[111] And not only so; but we find writs of the date of May, 1300, appointing three justices in Leicestershire, and the like in other counties, “to hear and determine, in a summary manner, all complaints of transgressions against the charters.”
[112] See [Appendix].
[113] “History of Lichfield Cathedral,” p. 57.
[114] Thus Mr. Tytler tells us of Brace’s conduct in 1297;—that “Bruce went to Carlisle with a numerous attendance of his friends, and was compelled to make oath on the consecrated host, that he would continue faithful to Edward. To give a proof of his fidelity, he ravaged the estates of Sir W. Douglas, then with Wallace, seized his wife and children, and carried them to Annandale. Having thus defeated suspicion, and saved his lands, he privately assembled his father’s retainers, talked lightly of an extorted oath, from which the pope would absolve him, and urged them to follow him against the English.” (Vol. i., p. 129.)
[115] In these remarkable words, occurring in a statute of the realm, and dictated, we cannot doubt, by Edward’s own lips, we seem to have a glimpse of his earnest and sincere character. Believing, as all men in his day believed, that there was a Pontiff at Rome who had full power “to bind and to loose,” he had applied to that authority, and had been loosed, so he was assured, from an engagement which was mischievous in itself, and which had been improperly extorted from him. Yet, with this dispensation in his possession, what follows? He himself tells us: “sleepless nights.” What occasioned them? Evidently that first principle of all his conduct of which Mr. Pearson takes notice: “He never broke his word.” No papal bull, no external decision of any kind, could thoroughly reconcile him to an infraction of the Scriptural rule: “He sweareth to his neighbour, and disappointeth him not, though it were to his own hurt.”
[116] Caxton’s Chronicle, Matthew of Westminster, Fabyan, Holinshed.
[117] The Scottish historians, who wrote a century after, claim the victory in all three engagements; but Hemingford and Trivet, who wrote at the time, distinctly declare that Neville repulsed the Scotch, and recovered many of the prisoners. Hume and Tytler, as Scotchmen, give credit to their own chroniclers; and yet they are uncandid enough to profess to take their accounts from Hemingford and Trivet. But these latter writers, who are the only contemporary witnesses, plainly assert that the advantage, in the third engagement, rested with the English.
[118] Tytler’s History of Scotland, vol. i., p. 186.
[119] Hailes’ Annals, vol. i., p. 304.
[120] Tytler, vol. i., p. 191.