Note 25 — Chapter III · THE ENGLISH ARMY ADVANCE TO LINLITHGOW.—BATTLE OF FALKIRK, FROM THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH WRITERS.—MISCELLANEOUS TRANSACTIONS.

Among the various documents which his Lordship appears to consider authentic, is the following, which he thus introduces:—“I have seen the title of a public instrument, which runs thus:—‘Acte contenant les responses faites par Pierre Flotte, Seigneur de Revel, commis par le Roy (de France) pour traitter et conferer avec les Ambassadeurs Anglois, touchant l’execution du traité de treve, et reparation des infractions d’icelle. Simon de Meleun l’arbitre nommé par le Roy, offrit au Roy d’Angleterre de delivrer tous les prisonniers Anglois en rendant par lui le Roy de Escosse et son fils, et les Escossois detenus en Angleterre et ailleurs, ou les mettant en la garde d’un prelat Francois qui les gardera soubs le nom du Pape pendant que le Pape jugera de leur differend.’ The original, if extant, says Lord Hailes, might serve to explain several circumstances respecting this treaty; particularly, that Edward Baliol was in captivity, together with his father, and that the Pope proposed himself as umpire between Edward I. and his disobedient vassal.”

Now, the above is all good modern French, and the orthography exactly as at present, with the exception of the following words, responses, traitter, Escosse, soubs, which appear to have had their spelling antiquated a little, to give the document a venerable air;—it has, on the whole, a very clumsy appearance, and shows that it cannot be older than the 17th century. If the “full evidence” referred to be liable to similar objections, it will not appear very surprising, that our early writers should have been so much in the dark respecting it.