[408] I have here followed the account of Abbot Benedict, which appears to have been copied into the chronicle of Croyland Abbey. Compare it with Doc. etc. Illust. Hist. Scot., No. xxiv., p. 79, Benedict expressly says that William dispatched the two Earls and de Moreville from Alnwick “fere cum toto exercitu ... et ibi remansit cum privata familia sua.”
[409] “Nam predicti Duces, cum audissent quod Rex Scotiæ ... misisset exercitum suum ab eo, cum festinacione secuti sunt.” Such are the words of Benedict, which prove that the enterprise of the English leaders was entirely based upon their knowledge of the dispersion of the Scottish army, and their hope of surprising the king whilst he was only surrounded “privata familia sua.” This view of the case must enhance our opinion of their judgment, though somewhat at the expense of the miracle. Robert d’Estoteville, Bernard de Balliol, Ranulph de Glanville, and William de Vesci, were the principal barons in favour of the enterprise.
[410] Some idea might be formed of the rate of progression of a knight in full armour, were it not for the ambiguity of the expression of Newbridge, “ante horam quintam viginti quatuor millia passuum transmearent”—“before five o’clock;” or “under five hours,” as some translate it. But this forced march was looked upon as an almost incredible performance; and if our forefathers required supernatural assistance (tanquam propellente vi aliqua properantes) to accomplish five miles an hour, their ordinary movements must have been leisurely indeed.
[411] Ben. Ab. 1174. Hoveden 1174, p. 308. Newbridge, l. 2, c. 33. The veracious Wendover represents the capture of William as the result of a battle, in which such multitudes of the Scots were slain that it was impossible to number their dead!
[412] Ben. Ab. 1174. Hoveden 1174, p. 308. Newbridge, l. 3, c. 35. Diceto and Chron. Gerv. 1174. (Twysden, p. 577, 1427.) Facts have been a little strained to represent William’s capture as a miracle. All contemporary accounts agree that Henry sailed from Barfleur on Monday the 8th July, landing the same evening at Southampton, and hurrying to Canterbury without delay, where they make him do penance immediately on his arrival, dating it on Friday the 12th, and bring him to London on the Saturday, without accounting for the intermediate days. A journey from Southampton to Canterbury would scarcely require three days’ and nights’ hard riding. Lord Hailes, according to Dr. Lingard, “contradicts the king, and says that one of these events occurred on a Thursday, and the other on a Saturday.” Lingard himself makes Henry spend two days on the passage—a way of accounting for the intermediate days which seems not to have occurred to the earlier authorities—land on the 10th, ride all night, reach Canterbury and do penance on the 11th, and proceed to London on the 12th (Hist. Engl., vol. 2, c. 5); and as William was captured on Saturday the 13th, his own account, singularly enough, bears out the assertion of Lord Hailes, “that Henry was scourged on a Thursday and William made prisoner on a Saturday!” It was quite in accordance with the spirit of the age to regard the capture of William as the reward of Henry’s penance, and it can scarcely be questioned that such was the case in England; whilst the foundation of Arbroath, dedicated to Thomas of Canterbury, seems to attest William’s concurrence in this feeling. The age was ready to accept a miracle and it was framed accordingly.
[413] Hoveden 1174, p. 308. Newbridge, l. 2, c. 34, 37. Diceto improves upon the miracle of William’s capture by adding that on the very same day the Count of Flanders and the younger Henry dismissed the fleet which they had assembled at Gravelines. To make the story still better, Wendover raises a tempest and sinks most of the vessels. As the allies left Gravelines on account of a message from Louis, who had received intelligence of William’s capture (Hoveden), the knowledge of an event in France, on the very day on which it happened in Northumberland, would, in those days, have been undeniably miraculous.
[414] Newbridge, l. 2, c. 38.
[415] Fœdera, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 30. Though five castles are mentioned in this convention, only three appear to have been given up—Roxburgh, Berwick, and Edinburgh. The latter was given back as the dowry of Ermengarde, and the two others were restored by Richard. As Stirling and Jedburgh are never alluded to, it is to be presumed that, for some cause, they were not claimed by Henry; indeed Newbridge, l. 2, c. 38, writes that only the three other castles were made over to the English king; and Wynton follows him, bk. 7, c. 8, l. 159. The treaty in the Fœdera is dated at Falaise; but a passage in Diceto (to which no allusion is made in the Capitula) states that the Convention took place near Valognes in the Cotentin; and in the version of the treaty given in the same passage, the castles of Roxburgh and Berwick only are mentioned. These were the two castles restored after the death of Henry, and the writer must have been ignorant not only that Stirling, Jedburgh, and Edinburgh, were also amongst the fortresses stipulated to be made over by the Scots, but that the latter was actually given up. This is another proof, I think, that the passages in Diceto, to which no allusion is made in the Capitula, are by another hand. Vide Diceto 1174, p. 584, and Appendix L, pt. 2.
[416] Ben. Ab. 1175.
[417] In 1123–24 Alexander, just before his death, appointed Robert of Scone to the bishopric of St. Andrews, and he appears to have deputed John of Glasgow to maintain the liberties of the Scottish Church at the court of Rome. In 1124–25 John of Crema, the papal legate, was empowered to settle the points in dispute, subject to the final approval of the pope; and in 1128 Archbishop Thorstein consecrated Robert “Sine professione et obbediente pro Dei amore et Regis Scotiæ ... salva querela Eboracensis Ecclesiæ et justitia Ecclesiæ Sancti Andreæ.” Sim. Dun de Gestis, 1124, 1125. Ang. Sac., vol. 2, p. 237, quoted in Hailes’ Annals, vol. 1, p. 76. It is curious to contrast the account of Simeon with that of Stubbs (Twysden, p. 1719). According to the chronicler who wrote two centuries and a half after the events which he describes, Thorstein grounded his claims upon the assertion that the king of Scotland was the liegeman of the king of England; whilst the contemporary Simeon confines the dispute strictly to ecclesiastical points; though the ill success of the English advocates provoked him into writing “Scotti dicebant stulta garrulitate, etc.!”