Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

About this time an incident, unimportant in itself, is said to have been productive of mighty consequences. One Twynham Lowrison was enjoined by William Heckford, official of the Bishop of Glasgow, to do penance for adultery; he disregarded the sentence, and was excommunicated.12

Twynham, with his profligate associates, waylaid and cruelly beat the official, and extorted from him a large sum of money. After having committed this outrage, he fled into France, and there, as is reported, he found access to Edward Balliol; and by displaying the internal weakness of the Scottish government, excited him to reassert his claim to the crown.

Such is the account propagated from Fordun by our later historians. But, in truth, there needed not the suggestions of an obscure outlaw for persuading Edward Balliol to revive the pretensions of his family.

1332.

The circumstances of this part of our national history are momentous and interesting.

By the treaty of Northampton, in the year 1328, it was provided, "That Thomas Lord Wake of Ledel, Henry de Beaumont, called Earl of Buchan, and Henry de Percy, should 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."13

12 Fordun, xiii. 20.

13 Foedera, iv. 461.

The article was performed as to Henry de Percy, but not as to Lord Wake and Henry de Beaumont ; and, although Edward repeatedly complained of this delay of justice,* (1st December 1330, 24th February 1330-1, and 22d April 1332), yet he obtained no satisfaction.14

For this our historians have offered no specious excuse.'s Vainly do they say, that the inheritances of Lord Wake and Henry de Beaumont had been bestowed on the followers of Robert Bruce, and could not, without difficulty, be wrested from them; for those inheritances, instead of having

* By some strange error, the requisition of the 22d April 1332 is limited to the estates of Lord Wake; although it appears from that very instrument, that Henry de Beaumont had not been restored.

† Such is the hypothesis of Mr Hume; vol. ii. p. 163. he says, " It had been stipulated in this treaty, that both the Scottish nobility, who, before the commencement of the wars, enjoyed lands in England, and the English who inherited estates in Scotland, should be restored to their several possessions; Rymer, v. iv. p. 384. But though this article had been executed pretty regularly on the part of Edward, Robert, who saw the estates claimed by Englishmen much more numerous and valuable than the other, either esteemed it dangerous to admit so many secret enemies into the kingdom, or found it difficult to wrest from his own followers the possessions bestowed on them as the reward of their fatigues and dangers; and he had protracted the performance of his part of the stipulation," &c. Errors are crowded into this short paragraph. 1. There was no article in the treaty of Northampton concerning a general and reciprocal restitution; see Annals, p. 158, &c. 2. There is no evidence that Robert Bruce protracted the performance of the treaty on his part, or that Edward III. ever complained of his delays. It is strange that Mr Hume should have quoted Foedera, T. iv. p. 384. and yet have said, that Robert Bruce protracted the performance on his part, while the article had been pretty regularly executed on the part of Edward III.; for the instrument quoted from Foedera, however much it may have been misunbeen given away, did still, in all probability, remain with the crown. At the same time it is undeniable, that, even laying aside all considerations of good faith, and of the sanctity of treaties, the true interest of the Scots led them to maintain the peace of Northampton inviolated; and it is equally undeniable, that their true interest could not have been overlooked by Randolph, a politician of mature and exquisite judgment.

*4 Foedera, iv. 461.471.518.

15 Hume, History of England, ii. 165.

The delays and evasions of the Scottish regency seem to have proceeded from causes which I shall now attempt to explain.

By the treaty of Northampton, all the claims of the English barons to inheritances in Scotland were disregarded, excepting those of Henry de Percy, Thomas Lord Wake of Ledel, and Henry de Beaumont. Percy procured satisfaction; but the others did not.

derstood in other particulars, certainly proves that Edward III. made a grant to Douglas on the 24th of May 1329, in consequence, as Mr Hume supposes, of the treaty of Northampton. Now, Robert Bruce died on the 7th June 1329, just nine days after the date of the grant by Edward III. to Douglas; and thus the delay ascribed to Bruce, when opposed to the regular performance by Edward III. could not have been a delay of more than nine days. 3. The claimants under the treaty of Northampton were not many; they were only two, Thomas Lord Wake, and Henry de Beaumont. 4. There is no probability that the lands which they claimed had been bestowed on the followers of Bruce; on the contrary, there is every reason for supposing, that, in 1332, the lordship of Ledel, claimed by Lord Wake, and the lands in Buchan, claimed by Henry de Beaumont, were still enjoyed by the crown: For, in 1342, David II. made a grant of the former to Sir William Douglas, (see the charter in Douglas, Peerage, p. 489.) and Robert II. made a grant of the latter, as is universally acknowledged, to Alexander Stewart, his fourth son. But of any previous royal grant of either, there is no vestige.

16

Henry de Beaumont, in the reign of Edward II. had associated himself with the nobility against the D'Espensers, and, on that account, had suffered imprisonment and exile. He aided Queen Isabella in the invasion which proved the cause of the deposition, captivity, and death of her husband. Although, under the administration of Mortimer, he had obtained a share in the partition of the spoils of the D'Espensers, * he persisted in opposing the measures of the new favourite; and although his own interests were secured by the treaty of Northampton, he boldly exclaimed against the injustice done to the other barons by that treaty. He joined the Princes of the blood-royal in their attempt to rescue the young King from the hands of Isabella and her minion, and place him in their own; and, on the failure of that ill-advised conspiracy, he again took refuge in foreign parts. It appears that Lord Wake, having followed the political opinions of Henry de Beaumont, was involved in like calamities and disgrace. While the Queendowager and Mortimer retained their influence, the elaims of those two barons were altogether overlooked: But, within forty-eight hours after the execution of Mortimer, a peremptory demand

* " He obtained a grant of the manor of Loughborough, in general taile, part of the possession of Hugh de le Despenser Earl of Winchester, then attainted;" 1. Edward III. Dugdale, Baronage, T. ii. p. 51.

+ Mortimer was executed 29th November 1330. Edward III. made the requisition in favour of Lord Wake and Henry de Beaumont 1st December 1330.

16 Dugdale, ii. 51.541. Knyghton, 2549. Leland, i. 553.

was made by Edward III. to have their inheritances restored.

The demand was unexpected and alarming. Made at the very moment of the fall of Isabella and Mortimer, and in behalf of men who had loudly protested against the treaty of Northampton, it indicated a total and perilous change in the system of the English.

Randolph, of late years, had beheld extraordinary vicissitudes in England. The D'Espensers alternately persecuted and triumphant, and at length abased in the dust: The fugitive Mortimer elevated to supreme authority, victorious over the Princes of the blood-royal, and then dragged to a gibbet. Hence it was natural for Randolph to wish, and even to look for some new revolution, which might prove more favourable to the Scottish interests. Meanwhile, with great reason, and good policy, he delayed the restitution of the inheritances claimed under the treaty of Northampton, in behalf of the avowed opposers of that treaty.*

Besides, it was necessary for Randolph to be assured, that the English, while they urged the performance of one article of that treaty, did, on their part, sincerely purpose to perform its more important articles, by continuing to acknowledge the

* In consequence of this resolution, Lord Wake would have had an entrance into Scotland by the western marches, and Henry de Beaumont would have been master of the coasts of Buchan. Their establishment in Scotland would have facilitated the entrance of the disinherited barons, whose cause they had espoused. It might be matter of inquiry, whether they had any right to claim under one article of the treaty of Northampton, while they protested against another.

« AnteriorContinuar »