the earl himself had been paid 1,000 marks to deal with Mac-Geoghegan (Cal. justic. rolls Ire., 1308–14, p. 26; P.R.O., Issue roll, E. 101/235/9)- For a full discussion of the evidence for de Burgh’s alleged disloyalty see Lydon, , ‘Bruce invasion’, pp 116–9.Google Scholar As Bruce’s father-in-law he was in a difficult position, yet he twice fought the Scots and lost almost everything in doing so: this makes the case against him fundamentally unconvincing. My own impression is that contemporaries found his failure so surprising that they could only explain it by invoking treachery (cf. Vita Edw ardi, p. 61; Adae Murimuih continuatio chronicarum, ed. Thompson, E.M. (R.S., 1889), p. 30,Google Scholar Flores historiarum, iii, 185)

108 Mem. roll 9 Edw. II (P.R.O.I., R.C. 8/10, pp 437–8, 449–50 and 452–5). The fact of assignment was neither here nor there: the critical point was whether the lords could be confident of their assignments being honoured. They can hardly have been.

109 Ibid., p. 471; Chartul. St Mar/s, Dublin, ii, 346; P.R.O., C.81/93/ 3594F (John’s own letter)

110 Hist. & mun. doc. Ire., pp 334–5, Mem. roll 9 Edw. II (P.R.O.I., R.C. 8/10, pp 476–7 and 548).

111 Vita Edwardi, p. 61.

112 See Hand, Eng. law in Ire., p. 123.

113 Mem. roli 9 Edw II (P.R.O.I., R.C. 8/10, pp 425–6).

114 Chartul. St Mary’s. Dublin, ii, 349, Jacobí Grace Kilkenniensis annales Hiberniae, ed. Butler, R. (Dublin, 1842), p. 71 Google Scholar ‘Grace’ is little more than a late copy of the Dublin annalist, and he may simply have read tenuit ptacita as tenuit parliamenta.

115 P.R.O.I., MS Gal. Justic. roll 9–11 Edw. II, pp 66–7. This shows the king and Nicholas de Netterville accusing the abbot of Mellifont of sending messengers to Bruce offering him £100 to have certain of Nicholas’s lands. The jury found for the abbot; nevertheless the case is revealing.

116 Ann. Conn., p. 241.

117 P.R.O, G.81/93/3594E and F.

118 P.R.O., Chancery Miscellanea, C.47/87/2, no. 9a. The inquisition may well have been influenced by the political circumstances of 1344, which I have discussed in my article ‘The justiceship of Ralph Ufford. warfare and politics in fourteenth-century Ireland’ in Studia Hib., xiii (1973); P. 22.

119 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 298 and 349.

120 Clyn, p. 13.

121 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 300–1 and 356–8, confirmed by P.R.O.L, MS Cal. Justic. roll 11 Edw- II (R.C. no. 116), p. 124. At one point the annalist describes the Scots as having exercitus Ultonie coram Ulis, which led Miss Armstrong to think that the Ulstermen changed sides later in the 1317 campaign (Edward Bruce’s invasion, p. 102 note 6 and p. 107 note 3). It seems simpler to take the phrase as meaning ‘in their vicinity’ rather than ‘with them’, which removes the need to see them switching their support. Their misdeeds were a result of the famine, not of support for Bruce.

122 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 350; Mem. roll 9 Edw. II (P.R. O.I., R.C. 8/10, pp 452–3, 552–3, 602–4 and 627).

123 Ibid., pp 545–7 and 744–5; P.R.O., Issue roll, E.101/237/8. The fugitive bishop of Down was receiving a pension (ibid., E. 101/23 7/4 and 5)-A local subsidy seems to have been levied on the Meath baronies for the support of the Ultonienses (P.R.O., Receipt roll of the Irish exchequer, E.101/236/14, no. 7). The government was strong enough to bind Robert Savage, William Logan and Sir Hugh de Mandeville by hostages (P.R.O., Issue rolls, E.101/237/5 and 8). We should not look for absolute consistency: a man’s attitude might vary according to his immediate circumstances—for instance Alan fitz Warin seems at some point to have thrown in his lot with the Scots (Cal. pat. rolls, 1317–21, p. 313). It is also possible that families hedged their bets by dividing their allegiance. A thorough study of the northern families at this period might be revealing.

124 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 345 and 349.

125 The case is printed from the justiciary roll in ibid, pp 407–9. See Orpen, , Normans, 4, 173–5.Google Scholar

126 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 299.

127 Ibid., pp 409–16. See Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., p. 234 note 32.Google Scholar Suspicion also fell on Hugh Canon and on Richard of Exeter, a relative of the de Lacies, at this time (see ibid., p. 233).

128 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 355–6 and 359.

129 This is suggested by the energy with which Mortimer pursued them both physically and through the courts. He held Meath in right of his wife, whose grandfather Geoffrey de Geneville had gained it by marrying Matilda de Lacy It is possible that the collateral male line was discontented (cf. Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., pp 106–7).Google Scholar

130 P.R.O., C.81/93/3594C; P.R.O., Issue roll, E. 101/237/4; Mem. roll 9 Edw II (P.R.O.I., R.C. 8/10, pp 692–3). Richard de Clare, according to this first source, was not at the battle, but arrived soon afterwards; he then remained to serve the king (note 143 below). Gilbert de la Roche joined the Scots (Cal pat. rolls, 1317–21, p. 204) : again the product of a quarrel with his ‘loyal’ kinsmen?

131 P.R.O., C.81/93/3594C and E (Cal. doc. Scot., iii, no. 469 gives a brief calendared version). The first letter is from Hotham; the second, from an unnamed clerk, repeats substantially what Hotham says. For Hotham’s relations with the king see, e.g., Maddicott, , Thomas of Lancaster, pp 214–15.Google Scholar

132 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 347.

133 Cf. Cal. chancery warrants, 1244–1326, p. 436.

134 The cierk who had acted for the 1315 expedition to Louth was paid £578 at this time, but the recital makes it clear that the sum was arrears owing for that campaign (P.R.O., Issue roll, E.101/237/4)

135 The evidence is not complete (no memoranda rolls survive for 10–12 Edw II and some of the entries on that for 9 Edw II order the official in question to pay over not a specific sum, but ‘all’ certain revenues), nevertheless £719 can be traced (P.R.O.I., R.C. 8/10, pp 469–70, 472–3, 478–9, 516–19, 523–4, 527, 529–31, 534–7, 548–9, 559, 604–5, 618–19, 652, 738 741 770).

136 P.R.I. rep. D.K. 39, p. 69; 42, pp 28 and 76.

137 Cal. close rolls, 1313–18, pp 286 and 291–2.

138 P.R.O., C.81/93/3594C.

139 Cal. close rolls, 1313–18, p. 333. Those involved in the initial oath-taking were John fitz Thomas, Richard de Clare, Maurice fitz Thomas, Thomas fitz John, John and Arnold le Poer, Maurice de Rochefort, and David and Milo de la Roche. Hostages of Thomas fitz John, the Roches and Edmund Butler, as well as of the Tuyts, Barries and Gogans can subsequently be traced in custody (P.R.O., Pipe roll, E.372/166, m.26).

140 Though he did possess a retinue large enough to cost £580 between 5 November 1315 and 31 January 1316 (P.R.O., E.101/309/19, m.3).

141 Cal pat. rolls, 1313–17, p. 347.

142 Ibid., pp 457, 459 and 463; Cal close rolls, 1313–18, pp 288–9.

143 A commission issued on 7 February describes John fitz Thomas, Richard de Glare, Maurice de Rochefort, Maurice fitz Thomas, and Arnold and John le Poer as marshals of the king’s army (Mem. roll 9 Edw. II in P.R.O.I., R.C. 8/10, pp 529–30).

144 Only 200 marks were paid out from the exchequer (P.R.O., Issue roll, E.101/237/5). There was a (no doubt optimistic) assignment of 500 marks on county Limerick (Mem. roll 15–16 Edw. II in P.R.O.I., R.C. 8/12, pp 648–9).

144A A Dominican, Philip of Slane, had been negotiating in Munster on the king’s behalf in the winter of 1316-17 (P.R.O., Issue roll, E.101/ 237/5).

145 For some of their recent exploits see Ann. Inisf., p. 425.

146 P.R.O.L, MS Cal. Justic. roll 9–11 Edw. II, pp. 53–9.

147 The clerk of wages’ journal account has survived as an erratic in P.R.O., Ministers’ Accounts, S.C. 6/1239/13. Except where indicated, all subsequent particulars of Edmund’s movements and forces come from this source.

148 P.R.O.L, MS Cal. Justic. roll 11 Edw. II (R.C. no. 116), pp 70–1. Cf. Caithr. Thoirdh., ii, 117: ‘this carriage of de Clare’s was strange indeed: that one who on this expedition was joined with the king of England’s people should at the same time help clan Brian Rua now leagued with the Scots, and consequently outlaws from the king’.

149 P.R.O.L, MS Cal. Justic. roll 11 Edw. II (R.C. no. 119), pp 16–17. We hear of his presence (as of Richard’s) only because of later complaints about seizure of crops.

150 Ibid., 9–11 Edw. II, pp 87–8.

151 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 301.

152 See Armstrong, , Edward Bruce’s invasion, pp 106–7,Google Scholar also Orpen, , Normans, 4, 191–3.Google Scholar

153 Chartul. St Mary’s, Dublin, ii, 301.

154 Ibid., pp 300 and 354. P.R.O.L, MS Cal. Justic. roll 11 Edw- II (R.C. no. 116), p. 124 shows that they pursued them on their retreat.

155 For his activities see Otway-Ruthven, , Med. Ire., pp 233–4 and 236.Google Scholar

156 He was accompanied by Milo de Verdón and other lords. They too were well rewarded ( Orpen, , Normans, 4, 198 note 5).Google Scholar

157 According to Barbour, his Irish allies refused to fight:

For our maner is, of this land,
Till follow and ficht and ficht fleand,
And nocht till stand in plane melle
Quhill the ta part discumfit be.

(The Bruce, book xviii, lines 77–80). For the final campaign see Orpen, , Normans, 4, 198–205 Google Scholar and Maclomhair, D., ‘The battle of Fochart’ in Ir. Sword, 8 (1967–8), pp 192–209.Google Scholar

158 Flores historiarum, iii, 186.