[488] Fordun, l. 8, c. 64. He places these occurrences in 1203; but as he describes the capture of Falaise and other places at the same time—and they were taken in 1204—and as John only reached England on 6th December 1203, I have placed them under 1204. William was frequently in England after this meeting at Norham. £10 were paid for his expenses in 1206; £15 when he was at York on 20th June, and £30 when he was at the same place on 16th August 1207. In July 1205 John wrote to William, thanking him for the favourable answer which he had received on the subject of their negotiations, and alluding to the lands of Tynedale, of which William was seized, and of which no mention had been made in their convention. Rot Claus., p. 43 b., 86, 90 b. These lands in Tynedale appear to have been held by simple homage. Vide Doc. etc. Illust. Hist. Scot. Introd., p. vii.
[489] Fordun, l. 8, c. 66–67.
[490] Trivet 1209, and the Bridlington Chronicle (in Documents, etc., relating to Hist. Scot., No. xxi., sec. 26, p. 66) state that William was going to marry one of his daughters to the Count of Boulogne. Hemingburgh, vol. 1, p. 242, affirms that the princess was to have been united to the Count of Flanders. Ida, who brought the earldom of Boulogne to her husband, Reginald de Dammartin, and whose heiress, Mahout, was married to Prince Philip of France, was married about 1191, and survived till 1216. There was no Count of Flanders in 1209. Baldwin of Hainault, who ascended the imperial throne of Constantinople in 1204, and was slain in the following year, left by Margaret his wife, who brought him the earldom of Flanders, two daughters, who became the wards of Philip Augustus. By that king the eldest, Jane, was given to Ferrand of Portugal in 1211, who in her right became Count of Flanders and Hainault. It is very clear, then, that William could not have been negotiating a marriage for one of his daughters with either a Count of Boulogne, or of Flanders, at that period; and if any negotiation on such a subject had been set on foot, it must have been respecting an alliance between the prince of Scotland and the heiress of Flanders and Hainault. Such a project would have suited well with the endeavours of Philip to enlist allies against John, and it would undoubtedly have brought the latter king in all haste to the northern frontier.
[491] Chron. Mel. 1209. Fordun, l. 8, c. 69. Some of the sentences in the Melrose Chronicle would almost appear to have been transposed. Their general sense seems to be that “John marched to Norham and summoned William to meet him at Newcastle. Thither went William, and both in going and returning, defrayed his own expenses at Alnwick, etc.”—the latter observation referring to an infringement of the Charter of Privileges, a sure sign of a want of cordiality between the kings, which was not restored until William recovered the “Benevolentia domini nostri.”
[492] Fifteen hundred English knights and their retainers, 7000 crossbowmen and Branchii (?), 13,000 Welshmen, and an overwhelming force of all arms.
[493] Fordun, l. 8, c. 70.
[494] These hostages were the sons of the Earl of Winchester, of William de Vetere Ponto, of William de Vallibus, of Philip de Mowbray, of Gervase Avenel, of David Lindsay, of Gilbert Earl of Strathearn, of Lawrence Abernethy, of Thomas of Galloway, of Earl Patrick of Dunbar, and of William Comyn, with the brothers of Robert de Bruce, and of Walter Clifford, and a daughter of Alan of Galloway, who died in England.—Rot. Claus., p. 137 b. They were given “et pro hac pecunia et ad prædictos terminos reddendâ, et pro eisdem terminis fideliter tenendis.” An attempt is sometimes made to include the princesses amongst the hostages. This is contradicted, both by the words of William, “exceptis duabus filiabus nostris quas ei liberavimus,” and by the omission of their names in the Close Rolls. These hostages were given as “security” for the money—warranters—and returned of course when the debt was acquitted. The princesses were given up to be married, and remained in England long after the death of John.
[495] Chron. Mel. 1209. Fordun, l. 8, c. 71. Fœdera, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 103. Robertson’s Index Introd., p. xx. Neg. tang. Ang. No. 3. Such is the account of these transactions preserved in the Scottish authorities, and the correctness of their dates is confirmed by the Fœdera and the Patent Rolls. Wendover is decidedly wrong in referring the whole transaction to one meeting only, and in placing the treaty, etc., before 28th June. The Bridlington Chronicle states that John built a castle at Berwick (i.e., Tweedmouth) in June, and that the kings came to terms in August (Documents, etc., xxi., sec. 26–27), Hemingburgh asserts that John at first demanded Alexander as a hostage for his father, the “plura et inaudita” perhaps of Fordun. In spite of the attempt of Fordun to represent the peace as the result of the interference of the principal men of both countries, it was evidently brought about through William’s aversion to war. The message that excited the wrath of John was dictated in the Council of Stirling; the envoys to deprecate his indignation were dispatched by William; and the Melrose chronicler concludes his account with the significant sentence, “It was done against the wishes of the Scots.” The extreme secrecy about the tenor of these “mutual charters” is worthy of remark. The Scots always maintained that one of the princesses was to have married the heir of the English crown, and Alexander II. afterwards obtained a grant of lands in satisfaction for his claims upon the northern counties, and for the alleged infringement of the terms of this arrangement (Fœd., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 233). In the Patent Rolls (An. 21, Hen. III.) there is the following remark on this latter treaty, “Inter cœtera apparet quod concordia fuit quod Rex Angliæ duceret Marger’ sororem dicti Regis Scotiæ, quod modo relaxatum fuit ac al’.” All this tells for the Scottish account. On the other hand, when Hubert de Burgh was charged with preventing this marriage—in consideration of which William had agreed to waive his claims on the northern counties—the Earl of Kent replied that he knew of no such agreement, and appealed to the letters of Pandulf and others to prove that his own marriage with the princess Margaret was brought about with the full knowledge and consent of the English magnates (Mat. Par. Addit. p. 99); and the Rot. Pat. ad an. 4 Hen. III., mention an arrangement at York before Pandulf, in which it was agreed that the sisters of Alexander should be married “infra Regnum Angliæ ad honorem suum.” Hubert’s statement, however, only had reference to a guarded defence of his own conduct, and throws no light upon the events of John’s reign. It is very probable that John retained the princesses at his court for the purpose of marrying them to his own sons if anything happened to the sole male heir of Scotland; and that may have been the reason why they remained unmarried until after his death. It is not to be supposed that Hubert de Burgh overlooked the proximity of Margaret to the Scottish throne when he married her, and it must be acknowledged that his interpretation of the secret treaties, if he was really aware of their existence, was very much to his own advantage. The wording of the letter of William in the Fœdera contradicts the supposition that the payment of 15,000 marks “pro benevolentia domini nostri habendâ, et pro conventionibus tenendis,” etc., was a simple fine imposed by John on the Scottish king.
[496] Robertson’s Index Introd. xx. Negot. tang. Ang., Nos. 7, 36, 40. Fordun, l. 8, c. 72. One of the Melrose charters (No. 168) proves the date of this homage of Alexander, and a fragment in the Documents, No. xl., sec. 19, p. 136, states that the homage was performed “pro omnibus rectitudinibus pro quibus pater suus fecerat homagium Henrico Regi patri ejusdem Johannis.” Libertates et rectitudines—privileges and rights—are the words in Richard’s Charter of Privileges to William. As half the money—one year’s payment—was remitted, and the whole sum was to have been paid off in two years, it is allowable to infer that one year after the treaty, i.e., in 1210, John must have waived his claim to the payment of the remainder.
[497] Chron. Mel. 1210. Fœd., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 120.