The treaty of Brigham was as wise a scheme as could have been devised for bringing about the unity of Britain.  In the care taken to meet the natural scruples of the smaller nation we are reminded of the treaty of Union of 1707.  But a nearer parallel is to be found in the conditions under which the union between France and Brittany was gradually accomplished after the marriage of Anne of Brittany.  In both cases alike, in France and in England, the stronger party was content with securing the personal union of the two crowns, and strove to reconcile the weaker party by providing safeguards against violent or over-rapid amalgamation.  It was left for the future to decide whether the habit of co-operation, continued for generations, might not ultimately involve a more organic union.  Unluckily for this island, the policy which ultimately made the stubborn Celts of Brittany content with union with France, never had a chance of being carried out here.  Edward made every preparation for bringing over the Maid of Norway to her kingdom and her husband, and neither the Scots nor the Norwegians grudged his leading share in accomplishing their common wishes.  But the child’s health gave way before the hardships of the journey.  Before All Saints’ day had come round, she died in one of the Orkneys, where the ship which conveyed her had put in.

The death of the queen threatened Scotland with revolution.  The regents’ commission became of doubtful legality, and a swarm of claimants for the vacant throne arose, whose resources, if not their rights, were sufficiently evenly balanced to make civil strife inevitable.  Since southern Scotland had become a wholly feudal, largely Norman, and partly English state, there had been no grave difficulties with regard to the succession.  Now that they arose, there was doubt as to the principles on which claims to the throne should be settled.  There was no legitimate representative left of the stock of William the Lion.  The male line of his brother David, Earl of Huntingdon, had died out with John the Scot, the last independent Earl of Chester.  The nearest claimants to the succession were therefore to be found in the descendants of David’s three daughters.  But there was no certainty that any rights could be transmitted through the female line.  Moreover there was a doubt whether, allowing that a woman could transmit the right to rule, the succession should proceed according to primogeniture or in accordance with the nearness of the claimant to the source of his claim.  If the former view were held then John of Balliol, lord of Barnard castle in Durham and of Galloway in Scotland, had the best right as the grandson of Earl David’s eldest daughter.  Yet less than a century before, the passing over of Arthur of Brittany in favour of his uncle John, had recalled to men’s mind the ancient doctrine that a younger son is nearer to the parent stock than a grandson sprung from his elder brother; and if the view, then expressed in the History of William