place early in the reign of David, as the signature of Earl Constantine
is soon replaced in the charters of the period by that of Earl
Gillemichael.
[313] _Stat. Alex._, II., 2–3. _Assize Will._ 26. _Vide_ also _Will._
22.
[314] _Assize David_, 4–8, 12, 24, 25, 35. If the law about
Mortancestrie and Novel Disseisin is correctly ascribed to David, it
would be not a little remarkable, for the change was only introduced
into the English law by Henry the Second, according to the highest
testimony, Glanville (l. 1, c. 11–21, _quoted by Blackstone_). Such
changes generally travelled northwards, and will be found in England
before they took root in Scotland. Thus the attempt of James I. to
establish a representative system amongst the lesser freeholders in
Scotland is surely traceable to his residence in England, where a
similar system was actually established by Henry IV. The regulation
ascribed to David, however, is not identical with “the Grand Assize,”
which was constituted by appointing four knights in every sheriffdom,
who were to choose twelve others. By the Scottish law such questions
were to be decided by the ordinary “Assize of the good country of
twelve men.” By Welsh law all questions relating to succession to
property were to be decided by the _Henduriad Gwlad_--the senior
_Gwrdha_, or good men of the country--the judge pronouncing according
to their decision, which was known as _Dedfryd Gwlad_, or the verdict
of the country (_Wootton_, l. 2, c. 10). Whether this regulation was
original, or derived from the principle introduced by Henry II., I
cannot say.
[315] Amongst the _Fragmenta_, _Act. Parl. Scot._, vol. 1, p. 383,
s. 29, is one which lays down the rules for the judicial combat,
adding that in cases of _Disseisin_ it was optional for the parties
to choose the Wager of battle or the Verdict of the good country,
either course to be decisive. It is difficult to determine whether this
must be regarded as a fragment of Galloway law, or as one of those
retrogressions which were incidental to the state of Scottish society
after the English wars. The _Quon. Attach._, 35, 36, however, allude to
the _Breve de Disseisin et de Mortancestrie_ as the only familiar legal
process, which would appear to place the fragment in question amongst
the Galloway laws.
[316] As the founders of the Norman kingdoms southward of the Alps
were ignorant of the hereditary feud; as no charters are traceable
in the Norman duchy until many years after the Conquest; and as the
charters by which the Anglo-Normans held their English possessions were
unquestionably framed upon the Anglo-Saxon model; it would appear as
if such documents, familiar to the Anglo-Saxons, were comparatively
unknown to, or unused by, their conquerors. In the thirteenth century,
when Earl Warenne was called upon to produce the title by which he
held his lands, he laid his sword upon the table; nor can the few
remaining holders of lands, which their ancestors possessed at the date
of Domesday, show any other title than that of the great Earl. Yet
are we generally told that the Normans oppressed the Anglo-Saxons by
the introduction of novel feudal tenures. _Sac_ and _Soc_, _Tol_ and
_Team_, _Infangthief_ and _Outfangthief_, were scarcely brought from
Normandy.
[317] The charters will be found in the Introduction to “Robertson’s
Index.” The witnesses, all of whom have Saxon or Danish names, are
sometimes supposed to represent the Scottish Court; and the total
absence of all Gaelic names is assumed as a proof of the total
exclusion of the native race from the court and councils of their
sovereign. But this total absence is in itself suspicious. Where
are the Gaelic Earls who were invariably the first to attest the
great charters of Alexander and David? In the Foundation Charter of
Dunfermlyn, David confirms the grants of his father Malcolm, his mother
Margaret, and of his brothers Duncan, Edgar, Ethelred, and Alexander;
all of which must have been made according to “ancient custom,” or
the charters, would have been forthcoming in the Dunfermlyn Registry;
and as the sole known charters of Duncan and Edgar are connected with
Durham, whilst their grants made beyond the Forth were not confirmed
by any written document, it would appear as if these Durham charters
had been written and witnessed _at Durham_, and that no argument can be
drawn from the names of the attesting witnesses about the composition
of the Scottish Court. The title of “Basileus Scottorum,” applied to
Edgar, will never be found in any Scottish charter, but it occurs
frequently in Anglo-Saxon documents. It was the policy of the Scottish
kings of that period to keep up a connection with Durham; and it must
be always recollected that there was less difference between the
Angles separated by the Tweed, than between the Angles and Anglo-Danes
separated by the Tees. The chosen standard of David--the Dragon of
Wessex--speaks volumes of the pretensions which the sons of Margaret
were very ready to keep alive amongst a population, which was not
included in the Domesday survey.
[318] _Assize Will._ 8.
[319] _Stat Alex. II._ 8, 15. The two classes were “Miles vel filius
militis, vel aliquis libere tenens in feodo militari, vel aliquis
alius terram suam aliquo modo tenens per cartam in feodo, per liberum
servitium, vel per fie de hauberk, vel eorum filii;” and “Firmarii
de rusticis nati, vel qui in vili prosapia fuerint sive rustici, vel
aliqui alii qui liberum tenementum non habent, nec libertatem prosapiæ.”
[320] _Quon Attach._ 18. _Act. Parl. Scot._, p. 91–92. So when it
was proved to the satisfaction of a similar jury that Crane, his son
Sweyn, and his grandson Simon, had held, uninterruptedly, the office of
_Janitor_ of Montrose Castle, with the lands attached to it (originally
a grant of William to Crane), the five daughters of Simon--the fourth
in descent--were pronounced heiresses _in fee_.--_Ib._, p. 90. The
invariable _three descents_ appear to have conferred hereditary right.
[321] A Thane of Haddington is the sole instance that I am aware of in
the Lothians; and yet the Scottish Thane is often derived from a Saxon
original! For “Scottish Service,” _Vide_ ch. viii. p. 208, _note_. As
_Scotus_ as much meant a _Gael_ as _Flandrensis_ meant a Fleming, or
_Galweiensis_ a native of Galloway, the great Border clan of _Scott_
must have been settlers from beyond the Forth.
[322] _Mat. Par. ad an._ 1251, p. 554.
[323] _Appendix D._
[324] _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 35, No. viii.
[325] I allude to names like Mac Caillin More, Vich Alaister More,
Mac Connuil Dhuy, and others distinct from surnames. In _Appendix R_
I have given my reasons at greater length for doubting the theory
which assumes that the first holder of a charter was always a
foreign settler, and that every territorial name--every name with a
_de_--necessarily implies a foreign descent. De Ergadia, de Insulis,
de Carrick, de Galloway, de Strathbogie, de Atholia, de Abernethy, de
Ogilvy, and many others, attest the contrary.
[326] _Asser. in Mon. Hist. Brit._, vol. 1, p. 474, 492, 493. Also
_Appendix F_. Defence seems everywhere to have been the original
bond of union in burghs--defence against the Moors, for instance,
in Spain; but where the Goth and the Roman had dwelt, in a certain
sense, on an equality long before they amalgamated, an intramural
population, with Roman traditions and Roman law, must have existed
many a year before it was recognised as a separate “Estate” in return
for defending towns against the infidel. In the great German Burghs
the _Traders_ were originally a separate class from the _Burghers_,
and the distinction is still traceable in those regulations of the
Scottish burghs which denied admittance to the Guild privileges to
all who worked at certain trades with their own hands. What was the
previous condition of the Traders--what their state before their town
became a _Burh_ with privileged defenders, amongst whom they were
gradually enrolled? At the best, it must have resembled that of other
_Fiscalini_, and few “full-born” Teutons could have entered willingly
into such communities until they went as free and privileged defenders
of a _Burh_, rather than as members of a class which they looked upon
as inferior and unprivileged. Their arms and their free rights they
carried with them--the one was identical with the other in the olden
time--becoming free members of a civic, as they had previously been of
a rural association, and following such civic occupations as were not
considered derogatory to the dignity of a Freeman. Germanic law long
ignored written documents, and the customs of the Burgh were mostly
in accordance with that older allodial system which the progress of
Roman innovation stamped as _Roturier_. Men possessed property in land
long before it was secured by written documents, and many a burgh had
been in the enjoyment of rights and privileges by unwritten law long
before it was thought necessary to obtain the sanction of a feudal
charter, which must no more be regarded as necessarily creating a
new burgh, than as necessarily introducing a foreign settler into
Scotland, and eradicating a native proprietor. In both cases the
charter was often only confirmatory of pre-existing rights. But it
would be erroneous to imagine that the Teutonic Burghs ever existed
as independent associations against “the tyranny of the noble class.”
Some notice of such a state of society, had it existed, would surely
be traceable in the regulations of the Carlovingian era. It was this
very class, lay or ecclesiastical, who joined with the sovereign in
building _Burghs_ for defence, or introducing free burghers into towns
which had hitherto been unfree and comparatively defenceless. The
spirit of antagonism arose with the increasing power of the greater
burghs. In England the _Burgh_ arose out of the necessities of the
Danish invasion; and if a Teutonic element existed previously amongst
the resident intramural population, it was scarcely on the footing of
Burgh-_Thegns_. There is no word in the Anglo-Saxon language expressive
of a free and trading community associated within walls. The _Burh_
was originally the place of strength, and the inhabitants of _Bebba’s
Burh_ were surely not traders. _Wic_ is a very vague word, and
_Ceaster_ unquestionably of Roman origin. The latter is the word most
often found in the translation of Beda--as in London-_Ceaster_, and
_Eofer-wic-ceaster_--and as the _Wealh_ remained at the basis of the
population in the rural districts, a similar element probably supplied
the bulk of the inhabitants of the _Ceaster_ before its conversion into
a _Burh_ introduced the Teutonic _Burh-Thegn_.
[327] _Leg. Burg_ 70, 71. The _Hanse_ was simply that kindred
association, known as the _Hant-Gemahl_, without which no Teuton seems
in early times to have been entitled to “free right.” (_Appendix F._)
The Northerns carried with them into the _Burh_ their old customs,
this association amongst the number. A _Hanse_ seems strictly to have
been an association of _four_; there were _four_ classes of towns in
the great Hanseatic League, of which Hamburg, Bremen, Lubeck, and
Cologne were “the Four Burghs.” When Roxburgh and Berwick fell into
the hands of the English, Lanark and Linlithgow were added to complete
the necessary number of _four_ Scottish Burghs. The _Northern_ Burgh
seems to have been simply the reproduction of the rural system within
the walls, the Burgh-Thanes, or probi homines, of London, who chose
their _Tything-men_ and _Hynden-men_--representing the _Tuns_-men
of the country districts--who also chose their _Head-borough_ and
Hundred’s Ealdor. Neither originally chose their _Gerefa_. I cannot
look upon the Northern Burgh as simply a repetition of the Roman city,
or the Roman city, with its Roman customs, enfranchised, and its
citizens, living by Roman law, converted into burghers. The _Hanse_ was
scarcely Roman, but it was a necessary ingredient in the _free right_
of every “full-born” Teuton. “Bare is back without brother behind
it,” says the old northern proverb. The _Echevin_ was a thoroughly
Teutonic personage, the Scabinus, or _Scepen_, of the rural district;
and wherever such features are traceable “in-burgh,” I must look
upon the original burghers, not as a trading class enfranchised, but
rather as a class of free Teutons introduced _above_ the traders for
defence--carrying arms for the defence of the country being the mark
of freedom--and introducing with them the free _allodial_ customs of
the rural districts. The Anglo-Saxon Burgher, and the member of the
great Hanseatic Burghs of northern Germany, were thoroughly Teutonic
personages, owing little, if anything, directly to Rome and her
municipal institutions, in early times, I should imagine.
[328] _Leg. Burg_, 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 15, 17, 98, 101, 106, 107, 110,
112. Such seems to have been the real meaning of this provision--it
eliminated the servile element from amongst the burgherhood. A
native-man might run away from his district, but how could he take
with him the property to purchase a burgage-tenement? _Stock_ was his
property, and it is difficult to conceive how he could carry the stock
with him, or sell it, unknown to his lord, with all the machinery of
witnesses and warrenter required for sales and purchases. But it is
easy to imagine how the settlement of native-men in the towns may have
been encouraged by their lords as a source of private profit. The whole
trading class was once probably on such a footing, and the greater
the wealth acquired by the trader, the more would he have paid for
permission to remain away from his district--for he was not necessarily
a _slave_ in the modern acceptation of the word, but “inborn” to a
certain district, from which he could not separate himself without
his lord’s permission. He who settled in a town, and prospered in his
unfree condition, if he aspired to become a free burgher, must, in
all ordinary cases, have bought his freedom from his lord--as in the
case of Renald _prepositus_ of Berwick in 1247--and after enjoying his
tenement for a year and a day no further claim could be raised against
him. _Vide Scotland in the Middle Ages_, p. 142. It was admission
to the Guild in a Free burgh that conferred the same privileges in
England. _Vide Glanville_, l. 5. c. 5.
[329] _Leg. Burg._, 3, 8, 9, 20, 47, 54, 59, 60, 67, 75, 81, 86, 94,
103. _Scotland in the Middle Ages_, p. 159–162. The full forfeiture in
Burgh amounted to 8 shillings, or one-quarter of the ordinary fine of
8 cows--the half _leod-gild_--levied in the country districts. Washing
the feet, in the olden time, implied an intention of stopping and
accepting hospitality; and the _Dustyfoot_ got his name from passing
onwards. The follower of the Celtic lord was sometimes known as the
_Gillie-wetfoot_, from wearing no shoes or stockings, a practice to
which the Scottish peasantry long clung--an incidental testimony of the
prevalence of the native element amongst that class.
[330] _Leg. Burg._ 58. _Assize Dav._ 3.
[331] _Leg. Burg._ 3, 33, 46, 55, 102. _Mag. Chart._ ii. 29. _Act.
Parl. Scot._, vol. 1, p. 87, 88.
[332] _Leg. Burg._ 99. This is clearly shown by Mr. Innes in his
“_Scotland in the Middle Ages_,” p. 154.
[333] _Leg. Burg._ 13. _Appendix F._
[334] _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 24. He is quite borne out by the
Chartularies. Malmesbury gives a description of Ireland in the reign of
Henry the First, which, with a due allowance for the prejudices of the
historian, was probably not inapplicable at one time to Scotland. “Ita
pro penuria imo pro inscientia cultorum, jejunum omnium bonorum solum,
agrestem et squalidam multitudinem Hibernensium _extra urbes_ producit;
Angli vero et Franci, cultiore genere vitæ, _urbes nundinarum commercio
inhabitant_.”--_Gest. Reg._, l. 5, sec. 409.
[335] Counts and judges (Scabini) were to name the law they would live
by, and judge accordingly--“Comites et judices confiteantur qua lege
vivere debent, et secundum ipsam judicent,” _Pertz. Leg._, vol. 1,
Capit. p. 101, sec. 48. So the Romans were to choose the law they would
live by--_Do. Hlot. Const. Rom., ad an_ 824, p. 239–40. Hundred Court
and Tithing Court, Scabinus and Sagibaro, all the machinery of the free
Salic law, gradually disappeared, until the government of the people,
whose very name was once synonymous with freedom, was expressed in the
words “l’etat c’est moi.” It must always be recollected that our Third
Estate differs in a most important particular from the _Tiers Etat_, or
Bourgeoisie, of the Continent. It includes the _Minores Barones_, the
representatives of the _Meliores pagenses_ or _Probi homines_; to whose
keeping the free institutions of our ancestors were committed long
before the existence of a Burgherhood.
[336] _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 43. _Appendix E._ _Welsh Gwerth._
[337] _Leg. Ini_, 23. The Wealh-gerefa occurs in the Saxon Chronicle,
and had no reference to _Wales_. The meaning of Seneschal and Mareschal
has been generally sought in the Teutonic dialects; but perhaps they
are to be numbered amongst those composite words so often met with.
_March_ is certainly more Celtic than Teutonic; and _Sen_ is very like
the Celtic word for _Senior_. _Steel-bow_, that mysterious appellation
for _ferreum perus_, is another instance in which the first part is
Teutonic, the last the Celtic _Bo_, or _cattle_.
[338] _Const. Hloth. ad an_ 823. _Pertz Leg._ vol. 1. p. 232.
[339] _Cod. Dip. Sax._ No. 813. Osgar, “regiæ procurator aulæ,” is
styled in 855 and 872, Osgar Stallr. The office was held previously by
Osgod Clapa, a great Dane, who was outlawed in 1046 (_Sax. Chron._) It
may have been introduced by Canute; but the district, over which the
Constable subsequently held jurisdiction, is first alluded to in the
laws of Athelstan.
[340] Ad Scotos _in Christum credentes_, ordinatur a Papa Cælestino
Palladius, et primus episcopus mittitur. Such are the words of Prosper
of Aquitaine in his Chronicle, _ad an._ 431. Not only were there
_believers_ amongst the Irish at this time, but _heretics_, according
to Jerome. The Pelagian heresy was sometimes called _Pultis Scottorum_.
_Vide_ the authorities, etc., quoted by O’Connor in _Rer. Hib. Scrip.
Vet._, vol. i. p. lxxi.
[341] The date 432 is usually assigned to the arrival of St. Patrick in
Ireland. There is nothing by which the real accuracy of this date can
be tested, and it wears a very suspicious appearance, as if it had been
originally fixed upon to favour the usual story of Patrick’s ordination
by Pope Celestine, who died in that year. One of the earliest
traditions about the Irish Saint--that contained in Nennius--couples
“Bishop Germanus,” with Pope Celestine, and “Victor the Angel of God,”
as the originators of Patrick’s mission, adding, that Germanus sent
“Bishop Severus” with Patrick. _Severus_ was the companion of Germanus
in his second expedition into Britain. In the old poem ascribed to
Fiech (given by O’Connor as above, p. xc.) Patrick is said to have
remained in southern Gaul and studied the Canons with _Germanus_.
The fable of the Angel Victor is evidently founded on the following
passage in the _Confession of Patrick_:--“Et ibi scilicet vidi in visu,
nocte, _virum_ venientem quasi de Hiberione, _cui nomen Victoricius_,
cum epistolis innumerabilibus, et dedit mihi unam ex illis, et legi
principium epistolæ continentem Vox Hiberionacum.” The saint’s dream
of the arrival of the human Victoricius from Ireland with a letter,
bearing the prayers of the Irish to convert them, was magnified in
after times into the miraculous appearance of the angel Victor from
heaven.
[342] Prosper, _Chron._ 431. He affirms that Pope Celestine deputed
Germanus at the instance of Palladius (_Chron._ 429). Constantius
of Lyons, in his life of Germanus, never alludes to the Pope, but
attributes the mission of Germanus and Lupus to a Council of Gallican
Bishops, assembled on account of the representations of the British
Church. Beda, who must have had both accounts before him (for he quotes
from both authorities), has literally transcribed the narrative of
Constantius; and as he must have had some reason for this preference,
I do not feel inclined to dissent from the venerable historian. Some
clue may perhaps be afforded to the reasons for such opposite versions
of the same story, by the remark of the Benedictine compiler of _L’Art
de verifier les Dates, etc._, “Ce pape (Zozimus) l’année précédente
(_i.e._, 417) avait accordé le Vicariat du Saint Siege dans les Gaules
à Patrocle, Evêque d’Arles; _c’était une nouveauté pour les Gaules, ou
elle excita de grandes contestations_.” Prosper may have chosen to give
a colouring to the proceeding which the Gallican Bishops would have
been unwilling, at that time, to admit.
[343] The scene of the labours of Palladius has been transferred to
Scotland, a change of which Prosper appears to have been profoundly
ignorant.
[344] “Ingenuus fui secundum carnem, Decorione patre nascor,” are the
words in his epistle to Coroticus. According to the _Confession_,
Patrick was about sixteen years old when he was carried off to
Ireland, whither he returned to preach Christianity about thirty years
afterwards. It is curious to contrast the numerous miracles ascribed to
his early youth and childhood by Jocelyn and others with the ingenuous
admission in the _Confession_, of the temporary errors of his youthful
days, and of his carelessness and _unbelief_ from infancy until his
captivity. The _Confession_ and _Epistle to Coroticus_ will be found in
_Rer. Hib. Scrip. Vet._, vol. i. p. cvii.
[345] _Vit. St. Cudb._, cap. 16.
[346] It is difficult to conceive how the sister of the _Pannonian_
Martin could have been the wife of the _British_ Calphurnius; and the
story probably arose from the _spiritual_ relationship of St. Martin to
the Apostle of Ireland. Ninian, the converter of the southern Picts,
is also sometimes called a nephew of Martin. The dedication of the
churches of Canterbury, Whithern, and Hereford, with the Irish Abbey
at Cologne, to St. Martin, together with “the Gospel of St. Martin,”
long preserved at Derry, and supposed to have been brought from Tours
by St. Patrick, attest the veneration in which the name of the founder
of monachism in Gaul was held throughout Britain and Ireland in early
times.
[347] _Mabillon, Hist. Bened._, l. x. c. 17. In the Rule of St.
Columba, the first injunction is, “Be alone in a separate place near a
chief city.”--_Colton’s Visitation, I. A. S., Appendix D._
[348] The Bishops of the Gaelic Church were ordained in the usual
manner. Thus Finan, when he ordained Cedd, called in two other bishops
to assist in performing the ceremony--_Beda, Hist. Eccl._, l. iii.,
c. 22. But many probably were chorepiscopi, at whose ordination it
was only requisite for one bishop to officiate. It was this order,
long suppressed and forgotten in the Roman Church, that scandalized
Lanfranc, Anselm, and others, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
That the leading bishops of the Gaelic Church at this time were
regularly ordained, may be inferred from the fact that there is no
allusion to any _re-ordination_ of bishops at the time when the
Churches of Scotland and Ireland were remodelled. Perhaps “the dignity
of Noble Bishop” (Uasal Escop., _Vide A. F. M._, 1106), may allude
to the superior or episcopal order, as opposed to the inferior or
chorepiscopal. The want of a fixed diocese must have contributed to
impress the Irish bishops with that character for wandering which
was so much complained of in the ninth century. Bishops without a
diocese, however, were not confined to the Irish Church, as at a much
later period, Olaf the Saint had his “Hird-Bishop,” whose peculiar
duties must have attached him to the royal household. The necessity
of episcopal ordination for the priesthood is implied in the story
related of Columba by Adamnan, in his life of that saint. Upon hearing
that Findchan, a priest, had “laid his hands” on the head of Aodh
Dubh, to complete the ordination which the bishop had refused to
proceed with, Columba exclaimed, “Illa manus dextra quam Findchanus,
_contra fas et jus ecclesiasticum_, super caput filii perdicionis
imposuit, mox computrescit.” Much information about the early Irish
Church is contained in Dr. Reeves’ _Ecclesiastical Antiquities of
Down_, etc., _Appendix A_. The custom of Iona, in the seventh century,
as described by Beda, seems to have resembled the ancient custom of
the Church of Alexandria, by which, “not the bishops, but twelve
presbyters were the electors, nominators, and (according to Eutychius)
consecrators.--(_Stanley’s East. Church_, p. 266, note 2.) These twelve
presbyters are very like the twelve Culdees who formed, as it were,
_the Staff_ of every Gaelic monastery.
[349] As tithes were unknown, as _a fixed payment_, in Gaul for some
time after the mission of St. Patrick, it is not surprising that the
Scots and Irish were ignorant of them in the twelfth century. It was
the custom of Aidan and his followers to build churches “per loca”
(_Bed. Ecc. Hist._, l. 3, c. 3), which appear to have been dependant on
the monastery of the district. Thus, on the foundation of the regular
diocese of Aberdeen, the monastery of Mortlach, with five churches and
their lands, was made over to the new see. _Reg. Aberd._, vol. 1, p. 5,
6. From the same Registry, p. lxxvii., it appears that the _Cuairt_ was
eventually compounded for by the payment of _Procurationes_.
[350] Mr. Petrie (_Tara_, p. 172) enumerates four _Cains_--1. Cain
Patraic, not to kill the clergy. 2. Cain Daire Chailleach (the nun),
not to kill cows. 3. Cain Adomnan, not to kill women. 4. Cain Domnaig,
or Sunday law. The _Riar Patraic_ (Patrick’s demand) is explained by
Tighernach (_ad an._ 986), to mean _Cuairt eitir Cill ⁊ Tuaith_, “the
Right of Visitation over Church and State” (or over Clergy and Laity).
Dr. Reeves’ preface to “_Primate Colston’s Visitation_,” _IAS._,
contains very full information on the subject of the early Irish
Visitations. Inmesach is said to have introduced the custom in 721
(_Tigh._), a few years after the Northern Irish, Pictish, and Scottish
Churches had relinquished their early Cycle and Tonsure. The Cuairt was
probably unknown to Patrick or Columba.
[351] Thus Lorcan O’Tuathal preferred the abbacy to the bishopric
of Glendalough, though it may be questioned whether the choice of
the Saint was as purely disinterested as is sometimes asserted. “In
hac autem ecclesiâ et Episcopatus erat et Abbatia; sed Abbatia quoad
temporales divitias longé erat Episcopatu opulentior.”--_Ware Antiq._,
vol. 1, p. 312, 372.
[352] The first allusion to a Herenach occurs in _Tigh._ 605, _An.
Ult._ 604, _A.F.M._ 601, but the office is not again met with before
the close of the eighth century. _Vide_ Mr. O’Donovan’s _Note O_ to
_A.F.M._, 1179; though the description of the Herenach there quoted
from Sir John Davies--paying a yearly rent to the Bishop, a fine upon
the marriage of his daughter, and a subsidy to every Bishop on his
first entry into the diocese; in other words, holding in fee-farm, with
_merchet_, and relief, or payment for a renewal of his lease--applies
rather to his character after the English settlement had reduced
_Cowarbs_ and _Herenachs_ to a very different footing from their
position in early times. The name of _Aircinneach_, meaning _Princeps_,
“Head of the Kin,” or _Overlord_ (_Reeves, Adamn. N._ p. 364, note
M), points to a high position. In a charter of the time of Otho I.,
dated in 952, a Count Hohold founds a convent, of which his sister is
to be the first abbess, that dignity being always to be filled by a
member of his race as long as it exists. He appoints himself _Advocatus
Monasterii_, stipulating that the office should also be hereditary
in his family (_Ducange in voc. Advocatus_). In Gaelic phraseology,
then, the family of Hohold were hereditary _Cowarbs_ and _Herenachs_
of the monastery founded by their ancestor. The _Advocatus_ first
made his appearance in the church about the beginning of the fifth
century--“post consulatum Stilliconis” (_Lind. Gloss. in Advocatus_),
and the “tertia pars bannorum et tertius denarius” were amongst his
privileges. From “Colton’s Visitation” it is evident that the old
_Termon_, or Church lands, were divided into three portions, two
belonging to the rector and his vicar, and the remaining _third_ to the
Herenach under the Bishop, to whom also belonged the “blood-fines,” or
_Eric_, _the overlord’s prerogative_. From a charter quoted by Harris,
c. 35, p. 233, it would appear that in the _Anglo-Irish_ period, the
_Rector_ was often identical with the _Cowarb_, so that the two-thirds
belonging to the Rector and Vicar represented the Abbot’s portion of
the Termon lands; and as in the _Gaelic_ period the Bishop had no
claim on the temporalities of the Church, it seems probable that the
Herenach was originally the _lay-lord_ of the Termon lands, holding
them of the Abbot by the usual tenure of retaining _a third_ of the
fines and profits--tertia pars _bannorum_, et tertius denarius. After
the Cowarbs became very generally laymen, they retained their portion
of the Termon lands in their own hands, under the superintendence of
their own stewards and deputies, and the office of Herenach, declining
in importance, probably fell into the hands of less exalted members of
the family. When the Gaelic Church system was superseded, the Herenach
lands--Church lands held by a layman--appear to have been confiscated
to supply an income for the Bishop, the former holders losing all their
former claims upon “the thirds,” and retaining only that small portion
of the land which was their actual _duchas_, or freehold; whilst as the
families of the greater Cowarbs were generally very powerful, they were
often, probably, allowed to retain the _patronage to the Rectory_ in
their family, provided it was presented to an ecclesiastic.
[353] _Vide_ the _Catalogus Sanctorum Hiberniæ_ (attributed to
Tirechan), in O’Connor’s _Annotationes ad Sæculum_ VI. _Rer. Hib.
Script. Vet._, vol. 2, p. 162. In the British monasteries the monks
devoted themselves to manual labour, as at Bangor (_Bed. Hist. Eccl._,
l. 2, c. 2); but the Irish monks were generally of the _contemplative_
order, as at Louth, the monastery of Mochta, the disciple of Patrick
(_Tigh._ 534).In this they strictly followed the rule of St. Martin,
in whose monastery at Tours contemplation was the business of the
senior monks, whilst the younger brethren were employed in writing.
_Vide Sulp. Sev. Vit. St. Martin_, c. 7. The contemplative life long
continued to be the characteristic of the Gaelic monks. The Gallican
Liturgy (Cursus Gallicanus) appears to have been in general use both
in the British and Gaelic Churches; and according to an old MS. quoted
by Usher, _Prim._ p. 185, it was introduced by Germanus and Lupus. The
diversity of Rules remained to astonish the Papal Legate in the twelfth
century, who mentions a singular fact that shows how deeply wedded the
Irish monks must have been to their peculiar Rule. “Quid enim magis
indecens aut schismaticum dici poterit, quam doctissimum unius ordinis
in alterius Ecclesia idiotam et laicum fieri” (_Usher’s Sylloge_, p.
77); by which the Bishop of Limerick seems to imply that the ordination
of one order of monks was not acknowledged by another. This tendency to
cling to a particular Rule was probably amongst the causes which led to
the predominance over the Bishop of the Abbot, whose special duty was
to preserve strictly the Rule of the Founder. There is no trace of any
such narrow prejudice in favour of “the Rule,” as that to which Bishop
Gillebert alludes, to be found in the early Gaelic Church.
[354] The arguments of Laisren, Abbot of Lethglin, at the Synod held at
that place, are said to have induced the Southern Churches to abandon
the Cycle and Tonsure of their predecessors about 629–30. _Usher
Primord._ p. 936. This Laisren has been erroneously confounded with
Laistranus, one of the abbots addressed by Pope John about 640. _Bed.
Eccl. Hist._, l. 2, c. 19. Compare _Bed. Hist. Eccl._, l. 3, c. 26, l.
5, c. 15, 23. Saint Fintan was the opponent of Laisren, and tradition
has ascribed to him a singular method of upholding his opinions. He
offered three alternatives to Laisren--1. To throw two copies of
the old and the new systems into a fire, to test which would remain
unburnt. 2. To shut up two monks in a burning house, and submit them to
the same ordeal! 3. Or to raise a monk from the dead and abide by his
decision. Laisren declined the trial through fear of Fintan’s superior
sanctity; and, at any rate, the two monks must have felt relieved by
his humility. Cummian, however, appears to have been totally ignorant
that any such alternatives were offered to Laisren during the Synod of
Lethglin; for he represents the arguments of the principal opponent
of the new system (whom he hesitates not to stigmatise as _a whited
wall_) to have been based upon an appeal to the traditions and practice
of their forefathers. _Usher Brit. Eccl. Antiq._, c. 17, p. 485; and
_Sylloge_, p. 33.
[355] In his epistle to Bishop Egbert of York.
[356] The _Cowarb_ was supposed to be the successor of the earliest
abbot, or _ecclesiastical_ founder of the monastery; but in process of
time he appears rather to have been the representative of the _lay_
founder, or, in other words, of the prince or chieftain who granted the
Termon lands to the monastery. Thus most of the Cowarbs of St. Patrick
(or Abbots of Armagh) can be traced to one of the various families
of Oirgialla, of which race was Daire, who originally granted to St.
Patrick the land for founding the monastery (_A.F.M._, 457); though
in the ninth century the Hy Nial made several attempts to obtain the
appointment for their own nominees. The whole monastery gradually
became filled with “Founder’s kin,” and each leading family appears to
have possessed _the patronage_ of the monastery of the district. Nor
was this custom confined to the Gaelic Church, for it existed in Wales,
Bretagne, Auvergne (_vide_ Goodall’s Preface to Keith), and in many
parts of England, where the sons of priests were accustomed to inherit
their father’s churches. _Vide Ead. Hist. Nov._, l. 3, p. 67. Instances
still exist of the union of ecclesiastical and temporal power; for the
Vladika of Montenegro is invariably the bishop, as well as the prince,
of his wild country.
[357] The word _Culdee_ signifies nothing more than clergyman, and
it was the general name for the clergy amongst the Gael. The Culdees
can be traced in Ireland, just the same as in Scotland, and they
were replaced by regular canons in the same manner. The Oratories
and Culdees of Armagh are mentioned _A.F.M._ 919, _An. Ult._ 920.
The Oratories were probably the seven churches, or chapels, which
appear to have belonged to all the larger Gaelic monasteries, and the
Culdees were the officiating ministers. The Prior and Culdees of Armagh
retained many of their privileges down to the Reformation. Culdees were
the ministers of York Cathedral, from the date of Oswald’s foundation
until after the Conquest; and they probably inherited their privileges
from the time of Bishop Aiden. _Vide Ware’s Antiquities (Harris)_, vol.
1, p. 236. The old canons of Durham were exactly in the same position
as the Irish or Scottish Culdees. They were the descendants of the
bearers of St. Cuthbert’s body during the early Danish wars, inheriting
their canonries by right of blood, and claiming to elect the bishop
from their own body. In short, the see was in the hands of certain
privileged families until the Anglo-Saxon Church beyond the Humber was
remodelled after the Conquest. _Vide Hist. Dun. (Twysden)_, l. 2, c. 6;
l. 3, c. 6, 18. It is worthy of notice that _a Hospital_ is generally
to be found where Culdees can be traced to have existed, and this
hospital is generally dedicated to St. Leonard.
[358] The power of the monastery depended very much on that of the
chieftain of the district, and varied accordingly. Thus, in early
times, Clonmacnois appears to have claimed the tribute of Connaught,
though the primacy was eventually transferred to Tuam. Like St. Andrews
in Scotland, Armagh had become far the most powerful abbey in Ireland
in the twelfth century.
[359] _Ailred (Twysden)_, p. 348. David found three or four, and left
nine sees.
[360] Gregory and Cormac, the Bishops of Moray and Dunkeld, attested
the Foundation Charter of Scone. At that time St Andrews was vacant.
[361] _Myln, Vit. Dunk. Ep._, pp. 5–10. _Reg. Aberd._, vol. i. p.
76, _note_; vol. ii. p. 58. _Reg. Morav._, Nos. 46, 47, 48. _Keith,
Pref._ p. 10. According to _Fordun_, l. viii. ch. 73, Earl Gilbert
gave a third of his earldom to Inch Affray, a third to the bishopric
of Dunblane, and only retained a third for himself and his heirs; and
the same earl is often described as the _Founder_ of the see. In a
strict sense this is doubtful, for Dunblane was undoubtedly amongst the
_nine_ Sees existing, according to Ailred, at David’s death; and the
poverty of the bishopric five years after Gilbert’s death, in 1223,
hardly agrees with the supposed donation of a third of his earldom.
Inch Affray was the Foundation of Gilbert, upon which he lavished the
tithes of his _Can_, his rents, his fines, and his offerings. Yet
that the bishopric was endowed by the earls is a certainty, because
in 1442 James II. declared, that the temporalities of the bishopric,
hitherto held of the Earl of Strathearn, were henceforth to be held of
the Crown. When the Pope granted to the Bishop a fourth of the tithes
of the whole diocese for the support of himself, a Dean, and Canons,
the Bishop seems to have abandoned “all right of pension out of the
lands or churches of the Earl of Menteith,” who was permitted to found
a house for Regular Canons at Inch Mahomoc, making over the church of
Kippen to found a Canonry in Dunblane Cathedral, and the church of
Callander for the Bishop himself. This arrangement wears very much the
appearance of a compromise; as if, at the revival of the see, David had
assigned the earldoms of Strathearn and Menteith to the bishop as his
diocese, neither of the earls, in the first instance, resigning the
church-lands in their possession, until the Earl of Menteith waived all
claim to the _patronage of the See_, in return for the permission to
found the _family_ Priory of Inch Mahomoc; whilst the bishop waived all
further claim upon the earldom of Menteith, in return for the churches
of Kippen and Callander. The diocese was thenceforth confined, in point
of fact, to the earldom of Strathearn, in which all its temporalities
were situated; and in return for the patronage of the see, no longer
disputed by the Earls of Menteith, the successors of Gilbert would have
no longer had any reluctance to carry out his intentions.--_Vide Innes’
Sketches, etc._; _Inch Affray_, pp. 204 to 219. In earlier times each
earl would have placed his bishop in the family establishments of Inch
Affray and Inch Mahomoc.
[362] The Seven Churches, for instance, at Clonmacnois and Glendalough,
in Ireland. According to Beda, _Hist. Eccl._, l. 2, cap. 2; the Welsh
monastery of Bangor was divided into _seven_ portions, each containing
three hundred monks, under a prior (præpositus). This arrangement
may have had some connection with the peculiarity of Seven Churches.
Seven British bishops are said to have attended the conference at
Augustine’s Oak, and seven bishops are said to have preached the Faith
in Gaul.--(_Hist. Eccl. Franc._, l. 1, cap. 28).
[363] This description is taken from the “History of St. Rule,”
etc. (_Pinkerton’s Dissertation_, vol. 2, Ap. No. 7, sec. 3, and
_Jamieson’s Culdees, Appendix_ No. 7), written by a contemporary of
the kings Alexander and David. Like most tradition it is a singular
mixture of truth and error. The _Hungus filius Ferlon_, and his son
_Howonan_, contemporaries of Constantine the Great, are evidently
Angus Mac Fergus, who reigned from 820 to 834, and his son Eoganan,
who was killed in 839. The “Devotion to St. Andrew”--(_Pinkerton_,
No. 12)--exemplifies the growth of error in such traditions, for it
represents the saint bidding Angus dedicate to the Church _the tithes_
of his possessions.
[364] Such were the Abbots of Dunkeld, ancestors of the royal line
of Atholl, and those of Abernethy, ancestors of the family of that
name. From the name of the first Earl of Ross, Ferquhard Mac-in-Sagart
(the son of the priest), he was probably of a clerical family of this
description. The lay Abbots of Brechin witness many charters. The
Abbacy of St. Andrews was vested in the king.
[365] This difference between the Irish and Scottish Churches may
probably be traced to the time when Nechtan drove the monks of Iona
out of his dominions, and transferred the superiority to Abernethy. It
was adopted, most likely, from the Anglo-Saxons, amongst whom I cannot
trace the _advocatus_ any more than the _Herenach_ amongst the Scottish
Gael. The character may have existed amongst both people, but I am not
aware of any _name_ for it; nor has any word like _Vogt_ penetrated
into either English or Scottish, as it has into the Germanic and
Scandinavian languages.
[366] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. 186. _Vide_ also p. 48, and other
papal confirmations.
[367] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, pp. 43–188. The little Abbey of St.
Servans belonged to the bishop, as the brotherhood had, on its first
establishment, made over their possessions to the bishop, according to
the usual Gaelic custom, in return for food and clothing.--_Reg. Prior.
St. And._, p. 113.
[368] _Reg. Aberd._, vol. 2, p. 264.
[369] _Vide Goodall’s Preface to Keith’s Catalogue of Bishops._ When
David revived the See of Brechin, he merely granted to the Bishop
and Culdees the right of holding a Sunday market in their _Vill_ of
Brechin. The Church-lands, originally “given to the Lord” by Kenneth
II., were probably in the possession of the _Cowarbs_, long represented
by the lay Abbots of Brechin. Leod is the first known member of the
family, attesting charters of David, as “Abbas de Brechin,” amongst
the laity; and the form of _Abbe_ so often appears after the names of
the family, that it has been taken for a surname; though, as the same
individuals appear with _Abbas_ or _Abbatis_ appended to their names,
it is evidently only a contraction. Morgund appears to have been the
last direct heir-male--(_Reg. de Brech. Pref._, p.v., and No. 1. _Reg.
Vet. Arbr._, No. 1, 70, 72, 73, 74--1, 2, 3). About the opening of the
thirteenth century, other clerks appear in the Chapter; and as the
charters quoted by Goodall mention “the Prior, Culdees, and _others_
of the Chapter of Brechin,” it is possible that these “_others_” were
the Canons, who now began to share the privileges of the Culdees. The
latter disappear towards the close of the reign of Alexander II., and
their place is supplied by the ordinary “Dean and Chapter.” Morgund
died in the same reign, and the property appears to have passed to
Henry, an illegitimate offshoot from the royal family, who transmitted
the name of _de Brechin_ to his descendants. In a charter, about the
year 1267, his son, William de Brechin, couples with the name of his
father Henry that of his _mother_ Juliana. In 1232 Alexander granted
certain lands to Gillandrys Mac Leod, to be held by the service of one
knight, “saving the rights of the clergy of Brechin, and the annual
rent of 10 _solidi_, due from a portion to the Abbot of Brechin,”
together with other lands, to be held _per forinsecum servitium_,
“infra dictum servitium unius militis.” From all this, I think, it is
allowable to suppose, that on the death of Morgund the king bestowed
Juliana, the heiress of the last Abbot, on his kinsman Henry, with
the proviso that the Culdees should be suppressed, or converted into
the Chapter, at the same time erecting the lands of Gillandrys, the
heir-male, hitherto held of the Abbot and Clergy, into a barony,
held by charter of the Crown.--_Reg. de Brech._, Nos. 2, 3; _Innes’
Sketches_, etc., p. 156.
[370] _Reg. Prior. St. And._ p. 318.
[371] _Vide_ Charters in _Reg. Prior. St. And._, from p. 362 to p. 376.
_Reg. Aberd._, vol. 2, p. 264.
[372] _Reg. Morav._, No. 260. _Vide_ also _Hailes’ Annals_, vol. 3,
_Appendix_ No. 4. The passage is curious, “Clerici vero uxorati ejusdem
regni qui clericalem deferentes tonsuram clericati gaudere solent
privilegio, et cum bonis suis sub ecclesiastice protectionis manere
presidio ab antiquo, solite immunitatis beneficiis exuuntur et sub nova
rediguntur onera servitutis.” As the date of this singular document is
31st May 1251, it must have been issued against Durward and his party,
who at that time were in power.
[373] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. xxxv, No. 16, xxxvii, No. 30, 32.
_Denmylne Charters_, No. 19, 39. Amongst the Culdees who were converted
into the Provost and Chapter of St. Mary’s was William Wishart,
afterwards Bishop of St. Andrews. If _Robert_ Wishart, afterwards
Bishop of Glasgow, was also a Culdee--a clericus uxoratus--it may
explain the passage in which Hemingburgh throws an aspersion on his
morals, “filios etiam episcopi nepotum nomine nuncupatos.” _Vide Innes’
Sketches_, p. 50, note 4.
[374] The Culdees were excluded from participating in the election
of William Wishart in 1272 (_Fordun_, l. 6, c. 43). Every papal
confirmation, however, in the _Reg. Prior. St. And._ proves that
the right of electing the bishop was confined to the Canons Regular
of the Priory, the Culdees apparently having first been deprived
of their right in the days of Turgot (_Twysden, Preface_, p. vi.)
The expressions of Fordun can, therefore, only be explained on the
supposition that they had recovered their original privileges for a
short time about this period.
[375] _Fordun_, l. 6, c. 44. _Palgrave’s Documents, etc._, cxlvii.
cxlix.
[376] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. xxxi.
[377] _Chron. St. Crucis_, 1153. Boece attributes the rising of
Somarled to a famine and pestilence, which the Chronicle places in the
following year--the result rather than the cause of the invasion.
[378] _Chron. Man_, p. 8, 9. _An. F. M._, 1106. _An. Inisfal_, 1094.
The chronology, though very defective up to this point, is easily
rectified. As Olave Godfreyson died in 1152, after a reign of forty
years, he must have succeeded in 1112. Lagman, who was king at the time
of Magnus Barefoot’s expedition, reigned seven years, which, added
to the six years of Sigurd’s rule in the Orkneys, places his death
thirteen years after that of his father, which occurred in 1095--or in
1108. The remaining four years are accounted for by Donald’s regency,
and the interval before the arrival of Ingemund.
[379] _Chron. Man_, p. 12, 13. The character of Olave is described in a
passage redolent of the spirit of the age:--“Dedit ecclesiis insularum
terras et libertates, et erat circa cultum divinum devotus et fervidus,
tam Deo quam hominibus acceptabilis, propter quod isti domestico vitio
Regum indulgebant.” The privileges of Furness Abbey were confirmed by
a Bull of Pope Celestine, quoted in _Camd. Brit._, p. 1450. Wimund is
one of the bishops called into existence by Stubbs, to be consecrated
with the apocryphal Michael of Glasgow, by Archbishop Thomas of York,
who died in 1114--(_Twysden_, p. 1713). It is scarcely necessary to
point out the discrepancy of this date with the real period of Wimund’s
adventures, as detailed by the contemporary Newbridge. Wendover calls
Wimund the first Bishop of Man, and he is probably right in a certain
sense; for the bishopric seems to have been revived or remodelled, as
in the cases of Glasgow and Galloway, when Olave solicited a colony of
monks from Furness; and as the Irish Northmen looked upon their bishops
as members of the Anglo-Norman rather than of the Irish Church, Olave
would naturally turn to the Archbishop of York to consecrate the first
bishop of his newly-created diocese, which soon afterwards became
dependant upon the Archbishop of Drontheim.
[380] _Chron. Man_, p. 13–15.
[381] _Chron. Man_, p. 15, 10.
[382] _An. F. M._, 1142, 1146, 1160, 1167, 1170, 1171.
[383] _Chron. Man_, p. 16, 17.
[384] _Chron. St. Crucis_ and _Chron. Mel._, 1156.
[385] _Chron. St. Crucis_, 1157. _Reg. Dunf._, No. 40.
[386] _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 4. Hoveden, a confidential servant of
the English king, distinctly states that Henry made oath at Carlisle
that if he ever ascended the throne of England, he would make over to
David and his heirs Newcastle and Northumberland, and allow the kings
of Scotland to possess without reserve all the lands between Tyne and
Tweed (_ad an._ 1148–49). Diceto, who had no object in favouring the
Scottish claims, says as decidedly that Northumberland had not only
been long in the possession of David, but that it had been granted and
confirmed to him by charter (_ad an._ 1173). Newbridge is more guarded,
remarking that Malcolm might have brought forward the oath which Henry
_is said_ to have sworn--_ut dicitur_--to David. John of Hexham does
not allude to the agreement, for it was probably kept secret, and could
hardly have transpired when he closed his history four years later; but
he incidentally confirms its existence when he states that the Earl of
Chester waived his claim upon Carlisle in favour of David, receiving
the Honor of Lancaster in exchange, for which he performed homage to
the Scottish king. At this time, then, Carlisle must have been the
acknowledged property of David, and the homage of Ranulph in connection
with the Honor of Lancaster, the subsequent claim raised by William in
1196 upon the same fief, and the grant of Furness to Wimund, look very
much as if Lancashire, or its northern frontier, was also in the hands
of David. His authority, however, extended far beyond the Tyne, and the
possession of the castles of Carlisle, Bamborough, and Newcastle, goes
far to prove that whilst he held all beyond that river in the name of
the Empress Queen, he had stipulated that the earldom, which he looked
upon as the rightful inheritance of his wife, should be permanently
made over to himself and his heirs. Small facts are sometimes
significant, and as most of the important meetings between the English
and Scottish kings were held near their mutual frontiers, it is worth
noticing that though Henry subsequently met Malcolm at _Carlisle_,
the cession of the northern counties was made--_at Chester_. The
possession of the northern counties was a matter of grave importance
to both kings, for had they been held hereditarily by the Scottish
princes, they would from their local position have undoubtedly become
gradually incorporated with the Scottish kingdom. It was naturally the
policy of the English kings to throw every obstacle in the way of such
a contingency, and in estimating Henry’s conduct on this occasion, it
would be the safest course for those who seek to palliate it, to ground
their defence on the plea of “expediency.”
[387] _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 4. _Hoveden_ 1157. _Wendover_ 1157. Matthew
of Westminster, far better informed than any contemporary authority,
fabricates an invasion of England in order that Henry may be introduced
as “vigorously repulsing” the Scots. This recalls the practice of some
of the earlier chroniclers, who invariably raise a rebellion of the
Scots at the commencement of every fresh reign, that they may easily
and effectually crush the revolt with the same weapon that raised
it--the pen. To the fiefs surrendered by Malcolm according to the
contemporary authorities, Wendover adds “the whole county of Lothian,”
a passage appearing also in Diceto; but I have given my reasons in
_Appendix L_, pt. 2, for regarding it as an interpolation upon the
“Imagines Historiarum,” and of no authority in either case. The meaning
of a reservation in Malcolm’s homage, “salvis dignitatibus suis,”
has occasioned some controversy, and has sometimes been considered
equivalent to a reservation of the independence of his kingdom. I
should be more inclined to regard the saving clause as applicable to
all those points which, at the time of William’s homage to Richard at
Canterbury, were left for the decision of four barons of each kingdom,
and subsequently confirmed by a charter from the English king. Compare
_Appendix L_, pt. 2.
[388] _Hoveden_ and _Chron. Mel._ 1158–59. The question was probably
about the nature of the homage rendered for Huntingdon, whether _liege_
or _simple_. Liege _homage_, which was the tenure by which the English
kings held their duchy of Guyenne--as Edward the Third admitted after
some demur (_Fœd._ vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 765, 797, 813)--carried with
it the obligation of liege _service_. The service of Malcolm, and
subsequently of William, in the armies of Henry, established the fact
that they held Huntingdon by _liege homage_; and the obligation of
service was subsequently evaded by sub-infeoffing the fief, which
imposed this duty upon the _Vavassor_, or tenant of the Holder in Chief.
[389] _Hoveden_ 1160. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 7, l. 199 to 216. _Fordun_,
l. 8, c. 6. The Earls of Fife and Strathearn seem to have been amongst
the most influential of the old Gaelic Mormaors, the former always
staunch supporters of the reigning family, of which, perhaps, like
the Earls of Atholl, they were a branch--for both these earldoms,
connected with the monasteries of Dunkeld and St. Andrews, were
originally “in the crown;” whilst the latter, who were “Palatines,”
exercising the privileges of a Regality within their earldom, and with
the patronage at one time of the Bishopric of Dunblane--apparently,
like the Ealdormen of Northumbria, “mediatized princes”--will be
generally found at this period at the head of the discontented, rather
than the disaffected, Scots. Ferquhard never seems to have suffered
for his share in this conspiracy. He was either too powerful, or, more
probably, not personally disaffected towards the reigning family, but
discontented at their innovations. As the earldom of Ross, of which a
certain Malcolm was in possession at one period of this reign (_Reg.
Dunf._ No. 43), was granted as part of the dowry of the princess Ada
on her marriage with Florence, Count of Holland, in 1162 (_Doc. etc.
Illust. Hist. Scot._, iv. sec. 5, p. 20), it must have been at that
date in the crown; and if through forfeiture, the forfeited earl may
have been one of the “Mayster Men.” Mr. Skene adds the Earl of Orkney
and the Boy of Egremont on the authority of Wynton and the Orkneyinga
Saga, but I can find no mention of either. The Saga only says that
all the Scots wished to have for their king William _Odlingr_--the
_Atheling_--son of William Fitz Duncan, alluding most probably to the
repeated attempts, in the succeeding reign, of Donald MacWilliam,
generally known as “Mac William,” and sometimes called “William”
in _Ben. Ab._ Six years before the conspiracy of Perth, the Boy of
Egremont was old enough to witness a charter of Bolton Priory, as
son and heir of his mother, Cecilia de Rumeli (_Dugd. Mon._, vol.
6, p. 203), and as he died in his childhood--he was the hero of the
well-known tale of the _Strides_--he was probably dead before 1160. In
the conspiracy of Perth, Mr. Skene sees an attempt of the “Seven Earls”
to assert their privileges and choose the son of William Fitz Duncan in
the place of Malcolm. These earls and their privileges are as profound
a mystery as the conspiracy itself. _Vide Appendix S._
[390] _Chron. St. Crucis_ 1160. The names of Fergus and his son,
Uchtred, occur amongst the witnesses to the grant of Perdeyc on the 7th
July 1136. _Reg. Glasg._, No. 3, 7. The different relation in which
Galloway stood to Scotland in the reigns of David and his successor, is
clearly ascertained through its bishopric. Candida Casa was not amongst
the sees revived by David, owing its reestablishment apparently to
Fergus, Christian, the first bishop of the new see, being consecrated
in 1154, when the ceremony was performed by the Archbishop of Rouen at
Bermondsey (_Chron. St. Crucis_ 1154). He was claimed as a suffragan of
York after the captivity of William, and when excommunicated in 1177
by Cardinal Vivian, legate for _Scotland_, Ireland, and the Isles,
for not attending a council of Scottish bishops, was sheltered by his
metropolitan, at that time legate for _England_; and his successors
remained suffragans of York until the fourteenth century. It may be
gathered, therefore, that at the date of the revival of the see,
Galloway was up to a certain point an independent principality, the
Scottish claims to superiority dating from the conquest of Malcolm,
the English from the captivity of William--for Gill-aldan, consecrated
with other _myths_ by Archbishop Thorstein, is an apocryphal creation
of Stubbs (_Twysden_, p. 1720). The bishopric, which was probably
commensurate with the boundaries of the principality, comprised the
modern shires of Wigton and Kirkcudbright westward of the Ure, and was
bounded by the deaneries of Nith and Carrick, both in the diocese of
Glasgow; the former the original seat of the Randolph family, whose
first known ancestor was Dungal of Stranith; the latter erected into a
separate earldom for Duncan, the grandson of Fergus, on resigning all
claim upon his father Gilbert’s share in the province of Galloway.
[391] _Hoveden_ 1163.
[392] _Wendover_ 1163. This is another passage found in the “Imagines,”
but not in the “Capitula,” of Diceto. (_Vide Appendix L_, pt. 2).
According to Diceto, the clergy swore fealty to the younger Henry in
1162, and according to the _Annales Cambriæ_, Rhys of South Wales was
in England with Henry in 1164, after the expedition in which Henry
reached Pencadair, which is usually placed in 1162. It is singular
that Newbridge, the principal authority for the Welsh wars, should not
have alluded to the homage at Woodstock. Sir Francis Palgrave, in his
“Proofs and Illustrations,” seems to lay some stress on the omission of
the saving clause, “salvis dignitatibus,” in the homage said to have
been rendered by Malcolm to the younger Henry on this occasion. It was
simply a repetition of his original homage, not a fresh act; and as he
was in the enjoyment of his “dignities” at this time, where was the
necessity of the saving clause?
[393] _Hoveden_, 1164, p. 283. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 7, l. 307. _Chron.
Mel._ 1164. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 6. The Innes Charter was granted at
Christmas “post concordiam Regis et Sumerledi” (_Reg. Morav._ p. 453).
Amongst the witnesses was William, Bishop of Moray and papal legate,
an office which he held from 1159 till his death in 1162. Between
these dates Somerled and Malcolm must have come to terms. Fordun calls
the son who was killed with his father Gillecolum. He is nowhere else
mentioned, and none of the ancestry of the great western clans traced
to him.
[394] _Chron. Mel._ 1165. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 29. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c.
9, l. 321, etc. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 6, etc. Lord Hailes has ruthlessly
destroyed the fable which was founded upon the king’s _soubriquet_ of
“the Maiden.” _Annals_, vol. 1, p. 123.
[395] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 6, is the earliest authority who alludes to
the supposed transplantation of the Moraymen. Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_,
vol. 2, p. 167) seems to think that the Moraymen took advantage of the
conspiracy of Perth to rise under Kenneth Mac Heth, and that Malcolm,
after a violent struggle, crushed their rebellion; but I cannot find
any notice of such occurrences in the historians of this period.
Malcolm’s struggle was in Galloway, and the greater part of Moray, with
the exception of the more inaccessible Highland districts, was by this
time in the iron grasp of the great feudal proprietors established in
the forfeited earldom by David. Kenneth Mac Heth was the companion
of Donald Bane, the son of Donald Mac William, when he rose against
Alexander the Second in 1215, _fifty-five years_ after the conspiracy
of Perth. It is possible that he may have shared in the earlier
risings, but it is hardly probable.
[396] _Hoveden_, 1166, p. 289. _Chron. Mel._ 1166. “Ob negotia Domini
sui,” says the latter authority; in other words, he performed _service_
for Huntingdon. There is no actual allusion to the grant of this fief
to William, but it is evident that he possessed it and sub-infeoffed it
to his brother David. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 37, speaks of _Earl David_
holding the castle of Huntingdon at the time of William’s capture;
and in c. 31 he calls the same prince Earl of Huntingdon. Hoveden and
Abbot Benedict, under the year 1184, mention that Henry _gave back_
(reddidit) the fief to William, who granted it (dedit) to his brother.
What was _given back_ must have been previously _taken away_; and
William must have been in possession of the fief before his capture.
According to _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 12, 13, he was refused Northumberland;
and this refusal _Diceto, ad an._ 1173, places amongst the causes of
the subsequent war.
[397] The Bishop of Hereford, an austere priest, who imagined himself
fully qualified for the primacy, remarked with a sneer, in allusion to
some of Becket’s antecedents, that the king had wrought a miracle when
he converted a man-at-arms into an Archbishop.
[398] _Ep. St. T. Cant._, l. 1, 44; l. 2, 32, quoted by Lord Lyttleton,
_Hist. Hen. II._, vol. 4, p. 218–20. In 1166 William was at Mont St.
Michael (_Chron. Robt. de Monte ad an._), and there came with him the
Bishop of Man and thirty-one other islands, all of which, adds the
chronicler, the king of the Isles holds of the king of Norway by paying
ten marks of gold to every new king. No other payment is made during
the life of that king, or until the appointment of a successor.
[399] _Ben. Ab._ and _Hoveden_ 1170.
[400] _Hoveden_ 1173, p. 305. According to Diceto, William demanded
Northumberland from the elder Henry, and on being refused, led his army
into England. But the account of Hoveden is more likely to be correct.
Wendover copied Diceto word for word, with the characteristic omission
of the Dean of St. Paul’s words “quæ fuerant regi David, donata,
tradita, cartis confirmata.”
[401] _Diceto_ 1173.
[402] _Hoveden_ 1173, p. 307. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 30. _Diceto_ 1173.
The latter makes William beg for a truce from the triumphant English
nobles; but both the other writers maintain that the proposal first
came from the English leaders, on hearing of the arrival of the Earl
of Leicester. “Timuerunt valde,” writes Hoveden; “Cum eum (William)
callida nostrorum dissimulatione laterent adhuc quæ nuntiabantur,”
are the words of Newbridge. In the same chapter that historian speaks
of _Tweed_ dividing the kingdoms of England and Scotland--a clear
proof that _Lothian_ had not been _restored_ to Henry seventeen years
previously.
[403] _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 30.
[404] _Hoveden_, 1174, p. 307.
[405] _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 32.
[406] _Hoveden_ 1174, p. 307. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 31, 32.
[407] _Ben. Ab._ 1174. _Hoveden_ 1174, p. 308. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 32.
[408] I have here followed the account of Abbot Benedict, which appears
to have been copied into the chronicle of Croyland Abbey. Compare
it with _Doc. etc. Illust. Hist. Scot._, No. xxiv., p. 79, Benedict
expressly says that William dispatched the two Earls and de Moreville
from Alnwick “fere cum toto exercitu ... et ibi remansit cum privata
familia sua.”
[409] “Nam predicti Duces, cum audissent quod Rex Scotiæ ... _misisset
exercitum suum ab eo_, cum festinacione secuti sunt.” Such are the
words of Benedict, which prove that the enterprise of the English
leaders was entirely based upon their _knowledge_ of the dispersion
of the Scottish army, and their hope of surprising the king whilst he
was only surrounded “privata familia sua.” This view of the case must
enhance our opinion of their judgment, though somewhat at the expense
of the miracle. Robert d’Estoteville, Bernard de Balliol, Ranulph de
Glanville, and William de Vesci, were the principal barons in favour of
the enterprise.
[410] Some idea might be formed of the rate of progression of a knight
in full armour, were it not for the ambiguity of the expression
of Newbridge, “ante horam quintam viginti quatuor millia passuum
transmearent”--“before five o’clock;” or “under five hours,” as some
translate it. But this forced march was looked upon as an almost
incredible performance; and if our forefathers required supernatural
assistance (tanquam _propellente vi aliqua_ properantes) to accomplish
five miles an hour, their ordinary movements must have been leisurely
indeed.
[411] _Ben. Ab._ 1174. _Hoveden_ 1174, p. 308. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c.
33. The veracious Wendover represents the capture of William as the
result of a battle, in which such multitudes of the Scots were slain
that it was impossible to number their dead!
[412] _Ben. Ab._ 1174. _Hoveden_ 1174, p. 308. _Newbridge_, l. 3,
c. 35. _Diceto_ and _Chron. Gerv._ 1174. (_Twysden_, p. 577, 1427.)
Facts have been a little strained to represent William’s capture
as a miracle. All contemporary accounts agree that Henry sailed
from Barfleur on Monday the 8th July, landing the same evening at
Southampton, and hurrying to Canterbury without delay, where they make
him do penance immediately on his arrival, dating it on Friday the
12th, and bring him to London on the Saturday, without accounting for
the intermediate days. A journey from Southampton to Canterbury would
scarcely require three days’ and nights’ hard riding. Lord Hailes,
according to Dr. Lingard, “contradicts the king, and says that one of
these events occurred on a Thursday, and the other on a Saturday.”
Lingard himself makes Henry spend two days on the passage--a way of
accounting for the intermediate days which seems not to have occurred
to the earlier authorities--land on the 10th, ride all night, reach
Canterbury and do penance on the 11th, and proceed to London on the
12th (_Hist. Engl._, vol. 2, c. 5); and as William was captured on
Saturday the 13th, his own account, singularly enough, bears out the
assertion of Lord Hailes, “that Henry was scourged on a Thursday and
William made prisoner on a Saturday!” It was quite in accordance with
the spirit of the age to regard the capture of William as the reward of
Henry’s penance, and it can scarcely be questioned that such was the
case in England; whilst the foundation of Arbroath, dedicated to Thomas
of Canterbury, seems to attest William’s concurrence in this feeling.
The age was ready to accept a miracle and it was framed accordingly.
[413] _Hoveden_ 1174, p. 308. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 34, 37. Diceto
improves upon the miracle of William’s capture by adding that on the
_very same day_ the Count of Flanders and the younger Henry dismissed
the fleet which they had assembled at Gravelines. To make the story
still better, Wendover raises a tempest and sinks most of the vessels.
As the allies left Gravelines on account of a message from Louis,
who had _received intelligence of William’s capture_ (_Hoveden_),
the knowledge of an event in France, on the very day on which it
happened in Northumberland, would, in those days, have been undeniably
miraculous.
[414] _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 38.
[415] _Fœdera_, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 30. Though _five_ castles are
mentioned in this convention, only _three_ appear to have been given
up--Roxburgh, Berwick, and Edinburgh. The latter was given back as the
dowry of Ermengarde, and the two others were restored by Richard. As
Stirling and Jedburgh are never alluded to, it is to be presumed that,
for some cause, they were not claimed by Henry; indeed Newbridge, l. 2,
c. 38, writes that only the three other castles were made over to the
English king; and Wynton follows him, bk. 7, c. 8, l. 159. The treaty
in the Fœdera is dated at Falaise; but a passage in Diceto (to which
no allusion is made in the Capitula) states that the Convention took
place near Valognes in the Cotentin; and in the version of the treaty
given in the same passage, the castles of Roxburgh and Berwick only
are mentioned. These were the two castles restored after the death of
Henry, and the writer must have been ignorant not only that Stirling,
Jedburgh, and Edinburgh, were also amongst the fortresses stipulated to
be made over by the Scots, but that the latter was actually given up.
This is another proof, I think, that the passages in Diceto, to which
no allusion is made in the Capitula, are by another hand. _Vide Diceto_
1174, p. 584, and _Appendix L_, pt. 2.
[416] _Ben. Ab._ 1175.
[417] In 1123–24 Alexander, just before his death, appointed Robert of
Scone to the bishopric of St. Andrews, and he appears to have deputed
John of Glasgow to maintain the liberties of the Scottish Church
at the court of Rome. In 1124–25 John of Crema, the papal legate,
was empowered to settle the points in dispute, subject to the final
approval of the pope; and in 1128 Archbishop Thorstein consecrated
Robert “Sine professione et obbediente pro Dei amore et Regis Scotiæ
... salva querela Eboracensis Ecclesiæ et justitia Ecclesiæ Sancti
Andreæ.” _Sim. Dun de Gestis_, 1124, 1125. _Ang. Sac._, vol. 2, p.
237, quoted in _Hailes’ Annals_, vol. 1, p. 76. It is curious to
contrast the account of Simeon with that of Stubbs (_Twysden_, p.
1719). According to the chronicler who wrote two centuries and a half
after the events which he describes, Thorstein grounded his claims
upon the assertion that _the king of Scotland was the liegeman of the
king of England_; whilst the contemporary Simeon confines the dispute
strictly to _ecclesiastical_ points; though the ill success of the
English advocates provoked him into writing “Scotti dicebant _stulta
garrulitate_, etc.!”
[418] The letter of the pope to Henry is preserved in _Diceto, ad an._
1154, p. 529.
[419] _Chron. St. Crucis_, 1159, 1162. _Chron. Mel._ 1161.
[420] _Extr. ex Chron. Scot._, p. 75. _Chron. Mel._ 1164. _Fordun_, l.
8, c. 15. _Vide_ also _Hailes’ Annals_, vol. 1, p. 120.
[421] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 26, makes Gilbert Moray the spokesman of the
Scots.
[422] _Hoveden_ 1176, p. 314, gives the fullest account of these
occurrences.
[423] _Ben. Ab._ 1176. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 8, l. 185 to 258.
[424] _Reg. Glasg._, No. 38.
[425] _Hoveden_ 1188, p. 371. This privilege was confirmed by many
subsequent bulls.
[426] The best account of these transactions is given by _Abbot
Benedict_, 1174. He says that Henry made the first overtures through
Hoveden. Hoveden himself is very reserved on the subject, makes no
allusion to his own mission, and declares that the Galwegian princes
solicited the intervention of Henry. Looking at the result of the
mission, I think it very probable that there were some reasons for the
reserve of Hoveden, and I am inclined to adopt the version of Benedict.
[427] _Ben. Ab._ 1175. This is another incidental proof of the complete
feudal independence of the _kingdom_ of Scotland at all other times;
for no rebellion could have been put down without the permission of the
English overlord, by whose court the rebels would have been tried; and
Malcolm IV. would have had no more right to conquer and annex Galloway
to his kingdom, than the Earl Palatine of Chester to conquer and annex
Wales to his earldom.
[428] _Ben. Ab._ 1176. The policy of Gilbert in driving out all
“foreigners”--all who had not a “right of blood” to hold land in
Galloway--was simply a repetition of the course adopted under Donald
Bane and Duncan II. Galloway, in short, was a century behind _Scotia_.
[429] “On the Sunday which happens in the middle of Lent, the pope was
wont to bear in his hand a rose of gold, enamelled red, and perfumed;
this he bestowed as a mark of grace.... By the _rose_ Christ was
figured, by the _gold_, his kingly office; by the _red colour_, his
passion; and by the _perfume_, his resurrection. This is no impertinent
Protestant gloss,” adds Lord Hailes, “it is the interpretation given by
Alexander III., when he sent the mystical present to Lewis VII., king
of France.” _Hailes’ Annals_, vol. 1, p. 140, note.
[430] The whole account of these transactions will be found--at
far greater length than is accorded to matters of far greater
importance--in _Hoveden_, 1180, p. 341–342; 1181, p. 350–351; 1182,
p. 351–352; 1183, p. 354; 1186, p. 360–361; 1188, p. 368–369–370. I
need hardly add that it will scarcely repay the perusal. The death of
Hugh, of malaria, at Rome in 1188, may have been the real cause of the
conclusion of the dispute. It was on the occasion of this visit of
William to Normandy that Diceto has recorded his astonishment at the
unwonted spectacle of a meeting between four kings passing over without
a quarrel, “pacificos convenisse, pacificos recessisse!”
[431] Donald filius Willelmi filii Duncani, qui sæpius calumniatus
fuerat Regnum Scotiæ, et multitotiens furtivas invasiones in regnum
illud fecerat, per mandatum quorundam potentium virorum de Regno
Scotiæ, cum copiosa multitudine armata applicuit in Scotia. _Ben. Ab._
1181.
[432] _Ben. Ab._ 1181. _Chron. Mel._ 1179. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 28.
The first is supposed to have been Redcastle; the second was in the
neighbourhood of Cromarty, commanding the entrance of the Firth, and
securing that part of the province which was the seat of the bishopric
of _Rosmarkinch_.
[433] _Ben. Ab._ 1184. Strictly speaking, Matilda was no longer
duchess of Saxony, as her husband, Henry the Lion, had been forfeited
five years previously by the Emperor Frederic, who gave his duchy of
Saxony to Bernard of Anhalt, son of Albert the Bear, first Margrave of
Brandenburg. But Bernard never made good his claims over the Saxons
on the Weser, the tenants of the _Allodial_ lands to which Henry had
succeeded in right of his mother Gertrude, heiress of the Saxon Emperor
Lothaire.
[434] _Ben. Ab._ 1185. _Hoveden_ 1184, p. 355.
[435] _Ben. Ab._ 1185.
[436] _Ben. Ab._ 1185. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 39. There is no actual
mention made of the residence of Roland at the Scottish court; but his
marriage with the daughter of one of William’s firmest adherents, and
the favour subsequently shown to him by the king, afford very fair
evidence that he was closely connected with Scotland; so that during
his exile he most probably resided in the country from which he drew a
great part of the army with which he re-established himself in Galloway.
[437] _Ben. Ab._ 1185. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 39. _Chron. Mel._ 1185. From
the latest of Mr. Innes’ interesting contributions to Scottish history
it may be gathered that this Gillecolm was probably a certain Gillecolm
Mariscall, who “rendered up the king’s castle of HERYN feloniously,
and afterwards wickedly and traitorously went over to his mortal
enemies, and stood with them against the king, to do him hurt to his
power.”--_Sketches of Early Scottish History_, p. 208.
[438] _Ben. Ab._ 1186.
[439] _Ben. Ab._ 1186. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 40. _Chron. Mel._ 1186.
[440] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 40, 50.
[441] _Ben. Ab._ 1186. _Chron. Mel._ 1186.
[442] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 28, 43.
[443] “Et multa incommoda faciebat sæpe Willelmo Regi Scotiæ _per
consensum et concilium_ Comitum et Baronum Regni Scotiæ,” are the words
of _Ben. Ab._
[444] Ad cujus nutum omnium pendebat sententia, _Ben. Ab._ Roland was
not yet Constable of Scotland, so that he was not acting in an official
capacity. He succeeded to the hereditary dignity of his wife’s family
on the death of his brother-in-law, William de Moreville in 1196.
(_Chron. Mel._)
[445] _Ben. Ab._ 1187. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 28. _Chron. Mel._ 1187.
I have followed the account of Benedict, which is very full and
interesting. The whole of Galloway was made over to Roland immediately
after the death of Henry; and as William made this grant at the expense
of creating the earldom of Carrick for Duncan, it may well be inferred
that the donation of the whole principality to Roland was a reward
for his invaluable services. At this period of Scottish history the
historian has much cause to regret the loss of “the Roll, in eleven
parts, of recognitions and old charters, of the time of William and
his son Alexander, and of those to whom the said kings formerly gave
their peace, and of those who _stood with Mac William_.”--(_Robertson’s
Index_, p. xvi.)
[446] Et propter mala quæ fecerat neque luctus neque clamor, sed nec
ullus dolor de morte ejus factus est--_Ben. Ab._ The words of the
historian display the indifference with which many at that time looked
upon the success or ill fortune of either party.
[447] _Ben. Ab._ 1188. _Hoveden_ 1188, p. 366. Such, I think, is
the purport of what may be gathered from the accounts of these two
authorities, who at first sight appear to contradict each other.
Hoveden appears to have confined his account to the actual meeting
between William and the bishop of Durham; whilst the narrative of
Benedict refers rather to the preceding negotiations.
[448] _Fœd._, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 48. William does not appear to have
been implicated. He had probably suffered enough already.
[449] _Hoveden_ 1189, p. 374–77.
[450] _Ben. Ab._ 1189. _Hoveden_ 1189, p. 377. _Fœd._, vol. 1, pt. 1,
p. 50.
[451] _Chron. Mel._ 1193. _Hoveden_ 1190, p. 387; 1194, p. 418. The
2000 marks were, probably, the usual feudal aid towards ransoming the
superior of his fiefs in England.
[452] _Hoveden_ 1194, p. 419. _Fœdera_, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 62.
[453] _Hoveden_ 1194, p. 420.
[454] _Hoveden_ 1195, p. 430. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 56, alludes to the
occurrences at Clackmannan, but he confounds the princess Margaret
with one of William’s illegitimate daughters of the same name who was
married to Eustace de Vesci. Margaret afterwards married Hubert de
Burgh, and Otho subsequently became emperor as Otho IV. His nephew Otho
was the first duke of Brunswick and Luneburg.
[455] _Hoveden_ 1196, p. 432.
[456] _Heimsk._ vol. 3, _Saga_ xi., c. 12; _Saga_ xii., c. 2. _Antiq.
Celt.-Scand._, p. 239.
[457] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 18. It would be difficult to say _who_
canonized Magnus. Pope Alexander III. placed canonization “inter
majores causas.” Before his time any metropolitan might make a saint.
[458] The lands of Dingwall and Ferncrosky in _Sutherland_ were granted
in 1308 to the earl of Ross. _Act Parl. Scot._, vol. 1, p. 117.
[459] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 19. _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 250, 254.
[460] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 20, 21. She must have been an ancient
lady, for Ronald the Second died before Thorfin!
[461] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 21, 22, 24, 25. _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p.
254–55.
[462] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 21, 22, 24, 25. A mark for every
plough-gang is said to have been the amount of the contribution.
[463] _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 256–57.
[464] He is called Bishop John. The only Bishop John at that time was
the Bishop of Glasgow.
[465] So, in 1308, during the minority of the Earls of Fife, Menteith,
Mar, Buchan, and Caithness, the “Communitates Comitatum” represented
the earldoms. _Act. Parl. Scot._, vol. 1, p. 99. In fact, in a certain
state of society, when the power of the crown, though acknowledged,
was comparatively feeble, the community had still practically a voice
in the appointment of their _Senior_, and the heir could not hold his
ground without, on the one hand, their consent, and on the other, the
confirmation, of the crown. Such was the case at this period in the
north and west of Scotland; and a similar state of affairs is more or
less traceable in Saxon Northumbria, and apparently in the Danelage,
before the Conquest.
[466] _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, 257–89. The dates of these occurrences
are easily ascertained. Harald Mac Madach died in 1206 (_Chron. Mel._)
For twenty years he ruled the Orkneys in conjunction with Ronald, whom
he survived for forty-eight years. He was five years of age when he
received the title of earl; and as he reached the Orkneys in the year
after the expedition of Bishop John, Ronald must have held the earldom
at that time for three years. (_Vide Flatey Book in Col. de Reb. Alb._,
p. 354.) Harald was therefore born in 1133, and succeeded to his share
in the earldom in 1138. Ronald must have ruled from 1135 to 1158.
[467] _Heimsk. Saga_ xiv. c. 17. _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 264–65.
[468] _Heimsk. Saga_ xiv. c. 20. _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 267. Marks
“in gold” _i.e._ paid according to the value of gold, on account of the
depreciation of the silver currency.
[469] _Wilson’s Archæology, etc., of Scotland_, p. 429. _Torf. Orc._,
l. 1, c. 32.
[470] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 33.
[471] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 36.
[472] _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._ p. 261.
[473] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 34 to 37. Sweyne eventually lost his
life in an attempt to restore Asgal Mac Ragnal to Dublin, on which
occasion his desperate courage earned the respect of his opponents,
the English invaders. _A. F. M._ 1171, where he is called Eoan, or
John. A comparison of the coasts of Norway and Denmark with the
western coasts of Scotland will at once point out the reason of that
similarity which long existed between the respective inhabitants in
their manners of life. Local circumstances have far more influence in
forming the character of primitive, or semi-barbarous nations, than any
fancied peculiarity of race. Like the coasts of Norway and the isles of
Scotland, the eastern shores of the Adriatic and the Archipelago seem
to have been formed by nature for the haunts of pirates.
[474] _Hoveden_ 1196, p. 436. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 59. According to
Torfæus (_Orc._, l. i., c. 38), Harald’s first wife, Afreca, was dead
before his second marriage with “the Earl of Moray’s daughter,” by whom
he had his sons, Thorfin, David, and John.
[475] _Chron. Mel._ 1197. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 59. This battle must have
occurred in 1196, for as Thorfin was given up as a hostage for his
father at the close of that year, he could not have fought against the
royal forces in the following year.
[476] _Hoveden_ 1196, p. 436.
[477] “Quod si tradidissem eos vobis non evaderent manus vestras,”
means, I suppose, a discreet insinuation that the king intended to
consign “his enemies” either to immediate execution or to a hopeless
captivity. When he said that Thorfin was his only heir, either the earl
was deceiving the king, or his sons, John, David, and Henry, were by
the second marriage. The port of Lochloy was a spot not far from Nairn,
now covered by the sea.
[478] _Hoveden_ 1196, p. 436.
[479] _Hoveden_ 1196, p. 346. He calls the king of Man, Reginald, son
of _Somarled_. Reginald, the son of _Godfrey_, was at that time king of
Man; and the son of Somarled was hardly more than a _subordinate_ king
of the Sudreys, as he had been defeated in a contest for superiority
by his brother Angus in 1192 (_Chron. Man_). An account of some of
these transactions is also contained in the Flatey Book (_Col. de Reb.
Alb._, p. 351–54), but it is confused. For instance, after beginning
with the death of Harald the younger, the book makes the elder Harald
yield Caithness to _Harald the younger_ after the expedition of William
to Eystein’s Dal. The account of this expedition must therefore have
been misplaced; and it probably ought to be referred to the time of
William’s _first invasion_ of Caithness. Some idea may be formed of
the formidable power of these northern magnates from the fact that
Harald collected 6000 men to oppose William; whose army when he invaded
England in 1174, only appears to have numbered 8000.
[480] “His tongue was cut out, and a knife stuck into his eyes. The
bishop invoked the Virgin Saint Trodlheima during his torments. Then
he went up a hill, and a woman brought him to the place where St.
Trodlheima rests. There the bishop got recovery both of his speech and
sight”--_Flatey Book_. Ignorant of the merits of the Virgin Saint,
Fordun only says, “Usus linguæ et alterius occulorum _in aliquo_ sibi
remansit.” A certain Dr. John Stackbolle profited by a similar miracle
in Ireland, he having recovered his sight and speech before the altar
of our Lady of Novan, after his tongue had been cut out, and his eyes
torn out, by order of Sir Thomas Bathe. (_Statute of Kilkenny_, p. 25,
note U; in _Tracts relating to Ireland, I.A.S._, vol. 2.)
[481] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 59–62. _Flatey Book_, _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p.
351–54.
[482] _Chron. Mel._ 1198, 1201, 1205.
[483] _Hoveden_ 1199, p. 450–51.
[484] _Hoveden_ 1199, p. 451.
[485] _Hoveden_ 1199, p. 453.
[486] _Hoveden_ 1200, p. 454, 461. From the distinguished deputation
which John dispatched to William when the king of Scotland came to
Lincoln, it is not improbable that one of the reasons why William
had hitherto refused to meet John was a reluctance on the part of
the latter to carry out Richard’s Charter of Privileges. In the
Introduction to _Robertson’s Index_, p. xii., No. 3, is the following
entry:--“Charta Johannis Regis Angliæ, missa Willielmo Regi Scotiæ
de tractatu maritagii inter Regem Franciæ et filiam Willielmi Regis
Scotiæ.” There is some mistake here (probably an error of a copyist),
for Philip Augustus was never in a condition during the reign of John
to marry one of William’s daughters. But if the _tractatus maritagii_
alludes to the proposed betrothal of Alexander to a French princess,
the charter may have been a confirmation by John of Richard’s Charter
of Privileges, dispatched in haste with the deputation to bring about
a reconciliation with William, and to break off the proposed alliance
with France.
[487] _Hoveden_ 1200, p. 461. William swore upon the archbishop’s
cross, because there was no “sacred book” at hand, says the Bridlington
Chronicle in _Documents, etc., relating to Hist. Scot._, No. xxi.,
sec. 35, p. 66. The decision of the question about the counties was
again put off till the following Michaelmas, and it is difficult to
say whether it was ever again raised during the reign of William, as
after the conclusion of Hoveden’s work, no other chronicler alludes
to the subject. Wendover succeeds to Hoveden, whose loss is great for
the historian of Scotland; as the manner in which Wendover supplies
his place can be appreciated from the description of the meeting
at Lincoln, in which the latter, after copying the account of his
predecessor, characteristically omits the reservation, “Salvo jure
suo!” The want of a _northern_ chronicler is very much felt, as it will
be generally found that the monastic writers are most accurate in their
narration of events that occurred in their own neighbourhood. From
exalting Brompton, who wrote at the close of the fourteenth century,
to the position of a contemporary writer, and from some other similar
oversights, Dr. Lingard’s version of these transactions is singularly
inaccurate. _Vide Appendix L_, pt. 2.
[488] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 64. He places these occurrences in 1203; but
as he describes the capture of Falaise and other places at the same
time--and they were taken in 1204--and as John only reached England
on 6th December 1203, I have placed them under 1204. William was
frequently in England after this meeting at Norham. £10 were paid for
his expenses in 1206; £15 when he was at York on 20th June, and £30
when he was at the same place on 16th August 1207. In July 1205 John
wrote to William, thanking him for the favourable answer which he had
received on the subject of their negotiations, and alluding to the
lands of Tynedale, of which William was seized, and of which no mention
had been made in their convention. _Rot Claus._, p. 43 b., 86, 90 b.
These lands in Tynedale appear to have been held by simple homage.
_Vide Doc. etc. Illust. Hist. Scot. Introd._, p. vii.
[489] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 66–67.
[490] _Trivet_ 1209, and the Bridlington Chronicle (in _Documents,
etc., relating to Hist. Scot._, No. xxi., sec. 26, p. 66) state that
William was going to marry one of his daughters to the Count of
Boulogne. _Hemingburgh_, vol. 1, p. 242, affirms that the princess was
to have been united to the Count of Flanders. Ida, who brought the
earldom of Boulogne to her husband, Reginald de Dammartin, and whose
heiress, Mahout, was married to Prince Philip of France, was married
about 1191, and survived till 1216. There was no Count of Flanders
in 1209. Baldwin of Hainault, who ascended the imperial throne of
Constantinople in 1204, and was slain in the following year, left
by Margaret his wife, who brought him the earldom of Flanders, two
daughters, who became the wards of Philip Augustus. By that king the
eldest, Jane, was given to Ferrand of Portugal in 1211, who in her
right became Count of Flanders and Hainault. It is very clear, then,
that William could not have been negotiating a marriage for one of his
daughters with either a Count of Boulogne, or of Flanders, at that
period; and if any negotiation on such a subject had been set on foot,
it must have been respecting an alliance between the prince of Scotland
and the heiress of Flanders and Hainault. Such a project would have
suited well with the endeavours of Philip to enlist allies against
John, and it would undoubtedly have brought the latter king in all
haste to the northern frontier.
[491] _Chron. Mel._ 1209. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 69. Some of the sentences
in the Melrose Chronicle would almost appear to have been transposed.
Their general sense seems to be that “John marched to Norham and
summoned William to meet him at Newcastle. Thither went William, and
both in going and returning, defrayed his own expenses at Alnwick,
etc.”--the latter observation referring to an infringement of the
Charter of Privileges, a sure sign of a want of cordiality between
the kings, which was not restored until William recovered the
“_Benevolentia_ domini nostri.”
[492] Fifteen hundred English knights and their retainers, 7000
crossbowmen and _Branchii_ (?), 13,000 Welshmen, and an overwhelming
force of all arms.
[493] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 70.
[494] These hostages were the sons of the Earl of Winchester, of
William de Vetere Ponto, of William de Vallibus, of Philip de Mowbray,
of Gervase Avenel, of David Lindsay, of Gilbert Earl of Strathearn, of
Lawrence Abernethy, of Thomas of Galloway, of Earl Patrick of Dunbar,
and of William Comyn, with the brothers of Robert de Bruce, and of
Walter Clifford, and a daughter of Alan of Galloway, who died in
England.--_Rot. Claus._, p. 137 b. They were given “et pro hac pecunia
et ad prædictos terminos reddendâ, et pro eisdem terminis fideliter
tenendis.” An attempt is sometimes made to include the princesses
amongst the hostages. This is contradicted, both by the words of
William, “exceptis duabus filiabus nostris quas ei liberavimus,” and
by the omission of their names in the Close Rolls. These hostages
were given as “security” for the money--warranters--and returned of
course when the debt was acquitted. The princesses were given up to be
married, and remained in England long after the death of John.
[495] _Chron. Mel._ 1209. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 71. _Fœdera_, vol. 1, pt.
1, p. 103. _Robertson’s Index Introd._, p. xx. _Neg. tang. Ang._ No.
3. Such is the account of these transactions preserved in the Scottish
authorities, and the correctness of their dates is confirmed by the
Fœdera and the Patent Rolls. Wendover is decidedly wrong in referring
the whole transaction to one meeting only, and in placing the treaty,
etc., before 28th June. The Bridlington Chronicle states that John
built a castle at Berwick (_i.e._, Tweedmouth) in June, and that the
kings came to terms in August (_Documents, etc._, xxi., sec. 26–27),
Hemingburgh asserts that John at first demanded Alexander as a hostage
for his father, the “plura et inaudita” perhaps of Fordun. In spite
of the attempt of Fordun to represent the peace as the result of the
interference of the principal men of both countries, it was evidently
brought about through William’s aversion to war. The message that
excited the wrath of John was dictated in _the Council of Stirling_;
the envoys to deprecate his indignation were dispatched by William;
and the Melrose chronicler concludes his account with the significant
sentence, “It was done against the wishes of the Scots.” The extreme
secrecy about the tenor of these “mutual charters” is worthy of remark.
The Scots always maintained that one of the princesses was to have
married the heir of the English crown, and Alexander II. afterwards
obtained a grant of lands in satisfaction for his claims upon the
northern counties, and for the alleged infringement of the terms of
this arrangement (_Fœd._, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 233). In the Patent Rolls
(An. 21, Hen. III.) there is the following remark on this latter
treaty, “Inter cœtera apparet quod concordia fuit quod Rex Angliæ
duceret Marger’ sororem dicti Regis Scotiæ, quod modo relaxatum fuit
ac al’.” All this tells for the Scottish account. On the other hand,
when Hubert de Burgh was charged with preventing this marriage--in
consideration of which William had agreed to waive his claims on the
northern counties--the Earl of Kent replied that he knew of no such
agreement, and appealed to the letters of Pandulf and others to prove
that his own marriage with the princess Margaret was brought about
with the full knowledge and consent of the English magnates (_Mat.
Par. Addit._ p. 99); and the _Rot. Pat. ad an. 4 Hen. III._, mention
an arrangement at York before Pandulf, in which it was agreed that the
sisters of Alexander should be married “infra Regnum Angliæ ad honorem
suum.” Hubert’s statement, however, only had reference to a guarded
defence of his own conduct, and throws no light upon the events of
John’s reign. It is very probable that John retained the princesses at
his court for the purpose of marrying them to his own sons if anything
happened to the _sole male heir_ of Scotland; and that may have been
the reason why they remained unmarried until after his death. It is
not to be supposed that Hubert de Burgh overlooked the proximity of
Margaret to the Scottish throne when he married her, and it must be
acknowledged that his interpretation of the secret treaties, if he was
really aware of their existence, was very much to his own advantage.
The wording of the letter of William in the _Fœdera_ contradicts the
supposition that the payment of 15,000 marks “pro benevolentia domini
nostri habendâ, _et pro conventionibus tenendis_,” etc., was a simple
_fine_ imposed by John on the Scottish king.
[496] _Robertson’s Index Introd._ xx. _Negot. tang. Ang._, Nos. 7,
36, 40. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 72. One of the Melrose charters (No.
168) proves the date of this homage of Alexander, and a fragment in
the _Documents_, No. xl., sec. 19, p. 136, states that the homage
was performed “pro omnibus _rectitudinibus_ pro quibus pater suus
fecerat homagium Henrico Regi patri ejusdem Johannis.” Libertates et
_rectitudines_--privileges and rights--are the words in Richard’s
Charter of Privileges to William. As half the money--one year’s
payment--was remitted, and the whole sum was to have been paid off in
two years, it is allowable to infer that one year after the treaty,
_i.e._, in 1210, John must have waived his claim to the payment of the
remainder.
[497] _Chron. Mel._ 1210. _Fœd._, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 120.
[498] _Chron. Mel._ 1211. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 76. The _Thanes of Ross_
invited him over, says Fordun.
[499] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 72. The “Mons in ea diruens” of Fordun was
evidently the old Rath-inver-Amon. Boece drowns a youthful prince John
and his nurse--very apocryphal characters--and rebuilds Perth upon its
present site.
[500] These castella appear to have been built of wood, as one was
burnt in the following year.
[501] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 76.
[502] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 76.
[503] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 76. _Walter of Coventry, ad an._ 1212. The
words of this writer are, “Scotorum Rex Willelmus jam ætatis provectæ,
cum interioris regni sui partes seditione turbatas pacificare non
posset, ad Anglorum Regem confugiens, se et regnum filiumque quem
unicum habibat, ejus commisit provisioni. At ille, cingulo militari
commendatum sibi adolescentem donans, in partes illas cum exercitu
proficiscens, dimissis per interiora regni suis Guthredum cognomento
Mac William, seditionis ducem, cepit et patibulo suspendit. Erat hic de
Scotorum Regum antiquâ prosapiâ, qui Scotorum et Hibernensium fretus
auxilio, longas contra modernos Reges, sicut et pater suus Duvenaldus,
nunc clàm nunc palàm exercuit inimicitias. Moderniores enim Scotorum
Reges magis se Francos fatentur, sicut genere, ita moribus, linguâ,
cultu; Scotisque ad extremam servitutem redactis, solos Francos in
familiaritatem et obsequium adhibent.” This account, as is so often
the case, contains a mixture of truth and error. The flight of William
to John, and John’s campaign in the Highlands of Scotland during the
summer of 1212 (for Godfrey was given up at that time), are apocryphal,
for he was at that time engaged in his expedition against the Welsh,
from which he returned so suddenly, through fear of treachery. He may
have assisted William--perhaps with some of his foreign Reiters--though
he was hardly in a condition at that time to yield much assistance to
any one. The distinction between the “ancient and modern kings” of
Scotland is also imaginary, for William and his rivals were cousins,
equally claiming to represent the race of Malcolm Ceanmore; though
the assertion that their kings were “Normans, not Scots,” is exactly
what the disaffected subjects of the reigning family would have urged
against them. Even the last sentence is only partially true, for out of
the leaders employed in this very war, the Earls of Fife and Atholl,
and Malcolm, son of Morgund of Mar, were of native Scottish origin; the
Earl of Buchan owed his earldom to his wife, the heiress of a native
earl; and Thomas the Durward was also apparently of a Scottish rather
than of a foreign family. In fact, the feudalized upper classes of
_Scotia_ and the lowlands of Moray, were at this time looked upon as
“Normans;” the mountaineers who clung to “ancient custom,” as the real
Scots; their position being reversed a few generations later, when the
former claimed to be “Scots,” regarding the latter as “Erse” or Irish.
There is much truth, however, in this passage, though it must be taken
_cum grano_.
[504] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 77. _Chron. Mel._ 1212. _Wendover_ 1212 (vol.
3, p. 238). _Fœdera_, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 104. “Ubi voluerit ad fidem
ipsius domini Regis, ita quod non disparagetur,” are the words. The
result of this treaty relieved John from any fears lest Alexander
should contract any alliance with his enemies. The “liege homage”
rendered by William and his son to the prince Henry, was upon the same
principle as he and his brother David, and, at an earlier period,
Malcolm had performed homage to the eldest son of Henry the Second. Had
this homage been rendered--as some seem to suppose--for the kingdom
of Scotland, it is almost needless to observe that such a stipulation
would have been carefully entered in the treaty, and the Scottish
barons would have been summoned to attend the councils of the English
king--as in the latter part of Henry’s reign--and to aid him in his
wars.
[505] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 76.
[506] If the story told by Hemingburgh is true (_ad an._ 1215, vol. 1,
p. 247)--that John’s anger against Eustace de Vesci was occasioned by
the rejection of his suit by that baron’s beautiful wife--William may
have acquired his knowledge of the disaffection of the English nobles
through that very lady, who was his own natural daughter Margaret.
[507] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 78. He is the only writer who notices these
transactions, but his account is strongly borne out by a letter in
the _Fœdera_, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 108, to the emperor Otho, dated at
Bamborough 28th January 1213, in which John writes that he has been
detained in the north by arrangements for the security of that part
of his kingdom. It is clear, therefore, that he was upon the northern
frontier in the early part of that year; and his abortive negotiations
with the Scottish king might have easily escaped the notice of the
English chroniclers amidst the important events that occurred so
soon afterwards. From the commencement of the thirteenth century the
authority of Fordun is of far greater weight than before, and I have
found his statements frequently corroborated by the Fœdera and the
Rolls. In the latter part of William’s reign can be traced the elements
of those parties which appear in the subsequent reigns (but more
especially in that of Alexander the Third) as the English and Scottish
factions.
[508] _Flatey Book in Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 354.
[509] _Chron. Mel._ 1214. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 79. The latter historian
alludes to an old tradition that Stirling was once the spot where the
territories of the Scots (_i.e._, Picts) marched with those of the
Britons.
[510] _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 19. As he concluded his history in 1195,
the _later years_ of William must refer to Richard’s reign. The
influence of good Queen Margaret appears to have died out in the
days of her great-grandchildren, and it is to this probably that the
historian alludes, insinuating that it arose through the fault of their
mother, Ada de Warenne. William left several illegitimate children.
His sons were Robert de Lundoniis and Henry Gellatly, of whom little
or nothing is known. His daughters were--1. Isabella, married in 1183
to Robert de Bruce, and in 1191 to Robert de Ros. 2. Ada, married in
1184 to Earl Patrick of Dunbar. 3. Margaret, married in 1192 to Eustace
de Vesci; and 4. Aufrida, married to William de Say. _Vide Hailes’
Annals_, vol. 1, p. 156.
[511] The passage occurs in the “Instructio Principis” of _Girald.
Camb._ “Distinctio prima;” but I quote it from “_Innes’s Sketches_,”
etc., p. 144, note 2. Giraldus probably wrote feelingly, for though
twice elected to the see of St. Davids, the choice of the Chapter
was not confirmed. Right or wrong, the Scottish sovereigns seem to
have persevered in William’s policy, and when Robert Bruce conferred
the earldom of Moray upon Randolph “in libero comitatu et in liberâ
regalitate,” the church patronage was expressly reserved. _Reg. Morav._
No. 264.
[512] _Innes’s Appendix_, No. 1, sec. 3. _Wynton (Macpherson)_, note to
bk. 7, c. 8, l. 20.
[513] _Assize Will._, 9, 29, 15, 8, 22, 23, 37, 38, 42. _Assize David_,
26, 27, 28. The right of the heir to inherit, in spite of the felony of
his ancestor or kinsman, will be found in the old Germanic laws as well
as in the Gavelkind tenure, which was originally allodial.
[514] _Assize Will._ 12. _Assize David_ 12. In David’s time it was
frequently “the royal judge” who sat in the lesser courts. The
sheriffdom was not universally established, at any rate, before the
close of his reign. From the wording of his enactment, “prepositus
vel ballivus ville,” it would appear that before his reign every
“lord of a vill,” in other words, every “lord of the manor,”--or his
equivalent--had the power of life and death.
[515] _Assize Will._ 20. _Hoveden_ 1197 (p. 440). His words are,
“Eodem anno Willielmus rex Scottorum _de bono sumens exemplum_, fecit
homines regni sui jurare quod pacem pro posse suo servarent, et quod
nec latrones, nec robatores, nec utlagi nec receptatores eorum essent,
nec in aliquo eis consentirent, et quod cum hujusmodi malefactores
scire potuerint, illos pro posse suo caperent et destruerent,” exactly
tallying with the regulations of the Council of Perth. From the
expression _de bono sumens exemplum_, it would appear that he followed
some English example.
[516] _Assize Will._ 25, 19. _Assize David_ 25. In the reign of David
all the greater magnates attended in person the royal Moots, held every
forty days, which in William’s reign probably became Sheriffs’ Moots.
The expression “all who have the freedom and custom of an earl,” occurs
_Assize David_ 16.
[517] _Vide_ the earlier charters in the Registers of Moray, Aberdeen,
and Glasgow, particularly _Reg. Morav._ No. 5. _Glas._ 13, 70.
[518] _Vide chap._ 10, p. 352, 357, notes. _Chron. Lanerc._ 1213.
[519] _Assize Will._ 40.
[520] _Robertson’s Index Introd._ p. xx. _Neg. tang. Angl._ No. 4.
Scone was probably the port to which foreign traders brought their
wares in the days of Malcolm and Margaret. A very full and interesting
account of the Scotch Burghs will be found in “_Innes’s Sketches,
etc._,” c. 5.
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.
2. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the
original.
3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.
4. Italics are shown as _xxx_.