effects upon the English people, and in many directions influenced
the subsequent history and progress of England. This, however, was not
a consequence of any superiority of Norman civilisation at the time
of the Conquest, but the very reverse. Very briefly the historic and
social phenomena may be indicated thus:――The Norman Conquest created
new historic conditions and relations in Britain. But owing to the
uncivilised and ruthless character of the chief agents engaged in
the military and the political processes of the creation of these
new historic conditions, an enormous amount of cruel suffering was
inflicted upon the great body of the English people. After two or
three generations, which were strikingly marked by fierce outbursts
of internal anarchy and bloodshed, and excessive oppression of the
people, the new historic conditions, slightly modified, assumed what
may be called their normal equilibrium. These new conditions were
in some directions favourable to progress and civilisation, and in
other directions an opposite tendency was often manifested. Considered
externally, the Conquest created new historic relations between England
and France, and it would require a long and careful discussion to
determine whether these new relations were favourable or unfavourable
to the internal development and the civilisation of England. This
historic phase of the Conquest is of great interest, and much could be
said on both sides of the subject. Considered internally, I can only
notice one or two points which were permanent in their operation. The
Conqueror introduced arrangements admirably calculated to strengthen
the hands of the King. His aim was to limit the power of the feudal
nobles and render them dependent upon the Crown; and in this he
succeeded. He concentrated the ends of the threads of the local powers
in the supreme power of the King; and the Kings of England soon became
strong enough to hold the feudal nobles well under the control of
the executive. Thus England was saved from many of the worst features
of Norman Feudalism; although in succeeding ages the great power
concentrated in the hands of the Kings of England, was sometimes used
for mischievous purposes. Touching the effect of the Conquest on the
body of the English people, its tendency was no doubt oppressive for
many generations. “That the result of the Norman Conquest was the
social thrusting down of the great mass of Englishmen, there can be
no doubt.”¹ In fact, they were partly thrust down by the transference
of the land to the Norman aristocracy, and the introduction of feudal
forms of land tenure.
¹ Freeman’s _History of the Norman Conquest_, Volume V., page
476.
But it is a singular historic phenomenon that Norman Feudalism, with
its worst features, was introduced into Scotland long after William
the Conqueror was in his grave. This manifested itself in anarchical
outbursts of internal war among the nobles of Scotland, similar to
those which had occurred among the Norman nobles in Normandy in the
eleventh century. Norman Feudalism was not forced upon Scotland by
invasion or open conquest; it was introduced by the Scottish kings,
partly owing to personal associations and circumstances, and partly
owing to a misapprehension of the real nature and tendency of the
system, which for several generations they fostered. The ultimate
result of their policy was this:――1, The continuity of the progressive
movement of the kingdom was in some districts dislocated by the
introduction of Norman Feudalism. 2, Then the system ran its natural
course, and the nobles reduced the power of the kings almost to a
nonentity, rendered the functions of the executive ineffective, and
sometimes totally inoperative. They frequently rebelled against the
kings, and involved the kingdom in all the miseries of civil war.
They often fought among themselves and created disorder and anarchy in
endless forms, frustrated the development of every branch of peaceful
industry, and inflicted untold suffering upon the people. Thus the
development of the natural resources of the country, and the progress
and the civilisation of the nation were greatly retarded for several
centuries.
CHAPTER III.
_Narrative――Introduction of Feudalism._
RESUMING the narrative, on the death of Edgar in 1107, his brother
Alexander succeeded to the throne, while his younger brother, David,
claimed the districts on the south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde.
This arrangement had been suggested by Edgar before his death, but
Alexander at first objected to it; after some time, however, he agreed
that his brother should rule these southern districts under the title
of Earl David. Shortly after his accession the King had to face a
rising of the men of Moray, which he boldly met and suppressed.
In the first year of his reign, Alexander appointed Turgot to the
See of St. Andrews: he was a monk of Durham, and had been confessor
to Queen Margaret, the King’s mother. A serious difficulty arose,
the Archbishop of York claimed a canonical right to perform the
ceremony of consecration; but the Scotch clergy and the King maintained
that he had no authority over St. Andrews. At last a compromise was
effected, leaving the disputed point unsettled; and in 1109, Turgot
was consecrated by the Archbishop of York. The new bishop did not
find himself happy in the See of St. Andrews. Difficulties soon arose
between him and the King; and at last the bishop threatened to go to
Rome and settle all matters of dispute, but he died in 1115.¹
¹ Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume I.,
pages 206‒7.
The bishopric remained five years vacant, but in 1120 the King
nominated Eadmer, a monk of Canterbury, who was elected bishop by
the Scotch clergy and the people. The point of consecration was
revived, but this time the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed the right
to perform the ceremony. There was for long a great rivalry between
the Archbishops of York and Canterbury touching the limits of their
respective canonical authority, and the point associated with the
dignity of presidency. Eadmer himself thought that the rights of his
mother church extended over all the British Islands. The King rejected
this view, and declined to listen to it. The monk was as determined
as the King, and at last he declared, “Not for all Scotland will I
renounce being a monk of Canterbury.” He then handed back the ring
to the King, laid the staff on the altar, and left St. Andrews and
returned to his mother church. Shortly afterwards Eadmer showed much
anxiety to return to the See of St. Andrews, and offered to yield
to the King, but Alexander declined to receive him. About the end of
the year 1123 Alexander appointed Robert, the prior of the monastery
of Scone, to the See of St. Andrews, but the King died before he was
consecrated. In 1128, the ceremony of consecration was performed by the
Archbishop of York, and there was an express condition which reserved
the rights of both Churches. A direct claim of feudal lordship over
Scotland had not yet arisen, but it is obvious that if the dependence
of the Scotch Church on the English Church could have been established,
it would soon have affected the independence of the kingdom.¹
¹ _Chronicles_, pages 90, 91. Eadmer, though a strict monk,
was a scholar, and wrote a history of his own time in clear
Latin, and other works. He is supposed to have died at
Canterbury in 1124.
Alexander I. founded the monastery of Scone, and restored to the Church
of St. Andrews the lands called the Boars Chase. He died in 1124, and
was succeeded by his brother, David I., who, under the title of Earl,
had been ruling the districts on the south of the Forth. The kingdom
was again placed under one head, and the era of the introduction of
Norman Feudalism then commenced.
A large part of Scotland as yet hung loosely on the central authority;
the country beyond the Spey was nominally under the Scottish Crown, and
Galloway was more like a tributary province than an incorporated part
of the kingdom. David I. had perhaps come into contact with some of
the associates of the Conqueror. In his youth he frequented the Court
of the Conqueror’s sons in England, and he appears to have associated
much with the Norman nobles. These nobles were always on the outlook
for more land and power, and doubtless with an eye to business some
day, they had made themselves very agreeable companions for the young
Scottish prince. The Norman nobles became his special favourites; and
when only Earl, he seems to have surrounded himself with a company
of them, and began to grant them lands by charter. He had resolved
to introduce Feudalism and a Norman Aristocracy, so far as it was in
his power. But there can be no doubt that David I. misapprehended the
real nature and inevitable tendency of Feudalism; as his chief object
must have been to strengthen the Crown, which shows clearly that he
had misunderstood it. Possibly David I. may have imagined that he
was imitating the Conqueror on a small scale, but then he had not the
practical knowledge and the experience of the system which the great
Norman possessed. The Conqueror executed his work in such a way that
Norman Feudalism was never permitted to run its natural course in
England. So the great achievement of transplanting Norman Feudalism
into Scotland fell to the inexperienced genius of David I., and two
or three of his successors on the throne, where alone it developed and
exhibited itself in all its features and perfections for a period of
upwards of three centuries.
The local chiefs were naturally and rightly averse to the planting
of Norman nobles among them; although these adventurers and
fortune-hunters were favourites at the court of David I. It seems
that some of these Norman nobles brought their families and their
own retainers with them, and thus, with the support of the king,
they dispossessed the real owners and the occupiers of the land of
Scotland. In 1130 the people of Moray, under their local chiefs, Angus
and Malcolm, rose against the king. They advanced to Stracathro, in
Forfarshire, where the king’s forces met them, and a severe engagement
ensued. Angus was slain and his followers were overthrown; but his
brother Malcolm retreated and prolonged the contest for four years.
David I. became greatly alarmed, and called upon the Norman nobles of
Yorkshire and Northumberland to rally round his standard, and having
thus mustered an army, in 1134 the king marched with his force to the
disaffected North, and succeeded in overawing the local chiefs. The
king then proclaimed the province of Moray forfeited to the Crown. He
next parcelled out large portions of the best land of Moray among the
Normans and adventurers who had followed his banner.¹
¹ _Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., page 227; Robertson’s
_Scotland under her Early Kings_, Volume I., pages 189‒191.
In 1135 Henry I. of England died, the last of the Conqueror’s sons, and
having left no male issue, he bequeathed his dominions to his daughter;
but Stephen, a nephew of the late king, contested her right to the
throne, and he proved successful. David I. naturally supported the
claim of his niece, the queen, and led an army across the Border. Many
of the northern castles of England opened their gates to him. When he
had advanced nearly to Durham, Stephen approached with a large army to
bar his progress. David then retired to Newcastle, and Stephen followed
him. The two armies confronted each other for fourteen days, and
finally a peace was concluded.¹
¹ _Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., page 230.
But David I., besides his obligation to support the queen’s claim, had
a strong desire to annex the northern counties of England, and some
hope of succeeding to the throne of England himself. So early in 1138
he again led an army across the Tweed, and spent some time in attacking
castles, and in ravishing the northern counties; but the approach of
Stephen’s army caused David to concentrate his scattered forces and
prepare for battle or retreat. After some fruitless movements and delay,
David with his army advanced towards Durham; while the defenders of
England, concentrated at Northallerton, planted their standard and
prepared for battle. Before the battle began a most significant event
occurred. Robert de Bruce and Bernard de Baliol appeared before David
I., as emissaries from the English army; they had come to persuade
David to retire at once with his army, and not offer battle to the
Norman nobles, who were his greatest benefactors. Robert de Bruce held
wide territories in Yorkshire, and David himself had granted to him the
extensive and fine district of Annandale. De Bruce’s position was thus
a deplorable one; he saw that he could not ride upon two horses at
once when they were running in different directions, and accordingly he
renounced his allegiance to David I. and returned to the English camp.
This was the identical position of most of the great Norman nobles in
Scotland from this date till the battle of Bannockburn. The strange
thing is that David himself or his successors never seem to have
realised its great political significance, and its consequent evil
effect upon Scotland. Another dispute arose before the battle. David
wanted his own small body of Normans and men-at-arms to lead the attack,
but the Galloway men claimed the honour and the right to lead the
van. A long wrangle ensued on the point, and Malise, the Scotch Earl
of Strathern, said to the King: “Why trust you to these Normans?
unprotected as I am, none shall be more forward in the fight.” David
was forced to yield. The Galloway men advanced to the charge, and
♦rushed with such force on the enemy that the front ranks reeled and
were driven back in confusion. But the English, supported by their
bowmen, reformed, and the battle raged with great fury. Rank after rank
of the Scots fell under the storm of arrows from the English bowmen,
and at last the Scots were completely defeated. The battle was fought
on the 22nd of August, 1138, and is known as the Battle of the Standard.
The following year peace was concluded, on the conditions that King
David’s son, Prince Henry, should receive the Earldom of Northumberland
and his other fiefs in England, that the laws and local customs should
remain intact, and the rights of the Archbishop of York and the Bishop
of Durham.¹
♦ “rnshed” replaced with “rushed”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 2‒6;
_Saxon Chronicle_, Volume II., pages 232, 233; _Chronicles
and Annals of the Priory of Hexham_, Volume I., pages 90‒93.
The remaining years of David’s reign were mainly devoted to the changes
and the reforms which he introduced in connection with the land, the
church, and the burghal communities, but these will be treated in
another chapter.
David’s only son, Prince Henry, died on the 12th of June, 1152. By his
wife, Ada Warenne, he left three sons and three daughters; two of his
sons lived to ascend the throne of Scotland, and his third son, David,
became Earl of Huntingdon.¹ The death of his only son cast a gloom
over the hopes of David I. and the closing months of his reign; but
to smooth the way for the succession of his grandson, Malcolm, a boy
of eleven years of age, David placed him under the charge of Duncan
Earl of Fife, who then proceeded with the young prince throughout the
kingdom to obtain his recognition among the people as the heir to the
throne. Thus having, as far as the circumstances admitted, secured the
succession, David I. died on the 24th of May, 1153, after a reign of
twenty-nine years.
¹ For future reference it may be noticed that this Earl David
married a sister of Randolph, Earl of Chester, and by her
he had three sons and four daughters. His eldest daughter,
Margaret, married Alan of Galloway, and it was through her
issue that John Baliol claimed the crown of Scotland. His
second daughter, Isabella, married Robert de Bruce; Ada, his
youngest daughter, married Henry de Hastings: we will find
the representatives of the issue of these daughters of Earl
David claiming the crown.
On the death of his grandfather the young prince was crowned at Scone,
under the title of Malcolm IV. But before the end of the year his
supporters had to meet a rising of the Celtic people led by the sons
of Malcolm Mac Heth, and Somerled, the local ruler of Argyle. They
attacked the kingdom at various points, and the war continued three
years. In 1156 Donald, the eldest son of Malcolm Mac Heth, was captured
at Whithern, in Galloway, by the King’s adherents, and was imprisoned
in Roxburgh Castle along with his father, but Somerled continued the
war; and from motives of policy the King came to terms with Malcolm
Mac Heth, and liberated him from prison. In 1159 a peace was concluded
between Somerled and Malcolm IV.,¹ but other dangers surrounded the
King.
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 249, 250; _Chronicles of
Melrose_.
It appears that the King was unpopular, and a number of the nobles seem
to have conspired to dethrone him, or to secure his person and then
make their own terms. They surrounded the King in Perth in 1160, but
their attempt failed; and Malcolm at once proceeded to act with vigour;
he mustered an army, and the same year he thrice invaded Galloway to
bring the inhabitants under subjection. He subdued the local chief,
Fergus, who then retired into the monastery of Holyrood, where he died
the following year. Thus Galloway was placed in feudal subjection to
the crown; but the inhabitants for long after this stoutly maintained
their own local customs and laws. About the year 1161 Malcolm invaded
Moray, drove out a number of the inhabitants, and attempted to supplant
them by the Norman nobles and their followers.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 251, 252, 257.
In 1164 Somerled attempted to invade the heart of the kingdom. He
mustered an army, and a fleet of one hundred and sixty vessels, and
when landing his army on the coast of Renfrew he was attacked by the
people of the district, completely defeated, and Somerled himself and
his son were slain.¹
¹ _Ibid_; _Chronicles of Melrose_.
Malcolm IV. died on the 9th of December, 1165, in the twenty-fourth
year of his age, and was succeeded by his brother, William the Lion.
The Scotch kings still desired to annex the northern counties of
England, and William was waiting for a favourable opportunity to make
an attempt, and the difficulties of Henry II. seemed to afford what
was wanted. In 1173 William led an army across the Border and wasted
the north of England, without any result except a temporary truce.
The following year the Scots again invaded England, and William the
Lion while amusing himself, was taken a prisoner by a party of English
cavalry. The capture of the King entailed a serious disaster upon
Scotland. Henry II. at once demanded that William the Lion should
acknowledge the King of England as the feudal Lord Superior over
the kingdom of Scotland, and that he should render due homage to his
lord like other vassals. All the Scotch nobles, the clergy, and all
other vassals, were to be under allegiance to the English king, and
acknowledge that they held ♦their lands from him, and many other
feudal promises and oaths to the same effect. The binding articles to
secure the observance of the treaty were that the castles of Berwick,
Roxburgh, Jedburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling, should be placed in
the hands of Henry II. After the castles were delivered over to King
Henry’s officers, William the Lion was liberated. This treaty continued
in force for fifteen years, so far as it could be enforced. Henry II.,
to the day of his death, evinced the utmost determination to cling to
its fulfilment. King William was continually summoned to attend as a
vassal at the court of his English lord, and the Scotch nobles also
were summoned to attend the court of their Lord Superior. Licence was
granted by Henry II. to William for his expeditions into Galloway, and
in every possible form it was attempted to be shown that the king and
the kingdom were under the English crown.¹ In 1189 Richard I. ascended
the throne of England, and one of his first acts was to annul all the
concessions extorted by Henry II. from the captive William. The Scots
paid ten thousand marks of silver to ♠Richard I., all the castles were
given up to them, and the kingdom restored to its former independence.²
♦ “thir” replaced with “their”
¹ _Fœdera_, Record Ed., Volume I., pages 30, 31; Robertson’s
_Scotland Under Her Early Kings_, Volume I., pages 375, 376.
♠ “Rirchard” replaced with “Richard”
² _Fœdera_, Volume I., page 50.
While the King was in captivity the people of Galloway had risen
against the new Norman settlers, and the king’s officers, and they
were all driven out or slain. When William returned in 1175 he entered
Galloway with an army and the local chief, Gilbert, submitted. This
district was soon in revolt again, and outbursts of rebellion recurred
in it at short intervals for several generations. There is no doubt
that the real causes of the rebellions in this district was the
intrusion of the Norman nobles and their followers.
In 1179 William invaded the remote district of Ross at the head of his
Earls and Norman nobles, subdued some portions of it, and erected two
castles to support his authority; but he was not permitted to retain
possession even of his castles without a contest. From 1181 to 1188
the districts of Moray, Caithness, and other parts of the north were
in revolt. This rising was led by Mac William, who claimed to be a
lineal descendant of Duncan, the eldest son of Malcolm Canmore, and he
aspired to the throne of Scotland. It appears that there were a number
of people in the centre of the kingdom hostile to the king; and this
explains why Mac William was permitted to hold the districts beyond
the Spey for six years, and to ravage parts of the kingdom which were
under the king. The whole circumstances and position of the kingdom
looked as if the play of Macbeth was to be reacted. King William and
his adherents were greatly alarmed. In 1187 the king mustered all the
feudal force of the kingdom which he could induce to rally round his
banner, and marched to Inverness, with the intention of pursuing his
enemy into the remote parts of the Highlands. Some of the king’s nobles
had grave doubts about the fidelity of the royal army, and they advised
William to remain at Inverness, and to entrust the immediate conduct of
the war to those leaders on whom he could depend: but then some of the
chief nobles positively refused to march against Mac William without
the king; and matters looked dark and dismal. The king at Inverness
was in the heart of a hostile country, with his own army in a state
of insubordination; but one ray of hope remained, the king’s friends
fixed their eyes on Roland of Galloway, when all other means of saving
themselves from destruction had vanished. Roland then placed himself
at the head of three thousand of his own followers, and proceeded in
search of Mac William. After advancing for some time, Roland descried a
body of the enemy encamped on the moor of Mamgarvie in the upper valley
of Strathspey. The opposing armies were nearly equal in numbers on each
side, and a severe engagement ensued. But Mac William was completely
defeated, and slain on the moor. For a time peace was restored in the
north, and King William’s crown preserved.¹
¹ _Chronicles of Melrose_; Robertson’s _Scotland_, Volume I.,
pages 385, 391‒393.
But again in 1196 the king was in the north suppressing a rebellion.
The Earl of Caithness had married a daughter of Malcolm MacHeth; and
although William the Lion had been making desperate efforts to subdue
the northern regions, Earl Harold held the Earldom of Orkney under the
King of Norway, and he possessed the Earldom of Caithness at the same
time. Earl Harold invaded and seized the province of Moray, and it was
against him that King William then waged war. The Earl was in the end
defeated, and the royal power somewhat strengthened, but the region was
not subdued. ♦In 1202, Harold, the Earl of Orkney, attacked the king’s
adherents and drove them out of Caithness. William again sent an army
to Caithness, which was unable to penetrate into the country; but
Harold himself under a safe conduct met the King at Perth. Terms of
peace were agreed to, by which the Earldom of Caithness was restored to
Harold.¹ In 1211 a son of Mac William appeared in Ross and recommenced
the tactics which his father had followed. The king sent an army to
operate against him, and afterwards William himself marched towards
the north. The Earls of Athole, Buchan, and Mar, at the head of four
thousand men proceeded into the remote quarters of the Highlands
in search of Mac William. The rebel’s fastness was upon an island,
where his supplies and treasure were stored, and in it the royal army
attacked him; but he made a desperate resistance, and the engagement
was long and fiercely contested; and at last he retired and escaped
to the mountains with a number of his followers. The main body of the
royal army returned to the south, and the Earl of Fife was left in
charge of Moray. Mac William soon reappeared, attacked one of the royal
castles and burnt it to the ground. Shortly after he fell into the
hands of Comyn, Earl of Buchan, and he was executed at the king’s manor
in Kincardine.²
♦ “It” replaced with “In”
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 270, 271; _Chronicles of
Melrose_; _Orkneyinga Saga_.
² _Historians_, Volume IV.; _Chronicles of Melrose_.
During the latter years of the reign of King William, there was much
disaffection among the people in the southern quarter of the kingdom
as well as in the north. William’s transactions and arrangements with
King John of England were detested by many of his own subjects; as
all the advantages of the English fiefs (if they were such) belonged
exclusively to the royal family. It was of no importance to the Scots
that the brother of their King should possess the Earldom of Huntingdon,
or that their King should be received with a show of ceremonies at
the English court whenever he thought fit to absent himself from his
own kingdom. The people looked with well-founded suspicion at the
concessions which William had made to King John, in order to avoid the
forfeiture of his English fiefs and privileges.¹
¹ _Fœdera_, Volume I., pages 103, 120; _Chronicle of Melrose_;
_Historians_ Volume IV.
Feudalism made considerable progress during William’s reign, and the
difficulties of his position greatly increased toward the end of his
sway. He died at Stirling on the 4th of December 1214, having reached
the seventy-third year of his age, and reigned nearly fifty years. He
was succeeded by his son, Alexander II., a youth of seventeen years,
who was crowned at Scone on the day after his father’s death. It is
recorded that the Bishop of St. Andrews and the Earls of Scotland,
viz., Fife, Strathern, Athole, Angus, Monteith, Buchan, and Lothian
took Alexander to Scone, and there raised him to the throne in honour
and peace, with the approval of God and man, and with more grandeur
and glory than anyone till then, while all wished him joy, and none
gainsaid him. So King Alexander held his feast at Scone on that day
and the two following days.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV. This is the first detailed notice
of a coronation which occurs in our records.
About a year after Alexander II. ascended the throne, a son of the
MacWilliam who had been slain in 1187, and Kenneth MacHeth, a grandson
of Malcolm MacHeth, along with a son of one of the Irish local kings,
invaded the province of Moray at the head of a large body of followers.
But Ferquhard, Earl of Ross, mustered his adherents, attacked the
insurgents, and soon completely defeated them, and captured and
executed their leaders. He was knighted by the King as a reward for
his prompt and effective action.¹
¹ _Chronicles of Melrose._
On the hope of regaining the northern counties of England, Alexander II.
in 1215 joined the disaffected English barons, who were then struggling
against King John. In October the King with an army crossed the border
and invested the castle of Norham, but failed to take it. King John was
extremely wroth, and marched toward the north at the head of a rather
mingled host of mercenaries. Alexander retired in the direction of
Edinburgh, and John vowed, “by God’s teeth that he would smoke him out
of his covert.” In his march he burned Roxburgh, Dunbar, and Haddington.
Alexander posted his army on the river Esk, and awaited the attack of
the enemy; but John was unable to advance farther than Haddington, as
his troops were perishing for want of food. They plundered the Abbey
of Coldingham, then retreated by Berwick; and King John gave the signal
for burning that town by firing with his own hands the house in which
he had slept the preceding night.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., page 299; _Chronicle of Lanercost_,
pages 17, 18; Notes, page 373.
In the winter of 1216 the Scots again crossed the Tweed and took
possession of Carlisle, and the castle after a long siege surrendered
to them. King John died on the 19th of October 1216, and the following
year peace was concluded. The line of the marches between England and
Scotland had then become pretty well marked. In 1237 a more definite
arrangement was come to, and from that date the efforts to extend the
Scotch frontier southward ceased.
Alexander II. had now time to direct his attention to the internal
state of the kingdom. It appears that he assembled an army at Inverness
against Donald MacNeil in ♦1220. He mustered an army in May 1222, and
advanced into Argyle with the intention of subduing and subjecting it
to the authority of the Crown. There was no rising at the time in the
district, and no resistance was offered to the progress of the royal
army. The people were overawed; all those who were implicated in past
rebellions fled for their lives, and their lands were given to the
King’s own followers; some gave hostages for their future behaviour,
and others gave sums of money to purchase the king’s peace. The
expedition lasted from May to Christmas, and its result was that the
south division of Argyle was placed more directly under the Crown and
formed into a sheriffdom; but the lordship of Lorne remained in the
possession of the Celtic chief, while a large part of North Argyle
had been, a few years before, placed under the new Earl of Ross, who
defeated and executed the MacWilliams and MacHeths. About twenty years
before, the extensive districts lying to the west of the Drumalban
mountains, which belonged to the bishopric of Dunkeld, were separated
from it, and formed into a new bishopric called at first Argyle and
afterwards Lismore.¹ The chief object of the erection of this diocese
was to attach the inhabitants within its limits more firmly to the
Crown. The province of a bishopric, with its extensive possessions in
land held under feudal tenure, afforded a great support to the royal
authority: insomuch that it appears improbable that feudalism could
have been introduced into the kingdom without the assistance of the
Church, which in the thirteenth century had obtained possession of
about one-third of the whole land of the kingdom.
♦ “1820” replaced with “1220”
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 283, 284; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.; _Statutes of Alexander
II._; Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_,
Volume I., page 301.
There were still occasional risings in the North and in Galloway. About
1229 there was an insurrection in Moray, which was suppressed by Comyn,
the Earl of Buchan; and immediately after the Comyns were in possession
of the district of Badenoch. The lands of those who manifested any
disaffection were usually forfeited to the Crown, and then the kings
granted such lands to their own favourites, or to some bishopric,
monastery, or church.¹ As a matter of fact, much of the land which the
Crown gave to the Church in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was
obtained by the Crown itself in the way indicated.
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., page 288; Robertson’s _Scotland_,
Volume II., pages 19‒21.
In 1235 Alan, the son of Roland, Lord of Galloway, died, leaving one
illegitimate son, who had married the daughter of the King of Man, and
three daughters, who were married to Norman nobles. These nobles then
divided Galloway betwixt themselves. But the men of Galloway preferred
one lord rather than three; they had acquired some experience of the
rule of these Norman nobles, therefore they rightly concluded that the
government of one noble would be more bearable than the government or
tyranny of three. Accordingly they requested the King to proclaim the
fief lapsed to the Crown; but he declined to listen to their reasonable
request. Then they invited Thomas, the natural son of their late lord,
to at once assert his claim to the Lordship of Galloway. To prepare
the way for their new lord, they immediately commenced to wage war on
the neighbouring districts of Scotland, and in a short time Thomas
appeared in Galloway. In July 1235, Alexander II. mustered his army and
proceeded towards Galloway, and advanced into it; the insurgents kept
upon the heights and watched the movements of the royal army. When the
king’s forces had become entangled in marshy ground, the Galloway men
attacked them, and would have destroyed the royal army, if it had not
been for the Earl of Ross, with his body of Ross-shire men on foot,
who by a rapid movement, turned the insurgents’ flank, and forced them
to retreat. The following day, the king granted a free pardon to all
the insurgents, who appeared before him with ropes round their necks.
Alexander then retired with his army from Galloway.¹
¹ _Chronicles of Melrose_; _Historians_, Volume IV.
But Thomas and other leaders of the revolt fled to Ireland, and
prepared for a renewal of the struggle. Thomas and his associates
equipped a fleet, and along with a body of Irishmen, he landed in
Galloway and recommenced the war. But the Earl of Dunbar and his
followers, accompanied by the Bishop of Galloway and the Abbot of
Melrose, faced the insurgents, and their leaders seeing themselves
outnumbered, surrendered. Thomas was imprisoned in the Castle of
Edinburgh.¹ Thus the disaffection in Galloway was stifled for a time.
But in 1247, the oppressive tyranny of the Norman noble, Roger de
Quinci, exasperated the people to such a degree, that they rose and
besieged him in one of his own castles. He defended himself with great
determination, until his provisions began to fail; as he had no reason
to expect any mercy from the besiegers, he at last resolved to make a
desperate effort to escape. So the gates of the castle were flung open
and the noble and his men rushed through the ranks of their assailants,
and rode for their lives to the court of Alexander II. As a matter of
course, the King reinstated the Norman noble in his lordship.²
¹ _Chronicles of Melrose_; _Historians_, Volume IV. According
to one account, Thomas was liberated from imprisonment in a
short time, but the _Lanercost Chronicle_ states that he was
delivered into the hands of John Baliol as a hostage, and
confined in the dungeons of Barnard Castle for fifty years.
² Robertson’s _Scotland_, Volume II., page 28.
The policy of Alexander II. was to extend the authority of the Crown
to the utmost limits of the Highlands and the Isles. He attempted to
obtain the Western Isles by treaty with Haco, the King of Norway, but
this failed; and he then proposed to purchase the Isles, which offer
also was declined. Alexander, however, had resolved to have the Isles;
and he equipped a fleet, mustered a force, and proceeded to subdue the
Western Isles. When engaged in this undertaking, Alexander II. died in
the Isle of Kerrera, off the coast of Lorne, on the 8th of July 1249,
in the fifty-first year of his age, and the thirty-fifth year of his
reign. His remains were interred in the church of Melrose. He was a man
of great energy, an able ruler, remarkably humane, and his reign was
marked by progressive efforts.
In the reign of Alexander II. the Scotch Church began to hold regular
provincial councils; as the national clergy were empowered by a bull
from the pope in 1225, to assemble such, and to enact and promulgate
canons. The conservator of the council was elected by the bishops from
their own number; and he held office simply from one council to another,
with power to punish transgressors of the canons, and to enforce their
observance by the censures of the Church. He summoned the council
by a writ to each bishop, and when absent himself from the meeting,
the senior bishop present assumed his functions and presided. The
Scotch clergy adopted a definite code of rules for the assembling of
annual provincial councils, and diocesan synods. Before the end of
the thirteenth century, they had passed and adopted some sixty canons,
which appear to have been sufficient for the government of the Church
till the sixteenth century. From 1225 till 1478, the Scotch Church
was ruled under the Pope by her own national synods, and temporary
presidents; although the Crown often interfered, and the kings
occasionally asserted their supremacy in ecclesiastical matters.¹
¹ _Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ_, Volume I., Preface pages
49‒51.
Alexander II. was succeeded by his son Alexander, a boy in his
eighth year; and five days after the death of his father, the boy was
crowned at Scone. Walter Comyn, Earl of Menteith, and all his clergy,
accompanied by the Earls of Fife and Strathern, and many other nobles,
led Alexander up to the cross which stood in the cemetery at the east
end of the church. Here they placed him upon the famous Coronation
Stone, which was covered with cloth of gold, and the Bishop of St.
Andrews, assisted by the rest, consecrated him King. Then the King
received the homage of the feudal nobles of the kingdom. A venerable
Highland bard robed in scarlet then advanced, and kneeling before the
Stone of Destiny, hailed the boy King in the Gaelic tongue, as “Ri
Alban,” and repeated his long line of pedigree from king to king till
he reached Iber Scot.¹
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 289, 290.
During the minority of Alexander III., the nobles fully entered on
the policy of faction and ambition which figured so darkly in the
subsequent history of the kingdom. The marriage of King Henry’s
daughter with the boy Alexander III., gave the English king the
opportunity of continually interfering in the internal government
of Scotland. The nobles were divided into factions, each of which in
some measure represented opposite interests, feelings, and tendencies.
One party consisted of the nobles of the north and west, which, in a
qualified sense, might be called the national party; the other party
was mostly connected with the southern quarters of Scotland, and with
England. The leader of the national party was Walter Comyn, Earl of
Monteith, and his kin were numerous and powerful. Alexander Comyn
was Earl of Buchan, and many other members of the group possessed
wide territories in different quarters of the kingdom, including the
district of Badenoch; and the Earl of Mar and the majority of the chief
men northward of the Firths of Forth and Clyde followed the Comyns.
This party, so far as appears, desired to uphold the liberty and
independence of Scotland, and consequently they were apt to resent and
to resist the continual attempts of the English king to encroach upon
the rights and liberties of Scotland. The ablest man among the other
party was Alan Durward, who held the office of Justiciary of Scotland
in the reign of Alexander II. He assumed the title of Earl of Athole
from 1233 to 1235, and he married a natural daughter of Alexander
II., by whom he had several daughters; and it was alleged in 1252 that
he was endeavouring to obtain from the Pope the legitimation of his
wife, so that in the case of the death of the boy Alexander III., Alan
Durward’s daughters would be the heiresses of the crown of Scotland.
Thus Alan was a great and aspiring personage; while most of his
supporters were men of position, including the names of the Earls of
Dunbar and Strathern, Robert de Bruce, fourth Lord of Annandale, the
Steward, and other nobles chiefly connected with the south of Scotland,
and with England.¹ This party at every turn showed a desire to forward
the interest of the kings of England, to sacrifice the liberty and
independence of Scotland, in the hope of thereby retaining their feudal
fiefs in England, and at the same time securing their hold upon the
land of Scotland. In short, they were always trying to ride upon two
horses at once, running in opposite directions.
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., pages 292, 293, _et seq._;
_Chronicles of Melrose_; _Fœdera_, Volume I., pages 272,
275, 278, 327, 329, 347, 352, 357, 358, 362.
The two parties of the nobles struggled against each other to obtain
the chief positions in the government of the kingdom, and to seize and
retain possession of the boy King and his wife, for Alexander III. was
married before he had reached eleven years of age. The struggle was
continued during the period of the King’s minority; sometimes one of
the parties and sometimes the other obtained the position of rulers
of the kingdom, while both parties tried to secure their hold by every
means in their power. Henry III. rarely failed to render the state of
affairs worse rather than better. Comyn, the Earl of Monteith died in
November 1258, and Henry III. then advanced obnoxious proposals, which
however failed in their aim, as the Scots rejected them.
The repeated attacks of the Norsemen, and their conquest of the
Islands and part of the mainland in the north, have been noticed in the
preceding pages. The islands of Orkney and Shetland were dependencies
of Norway, ruled by local chiefs called jarls; the Western Isles were
also claimed by her; and on the mainland, to the north-westward of
the Moray Firth and Glenmore, there was a region forming a kind of
debatable territory, which as we have seen, the kings of Scotland had
long been attempting to subdue. When Alexander III. attained the age of
twenty-one, he endeavoured to obtain the Western Islands by negotiation,
and sent an embassy to the King of Norway which failed in its object.
He then announced his intention to subject these Islands, and the war
was commenced by the local chiefs of Ross. But Haco, the King of Norway,
considered this attack on the Western Isles as an encroachment on his
rights and prepared for war. He was a strong-willed man, well obeyed
by his subjects, and he ordered a conscription over his dominions.
Haco made great preparations for the expedition; a ship was specially
built for himself, which mounted twenty-seven banks of oars, glittered
with gilded dragons, and was manned by picked Norwegian seamen. Many
of the ships were large and well equipped, and in all numbered upwards
of one hundred and twenty vessels. On the 10th of July 1263, Haco with
his fleet sailed for the Shetland Islands; whence he steered for the
Orkneys, and anchored in Elwick harbour, opposite Kirkwall. Haco sailed
from Orkney on the 10th of August and anchored in the Sound of Skye,
where the King of Man and other Norwegian chiefs joined the expedition.
He then sailed through the Sound of Mull to Cantyre, where the forces
from the Isles were concentrated. He sent fifty ships under the command
of the King of Man to plunder the coasts of Cantyre, and five ships to
the island of Bute. The castles of Dunaverty in Cantyre, and Rothesay
in Bute, having surrendered, Haco with the whole fleet rounded the Mull
of Cantyre, sailed up the Firth of Clyde, and anchored off the island
of Arran.¹
¹ _Expedition of Haco_, page 55, _et seq._
The Scots had made preparations for the defence of the mainland. The
castles of Inverness, Ayr, Stirling, Wigtown, and others, were repaired
and the garrisons strengthened; while the King had concentrated the
main body of his army in Ayr, where the great attack was expected to
be delivered. Negotiations were opened, and Haco claimed a right to
the whole of the Western Isles. As the object of the Scots was to gain
time, they proposed to retain the islands of Bute, Arran, and the two
Cumbraes; thus they protracted the negotiations till towards the end
of September. Then Haco discovered their intention, and proclaimed the
truce at an end. He sent sixty vessels to devastate the coasts, and
prepared to land with the main body of his force at Largs. But on the
morning of the 1st of October a hurricane arose which lasted several
days; many of Haco’s ships were wrecked, and his main fleet much
disabled. The royal flagship dragged her anchors, while the greater
part of the fleet was drifting in distress. Five vessels were driven
ashore upon the coast of Ayrshire, near Largs. The Scots had assembled
in groups along the beach, observing ship after ship drifting past; and
they began to attack the shipwrecked crews, who sheltered themselves
behind their vessels. A reinforcement from the fleet landed and
drove off the Scots. On the morrow a body of the Scots were posted
in the vicinity of the village of Largs, ready to renew the attack.
An engagement ensued, and the Norwegians fought heroically though
outnumbered, and, after a somewhat protracted contest, they gained
their boats and sailed off. By this time Haco’s fleet was greatly
diminished, and all hope of success had vanished; so he steered his
course for the Orkney islands, which he reached in November. The strain
of the expedition, and its utter failure, affected the spirit and frame
of Haco, and he died on the 15th of December, 1263. His remains lay
three months in the Church of Kirkwall, thence they were carried and
interred in the tomb of his ancestors at Bergen.¹
¹ _Expedition of Haco_, pages 77, 85, 87, 107, _et seq._;
_Historians_, Volume IV., pages 296, 297.
When the tidings of Haco’s death reached Alexander III., he resolved to
reduce the Western Isles to subjection. A force was mustered and placed
under the command of the Earls of Mar and Buchan, and Alan ♦Durward,
and the army proceeded to the isles. On its approach some of the chiefs
fled, some of them were hanged for the support which they had given
to Haco’s expedition, while others were expelled or fined. The Earls
secured much booty, and then returned to the mainland. With the view
of a final settlement, negotiations were opened with the new King of
Norway, Magnus VI. In July 1265, a treaty was concluded with Norway,
by which the Isle of Man, and all the islands off the coasts of
Scotland were ceded to Alexander III., on the condition that the Crown
of Scotland should pay four thousand marks, and an annual rent of one
hundred marks to the Crown of Norway. But the islands of Orkney and
Shetland were to remain attached to the Crown of Norway.¹ Henceforth
Scotland was freed from the ravages of the Norsemen.
♦ “Duward” replaced with “Durward”
¹ _Historians_, Volume IV., page 296; _Chronicle of Man_,
page 52.
The remaining years of Alexander’s reign were peaceful and progressive
in every direction. Alexander III. had a son and a daughter, and in
1281 the latter, Margaret, was married to Eric II., King of Norway;
the same year the Prince of Scotland married Margaret of Flanders, a
daughter of Count Guy de Dampierre. The prospects of the nation then
looked exceedingly bright. But on the 9th of April, 1283, Alexander’s
daughter Margaret, died, leaving an only child, called the Maid of
Norway; and the Prince of Scotland died on the 28th of January, 1283‒4,
without issue. The great difficulty was at once seen, and the king
summoned a meeting of the Estates of Scotland, which assembled at
Scone on the 5th of February, 1284. At this meeting there were present
twelve Earls, namely, Mar, Strathern, Athole, Fife, Buchan, Angus,
Monteith, Ross, Dunbar, Lennox, Sutherland, and Carrick; ten bishops;
and twenty-five barons, all of whom bound themselves in the name of the
nation to acknowledge the king’s grand-daughter, Margaret, the Maid of
Norway, as the heir of the Crown of Scotland.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 82.
Alexander III. married a daughter of the Count de Dreux, on the 14th of
October, 1285, and he still hoped to leave lineal heirs to the throne.
But on the 15th of March, 1286, when he was riding in the night along
the coast of Fife, near Kinghorn, he was thrown from his horse and
killed. A sad and mournful end; the lamentation was universal, and
all the people looked forward to the future with dismay. The last
king of the Celtic race slept with his fathers, and the crown of a
far-descended line fell to a weakly infant.
A meeting of the nobles and clergy was held at Scone on the 2nd of
April, 1286, and six guardians were elected to govern the kingdom.
For the districts on the north of the Forth the bishop of St. Andrews,
and the Earls of Fife and Buchan, were appointed; and for the country
on the south of the Forth, the Bishop of Glasgow, John Comyn, Lord of
Badenoch, and the Steward of Scotland. The elements of the approaching
contest were already stirring, as several of the nobles aspired to
the throne, which they considered vacant. Robert Bruce of Annandale,
entered into a bond with a number of Scotch and English nobles with the
aim of supporting his claim to the throne of Scotland. This document is
dated the 20th September, 1286, and it contained the names of the Earl
of Dunbar and his three sons, the Earl of Monteith and his two sons,
and the Steward of Scotland; Angus, Lord of the Isles, and his two
sons; the Earl of Ulster, and Lord Thomas de Clare, two English barons.
Thus it appears that Bruce’s party was pretty strong. In this document
Bruce and his supporters ignored the infant queen, the Maid of Norway,
but they assumed that the throne would be occupied by some one of
royal blood, who should obtain it according to the ancient and approved
customs of the kingdom.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_ from 1286 to 1306,
published by Royal Commission, Volume I., pages 22, 23;
Hailes’ _Annals_, Volume I., page 203.
It is uncertain whether Edward I. knew of this bond, but he had a
project of his own. He had a son, and if his son could be married to
the Maid of Norway, he imagined that all would go right. Edward I.
therefore applied to the Pope for a dispensation to sanction the
marriage; and a papal bull authorising the marriage of the two children
was issued in November 1289, although they were within the prohibited
degrees of relationship. A formal conference was held at Salisbury,
at which various matters connected with the marriage were arranged,
with the mutual concurrence of England, Norway, and Scotland. In March
1290, the Earls, barons, and clergy of Scotland, met the ambassadors
of England at Brigham, and after deliberation the articles arranged
at Salisbury, and other points, were confirmed and a treaty concluded,
which sanctioned the marriage of the royal children. This treaty
provided that the rights, the laws, and the liberties of Scotland
should continue entire and untouched. No native was to be compelled
to answer for any crime or cause at any court out of the kingdom; no
parliament was to be held beyond the boundaries of Scotland to discuss
Scotch affairs: in short, the complete independence of the nation was
recognised and strictly guarded by this treaty.¹
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 90, 91,
134, 35, 36, 111‒113, 105‒111, 129‒131; Hailes’ _Annals_,
Volume I., pages 208‒212.
It seems that Edward I. imagined that he had thus secured the kingdom.
He at once appointed the Bishop of Durham Lieutenant of Scotland, in
the name of Queen Margaret and the Prince of England, to act along
with the guardians, the bishops, and the nobles of the realm. Waxing
bolder, Edward demanded that all the royal castles in Scotland should
be immediately surrendered to him; but for once he had miscalculated
the force of his influence and dignity, as the Scots refused to deliver
the castles of the kingdom into his hands.¹
¹ Hailes’ _Annals_, Volume I., pages 212, 213.
Edward I. quickly equipped a ship to transport the young queen
from Norway. This ship was well stored with provisions and luxuries
――thirty-one hogsheads and one pipe of wine, and ten barrels of beer;
a very large quantity of salted beef, hams, dried fish, stock fish,
lampreys, sturgeon, and fifty pounds of whale, along with twenty-two
gallons of mustard, salt, pepper, vinegar, and onions. A stock of
dainties, specially prepared for the delicate, young Queen, consisted
of five hundred walnuts, two loaves of sugar, grits, oatmeal, mace,
figs, raisins, and thirty-eight pounds of gingerbread. The ship carried
the English flag, and the crew numbered forty hands. She reached her
destination all right; and in due time she sailed from Norway with
the Queen on board. Edward I. sent his agents to Orkney to meet her,
he also sent a number of precious jewels to Scotland to bedeck her;
indeed, he put himself to great trouble to secure the consummation of
this marriage. But the child died just before she reached the Orkney
Islands, in the end of September, 1290.¹ Thus perished the hopes which
Edward I. had associated with his marriage project. He subsequently
adopted a different line of procedure, still with the same end in
view――the complete subjection of Scotland. Before proceeding with the
historic narrative it is requisite to review the state of society and
the progress of the nation up to the date of the outbreak of the War of
Independence.
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 139,
140, 182, 183‒192, 178, 179, 149‒153.
CHAPTER IV.
_Social Condition of the Nation in the
Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries._
THIS chapter will present an account of the social state of the
kingdom. The government, introduction of charters, the powers granted
to the nobles, and an explication of feudalism; customary law in a
transitional stage, forms of trial and punishment, and the privileges
associated with sanctuaries, will be treated. Royal burghs, church
burghs, and burghs of regality, the coinage and the commerce of the
kingdom, the organisation and the possessions of the Church, schools,
literature, and architecture, will be dealt with. Agriculture and the
state of the occupiers and toilers of the land will be detailed.
At the end of the eleventh century the people and the government were
Celtic; although the Angles had long been settled in the south-eastern
quarter of the kingdom, the Norsemen still held sway in Caithness and
the islands. The proceedings connected with the introduction of Norman
feudalism for some time seriously interrupted the continuity of the
progressive movement of the kingdom, as the people in some quarters
of the country were bitterly opposed to it; but it was fostered and
supported by the kings, and had spread over the Lowlands before the
close of the thirteenth century.
The king stood at the head of the feudal organisation, as the leader
of the army, the fountain of honour, the dispenser of titles; and
nominally the prime administrator of justice, and the chief landholder
in the kingdom. His revenue was mainly derived from the rents of
the crown lands, the feudal casualties of ward, marriage, relief,
and non-entry, the rents of the royal burghs, and the customs on
merchandise, and the fines imposed in the king’s courts. Public taxes
were assessed on all lands, and levied according to the exigences of
the nation. From these sources the feudal kings of this period raised
a considerable revenue. The king had his Justiciary, Chamberlain,
Chancellor, Constable, Steward, and other Crown officials; and before
the end of the thirteenth century the offices of Steward and Constable
had become hereditary in the families of Stewart and Morevil. In the
thirteenth century the Chamberlain was the collector and also the
disburser of the Crown revenues, and in virtue of these functions
he was the most important of the great officers of the Crown. Out of
the revenues in his hands he had to provide for all the branches of
public expenditure, including the charges of the royal household, and
all extra military expenses. He also had a complete jurisdiction over
all the burghs. The immediate receivers of the royal revenues were
the sheriffs and bailies, who collected the rents of the crown lands,
the feudal casualties, and the fines imposed by themselves, by the
Justiciaries, and by the Chamberlain himself at his annual circuit
courts in the burghs, and by the magistrates and the custom officials,
who accounted for the burgh rents and the customs. The Chamberlain and
other officers intrusted with public money, had their accounts audited
in exchequer usually once a year; and the more important of these
audited accounts were then engrossed for preservation on parchment
rolls.¹
¹ _The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I., A.D. 1264‒1359.
1878.
Meetings of the kings with their chief men and the clergy for the
transaction of important affairs occurred at an early period, as we
have seen in preceding pages. According to the feudal principle all the
Crown vassals should have attended the king’s great council or court;
as a matter of historic fact, only the chief officers of the Crown,
a few of the churchmen and nobles, usually attended the meetings of
the council; and further, it must be observed that the legislative
functions of the king’s council were not clearly distinguished from
the function of counselling the king in judicial proceedings: in other
words, the legislative and the executive departments of Government were
not as yet distinctly discriminated in Scotland. Alexander I. held a
council in 1107, in which Turgot was chosen Bishop of St. Andrews by
the king, the clergy, and the people; and in 1114, when he refounded
the Abbey of Scone, the council consisted of the king and queen, two
bishops, six earls, and some other persons, “witnessing and consenting.”
Sometimes the laws were enacted and issued in the name of the king
and his judges. The laws of David I. run in the form of an order or
a declaration of enacting power, thus: “The King David has statuted,”
“the King David has ordained,” “the King has decreed and delivered.”
Some of David’s charters, granted with the consent of the council,
assumed a rather imperative style, such as his foundation charter of
Holyrood:――“I David, by the grace of God, King of the Scots, of my
royal authority, and with the assent of Henry, my son, and the bishops
of my kingdom, and with the confirmation and testimony of the earls and
barons, the clergy also assenting and the people, of divine prompting,
grant all the things under written to the church of the Holyrood of
Edinburgh.” Malcolm IV., in royal grants of great importance, adopted
the style of his grandfather, David I. In 1184 William the Lion held
a council at Perth, in which the members present were described as
bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, and all the good men of the
land, and this meeting passed a number of acts. Alexander II. assembled
a council at Stirling, in 1236, in which the Bishop of St. Andrews,
the prior of Coldingham, the Earls of Fife and Buchan, the Steward
of Scotland, the Justiciary of Lothian, John de Maxwell, and others,
were present, and the record says that they passed the acts, nine in
number, with the assent of the whole community. Alexander III. held
a number of councils similar to the preceding ones, but there was
no regular Parliament in Scotland, as now understood, during this
period.¹ Although it is obvious that the kings did not assume to act
in important matters solely in virtue of their royal authority, they
usually sought and obtained the assent of the chief men of the kingdom.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.; _National
Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 16.
The Justiciary was a high legal functionary, and first appeared in the
reign of Alexander I. In the reign of William the Lion there were two
Justiciaries, one for Lothian, and the other for the country on the
north of the Forth; and in the reign of Alexander III. there were four
of these functionaries――one for Lothian, another for Galloway, and two
for the country to the northward of the Forth. These judges usually
went through their districts on circuits twice a year. Sheriffs were
gradually introduced, and by the middle of the thirteenth century a
considerable part of Scotland had been divided into sheriffdoms. The
sheriff was intrusted with a wide jurisdiction, both in criminal and in
civil cases, and also in fiscal matters. William the Lion enacted that
each sheriff should hold his court at intervals of forty days, and in
the latter part of the thirteenth century there were upwards of thirty
sheriffdoms.¹ It will, however, shortly appear that there was not a
regular code of laws, and that the judicial processes then in operation
presented a curious jumble.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 55,
57, _et seq._; _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.
In connection with the introduction of feudalism, and an extraneous
aristocracy, the kings ♦adopted the expedient of granting lands by
charter to their new nobles. A specimen of one of the earliest of these
charters may be quoted:――“David, King of the Scots, to all good men of
his whole land, greeting. Know that I have given and granted to Robert
of Bruce, in fee and heritage, to him and his heirs, the valley of
Annan, in forest, on both sides of the water of Annan, as the marches
are from the forest of Selkirk as far as his land extends towards
Strandnith and towards the Clyde, freely and quietly as any other
forest of his is best and most freely held. Wherefore I forbid that
any one hunt in the aforesaid forest, unless by his authority, on pain
of forfeiture of ten pounds, or that any one go through the aforesaid
forest unless by a straight road appointed.” How is this charter to be
interpreted? Must I suppose that this fine valley of Annandale was then
uninhabited? The charter tells nothing, save that Bruce is to possess
it as a free forest exclusively for his own use. Fortunately, in this
instance, the grant was confirmed by another charter in the reign of
William the Lion, which will enable us to understand in some degree
the former grant of “free forest”:――“William, King of the Scots, to the
bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, sheriffs, and other good men
of his whole land, greeting. Be it known to all present and to come,
that I have given and granted, and by this, my charter, confirmed,
to Robert of Bruce and his heirs, all the land which his father and
himself have held in the valley of Annan, by the same marches by which
his father held it, and he after his father. To be held to himself and
his heirs of me and of my heirs in fee and heritage, in wood and plain,
in meadows and pastures, in moors and marches, in waters, stanks, and
mills, in forests and trysts, in hills and harbours, in ways and paths,
in ♦fishings, and in all other just appurtenances, as freely, quietly,
and fully as ever his father or he himself most freely held that land
of King David, my grandfather, or of King Malcolm, my brother.” Thus
the second charter renders the meaning of the first one intelligible,
as we see that under the first grant of free forest there was also
conveyed a grant of “free barony,” or the grant of “free barony” had
been conferred some time before the free forest grant, which was the
usual mode of procedure.¹
♦ “adapted” replaced with “adopted”
♦ “fistings” replaced with “fishings”
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Numbers 20,
39, 19.
The above may be fairly taken as genuine historic example of a large
number of similar ones. The Norman nobles obtained charters granting
to them lands, and sometimes extensive tracts of territories. But
it occasionally happened that the territory granted by the charter
could not be made available to the holder of the charter, owing to
the opposition of the real owners and occupiers of the territory in
question; and there were instances of royal charters granting lands
which never became operative. In order to overcome this opposition
of the people, and to dispossess them of the land, so that the Norman
nobles might be amply accommodated, various expedients were resorted
to. David I., in reference to the rights and claims of the people in
the possession of the land, had recourse to the following expedient:
――Those who were bold enough to oppose the schemes of the king were
permitted to appear before his court, or a jury selected or controlled
by him: then every one who held land had to prove that he and his
lineal ancestors had continuously held the land in question for four
generations, and every one that failed to prove this was told that
he had no right to the land, and that the king would dispose of it
as he thought fit. In the reign of William the Lion it appears that
charters had become a requisite of the right to hold land; and in 1248,
at a council held in Stirling, it was enacted “that from this time
henceforth no oath should be taken touching the life or limb of any
man holding land, except by those men who were freeholders by charter.”
Thus the charter was made a test of freedom and of civil rights, as
well as the requisite condition of holding land: and further, the
Norman nobles in Scotland enjoyed the invidious privilege of sending
substitutes or champions to fight for them instead of appearing in
person when challenged to single combat by any Scotsman. Yet in 1230
it was enacted that every petty knight, or any man who held land by
charter, if challenged to single combat at the Bridge of Stirling or
anywhere else, could appoint substitutes to fight for them. By these
processes and the means briefly indicated, from the accession of David
I. to the throne, onward to the death of the Maid of Norway in 1290,
a period of one hundred and sixty-six years, many thousands of the
people of Scotland were deprived of their natural and just rights in
connection with the ownership and the occupancy of the land of the
kingdom. Many of them were then reduced to a state of extreme privation,
and a considerable number of them fell into the condition of serfdom.
When thus rendered landless, David I. enacted “If any man be found in
the king’s land that has not a proper lord, after the king’s writ has
been read in the courts, he shall have the space of fifteen days to
find a lord. And if within that term he does not find a lord, then the
king’s justiciary shall take from him five cows for the king’s use, and
keep his body to the king’s behalf until he get him a lord.”¹ This act
was expressly drawn with the object of compelling the people to yield
and place themselves under the Norman nobles.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 9,
51, 70, 74, _et seq._
With the support and assistance of David I., and some of his successors,
the Normans shortly obtained possession of extensive territories held
under feudal tenure. In some instances the rights and privileges of
regality were granted along with the territory, though the title of
Earl was withheld, and a right of regality meant an almost absolute
jurisdiction over the whole inhabitants of the district included in the
charter. The lower form of feudal tenure, called “free barony,” also
embraced a pretty complete jurisdiction over all the people within its
bounds. As a specimen, a portion of a Crown charter of the Earldom of
Fife may be quoted:――“Alexander, by the grace of God, King of the Scots,
to all good men of his land, greeting: Be it known to all present and
to come that we have granted, and by this our charter have confirmed
to Earl Malcolm of Fife, son of Earl Duncan, the Earldom of Fife, as
Earl Duncan, his father, held it. To hold to him and his heirs of us
and our heirs in fee and heritage, in wood and plain, in lands and
waters, in meadows and pastures, in moors and marshes, in stanks and
mills, in fish ponds and fishings, in ways and paths, with soc and sac,
with gallows and pit, with toll and them, and ♦infangthief, ... with
all things to that Earldom justly pertaining.”¹ Thus an Earl had a
right not only to the land, but also to everything else within the
borders of the Earldom. Even the natural elements, such as water, were
appropriated by the feudal lords. There was a collection of Forest
Laws, but they were not nearly so savage as the forest laws of England;
and the penalties in connection with infringement of these laws were
pecuniary fines.
♦ “infangthef” replaced with “infangthief”
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 50.
The privileges of an Earldom embraced an authoritative jurisdiction
in civil and criminal cases of every description; in a word, the Earl
had the lives and the property of the people within the limits of his
territories in his hands. He had the power of executing any one of
his vassals; cases of assault, theft, and all the disputes which arose
amongst the people of the territory came under the jurisdiction of
the earl; and the fees, fines, and escheats of goods, which arose from
the numerous feudal relations of the several ranks of his vassals.
Further, an earl, or a baron, holding under free barony, was empowered
to enforce ward, relief, merchant, and many other feudal services. If
there were villages and towns in the earldom, the earl was the superior
of these also, and might treat the inhabitants as he thought fit.¹
¹ _Antiquities of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff_, Volume
II., page 109; Volumes III. and IV., _in loc._: “All feudal
lords through feudal Europe were equally fond and proud of
the right of executing those whom they had first convicted
and sentenced to death. The Gallowhill is still an object of
interest, and, I fear, of some pride, near our old baronial
mansions; and I know somewhere the surrounding ground is
full of the remains of the poor wretches who died by the
barons’ law. Perhaps the pit was for the female thief, for
women sentenced to death, were, for the most part, drowned.”
Innes’ _Legal Antiquities_, pages 58, 59.
An earldom or a great barony presented in miniature all the
characteristics of a feudal kingdom. Like the king, the earl was
the supreme ruler within his territories; he had his own courts, and
appointed his own sheriffs and bailies, his chamberlain, constable, and
other officials. Then portions of his lands, with its castles, formed
his special personal domain for the accommodation of his family, his
officials, and his personal retinue. But the far greater portion of the
lands of the earldom were held by the vassals of the earl. These feudal
vassals were of different ranks, consisting in some earldoms of thanes,
knights, free tenants, tenants-at-will, down to bondmen and serfs.
Tenants-at-will merely held land from year to year, and they, with the
bondmen and the serfs, were the toilers of the lands of the earldom.
The ranks above the toilers of the soil, formed the military force of
the earldom, with the earl as their leader. All the ranks above the
servile classes, were under feudal allegiance to the earl and bound
to follow him in all his causes and quarrels against any person or
party in the kingdom, save the king. Then the earl, or a baron with
the rights of an earl, could grant lands to his vassals under various
conditions, and so thanes and knights were frequently the vassals of a
feudal earl. These thanes and knights in turn could re-let to the class
below them; and these also might sub-let. In this way many of the small
gentry ultimately became proprietors of land; but the greater number
of them remained as the feudal vassals of their lords till quite recent
times.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 60,
68, _et seq._; Innes’ _Legal Antiquities_; _Antiquities of
the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff_.
An important part of Feudalism as it was introduced and developed
in Scotland, was directly associated with the Church. It appears
that monks and churchmen were amongst the first who obtained regal
jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the lands which the kings granted
to them by charter. Alexander I. refounded the monastery of Scone
and empowered the abbot and monks to hold their own court, this was
confirmed by Malcolm IV. and by William the Lion, and the latter
charter ran thus――“William King of the Scots, ... know that I have
granted, and by this my charter confirm, ... to the church of Scone
and the abbot and canons serving God there, all the liberties as the
charter of King Malcolm my brother witnesses: to wit, their court to
be held with full jurisdiction, in battle, in iron, and in water, with
all the liberties pertaining to a court, with liberty of answering
to no one outside their own court. Let no one therefore of my
subjects attempt to break this liberty of theirs under the pain of my
forfeiture.” The abbots of Dunfermline, Kelso, Holyrood, Jedburgh, and
other great monasteries, had their own courts; and the Bishop of St.
Andrews had his own court. In the reign of Alexander III., at least
one third of the best land in the kingdom was held by the Church.
These lands were held under the most favourable feudal tenures, as
the numerous Crown charters to churches, monasteries, and bishoprics
amply testify. On these extensive church lands there were various
ranks of vassals and tenants, bondmen and serfs. The highest class of
church vassals were almost of equal rank with the lesser barons and
freeholders of the Crown; they usually held their lands by charter,
free of all services, and only paid a nominal rent. From an examination
of many circumstances, it seems almost certain that the greater part
of the lands which David I. and his two grandsons, Malcolm and William,
granted to the Church, were the very lands of which the real owners and
occupiers had been dispossessed. This accounts for the great numbers
of bondmen and serfs which were attached to the church lands in the
thirteenth century.¹
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Numbers 16,
30, 36, 37, 54; _Register of Dunfermline_, pages 220‒222;
_Register of Kelso_; _Charters of Holyrood_; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.
If none of the real owners and occupiers of the land were deprived
of it by the expedients and the processes associated with the
introduction of charters in relation to the rights of holding land,
then how is it possible that David I. and his two grandsons could
have been in possession of all these fine tracts of land which they
gave to the Church within so short a period? Is there any other
historic interpretation which will meet the known conditions and the
circumstances connected with this important social phenomena? There
is no difficulty in understanding how it occurred that David I. was
represented as a saint by certain chroniclers, who also looked upon
the Norman nobles and their Feudalism as the real originators of
civilisation in Scotland.
One striking characteristic of Norman Feudalism as manifested in
Scotland, was its tendency to assume hereditary forms. The great
officers of State; sheriffs, bailies, stewards, keepers of castles,
forests, and parks, became hereditary; and indeed all titles and
offices from the throne downward to the common occupations associated
with the brewhouse and the smithy, assumed the hereditary form.
Politically and socially, feudal organisation as developed in Scotland,
contained within itself the very elements of anarchy; associated with
extremely few of the agencies and influences which tend to promote
order and advance civilisation.
The prevailing forms of trial by custom or law, and the modes of
punishing crime, are important in all stages of society. It is
interesting to note that the earliest fragments of the statute law
of Scotland contain references to a still earlier common usage: “The
assize of the country,” “As law will and custom is,” “According to
assize of the land,” these expressions occur in the laws of David I.;
and in one of David’s statutes a direct reference was made to a law of
Malcolm Canmore, “as it was established in his father’s days.” These
phrases meant that the matters in question were to be settled according
to the local customs of the people, and present an illustration of
custom or usage in the process of passing into written law.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 8,
9, 11‒13, _et seq._
The earliest laws of Scotland were full of regulations concerning the
punishment of murder and theft. When the thief was caught with the
stolen goods in his hands, he was at once tried and punished. It was
only when the crime in question was not evident that the peculiarities
of the early laws appeared. In the reign of David I., a man accused of
theft might have attempted to clear himself in two ways, by battle, or
the purgation of twelve leal men; there was nothing adduced on either
side by witnesses who were cognisant ♦of the facts, for evidence of
that kind was not then deemed necessary. When the accused denied the
charge, he had to find twelve compurgators, men of the neighbourhood,
who knew the character of the parties, and these men swore that they
believed the accused to be innocent. But the number of the compurgators
varied from one to thirty, according to the rank of the parties and the
nature of the crime: thus, two men were considered sufficient to prove
that a person had violated the King’s peace, and accordingly punishment
followed; but twenty-four men were requisite to acquit a man for an
offence against the majesty of the King. In the reign of William the
Lion, when a habit-and-repute thief was pursued by the suit of one or
more baronies and could find no one to become bail for him, he was then
seized and hanged without any trial.
♦ duplicate word “of” removed
When there was no evidence admitted by witnesses, if the accused person
failed to bring the requisite number of compurgators, his last resource
was to appeal to the wager of battle. There were definite and minute
rules for its procedure, and during the combat the strictest silence
was observed. The judges of Galloway decreed that any one who spoke
in the place where the battle was being waged, after silence had
been proclaimed, should forfeit ten cows to the king; and if any one
interfered with his hand, or even made a signal in any way, his life
and limb should be in the king’s power.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 5‒8,
55, 56.
During this period several restrictions were introduced in the
application of the trial by battle. Churchmen were exempted from
appearing in single combat; men past sixty years of age could decline
it; and widows who could not fight, were to be protected in their just
rights. Burgesses had privileges in connection with it; as the citizens
of the royal burgh might claim combat against those who depended upon
subjects, but in turn they were not obliged to grant it unless they
thought fit; and the burgess might decline the challenge of an upland
man. The thief’s lord might fight an accuser of his own rank if he
thought proper, but the poor man could only challenge his fellow; the
barons, knights, and freeholders, could also fight by proxy, appoint
a champion to fight for them; while the body of the people were bound
to fight in person. After the order for trial by battle, by hot iron,
or by water, had been given, it was no longer open to the parties to
compromise the case for a penalty; and any lord who promoted such a
thing forfeited his court. There is ample evidence of the prevalence
of the ordeals of hot iron and water in Scotland, but no detailed
account of the forms of the process have been preserved in any of the
early records. As mentioned in a preceding page, the right of trial by
battle, iron, and water, was granted to a number of monasteries; but
it appears that this privilege was open to endless abuses. David I. in
one instance provided that his own judge should always be present at
the court of the Abbot of Dunfermline, to see if justice was rightly
administered. In 1180 William the Lion enacted: “That neither bishops,
abbots, nor yet earls, barons, nor any freeholders, should hold their
courts unless the king’s sheriff or his sergeant be there, or summoned
to be there, to see that the court be rightly led.... That no baron
have leave to hold a court of life and limb as of judgment by battle,
or water, or hot iron, unless the king’s sheriff or his sergeant be
there to see if justice be truly kept as it ought to be.” In the same
reign it was enacted, that when any one was accused of theft by the
magistrate and three leal men, he should underlie the law of water; if
in addition to these accusers, three witnesses knowing the facts were
found, he was not to be put through any of the ordeals, but immediately
to be hanged.
Toward the end of this period ordeals were falling into disrepute,
though there is no direct evidence as to when they were abolished, or
when jury trial was introduced. One form of ordeal, the battle, later
the judicial combat, afterwards called the duel, lingered on amongst
a class of madcaps until recent times. The people of Galloway retained
the modes of ordeals long after the other quarters of the kingdom had
discarded them. In the reign of Robert Bruce they still continued to be
governed by their own local laws, and had not obtained nor apparently
desired trial by jury; and even down to 1385 Douglas, Lord of Galloway,
while undertaking in Parliament to promote the execution of justice in
his territory, protested for the liberty of the law of Galloway in all
points.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages
69‒71, 49, 55, 53, 122, 187; _Register of Dunfermline_, page
12; _Ancient Laws and Customs of the Burghs of Scotland_,
pages 8, 11, 163. The best account of the process of trial
by the ordeals of iron and water that I have seen is in
Pike’s _History of Crime in England_, Volume I., pages 207,
208; there is also a mass of matter touching the subject in
Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_.
In Scotland civil cases were tried by jury earlier than criminal ones.
But throughout this period there was no jury trial in the modern sense,
that is, a judge who finds the law, and a number of citizens who find
the fact from the evidence placed before them; it was long ere this
stage was reached. There were both civil and criminal cases reported as
having been tried by jury, during the thirteenth century in Scotland,
but then the jurymen were also witnesses in these cases: in England,
about the same time, this prevailed in jury trials. The later history
of trial by jury mainly consisted of the steps by which the jurors
were changed from witnesses into judges of the facts stated by others
to them. As yet the ideal of law was only dimly conceived and vaguely
comprehended. Public justice was hardly at all discriminated in the
minds of the people from the natural feeling of revenge. It seems
strange that the crime of murder could be commuted by a fine; but in an
age of fierce strife this may have been the most effective punishment.
It appears to have rested with the family of the murdered man to
abstain from prosecuting to the utmost, when their feeling of revenge
could be appeased by a fine. Indeed, there was another penalty due
to the king or the lord for the shedding of blood, if their peace
was violated, in addition to the compensation paid to the kin of the
slaughtered man.
The country for a limited distance around the king’s court and person,
and the public highways, were in the king’s peace, under his immediate
protection, and a breach of the peace within this area was severely
punished. The king further extended his peace to pilgrims during their
journeys to and from the tombs of the holy saints.
Amid all the rudeness of the society of the period there were
indications of improvement and feelings of humanity. The poor and the
weak were placed under the king’s protection; and in the ancient laws
the widow and the fatherless children were not forgotten. Women in
Scotland held a high position, a fact which was well understood and
fully appreciated by the Norman nobles. If a criminal, doomed to the
gallows, escaped with his life after the first attempt to hang him,
then he was freed from punishment for his past offence; but the party
who bungled the execution was subjected to a heavy fine. In connection
with the stealing of cattle and sheep, the chief crimes of the period,
it was enacted that no one should be hanged simply for taking as much
as he could carry, unless it amounted to the value of two sheep; thus
a distinction was drawn between the masterful rifler who drove off the
cattle and sheep, and the needy thief who merely seized what he could
carry. A severe punishment was inflicted on any one who intentionally
killed a watch-dog.¹
¹ _Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland_, pages 4, 53; _Acts
of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.
In an age when moral power was comparatively weak, the passions little
restrained, and the inflamed feeling of revenge pursued its victims,
it was a humane measure to make the church a place of refuge. By the
canon law all churches were to afford protection to the criminal for
a limited time, to allow the first burst of passion to assuage, before
the injured party could claim redress. So in the early statutes of
the Scotch Church it was enacted that every consecrated church, with
a right of baptism and burial, should have the privilege of sanctuary,
which extended for thirty paces round the graveyard. In early times the
boundaries of sanctuaries were sometimes marked off by stone crosses,
such as those at the monastery of Dull, in Athole; but the great
sanctity of some places of worship arose from the extreme veneration
for their patron saints, and the significance and virtue attached to
the relics which were preserved in them; and yet the church and even
the holy altar were not always safe from violence. The church of Wedale,
now called Stow, was one of the most famous of Scottish sanctuaries.
About the year 1166 William the Lion issued a precept to the ministers
of the church of Wedale, intimating to them not to detain the men of
the abbot of Kelso, who had taken refuge there, nor their goods, as the
abbot himself was willing to give them full justice. David I. granted
the church of Lesmahagow to the monastery of Kelso, and also confirmed
its privilege of sanctuary in the following terms:――“Whosoever for
escaping peril of life and limb flees to this church, or comes within
the four crosses that stand around it, out of reverence to God and
St. Machutus, I grant him my firm peace.” Tyninghame in Lothian, and
Inverlethan in Tweeddale, were also noted sanctuaries in their day.¹
¹ _Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ_, Volume II., pages 18,
19, 37, 46; _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, Volume II.,
Appendix to Preface, page 66, Notices of Plates, page 11;
_Register of Kelso_, Volume I., pages 9, 10, 22, Volume II.,
page 317.
The law of sanctuary in Scotland was defined and regulated in the
reign of Alexander II. Careful rules were stated to guard against the
danger of encouraging crime by offering an easy escape and immunity to
fugitive vagabonds, thieves, and homicides.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 71.
In the introduction many references were made to the localities and
the positions where the people fixed their habitations, and erected
defensive dwellings and structures of various kinds for their security
and protection. Further, it was shown that there were towns and
villages from an early period. The people who lived in these towns were,
no doubt, in a limited sense the vassals of the king or of the local
chiefs, but it does not follow that these townsfolk had no proprietary
rights or customary rights of trade before the era of granting charters.
On the contrary, as there were rights of property in land centuries
before charters came into use, so the townsfolk had their recognised
customary rights in Scotland and elsewhere for ages before the period
of charters. In accordance with this, the earliest charters of the
royal burghs always implied the previous existence of an organised
community; thus the royal charter simply recognised organised
communities already existing. Dundee, Berwick, Inverness, Aberdeen,
and other towns on the coasts, were places of foreign trade before
the charter period; but the king’s charter, which placed the burgh
communities under the special protection of the Crown, and also
conferred on the burgesses privileges of trade, were great advantages,
which tended to promote order and industry, and to advance civilisation.
Although, when the kings granted charters to the burghs, they had
their own interest in view, for originally each burgess was a Crown
vassal, and paid a fixed yearly rent for his separate tenement. The
Crown appointed officers to collect these rents, who accounted for
them; the king also claimed the fines imposed in the courts of the
royal burghs, and certain customs which were collected by the Crown
officers. These arrangements continued in operation till about the end
of the thirteenth century; and subsequently another arrangement came
into practice by which the burgesses obtained short leases from the
chamberlain, on the condition of paying a specific sum to the king,
thus they acquired a right to the rents, the issues of their courts,
and the petty customs. These leases were granted on comparatively easy
terms, but sometimes a grassum was paid on their renewal. From this
practice another arrangement gradually came into operation, by which
the burgesses obtained from the Crown charters of feu-farm, converting
their lease into a perpetual right. Aberdeen and Edinburgh were the
first burghs which obtained these feu charters; the former in 1319,
for a yearly rent of £213 6s. 8d.; and the latter in 1329, for a rent
of 52 marks.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 118; _Charters of
Edinburgh, Burgh Records Society_, page 16.
Berwick, Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Aberdeen, and Roxburgh, were
among the first burghs which received royal charters, but the greater
number of the royal burghs in the kingdom were constituted before the
close of the thirteenth century. At the same period the Church had its
burghs; the nobles also had their burghs of regality and barony. The
higher nobles imitated the king, and often granted exclusive rights and
privileges to the inhabitants of the towns within their earldoms and
baronies; sometimes the Crown attempted to assert its prerogative by
extinguishing the privileges of such burghs, but it rarely succeeded.
There were associated trading communities on the north side of the
Grampians in the reign of David I. As we learn from a charter of
William the Lion, granted to the burgesses of Aberdeen and the north
in the year 1196, in these terms:――“William, by the grace of God, King
of the Scots, to all good men of his whole land, greeting. Know all
men present and to come, that I have granted, and by this my charter
have confirmed to my burgesses of Aberdeen, and to all the burgesses
of Moray, and to all my burgesses dwelling to the north of the Munth
(the Grampian mountains) their free hanse, to be held where they will
and when they will, as freely and peacefully, fully and honourably,
as their ancestors, in the time of King David, my grandfather, had
their hanse freely and honourably. Wherefore I strictly forbid anyone
to trouble or disturb them therein, on pain of my full forfeiture.”¹
The hanse meant the privilege of trade and association, but to what
importance these burgesses of the north attained cannot be ascertained,
further than that the hanse did not survive the War of Independence.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., Appendix
to Preface, page 77.
In the south of the kingdom the burgh communities had reached the stage
of united action at the opening of the twelfth century; their union
consisted of the towns of Berwick, Roxburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling.
Their meetings were held under the presidency of the king’s chamberlain,
and called the “Court of the Four Burghs.” Like other early assemblies,
the proceedings of this body of burgesses presented a commingle of
the legislative and judicial functions, and their court occasionally
extended its operation beyond municipal organisation, and established
rules on matters of private right and obligation. The members of this
burghal court framed the code called “The Laws and Constitutions of
the Four Burghs,” which is the earliest body of Scotch laws extant.
This code was sanctioned by the Government in the reign of David I.,
and many of the early charters of the royal burghs contain internal
evidence of having been drawn from it. These burgh laws have sometimes
been attributed to the wisdom of David I., but they embodied the
practical experience of several generations before his time, and some
additions were made to them after his day. A portion of these laws were
drawn from the customary usage of the Saxons in the south of Scotland.
The Burgh Laws are the most complete of the early fragments of Scotch
legislation, and their last editor declared that no such ancient and
well-authenticated code of burgh laws exists in the world.¹
¹ _Ancient Laws and Customs of the Burghs of Scotland._
Edited by C. Innes. Preface page 21; _Report on Municipal
Corporations of Scotland_, page 15. 1835.
The union of the Four Burghs gradually developed, and in 1405 delegates
from all the royal burghs on the south of the river Spey were ordered
to assemble once a year to deliberate upon their common affairs; and
in 1454 its place of meeting was fixed at Edinburgh by royal charter.
Under the name of the Convention of Royal Burghs it continued its
annual meetings, and treated on matters relating to the burghs; and,
although the Convention still meets, since 1835 most of its powers and
functions have departed.¹
¹ “The towns of England, neither by themselves nor in
conjunction with the shires, ever attempted before the
seventeenth century to act alone in convention like the
Scotch burghs, nor in confederation like the German League.”
Stubb’s _Constitutional History of England_, Volume II.,
page 220.
The local rulers of the burgh community were elected by the whole
body of the burgesses once a year. The newly elected alderman (chief
magistrate) and the bailies then swore fealty to the king and to the
burgesses――“That they should not punish any man or woman except with
the sanction of the ordinary council and the judgment of the good men
of the burgh. That neither for fear, nor for love, nor for hatred,
nor for kinship, nor for loss of their silver, should they spare to
do right to all men.” It seems that the distinction between skilled
craftsmen and the men of commerce or merchants did not emerge in
an acute form for a considerable time after the institution of the
royal burghs. But the increase of trade and wealth, and a more minute
division of labour among hand-craftsmen, tended in the direction of
such a distinction. A few clauses of charters, and a statute of William
the Lion, gives a general liberty to the merchants of the realm to buy
and to sell, meaning that the merchant guild should have a ♦monopoly
of buying and selling within the limits of the burghs. A short code,
entitled the Statutes of the Guild, originated in Berwick about the
middle of the thirteenth century, and was at first intended for the
government of the guild merchants of that town. This code contains
fifty-one statutes, all of which were framed before the end of the
thirteenth century.
♦ “monoply” replaced with “monopoly”
The preamble of these statutes suppresses all other trading
associations. The first statute enacted that all particular guilds
previously acting in any burgh, should be extinguished, and that their
goods and chattels ought and should be given to this guild, except the
members form a union and come to an understanding to act together in
all good deeds in fellowship, secure and faithful friendship without
deceit. The regulations and binding clauses of these statutes are very
definite and minute; and they were soon generally adopted in all the
royal burghs of Scotland. The payment for entrants into the merchant
guild was fixed at forty shillings, unless they were sons or daughters
of the guild brethren. No one was permitted to deal in hides, wool,
wool skins, nor cut cloth within the burgh, unless he was a guild
brother. It was enacted “that no butcher, so long as he choose to
practise his trade, should buy wool or hides, unless he will abjure his
axe and swear that he will not lay his hand upon beasts.” In the Laws
of the Burghs, an earlier code already noticed, it was enacted “that
no dyer, flesher, shoemaker, or fisherman, can be allowed to entre
the guild till he swear not to exercise his craft with his own hands,
but only by ♦servants under him.”¹ At a later period a severe and long
struggle ensued between the merchant guilds and the craftsmen, touching
the privilege of trading and other municipal rights.
♦ “servands” replaced with “servants”
¹ _Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland_, pages 34, 35, 60,
64, 69, _et seq._
It has sometimes been stated that there was no trace of thraldom in the
Scotch royal burghs. This, however, is not historically accurate, for
in the burgh laws the following occurs:――“If any wool-comber leaves the
burgh to dwell with upland men, while he had sufficient work to occupy
him within the burgh, then he ought to be taken and imprisoned.” There
is another law in the same code which has often been misinterpreted:
it runs thus:――“If any man’s thrall, baron’s or knight’s, comes to a
burgh and buys a burgage, and dwells in his burgage for a twelvemonth
and a day without challenge of his lord or his bailie, he shall be
for evermore free as a burgess within that royal burgh, and enjoy the
freedom of that burgh.”¹ Thus we see that before a serf could become
free, he had to purchase a house――a burgage tenement in the burgh, and
dwell in it for a year. But in those times wherewithal could a serf
purchase a house? At the present time, how many day-labourers could
purchase a house in a town?
¹ _Ibid._, page 9; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,
Volume I., pages 23, 41.
Every royal burgh had right to hold markets. The market day was an
occasion of unusual freedom, only the traitor, the outlaw, and the
malefactor, could be arrested in the open market. Runaway serfs,
debtors, and small offenders of every description, were at liberty
unless they broke the peace of the market, and those who were guilty of
this, were tried by a special court, known under the name of Dustyfeet.
In this court the peace-breakers were tried by their peers――the
community of the market. The Dustyfeet were the travelling pedlars,
the real forerunners of the modern haberdashers; and these and other
extraneous traders, who sold their goods from a stall, could claim
cut and lot, that is, share and share of the market ground with the
burgesses. Thus, in the market, all were placed on an equality, a
characteristic which accords well with the origin of markets, indicated
in a preceding page.¹
¹ _Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland._
Although the government and organisation of the royal burgh communities
seemed to be democratic, the guild brethren manifested strong
aristocratic leanings. For instance, they enacted――“that every burgess
having ten pounds worth of goods shall have in his stable a seemly
horse, worth at least forty shillings. And if he be deprived of his
horse by any chance, death, sale, gift, or in any other way, he shall
within forty days provide another. If not, he shall be fined eight
shillings to the guild.” Still these burgh communities were the only
classes among the people, who possessed wealth and a measure of freedom,
associated with some culture and intelligence. They were usually loyal
and faithful supporters of the king, and contributed a considerable
part of the gross revenue of the kingdom. Their organisations
encouraged habits of industry, tended to promote order and security,
and to advance civilisation.
In a preceding page reference was made to burghs under earls and barons,
and church burghs. Thus there were three classes of burghs besides the
royal ones. A burgh of regality held its privileges of some earl or
lord; a burgh of barony was of lower rank, and also held its rights
from its local lord; and from the earliest times the constitutions
of both these classes of towns varied. In some burghs of regality the
inhabitants had the right of electing the magistrates and officers of
the town; in others, the superior or lord of the regality retained all
these appointments in his own hands. Usually the superior of a burgh of
regality took special care to hold the control of its inhabitants well
within his own grasp. The rights and privileges of such burghs were――a
right to hold markets, and the exclusive right of trade and manufacture
within the town; and some burghs of regality had power to form bodies
of craftsmen somewhat analogous to those of the royal burghs. Among
burghs of regality may be mentioned Dunbar, which belonged to the Earl
of Dunbar; Wick, to the Earl of Caithness; Inveraray and Campbeltown to
the Argyle family. Burghs of barony became numerous, but at this period
most of them were villages and small hamlets. The principal church
burghs were St. Andrews, Glasgow, Brechin, Dunkeld, and Dunblane, which
belonged respectively to the bishops of these sees; and Dunfermline,
Paisley, Jedburgh, Kelso, the Canongate, Selkirk, and Arbroath,
belonged to the abbots and canons of the respective monasteries of
these towns. These religious corporations seemed as eager to obtain
trading rights and exclusive privileges as any other organised class
in the kingdom.
The early records of the Scottish mints were lost, and little
information of the coinage of this period can be obtained, except what
may be drawn from the coins which still remain. The earliest of these
are the silver pennies of Alexander I.; there was no gold coinage in
this period. From the reign of Alexander I. to the War of Independence
there was a regular coinage of silver coins; and throughout this period
the standard of fineness was at least equal to the current money of
England. The money was then coined in many different burghs, in Berwick,
Roxburgh, Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Aberdeen, Inverness, Dunbar, and
in other towns. The workmanship of these coins is rather rough, but not
much inferior to the English coins of the same period.
It was already mentioned, that gold and silver were found in Scotland,
plenty of iron and coal, and some lead. Few or no materials exist
for tracing the rise and development of the use of iron and coal
in Scotland. It was reported that iron was worked in the forests of
Moray in the thirteenth century; and in 1265 sea coal was mentioned in
connection with the castle of Berwick. The monks of Newbottle digged
coal from rude surface pits about the middle of the thirteenth century;
the Abbey of Dunfermline had a special grant from David I. of the gold
produced in Fife; and it was reported that David had a silver mine in
Cumberland.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I.; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 45, 48; Innes’
_Legal Antiquities_, page 168.
The weights and measures in use were various; the old Scotch pound
consisted of fifteen ounces. David I. enacted that the Caithness pound
should be the standard weight throughout the kingdom. The people of
the Orkney and the Shetland islands used the Norwegian weights and
measures till a recent period. Grain was measured by the chalder,
which contained sixteen bolls, the boll four firlots or six bushels;
this Scotch firlot was equal to a bushel and a half of English standard
measure. A skep of meal was a measure which appeared early in the
records of the monasteries, and it contained twelve bolls. The ♦lagon
was an old measure of wine, ale, and oil, which was well-known among
the religious houses of the period. Wool was sold by the sack of
twenty-six stones; and hides by the last = twelve dozen.
♦ “lagen” replaced with “lagon”
The internal trade and the external commerce of the kingdom had
developed considerably during this period. Fish was a staple article
of commerce from very early times, stretching back beyond the period
of the national records. The herring fishing was extensively engaged in
during the twelfth century and succeeding centuries. There were customs
payable on the export of herrings, keeling, ling, haddocks, whitings,
cod, and oysters. In the reign of William the Lion, the Abbot of
Holyrood sent his own men to fish for him off the Isle of May. The
charters and the laws of the period clearly show that the fishing
formed an important part of the economy and trade of the kingdom.¹ The
rich religious houses entered freely into commerce, and the Abbot of
Scone had a ship of his own; and Alexander I. granted to this monastery
the custom of all the ships which landed their cargoes there. Scone had
some foreign trade from an early period; but it was soon outstripped
by Dundee and Perth, as the latter burgh obtained the exclusive right
of trading over the whole of Perthshire. Stirling, St. Andrews, and
Aberdeen, had commercial relations with the Continent; but Berwick
appears to have been the great mart of traffic in Scotland throughout
this period.
¹ _Ibid._
The exports mostly consisted of the raw products of the country. The
furs entered for export duty, were fox, cat, marten, beaver, otter,
and hare; and wool skins, deer and hog skins, lamb and goat skins;
oxen, cows, and horse hides; salt, corn, meal, and malt, were among the
articles taxed for export. The imports consisted of iron, lead, pots,
pans, locks, knives, and other hardware articles; wax, pepper, alum,
ginger, almonds, figs, raisins, rice, and very large quantities of
wines. Attention had been directed to shipbuilding at a very early
period, and the herring fishing trade must have employed a large number
of small vessels. Ships were built at Inverness and other ports, and
Alexander III. had a number of ships built at Ayr. Shortly before the
outbreak of the long war, the merchants of Berwick were numerous, rich,
and enterprising. Letters of safe conduct were granted to many of them
by the king of England, to pass and re-pass through his dominions in
pursuit of their commercial business; a burgess of Perth also received
a passport to trade in England, and by its coasts. This friendly
state of relations was by the subsequent current of events suddenly
changed, and then we hear of the arrest of the ships which belonged
to the merchants of Berwick by the English Government, and the keen
remonstrances of the enterprising traders.¹
¹ _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 6, 34,
_et seq._; _Book of Scone_; _Historical Documents of
Scotland_, Volume I., pages 216‒221, 423‒426.
In 1293, the Court of Flanders granted letters of protection to the
people of Scotland to trade in that country, upon the condition of
their rendering and paying the usual customs and duties. As documents
of a commercial and peaceful character were rare at this period, the
main points of these letters may be quoted:――“Be it known to all that
we, of our own good will and for our own pleasure, by the advice of the
good men and wise people, grant and promise to all those persons of the
realm of Scotland, who are alive at present, and who shall be hereafter,
that they may visit and come to tarry in, and return from, our country
of Flanders, frankly and freely, upon payment and rendering of the
rights, customs and taxes of our country of Flanders: and that we will
not arrest nor cause to be arrested, by ourselves or others, them or
any of them, nor their goods of any description, nor their households,
for debt, nor in consequence or through the actions of another person,
in which they shall not be indebted, nor security, nor answerable;
unless it so be that the present King of Scotland, or those who shall
be kings hereafter, or who have been previously, was or were bound or
under security to us, or our heirs, or our people therein; then we and
our heirs shall be able to arrest, or cause to be arrested, the people
of Scotland, their goods and households, and to detain them until
justice be done therein to us, our heirs, and our people.
“And in like manner, as is above said, we promise to observe this
well and faithfully for ourselves and our heirs, Counts of Flanders,
in regard to the most excellent Lord John, by the grace of God, King
of Scotland, and to all his countrymen, in such manner and on such
conditions as that the most high lord the King above named, shall
observe such similar arrangements to my people of Flanders, and to my
country. And this agreement shall continue from the Feast of St. Peter
at the beginning of August next for three years.”¹ There is some scant
indications that a few emigrants from Flanders occasionally settled in
the Scotch royal burghs; and there appears to have been a number of
them in Berwick.
¹ _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 399‒401.
The chief home manufacture in the textile department was a rough
woollen cloth made of native wool, which afforded apparel for the
people. Other branches of manufactures were not as yet in an advanced
stage, though handcraft arts had made some progress. There were
goldsmiths, armourers, smiths, tanners, shoemakers, weavers, fullers,
dyers, tailors, carpenters, and other craftsmen in every royal burgh.
The monasteries had craftsmen of their own connected with their great
organisations; and a charter of Alexander I. authorised the Abbot of
Scone to have one tanner, a smith, and a shoemaker. In relation to
these matters, and, as illustrative of the armour and dress of the
period, something may be learned from the Seals then used in Scotland.
The seal of Alexander I. represents the king on horseback, wearing
a hauberk of flat rings fitted close to the body with a skirt, below
which the quilted tunic appears. The hood was attached to the hauberk,
and thrown back from the face; the sleeves were wide and left the hands
uncovered; and the legs and feet were protected by ring mail, and from
the heel the simple prick-spur projected. The breast-leather which
secured the saddle was more ornamented than that on the seal of King
Duncan. On the counter seal the king was sitting on a chair of state,
and vested in royal robes. A richly embroidered cloak was thrown over
his shoulders and fastened on the breast; both arms were extended, his
right hand holding a sword, and the left a globe surmounted by a cross:
he does not appear to have a crown upon his head. Only fragments of the
seal of David I. remain, but the design seems to be similar to that of
Alexander’s, and the seal of Malcolm IV. was also of the same design.
The seal of William the Lion remains intact, but its design and
execution shows no advance in art. He was represented on horseback
at gallop, with a lance and pennon of three points in his right hand,
and in his left a shield. The shield was heater-shaped and plain;
the sheath of the sword appears hanging from the left side of the
saddle, but the breast-leather and saddle have no ornament. The seal
of Alexander II. showed a marked advance in art. He was represented on
horseback with a drawn sword in his right hand, and a shield suspended
in front of the body, on which was boldly depicted the lion rampant;
and he was armed in mail armour, with surcoat, a helmet square at the
top, and with the aventaile for protecting the face. The breast-leather
of the horse was decorated with tassels, and on the back part of the
saddle the lion rampant was emblazoned. Some of the seals of Alexander
III. were richly designed, and executed with spirit and taste in all
their details. On one of them the King was represented on horseback at
full speed, completely armed in chain mail which encircled the limbs
and feet, and over it a surcoat; on his head a square-topped helmet
with horizontal opening; in his right hand a sword, and in front a
shield suspended by the guige, and ornamented with the arms of Scotland,
which were repeated on the long flowing caparison of the horse. The
girths which secure the saddle first appeared on this seal, and the
horse’s head was decorated with a plume of feathers. The background was
enlivened with trefoils. On the counter seal Alexander was represented
after a design resembling those of the preceding kings, but much
improved in style and enriched with ornament.¹
¹ H. Laing’s _Ancient Scottish Seals_, pages 2‒4.
The seals of the nobles were circular in form; and those of
ecclesiastics were usually oval shaped. The most common design of the
former class was a man on horseback, associated with the figures of
animals and other objects. The lion rampant, one, two, or three were
frequently depicted on their seals. The boar’s head, and the stag’s
head, the boar’s head coupled, the fox, and the dog, often appeared;
the hunter on horseback with spear, horn, and dog, and the falconer
also on horseback, with his arm extended and holding a falcon by the
jess, were represented. The eagle seems to have been the favourite bird,
and he was displayed in various attitudes, sometimes his breast was
charged with barbs, under his head an ornament, and at the back of his
head a cross; or he was represented as alighting. The cock crowing,
the raven, and other birds occur; and serpents, lizards, and fish,
were figured on these ancient seals. In 1292, on the seal of the Earl
of Caithness, there were two figures sitting in a galley without sails,
the mast terminated in a cross, and the prow and the stern in the
heads of dragons, and the whole within a double tressure, flowered
and counter-flowered; there was a hare above the shield, and on each
side of it a lizard. At the same period Alexander of Argyle had a
representation of a galley on his seal, somewhat resembling the above.
On a seal bearing the date of 1176, there was a full-length figure of
a female dressed in long and flowing drapery, with both arms extended,
and a falcon resting on her left hand. On an oval shaped seal of 1181
there was a figure of a monkey, clothed and kneeling on one knee upon
the back of an animal resembling a lion, and there seemed to be the
head of an animal in front of the lion; the background of the seal
consisted of a series of crosses.
On the seals of the bishops and the monasteries the figures and objects
were usually of a religious character. On those of the higher churchmen
the most common figure was a bishop in pontifical vestments. In 1203,
on a seal of the bishop of Glasgow there was the figure of a young man
seated before a lectern, on which there was a book; in his left hand he
held a rod of office, while his right hand was a little raised and the
forefinger extended, as if he were discoursing from the volume before
him.¹
¹ Laing’s _Ancient Scottish Seals_, pages 28, 29, _et seq._
Many of the symbols and figures on the seals of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries were similar to those which appear on the
sculptured stones of Scotland. Thus a relation between the symbols
and the art of the stone crosses and those exhibited on the seals may
be considered as established; and this relation shows the continuity
of the art.¹
¹ _Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, II., page 31, and Appendix
to Preface pages 14‒18.
In the early part of this period the Church of Scotland was brought
into accord with the prevailing form of Christendom. David I. refounded
or organised most of the bishoprics and the monasteries, and endowed
them very liberally. He was the first king in Scotland who enforced the
payment of tithes. David and his successors introduced various orders
of regular monks to supersede the Culdees; and in a comparatively short
time most of the reorganised monasteries became very rich. The division
of parishes and the parochial system began to assume form; but the
monastic ideal and spirit was still strong, and cramped the development
of the parochial organisation from its birth.¹ Many churches were
conferred upon the great monasteries as property, and in this way it
became the right and the function of the abbots of the monasteries
to appoint many of the vicars of the parish churches; the result was
that parochial duties and work were much neglected, and rarely became
effectual in any quarter of the kingdom as a means of religious and
moral instruction.
¹ “The term parish, meaning any district, was at first
appropriated to the diocese of a bishop. In 1179 it is used
as synonymous with diocese, and applied to the bishopric
of Glasgow. In some instances it would seem to mean the
jurisdiction rather than the district. The word shire, so
common in our old records, is often equivalent to parish,
but sometimes applied to other divisions of church territory,
which cannot now be defined.” _Origines Parochiales Scotiæ_,
Volume I., Preface, page 20.
The diocesan form of church polity, which scarcely existed at the close
of the eleventh century, was almost completed before the end of David’s
reign. He restored nunneries, and founded one at Berwick-on-Tweed; this
nunnery was richly endowed, and had several small dependencies. It has
been stated that “the principle of celibacy was effectively established
among the Scotch clergy by David, along with his other reforms;”¹
but this seems doubtful. For there is ample evidence that celibacy
never was effectually established among the clergy in Scotland, as
their own records testify. Thus, “one great evil, it will be seen,
the incontinence of the priesthood, stands confessed, deplored, and
condemned through all the three centuries of Scottish ecclesiastical
legislation. Here, as elsewhere throughout Christendom, every code of
provincial, every code of synodical canons, calls, but calls in vain,
upon the clergy to ♦separate themselves from their concubines as they
were styled――their wives, rather, as we may charitably hope that in
most cases they should have been, but for the law which forbade the
churchman to marry.”² Listen to another great writer, well entitled
to speak on the subject.――“The historian must not shrink from the
truth, however repulsive. Celibacy, which was the vital energy of the
clergy, was at the same time their fatal irremediable weakness. The
universal voice, which arraigns the state of morals, as regards sexual
intercourse among the clergy, is not that of their enemies only――it is
their own. Century after century we have heard throughout our history
the eternal protest of the severer churchmen, of popes, of legates, and
of councils.”³
¹ Innes, _Sketches of Early Scotch History_, page 187.
♦ “seperate” replaced with “separate”
² _Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ_, Volume I., Preface, page 205;
_Register of Kelso_, Volume I., pages 77, 131, 132, 136,
_et seq._
³ Dean Milman’s _History of Latin Christianity_, Volume VI.,
Book XIV., Chapter I. 1855.
Thus, though the clergy were a support to the Crown, their functions
and duties as the teachers of morality and the national instructors
of the people, were only very imperfectly performed. Still, any
learning and education which existed in the kingdom was in their hands,
for the chancellor of each diocese was entrusted with the general
supervision of all the schools within the bounds of the bishopric.
The rector or master of schools appears in record in the twelfth
century in connection with the schools of Abernethy; and in that and
the succeeding century many notices of the schools and schoolmasters
of St. Andrews, Roxburgh, Berwick, Ayr, Perth, Stirling, Aberdeen, and
of other places, occur in several records. Touching the character of
the education imparted in these schools no details have been preserved;
but probably the greater part of it consisted of the studies associated
with the qualifications then necessary for admission to the offices and
functions of the Church. There were also schools for teaching singing
in the cathedral cities in the thirteenth century. It was enacted in
the constitution of the Cathedral of Aberdeen, in 1279, that the master
of the schools should see to the attendance of four singing boys at
matins and high mass, and at all the great festivals: two to carry
tapers and two to bear incense. Indeed, the services of the Church were
accompanied with all the harmonic sound and ceremonial display which
the resources of the kingdom could command.¹
¹ _Register of the Priory of St. Andrews_; _Register of
Dunfermline_; _Register of Paisley_; _Old Spalding Club
Miscellany_, Volume V.
Anything in the form of literature composed in Scotland during this
period was usually written in Latin; Norman-French was not used either
for literary purposes or official acts and State documents. Although,
when Edward I. entered on his scheme of conquest, many writs and papers
emanated from him in Norman-French relating to the affairs of Scotland.
In the Introduction reference was made to the writings in Latin,
fragments of chronicles, and Gaelic memoranda and rhymes; and the
following paragraphs present all the information of the writings of
the period under review, which I could obtain. Robert, Bishop of St.
Andrews, who died about the year 1159, was reported to have written
_Statuta Ecclesiastica_, but it is not known to be extant. Gualterus,
a prior of Kelso, who lived in the twelfth century, composed a tract
entitled _Pro Ecclesiæ Scoticæ Immunitate Contra Rogerum Eboracensem_;
and one under the title of _Appellatio ad Curiam Romanam_; and also
letters _Epistolæ Diversos_. I have seen none of these writings, and
am not aware that any of them have been preserved. Adam, an abbot of
Melrose, afterwards elected Bishop of Caithness in 1213, and slain by
the inhabitants in 1222, wrote a _History of Scotland_, in three books;
also _Epistolæ ad regem contra comitem de Caithness_; _Epistolæ ad
Alexandrum Papam_, in one book; _Insularum Descriptiones_, in one book;
and _Excerpta Bibliæ_: but none of these works are known to be extant.
William Kilconcath was rector of the Friar preachers of Perth, and
afterwards became Bishop of Brechin; he died at Rome in the year 1274.
He wrote a tract, entitled _Contra Ottobonum Papam_, and another on _De
Scoticæ Ecclesiæ Dignitate_. Robert Kildelith was a monk of Newbottle,
then Abbot of Dunfermline, afterwards Abbot of Melrose, and at last he
attained the position of High Chancellor of Scotland. He produced _De
Successione Abbatum de Melrose_. William Fraser was for seven years
Chancellor of Scotland, and was elected Bishop of St. Andrews in 1279.
After the death of Alexander III. he was elected one of the regents of
the kingdom, and for a time he played an active and rather questionable
part in the affairs of Scotland. Fraser wrote _De Jure Successionis
Regni Scotiæ_; and a work entitled _Concordantia in Evangelia_. He died
in France in 1297.
Another class of writings of the period have more of the historic
character, such as the _Chronicle of Melrose_, which begins with the
year 735 and comes down to 1270. The early part of this chronicle seems
to have been written about the end of the eleventh century, and it was
afterwards continued by several scribes till it assumed its present
form, probably about the close of the thirteenth century; and for
the later part of the twelfth and the greater part of the thirteenth
centuries it is of considerable historic value. The _Chronicle of St.
Crucis_ is in its early part chiefly drawn from _Bede’s History_; it
then leaps to the year 1065, and follows _Simon of Durham_, with some
slight variations and additions to 1129; from that year it is mainly
filled with notices relating to Scotland, ending abruptly in the year
1153. Throughout the manuscript the handwriting is nearly similar. A
few other short and slight chronicles of the period are still extant,
but they contain little more than the names and succession of the kings,
besides a few fragments of lost chronicles, the whole of which have
been carefully edited and published by the authority of the Record
Commissioners.
A few of the Chartularies of the monasteries, and parts of the
Registers of the dioceses of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and others, were
written in the thirteenth century; and, although these cannot be called
literature, yet such records contain invaluable historical materials.
Long lists exist of the Records of Scotland which were removed
from Edinburgh by Edward I. pending the settlement of the disputed
succession, and which were restored to John Baliol, King of Scotland,
in December 1292; but of their subsequent fate nothing is known. All
that now remains is the titles and headings of the numerous rolls given
in the Indenture, which testifies that the whole of them were returned
to King John. From the lists in this document we obtain an idea of
the great historical loss which the nation has sustained from the
disappearance of the records. These were of the most varied character,
and many hundreds of rolls contained the very matter which would have
enabled us to explain clearly the difficult problem connected with the
lands of the kingdom in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.¹
¹ _National Manuscripts of Scotland_, Part I., Number 74. The
document containing the lists of these lost Records was also
printed in the first Volume of the _Acts of Parliament of
Scotland_.