A. D. 1328.

May.

" for which reason the lands of Faudon in "Northumberland, that had belonged to Sir "William Douglas before the war first broke

66

out, were now restored to Sir James Doug" las his son." Thus Abercrombie, thinking to do honour to his native country, has mistaken the plain import of the grant to Sir James Douglas, and has represented the treaty of Northampton as a treaty partial and unjust. Words cannot be plainer than those in the grant by Edward III. to Douglas; it is restitution through special favour alone; and indeed it is impossible that different rules should have been established with respect to Englishmen in Scotland and Scotsmen in England. Modern historians have enlarged and embellished this article according to their own imaginations, and ancient historians have hardly mentioned it at all. There is some allusion to it in the following passage: "But "these lords, Percy, Wake, Beaumont, and "Zouche, would not agree upon this condi

tion, that the Englishmen should lose " such lands as they held by inheritance in "Scotland*.

It is provided by Stat. 7. Parl. i. James III.

• Scala Chron. ap. Leland, 552.

"That na Englishman have benefice secular A. D.

66

or religious within the realm of Scotland, "after the forme of the act maid thereupon by "Robert the Bruyce." No such statute exists; for c. 24. Robert I. is of a less extensive import. It can hardly be supposed that benefice secular comprehended all land estates. It will be observed, that by the treaty of Northampton, the king of Scots, in effect, renounced all claim to his paternal inheritances in England.

7. But Thomas Lord Wake of Ledel, Henry de Beaumont Earl of Buchan, and Henry de Percy, shall be restored to their lordships, lands, and estates, whereof the king of Scots, by reason of the war between the two nations, had taken possession *.

Henry de Beaumont, in right of his wife, an heir parcener of the Earl of Buchan. Thomas Lord Wake of Ledel or Lidel, was proprietor of that lordship. Henry de Percy had possessions in Galloway and Angus; the lands of Vere in Galloway and of Redcastle in Angus being his property. These lands had formerly belonged to Henry de Balliol; they

1328, 4 May.

A. D.

1328.

4 May.

descended to his daughter and heir, Constance, and from her, to her son, Henry de Fishburn, who sold them to Percy. Dugdale, i. 273. I have doubts as to the word Vere, which is in Dugdale. For farther particulars, see Dugdale, articles Beaumont, Wake, Percy.

8. Johanna, sister of the king of England, shall be given in marriage to David, the son and heir of the king of Scots *.

9. The king of Scots shall provide the princess Johanna in a jointure of £2000 yearly, secured on land and rents, according to a reasonable estimation †.

"We may presume that the neat yearly produce would be ascertained by an inquest, and this would produce a new extent of great part of the crown-lands and rents.

10. If either of the parties fail in performing the conditions of this treaty, he shall pay 2000 pounds of silver to the papal treasury..

Such are the articles which appeared to Lord Hailes to have constituted the treaty between the two nations, usually named the Treaty of Northampton, because ratified at that place by the king of England on the 4th of

A. D. 1328.

May, 1928; but which ought to be named the Treaty of Edinburgh, as it was negociated 4 May. there, and ratified by Robert and the English

envoys at that city on the 17th March 1328. The real articles of the treaty we have already enumerated from the authentic record. Some

observatious on the conditions presumed by Lord Hailes to have been contained in this treaty may be allowed.

2. The restitution of the fatal stone of Scone is not mentioned in the real treaty; but, from the writ mentioned in the Callendar of Ancient Charters, it may have been considered as among the writings, obligations, instruments, and other muniments, which were to be annulled and delivered up to the king of Scots. This article, however, was never restored, and still forms the seat of the coronation chair of Britain.

4. The payment of 30,000 merks, or £20,000 as in the treaty, for the sums are exactly equal, certainly was not meant in compensation of damages to England by the war; for Scotland had been at least equally injured in its earlier period: But were in all probability a kind of purchase or relief of the extort

A. D. ed feudal supremacy, now renounced; con

1328.

4 May.

formably to what had been done on a similar occasion in 1189, when Richard king of England restored to William, for 10,000 merks, the feudal vassalage which had been extorted by Henry II. from the same William in 1174.

5. 6. 7. No mention is made in the treaty of any restoration of lands whatever, clerical or laical. This was probably left to the generosity of the two kings; or perhaps the restitution of church lands might be agreed to by a separate convention. The claims of the lords Wake, Beaumont, Percy, and Zouche, mentioned in Scala, were probably left to be prosecuted according to law.

10. There is no such clause in the treaty. But in the VIII. article of the authentic treaty, the payment of the instalments of the £20,000 is submitted to the jurisdiction of the Papal Chamber. Besides this, in a separate treaty or convention, an accurate transcript of which will be found in the Appendix, entered into at Edinburgh between Robert and the English Envoys, of the same date with the treaty, the king of Scots, with the con