of Mærne occasionally make their appearance in early Scottish history,
and generally in company with the men of Moray. It has been frequently
assumed that they belonged to a certain earldom of the Merns, comprised
in modern Kincardineshire, though Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_, vol. ii.,
c. 9) places them on the western coast, where he supposes that there
once existed an earldom of Garmoran. The same objection, I fear, may
be raised against the earldom of Garmoran which is urged against the
earldom of the Merns--the total silence of history respecting it.
When a dim light is first shed upon the northern provinces, the name
of Moray, which must have once been applied to the whole line of
sea-coast--_Armorica_--in this direction, is confined to the westward
of the Spey, whilst the eastern tract of country is broken up into the
earldoms of Mar and Buchan, and the districts of Strathbogie and the
Garioch, both “in the crown,” _i.e._, conquered. The name of Mærne
has by this time disappeared, unless it still survived in _Mar_,
representing only a portion of the ancient province, but I should
imagine it is to be sought for in this quarter, which would account
for the connection of its people with the men of Moray; and if ancient
Mærne once included Kincardineshire, the name of “the Merns” may
have been retained, like that of Northumberland or Cumberland, by a
comparatively small portion of the original province.
[89] _Innes_, Ap. 3. _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, 854, and p. 139.
[90] _Innes_, Ap. 3. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 10. _Fordun_, l. 4, c.
27.--The old chronicler calls the Northmen “Sumerlide”--summer army--an
expression similar to the “micel sumorlida” of the Saxon Chronicle 871.
In fact, piracy was the _summer_ occupation of the Norsemen.
[91] _Innes_, Ap. 3. _An. Ult._ 964. The hostility of the house of
Atholl was destined in the end to be fatal to the line of Duff.
[92] _Innes_, Ap. 3, 5. _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 28. _An. Ult._ 966. From the
first authority it would appear as if Duff never recovered the throne,
and the story of his death rather favours the idea that he was killed
when in exile.
[93] _Innes_, Ap. 3, 5. _An. Ult._ 970. Wynton and Fordun give the name
of Radoard to the British prince. The line of Constantine the Second
generally appears in connection with the south of Scotland.
[94] _Tigh._ 977.
[95] _Innes_, Ap. 3. Kenneth’s ravages reached “ad Stammoir, ad
Cluiam et ad stang na Deram,” according to Pinkerton’s version
of the Chronicle. The captive is called a son of the king of the
Saxons--probably of the Northumbrians.
[96] _V._ Chap. 2, p. 47.
[97] They were the sons of a female slave. The surviving legitimate
sons of Rognwald were Thorer, who succeeded his father in Norway, and
the famous Gangr Rolf, founder of the Norman dynasty, and ancestor of
William the Conqueror. The _Holder_ was the old _Allodial_ proprietor
amongst the Scandinavians of those days, answering to the _Eorlcundman_.
[98] Eric Blodæxe was killed in the year 954. His sons attacked Hakon
the Good for the second or third time, after he had reigned twenty
years, _i.e._, about 957. The arrival of Gunhilda and her sons in the
Orkneys must have fallen between those two years.--_Heimsk. Saga_ 4, c.
22.
[99] Hakon reigned for 26 years, and Harald Greyskin for 15, after the
death of Harfager in 937, which would place the death of Harald in
978.--_Heimsk. Saga_ 4, c. 28; _Saga_ 6, c. 13. When the sons of Eric
escaped to the Orkneys, immediately after the death of Harald, they
found the sons of Thorfin in possession of the islands.--_Do., Saga_ 6,
c. 16. The Orkneyinga Saga says that Thorfin was still alive but died
soon afterwards. His death must have occurred about the year 978.
[100] _Ork. Saga in Col. de. Reb. Alb._, p. 339.
[101] All these events must have occurred between 978 and 994, for the
battle of Dungal’s Nœp was fought in or before the latter year. Kari
Solmundason, and the son of Nial, were present at this engagement, and
after remaining two winters and a summer with Sigurd, departed for
Norway in the following summer, _i.e._, two years after the battle,
with the tribute for Jarl Hakon, and as the Jarl’s death occurred
in 996, the battle must have been fought at least two years before
that date. It probably occurred a few years earlier, as the same Saga
alludes to the defeat of Godred of Man, whose reign extended from
the death of his brother Magnus, about 977 to 989. _An. Inisf._ 977.
_Tigh._ 989. _Niala Saga, Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 334, 338. The Hundi of
the Sagas seems to have been Crinan. The account of these transactions
is taken from the _Heimskringla Saga_ 3, c. 27 to 32; _Saga_ 4, c.
3, 4, 5; _Saga_ 7, c. 99; and the _Olaf Tryggvessonar Niala_ and
_Orkneyinga Sagas_ in _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 327, etc.
[102] _Heimsk. Saga_ 6, c. 52; _Saga_ 7, c. 99.
[103] The Isla and the Dee are the boundaries assigned to one of the
old Pictish kingdoms in the description of Andrew, bishop of Caithness,
in _Innes_, Ap. 2.
[104] Such is the account of _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 10, and _Reg. St.
And., Innes_, Ap. 5, with which _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 15, agrees. Boece of
course is able to supply every deficiency in his own peculiar way.
[105] The principle of “the right of blood” latterly exercised a social
influence over the ecclesiastical as over the political system of
the Gaelic people, and bishops and abbots made their visitations and
exacted their dues amongst a population united to them, in a certain
sense, by the ties of kindred, whilst most of the superior offices
in a monastery became hereditary. Not that they were invariably held
from father to son, but the right of presentation to certain offices
becoming vested in certain families, the people grew by degrees to
be united to their abbots and other ecclesiastical dignitaries by a
similar tie of blood to that which bound them to their chiefs and
princes, and an abbot not chosen from one of the families of the
district in which his monastery was placed, would have appeared (in an
unconquered country) as great an anomaly as a chieftain or a king of
alien blood--an _ungecyndne cyning_. When, therefore, Kenneth founded
Brechin, which must undoubtedly have enjoyed the privilege of _Cuairt_
or visitation over the same extent of country as was afterwards
included in the diocese of that name, he must have possessed the power
of insuring to the abbot and his monks the free exercise of their
rights amongst the people of the district; in other words (as he had
not inherited it), he must have conquered it. Beyond the territories
over which the monastery exercised _Cuairt_, the country up to the
Dee was placed under the jurisdiction of St. Andrews, the bishop of
this diocese being the spiritual head of the conquests of the kings
of Scots--as in the case of Lothian, for instance--except when it was
otherwise arranged.
[106] _Innes_, Ap. 5. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 10. _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 36.
_Tigh._ 995. The king’s visit to Fettercairn was probably a _Cuairt_
or royal progress. The Prior of Lochleven merely says that Kenneth was
slain by some members of his own court--the _socii sui_ of Tighernach.
Fordun, or rather perhaps Bowyer, names the assassins, Grim, the _son_
of Kenneth MacDuff, and Constantine, the son of Culen, whilst he and
Boece describe the machine which cost the king his life. It was as
follows:--“In the middes of this hous was ane image of bras, maid to
the similitude of Kenneth, with ane goldin apill in his hand, with sic
ingine that als sone as any man maid him to throw this apill out of
the hand of the image, the wrying of the samein drew all the tituppis
of the crosbowis up at anis, and schot at him that threw the apill.”
_Bellenden’s Boece_, bk. 11, c. 10.
[107] _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 30.
[108] _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 36. He merely alludes to the death of Malcolm
MacDuff in the twentieth year of Kenneth’s reign; but _Boece_, bk. 11,
c. 9, makes the king poison him.
[109] _Boece_, bk. 11, c. 8. _Fordun_, l. 10, c. 17. Drumlay is
characteristically explained to mean (in good Lowland Scotch)
_Droun-it-lay!_ The whole description is transferred by Boece to the
reign of Duncan the First, the _Rex Noricus_ of Bowyer assuming the
name of Sueno.
[110] As Kenneth was the contemporary of the Anglo-Saxon Edgar, it
is not to be supposed that he has escaped the claims of the Norman
writers, and accordingly, at a time when he was harrying Cumberland,
he figures in their pages as an attendant at the court of Edgar at
Chester, forming one of a a crew of eight “underkings,” who in token
of humble submission rowed the king’s barge in a triumphal procession
on the Dee. During another visit to the English court at Lincoln, a
crafty suggestion of the Scottish king about the difficulty and trouble
of defending Lothian, is rewarded by the gift of the province as a
feudal fief, to be held by various acts of homage, amongst others
on condition of carrying the crown on all state occasions, whilst
manors are provided to cover the expenses of the royal vassal on his
progresses towards the southern court! It is curious to remark the tone
of increasing feudalism pervading the fabrications of each succeeding
century. The composers of the fictions about Kenneth and Edgar,
which are only to be found in the later chroniclers connected with
St. Albans, have been even more than usually imaginative, and their
transparent fabrications remain as a warning to the impartial historian
to look with mistrust upon all claims connected with such a tissue of
anachronism and fable. _V. Appendix L_, pt. 1.
[111] Rathinveramon, “the fort at the mouth of the Almond” where it
joins the Tay, is named as the place of his death in _Innes_, Ap. 5,
the same locality as the “caput amnis Awyne” of Wynton, _v._ also
_Tigh._ 997. It is said to have been the site of the ancient _Bertha_,
and was swept away by the great flood at the close of the reign of
William the Lion.
[112] _Innes_, Ap. 5. _Wynton_, b. 6, c. 10. _An. Ult._ 1004.
[113] _Sim. Dun. de obs. Dun._ (_Twysden_, p. 79). _An. Ult._ 1006.
Through the error of some transcriber probably, these events are
placed by Simeon in the year 969, when neither Malcolm nor Ethelred
were reigning, nor was Ealdun bishop of Durham. The real date must
have been in 1006, as the Ulster annals mention that in 1005 the Scots
were defeated by the Saxons “with great slaughter of their nobles.”
Fordun (l. 4, c. 43) has either mistaken this battle for the later one
at Carham, or has unblushingly claimed it as a victory. Before the
time of Canute the difference in titles of Eorl and Ealdorman, marked
the different people over whom the possessor of the title was placed
in authority. Oslac is addressed as _Eorl_, Ælfhere and Æthelwine as
_Ealdormen_, in the Laws of Edgar, Sup. 15.
[114] _Sim. Dun._, as above; _V. Appendix M_.
[115] _Olaf Tryggvessonar Saga_ in _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 330, and
_Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 119. The battle must have been fought after
1005, the date of Malcolm’s accession, and before 1009, the year of
Thorfin’s birth. The latter was five when his father was killed at
Clontarf, bearing the fatal banner himself, for it seems to have
acquired an evil reputation, and Hrafn the Red, on Sigurd committing
it to his charge after the death of its first bearer, refused to
lift it, adding somewhat unceremoniously, “Bear thine own devil
thyself.”--(_Story of Burnt Njal_, c. 156.)
[116] _Heimsk. Saga_ 7, c. 99, with the Sagas already quoted; _vide_
also the account of the battle of Clontarf in the Irish Annals.
[117] _Chron. Sax._ 1016. _Sim. Dun. Twysden_, p. 81.
[118] _Innes_, Ap. 4. _Sim. Dun. Hist. Dun._, l. 3, c. 5, 6--Do. _De
obs. Dun._ p. 81, _de Gestis_ 1018. On comparing the passages of Simeon
it is impossible to doubt that the cession of Lothian by Eadulf Cudel
was the result of the battle of Carham, though there is an evident
reluctance in the English chronicler to allude to the defeat and its
consequences. The men of the Lothians, according to Wallingford,
retained their laws and customs unaltered, and though the _authority_
is questionable, the _fact_ is probably true, for _Lothian_ law became
eventually the basis of _Scottish_ law. Conquest indeed in these times
did not alter the laws and customs of the conquered, unless where they
come into contact and into opposition with those of the conquerors,
and the men of the Lothians remained under the Scottish kings in much
the same position as the men of Kent under the kings of Mercia and
Wessex, probably exchanging the condition of a _harassed_ for that of a
_favoured_ frontier province.
[119] _Chron. Sax._ 1031. _MS. Cot. Tib._ B. iv. is the authority. Two
later MSS. add the names of two other _kings_, Mælbeth and Jehmarc.
Macbeth became Mormaor of Moray in the following year through the
death of his kinsman Gilcomgain. These two kings reappear in the
Heimskringla (_Saga_ 7, vol. 2, p. 196. _V._ also _Lodb. Quida_, p.
101), as “_Nordan of Skotlandi of Fifi_.” If _Fifi_ is here put for
_Fiord Riki_, it is probably a mistake, for “the Firth kingdom” might
mean Moray as well as Fife, and the name in this instance would be more
appropriate to the former.
[120] _An. Ult._ 1033. He is called M., son of Boedhe, probably Malcolm.
[121] _Tigh._ 1034. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 10. _Fordun_, l. 4, c.
46. Angus was as fatal to Malcolm and his father Kenneth, as the
neighbourhood of Forres had proved to the first Malcolm and his father
Donald.
[122] _Tigh._ 975–997.
[123] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, 1018. _Lutinenses_ is evidently a clerical
error for _Clutinenses_.
[124] _Flor. Wig._, 1054. _Malm. de Gest._, l. 2., c. 196. The
Cumbrensis regio was again detached and given by Edgar to his brother
David, who held it, in spite of the opposition of Alexander, throughout
that king’s reign. _Ailred in Twysden_, p. 344.
[125] _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 44. He connects it with a victory over the
Danes. Whatever may have been the cause of its erection, the founder
must have possessed an influence over the surrounding territory. In the
preface to the Register of Aberdeen, the editor inclines to the opinion
that Malcolm the Third was the founder of Mortlach, in which case the
annexation of Strathbogie and the Garioch to the Scottish crown would
have been the result of the successful northern wars of the latter king.
[126] Strathbogie and the Garioch were “in the crown” at a later
period, and before the reign of David, though it would be difficult
to say with certainty when these districts were annexed. Moray was
forfeited under David, and the summary manner in which that king and
his successors were able to deal with church property in the diocese
of that name, as well as in that of Aberdeen, discloses the different
relation in which the Scottish kings stood towards the people of those
bishoprics and towards the population of some of the other dioceses.
No Culdees appear struggling for their rights in the earlier charters
of Moray and Aberdeen (though in the thirteenth century the Culdees
of Monymusk tried to shake off the supremacy of St. Andrews), a proof
that the powerful Gaelic families in whom these rights would have
been vested, were either extinct, or so far reduced as to be in no
condition to offer any resistance to the measures of David. Such was
not the case in the bishoprics of Brechin and Dunblane, where the
Culdees held their ground long after the time of that king, owing
probably to a reluctance on his part, and on that of his successors, to
alienate their great feudatories, the earls of Strathearn and abbots of
Brechin, by an over prompt interference with Church property in their
possession. The tradition connecting Mortlach with Malcolm the Second,
has induced me to notice the annexations of these districts under this
reign, in which the royal authority may have been considerably extended
and consolidated in this direction, though I think it most probable
that the final conquest and submission of the province was the result
of the frequent and successful, though little known, northern wars of
Malcolm the Third, and the subsequent successes of his son Alexander
in the same quarter. The last Mormaor of the mysterious province of
Mærne appears in alliance with Donald Bane; the people of the district
attempted, in conjunction with the Moray men, to assassinate Alexander
at Invergowrie, and then nothing more is heard either of the Mormaor or
the men of Mærne; and I am inclined to connect with this disappearance
the forfeiture of the ancient family, and the distribution of the
ancient kingdom between Dee and Spey into the two subordinate earldoms
of Mar and Buchan, and the two lordships of Strathbogie and the
Garioch, long retained by a member of the royal family.
[127] This subject is further treated in _Appendices_ _D_ and _N_.
[128] _Triocha-ced_ is the proper name, often rendered _Cantred_, but
erroneously. The Irish _Triocha-ced_ was supposed to be a collection
of thirty _Baille-biataghs_, or hundreds, each supposed to contain
four hundred and eighty Irish acres, thus constituting a _Barony_
of _nominally_ 14,400 Irish acres (_A.F.M._, 1225, _Note_ S). The
_Cantred_--the hundred _trefs_ or villages--belonged properly to Wales,
and was supposed to contain 25,600 Welsh acres, answering rather to the
Continental _Canton_. The Irish and Welsh _Cantred_, therefore, must
not be considered identical. For _Thanes_, _V. Appendix N._
[129] There appears to have been the same difference amongst the
ancient Irish between the _Brugaidh_ and the _Biotagh_, as between the
_Bonder_ and _Landbu_ amongst the Scandinavians. The _Brugaidh_ was
originally the free or adopted member of the Clan or _Cyn_, tracing
his origin either really or theoretically to the founder of the race,
and hence entitled to his free allotment, or _duchas_, of the tribe
land; the freeholder, in short, deriving his name from his _Brugh_,
_Burh_, or separate house, just as the _Bu-ander_ (Bonder) from his
_Bu_--the _Hus-bond_; _V._ “_Hy Fiachrach_,” _passim_. The Biotagh was
the man who held his land by paying _Biodh_--_Feorm_ or _rent_--the
colonus _Geneat_ or tenant farmer, dwelling in the baille or village.
The Brugaidh might have complained, like his type the Bonder, at a
very early period, of being changed into a Biotagh or Land-Bu--made to
pay rent; when his position must have somewhat resembled that of the
Kentish _Alodiarius_ or Gaveller at the time of the Norman Conquest;
but after the English invasion all distinction between the two classes
was speedily forgotten, both merging in the _Villeinage_. In later
times, indeed, the Biotagh occasionally appears to have been of more
consequence than the Brugaidh, probably because members of the former
class might be holders of a far wider extent of land than the small
peasant proprietor, and of comparatively greater importance. Hence the
_Ard-Biotagh_, sometimes met with in the Irish annals, was probably
nothing more than “a great land-holder”,--the possessor of many
“benefices” held by payment of Biodh or rent.--_V._ Appendix _O_.
[130] _A.F.M._, 3922. The Masters attribute the institution to
_Ollamh Fodla_, into whose claims I will not enter; but it is very
evident, I think, that they alluded to an institution well known
at least in tradition. The word _Toshach_ simply means “captain”
or “leader”--_dux_; the Irish _Taisigeacht_ meaning “captaincy,”
“leadership,” or “precedency.” When the office of _dux_, originally
elective, became hereditary, according to the invariable principle of
“divided authority” so characteristic of all the Celtic communities,
it remained permanently in the family of the eldest cadet of the clan,
the Tighern farthest removed from the chieftainship. The “Captains
of Galloway” and the “Thanes of Ross” were probably known in their
native tongue as _Toshachs_--captains by right of office--for though
the oldest cadet and the thane, in his military capacity, were known
as _Toshachs_, it by no means follows that a Toshach was necessarily
either one or the other.
[131] _Reg. Magest._ _Stat. Alex._ II., c. 15. In some respects the
Irish _Oirrigh_--under-king--resembled the Mormaor; but he was a
tributary king, reigning in “right of blood,” not a royal _official_,
though in certain cases he appears to have acted as a _Maor_.
[132] _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 48. Compare _Appendix N_ (Thanes).
[133] _Reg. Prior. St. And._ p. 114.
[134] Fordun, to whom such a being as a married abbot would have been
an abomination, metamorphosed the ancestor of the royal family of
Scotland into an _Abthane_, asserting that the word _Abbas_ could only
be a clerical error for _Abthanus_, an officer whom he places over all
the king’s Thanes, l. 4., c. 43. The contemporary Tighernach, however,
Wynton, and the author of the Chronicle in the _Reg. Prior. St. And._
(_Innes_, Ap. 5), were ignorant that Crinan was known under any other
title but that of abbot, and though _Abthanages_ are to be met with in
the charters, I have never yet chanced to light upon an _Abthane_. Such
a name, in fact, would have been simply applicable to the maor of an
abbot instead of the king--the holder of an ecclesiastical Thanage.
[135] _Heimsk. Saga_ 7, c. 100 to 107. _Ork. Saga_, in _Col. de Reb.
alb._, p. 340.
[136] _Ork. Saga, Col. de Reb. alb._, p. 341.
[137] _Sim. Dun. Hist. Dun._, l. 3, c. 9. The fifth year of Canute’s
son, Harold, fell in 1040.
[138] Dyrness appears to mean Turness, in the isle of Hoy, not Durness
the north-western extremity of Sutherlandshire.
[139] Torfnes, south of Bœfiord, seems to mean Burghead on the Moray
Firth; Breida Fiord was the Dornoch Firth. The account of these
transactions is from the _Ork. Saga_, in _Col. de Reb. alb._, as
above. Kali Hundison, the name given in the Saga to the successor of
Malcolm and opponent of Thorfin, can mean no other than Duncan. _Vide_
_Appendix P_.
[140] _Innes_, Ap. 5. _Tigh._ 1040. _Mar. Scot._ 1040. Slain “a duce
suo,” writes Marianus. Tighernach adds _immaturâ ætate_, contrary to
all modern ideas of Duncan. Marianus was born in 1028, Tighernach
was his senior; their authority, therefore, at this period, as
contemporaries, is very great. _Bothgowanan_ means “the smith’s
bothy,” and under this word may lurk some long forgotten tradition
of the real circumstances of Duncan’s murder. The vision of a weary
fugitive, a deserted king, rises before the mind’s eye, recalling
“Beaton’s mill” and the fate of James the Third. Two hundred years
after his death a chaplain was appointed by his descendant, Alexander
the Second, to celebrate masses in Elgin Cathedral for the benefit of
Duncan’s soul. No allusion is made in the Saga to any alliance between
Thorfin and Macbeth, and whilst the former is described as collecting
reinforcements from Ross, Sutherland, and Caithness, Duncan retires
upon Moray as a friendly province in which he recruits his forces.
Considering the hereditary enmity between the Jarls of Orkney and the
Mormaors of Moray, it seems more probable that the ill fortune of the
young king tempted Macbeth to aspire to the crown, and to murder his
rival in “the Smith’s bothy,” where he was resting after retreating
from the field of his last defeat. In the Saga, Kali disappears after
the battle and is heard of no more, from which it would appear that the
Orkneymen and their allies had nothing to do with his death, of which
they were probably ignorant.
[141] Chalmers, who has traced in his _Caledonia_ the memorials of
these contests with all the zeal of an enthusiastic antiquary, is
angry with Pinkerton for asserting that “there is not a shadow of
authority for the Danish wars of Malcolm the Second;” remarking that
“popular tradition, with well vouched remains, are historical documents
of sufficient authority for narrative facts.” For the _facts_,
undoubtedly, but not for the _narratives_, which have been subsequently
appended. The remains, so industriously noted down by Chalmers, fully
attest the frequent conflicts occurring along the Scottish coasts with
the Northmen, but they do not prove the truth of minute descriptions of
battles unknown before the time of Boece, who wrote in the early part
of the sixteenth century.
[142] _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 16, 18. Much needless confusion is thrown
over the period of Macbeth by raising unnecessary questions about
his birth and his rights to the crown. All the best authorities--his
contemporaries Tighernach and Marianus, and the Registry of the
Priory of St. Andrews, which records his gift to the Culdees of
Lochleven--unite in calling him the son of Finlay, the Register
describing his wife as the daughter of Boedhe, whose claims she
inherited. Another difficulty is raised because Macbeth appears as the
immediate successor of Malcolm the Second in _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_,
1034, contrary to every other authority. That this is an error, of
some transcriber apparently, is very evident, for the same Simeon, in
his History of Durham, l. 3, c. 9, calls Duncan the king of Scots,
adding that he was defeated before Durham in the fifth year of Harald’s
reign, _i.e._, 1040, and soon afterwards slain by his own subjects. The
supposed relationship between Macbeth and Duncan may have been grounded
upon the real connection between the king and Thorfin, with whom the
Moray Mormaor seems to have been confounded in more ways than one.
[143] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. 114.
[144] _Mar. Scot._ 1050.
[145] _Tigh. An. Ult._ 1045. The flight of Duncan’s children--mere
infants--one to _Cumbria_, the other to _the Isles_, is a fiction
founded on the ideas of the time when it first appears, three or four
centuries later. They probably remained amongst their hereditary
partizans in Atholl and the southern provinces, occupying the same
position which their cousin Lulach had done during the reign of
their father--the position of the Head of the Hy Nial, when Brian
Boru achieved the sovereignty of Ireland; or of a Duke of Bavaria or
Austria, in the olden time, when another magnate had been elected to
the empire.
[146] _Flor. Wig._ 1052.
[147] _Tigh. An. Ult. Chron. Sax._ 1054. Neither the contemporary
Irish annalist, nor the two MSS. of the Chronicle which describe the
expedition of Siward, allude to any cause for it, or note any result
beyond the immense booty obtained. They never mention the name of
Malcolm or of the Confessor, and the _MS. Cot. Tib._, B I, expressly
adds that Macbeth escaped from the battle. It remained for the writers
of the Anglo-Norman era to confound the events of two separate years
for their own purposes, and to represent Siward as the slayer of
Macbeth and the restorer of Malcolm to the throne of Scotland, at the
command of Edward the Confessor, though the Northumbrian earl died
three years before the accession of the Scottish prince. The ever ready
pen of the Prior of Belvoir, to a literal transcription of Florence,
adds the words “de se tenendum,” to complete the feudality of the
transaction; the addition resting on grounds quite as good as the rest
of the story, which almost seems to have been adapted upon the events
which occurred forty years later, in the days of Malcolm Ceanmore’s
sons, Edward standing in the place of Rufus, Siward in that of the
Atheling, and Macbeth playing the part of Donald Bane.
[148] _Tigh. An. Ult._ 1058. _Innes_, Ap. 5. Wynton is the first to
mention the popular story of Birnam Wood coming to Dunsinnan, but he
places the death of Macbeth at Lumphanan, attributing it to “a knycht
nowcht borne of wyf,” who is transformed by Boece into Macduff. As
Fife was “in the crown” in the days of Malcolm Ceanmore, who granted
the earldom to his son Ethelred, the Macduff Earl of Fife of the
fabulists--a being unknown to Wynton--must be set down as _a myth_.
Since the days of the younger Angus, the founder of St. Andrews, the
province appears to have been connected with the royal family--the
abbacy of the leading monastery of the district having been held
by Constantine the Second, just as the abbacy of Dunkeld belonged
invariably to a member of the house of Atholl--and the first earl,
who cannot be traced to the reigning family, was Dufagan or Duff, a
witness of the Foundation Charter of Scone in the time of Alexander
the First; his immediate successors being Constantine and Gillemichael
Macduff. Fife appears to have been the latest earldom held by the old
Scottish tenure, and its earls, like the earls of Atholl--a branch of
the reigning family--never appear in the ranks of the king’s enemies.
Indeed they may be looked upon in early times as premier Earls of
Scotland, with certain privileges attaching to their dignity, to
account for which the legend of Macduff was probably framed; though
it is not impossible that the earldom with its prominent position and
privileges was granted to the _historical_ Duff or Dufagan as a reward
for his assistance in restoring _the sons_ of Malcolm to the throne.
Many examples could be given of the _transposition_ of events from
one period to another. A prominent one occurs in Norwegian history,
the whole of the actions of _Olaf Tryggveson_ in England having been
transferred to _Olaf the Saint_.
[149] According to Tighernach, Lulach perished, _per dolum_, a vague
word, which may imply either treachery or simply an ambuscade. The
Latin chroniclers sometimes call him Lulach _fatuus_--the simple.
[150] Chalmers (_Caledonia_, vol. i., p. 422) maintains that Ingebiorge
could not have been the mother of Malcolm’s eldest son Duncan, as her
first husband, Thorfin, survived till 1074, and Duncan was knighted
soon after 1072, when he must have been at least fifteen years of age.
But Thorfin died “in the latter days of Harald Sigurdson,” whom his
sons accompanied as Jarls of the Orkneys to the battle of Stanford
Bridge in 1066. Malcolm was married to Margaret in 1070, Duncan was
not knighted before the death of the Conqueror, in 1087, when he must
have been more than fifteen; and as five or six years elapsed between
the death of Thorfin and the marriage of Malcolm to Margaret, I see no
reason for doubting the account of the Orkneyinga Saga, though many
for hesitating to affix the stigma of illegitimacy upon Duncan, whose
donations to Dunfermlyn are confirmed by David without any allusion to
such a bar to his right to the crown.
[151] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1061, 1065, 1066. _Chron. Sax._ 1065–66.
[152] In 1070 Malcolm held Cumberland by force (_Sim. Dun._), and it
was only in 1092 that Rufus drove Dolfin, apparently a son of Cospatric
of Dunbar, out of the province, and rebuilt Carlisle. This part of
England was not included in the Domesday Survey.
[153] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1068–9. _Hist. Dun._, l. 3, c. 15. _Chron.
Sax._ 1067–68. The dates of the Chronicle are wrong, as Easter fell on
the 23d of March in 1068, and the historian of Durham is consequently
correct. Indeed he is the first authority for the affairs of the north
at this period. William three times entered York as a conqueror. A
passage in Ordericus Vitalis is sometimes brought forward as a proof
that Malcolm sent his submission to William through Aylwin, bishop of
Durham, after the failure of the attempt of Edwin and Morkar in 1068. I
have given the reasons why I cannot concur in this opinion in _Appendix
Q_.
[154] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1069. _Chron. Sax._ 1069.
[155] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1070.
[156] _Sim. Dun._, _as before_.
[157] Marianus alludes to this famine. Compare the account of Simeon
with Domesday in Ellis’s Introduction. At the date of the Survey,
Lincolnshire contained 11,504 Socmen and 11,747 Villani and Bordarii,
whilst in Yorkshire only 447 Socmen are recorded, with 6914 of the
other classes. Yorkshire was the head-quarters of the Anglo-Danes
of Northumbria, and as the Socmen represented the old Danish
_Odal-Bonders_, there is no difficulty in recognising the real class
that bore the brunt of the northern wars, and contributed most largely
to the _emigrants_ and _outlaws_.
[158] In the beginning of the century Uchtred, the son of Waltheof,
seems to have married and put away his wives without the slightest
scruple, nor could bishop Ealdun procure a permanent husband for
his daughter Egfreda even by alienating the lands of his see in her
favour. Twice was she divorced in spite of her dowry, and neither the
bishop nor the chronicler who records these proceedings appear to have
regarded them as extraordinary. _Sim. Dun. Twysden_, p. 79.
[159] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1070. _Vit. St. Marg._ Edgar and his family
appear to have left Scotland in 1069, and to have returned thither in
the following year.
[160] Such appears to be the meaning of the expression of the
Chronicler, “he found nothing there for which he was the better,”
_Chron. Sax._ 1072. Compare _Wendover ad. an._ 1072.
[161] Edgar, according to the Chron. Sax., returned to Scotland from
Flanders in 1074, and he probably sought refuge in the latter country
at the approach of William.
[162] Lord Hailes, vol. 1, p. 17, thinks it improbable that Abernethy
on the Tay can be the place intended, from its lying out of William’s
probable route. He appears, however, to have forgotten that all the
early invaders of Scotland who combined a fleet with their land
force--and none else were successful--must have held their course
_along the coast_, or their fleet would have been useless. Abernethy,
according to Ailred, was _in Scotia_ (_Twysden_, p. 340), or beyond the
Forth, and it was exactly because William had succeeded in penetrating
into the heart of the real kingdom of Scotland that Malcolm came to
terms.
[163] _Chron. Sax._ 1072. _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1072–1087. _An. Ult._
1072. It may be gathered from _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1091, that Malcolm
held twelve manors of William and received a yearly payment of twelve
marks of gold, and as the kings only met once, these grants must have
been made on this occasion. The homage of Malcolm would appear to have
been _simple_ not _liege_, for he never seems to have been called upon
to perform any feudal service; whilst his subsequent repudiation of the
demands of Rufus shows that the homage was not rendered for the kingdom
of Scotland, but was simply the feudal recognition of his subsidy. In
short, the meeting appears to have resulted in a compromise, William
endeavouring to secure the peace of his northern borders by what in the
present age would take the form of a pension or subsidy, then conferred
as a feudal grant, for which Malcolm performed homage, giving up his
son as a hostage for his faithful observance of the treaty. _Vide
Appendix L_, part 2.
[164] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1072. _Malm. Gesta. Regum_, l. 3, sec. 253.
[165] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1073. _Chron. Sax._ 1074. _Malm. Gest.
Reg._, l. 3, sec. 251.
[166] _Chron. Sax._ 1077. _An. Ult._ 1085. Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_,
vol. i., p. 123) supposes, on the strength of a very ambiguous entry
in the Ulster Annals, that a certain Donald MacMalcolm, a son or
descendant of Malcolm MacMalbride, the Mormaor of Moray who died in
1029, reigned over the north of Scotland from the death of Thorfin in
1064 to his own death in 1085. It is impossible, however, that this
Donald could have been the representative of Malcolm of Moray, or he
must have been Mormaor of that province in place of Macbeth, Lulach,
and Malsnechtan, of whom the latter died in the same year as Donald,
in the peaceful possession of Moray. Neither would Donald have had
any claim upon the crown, as he was not the heir of Gruoch, and it
is impossible that he could have reigned over the north of Scotland
for upwards of twenty years, whilst his kinsman Malsnechtan, _the
real heir_, was content with the province of Moray. If the entry is
correct it is just as possible that the words “Donald, son of Malcolm
king of Scotland” may apply to a son of Malcolm the Third; but the
word _Righ_ in the Irish Annals is very ambiguous, and ought to be
translated _prince_ rather than _king_, a title which answers more to
the _Ardrigh_.
[167] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1079–80. _Chron. Sax._ 1079. _Fordun_, l.
5, c. 21. _Vide Appendix Q._
[168] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1087.
[169] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1091. _Chron. Sax._ 1091.
[170] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, _Chron. Sax._, and _Flor. Wig., ad an._
1091. Orderic also gives an account of this expedition--as usual
a gossiping mixture of truth and absurdity. Malmsbury (l. 4, sec.
311) says that “William performed nothing worthy of his greatness,
whilst he lost many of his men and baggage-horses.” Wendover, from
his frequent literal transcriptions of Malmsbury, must have had this
passage before him when he wrote “venientes igitur rex et frater
ejus Robertus in Angliam, acies duxerunt in Scotiam, unde Malcolmus
_nimio terrore percussus_ homagium regi fecit Anglorum, et fidelitatem
juravit,” (vol. ii., p. 37). In a similar manner “that most authentic
and valuable volume, the Book of Abingdon,” (?) expands the short
sentence in which Simeon describes the abortive invasion of Scotland by
Robert in 1080--“Cum pervenisset ad Egglesbreth nullo confecto negotio
reversus, etc.”--into the following inflated narrative:--“Verum rex
illi Lodoniis occurrens cum suis, pacisci potius quam præliari delegit.
Perinde ut _regno Angliæ principatus Scotiæ_ subactus foret, obsides
tribuit. Quo pacto inito Regis filius cum exercitu ad patrem hilaris
repedavit” (_Vide_ _Appendix Q_). When the comparative failures of
Robert and William in 1080 and 1091 are thus misrepresented--failures
which were notorious, and admitted to be so by the contemporary English
chroniclers--what degree of confidence can be attached to the inflated
descriptions of the successes of the earlier English kings, which are
to be found in the same authorities? We can only judge by _results_.
[171] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax._ 1092.
[172] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax. ad an._ 1093.
[173] Malcolm was evidently taken by surprise. “He sent and demanded
the fulfilment of the treaty that was promised him. And the king,
William, cited him to Gloucester, and sent him hostages to Scotland,
and Edgar Atheling afterwards and the men returned that brought him
with dignity to the king. But when he came to the king he could not
be considered worthy either of our king’s speech or of the conditions
that were formerly promised him.” Such are the words of the Saxon
Chronicler, yet Malmesbury says (sec. 311), “Malcolm came of his
own accord to Gloucester, an earnest suitor for peace on equitable
conditions, but he obtained nothing, though he was permitted to return
in safety, as the king disdained to capture by fraud one whom he had
subdued by valour.” The safe conduct and the hostages detract something
from this much vaunted magnanimity, but Malmesbury would sacrifice a
good deal for the sake of a well turned period. The assertion which
Simeon and Florence have placed in the mouth of Malcolm conveys a
valuable piece of historical information, though it does not follow
that the king spoke _feudal Latin_ because they have written it. The
presence and intervention of the leading nobles of both kingdoms at
meetings on the frontier implies the independence of both kings;
for if the king of Scotland had been the vassal of England _for
his kingdom_, he and _all his followers_ would have been liable to
have been cited to the court of their suzerain at the will of the
latter, as actually happened in the reign of William the Lion. In
the convention between Rufus and Robert, twelve barons on each side
confirmed the agreement in token of the independence of both parties
(_Flor. Wig._ 1091). In the treaty between Richard and William the
Lion four barons appear in the same way on either side (_Fœd._ vol.
i., pt. 1, p. 50); and both Scottish and English nobles invariably
affix their names to the conventions between their kings, recorded so
often in the Fœdera. In attempting to force Malcolm to submit to the
judgment of the English barons when he had come to Gloucester on an
errand of a totally different description, William appears to have
been actuated principally by overweening arrogance, though he may also
have endeavoured to found a precedent injurious to Scotland; and it is
singular to mark how nearly all the English authorities accuse Malcolm
of “a breach of faith” because he resented the conduct of William,
whilst they pass over without notice the glaring “breach of faith” on
the part of their own king.
[174] Morel was king Malcolm’s “Godsib,” or, in other words, they
had stood Godfathers together. This bond of spiritual relationship
appears to have been thought a very sacred tie in those days, and to
be unfaithful to the _Godsib_ was considered a heinous sin, at any
rate amongst the Gael; for the four Masters describe the state of the
country as peculiarly wretched when “there was no protection for Church
or Fortress, _Gossipred_ or mutual oath.” _An. F. M._ 1050, _O’Donovan_.
[175] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax._ 1093. _Fordun_, l. 5,
c. 25. _Malm. Gesta Regum_, l. 4, sec. 311. Both Malmesbury and the
Saxon Chronicler imply that Malcolm lost his life by treachery, and the
account of Orderic, as usual a strange mixture of truth and error, goes
far to prove the existence of a tradition to this effect. He is next
said to have been slain at the siege of Alnwick Castle, though it is
more than doubtful if a castle then existed on the banks of the Alne.
From _Alnwick Castle_ the step was easy to the family so long connected
with that border fortress, and the Scottish king was at length said to
have been slain by a knight, who, issuing from the castle gate with the
keys on the point of his lance in token of surrender, suddenly _pierced
the eye_ of Malcolm, acquiring from this feat the name of _Pierce eye_
or Percy! About two centuries after the fall of Malcolm an improbable
story was circulated at Tynemouth, that the body of a peasant had been
palmed off upon Alexander for that of his father, _Mat. Paris Addit_,
p. 129. The writer adds that Malcolm was conquered “by order of Henry
the First,” and winds up his account of the deceit with these quaint
words “ita delusa est _Scottorum improbitas_.” The keen relish with
which he enjoys the idea of overreaching “_the Scotch rogues_” is
amusing. Pleasures of rare occurrence are sometimes supposed to be the
sweetest.
[176] Life of Margaret, ascribed to Turgot, and contained in the “_Acta
Sanctorum_, June 10.” Malcolm was obliged to put up with his losses,
but to every one else she restored twofold what she borrowed for
charity.
[177] _Twysden_, p. 367. Ailred heard this anecdote from Malcolm’s
son David. It has been transferred by some later writers to the Saxon
Edgar, the Scottish Kenneth playing the part of the guilty nobleman.
The hunt was conducted “secundum legem venandi quam vulgus _tristam_
vocat.” An open plain, encircled by a belt of wood, was the scene of
the sport; a flowery hillock in the centre the place of rendezvous for
the sportsmen; whom Malcolm placed in different commanding positions,
ready to let slip their dogs upon the game as it was driven by the
beaters from covert.
[178] The principal point which Margaret succeeded in carrying out was
connected with Lent, which the Gaelic Church kept from Quadrigesima
Sunday instead of from Ash Wednesday. The Gaelic practice was long the
universal custom, and it is still doubtful who added the four days.
Pope Gregory the Great speaks of _the thirty-six days_ of abstinence,
though some maintain that he was the first to begin Lent from Ash
Wednesday, whilst others refer the change to the time of Gregory the
Second (_Bingham_, bk. 21, c. 1), in which they are probably correct,
as the custom would otherwise have penetrated into the Gaelic Church
when it conformed to the Roman practice in the days of Nectan and
Ceolfrith. The other practices which Margaret endeavoured to reform
were--1. A reluctance to communicate on Easter Sunday. 2. Labour on
Sundays. 3. Marriage with the widow of a father or brother. 4. The
celebration of the service with _barbarous rites_, or, in other words,
in a manner to which she was unaccustomed. In the latter point she
seems to have been unsuccessful, for the Culdees still continued to
celebrate their office _more suo_ in the days of Alexander and David
(_Vide_ Margaret’s Life by Turgot, c. 2). It is worthy of remark that
Margaret seems to have made no attempt to separate the Culdees from
their wives; and as numbers of the Anglo-Saxon clergy were married
men at that time, particularly in the provinces beyond the Humber,
where the customs of the Northmen were little interfered with, it is
probable that she did not consider their manner of life contrary to
ecclesiastical discipline. The system of Hildebrand did not penetrate
into England until after the Norman Conquest. In one of his Charters
(_Ancient Laws, etc., of England_, vol. i., p. 495) William says,
“Sciatis ... quod episcopates leges, quæ non bene nec secundum
sanctorum canonum precepta usque ad mea tempora in regno Anglorum
fuerunt ... emendandas judicavi.”
[179] “At least,” says the honest historian, “the dishes and vessels
were gilt or silvered over.”--_Hailes_, vol. 1, p. 44.
[180] The _diversis coloribus vestes_ are sometimes supposed to have
been _tartan_. The earliest dresses of the Gael were stained of a
saffron colour, which was also used at one period amongst the Rajpoots.
[181] This account of Margaret is entirely taken from her life,
written by her confessor, generally ascribed to Turgot, and I think
with reason. The writer was not her confessor latterly (c. 4), and as
Turgot entered into orders in 1074 (not 1084 as Papenbroch says), and
became Prior of Durham in 1087, six years before the death of Margaret,
this would agree very well with the theory that ascribes the work to
him. It must have been written in the reign of Edgar, as the messenger
who brought the news of Malcolm’s death to Margaret was “the son who
succeeded to the king”--not Duncan, who was neither present at the
battle nor was he a son of Margaret--and as _three_ sons succeeded,
though the writer only alludes to _the son_ who succeeded, he must have
written before the second son came to the throne. _Vide_ also _Hailes’
Annals, in loc._
[182] Wherever the followers of Rufus were quartered, it was their
custom to burn everything that they could neither eat, sell, nor carry
off, whilst all that they could not drink in their orgies they either
spilled or used to wash their horses feet. “Quæ vero in patresfamilias
crudelia, quæ in uxores et filias indecentia fecerint, reminisci
pudet.” Hence the approach of the court was the signal for the wretched
inhabitants of the neighbourhood to fly to the woods, and leave their
houses to the mercy of their oppressors. Henry endeavoured to repress
the evil with the stern justice of his father, tearing out the eyes of
the perpetrators of such enormities, or punishing them by amputation of
the hands or feet. _Ead. Hist. Novell._, l. 4, p. 94.
[183] _Ead. Hist. Novell._, l. 3, p. 56. Malcolm seems to have been
fortunate in his choice between the sisters. It may have been the
influx of ladies like the Scottish princess amongst the nuns, that
introduced the use of ornamented pins and gold rings amongst the
sisterhood, with the wreathing and dressing the hair, forbidden in
several subsequent councils. The words of Matilda convict Orderic of
one of those blunders which render that chronicler such a broken reed
to lean upon whenever historical accuracy is required. He says that
Count Alan of Bretagne sought the hand of Matilda _from Rufus_, “sed
morte præventus non obtinuit,” (l. 7, p. 702). As Alan died on the 19th
October 1119 (_L’Art de verifier les Dates_, vol. ii., p. 897), it is
difficult to conceive how his death could have prevented his marriage
with Matilda, who had then been eighteen months in her grave (she died
1st January 1118), after having been the wife of Henry the First since
November 1100! Alan’s first wife died in 1090, and he re-married in
1093, before Matilda could have sought refuge in England, for Malcolm
was alive until the 13th November in that year. Alan, however, was once
a suitor for the hand of Matilda, but to her father Malcolm (according
to her own words) not to Rufus. This is the little grain of truth
which, as usual, lurks in an infinity of error; for Orderic seems to
have retailed all the gossip of the day, generally contriving to get
hold of a wrong version of the story.
[184] Matilda appears to have been very amiable, very devout, very fond
of music and poetry, very vain, and rather pretty; not a perfect, but
a feminine and loveable character, which earned her the title of “Good
Queen Maud.” The feeling which prompted her aversion to the unbecoming
black hood is easily to be traced in the character which Malmesbury
has left of her (_Gesta Regum_, l. 5, sec. 418), though the good Queen
would have forgiven serious offences sooner than the lukewarm praise
accorded by that writer to her personal charms, “haud usquequaque
despicabilis formæ.” Like most of her family she died in the prime of
life.
[185] _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 3, l. 96, who says that Ethelred took
advantage of a mist to convey the body of his mother out of the
west gate before her death was generally known. The good prior was
as ignorant of any divine agency on this occasion as Turgot was
unconscious of any pretentions on the part of his royal mistress to
supernatural gifts; but in the account of Fordun, l. 5, c. 26, the body
of Margaret is conveyed through the host of Donald Bane under cover of
a miraculous mist “That a mist on the Firth of Forth should be held
miraculous,” remarks Lord Hailes, “must appear to the inhabitants of
the Lothians a strange example of prepossession and credulity.”
[186] Boece palliates the usurpation of Donald by attributing it to
the detestation--to use the words of his translator Bellenden--“of
the pepil at the riotus and intemperat manneris brocht amang thaim be
Inglismen;” the same high authority enumerating amongst the virtues
of David that “he ejeckit the vennomus custome of riotus cheir quhilk
was inducit afore be Inglismen.” David probably introduced the Norman
habits, for at this period the Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Danes were
renowned for their love of “riotus cheir,” though they were hardly
the corrupters of the austere morals of the ancient Scots. Robert de
Mellent is said to have introduced the custom of one meal a day from
Constantinople, for his health as he affirmed--for his niggardliness,
as was grumblingly insinuated by the hungry Saxons, who loved to
recall the jovial days when Hardicanute set four meals a day before
his overfed dependants, and rejoiced to see the dishes carried away
full, because his followers could literally eat no more. There may have
been some truth in the complaints of the Saxons, for the Normans, with
many high qualities, were a hard and close race in all that concerned
money. “The vennomus custome of riotus cheir” among _Inglismen_ is
again attributed by Lambarde entirely to the corruptions of the Danes,
probably with equal justice; and upon their shoulders must the blame
rest, till some Yorkshireman, or other denizen of ancient _Danelage_,
vindicates the character of his ancestry at the expense of some other
scapegoat.
[187] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Ch. Sax., adan._ 1093. Donald reigned
from Nov. 1093 till May 1094; Duncan from the latter date to the close
of the same year, and Donald again from the close of 1094 till after
Michaelmas in 1097.
[188] _Innes_, Ap. 5. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 3, l. 145. _Sim. Dun. de
Gestis_, _Chron. Sax._, and _An. Ult. ad an._ 1094. _Malm. Gesta
Regum_, l. 5, sec. 400.
[189] _Chron. Sax._ 1097.
[190] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax. ad an._ 1097. According
to Fordun, l. 5, c. 30, the Banner of St. Cuthbert won the day, three
knights, through its aid, defeating the whole of Donald’s army!
[191] _Malm., as above._ _Innes_, Ap. 4. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 3, l. 108,
and c. 8, l. 49. The Prior of Lochleven tells a singular tale about
Donald, how in his blindness he enticed into his power the eldest son
of David “a gangand chyld ... and wyth tympanys sharpe set till hys
naylis ... thrystyd and swa handlyd the chyld ... quhil he deyd at the
last,” and how “the modyr than that herd the cry ... for sorow gave the
gast rycht thare.” As the latter part of the story is unquestionably
false, it may be hoped that the whole tale is a fabrication. In the
version of the same tale recorded by Orderic, the supposed murderer
is an outcast priest, a pensioner on David’s charity. _Vide Hailes’
Annals_, vol. i., p. 112, note.
[192] _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 108. _Tigh._ 1034. Gille, Jarl of
the Sudreys, was either the nephew or the brother-in-law of Jarl
Sigurd,--or both, as a marriage between an aunt and her nephew
occasionally took place in the distant north.
[193] _Tigh._ 1052, 1061. _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 346. _Seventy_-five
and _sixty_-five years have been given to Thorfin, but as he was five
years of age when his father fell at Clontarf in 1014, and his own
death occurred before the expedition of Harald Hardrade in 1066, he
probably died at the age of _fifty_-five, in 1064.
[194] _Chron. Man._ 1047. The dates of this Chronicle are occasionally
very inaccurate, but they are easily rectified. Godfrey Crovan
conquered Man five years after the inroad of Malcolm the Third into
Cleveland, _i.e._, in 1075.
[195] _Tigh._ 1072.
[196] _Tigh._ _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M. ad an._ 1075.
[197] _Chron. Man._ 1056. The abrogation of the Odallers’ rights
appears to have been the first step invariably taken by Scandinavian
conquerors. The result was taxation, the king or Jarl asserting his
right to the land. This division of the island was probably the reason
of the two _Deemsters_ or Judges of Man.
[198] _Chron. Man._ _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M._ 1094. Godfrey is
generally known in the Irish Annals as _Meranach_, or the Bad.
[199] _An. Ult._ 1087.
[200] _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M._ 1095. _An. Inisf._ 1078. _Chron.
Man._ “Nullus qui fabricant navem vel scapham ausus esset plus quam
tres clavos insere.” Such are the words of the Chronicle; their exact
meaning I do not pretend to understand.
[201] This account of the first expedition of Magnus is taken from the
_Heimskringla, Saga_ 11, c. 9, 10, 11. _Chron. Man._ 1098. _Chron.
Sax._ 1098. From his partiality to the costume of the Islesmen, he
obtained the name of Magnus _Barefoot_. The later Scottish Chroniclers
assert that the cession of the Isles was the price of the assistance
of Magnus, which placed Donald Bane upon the throne. He must have been
resuscitated from the grave.
[202] _Heimsk. Saga_ 11, c. 25. _An. Ult._ _A. F. M._ 1101, 1102.
According to the Chronicle of Man, Magnus sent his shoes to Murketagh,
ordering that king to carry them on Christmas day, in token of his
inferiority. The Irish chieftains were naturally indignant, but their
king replied that he was ready to eat the shoes rather than one
province of Ireland should be wasted! This singular tale was unknown
to the Norse and Irish Chroniclers; and indeed, if Magnus deserved the
epithet appended to his name, it would have been difficult for him to
send such articles of apparel to the Irish court.
[203] _Heimsk. Saga_ 11, c. 26–28. _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M._ 1103.
_Vide_ also _Antiq._ _Celt.-Scand._, p. 231 to p. 244.
[204] _An. Inisf._ 1086. _Malm. Gesta Regum_, l. 5, sec. 409.
[205] _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 34.
[206] Sim. _Dun. de Gestis_ 1107. _Ailred de Bel. Stand_ (_Twysden_, p.
344). _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 55.
[207] Ailred, in his _Genealogia Regum_ (_Twysden_, p. 367, 368),
describes the character of the three brothers, Edgar, Alexander, and
David. He also relates an anecdote which he heard from David, that
whilst that prince in his younger days was in attendance at the English
court, he received a sudden summons, when amongst his companions, to
repair to the presence of his royal sister. He found the Queen engaged
in her evening occupation of washing the feet of a number of lepers,
and pressing the feet of each leper to her lips as she completed the
ceremony. Matilda invited her brother to follow her example, but he
excused himself, not unnaturally expressing a doubt whether the royal
Henry would approve of the manner in which his Queen bestowed her
favours. Matilda did not press the subject, and David rejoined his
companions. Wendover has copied this anecdote, dating it in 1105.
[208] _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 5, l. 21 to 62. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 36. _Lib.
de Scone_, ch. 1. I have principally followed the account of Wynton.
It was evidently the object of Alexander to bring the men of Moray
and Mærne to an engagement where his mounted followers could act with
effect, whilst it was equally the aim of his enemies to attack the king
at a disadvantage, which they calculated upon doing if he attempted
to cross by the usual ford. It was from no mere reckless bravado that
Alexander swam across, at an unguarded spot probably, and at full tide,
when he was least expected, thus out-manœuvring the enemy and falling
upon them in the open country. Swimming a river was no uncommon feat
amongst the heavy-armed soldiery of those days. Robert of Gloucester
swam the Trent before the battle of Lincoln, when the fords were
impassable from floods. Fordun (or Bowyer), frightened perhaps at the
idea of the king and his men-at-arms swimming the Moray Firth, places
the battle at the Spey, and divides the honour of the feat with Sir
Alexander Scrimgeour. He and Boece are eloquent about the escape of
Alexander from the treachery of one of his chamberlains in league with
the enemy; but Wynton knew nothing of the tale, which probably rests
on a very doubtful foundation. Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_, vol. i., p.
129) has attributed the attack on Alexander to Ladman, a son of Donald
Bane, on the strength of the following entry in the Ulster Annals under
the year 1116. “Ladmunn M. Dom. h ... righ Alban killed by the men of
Moray.” But Ladman son of Donald, _grandson_ of ... king of Alban, can
scarcely be a description applicable to a son of Donald Bane; and the
word now lost must have been the name of Ladman’s _great grandfather_,
not the _designation of his father_. Donald Bane appears to have left
no son, for both Wynton and the Comyn pedigree in the Fœdera, represent
Bethoc as his heiress. Ladman also appears to have been at enmity with
the Moraymen; but who or what he was must remain a matter of conjecture.
[209] _An. Ult._ 1093. Fordun supplies four bishops _elect_ between
Fothadh and Turgot; but of “Gregory, Cathrey, Edmar, and Godric,”
Wynton, a canon of St. Andrews, and well read in the archives of the
see, was profoundly ignorant. The words of the old MS. quoted in
Selden’s preface to Twysden p. 6, “Electus fuit Turgotus ... et stetit
per annos septem. In diebus illis totum jus Keledeorum per totum regnum
Scotiæ transivit in Episcopatum St. Andriæ,” imply that a great change
was brought about at this time.
[210] The appointment of the Archbishop of Lyons to be Metropolitan
over Tours, Rouen, and Sens, by Hildebrand, in spite of the opposition
of the bishops of those Metropolitan sees; and the elevation of
Toledo into the Metropolitan see of Spain, by Urban II., without in
any way consulting the wishes of the Spanish clergy, may be quoted as
instances. The state of the Papacy in the early part of the eleventh
century had been scandalous. In 1012 Benedict VIII. obtained the see
through the influence of his kinsman the Marquis of Toscanella, one of
a family which had influenced the elections of the bishops of Rome for
upwards of a century. His brother John XIX. fairly bought the Papacy,
and was in the same day a layman and the head of the Roman Church.
Similar means obtained the election of his nephew, Benedict IX., a
mere child, who after scandalizing Rome with his excesses, retired in
favour of Gregory VII., who was in turn deposed for simony on account
of the bribe by which he procured the abdication of Benedict. The
latter then again reappeared to contest the popedom with two German
bishops, Clement II. and Damascus II.; and after their deaths the
Romans appealed to the emperor against the threatened intrusion of
Benedict for the third time, and the papacy was conferred upon Leo IX.
In allusion to the influence of Hildebrand, his great friend the Bishop
of Ostia wrote the following lines:--
Papam rite colo, sed te prostratus adoro; Tu facis hunc Dominum, te
facit ille Deum.
[211] The reply of William was very characteristic of the great Norman:
“Homage neither have I sworn, nor will I swear it, for I never promised
it, nor can I find that my predecessors ever performed it to yours.”
Though perfectly respectful to the Pope, he said, “If ever monk of my
land carry plaint against his sovereign lord I’ll have him hanged on
the tallest tree in the forest.”
[212] “Il n’y avoit pas de Royaume qu’il ne prétendit être tributaire
du saint Siege, et pour le prouver, il ne craignoit point d’alléguer
des titres qui se conservoient, disoit-il, dans les Archives de
l’Eglise Romaine, mais qu’il n’osa jamais produire.” Such are the
words of the Benedictine editor of “L’Art de verifier les Dates.” The
Donation of Constantine was first openly brought forward in the letter
of Leo IX. to Michael Patriarch of Constantinople, written in 1054, and
it was one of the causes of the separation of the Greek Church. It is
a fair specimen of the supposed contents of “the Archives of the Roman
Church.”
[213] The manner of choosing a bishop, and the abuses which had sprung
up in such elections, are nowhere better described than in a letter of
Apollinaris Sidonius, written about 470. (_Epist._ l. 4. _Ep._ 25.)
[214] The “Pharoahs” of the age of Innocent were the temporal princes,
whom the same Pope elsewhere describes as subordinate moons revolving
round the papal sun, and deriving all their light from that luminary.
[215] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1074 (p. 207). Like Boece, Stubbs, a stout
partizan of York, writing at the close of the fourteenth century,
was far better informed than the contemporary chronicler of all the
circumstances of this dispute. _Twysden_, p. 1712, _et seq._
[216] The deprecatory answer of Thomas to Anselm is very characteristic
of the age, “The money which I had collected for coming to you--and
it was a large sum for my means--was all spent at Winchester, where
I stopped too long. I then hurried home to scrape together some more
to send to Rome for my pallium,” adding, “and I am still seeking for
money, but very little can I find, except _at a grievous rate of
interest_,”--a complaint alas! common to those in the Archbishop’s
circumstances in every age. _Ead. Hist. Nov._, p. 98.
[217] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1109.
[218] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1074 (p. 207), 1115.
[219] “Eligente eum clero et populo terræ, et concedente Rege,” are the
words which seem to have rather puzzled Lord Hailes (_Annals_, vol. i.
p. 63, _note_). But all bishops were originally supposed to have been
chosen in this manner; though it is probable that the rights of the
“clerus et populus” were at this time as exclusively possessed by the
Culdees as they were subsequently vested in the Chapter.
[220] “Nolebat enim ecclesiam Cantuarensem anteferri ecclesiæ Sancti
Andreæ de Scotia:”
[221] _Ead. Hist. Nov._, l. 5, p. 117, 130–135.
[222] _Ang. Sac._ ii. 234, quoted in Hailes’s _Annals_, vol. i., p. 66.
“He said that nothing would be so conducive to soften the barbarity
of the Scots, promote sound doctrine, and establish ecclesiastical
discipline, as _a plentiful and hospitable board_.”
[223] _Ead. Hist. Nov._, l. 6.
[224] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1124. Four months before his own death,
_i.e._, in December 1123.
[225] _Reg. Glasg. Inquisitio Davidis._
[226] _Ead. Hist. Nov._, l. 5, p. 124–126. “Romanos in causam suam, quo
in quæque negotia pertrahi solent, largitatis officio transtulit,” are
his words; and on another occasion he says, “literas ab ipso Calixto,
more quo cuncta Romæ impetrantur, adeptus fuerat.” In short, Eadmer
is continually insinuating the venality of the papal court, though
of course the practice of corrupting the Roman clergy was strictly
confined to the partizans of York, and never extended to the purer
clergy of Canterbury. The latter, however, are represented in a very
different light in the pages of the Yorkist Stubbs, who does not
hesitate to charge them with forgery and the perpetration of every
species of dishonesty against the immaculate clergy of York. Henry the
First stands out in honourable relief, for when Pope Calixtus pressed
him to break his promise to the Archbishop of Canterbury, assuring the
king that he would grant him absolution, Henry replied with dignity
“that it would be inconsistent with the honour of a king to agree to
any such proceeding; for who would put any faith in a promise, if
the royal example taught them how easily it could be set aside by
absolution.”
[227] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1122, 1123. _Chron. Mel._ 1123. On the 25th
of April 1174, Pope Alexander III. declared Glasgow to be “Specialem
filiam nostram nullo mediante.” _Reg. Glasg._, No. 32. Hence in after
times “the two great grievances of the bishops were being forced to
admit to benefices or pensions upon the dictation of the pope, and the
liability to be summoned on church cases out of the kingdom.” _Vide
Preface to Reg. Glasg._, p. 28.
[228] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1122, 1124. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 40, 41.
_Malm. Gesta Regum_, l. 5, sec. 400.
[229] _Lib. de Scone_, No. 1. Six earls attest the charter; Heth
(written through a clerical error _Beth_) of Moray, Madach of Atholl,
Malise of Strathearn, Dufagan of Fife, and Gartnach and Rory, who may
be assigned to Angus, Mar, or Buchan. Heth appears to have married the
sister of Malsnechtan (for his successor, Angus, is described as the
son of Lulach’s daughter, _An. Ult._ 1130), and thus to have inherited
and transmitted the claims of the line of Kenneth MacDuff. He must have
been an inveterate opponent of the reigning family, as his son Malcolm
is described by Ailred as “the inheritor of his father’s hatred.” The
real descent of the Stewarts was well known as late as the fourteenth
century, when Richard Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel in 1336, sold the
Stewardship of Scotland to Edward III., a transaction which was
confirmed by Edward Balliol (_Tiernay’s Hist. of Arundel_, vol. i., pp.
193, 299, _notes_). The sale was of course a political fiction, founded
on the assumed forfeiture of the Scottish branch of the earl’s family,
through which their hereditary office was supposed to have reverted to
their English connections. The real king and the pseudo-king united in
the joint exercise of an act of shadowy sovereignty--a joint protest
of their claims as vassal king and overlord of Scotland--the sole
substantial gain, the purchase-money, falling to the earl; though, had
the Plantagenets succeeded in conquering Scotland, the transaction
would have become a reality, and the ancestry of the hereditary Earls
Marshal of the present day would have lost their claim to supplant the
ancestry of the reigning sovereign. The father of _Alan_ was Flahald or
_Fleald_, a name which reappears under the familiar form of “_Fleance_,
son of Banquo, Thane of Lochaber.”
[230] The reign of Edgar has been occasionally regarded as the era of
a thorough _Saxonizing_ of all Scotland, except the Highlands; but
with respect to this opinion I can only use the words which Father
Innes applies to the laws of Aodh Fin--“De hisce...... _altissimum apud
scriptores nostros silentium_.” If _Thane_ and _Thanage_ are supposed
to be, not Saxon _names_ applied to Scottish institutions, but actual
Saxon institutions introduced beyond the Forth, it should be explained
why the Saxon Thane was as totally different a character from the
Scottish Thane as _Thane-land_ was from a Thanage. The Saxon held by
military service--_cnicht_-service, an expression scarcely traceable
to Normandy; the Scot by _Scottish_ service and rent--in _fee-farm_.
Why also is only one Thane traceable in the Lothians, if all the Thanes
came from the Saxons? Compare _Appendices N and R_.
[231] _Chron. Sax._ 1124, calls David Earl of Northamptonshire. If this
authority is correct, he must have held that earldom as guardian of the
younger St. Liz, who was Earl of Northampton at the date of his death
in 1153.
[232] _Malm. Hist Nov._, l. 1, sec. 1–3. _Chron. Sax._ 1126–7. The
chroniclers of that age call the empress Alicia, oftener than Matilda;
perhaps to distinguish her from Stephen’s queen.
[233] _Vide_ preceding chapter, p.184, note.
[234] _Chron. Sax._, _Chron. St. Crucis_, _Chron. Mel._, and _An. Ult._
1130. _Ord. Vit._, l. 8, p. 701–3. The Saxon Chronicler declares Angus
to have been “all forsworn.” The account of Orderic is, as usual,
a strange mixture of truth and error. As Heth witnessed the first
Dunfermlyn charter in company with Constantine Earl of Fife, who died
in 1128, he must have survived David’s accession; and it was possibly
on the death of the Moray chieftain that his sons broke out into
rebellion.
[235] _Ailred de Bel. Stand._ p. 344. _Chron. Mel._ 1134. “Deinde cum
cohortibus suis jam triumpho elatis fugientes avidé insecutus est, et
Morafiam defensore dominoque vacantem ingressus est, totumque regionis
spaciosæ Ducatum, Deo auxiliante nactus est.” Such are the expressions
of Orderic relating to the course pursued by David after Stickathrow.
There is no allusion to Malcolm suffering the usual barbarities
inflicted on state prisoners, so it is to be hoped, for David’s credit,
that he escaped all such tortures.
[236] _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1136. _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 222.
_Malm. Hist. Nov._, l. 1, sec. 12. Lingard has no authority for
saying that “David claimed Cumberland as having formerly belonged
to the heir-apparent of the Scottish kings,” c. 11, note 13. There
is no allusion to any claim except upon Northumberland (in right of
his wife), and this was waived at the time for the fiefs of Carlisle
and Doncaster. Strictly speaking, the Scottish royal family never
appear to have held the _Earldom_--or rather perhaps _Comitatus_--but
the _Honour_ of Huntingdon. A grant of the “_tertius denarius de
placitis_,” seems generally to have entitled its holder to the earldom
at this period, whilst the holder of an honour was “overlord”--or
constable--of a number of knights and barons; for all the tenants of
an honour held by military service, and with manorial rights. It was
in the power of the king, however, to grant the dignity of an earl,
or attach the dignity to any fief, without reference to the “tertius
denarius.” _Vide Appendix L_, pt. 2.
[237] _Malm. Hist. Nov._, l. 1, sec. 13. There is some uncertainty
about David’s age, and Lord Hailes, a little rashly, finds fault with
Malmesbury for writing about “the approach of age.” But as David
_survived_ Malmesbury, the latter would hardly have written what was
not true, in such a trifling point, about one who was then living.
Neither Alexander nor David appear to have taken any prominent part
in the events immediately occurring after the death of their father;
but David was old enough to assist his brother Edgar in 1097 by his
_astutia_ (_Gesta Regum_, sec 400). Forty years later he must have been
nearer sixty than fifty.
[238] _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1136. Ranulph was the son and heir of
Ranulph le Meschines, who obtained a grant of Cumberland, probably
about the time when Rufus restored Carlisle. John of Hexham, under
1150, says, “Remisit indignationem quæ Karleol sub _patrimoniali_ jure
reposcere consueverat.”
[239] _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1137. _Malm. Hist. Nov._, l. 1, sec. 17.
[240] The _Germans_ of Richard of Hexham were probably mercenaries
from the Low Countries, whose services were then, and long afterwards,
at the disposal of the highest bidder. They were generally known as
_Reiters_; and these free companies probably supplied many of the
_Flandrenses_ and _Flamingi_ of the Scottish charters.
[241] “In curiâ contra patrium morem captus,” are the words of
_Ailred_, p. 343. Eustace appears to have been in the actual
performance of the services by which he held the fief; and in strict
feudal justice he ought not to have been deprived of the fief until he
had failed to render such service.
[242] The speech which Ailred has attributed to Walter Espec is
valuable on account of many historical allusions which it contains; but
it is not to be supposed that on such an occasion the speaker would
stop to weigh his words, especially as it was his object to raise the
courage of his own men by depreciating the Scots. Strict historical
accuracy is hardly to be expected at such a time, even if we are to
regard such speeches as real, and not the composition of the chronicler
himself.
[243] The continuator of Florence of Worcester relates this fact.
[244] _Lavernani._ The district known as the Lennox, or _Levenach_, was
called so from the river Leven, and from the lake which was originally
named _Loch Leven_, and afterwards (from its principal mountain) _Loch
Lomond_. _Lavernani_ is evidently a clerical error for _Levenani_; as
_Linenath_ in the Fœdera is a mistake for _Levenach_.
[245] The meeting between the king and the two barons took place
immediately before the battle, according to Ailred. John of Hexham
writes that they met on the Tees, which David crossed a few hours
before the commencement of the engagement.
[246] Such appears to be the meaning of Ailred’s description of the
English position. The monkish chroniclers are seldom very clear in
their accounts of battles. The species of standard used in this battle
was well known in the Italian wars.
[247] Compare _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1138. _Ail. de bel. Stand. Flor.
Vigorn. Contin._ 1138. _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 222. In the description
of the battle I have principally followed Ailred. A comparison between
the Priors of Hexham and the Continuator of Florence, will show the
difference between the chronicler who lived in the neighbourhood of
the scenes he describes, and he who, a tenant of a distant monastery,
probably relied upon hearsay evidence. The battle of Northallerton was
naturally a disagreeable subject for the Scottish chroniclers. Wynton,
with characteristic honesty, says “the Scottis ware discomfyt and mony
... in depe lowchys drownyd was.” Fordun, Major, and Buchanan, divide
the battle into two, perhaps from some confusion with the fight at
Clitheroe. At the battle of Northallerton the English are routed; but
in the following year the Scots, through despising their enemy, who
are in great numbers, receive a check at the Standard. Boece, with a
soul above such half-measures, stoutly claims a victory, ransoming the
English leader, _the Duke of Gloucester_, at an enormous sum! _Ford._,
l. 5, c. 42. _Maj._, l. 3, c. 11. _Buch._ l. 7. _Boece_, bk. 12, c. 17.
[248] By old, and probably universal, custom, every freeman was bound
to attend the “hosting across the frontier” once every year in arms. By
Charlemagne’s law, all holders of benefices were bound by their tenure
of military service to come, and all _Frank-allodial_ proprietors of
three, four, or five _mansi_ (or _hydes_); every proprietor of an
amount less than three _mansi_ combining with others, so that the
lowest on the list, the proprietor of half a _mansus_, in conjunction
with _five_ others (_i.e._, making up _three mansi_) equipped one of
their number for the army. The equivalents of this latter class amongst
the English seem to have formed the _gemeinred_ or yeomanry. A less
numerous, but a better armed, and probably a more orderly body of men,
would be furnished by the Imperial law than by the older custom, which
was preserved in Scotland under the name of _Scotticanum servitium_,
sometimes known as _forinsecum servitium_ (_Reg. Morav. Cart. Orig._
13), the _Sluagh_ or “hosting beyond the frontier.” The muster of the
Highland clan in later times, including “Native men” as well as “Duine
Uasal,” answered to the old _Sluagh_. The expressions _Inware_, and
_Utware_, are sometimes used, the former answering, apparently, to the
Welsh “Llwyd yn Wlad,” or hosting _within_ the borders; the latter
to the “Llwyd yn Orwlad,” or hosting _beyond_ the borders. It may be
gathered from _Reg. Morav. Cart. Orig._ 17, that “Scottish service” was
rendered on foot and without defensive armour. “Non habemus jus habendi
aliquod servitium de domino Willelmo de Moravia nisi _forinsecum
servitium Scotticanum_ domini regis ... et secursum ac auxilium quod
nobis in defensione regni per potenciam suam _armigerorum et equorum et
armorum_ fecit ex libera voluntate sua.” The Thane of Tullibardine had
assisted his lord, the Earl of Strathearn, with men-at-arms, horses,
and armour, which he was not bound to do in return for his Thanedom,
held by Scottish service alone. The arms required for Scottish service
were probably those with which the Clans Hay and Qwhele fought on
the North Inch (_Reg. Morav._, p. 382), bows, axes, swords, and
daggers, with the addition of the long Scottish spear. The arms of the
native Irish in the days of Cambrensis appear to have been a spear,
two javelins (resembling the old German _framea_), and a formidable
battle-axe introduced by the Northmen. They gloried in fighting without
defensive armour, like Earl Malise.
[249] _J. and R. Hexham._ _Ailred_, as above.
[250] The Bishop of Glasgow was not present at the dedication of his
own Cathedral Church on 17th July 1136. _Vide Reg. Glasg._, ch. 3, in
which his name does not occur.
[251] Edgar, a natural son of Earl Cospatric, and Robert and Uchtred,
sons of Maldred, were the offenders on this occasion--all Saxon names,
and from the Lothians apparently, so that for once at any rate those
scapegoats, the Picts of Galloway, may be acquitted from blame.
[252] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1138. The 10th and 11th November, and 3d
March, are all festivals of St. Martin. The truce probably extended to
the latest date, for Alberic did not bring the subject before Stephen
until Christmas, _after_ the other dates.
[253] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1138.
[254] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1138. “Fœminca calliditate atque protervitate
instante,” are the words of Prior Richard.
[255] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1139. The hostages were the sons of Earls
Cospatric and Fergus, of Hugh de Moreville and of _Mac._ and _Mel._
(supposed to mean Macduff of Fife and Malise of Strathearn), whom
Prior Richard calls five earls of Scotland. Moreville was hardly an
earl, though he was probably amongst those greater barons who had “the
freedom and custom of an earl.” _Assize Dav._ 16.
[256] _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 223. _J. Hexham_ 1141. All the occurrences
in John of Hexham after 1140 are misdated one year, owing to the
insertion of the passage “Anno MCXLI. Calixtus Papa concilium Remis
instituit xiii. Kal Nov.” This council was held in 1119. Thorstein,
whose death is placed in 1141, died on Thursday 8th February 1140, and
the battle of Lincoln was fought in the following year.
[257] _J. Hexham_ 1142. The name has been changed into _Oliphant_.
[258] _J. Hexham_ 1143–45. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 43, confounding William
Comyn the Chancellor, with William the Treasurer, Archbishop of York,
relates his supposed death by poison, with a rather ambiguous comment
of his own, “Hic Willelmus Comyn Archiepiscopus Eboracensis, ad missam
suam in ecclesiâ Sancti Petri a ministris altaris pecuniis corruptis,
venenis potionatus est; qui licet venenum videret in calice nihilominus
illud fide fervens sumpsit, _et non diu post supervixit, Deo Gratias!_”
[259] _J. Hexham_ 1150. _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 226. _R. Hoveden_ 1148,
p. 280.
[260] It is singular how Wimund has been confounded, by nearly every
historian down to the present day, with Malcolm MacHeth. Newbridge, who
relates his adventures at length, l. 1, c. 23, 24, and who had often
seen him in his blindness and captivity at Biland, merely says that he
was born at some obscure spot in England, and pretended to be “a son
of the Earl of Moray.” Ailred (quoted in _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 51) also
alludes to him as an impostor, “Cum misisset ei Deus inimicum quemdam
pseudo-episcopum qui se filium Comitis Moraviensis mentiebatur,” and
again (Dominus regem) “monachi cujusdem mendaciis flagellavit.” But
in l. 8, c. 2, Fordun treats MacHeth himself as an impostor, “erat
enim iste Malcolmus filius MacHeth, sed mentiendo dicebat se filium
Angusii Comitis Moraviæ.” Here begins the confusion; but it can be
clearly shown that Wimund and MacHeth were totally different persons.
Malcolm MacHeth, “the heir of his father’s hatred,” was captured in
1134 and confined in Roxburgh Castle until 1157, when he was liberated
by Malcolm the Fourth and attested one of the Dunfermlyn Charters
(_Ailred_, p. 344. _Chron. Mel._ 1134. _Chron. St. Crucis_ 1157.
_Reg. Dunf._ No. 40). Wimund could not have gone to Rushen, at the
very earliest, before the year of its foundation, 1134; he was a monk
before that date, and could not have been made bishop until after the
imprisonment of MacHeth. From an entry in Wendover under 1151, “Eodem
anno Johannes ..... factus est secundus antistes Monæ insulæ .....
Primus autem ibi fuerat episcopus Wimundus ..... sed propter ejus
importunitatem privatus fuit oculis et expulsus,” it may be gathered
that the career of Wimund was brought to a close _at least six years_
before the liberation of MacHeth, and the Bishop of Man, who probably
enacted his singular vagaries about 1150, may have personated the son,
the brother, the nephew, of the _real claimant of the earldom_--or
even that very claimant--but it is impossible to identify him with the
solitary captive in Roxburgh Castle without attributing to one, or
both, ubiquity.
[261] _J. Hexham_ 1152. In the words of Newbridge (l. 1, c. 22),
“aquilonalis regio, quæ in potestatem Domini regis Scottorum _usque ad
fluvium Tesam_ cesserat, per ejusdem Regis industriam in pace agebat.”
Wynton, therefore, was justified in saying (bk. 7, c. 6, l. 241), “In
swylk dissentyowne De kyng Dawy wan till his crown All fra the Wattyr
of Tese of brede North on till the Wattyr of Twede, And fra the Wattyr
of Esk the Est, Til of Stanemoor the Rere-Cors West.” The Esk was the
river flowing into the sea at Whitby, and Stanemoor is on the borders
of Yorkshire, Durham, and Westmoreland. As late as 1258 a bishop of
Glasgow claimed jurisdiction as far as “the Rere-Cross,” and singularly
enough he was an Englishman (_Chron. Lanerc._ 1258). Camden (_Brit._,
p. 987) mentions the Brandreth Stone in Westmoreland as a meer-stone
between Scots and English; but it probably was only a boundary of the
lands held by the Scottish kings near Penrith. Alice de Rumeli was the
daughter of William Meschines and Cecilia de Rumeli, who founded the
Priory of Emmesey, which Alice removed to Bolton. _Vide_ Bolton Priory
Charters, _Dugd Monas_, vol. 6, p. 203. William of Egremont lost his
life through his greyhound pulling him over “the Strides.”
[262] _Chron. St. Crucis_ 1152. _J. Hex._ 1153. _Newbridge_, l. 1, c.
23. _Ailred (Twysden)_, p. 368. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 43. _St. Bernard
Vit. Mal., quoted by Hailes_, vol. i. p. 103, _note_.
[263] Malcolm was born in 1141, William in 1142, and David in 1143.
Fordun, in l. 5, c. 43, places David before William, but in l. 6, c.
1, David is rightly called the younger son. Wynton has been wrongly
accused by Lord Hailes of countenancing this mistake, for he says
nothing of the kind. “Sownys thre on hyr he had, Malcolme, Wyllame, and
Dawy,” are his words; and though he subsequently calls William “the
yhowngare brodyr,” it is only with reference to Malcolm. bk. 7, c. 6,
l. 144–5, 353–65.
[264] _J. Hex._ 1153. _Jorval, quoted in Lytt. Hist._, vol. ii. p. 243.
[265] _Fordun_, 1. 5, c. 55, sec. 9. From c. 45 to c. 60 he is quoting
Ailred, the friend and contemporary of David and his son Henry, and the
principal authority to whom I am indebted for most of the features of
the private character of the king.
[266] _Act. Parl. Scot. As. Dav._, 24, 30. _Fordun_, as above.
[267] _Fordun_, as above. _Malm. Gest. Reg._, l. 4, sec. 400. _As.
Dav._, 26–29. Strictly speaking most of the agricultural laws are
in the assize of William, and the statutes of Alexander the Second;
but many of the laws of these kings are to be regarded as simply the
enforcement of principles of policy laid down by David and his brother
Alexander.
[268] There is an allusion to the University, and the Rector of the
Schools of Abernethy, in the Confirmation Charter of Admore. _Reg.
Prior. St. And._, p. 116.
[269] _Vide_ also _Appendix R_.
[270] _Act. Parl. Scot Assiz. Will._ 3, 4, 16. The northern limits of
Scottish Argyle were identical with those of the subsequent Sheriffdom
or modern county. Argyle in Moravia, or northern Argyle, was afterwards
in the Sheriffdom of Inverness and earldom of Ross. The lands of
Dingwall and Fern-Croskry in “the county of Sutherland,” were made over
to the Earl of Ross by Robert Bruce in 1308. (_Acta, etc._, p. 117).
The name of _Dingwall_ tells of the Norsemen, and Ross is frequently
claimed for the Jarls of Orkney in the Sagas. In fact, the kings of
Scotland at a certain period seem to have favoured their pretensions in
this quarter as a counterpoise to the power of the Moray family.
[271] In Stat. Alex. II. 2, _Gavel_, or _Cavel_, is the word used for
“holding,” and _Loth and Cavil_, Share and Holding, occur in the Burgh
Laws. All the authorities for what is here advanced will be found in
_Appendices D, E, F, and N_. The tenure of the West Saxon “Ceorl upon
Gafol-land,” seems to have been very similar, if not identical, with
that of the Celtic Gavel.
[272] The Irish _Adbhar_ probably answered to the Welsh _Aelodeu_, or
all the members of a family within the fourth degree.
[273] In 1275–6 Alexander II., and subsequently, in 1372, Robert II.
confirmed a grant by which Niel, Earl of Carrick, had conferred upon
Roland de Carrick, “ut ipse et heredes sui sint capud tocius progenie
sue, tam in calumpniis quam aliis articulis et negotiis ad _Kenkynoll_
pertinere valentibus,” with the office of Bailliary (Seneschalship) of
the Earldom of Carrick, and “_the leading of the men thereof_,” under
the earl and his heirs (_Robertson’s Index_, 134. 6). The earldom
went to Niel’s grandson, Robert Bruce. So MacDougal of Dunolly, the
male heir of the _de Ergadia_ family, was hereditary Bailie of Lorn.
“The MacDuff” seems also to have been the next of kin to the Earl
of Fife for the time being. The office of Tanist must have become
obsolete when the heir was declared by the Probi homines of the Visnet
instead of by the Kin. A royal grant, very similar to that of the Earl
of Carrick, was in one celebrated case the cause of a feud lasting
for centuries. As the _Toshach_ seems originally to have been the
second personage in the clan, so the _Senior_ often appears to have
monopolized the ecclesiastical preferment. The kings of the MacAlpin
race were Cowarbs of St. Andrews; of the Atholl family, Cowarbs of
Dunkeld; the Earls of Ross were descended from “Mac-in-Sagart”--the
priest’s son--and it is highly probable that the older chiefs of
Clan Chattan and representatives of Gillie-Chattan-More were also
“Cowarbs of St. Chattan.” When the clan, after the breaking up of
the confederacy of Donald Balloch, made its peace with the king, the
headship was, for some unknown reason, conferred, not on the _Senior_,
but the _Toshach_, and accordingly a constant state of hostility
existed between the Captain of Clan Chattan by royal grant--“the
Mac-in-_Toshach_”--and the claimant of the chieftainship by right of
blood--“the Mac-in-_Pherson_,” filius personæ, or son of the Cowarb.
The Macphersons are neither mentioned amongst the “Landislordis and
Bailies,” nor “the Roll of Clans” appended to “the General Band;” but
only amongst “the brokin men of the surname of Macinpherson.” (_Col.
de Reb. Alb._, p. 35, _et seq._) Nothing but the tenacity with which
the “old Clan Chattan” clung to their “chiefe” (_do._, p. 207) could
have prevented a family, representing, probably, the ancient line of
MacHeth, from sinking to the condition of _Og-tiernach_ under a junior
branch.
[274] _Grand Coutumier_, c. 30. _Vide Appendix D._
[275] _Act. Parl. Scot. As. Wil._ 9.
[276] _Lib. de Beneficiis._
[277] _Appendix D._
[278] _Chron. Lanercost._ 1268.
[279] _Stat. Alex. II._ 1. It shows how stationary--or rather
retrograde--was the condition of Scotland in consequence of the
disastrous English wars, and the weakness of the sovereign authority at
a later period, that in the reign of James I., two hundred years after
Alexander endeavoured to settle the agricultural population, a statute
was passed to prohibit the lords spiritual and temporal from removing
from their lands “colonos et husbandos pro anno futuro,” unless they
required the land “ad usos suos proprios.”--_Act. Jac. I._, 1429; _Act.
Par. Scot._ vol. 2, p. 17.
[280] _Reg. Morav._ No. 76. _Assize Wil._ 28.
[281] Reg. St. And. quoted by Pinkerton, _Inquiry_, _Appendix_ 7, pt.
2 s. 3. Such were the Irish Charters in the Book of Kells (_Miscell._,
I A S, vol. 1, No. x., p. 127), the Welsh in the Book of Llandaff, and
the Memoranda in the _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. 113, _et seq._
[282] _Assize Dav._ 26–28. For examples of _Manred_, _Vide Col. de Reb.
Alb._, _passim_. The word is often written _Man-rent_, but the tie had
nothing to do with _Rent_ or any species of tenure. The _red_ is simply
a termination, as in gossip-_red_, gemein-_red_, equivalent to the
modern _ry_ in such words as infant_ry_, caval_ry_.
[283] _Ini_, 36·50. _Edg. II._ 5. _C.S._ 18. The _Vicarius_ seems to
have been the original deputy of the Frank Graphio, and the _Gingra_,
or junior, of the king’s Ealdorman, _Alf._ 38. Both were replaced by
the royal _Vicecomes_ and _Gerefa_; amongst the Franks probably when
the _Comes_ became a hereditary noble instead of an official.
[284] _Stat. Alex. II._ 5. _Reg. Dunf._, No. 79. Amongst the privileges
of the Earls of Fife was numbered the _Lex Clan Macduff_, by which
“when ony man-slayer being within the ninth degree of kin and bluid
to Macduffe, sumtime Earle of Fife, came to that croce (the cross of
Macduff ‘above the Newburgh beside Lundoris’), and gave nine kye and
ane colpindach, he was free of the slauchter committed be him.” It
saved the life of Hugh de Arbuthnot as late as 1421 (_Innes’s Sketches
of early Scottish History_, p. 215, _note_ 1). It was probably a relic
of the old “right” once belonging to every _Mormaor_ or _Oirrigh_, of
retaining all his kindred in his _mund_; for amongst the rights of
the Welsh _Brenhin_ were all causes appertaining to the crown, king,
or _royal family_. Another right belonging to the Welsh king was the
patronage of all the abbeys, which, though not retained by the Earls of
Fife, was certainly vested in those of Strathearn.
[285] _Assize Wil._ 3, 4. _Reg. Dunf._, Nos. 13, 23, 43, 45, 56. I
have rendered _Probi homines_ by Proprietary. _Probus_ has passed into
the French language as _Preux_; probus homo, as _Preud-homme_. They
are continually found in the Frank laws and capitularies as _Meliores
pagenses_, the class furnishing the _Scabini_, the _Mediocres_ of some
of the other early laws. In _burghs_ they were the class from which
echevins, bailies, and aldermen were chosen. They represented the
leading members of all that part of the _communitas_ which was not
comprised in the clergy, greater barons, and royal officials, answering
very much to the class from which in modern times--whether _in burgh_
or _upland_--the grand jury, magistrates, and members of Parliament are
supposed to be chosen. Amongst the old Saxons the _Scepenbar_ man--he
who was qualified to be chosen for a _Scabinus_--was required to be
“probus, prudens, indigena, ingenuus, et quatuor avis natus, liber et
opulentus;” in other words, the qualifications for a _Probus homo_ were
supposed to be birth, property, and character. In the old Scottish laws
the _probus homo_ is always rendered “good man”--and the _gude-man_ is
still the equivalent of “the master” in a certain class--the _probus
homo et fidelis_, “the good man and true,” being a man of a class
superior to the simple _fidelis_ or “_leal man_.” The _good_ equally
appears in his equivalents amongst the Welsh,--the _Gwr dha_ “bonus
homo;” and amongst the Spaniards--the _Hidalgo_, “fijos d’algo,” or
“filius boni hominis.” Amongst the Northmen he appears seemingly as
the _Danneman_, and amongst the Irish Gael as the _Saoi_. The Scabinus
derived his name from the same source as the _Scop_; both were
_Makers_--to use the old English word answering exactly to ποιητης--and
in times when an unwritten code was preserved in the memory by such
verses as “the father to the bough, the son to the plough;” by a
sort of _memoria technica_ like the Welsh Triads; or by a quaint
system of question and answer, as is traceable amongst the Irish; the
qualifications to constitute a good “law maker” may have often produced
a good “maker” of poetry.
[286] 14 _Edwd. III._, _Stat._ 1, c. 7. In Scotland the same tendency
to act by deputy is observable as on the Continent, and the Lord
Justice _Clerk_ and Lord _Clerk_ Registrar--the deputies of the
Justiciary and Registrar--appear in the place of their principals, just
as in the case of the sheriff-depute.
[287] _Assize Dav._ 18. _Will._ 6.
[288] _Assize Dav._ 14, 15. I have adopted the reading of the Ayr MS.;
xx.^{ix}. instead of xxix., as 180 cows--nine times twenty--were paid
as _manbote_ for homicide throughout _Scotia_. According to the other
reading, the fine for homicide “in the king’s gryth” would have been
less than elsewhere. _Vide Act. Parl. Scot._, vol. 1, p. 3.
[289] _Assize Will._ 13. This was known as _Berthynsak_. Cases of this
description and _Blodwite_--petty thefts and assaults--long continued
to be tried in the lesser courts.
[290] _Assize Dav._ 33. _Wil._ 11. _Leg. Wil. Conq._ 1, 28. For the
Hundred, _vide Appendix F_.
[291] _Thorpe’s Ancient Laws, Ed._ 1. _Ath._ I. 10, 12, 24, v. 10.
_Edm. C._ 5. _Edg. Sup._, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10. _C. S._, 24, and Gloss
in voc _Team_. By the laws of Edward and Athelstan none were to buy
or sell except “in Port,” and before the Port-Reeve; but after the
institution of the Hundred, purchases and sales might be made, in
conformity with the legal forms, in the _upland_ as well as _in burgh_.
The regulations about warranty first appear in the laws of Kent, the
king’s _Wic-gerefa_ of Lunden-_wic_ being the personage in authority,
the king’s hall in the _wic_, the place of trial. _H. and E._ 16.
[292] _Wootton Welsh Laws_, l. 2, c. 4; l. 5, c. 5, s. 79, 80. _Leg.
Wil. Conq._, 1, 21. _Lex. Sal. Tit._ 49. _Assize Wil._ 5. The Frank
_Hamallus_ was the “super quem res primitus agnita fuerit, vel
intertiata,” the “third hand,” apparently, of the Welsh bargain. From
the Conqueror’s laws it would appear that the Norman _Hemold-borh_ was
not identical with the _Getyma_, but he was a character of a similar
description. As late as the seventeenth century, the _Borch Hamel_ was
well known in the Scottish Highlands, and no cattle was bought without
“sufficient caution of burgh and hamer.” _Innes’ Sketches, etc._, p.
382, _note_ 1.
[293] _Assize Wil._, 3, 4, 5, 16. _Lex. Sal. Tit._ 49. _Leg. Hen. I._
xli. The Welsh gave, for finding witnesses, three days within the
Commot, nine if in the neighbouring Commot, and a fortnight beyond that
distance or across an estuary.--_Wootton_, l. 2, c. 10.
[294] _Assize Wil._ 18.
[295] _Assize Dav._, 1, 13, 16. _Wil._ 20. _Slat, Alex. II._ 4. The
_three Thanedoms_ are evidently the same as the _three Baronies_, so
continually met with in later laws. Both are evidently counterparts
of the “three _tuns_” amongst the Anglo-Danish confederacy of Mercia,
and the “three _Dorfern_” amongst the Saxons, with whom it was lawful,
“if a theft be committed _hand-habend_, or a robbery in which the
offender is taken, to choose a Go-graf” from at least _three villages_
(_Dorfern_), “and they shall form a court and judge the case, provided
the judge who has the office in fee (belehenten Richter) cannot be
had.” _Leg. Eth. III._ 15, and _Sach. Spieg._, l. 1, c. 55, quoted in
_note d_. The fine of 34 _cows_ is called in William’s laws (14), the
thief’s _wergild_. By a law of Chlovis whoever saved a man from the
gallows paid his wergild.
[296] _Eth. I._ 1. _Wil. Conq._, I. 11. _Leg. Hen._, I. lxvi., 8–10.
_Lex. Sax. Tit._ 2. As the penalties of this period, when not capital,
were invariably fines, it is probable that the expression “a pound
oath,” or “swearing for so many hydes,” meant that the compurgator,
like the modern bail, was to be up to a certain point “a man of
substance.”
[297] _Lib. de Ben._ 98.
[298] _Assize Wil._ 15. This was not the result of “Celtic barbarism;”
for two centuries after the reign of William the Frisons still claimed
their right to “blood for blood.” _Leg. Fris. Tit._ 2, n. 5, (Canc.)
_Vide_ also _Appendix E_.
[299] _Lex. Sax. Tit._ 2.
[300] According to the laws of Athelstan, iv. 7, the simple ordeal
of water was to take a stone out of boiling water as deep as the
wrist; the triple ordeal deepened the water to the elbow. The ordeal
of iron was to walk nine feet over hot iron; sometimes to carry it,
probably the same distance. In all cases the hand or foot was bound
up and inspected three days afterwards. If it had healed, the man was
pronounced innocent. The ordeal of cold water was the _dyke-pot_, to
which poor wretches accused of witchcraft were too often subjected.
[301] _Velleius Paterculus_, l. 2, c. 118 (quoted by Blackstone).
[302] _Assize Wil._ 7. _Ath._ v. 8. I. 11.
[303] A passage in the laws of Childeric ad an. 550, somewhat
unintelligible indeed, seems to point to this, where, in reference to
the “duodecim juratores,” it is said, “Propterea non est sacramentum in
Francis, quando illi legem composuerunt, non erant Christiani.” _Pertz.
Leg._, vol. 2, p. 6, c. 4. The only meaning I can make out of it is,
“For this cause there is no oath amongst the Franks--no provision for
compurgation in their code--when they made their laws they were not
Christians.” The passage has rather a colloquial form, like the Welsh
Triads or the Irish laws, so often framed in question and answer;
pointing to an age in which the law was not written but committed to
memory.
[304] On such occasions, by Welsh law, if an _Alltud_ joined in the
combat to make up the necessary number of combatants, and escaped
with life, he ranked as a _full-born_ member of the kindred for whom
he had entered the lists. In the battle on the North Inch of Perth
thirty men appeared on each side, armed with bows, axes, swords, and
daggers, but without defensive armour. The number resembles the triple
oath of “three Thanes and twenty-seven leil men,” by which the lord of
the prison from which a thief escaped was bound to clear himself; the
equipment was probably that required in the old “Scottish service.” It
is generally supposed that the contest was for the chieftainship of the
Clan Chattan, but it seems very doubtful that this was the case. The
oldest account of the battle, which took place on 28th September 1396,
is contained in a memorandum in the _Reg. Morav._ p. 382, which says
that thirty of the _Clan Hay_ fought thirty of the _Clan Qwhwle_ “quia
firma pax non poterat intra duas parentelas.” Four years previously,
in the second year of Robert III., the latter clan had figured as the
_Clan Qwhevil_ under _Slurach_ and his brothers, in the raid upon
Angus, celebrated by _Wynton_, bk. ix., c. 14. _Act. Parl. Scot._, V.
1, p. 217. They were the victors, and the Clan Hay disappears for ever;
but the _Clan Chewill_ figures in a Roll of Clans of the sixteenth
century as a distinct family from the Clan Chattan and Macphersons.
_Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 39.
[305] _Heimsk. St. Olaf. Saga_, c. 76, 80.
[306] _Capit. Carl. Mag. Pertz. Leg._, vol. 1, p. 121.
[307] _Arch. Adm. de Rheims_, vol. 1, p. 35. The seven assessors of
the Graphio seem to have been originally known as _Rachimburgii_,
who, according to _Edict. Chilp._ 7 (_Pertz. Leg._, vol. 2, p. 10),
were to be “Antrustiones boni credentes.” They were afterwards known
more generally as _Scabini_, and numbered twelve in the Carlovingian
era. _Cap. Leg. Sal. Add. ad an._ 819, 1, 2, (_Do._ vol. 1, p. 227).
_Vide_ also _Ap. Form. Marc. Canc._ vol. 2, p. 247, _note_ 3. The
number of compurgators appears to have been occasionally _seven_ as
well as twelve (_Cap. Add. Leg. Rip. ad an._ 803, s. 10. _Canc._ vol.
2, p. 320), and a similar number is also sometimes assigned to the
mystic “Peers of Charlemagne,” a body which perhaps may have owed its
creation to some confused idea in later times that the Graphio and his
assessors were but the reflection of “nostrum placitum generale.” The
_Sagibaro_ seems to have been of a lower class than the _Rachimburg_ or
_Scabinus_, for the latter was necessarily an Antrustion or nobleman,
the former if _ingenuus_ was raised to this rank by his office, and
might be a _Lœt_ (V. Wergilds). As any cause decided by the three
_Sagibarones_ could not be reopened before the Graphio, it is evident
that they sat in the lesser Courts. _Lex. Sal._ 56.
[308] _Canc_, vol. 1, p. 236. _Magn. Chart._ II., s. 39, 52. No freeman
was to be dispossessed of his freehold, liberties, or customs, “nisi
per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terræ.” The former
still continues to be the privilege of the “Majores Barones,” or House
of Lords, the latter belongs to the “Minores Barones,” or the rest of
“the Community.” Had not the old “judicium per pares” been superseded
in the case of “the Community” by the “Jugement del Pais,” the _Pares_
would now be counted by millions!
[309] _Leg. Ath._, iv. 6. _Eth._, iii. 3, 13. The _Folk-mote_ was
probably the meeting of the whole people in early times, but after
a king’s Ealdorman presided at it, it was surely only a meeting of
the _Folk_ under his special jurisdiction. It is last alluded to
in the laws of Athelstan, being replaced probably by the biennial
_Shire-gemote_ provided by Edgar’s laws, in which the Bishop and
the Ealdorman were the leading personages (_Edg._ ii., 5. C.S. 18).
These _Moots_ had nothing whatever to do with the government of the
kingdom, which was vested in the king and his _Witan_,--his Court or
Privy Council, not his Parliament; for the voice of “the Community”
was unheard in the _Witanagemote_. Self-government up to a certain
point is traceable in the institutions of this period, but not beyond
it. The Londoners might choose their Tything-men and manage their own
affairs, but the right to do so was laid down in “the ordinance which
the Bishops and _Reeves_ belonging to London ordained;” the Reeves
being appointed by the Crown, and Bishops, Reeves, and Ealdormen being
answerable for holding the _Frith_ “as _I and my Witan have commanded_”
(_Ath._ v. 11). It is in vain to attempt to trace the germs of the
English parliamentary system in the Anglo-Saxon Witan. Our modern
Parliament was gradually developed out of the right, acknowledged by
“Norman feudalism,” of the whole community of freeholders to gather
round the sovereign. The _Majores Barones_ still exercise the right,
once belonging to the whole community, of assembling in person; the
lesser barons, and the rest of the community, whether _in burgh_ or
_upland_, assemble by their representatives, chosen originally by “the
Reeve;” but from the reign of Henry IV. (who appears to have finally
carried out the intentions of his grandfather, after a lapse of thirty
years), by all freemen of a certain standing. The government of a
king and his Witan--his Court or Privy Council--could only have been
developed in course of time into, either a powerful but irresponsible
despotism, or a feeble monarchy torn by the dissensions of a few
powerful magnates contending for the real power. Such was the phase it
assumed in England, unless the history of that period is gravely in
error.
[310] _Wootton_, l. 4. _Triad_ 85.
[311] Malcolm IV., according to John of Hexham, was chosen in an
assembly of this description, or rather, as amongst the Germans in the
days of Tacitus, the assembly ratified the choice of their Seniors.
“Tollens igitur _omnis populus terræ_ Malcholmum ... apud Scotiam,
_sicut consuetudo illius nationis_ ... constituerat regem pro David avo
suo.” _J. Hex._ 1154.