*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 74317 ***
SCOTLAND
UNDER HER EARLY KINGS.
PRINTED BY R. & R. CLARK
FOR
EDMONSTON AND DOUGLAS, EDINBURGH.
LONDON HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
CAMBRIDGE MACMILLAN AND CO.
DUBLIN W. ROBERTSON.
GLASGOW JAMES MACLEHOSE.
[Illustration: THE
EARLY KINGDOM.
_J.Bartholomew Edin. F.R.G.S._
EDMONSTON & DOUGLAS, EDINBURGH]
SCOTLAND
UNDER HER EARLY KINGS
A HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM
TO THE CLOSE OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY
BY
E. WILLIAM ROBERTSON
VOL. I.
EDINBURGH
EDMONSTON AND DOUGLAS
1862
PREFACE.
The present work has no pretensions to anything beyond being an attempt
at supplying a hiatus in the history of Scotland which has hitherto
been left unfilled. By the few historians who, in days gone by, devoted
their attention to the subject, the earlier portion of Scottish
history, more especially the period before the reign of Malcolm
Ceanmore, seems to have been tacitly abandoned as a battleground for
theorists--a sort of debateable land upon which they attacked or
defended their various systems, wielding their feathered weapons with
quite as much hostility as ever Pict, Scot, or Attacot displayed in
actual combat, though (perhaps more fortunately for themselves than for
their readers) without similarly fatal consequences. In the company of
these enthusiasts I first endeavoured to trace out the history of the
past, until, dissatisfied with my guides, I turned to chartulary and
chronicle, with the result which is now before the reader.
I feel that an apology may be needed for the length and number of the
Appendices, some of which will, perhaps, appear at first sight to
have but little reference to the history of Scotland. Many questions,
however, had to be discussed, many points to be raised or settled,
which, though possessing little interest for the general reader, could
not be passed over altogether; and such discussions, accordingly, I
decided upon consigning to the Appendix. It will also be found that I
have, not unfrequently, wandered from the beaten track; and wherever
I have differed from usually received opinions I have felt bound to
record my reasons for doing so. The remaining Appendices, though they
may occasionally be devoted to questions comparatively foreign to
Scottish history, embody the reasons which have guided me in forming
many of my conclusions. I am very far from implying that it would have
been impossible to write the early history of Scotland without entering
upon the subjects of which they treat; I only plead my own inability to
do so.
I have nothing more to add except that, as I put forward no claim to
infallibility, and as my sole object has been to ascertain the truth,
wherever it is clearly shown that I have failed in arriving at the
end in view, I shall unhesitatingly acknowledge myself to have been
mistaken. I have already sacrificed too many theories to object to the
necessary immolation of as many more as may be proved to be erroneous;
for historical accuracy will scarcely be attained by too rigid an
adherence to preconceived ideas. The kindly interest and encouragement
with which my work has been received by those whom I have long been
accustomed to regard as the first living authorities upon the subjects
of which it treats, and to whose contributions to Scottish history
it really owes any merits it may possess, have been, I need not say,
extremely gratifying to me. I trust I may accept this as an omen of
success, and as an assurance that I have not uselessly sacrificed both
time and labour in endeavouring to shed a few more rays of light upon
the early history of the land of my forefathers.
NETHER SEALE HALL, ASHBY DE LA ZOUCHE,
_September 6, 1862_.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME I.
_Map of Early Kingdom_ _Frontispiece_
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
THE EARLY HISTORY, BEFORE 842 1
CHAPTER II.
THE EARLY KINGDOM, 843–900 24
CHAPTER III.
PROGRESS OF THE KINGDOM, 900–943 53
CHAPTER IV.
THE KINGDOM COMPLETED, 971–995 79
CHAPTER V.
THE KINGDOM CONTESTED. The line of Atholl. The line
of Moray, 1034–1040 110
CHAPTER VI.
THE LINE OF ATHOLL RESTORED. Malcolm Ceanmore,
1058–1093 125
CHAPTER VII.
THE INTERMEDIATE PERIOD, 1093–1097 154
CHAPTER VIII.
THE FEUDAL KINGDOM. David the First, 1124–1153. 187
CHAPTER IX.
THE STATE, 1124–1153 235
CHAPTER X.
THE CHURCH, 1124–1153 321
CHAPTER XI.
MALCOLM THE FOURTH, 1153–1165 345
CHAPTER XII.
WILLIAM THE LION, 1165–1189 362
CHAPTER XIII.
WILLIAM THE LION, 1189–1214 397
HISTORY OF SCOTLAND
TO THE CLOSE OF THE 13TH CENTURY.
CHAPTER I.
THE EARLY HISTORY--BEFORE A. D. 843.
Britain, dimly recognisable in the vague accounts given by Hecatæus
of a large island off the coast of Gaul inhabited by a sacred race
of _Hyperboreans_, and sometimes even disputing with Iceland
the questionable honour of having been known as _Ultima Thule_,
owes her first introduction within the pale of authentic history to
the ambitious policy of the Cæsars. The historian, however, finds
little worth recording about the northern districts during the Roman
occupation of the island, and that little belongs rather to the
province of the antiquary. A transitory gleam of light is shed upon
the subject by the pen of Tacitus; [Sidenote: A. D. 80–4.] but the
campaigns of Agricola were unproductive of results, and northern
Britain again sinks into obscurity until the Emperor Hadrian deemed
it necessary for the protection of the Roman province to throw up a
turf rampart across the narrowest portion of the island, extending
from the Solway to the Tyne. [Sidenote: A. D. 120.] Twenty years later
another was added between the Forth and Clyde, connecting the old line
of forts erected by Agricola, and known, from the reign in which it
was built, as the Wall of Antonine; but after a fruitless struggle
of sixty years the whole of the district between these walls was
abandoned by Severus, when he raised a third rampart, built of stone,
immediately to the northward of the original bulwark. [Sidenote: A. D.
208.] From this period the Roman province was bounded by the southern
wall, and though towards the close of the fourth century the energy
of Theodosius reasserted the dominion of the empire over the district
between Forth and Tyne, [Sidenote: A. D. 369.] which now received the
name of Valentia in honour of the Emperor Valens, the newly-established
province was soon relinquished, and about the opening of the following
century Britain was finally abandoned by her ancient masters. Long
before this period the incursions of the northern tribes upon the Roman
province [Sidenote: A. D. 407.] had become incessant, and some idea
may be formed of the distance to which they occasionally penetrated,
from the account left by Ammianus Marcellinus, that Theodosius, after
landing at _Rutupe_, the modern Richborough, was obliged to fight
his way through Kent, swarming with their hostile bands, before he
could reach the capital, Augusta, described by the historian as “an old
town formerly known as London.” Their earlier title of Caledonians had
by this time disappeared, and they were generally known as Picts, a
name including the two great divisions of Vecturiones and Dicaledones,
answering apparently to the later confederacies of northern and
southern Picts.[1]
Britain after the departure of the legionaries appears to have
suffered her full share of the calamities of that disastrous epoch,
and the episodes of invasion and conquest enacted throughout the
continental provinces of the expiring empire were repeated with similar
results, within the narrower limits of her ancient island dependency.
A continuous stream of Teutonic invaders poured without ceasing upon
her shores, Jutes, Saxons, and Frisians peopling the south-eastern
coasts, whilst further towards the north swarmed the Anglian tribes
who were destined to fix an imperishable name upon the island. Towards
the middle of the sixth century an additional impetus appears to have
been given to the torrent of Anglian invasion by the arrival of Ida,
the reputed founder of the Northumbrian kingdom, and leader of the
Bernician Angles, whose descendants formed so important an element
in the Teutonic population of southern Scotland. No record of his
prowess is to be found in the annals of his countrymen; his name alone
survives with that of his forgotten foe, “the dark lord”--Dutigern;
but the precipitate flight of the British bishop from York, the
sudden extinction of Christianity throughout the diocese, the name of
_Gwrth Bryneich_--or Bernicia’s thraldom--by which the famous
fortress of Bamborough was known amongst the conquered people, and
the ominous title of “the Flame-Bearer,” applied to the mighty Angle
in the lays of the hostile bards, sufficiently attest the ruthless
energy with which he extended the dominion of his race from the marshy
plains of Holderness to the distant islets of the Forth.[2] From
the Humber to the Tyne the country was known amongst the Britons as
_Deheubarth_, or “the southern part,” whilst beyond that river
and the ruins of the southern wall, the district stretching to the
Forth was distinguished as _Bryneich_, or “the country of the
braes;” and it was within the boundaries of the latter province that
the Anglian population of the Lothians first established themselves as
conquerors in the land which their descendants still occupy.
Ida fell in battle, slain, say the British authorities, by Owen of
Reged, whose father Urien, the favourite hero of the bards, and a
warrior from whom many a laurel has been stolen to adorn the chaplet of
the fabulous Arthur, was hailed unanimously as leader of a confederacy
which was to drive the invader from the soil. The tide of conquest
was now rolled back upon the Angles, Bryneich was recovered, and the
sons of Ida were driven from the land, when at the very moment of his
triumph the bravest champion of his race fell by the dagger of “Llovan
of the accursed hand,” and his death was fatal to his countrymen. Step
by step the Angles recovered their ascendency, winning their way at the
point of the sword, until the whole of the eastern coast was wrested
from its original possessors, confined henceforth to the westward of
“the Desert,” and the Northumbrian kingdoms of Deira and Bernicia rose
out of the ruins of the conquered British principalities.[3]
A solitary entry in the annals of the Irish abbot, Tighernach, affords
the earliest historical testimony of the arrival of a small, but in
many respects a remarkable, band of colonists, about fifty years before
the settlement of an Anglian population in the Lothians, upon the rocky
and indented coasts of southern Argyle. [Sidenote: A. D. 502.] Fergus
Mor MacEarca, a chieftain of the Irish Gael, was their leader, and
the north-eastern extremity of the modern county of Antrim, which, at
that time, formed part of the territories of the Irish Picts, was the
locality which they abandoned when they crossed the channel in their
leathern coracles in search of another home upon the shores of Britain.
Amidst the lakes and mountains to the southward of Loch Linne, Fergus
and his followers fixed their new abode; and the limits of his petty
kingdom, which were never enlarged, are still traceable in the names
implanted by succeeding princes upon the dependent districts of Lorn,
Cowal, and Kintyre. These principalities, with a few of the islands
off the coast of southern Argyle, made up, collectively, the whole of
the kingdom of Dalriada--for such was its real name; though in the
Latin chronicles of a later age, Fergus and his descendants invariably
appear under the more familiar appellation of “Kings of the Scots.” The
annals of the Dalriads are totally devoid of interest before the reign
of Conal, fourth in succession from Fergus Mor, who, by the shelter
he afforded to the exiled Abbot of Durrow, indirectly furthered the
conversion of the northern Picts to Christianity.[4]
It was in consequence of a feud between the leading clans of the royal
race of Ireland, that the apostle of the northern Picts first quitted
the home of his earlier years and dedicated the remainder of his life
to the labours of a missionary. On the occasion of one of those great
meetings of the clergy and laity of Ireland, to which such frequent
allusion is made in her annals, a son of Aodh, king of Connaught, who
happened to be present in full reliance upon a promise of immunity from
Columba, was seized and put to death by order of Dermot MacKerval, lord
of the southern Hy Nial, and at that time _Ardrigh_, or supreme
king of Ireland. Columba, who was then abbot of Durrow, was also a
member of the same great sept, and closely allied by birth to the king
of one of the northern branches--the Clan Conal; and his kinsmen, bound
by the usual ties of relationship to avenge the insult, uniting with
the king of Connaught, inflicted so severe a defeat upon the aggressor,
that his whole wrath was turned upon Columba, whom he caused to be
excommunicated by the leading clergy of Meath. Dreading the further
effects of his enemy’s vengeance, Columba bade adieu to his native
land; and, under the curse of man, sought those shores to which, under
the blessing of God, he was destined to become, indeed, a messenger of
good tidings.[5]
Arriving with the usual complement of twelve followers, off the coast
of Argyle, he obtained permission from Conal, king of the Dalriads, to
appropriate the little island of Iona, and after employing himself for
two years in establishing and regulating his brotherhood, he prepared
to enter upon his allotted task, and to penetrate across the mountain
barrier of Drumalban. [Sidenote: A. D. 565.] Not far from the spot
where the river Ness issues from the parent lake of which it assumes
the name, there still exist the vestiges of an ancient earthwork,
ascribed by the tradition of the country to a Pictish king; and thither
Columba and his companions bent their steps, for Bruidi MacMalcon, who
at this time held supreme sway over both divisions of the Picts, held
his court within the ramparts of this _Rath_ or _Dun_. As the
arrival of the Christian missionary appears to have been expected, he
was opposed by a number of the Pictish Druids, but as their hostility
seems to have been limited to the use of incantations and enchantments,
little real hindrance could have been offered to his progress, and he
reached, without difficulty, the residence of the king. As the gates
of the royal fortress close upon the little band, all knowledge ceases
of the further proceedings of Columba; the bare record of the success
of his mission has descended to posterity, and the people acquiescing,
as in duty bound, in their sovereign’s renunciation of idolatry, both
divisions of the Pictish people were henceforth united in belief.[6]
An interesting description of the disciples and successors of Columba
has been handed down in the pages of a writer, whose difference with
the Gaelic clergy in certain trivial points of faith did not blind him
to the virtues and real merits of the earliest apostles of Christianity
to his own heathen forefathers. Shut out in their distant northern
home from the knowledge of synodical decrees, and constrained to seek
their doctrine and rule of conduct in the writings of the prophets,
the evangelists, and the apostles, the simple denizens of the sea-girt
Iona were conspicuous for the purity of their unblemished morals, for
their fervent attachment to their divine Master, and for their strict
adherence to the precepts and traditions of the revered founder of the
brotherhood. As they preached so they practised, their own blameless
manner of life affording the best commentary on their doctrine; and
when they issued forth from their monastery to baptise and to instruct,
to convert the infidel and to strengthen the believer, the offerings
forced upon them by the gratitude of the powerful and the rich were
employed in relieving the wants of the poor and in alleviating the
sufferings of the sick--in restoring freedom to the captive and in
purchasing liberty for the slave. Such is the picture drawn by the
venerable Beda of Aidan and his fellow-labourers in the work of
converting the Angles of Northumbria; worthy inheritors of the virtues
and devotion of Columba, and bright examples of the pure and simple
piety inspired by the zeal of Patrick amongst the early fathers of his
church.[7]
For about a century and a half after the arrival of Columba, Iona
continued in the position of the leading monastery of the north,
extending her authority over many parts of Ireland, and bidding fair at
one time to establish a similar influence throughout southern Britain,
until a dispute about matters of comparatively trivial importance
abruptly severed her connection with Northumbria. A difference of
opinion had long existed between the clergy of the Picts, Britons,
and northern Irish, on the one hand, and the followers of Augustine
amongst the Anglo-Saxons, on the other, together with the ecclesiastics
of southern Ireland, who had been latterly brought to conform to
the practice authorised by the see of Rome. The proper time for the
celebration of the Easter festival, and the orthodox form of the
clerical tonsure, were the subjects in dispute; and though the former
was clearly a question of astronomical calculation, and the tonsure was
a badge of Paganism in the days of the primitive church, both points
originated frequent and animated discussions, and were debated in the
seventh century as important matters of faith. [Sidenote: A.D. 664.]
Colman and his followers, at the celebrated conference of Whitby, had
bade adieu to their adopted country sooner than relinquish the practice
they had inherited from their predecessors; and fifty years later a
similar tenacity in favour of “ancient customs” brought about the
expulsion of the clergy of Iona from the territories of the Pictish
sovereign. Nectan MacDeriloi, in consequence of a difference of opinion
with his clergy about the points in question, dispatched envoys to
Ceolfred, abbot of Wearmouth, requesting his decision upon the matters
in dispute, and, at the same time, inviting the assistance of Saxon
architects to build a stone church after the approved Roman model. The
abbot responded to both appeals, and though every vestige of the stone
church has long since disappeared, the letter of Ceolfred may still be
read in the pages of the historian Beda. It strengthened and confirmed
the king in his own convictions, and [Sidenote: A.D. 717.] he decided
that his clergy should conform accordingly; but they were as firm in
their resolution as Colman; and Nectan, summarily ordering them across
Drumalban, appears to have transferred to his recent foundation (which
seems to have been Abernethy) the pre-eminence amongst the monasteries
of northern Britain, which had hitherto been the peculiar prerogative
of Iona.[8]
Whilst the arrival of the Angles upon the coasts of Valentia is dimly
traceable in the scanty records of the period, and the settlement of
the Dalriads in a portion of Argyle is historically noticed by the
earliest annalist of Ireland, a barren and corrupt, but singularly
accurate list of uncouth names is the sole record of the Pictish
people before the opening of the seventh century, when the confusion
resulting upon the death of the Northumbrian Ethelfrith compelled his
children to seek a refuge amongst the friendly people of the north.
The bitter spirit of animosity engendered in the Angles by their
incessant hostilities with the Britons is hardly traceable in their
early relations with the Picts, and accordingly a ready welcome was
extended to the youthful exiles, who were instructed in the knowledge
of the Christian faith by the Gaelic clergy, and sheltered for fifteen
years beyond the protecting barrier of the Forth. The residence of
the Northumbrian _Athelings_ amongst the Picts was productive of
important consequences; Eanfred, the eldest of the brothers, became
the husband of a Pictish princess--and their son Talorcan was numbered
amongst the Pictish kings--whilst Oswald, after recovering his father’s
throne, sought from amongst the instructors of his early youth those
holy men through whose assistance he hoped to spread abroad amongst his
people the blessings of the novel faith which he had learnt to prize so
dearly.[9]
After the death of this amiable prince upon the fatal field of Winwed,
the ties of affection and good will which had hitherto united the sons
of Ethelfrith with the people who had sheltered them in adversity were
severed during the reign of his harsher brother Oswy, and exchanged for
the galling bonds of conquest. Province after province bowed to the
Anglian yoke, until the majority of the neighbouring Pictish princes
were ranged with the Dalriads, who shared the same lot, amongst the
tributaries of the Northumbrian sovereign, and though they endeavoured
to regain their liberty when [Sidenote: A. D. 670.] Egfrid ascended the
throne, their premature attempt only served to rivet their fetters more
securely. About eleven years later a yet more decisive step was taken
towards the permanent annexation of the tributary Pictish provinces,
and Egfrid, when he divided the overgrown diocese of Wilfrid into
the Sees of York, Hexham, and Lindisfarne, appointed Trumwine to the
bishopric of the Picts, choosing Abercorn, upon the southern bank of
[Sidenote: A. D. 681.] the Forth, as the seat of the new Episcopate.[10]
Five years after the erection of the See of Abercorn, [Sidenote: A.
D. 685.] for some unknown cause, Egfrid, repeating the ravages of his
Irish expedition of the previous year, poured a mighty army across
the Forth, burning the _Raths_ of Tulach-Aman, and Dun Ollaig.
His progress was unopposed, and penetrating into the neighbouring
province of Angus, he crossed the Tay without resistance, and skirted
the base of the Grampian range until he approached the neighbourhood
of Lin Garan or Nectan’s Mere, a little lake in the modern parish of
Dunnichen. Here his antagonist, who was his cousin Bruidi, awaited
with his followers the hostile onset, the signal overthrow of the
invading force justifying the choice of the position. The victory was
as glorious as its consequences were important, Egfrid and the greater
part of his army were left upon the field, whilst few escaped from the
scene of slaughter to carry back to Northumbria the tidings of her
monarch’s fall. All that the conquests of thirty years had wrested from
the Picts was lost for ever to the race of Ida, and the Saxon bishop,
abandoning in terror his See of Abercorn, never rested in his hurried
flight until within the walls of Whitby he had placed the whole breadth
of Bernicia between himself and his rebellious flock. The Dalriads
also recovered their former liberty, and even the Britons enjoyed a
momentary independence, and through the losses and embarrassments
entailed upon Northumbria by the disastrous overthrow of Egfrid, the
pre-eminence of the Northern Angles received a fatal shock which the
utmost efforts of succeeding princes failed altogether to repair.[11]
During the forty years which elapsed after the victory of Nectan’s Mere
an occasional conflict with the Angles testifies to the embittered
feelings which had arisen through Northumbrian aggression; and upon
the abdication of Nectan, the correspondent of Ceolfred and somewhat
arbitrary reformer of the Gaelic clergy, who after a reign of eighteen
years relinquished his throne for the cloister, a contest seems to have
arisen between four Pictish kings, which, after five years, terminated
in the undisputed ascendancy of Angus Mac Fergus. [Sidenote: A. D.
730.] Fortune proved true to her favourite, whose alliance was courted
at different periods by the Mercian and Northumbrian sovereigns, and
in the results of his victories over his various competitors, and of
his conquests over the Dalriads and the northern Britons, may be traced
apparently the germs of the future kingdom of Scotland.[12]
Confined within the narrow district to the southward of Loch Linne
and to the westward of the mountain range of Drumalban, the Dalriad
princes exercised but little influence upon the great confederacy of
the Picts, their usual opponents being the Britons, and in early times
the Angles, against whom both Britons and Dalriads occasionally appear
to have united. Their fleet is sometimes mentioned in the Irish annals,
a hostile expedition against the Islesmen disclosing the limited extent
of their dominion in the western seas.[13] The most prosperous era in
the annals of the little kingdom coincides with Columba’s residence
in Iona, after Conal, the early patron of the saint, was succeeded by
Aidan Mac Gauran, the enterprising and able leader of the clans of
Kintyre, the names of whose numerous battles, preserved in the annals
and biographies of the period, amply testify to his warlike qualities
without throwing much light on the causes of their display. His latest
antagonist was the Northumbrian Ethelfrith, [Sidenote: A. D. 603.] from
whom he received so severe a check at Degsa’s Stone, that the Angles
were allowed henceforth to prosecute their career of conquest over the
Britons without interference from the Dalriads, who with the exception
of an occasional contest with their neighbours on the Clyde seem to
have turned their attention to the opposite coasts of _Uladh_.[14]
For a quarter of a century and upwards they were tributaries along with
the Picts of the Northumbrian kingdom, regaining their independence
after the battle of Nectan’s Mere, though it may be gathered from the
words of Adamnan and from certain notices in the annalists, that the
predominance in the kingdom passed about this time from Kintyre to the
house of Lorn, whose chieftain, Selvach, seems to have rivalled Aidan
in the number of his battles, fought generally, as in the case of the
latter prince, against the Britons of Strath Clyde. [Sidenote: A. D.
723.] The abdication and death of Selvach were fatal to the supremacy
of his house; the authority of his son, Dungal, being quickly confined
[Sidenote: A. D. 730.] within the limits of the paternal inheritance,
which he was destined a few years later to lose through a wanton
outrage upon a connection of the formidable Angus. Bruidi, a son of the
Pictish sovereign, appears to have fled for some cause to the island
of _Toraic_, [Sidenote: A. D. 733.] where he was followed--or
found--by Dungal, who forced him from the sanctuary in which he had
taken refuge. The devastation of Lorn in the following year, and the
destruction of the two [Sidenote: A. D. 734.] _Raths_ of Dunleven
and Dunadd, attest the vigour with which Angus avenged the insult;
Dungal and his brother Feredach were carried off in chains in the
victor’s train, and two years later the defeat of Muredach, [Sidenote:
A. D. 736.] the last known member of the family, upon the shores of
Loch Linne, completed the ruin of the house of Lorn. The scanty records
of the period throw no farther light upon the subject, Lorn and its
princes disappear from history, and the success of Angus would appear
to have extended not only to the conquest of the province in question,
but to the temporary subjection of the entire kingdom of Dalriada.[15]
The alliance with Ethelbald the Proud seems to have involved Angus
in a collision at different epochs with the West Saxons and the
Northumbrians, though a connection of a more friendly nature arose
at a later period with the Bernician Eadbert, one of the greatest
restorers of the Northumbrian power, the alliance being probably based
upon the mutual spoliation of the Britons. The conquests of Ethelfrith
in the neighbourhood of Chester, and the victories of Edwin in the
south-west of Yorkshire, when he drove Ceretic, or Caradoc, from the
forest district of Elmete, appear to have made the first impression
upon the lengthened tract of country to the westward of “the Desert,”
the true home of the Cymri, extending from the Severn to the Clyde,
in which a number of petty princes and kinglets long united in paying
some sort of deference to the authority of one supreme king, or
_Unben_.[16] The faint remains of a line of defence, dictated
possibly by a recollection of imperial tactics, can still be traced
towards the north-eastern frontier of this British territory under the
name of the _Catrail or Pictswork ditch_, stretching from Peel
Fell through the south-western portion of Roxburghshire to Galashiels
in Selkirkshire; and to the westward of this barrier the Britons
long remained upon a footing of comparative independence, after they
had lost all hold upon the more open country in the vicinity.[17]
Mercia, at the period of Edwin’s reign, was under the rule of Penda,
a chieftain who, to a hatred and contempt of Christianity, joined an
ardent desire of shaking off his dependence upon the kindred Angles
beyond the Humber, and encouraging the designs of the British princes
against the conqueror of Caradoc, he united the pagan warriors of
Mercia with the Christian followers of Caswallon, re-establishing the
supremacy of the Britons over the ancient city of York, by the defeat
and death of Edwin, though the triumph was purchased at the price of
the temporary extinction of Christianity. But the alliance between
Christian and pagan was of evil omen, and the death of Caswallon in
the following year destroyed the hopes of the Britons, though they
again swelled the forces of the heathen Penda, when he lost his life
near the Broad Arc, Cadwal of Gwynneth alone escaping from the field.
Cadwallader, the last king whose authority is supposed to have been
supreme, died of the pestilence in 664; and towards the close of
the same century the conquests of Egfred extended the Northumbrian
dominions to the western coast, and with his numerous donations of
lands in the modern counties of Lancashire and Cumberland to the
Northumbrian clergy, interposed a permanent barrier between the Britons
of North Wales, Cumberland, and Strath Clyde.[18]
Henceforth the ancient confederacy of the Britons seems to have been
broken up into the separate divisions of Wales, and English and
Scottish Cumbria--or Cumberland and Strath Clyde--never again destined
to be reunited under the authority of one supreme _Unben_. During
the reign of the Northumbrian Alfred, the Angles began to extend
their encroachments from the neighbourhood of Carlisle along the
whole of the south-western coast, known in a later age as Galloway,
their possessions in this quarter having increased, shortly before
the death of Beda, to such an extent as to justify their usual policy
of establishing a bishopric; and accordingly, Whithern, or Candida
Casa, the traditional see of Ninian, was revived, and placed under
the superintendence of a line of Anglian bishops, which was abruptly
brought to a close about a century later. The successes of Eadbert
reduced the fortunes of the Britons in this quarter to the lowest ebb.
Kyle was rendered tributary to Northumbria, which already included
Cunningham; [Sidenote: A. D. 756.] and shortly after the middle of the
century, Alclyde or Dumbarton, the strongest bulwark of the Northern
Britons, surrendered to the united forces of the Northumbrians and the
Picts. The capture of Alclyde must have thrown the whole of the ancient
British territories in the Lennox, which were subsequently included in
the diocese of Glasgow, into the power of Angus, together with a great
portion of the “debateable land” between Forth and Clyde, similarly
included in the “Cumbrian” diocese; and the little principality of
Strath Clyde was now completely hemmed in and surrounded by hostile
territories, though the gradual decline of the Northumbrian power
towards the close of the eighth century, enabled the petty state to
struggle on for another hundred years in a precarious species of
nominal independence.[19]
After the death of Angus MacFergus, king of the Picts, [Sidenote: A.
D. 761.] who is stigmatized by a Saxon writer as “a bloody tyrant,”
the history of the succeeding period again becomes obscure. Bruidi his
brother followed him on the throne, which, after the death of Bruidi,
and an interval of fifteen years, during which it was again occupied
in succession by two brothers, reverted once more to the family of
Angus in the persons of his son and grandson--Constantine MacFergus,
[Sidenote: A. D. 789.] also probably a member of the same race,
acquiring the supreme power towards the close of the century by driving
out Conal MacTeige, who lost his life a few years later in Kintyre. The
names of three kings of Dalriada attest the existence of the little
kingdom, without throwing any further light upon its history, though
from the character of a subsequent reference to Aodh “the Fair,” it may
be conjectured that he was in some sense the restorer of the line of
Kintyre. [Sidenote: A. D. 792.] After the death of Doncorcin, the last
of these three princes, which happened shortly after the accession of
Constantine, no further mention of the province will be found in any of
the Irish annals which have hitherto been published.[20]
For thirty years and upwards, the supremacy of Constantine was
undisputed, and he was succeeded upon his death by his brother Angus,
his son Drost, and his nephew Eoganan in the same regular order which
is subsequently observable amongst the early kings of Scotland.
His reign was unquestionably an era of considerable importance,
tradition connecting it with the termination of the Pictish monarchy,
and representing Constantine as the last of the Pictish kings--a
tradition which must have owed its origin to a vague recollection of
some momentous change about this period. He and his brother Angus
are numbered most suspiciously amongst the immediate predecessors of
Kenneth MacAlpin in the “Duan of Alban,” the oldest known genealogy of
the early kings of Scotland; whilst the name of Constantine, unknown
amongst the paternal ancestry of Kenneth, was borne by his son and many
of his race, who would thus appear to have looked for their title to
the throne quite as much to their maternal as to their paternal line of
ancestry--for the mother of Alpin, Kenneth’s father, was traditionally
a daughter of the house of Fergus.[21] The foundation of Dunkeld, in
Atholl, during the same reign, and of St. Andrews, in Fife, during the
reign of the younger Angus, point to the incorporation of both those
provinces amongst the dominions of the Pictish sovereigns; for it is
observable that the erection of a monastery was generally coincident
with the reduction under the royal authority of the province over which
the newly instituted abbot exercised jurisdiction, the authority of the
ecclesiastical superior confirming and sanctifying as it were the power
of the sovereign; and it will be found that when regular dioceses were
instituted in the twelfth century, the whole of Dalriada had long been
incorporated amongst the districts acknowledging the jurisdiction of
Constantine’s monastery of Dunkeld. The Anglian line of bishops also
disappear during the same reign from the diocese of Whithern, and a
population of Gaelic origin, distinguished from the earlier masters of
the soil, whether of Cumbrian or Northumbrian race, is subsequently
discovered in possession of the entire district.[22] The power of
Northumbria was on the wane, her people, distracted by civil contests,
were fast relinquishing the hold they had once acquired upon the
districts to the westward of the Lothians; and as the Angles, weakened
by internal discord, no longer opposed a formidable barrier to the
Northern tribes, the latter, gradually increasing in power, seem to
have been fast settling into a stronger and more compact kingdom, in
which may be traced the nucleus of modern Scotland.
The erection of Dunkeld, the sole deed of Constantine that has
descended to posterity, may be traced to the inroads of the Northern
_Vikings_, who, four years after his accession, made their first
recorded appearance upon the British coasts, ravaging in the same year
Lindisfarne and Iona. A few of the Scottish monks who escaped with
life bore with them the relics of their founder, distributing their
sacred charge between the new foundation of the Pictish sovereign and
another monastery raised at Kells in Ireland; whilst the pre-eminence
throughout North Briton, which had passed to Abernethy from Iona,
appears to have been again transferred from the former monastery, and
vested in Dunkeld, which was destined in its turn, before the close of
the century, to be eclipsed and supplanted by St. Andrews.[23]
[Sidenote: A. D. 839.]
The male line of the family of Fergus appears to have terminated in
the sons of the younger Angus, Eoganan and Bran, who were both killed
in a disastrous battle with the Northmen; and for three years the two
sons of Bargoit, Feredach and Bruidi, reigned over the Picts, the death
of Bruidi making way for the first prince of the line of Dalriada,
[Sidenote: A. D. 843.] Kenneth MacAlpin, who seems to have ascended the
throne in right of the maternal ancestry of his father. For the next
two centuries the united people of the Picts and Scots acknowledged the
dominion of the MacAlpin dynasty; and though Kenneth and his immediate
successors were still recorded in the annals of the age under the
original title of “Kings of the Picts,” from the opening of the tenth
century the ancient name of _Pict_, gradually dying out, was
superseded by the more familiar appellation of _Scot_, extending,
in course of time, to every tribe and every race from the Tweed and the
Solway to the Pentland Firth, whose chieftains and leaders, whether
native noble, or feudal baron, owned the authority and followed the
banner of the representatives of the princes of Kintyre.[24]
CHAPTER II.
THE KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND--843–900.
The history of Scotland as a kingdom may be said in general terms to
begin with the accession of the family of Kintyre; but the Scotland
of the period of the MacAlpin dynasty, both in the extent of the
territory to which Kenneth actually succeeded, as well as in the
nature of his authority over the remainder of the kingdom, bore only
a partial resemblance to the more compact feudal monarchy of a later
era. Gaul, before the achievements of Julius Cæsar annexed that
country to the dominion of Rome, must have presented an example of a
pure Celtic system of government; and the features of that system, as
described in the Commentaries of the conqueror, are plainly traceable
amongst the kindred Celtic populations of the British Isles. The
greater states, such as the Ædui, appear to have been aristocratic
confederacies, generally exercising a sort of leadership over a number
of lesser dependencies, electing annually a magistrate, judge, or
_Vergobreith_, to govern with royal authority, and the power
of life and death, and guarding, with jealous care, against the
perpetuation of this authority as a hereditary appanage in any one
family. In other confederacies this second phase had been brought about
with more or less permanent success, and Tasgetius was re-established
by Cæsar in the “_kingdom_” which his ancestors had acquired
over the Carnutes--a proceeding which within three years cost him his
life--whilst Cavarinus was confirmed in a similar hereditary authority
over the Senones, which appears to have descended to his brother
Moritasgus from their joint forefathers. Occasionally a number of the
leading states were united in one great confederacy under a temporary
head, chosen for the occasion, who was invested with royal authority
over every member of the alliance, and obedience enforced to his
behests by the exaction of hostages. As war was the bond of union in
such confederacies, the character of the supreme leader was military
not judicial; he was the _Toshach_ not the _Vergobreith_;
the _War-king_, exercising the same authority over the whole
confederacy with which every _Duke_ or _Toshach_ was invested
by each member of the alliance over their separate contingents.
Attempts had not been wanting to convert this temporary authority
into a permanent supremacy, as in the case of Celtillus, the father
of Vercingetorix; but Cæsar records no instance of success in a
course of policy which would evidently have laid the foundation of a
wider and far more formidable _kingdom_ than any that had been
established by the mere conversion of the _elective_ into the
_hereditary_ principle within the boundaries of a single state.
In all these features of the government of the greater states of Gaul,
there is nothing that can be considered peculiar to the people of that
country alone. The annual _Vergobreith_ is but the counterpart of
the _Princeps_ chosen in the German assemblies, and dispatched
with a hundred _Comites_ to administer justice amongst the
confederated clans. Aristocratic confederacies, occasionally united
under the rule of one head, or _Heretoga_, prevailed amongst the
continental Saxons in the days of Beda, and probably of Charlemagne;
a judge, perhaps elective, still governed the Visigoths at the close
of the fourth century, when an infant king was the hereditary ruler of
the Ostragoths; whilst Maraboduus is an example that the authority of
a permanent magistrate had occasionally prevailed over the elective
principle amongst the Germans, even before the days of Tacitus, when
the government of a king was not unknown amongst that people.[25]
The true peculiarity of the Celtic system, the “balance of power,” is
to be found in that singular principle of divided authority, which
is surely traceable to the original separation of the two leading
classes, and their mutual jealousy of encroachment, a jealousy
which seems to have settled into a fixed principle of policy in the
Celtic system of government long after its probable cause had been
forgotten. Every state, every group of clans, every family even, was
thus divided; _two_ confederacies took the lead amongst the whole
people; and if the Ædui or the Sequani lost their pre-eminence, the
Rhemi or the Arverni stept into the vacant place; for the undivided
supremacy of _one_ confederacy--_un_balanced power--would have been
totally contrary to all Celtic precedent.[26] Three leading characters
are traceable amongst the Gauls,--one hereditary, the _Princeps_ or
head of the race, the _Cen-Cinnitd_ or _Pen-Cenedl_ of later times;
two elective, the _Judex_, supreme magistrate or _Vergobreith_, and
the _Dux_ or _Toshach_, the leader of the host. These characters are
equally recognisable amongst the early Germans, amongst whom they
were probably known as the _Cyning_ or _Konung_, the head of the
kindred--the _Lagaman_ and the _Heretoga_; and they existed to a recent
date in every Celtic clan long after the elective had given place to
the hereditary principle, as the chief, the _Toshach_, and the judge,
_Brehon_ or _Deempster_. As amongst the Germans so amongst the Gauls,
the head of the lineage was not necessarily the leader of the host,
though the offices were not unfrequently united in the same person.
Sedulius was _dux et princeps_ (captain and chief) of the Lemovices;
and Vertiscus “_princeps_,” or chief of the confederacy of the Rhemi,
was also “_præfectus_” (captain or _toshach_) of their cavalry.[27]
But here the resemblance ceases, for the German _Lagaman_--the
_princeps_ who was elected in the assembly, and dispatched with a
hundred _Gasinds_ or _Comites_ to judge the people--never appears to
have necessarily laid aside his military authority. Athanaric was _Dux_
as well as _Judex_ of the Visigoths; and the Frank Gasind of a later
period united in his own person both military and judicial functions,
as _Graf_, _Count_ or _Judex Fiscalis_. Such was not the case amongst
the Celts, who appear to have separated the judicial from the military
office--authority from power--with all that jealous care in which
may be traced the anxiety of the original founders of the system to
preserve an equal balance between two rival castes. The _Vergobreith_
amongst the Ædui was strictly prohibited from crossing the frontiers
of the confederacy,[28] and was of course incapacitated from holding
the office of _Toshach_ during the continuance of his supreme
magistracy. That this prohibition lasted only during the year of office
is evident from the example of Cotus, who, failing in his attempt to
succeed his brother Vedeliacus as _Vergobreith_, appears immediately
afterwards as _Toshach_ of the Æduan cavalry. As the _Vergobreith_
was inaugurated by the Druids,[29] and as that class monopolized the
whole administration of the laws, it is very evident that the noble
who was chosen for the supreme magistracy resigned his military
character during his year of office, and was enrolled, as it were,
for that period amongst the ranks of the Druids. Had such a personage
existed as a permanent and hereditary _Vergobreith_ giving law to the
whole Celtic race, this sacred character would have become equally
permanent and hereditary, and the ruler of the Celtic people would have
resembled, in this respect, the monarchs of the great eastern empires
of antiquity.[30] The Gauls, however, never appear to have arrived, in
historical times, at the same point of unity in their political, as
in their religious, constitution; and the Hierophant, or Arch-Druid,
elected for life, stood alone, and without any parallel, amongst
the equestrian order. Long after the introduction of Christianity,
and a thousand years after the time of Cæsar, the old principle of
separating the judicial from the military functions is still clearly
discernible in the Welsh “Laws of Howel Dha.” Two officers were
appointed over every royal _Commot_, the _Cynghellwr_ and the _Maer_,
the former administering justice, the latter collecting the royal dues
and following the king to battle; and the same system is traceable in
Gaelic Scotland, where, under the Teutonic disguise of _Thane_ and
_Deempster_, it is easy to discover the types of the Cymric Maer and
Cynghellwr.
The Celtic principle of division, or balance of power, is recognisable
amongst the Cymri both in their older confederacies of _Deur_ and
_Bryneich_, and in the later _Gwynnedd_ and _Dyved_, or North and South
Wales; but it is in Ireland that the best examples are afforded of
this singular peculiarity of the continual subdivision of authority.
The whole country was divided as usual into North and South, or
_Leth Cuin_ and _Leth Mogh_, the latter containing _Muimhean_ and
_Laighean_--Munster and Leinster--each again subdivided into North and
South, or _Thomond_ and _Desmond_, _Tuath-Laighean_ and _Deas-gabhar_.
Ulster and Connaught were the _two_ historical provinces of the north
of Ireland, _two_ kingdoms are traceable in legendary Ulster, and
after _Uladh_ had ceased to share in the sovereignty of the North,
_two_ families, the _Dalaraide_ and _Dal-fiatach_, long contested the
supremacy within the circumscribed boundaries of the province. No
sooner had the great family of the Hy Nial succeeded in monopolizing
the supreme power than it was at once divided into the usual separate
branches of Northern and Southern Hy Nial, each gradually subdivided
into the clans of Eogan and Conal, of Colman and of Aodh Slane. The
predominance of a single race was, as of old, the signal for its
subdivision, even the smallest clan being subject to the divided
authority of a chief and a toshach.
Once every year the Gallic Druids were accustomed to meet in solemn
convention at a spot within the confines of the Carnutes, which was
looked upon as the centre of Gaul, and had there been such a magistrate
as an annual _Vergobreith_ chosen to rule over the whole Gallic
race, it is probable that he would have been inaugurated in this
assembly in the same manner as the Æduan Druids consecrated the
provincial _Vergobreith_, who ruled for his allotted year over
that confederacy. A similar convention is traceable in Ireland under
the name of the _Feas Temora_, or “Feast of Tara,” a place chosen
probably for its centrical situation; and he who “held the feast” was
the acknowledged _Ardrigh_ of the whole nation, the “tribes of
Tara” originally holding their lands on condition of quartering the
king and his followers on the occasion of the great festival. This
convention, undoubtedly in its origin a Druidical meeting like the
solemn assembly within the borders of the Carnutes, was still existing
in Ireland in historical times, dying out towards the close of the
seventh century; though the Irish annalists long continued to give the
title of “king of Tara” to the _Ardrigh_, who claimed the supreme
authority over the whole Irish people.
The invariable Celtic principle of “division” is plainly traceable
amongst the population of Northern Britain in their separation
from a very early period into Caledones and Mæatæ, Dicaledones and
Vecturiones, and latterly into Northern and Southern Picts. Towards
the middle of the third century, when Dion wrote, the form of their
government was still “democratic;” in other words, the various states
or confederacies into which the Pictish people were divided, like the
early Gauls and Southern Britons, were still ignorant of the principle
of one elective or hereditary ruler.[31] The earliest bond of union
may probably be traced to the time when they united under one common
leader to resist or assail the Roman legionaries; and out of the _Dux_
or _Toshach_ elected for the occasion, like Galgacus, and exercising a
paramount though temporary authority, arose the _Ardrigh_ or supreme
king, after some popular or ambitious chieftain had prolonged his power
by successful wars, or procured his election to this prominent station
for life. The nature of the sovereignty thus established, which was
fully recognised in the days of Columba, resembled the dominion of the
Ardrigh amongst the kindred Gael of Ireland, or of the Unben amongst
the earlier Cymri, differing in a remarkable manner from the royal
authority as it existed amongst the Welsh of a later age. _Breith_,
or _Law_, was at the root of the later Welsh system. Privilege was
_Breint_, the noble or man of privilege amongst the Southern Welsh,
_Breyr_; the king, _Breen-hyn_--the senior _Brehon_ or _Lawgiver_, the
hereditary instead of the elective _Vergobreith_. In the laws of Howel
Dha, the representative of the Druid, or of the noble enrolled amongst
the Druids, the _Cynghellwr_ who “divided with the _Brenin_” evidently
took precedence of the _Maer_, the representative of the military
noble; whilst the _Rhy_, and _Twysawg_, or _Rex_ and _Dux_ (though met
with in the Welsh dictionaries), are never found in these laws. With
the Gael, however, it was the _Righ_ and the _Toshach_ who were most
prominent; the _Brehon_ had no such intimate connection with the throne
or with the privileged classes, and in the charter of king Robert Bruce
to the Thane of Cawdor, it was the _Judex_ who held his lands under
the Thane or _Toshach_. The Gaelic _Ardrigh_ represented the permanent
_Toshach_, not the _Vergobreith_, the permanent holder of the office
of _Vercingetorix_, the head of a wide confederacy bound together less
by the ties of blood, or by an authority confirmed by the sacerdotal
order, than by the actual power of the supreme ruler confirmed by the
exaction of hostages.[32]
The different tribes enumerated by Ptolemy, and subsequently known
as the Northern and Southern Picts, appear at some early period to
have coalesced into seven lesser confederacies, answering to the
“Pictish Provinces” of Beda. Allusion is evidently made to these
principalities in the old verses ascribed by tradition to Columba,
enumerating the seven sons of _Cruithne_--characters of the same
description as the sons of Hellen--“Cait, Ce, Ciric of the hundred
clans, Fiv, Fidach, Fodla, Fortreim.” In _Fiv_ “the forest,”
and in _Cait_, there is little difficulty in recognising “the
ancient kingdom of Fife,” and a province of which the north-eastern
extremity still retains the name of Caith_ness_, the point or
promontory of _Caith_. Meaningless alike in Gaelic and in Welsh,
_Caith_ is probably the Celtic form of _Ketje_, “the end” or
“extremity” in Lappish, a relic of a time when an Ugrian population
regarded this province as their northern limit. The recollection of
_Fortreim_ was long preserved in the Deanery of _Fortrev_ or
_Fotheriff_, lying along the banks of the Forth, from which river
the name was most probably derived. _Fodla_ or _Fotla_, a
word sometimes used amongst the Irish Gael as synonymous with Ireland,
or their native home, survives in _Athfodla_ or _Atholl_;
whilst the appellation of _Fidach_, or “the woody” may be safely
conjectured to have belonged to that province which was once known
to the Romans under the ancient British epithet of _Celydon_,
or “the forest district.” No clue remains to identify _Ce_ and
_Ciric_, which may have answered to the provinces upon the coast
included between the Grampian range and the eastern and northern seas.
Nothing whatever is known of these seven provinces beyond the bare fact
of their existence, though long after they had been broken up into
earldoms, or united by conquest to the possessions of the crown, the
tradition of this ancient sevenfold division of the Pictish kingdom,
and of the rights of the provincial princes in electing a paramount
_Ardrigh_, appears to have been revived amongst a party of the
Scottish nobles for the purpose of adding to their overgrown power at
the expense of their youthful king.[33]
The Pictish king was elective, unless he formed an exception to the
universal rule prevailing amongst the Teutonic as well as the Celtic
tribes in early times. The theory of election, indeed, pervaded all
the institutions of the Gaelic people, who seem to have nominally
chosen their heads of houses and chiefs of clans, as well as their
_Flaiths_, _Oirrighs_, and _Ardrigh_, or their princes, provincial
kings, and the supreme ruler of the whole nation. Brother succeeded
to brother upon the throne, and the law of primogeniture, as amongst
the early Germans, was only partially recognised, each “full-born”
son having a claim upon the inheritance of his father, though the
universal custom of “fosterage” led to the same results as Cambrensis
deplored amongst his countrymen in Wales. Each child was placed in the
family of a dependant, who regarded such a charge as a mark of the
highest confidence and honour; and even in the seventeenth century,
men of rank and station in the Scottish Highlands still esteemed it a
privilege to educate in this manner one of the children of the head of
their lineage. The child thus adopted shared in the property of his
foster-father on the same footing as his foster-brethren, who profited
in return from the protection and support of their more illustrious
connection, and thus was formed a tie which generally proved a
far surer bond of union than even the actual existence of blood
relationship. The “fosterers” of the royal race must have invariably
been chosen from amongst the greater nobles, each of whom, from mingled
motives of affection and self-interest, was ever too ready to support
the claims of his own foster-son, or _Dalt_, upon the supreme power;
and the continual contests about the succession to the throne, which
arose in this age in every country in Western Europe, are traceable
less to the inveteracy of fraternal hatred than to the jealous rivalry
of interested partizans, which must have been engendered by such a
system of fosterage. Gradually, however, except in cases of incapacity,
or where one of the junior members of the family far exceeded the rest
in prowess or popularity, the precedency of the eldest-born grew into
the rule, the contrary course becoming the exception.[34]
Upon the accession of a new monarch, he ascended the Sacred Stone,
preserved inviolate for such occasions, and was inaugurated in the
presence of the clergy and the laity by the principal bishop of the
nation. Originally it is probable that the Druids were the necessary
assistants on such occasions, their prerogatives passing to the clergy;
for Columba is said by his biographer, Adamnan, to have “ordained”
Aidan king of the Dalriads, an expression which cannot mean that
Aidan’s title to the royal dignity was based upon the authority of the
Abbot of Iona, but rather that the sanction of the sacerdotal order,
which appears to have been considered indispensable to all political
authority amongst the Celtic people from time immemorial, had been
transferred upon the fall of the old religion, from the Druidical
to the Christian priesthood.[35] Close to the _Ardrigh_, with his
right foot planted on the same stone of honour, stood the _Righdomna_
or _Tanist_, the heir-apparent of the monarchy, who seems to have
been nominated on the same occasion in pursuance of the true Celtic
principle of “a divided authority,” the office being immediately
filled up, in case of the premature death of the _Tanist_ during
the lifetime of the reigning sovereign--a fatality of very frequent
occurrence--the same rule being as applicable to the chieftain of the
smallest territory as to the chosen leader of the nation. The power of
the _Ardrigh_ over the provincial kings must have depended upon his
ability to enforce it, and to exact the hostages which were invariably
necessary to secure the obedience of the subordinate princes. _Can_ and
_Cuairt_, or tribute and visitation, were amongst his rightful dues;
in other words, in addition to the payment of a stipulated tribute,
the _Oirrighs_ were bound to entertain the _Ardrigh_ and his followers
in his annual progresses for a certain stated period in every year; a
burdensome system of free-quarters by no means peculiar to the Celtic
people, which could be exacted by every petty chieftain from the
occupants of all the territory over which his influence extended.[36]
The authority of the early Pictish kings over the various provinces of
the confederacy was probably identical with that of the Irish _Ardrigh_
over the subordinate principalities of _Leth Cuin_ and _Leth Mogh_, and
may be compared to the dominion exercised by Kent, Wessex, or Mercia,
over the remaining South Humbrian kingdoms, at a time when either
state was liable to exchange the situation of a ruling power for a
subordinate and comparatively dependent position.[37]
After the union of the two branches of the Pictish nation under one
elective sovereign, the next step in the progress of their amalgamation
was to confirm the preponderance of one state, and thus render the
elective monarchy hereditary in one family. In the attempts to
accomplish this object, which were made by the elder Angus and his
successors, the ancient sevenfold division of the nation appears to
have been broken up and destroyed, and the real conquest of the Pictish
people to have been effected. The tradition of a conquest is far too
strong to allow it to be looked upon as a mere fable, though the
total silence of all the early authorities, and the relative position
of the Picts and the Dalriads render it utterly impossible that the
insignificant tribe of Kintyre, occupying only a very small portion
of the modern county of Argyle, could have conquered and exterminated
the whole remaining population of North Britain beyond the Forth and
Clyde. A very slight acquaintance, however, with early history, where
it borders on the legendary and traditionary periods, will confirm the
truth of the remark, that events which may have really happened are
frequently misplaced and transferred to a wrong epoch, very often owing
their misplacement to a wish to build up the fame of some favourite
hero, by attributing to him the merit of every important action of
several different periods. Scottish history abounds with instances of
such misplacement, and the Scottish conquest is of the number; but by
keeping strictly to the scanty records left by the annalists who lived
nearest to the period in question, it will be found that the reign of
the elder Angus offers the closest resemblance to an era of victory and
conquest. His annexation of Atholl and the Lennox, of Lorn, and perhaps
also of Kintyre, must have extended his authority to the western coast
of Argyle, whilst his successive victories over three kings of the
Picts appear to have enlarged his frontiers in the opposite direction,
by establishing his predominance over the neighbouring district of
Fife.[38] The modern shires of Perth, Fife, Stirling, and Dumbarton,
with the greater part of the county of Argyle, may therefore be said
to have formed the actual Scottish kingdom to which Kenneth succeeded,
conquered originally by the elder Angus, and subsequently consolidated
by his successors Constantine and the younger Angus, the union of
the three provinces, of Fife, Atholl, and Fortreim under one family,
paving the way for the permanent supremacy of the princes of the ruling
race over the remaining provincial kings; and as Alpin, the father of
Kenneth, was in later days confounded with the opponent of the elder
Angus, so the triumphs of the latter monarch were gradually transferred
to the earliest prince of the MacAlpin dynasty after the numerous and
varied tribes who united in acknowledging the supremacy of Kenneth’s
successors had identified their own origin with the Dalriad ancestry of
their line of kings.
THE LINE OF KINTYRE:--
_Kenneth the First_ 843–859.
_Donald the First_ 859–863.
Never were the qualities more needed which earned for the first
Kenneth the title of “the Hardy,” than during the sixteen years of his
turbulent reign; for his kingdom was exposed to hostilities on every
side. The Britons of Strath Clyde burnt Dunblane; the Danes carried
their ravages to Dunkeld in Atholl, and to Cluny in Stormont, and if
Ragnar Lodbroc is not the mere creation of some northern scald, it
was probably under the leadership of that renowned sea-king that they
destroyed the monastery of the Pictish Constantine. The Scottish king
proved equal to the occasion, and six times leading his followers
across the “Scots-water,” he repulsed the Britons, harried the
Lothians, burnt Dunbar, and seized upon Melrose, stifling any doubts
about his claim to the throne in the plunder of the fertile lowlands of
“Saxony.”[39]
Iona, during the vicissitudes of this stormy era, had been far too much
exposed to escape the fury of the northern pirates, and the revered
asylum of Columba’s brotherhood, participating in the misfortunes
of Lindisfarne, was deserted at an early period under the repeated
attacks of the Pagan foe, neither island ever recovering the importance
that had once attached to their hallowed shores. The destruction of
Dunkeld, which had been destined by its founder to replace both Iona
and Abernethy, gave occasion to the solitary peaceful action attributed
to the Scottish sovereign, who, collecting the relics of Columba from
the localities to which they had been borne for security, enshrined
them in a new church at Dunkeld,[Sidenote: A. D. 849.] rebuilding
the monastery on the same spot as had been chosen for the original
foundation. An alliance with the Britons of Strath Clyde, whose prince,
Cu, received the hand of his daughter in marriage, completes the record
of Kenneth’s actions; and ten years after the restoration of Dunkeld he
died in his capital [Sidenote: A. D. 859.] of Dunfothir or Forteviot,
the victim of a painful and lingering disease.[40]
Donald MacAlpin succeeded his brother, and for four years filled the
throne of Scotland, nothing being recorded of his short reign with the
exception of a council at Forteviot, in which the “Laws of Aodh the
Fair,” [Sidenote: A. D. 863.] of Kintyre, were confirmed by “the Gael”
and their king.[41]
_Constantine the First_, 863–877.
Constantine, the son of Kenneth, and the first inheritor of the name of
his Pictish ancestor, ascended the throne of Scotland at an era when
the efforts of Gorm, Eric, and Harald Harfager to consolidate the
petty states of Scandinavia into the respective kingdoms of Denmark,
Sweden, and Norway, had given a fresh stimulus to the incursions of
the Vikings upon the British Isles, by dispossessing and driving from
their homes many of the minor chieftains who refused to submit to their
authority. Ireland as well as Britain had suffered from the attacks of
these marauders as early as the close of the eighth century, but it was
not before the middle of the following century that the Northmen first
established themselves permanently in the former country, principally
in Dublin and its neighbourhood, where the recollection of one branch
of the invaders is still retained in the name of the adjacent district
of Fingall.[42]
[Sidenote: A. D. 850]
About ten years after the first settlement of the Norsemen a fresh
fleet arrived off the Irish coasts, under the command of leaders
claiming to belong to “the royal race of Lochlan,” to whom the
native annalists have given the name of Du Gall, or Black Strangers,
in contradistinction to their predecessors the Fin Gall or White
Strangers, epithets which were derived probably from some long
forgotten distinction in dress or armour rather than from any
difference in personal appearance or in nationality.[43] Driven from
Dublin and from their settlements upon the coast of Uladh, the Fingall
collected in great numbers from every quarter, and soon returned with
their whole force to re-assert their lost ascendancy; but a combat
between the two fleets, which is said to have lasted during three days
and nights, confirmed the superiority of their rivals, and in the
following year Olave the Fair, the son of Ingiald, an Upland chieftain
of the same race as Harald Harfager, landed with his followers
[Sidenote: A. D. 854.] amongst his countrymen, and at once assumed the
lead over all the Northmen of Ireland. In alliance with the Norwegian
Olave was the Danish Ivar or Ingvar, the most renowned warrior amongst
all the northern chieftains, whom tradition has made a son of Ragnar
Lodbroc, and the ruthless avenger of his slaughter.[44]
For several years after the arrival of the confederates their ravages
were confined to the provinces of Ireland, until at length, in the
same year in which Ivar and Halfdan first established themselves upon
[Sidenote: A. D. 866.] the coasts of East Anglia, the storm burst
upon the dominions of Constantine, and from the 1st of January to St.
Patrick’s day, Olave and Auisle carried fire and sword throughout the
region bordering on the Forth. [Sidenote: A. D. 870.] After a lapse of
four years Olave again revisited the Scottish shores, and in company
with Ivar laid siege to the rock of Dumbarton, capturing and destroying
the ancient bulwark of the Britons of Strath Clyde after a lengthened
blockade of four months, the sole means available to an unskilful
age against a _Dun_ so strongly situated. The confederates then
marched southwards to join their countrymen in England; once more a
king of Saxon race was sacrificed to the manes of Ragnar, and the fate
of the Northumbrian Elli was inflicted upon the East Anglian martyr
Edmund; nor was it until the close of the following year [Sidenote:
A. D. 871.] that the allies returned to Dublin laden with the spoil of
the Saxon, the Briton, and the Scot, and leaving behind them a fearful
track of misery and bloodshed to mark the most lengthened and direful
of all their inroads. Olave lost his life shortly afterwards in an
obscure skirmish, fought, according to some accounts, in Scotland; and
the death of Ivar in 873, [Sidenote: A. D. 873.] after surviving his
confederate for only a few months, released the Saxon and Scottish
princes from the ablest and most ruthless of their foes.[45]
Amongst the earlier opponents of Olave and Ivar in the course of their
Irish wars was a certain Caittil the Fair, [Sidenote: A. D. 857.]
probably the same person as Ketil Biornson, who established himself in
independence amongst the islands along the western coasts of Scotland
belonging to the mixed Scandinavian and Gaelic race who were known
under the name of the Gallgael. His daughter Auda was subsequently
married to his former rival Olave, and upon the death of her husband
after his return to Dublin she sought the protection of Ketil in the
Hebrides, whilst her son, Thorstein the Red, early treading in the
footsteps of his father, pursued the career of a Viking.[46]
After the establishment of the power of Harald Harfager by the
successful battle of Hafursfiord, many of his vanquished opponents
fled to the Orkneys and the Shetland isles, periodically infesting the
Norwegian coasts in revenge for their defeat and expulsion; and to
put an end to these piratical inroads Harald at length fitted out a
numerous fleet, devoting an entire summer to extirpating the hostile
Vikings from the creeks and bays in which they sought shelter from
his vengeance. In one of the numerous conflicts occurring during this
expedition, Ivar, a son of Harald’s favourite and most trusted friend
Rognwald, Jarl of Mœri, lost his life, and as some compensation for
the death of his son the king bestowed his own conquests upon the
father. Rognwald, however, preferring to return to his Norwegian
home, transferred the royal donation to his brother Sigurd, who was
accordingly confirmed as Jarl, and left behind, on the departure of the
king, in possession of the Orkneys and the Shetland isles.
Not content with his newly acquired island territories Jarl Sigurd
was ambitious of a wider dominion, and entering into an alliance with
Thorstein Olaveson, the confederates employed their united force in
invading the northern provinces of Scotland. The whole of the country
as far as the banks of the Oikel,[47] embracing the modern counties of
Caithness and Sutherland, was overrun and conquered by the allies, two
Scottish magnates falling in an unavailing resistance; Meldun, whose
wife, the daughter of an Irish king, became with her son the slave of
Auda,[48] affording in their altered fortunes a striking example of the
strange vicissitudes of the age; and Malbride “with the buck-tooth,”
whose singular fate--if the Saga can be relied upon--avenged him after
death upon the author of his misfortunes. Sigurd is said to have slain
the last-named chieftain in single combat, and with the savage ferocity
of the times to have cut off the head of his victim, suspending it in
triumph from his saddle-bow, in which position the projecting tooth of
the slaughtered chieftain is supposed to have inflicted so severe a
wound upon the Jarl’s leg as ultimately to cause his death, and he was
buried by his followers upon the banks of the Oikel, at the extreme
limits of his conquests.
Though deprived of his ally, the Jarl of Orkney, Thorstein failed
not to follow up his success, and whilst victory attended the banner
of the king of the Dugall in the extreme north, the difficulties
of Constantine must have been materially increased by the inroads
of Halfdan [Sidenote: A. D. 875.] upon his opposite frontiers, who
established himself in Northumbria during the same year, and made
incessant incursions upon the neighbouring “Picts” and Britons.[49] A
decisive defeat at Dollar, on the borders of Perthshire and Fife, at
length forced the Scottish king to submit to the alternative imposed at
a later period upon both the English Edmunds, the whole of the northern
provinces were made over to the son of Olave, and Constantine purchased
a temporary peace at the price of half of his dominions.[50]
The success of Thorstein was destined to be ephemeral, the very year of
his triumph witnessing the close of his adventurous career. Attacked
unexpectedly by the followers of Constantine, he appears to have
fallen in an unequal contest; Halfdan was driven from his Northumbrian
conquests, perishing soon afterwards in Ireland, and the death of
Sigurd’s son Guttorm delivering his father’s earldom once more into the
hands of the independent Vikings, the power of the Norsemen was broken
up for a time, and the threatening cloud which had loured so darkly
over Scotland melted away from the horizon.[51]
[Sidenote: A. D. 877.]
But the career of Constantine was also approaching its conclusion, and
he had little time to profit by the events which had released him from
his enemies. As his whole reign had been passed in a continual struggle
to protect his country from the Northmen, so it was at length closed
with honour on the battle-field in repulsing a hostile landing upon the
coast of Fife; though tradition has hinted at a darker tale, that after
repelling with success the enemy’s attack he was captured by a party of
the retreating Norsemen, and sacrificed by a lingering and cruel death
in the gloomy recesses of the Black Cave near Crail.[52]
_Aodh (Hugh)_ 877–878.
_Eocha_ } { 878–889.
_Cyric (Grig)_ } { 878–896.
_Donald the Second_ 889–900.
In the British Islands, as indeed in every quarter to which the
Norsemen penetrated, a change may be dated from their earliest
incursions; and whilst in Ireland they broke the power of the Hy Nial,
and taught the dynasties of Munster and of Connaught to aspire to the
supremacy which had hitherto been the undisputed prerogative of the
princely families of Ulster and of Meath; in England the remnants
of independent sovereignty were overwhelmed and swallowed up in the
flood, the line of Cerdic in Wessex, which alone was strong enough to
bear up against the torrent, becoming from that very cause the sole
representative in the eyes of the Saxon people of the ancient royalty
of their race. Scotland, where the monarchy, though of comparatively
recent date, was destined eventually to survive the crisis, appeared
towards the close of the ninth century to be fast verging towards
the fate of Ireland; for though Thorstein perished before his power
was consolidated, the cession of the northern provinces to that
enterprising sea-king revived the recollection of former independence,
and many years elapsed before the authority of the Scottish kings
was once more successfully asserted over the ancient territories
of the northern Picts. On the accession of Aodh, or Hugh, the
surviving son of Kenneth, his pretensions were disputed by Cyric--or
Grig--MacDungal, a chieftain whose residence at Dundurn, or Dunadeer,
in the Garioch, marks his pre-eminence amongst the northern magnates
whose allegiance had been transferred to Thorstein.[53] The contest for
superiority between north and south was decided in the neighbourhood
of Strathallan, the locality of the battle-field, [Sidenote: A. D.
878.] within the dominions of Aodh, appearing to point to Cyric as
the aggressor: victory declared in favour of the northern leader,
and his opponent, wounded and a prisoner, was conveyed for security
to the fortress of Inverury, where he died of his wounds after a few
weeks’ captivity. Either the victor was content with asserting his own
independence, or policy may have prevented him from aspiring to the
vacant throne; for he appears to have been satisfied with reviving
the divided sovereignty of former times; and by associating in the
government a scion of the royal race of Kenneth, Eocha of Strath Clyde,
a son of the British prince Cu, he may have sought to propitiate the
hostile chieftains of the south, whilst the real authority over both
kingdoms must have remained with the conqueror of Strathallan.[54]
Similar motives may possibly have dictated the benefaction to the
church of St. Andrews, which has caused the name of Cyric to be handed
down in the register of the ancient priory as “the Liberator of the
Scottish Church, which had hitherto remained in a dependant and
subservient position, according to the prevailing custom of the Picts.”
The boon thus vaguely recorded by the grateful monks of the priory
appears to have been nothing more than the transfer of the privileges
which had latterly belonged to Dunkeld to the monastery endowed by
the younger Angus; and St. Andrews, a diocese of the southern Picts,
and often known in later days as pre-eminently the “bishopric of the
Scots,” owed her primacy over the other Scottish bishoprics to the
donation of a prince of the northern provinces.[55]
[Sidenote: A. D. 889.]
Upon the death of Eocha after an eventless career of eleven years,
Donald, the son of Constantine, assumed his cousin’s place, and for
seven years shared with Cyric the supreme authority over Scotland, on
the same terms, apparently, as his predecessor the British prince. A
decisive victory over a body of the Northmen, who were defeated at
Collin on the banks of the Tay, signalized the commencement of the new
reign, avenging the destruction of the Scottish capital of Forteviot,
burnt by the invaders in the course of their inroads; and as the
situation of the ruined town must have exposed it to the attacks of
the pirates of the western seas, it appears to have been abandoned
from this period, and the residence of the sovereign being transferred
for security to the eastern bank of the Tay, the dignity of “the Royal
City” belonged henceforth to Scone.[56]
The few remaining years of the century passed away without events--none
at least have been recorded--Cyric died peacefully at Dunadeer after
a [Sidenote: A. D. 896.] reign of eighteen years, and it was left for
the chroniclers of a later age to encircle his memory with a halo of
fabulous glory, and to oppose his triumphs, as the conqueror of England
and Ireland, to the pretensions founded by the first Edward upon the
exploits of the British Arthur.[57] No successor arose amongst the
Northern Picts to emulate the policy of their departed leader, and
Scotland, gradually recovering from the shock of Thorstein’s conquests,
ceased for ever after the death of Cyric to be subject to a divided
authority. Henceforth Donald ruled without a rival during the brief
remainder of his reign; but though no competitor appeared from beyond
the Grampian range to assert his equality with the representative of
Constantine and Kenneth, the recollection of their early independence
long survived in full force amongst the northern clans, and a continual
struggle between the divisions of the ancient Pictish kingdom can
still be traced after the lapse of centuries. The death of Donald,
[Sidenote: A. D. 900.] who survived Cyric for only four years, would
appear to have been brought about through this inveterate feud, for
he is supposed to have been killed in the town of Forres, and he may
have lost his life in the hostile province of Moray in attempting to
re-establish the royal authority over the revolted districts of the
north.[58]
CHAPTER THE THIRD.
CONSTANTINE THE SECOND--A. D. 900-943.
On the death of Donald, by the singular law of alternate succession
which was in force amongst the Gaelic people, the son and
representative of Aodh was raised to the throne as Constantine the
Second; and, with better fortune than his father, the earlier years
of his reign were signalized by a brilliant victory. A body of the
Northmen, who appear, as usual, to have landed from Ireland or the
Western Isles, [Sidenote: A. D. 903.] and to have chosen Fortreim as
the scene of their ravages, were defeated in Strathearn with great
slaughter, and with the loss of their leader Ivar hy Ivar, [Sidenote:
A. D. 904.] a grandson of the famous Northman of the same
name, whose family had been recently expelled from their Irish
possessions.[59] Released by his victory from all fear of further
invasion, Constantine seems to have turned his attention towards
regulating the affairs of the Church, for his next appearance is upon
the Moot-hill of Scone, a well-known eminence in the neighbourhood of
the new capital, where, in conjunction with Fothadh, the bishop of St.
Andrews, he presided at the earliest ecclesiastical council recorded
in the annals of Scotland.[60] A far more important object, however,
in its ulterior consequences, was accomplished shortly afterwards by a
bloodless revolution, which enabled him to take the first steps towards
enlarging his kingdom on her southern frontiers, and to place a member
of his own family upon the throne of an adjacent principality.
An occasional brief entry in the early chronicles reveals the anxiety
of the rulers of the Picts and Scots to avail themselves of the gradual
decline of the Northumbrian power for the purpose of extending their
own influence over the neighbouring province of Strath Clyde. Some
such motives may have instigated Kenneth to seek for his daughter the
alliance of a British prince; and a few years later, the death of
Artga, king of Strath Clyde, which is attributed by the Irish annalists
to the intrigues of Constantine the First,[61] [Sidenote: A. D. 871.]
may have been connected with the same policy of aggrandizement, and
have furthered the claims of Eocha, the son of Constantine’s sister.
The advancement of Eocha to the [Sidenote: A. D. 878.] Scottish throne
was shortly followed by important consequences to his native province,
and after the flight and death of the Welsh prince Rydderch ap Mervyn
had deprived the northern Britons of one of their firmest supporters,
a considerable body of the men of Strath Clyde, relinquishing the
ancient country of their forefathers, set out, under a leader of the
name of Constantine, to seek another home amongst a kindred people
in the south. Constantine fell at Lochmaben in attempting to force
a passage through Galloway; but his followers, undismayed at their
loss, persevered in their enterprise, arriving in time to assist the
Northern Welsh at the great battle of the Conway, where they won the
lands, [Sidenote: A. D. 880] as the reward of their valour, which are
supposed to be occupied by their descendants at the present day.[62]
With the retreating emigrants, the last semblance of independence
departed from the Britons of the north; and upon the death of their
king Donald, who was probably a descendant of Kenneth’s daughter,
Constantine the Second experienced little difficulty in procuring the
election of his own brother Donald to fill the vacant throne.[63]
[Sidenote: A. D. 908.] Henceforth a branch of the MacAlpin family
supplied a race of princes to Strath-Clyde; and although for another
hundred years the Britons of that district remained in a state of
nominal independence, they ceased to exist as a separate people,
appearing, on a few subsequent occasions, merely as auxiliaries in the
armies of the Scottish kings.
Fifteen years after his victory over Ivar in Strathearn, Constantine
was called upon for the last time to oppose an inroad of the Northmen.
At the beginning of the tenth century by far the most celebrated of all
the northern leaders were the Hy Ivar or grandsons of Ivar, and sons,
apparently, of a daughter of that chieftain married to a Scottish
Viking, who seems to have succeeded Ketil in the dominion of Inch Gall
or the Hebrides. Driven from Dublin after its capture by the Irish
king Malfinan, in 902, they appear, like Thorstein, to have sought the
shelter of the Western Isles; and it was owing probably to the loss
of their Irish possessions that they attempted, under the command of
the younger Ivar, to establish themselves upon the Scottish coasts in
903, from whence, as has been already stated, they were expelled in the
following year.[64] [Sidenote: A. D. 904.]
Ten years passed away before the Hy Ivar again appear on the scene.
Reginald, who had now succeeded to the leadership of the family,
defeated and destroyed the fleet of a rival Viking, Barith MacNocti,
[Sidenote: A. D. 914.] in an engagement off the Isle of Man; and from
the date of this victory the Norsemen again began to collect upon the
Irish coasts, arriving every year in increasing numbers. Three years
later, Reginald, known by this time as king of the Dugall, landed at
Waterford [Sidenote: A. D. 917.] to assume the command, whilst his
brother Sitric, appearing upon the coasts of Leinster, soon succeeded
in re-establishing the power of his family over their former dependency
of Dublin; and in the following year Reginald and his brother Godfrey,
with the Jarls Ottir and Gragraba, who seem to have recently returned
from an unsuccessful inroad upon the coast of Wales, leaving the
harbour of Waterford, sailed for the northern shores of England to
assert the claim of the king of the Dugall as heir of his kinsman, the
Danish Halfdan, to the fertile lands of Northumbria.[65]
[Sidenote: A. D. 918.]
Landing amongst the kindred Danes of the north, as a welcome auxiliary
against the increasing power of Ethelfleda, Reginald marched at once
upon York, seizing upon, and portioning out amongst his followers and
allies, the whole of the sacred patrimony of St. Cuthbert, with many
a broad acre besides. Edred, whose wide possessions reached to the
Derwent, the son of that Rixinc who for three years had ruled the
Northumbrian Angles under the dominion of the Danes, together with
Aldred of Bamborough and his brother Uchtred, sons of Eardulf, of the
old Bernician race, and lords of a territory extending from the Tyne to
the Forth, abandoning their dominions at the approach of the Norsemen,
implored the aid of the Scottish Constantine to stem the torrent of
invasion. In Constantine they found a prompt ally, and strengthened by
the support of a Scottish army, the Northumbrian leaders prepared, with
renewed courage, to march against the foe.
The hostile armies met upon the moor near Corbridge-on-Tyne, where
Reginald, who had decided upon awaiting the attack of the confederates,
holding his immediate followers in reserve in a position where they
were concealed from the assailants, had ranged the main body of his
army in three divisions, under the command respectively of his brother
Godfrey, the two Jarls, and the chieftains to whom the Irish annalist
gives the title of “the Young Leaders.” So impetuous was the onset
of the Scots and Northumbrians, that at the first shock the Norsemen
were overthrown, the heaviest loss falling upon the followers of the
Jarls, a contingency upon which Reginald had probably calculated, as
they bore the brunt of the battle. Animated at their success, and
anxious to improve their advantage, the allies pressed eagerly onwards,
regardless of the enemy’s reserve, which Reginald now poured upon the
flank and rear of the victors, disordered in the confusion of pursuit,
inflicting, in his turn, severe loss, and retrieving the fortune of
the day. Edred was slain in this final struggle, with many of his
Northumbrian followers, who appear to have suffered most severely,
until the approach of night separated the combatants, and put a stop to
a contest which led to no decisive result. As the Norsemen remained in
possession of their conquests, the historian of Durham mourns over a
defeat which left the patrimony of the bishopric a prey to the heathen
invaders. The Scottish chronicler claims the battle for a victory,
neither king nor Mormaor falling in the engagement, and no hostile
Norsemen penetrating to the banks of the “Scots-water;” and as no
portion of the territories of Aldred to the northward of the Tyne was
occupied by the followers of Reginald, the advance of the enemy beyond
that river must have been effectually prevented; and Constantine and
his surviving confederate had good reason to be satisfied with the
successful issue of the engagement.[66]
The result of the battle of Corbridge-on-Tyne secured Reginald in
his conquest of Danish Northumbria, where he was succeeded, upon his
death, about three years later, by his brother Sitric, the Irish
possessions [Sidenote: A. D. 921.] of the family reverting to Godfrey,
who hastened to establish himself in Dublin.[67] The alliance of the
new ruler of the Northumbrian Danes was courted by the neighbouring
princes, and Athelstan, soon after his accession to the English
throne, [Sidenote: A. D. 926.] bestowed his sister’s hand upon the
powerful chieftain of the Norsemen; though upon the unexpected death
of Sitric, who only survived this union for a few months, dying in
the prime of life in 927, [Sidenote: A. D. 927.] the Saxon prince
seized upon the opportunity for asserting his own authority over
the province, annexing it at once to the English crown.[68] Olave
Sitricson, the youthful son of the deceased king, escaped across the
sea to Ireland; but Godfrey, who had quitted Dublin upon hearing of
his brother’s death, endeavoured to enlist the co-operation of his
ancient antagonist the Scottish king in an attempt to dispute the
claims of Athelstan. Constantine, however, was not to be won over, and
as the former supporter of the Northumbrian Saxons still preferred the
alliance of the English king to a hazardous confederacy with the Danish
adventurer, Godfrey, after a vain attempt to establish himself in York,
once more left the English shores and returned to rule over the Irish
Norsemen.[69]
The subsequent union of Olave Sitricson[70] with a daughter of the
Scottish king endangered that alliance between the two princes which
Godfrey had failed to disturb, and from this moment Constantine became
an object of suspicion to his southern neighbour. [Sidenote: A. D.
934.] The unwonted spectacle of an English army appeared before long
upon the Forth; and though the whole of this interesting epoch in the
annals of Saxon England is enveloped in uncertainty and confusion,
from the coincidence of this expedition with the death of Godfrey
in Ireland, it may be conjectured that it was the policy of the
English king to prevent any movement on the part of his former ally
Constantine, in support of the claims of Olave, now the head of the
Hy Ivar family, upon the Northumbrian possessions of his father’s
family. Fortreim, as usual, was the suffering province, and the army of
Athelstan, penetrating as far as Forteviot, the ancient capital, wasted
the country in every direction, whilst a powerful fleet, sweeping the
coast to the distant shores of Caithness, prevented the arrival of any
assistance from Ireland. The limits of the incursion were now reached;
and by frustrating the projects of Constantine and his new allies,
its object was probably attained, though the success of Athelstan was
merely temporary, and three years later the storm, which had thus been
averted for a season, burst in all its fury on the English coasts.[71]
[Sidenote: A. D. 937.]
At the head of the confederacy which was now combining to wrest
Northumbria from the grasp of Athelstan, were Constantine and the two
Olaves, the great-grandsons of the Danish Ivar, one of whom, the son
of Sitric, was the son-in-law of the Scottish king, and the other, the
son of Godfrey, had succeeded his father three years previously in the
government of the Irish Norsemen.[72] A British prince, to whom the
Saga gives the name of Adills, a chieftain probably of the northern
Welsh, together with Yring, a Norseman from his name, though described
by the same authority as also of British race, joined the ranks of
Athelstan’s opponents, and Eogan, the son of the Scottish Donald, in
obedience to his allegiance to his kinsman and chief, led his followers
from the vale of Clyde to swell the numbers of the allies. To aid in
opposing this formidable array, Athelstan had invoked the assistance
of the Vikings, and the pagan rovers of the German Ocean now marched
side by side in the English host with the Angles of Mercia, the Saxons
of Wessex, and the Christian descendants of Guthrum’s Danes. The
advantage at first leant to the side of the invaders, for in spite
of his preparations for the impending contest, Athelstan appears to
have been partly taken by surprise. Alfgar and Godric, his lieutenants
in Northumbria, were either driven from the field or slain, and the
English king was reduced to negociate with the enemy in order to
gain time for the union of his whole force. The negociations were
quickly broken off when the required end was attained, and after the
failure of a night attack, skilfully planned by Olave Sitricson, who
is said to have visited the camp of Athelstan in the disguise of a
wandering harper, the rival armies met upon the long-forgotten site of
Brunanburgh. The victors alone have described that celebrated battle;
and whilst the Saga, forgetful alike of the English and Scottish kings,
awards the palm to the Norsemen in the pay of Athelstan, the ancient
ballad in the Saxon Chronicle extols the deeds of the native warriors,
and renders full justice to the valour of Constantine and Olave. Five
kings and seven Jarls, a son of Constantine, and two brothers of
Athelstan, were left amongst the slain upon the field of Brunanburgh;
and whilst the baffled survivors of the Irish Norsemen returned in
their galleys to Dublin, and the remnants of the Scots with their
sorrowing king mournfully withdrew beyond the Forth, the unchallenged
dominion of the whole of Saxon England, the submission of the Welsh and
of the Northumbrian Danes, and the alliance and admiration of Flanders,
France, and Germany, rewarded the victor of this glorious day.[73]
Shortly after the battle of Brunanburgh, Eric of the Bloody Axe, the
favourite son of Harald Harfager, and his successor in the Norwegian
kingdom, appeared with a numerous fleet off the northern coasts of
England. Driven from his native country by his half-brother Hakon,
after a reign of less than a year, in which brief space he had
contrived to incur the unanimous hatred of his people, he was now
seeking another theatre for the display of the same qualities which
had already lost him his paternal inheritance; and Athelstan, either
unwilling to provoke so soon the chances of another conflict, or
anxious to raise up in Eric a rival to the pretensions of the Hy Ivar,
welcomed the banished prince as an ally, reminded him of the friendship
existing of old between himself and his late father Harfager, and
offered him an asylum in his own dominions, if he would undertake to
hold the Danish province against the Olaves. Eric readily consented
to the arrangement, and according to the account of the Norwegian
Heimskringla such was the origin of his earliest connection with the
Anglo-Danes of Northumbria.[74]
It was destined, in the first instance, to be transitory, for upon
the death of Athelstan, the Northmen, refusing to acknowledge his
successor, chose Olave of Ireland for their king; and the two Olaves,
again uniting their forces, and with better success, relinquished their
Irish home, and forced from the brother of Athelstan the cession of the
whole of his dominions [Sidenote: A. D. 940.] to the north of Watling
Street.[75] Eric attempted no resistance, but sailing away with his
followers, he entered upon a course of piracy which carried him before
long to the Western Isles, from whence he drove out a son of Reginald
Hy Ivar, who was little prepared for so unexpected an attack.[76] Two
years after the death of Athelstan Olave Godfreyson [Sidenote: A. D.
941.] followed him to the grave, losing his life in some obscure
skirmish near Tyningham, when Reginald Godfreyson, succeeding to his
brother, shared the supremacy over the north of England with the
survivor of the two Olaves.[77]
As no allusion is made to Constantine in connection with the second
expedition of the Olaves, it must remain a matter of conjecture whether
any assistance on his part contributed to its successful issue; though
the previous career of the Scottish king, as well as his conduct on
a subsequent occasion, might almost warrant such a supposition. The
remembrance of Brunanburgh, however, may possibly have deterred him
from such a step, and by this time age and its accompanying infirmities
must have begun to weigh heavily upon the venerable monarch; for nearly
seventy years had now elapsed since the death of his father Aodh. It
was an era in which the sword in a vigorous hand was necessary for
the defence of the crown; and Constantine may have been actuated by
prudent motives when he resigned the sceptre before it slipped from his
grasp, and retiring to the seclusion of the monastery of St. Andrews,
[Sidenote: A. D. 943.] relinquished the cares and duties of his kingdom
to assume the office of abbot.[78]
Throughout a reign extending over forty years and upwards, Constantine
wielded his authority with vigour, if not always with success, and
even in his declining years maintained the reputation of a valiant and
experienced warrior. The most important event in his career, and that
which exercised the greatest influence over the future prospects of
his kingdom, was the establishment of a branch of his own family over
the British principality of Strath Clyde, as it unquestionably tended
to the gradual amalgamation of the inhabitants of that district with
their more numerous and powerful Scottish neighbours, and prepared
the way for the permanent annexation of the province during the reign
of Malcolm II. In his efforts to assist another member of his family
in obtaining a footing in Danish Northumbria he was not equally
successful; but though his connection with Olave Sitricson embroiled
him with the warlike Athelstan, it relieved his kingdom from the
incursions of the Northmen, for with the exception of the contests
which arose in later times between the Jarls of Orkney (a different
race from the Hy Ivar), and the lords of the northern provinces--a
rivalry which incidentally tended to strengthen the authority of the
Scottish kings at the expense of their too powerful dependants--no
further allusion is made to the attacks of the Scandinavians beyond an
occasional and isolated inroad upon the eastern coasts of Scotland.
The contemporary of four of the Anglo-Saxon kings, Constantine, during
the course of his lengthened and chequered reign, was a witness of
momentous changes; the enemies of his youth and manhood became the firm
allies of his later years, and the neighbouring monarchy, which had
been rescued from ruin by the genius of the great Alfred, strengthened
by the steady policy of Edward and his talented sister, and raised
to an unexampled pitch of glory by the energy and valour of the
indomitable Athelstan, threatened, before the close of his eventful
career, to relapse into its original disunion when no longer upheld
by the arm of the mightiest warrior who ever sat upon the throne of
Saxon England. The dynasty of Wessex, indeed, survived the crisis; but
the permanent settlement of the Northmen during these reigns, in the
southern division of ancient Northumbria, introduced a foreign element
between Bernicia and the Southumbrian provinces, thus preventing the
consolidation of the Anglo Saxon kingdom, and contributing materially
to the success of those incessant encroachments of the Scottish kings
upon the Northumbrian Saxons, which were only checked by the Norman
Conquest.[79]
_Malcolm the First._ 943–954.
[Sidenote: A. D. 943.]
Malcolm, the first of his name, and a son of the second Donald,
succeeded to the authority relinquished by his venerable kinsman,
whilst the brother of Athelstan step by step was winning back the
territories ceded to the Northmen at the commencement of his reign. The
great Mercian confederacy of “the Five Burghs” was first reduced to
submission, and Northumbria ere long again acknowledging the authority
of the English king, [Sidenote: A. D. 944.] Olave Sitricson abandoned
the province, driving Blacar Godfreyson out of Dublin, and establishing
his authority over the Irish Norsemen, whilst his confederate Reginald,
Blacar’s brother, disappears from history, and Edmund, released from
his Danish foes, was at liberty to turn his arms against Cumberland.[80]
Much confusion has arisen from the ambiguous use of the appellations
of Cumbria and Cumberland. The former name was undoubtedly applied
at one time to a wide extent of country stretching at least from
Dumbartonshire to North Wales, from which district it was early
separated when the greater part of modern Lancashire was added to
the Northumbrian dominions. A little later the grants of Egfrid to
St. Cuthbert must have severed the modern counties of Cumberland and
Westmoreland from the northern Cumbria or Strath Clyde, which was still
further curtailed by the settlements of the Angles in the diocese of
Candida Casa, a district of which the greater part, if not the whole,
had by this time probably fallen into the hands of the ancestors of the
Picts of Galloway.
Southern Cumbria or Cumberland does not appear to have been included
amongst the conquered districts recovered by the Britons after the
defeat and death of Egfrid at the battle of Nectan’s Mere. When Eardulf
the bishop carried off the relics of St. Cuthbert and St. Oswald from
the profane violence of a pagan as fierce as Penda, the most trusted
companion of his hurried flight was Edred, the Saxon Abbot of Carlisle;
and there is little reason to doubt that at this time the descendants
of the men who won the land in the days of Egfred still peopled the
broad acres granted to the monastery of St. Cuthbert. Forty years later
it is told how Edred, the son of Rixinc, the foremost chieftain amongst
the nobility of Deira, rode “westward over the hills,” slew the Lord
Eardulf, a prince of the Bernician race of Ida, carried off his wife
“in spite of the Frith and the people’s wishes,” and held forcible
possession of territories reaching from Chester le Street to the
Derwent, till he lost both lands and life in the battle of Corbridge
Moor.[81] All these names are genuine Saxon, and though the original
British population may still have lingered amidst the lakes and
mountains of their picturesque region, it may be safely doubted whether
they paid either tribute or submission to the Scoto-British prince who
yet retained some vestiges of authority over the fertile valley of the
Clyde; and whilst Scottish Cumbria or Strath Clyde continued under
the rule of a branch of the MacAlpin family from the opening of the
tenth century till the reign of Malcolm the Second, English Cumbria
or Cumberland, when it was not under the authority of the Northumbrian
earls, in whose province it was included, may be said to have remained
in a state of anarchy till the conquest.
The numerous lakes of the latter district, and its situation upon the
north-western coast of England, must have offered at this time an
admirable retreat to the Vikings from Ireland and the Islands; and
Edmund, after clearing the province of these dangerous intruders,
[Sidenote: A. D. 945.] made it over to the Scottish king, on condition
that Malcolm should become his faithful “fellow-worker” or ally, by
land and sea.[82] Upon the death of Edmund, the same arrangement was
renewed with his successor Edred, when he received the submission of
the Northumbrian Danes; [Sidenote: A. D. 948.] and when Eric attempted
to re-establish himself in York, he received no assistance from
Malcolm, and was hardly chosen king before he was again driven from the
province.[83] The case was different in the following year, when Olave
Sitricson returned for the last time [Sidenote: A. D. 949.] to claim
the inheritance of his father; for though the Scottish king was bound
by his oath to be faithful to his alliance with Edred, the weight of
years had not yet quenched the fire of his aged predecessor, nor had
the peaceful life of the cloistered monk obliterated the recollections
of the soldier. Roused at the approach of his relative and ancient
ally, Constantine, to satisfy the scruples of his kinsman, resumed for
a time the sceptre he had relinquished, and forgetting the abbot in the
king, he once more led his countrymen against the foe, and they long
recounted with exultation and pride how royally their veteran leader
swept the patrimony of St. Cuthbert to the distant borders of the Tees.
Returning in triumph from his successful foray, the warrior-abbot
resigned for the last time his ephemeral authority, and again assuming
the character of a churchman, ended his days three years later, within
the walls of the monastery of St. Andrews.[84]
[Sidenote: A. D. 952.]
In the year in which his aged predecessor at length sunk to rest,
Malcolm, uniting with the Saxons and Britons, opposed an inroad of the
Northmen, and on this occasion he may have faithfully fulfilled the
compact which he appears formerly to have evaded. The Northmen were
victorious over the united forces of the allies, and the result of the
battle probably re-established Eric in Danish Northumbria.[85] His
arrival was fatal to the supremacy of Olave, who, quitting England for
the last time, settled finally in Dublin, where he soon acquired an
ascendency surpassing that of all his predecessors, establishing his
family as the rulers of the Irish Norsemen, and exacting hostages and
levying tribute over the whole extent of Ireland, from the Shannon to
the sea. [Sidenote: A. D. 980.] For nearly thirty years his power was
unbroken, until the decisive victory of Tara first re-established the
superiority of the native Irish, which the more celebrated but less
important battle of Clontarf [Sidenote: A. D. 1014.] was destined
subsequently to confirm. Olave, who was not present at the battle, did
not long survive its issue. The spirit of the aged Northman was broken
by the death of many of his sons, and relinquishing his authority
to Sitric, one of the survivors, he quitted the scene of his former
triumphs, and the last days of the most formidable opponent of the
great Athelstan were passed in the seclusion of Iona.[86] Long before
the death of Olave, the career of his rival Eric had been brought to
a close. Driven from Northumbria after a reign of only two years, he
appears to have fallen in a skirmish on Stanemoor, slain by Magnus
Haraldson, through the treachery of Osulf, who was rewarded with the
Eorldordom of Northumbria, whilst Man and the Hebrides fell to the
share of Magnus.[87]
[Sidenote: A. D. 954.]
Two years after the death of Constantine, Malcolm followed him to the
grave. He was slain at Ulurn, not far from Forres, in the vicinity of
the same spot where his father had perished upwards of half a century
previously. The northern districts appear to have been peculiarly fatal
to this branch of the reigning family, and Malcolm’s death may probably
be attributed to the vengeance of the men of Mærne, for the death of
Cellach, a northern Mormaor, whose defeat in the earlier years of the
king’s reign is amongst the occasional vague notices in the Scottish
chronicles, which alone remain to shed a dim light upon the incessant
contest waged for many generations between the northern and southern
provinces of Scotland.[88]
_Indulf_ 954–962.
_Duff_ 962–967.
_Culen or Colin_ 967–971.
Three kings followed in the usual alternate succession during the next
seventeen years, half of that period being comprised in the reign of
Indulf, the son of Constantine the Second. The grant of Cumberland was
not renewed, either on account of the distracted state of England after
the death of Edred, or possibly because of the somewhat doubtful manner
in which the former king fulfilled his engagements, and the connection
of his successor with the still formidable ruler of the Dublin
Norsemen; but the loss of the English province was soon compensated by
the capture of Edinburgh, the first known step in the progress of the
gradual extension of the Scottish kingdom between the Forth and Tweed.
A century previously the jurisdiction of the successor of St. Cuthbert
still reached as far as Abercorn upon the Forth, but henceforth it was
bounded by the Pentland hills until about fifty years later, when the
historian of Durham has to record a more important loss, and to mourn
over the contraction of the diocese within still narrower limits.[89]
Twice was Indulf called upon to repel the inroads of the Northmen, who
appear to have crossed the eastern seas, and endeavoured to effect a
landing upon the coasts of Buchan and Banff. On both occasions he was
successful, driving the invaders to their ships, the latest victory,
however, costing him his life, for he fell in opposing the descent of
the Norsemen at Invercullen.[90]
Sufficient time had now elapsed since the accession of the Dalriad
princes to the throne of Scotland to develope the principle of division
inseparable from the Gaelic system of government, each branch of
Kenneth’s family endeavouring, after the lapse of a few generations,
to shut out the other from the throne, and to monopolize the right
to the alternate succession as the exclusive prerogative of their
own peculiar line. Accordingly the reign of Duff, the eldest son of
Malcolm the First, and representative of the senior branch of the royal
family, appears to have been passed in a continual struggle against
the pretensions raised by the now rival line of Aodh in the person of
Indulf’s son Colin, and though at first successful, defeating Colin at
the battle of Duncrub, [Sidenote: A. D. 965.] in which the Mormaor of
Atholl and the Abbot of Dunkeld, partizans apparently of the defeated
prince, were numbered amongst the slain,[91] he was subsequently less
fortunate, and was driven by his rival from the throne, losing his life
on a later occasion at Forres, a place so disastrous to every member
of his family, where his body is said to have been hidden under the
bridge of Kinloss, [Sidenote: A. D. 967.] tradition adding that the sun
refused to shine until the dishonoured remains of the murdered monarch
received the burial of a king.[92]
An uneventful reign of four or five years is assigned to his successor
Colin, terminated as usual upon the field of battle, where he is said
to have fallen with his brother Eocha in a battle fought against the
Britons of Strath Clyde. [Sidenote: A. D. 971.] Such at least is
the account left by the earlier authorities, though he is generally
represented in the pages of later chronicles as the victim of private
revenge, assassinated in the Lothians by Andarch MacDonald, a British
prince, who avenged in the blood of the king an insult offered to his
daughter.[93]
CHAPTER IV.
KENNETH THE SECOND--971–995.
No opposition seems to have been offered upon the death of Colin
to another son of Malcolm the First, [Sidenote: A. D. 971.] who
ascended the throne as Kenneth the Second; though the subsequent
death of Colin’s brother Olave, about six years later, may point to a
continuance of the struggle between the rival branches of the reigning
family, and appears to have established Kenneth for the remainder
of his life in undisputed possession of the throne.[94] Immediately
upon his accession, after providing for the safety of his kingdom
by throwing up entrenchments at the fordable points of the Forth,
he followed up the successes of his predecessor Indulf, ravaging
Cumberland to Stanemoor and Deerham, and carrying off a captive of high
rank amongst the neighbouring Saxons of Northumbria.[95] Unfortunately
the old chronicle, which has hitherto so faithfully noted down the
events of this distant period, breaks off abruptly at the approach of
a more interesting epoch, and the history of Scotland must for many
years be sought for principally in the chronicles of other countries.
Considerable light is thrown upon the state of the extreme northern
districts during the reign of Kenneth by the accounts in the Norwegian
Sagas, as in the time of this king the powerful Jarls of Orkney were
first brought into collision with the neighbouring Mormaors on the
mainland.
[Sidenote: A. D. 875.]
When Rognwald, Jarl of Mæri, heard of the death of his nephew Guttorm
Sigurdson,[96] he immediately dispatched Hallad, one of his own sons,
to take possession of the Orkneys; but after a year’s experience of the
troublesome acquisition the newly appointed Jarl abruptly relinquished
his dominions, preferring the comparative peace of a _Holder’s_
life in Norway to the arduous dignity of a Jarl amongst the Vikings.
Vehemently incensed at his return, Rognwald bitterly reproached Hallad
and his brother with inheriting the servile blood of their mother,[97]
upon which Einar, hitherto conspicuous only for his excessive ugliness,
and the harshness of whose features was increased by the loss of
an eye, professed his readiness to undertake the government of the
Orkneys, remarking that he should relinquish a home which he had little
cause to love, and only requiring to be supplied with a ship and a
sufficient force to enable him to assert his claims successfully. He
added a promise, that if his offer were accepted his father should see
his face no more, a stipulation, as he drily observed, that was likely
to prove the most gratifying part of the arrangement. In his estimate
of his father’s feelings he was not mistaken, Rognwald frankly avowing
that were it for this sole purpose he should be provided with a ship,
though he feared little honour would result from the expedition. Such
were the circumstances under which the ancestor of the powerful Jarls
of Orkney first set sail from his native shores of Norway.
Arrived amongst the islands he soon cleared them of the Vikings, who
found in Einar a far more formidable opponent than the indolent and
peaceful Hallad. His promise to his father he kept to the letter,
and he saw his face no more; though when the increasing favour shewn
to Rognwald so provoked the jealousy of two of Harold’s sons that
they burnt the Jarl in his own house, Einar gloried in becoming his
avenger. Halfdan, one of the murderers, flying from the vengeance of
his incensed father, arrived so unexpectedly at the Orkneys that Einar
was taken by surprise and had barely time to escape to the mainland;
but his absence was of short duration, and surprising Halfdan in his
turn, he seized upon the wretched prince, inflicting on him the cruel
death of the Spread-eagle. Whatever punishment Harfager might have
intended for his son, he was exasperated on learning that Einar had
forestalled him, and immediately prepared a fleet for an expedition
against the Orkneys; but he suffered himself in the end to be diverted
from his intention, and was eventually satisfied with the exaction of a
heavy fine from the islands. Einar, however, turned even the intended
punishment to his own advantage, undertaking to pay the whole sum on
condition that the Odallers or Freeholders resigned their Odal rights
in his favour, or in other words submitted to be taxed and to hold
their lands of the Jarl; and from the date of this arrangement all the
lands in the earldom remained for many years the sole property of the
Jarls.
The rest of Einar’s life was passed in undisturbed possession of the
earldom he had so unexpectedly acquired; and upon his death it was
equally divided, according to the ancient custom, amongst his three
surviving sons. Arnkel and Erlend, the two eldest, followed the
fortunes of Eric Blodæxe, losing their lives in his service, when
the whole earldom was again reunited under the sole authority of the
surviving brother Thorfin the Skull-cleaver. In spite of his formidable
name, Thorfin was of a peaceful character, resembling his uncle Hallad
in his aversion to war, rather than his father Einar; and when the
sons of Eric arrived in the Orkneys with the shattered remnants of
their followers, he at once acknowledged their claim to his allegiance,
submitting without a struggle to their authority;[98] though they soon
released him from further annoyance by sailing for Norway to try their
fortunes in their ancestral dominions, when Thorfin ruled his earldom
in peace, dying about the commencement of Kenneth’s reign.[99] He
married Grelauga, a daughter of Duncan Mormaor of Caithness, by Groa,
the sister of Thorstein Olaveson, and upon his death left five sons
to inherit his island earldom, and possibly with some claims upon the
mainland inheritance of their maternal grandfather.[100]
Three of the brothers in succession married Ragnhilda, the daughter
of Eric and Gunhilda. The mother had been celebrated as the most
treacherous, as well as the most beautiful woman of her time, and the
daughter appears to have inherited a full share of both the maternal
qualities. After contriving the murder of her first husband Arnfin, she
married his brother Havard, but soon repenting of her second choice,
she released herself with as little compunction as before, exerting her
influence over the Jarl’s favourite nephew with such success that the
luckless Havard was surprised and put to death by a kinsman of whom he
harboured not the remotest suspicion; and the scene of the foul murder,
the mysterious and once sacred “stones of Stennis” are still sometimes
known as Havard-Steigr. The first to exclaim against the treacherous
deed was the widowed consort of the Jarl, and Ragnhilda’s whole soul
appeared absorbed in a burning desire for vengeance, until the hope of
winning the favour of the beautiful mourner induced another relative
to undertake the sacred duty of revenge. Upon his return to claim the
promised reward--a fair wife and an earldom--he found them both in
the possession of the third brother Liotr, and he lost his life in a
vain attempt to wrest, at least the latter, from the more fortunate
son of Thorfin. Whilst Liotr was in possession of the earldom, Skuli,
one of his surviving brothers, presented himself at the court of the
Scottish king Kenneth, and obtained from him either a grant of the
possessions of his maternal ancestor the Mormaor of Caithness, or a
promise to support the pretensions he was encouraged to raise upon the
island dominions of his brother. Collecting an army in Caithness, Skuli
crossed the Pentland Firth to establish his claim upon the Orkneys,
but he failed in his attempt and was driven out of the islands; when
Liotr, emboldened by success, passed over to the mainland and again
defeated his brother in the Dales of Caithness, where Skuli lost his
life, continuing to fight bravely after the rout and dispersion of his
army. Liotr then subdued the whole of Caithness, a proceeding which
aroused the jealousy of his powerful neighbour Malbride MacRory the
“Earl,” or rather perhaps the “Oirrigh of Moray,” and both parties
preparing for a contest, Malbride advanced to Skida Moor to drive the
intruder from the country. The struggle was obstinate, victory in the
end declaring for the Orkneymen, though it was purchased with their
leader’s life, Liotr dying soon afterwards of a wound he received in
the battle. Lodver, the last surviving son of Thorfin, now succeeded
to the earldom, bequeathing it very shortly to his son Sigurd. He was
the only member of his family who died a peaceful death, owing perhaps
to his marriage with Auda, a daughter of an Irish king Kerval, an
alliance through which he was fortunate enough to escape the dangerous
fascinations of Ragnhilda.
Jarl Sigurd Lodverson retained forcible possession of Caithness,
intrusting it to the charge of his brother-in-law Havard, until
intelligence reached him ere long that two Scottish nobles, whom
the Saga describes as “Earls,” had slain Havard in Threswick and
were ravaging his territories on the mainland. The Jarl waited only
to collect his followers from the Orkneys, and crossing the Firth
was joined by the men of his other earldom, who informed him that
the Scottish leaders, to whom the Saga gives the names of Hundi and
Malsnechtan, were at that moment in the neighbourhood of Duncansby
Head. Unlike Sigurd, who was now advancing with his whole force united,
the Scots allowed themselves to be drawn into action before the arrival
of an expected reinforcement; and although victory inclined to their
side in the early part of the battle, Malsnechtan was slain at the
close, and Hundi driven from the field; though any advantage that might
have arisen from Sigurd’s success was neutralized by the approach of
“Earl” Malcolm, who appears to have landed during the contest with a
considerable force at Dungall’s Bay. The Jarl’s men, already exhausted
by a protracted and hardly contested struggle, were in no condition
for a second engagement with the fresh army advancing under Malcolm,
so collecting the trophies of his barren victory, Sigurd retreated to
his island fastnesses, and the mainland conquests of the Orkney Jarls
reverted for the time to other possessors.[101]
It must have been soon after this battle that Olave Tryggveson,
returning from England to Norway, touched at the Orkneys, and
seizing upon Sigurd, who was totally unprepared for an attack, with
all the zeal of a recent convert, offered him the alternative of
immediate execution or of at once embracing the Christian faith, and
acknowledging himself a tributary of Norway. Any lingering love of
Odinism vanished before the necessity of the case, Christianity became
the religion of the islands, and Olave carried off Hundi Sigurdson as
a hostage for the fidelity of his father. His allegiance to Norway sat
lightly on the Jarl, and ceased with the life of his son a few years
afterwards; but as the conversion of the Orkneymen dates from this
summary proceeding, and no allusion is ever made to a relapse, it may
perhaps be concluded that his Christianity was more enduring.[102]
Whilst these events were occurring in the North, and the attention
of the Moray chieftains was fully occupied by the encroachments of
their powerful neighbours, Kenneth, who appears to have been an able
and energetic prince, seems to have been actively engaged in another
quarter of his dominions; and although no account has been handed down
of the nature of the transaction which eventually cost the king his
life, there is much reason to connect it with an attempt on his part to
reduce under his more immediate power a portion of the kingdom which
had hitherto continued in a condition of comparative independence.
Extending along the eastern coast of Scotland was a district of which
the whole or part was known as Angus, though it would be difficult to
define its ancient limits with accuracy. In later days the name of
Angus has been looked upon as equivalent to Forfarshire, but the old
Pictish kingdom may once have reached to the Isla and the Tay, on its
southern frontiers, whilst towards the north it bordered on the marches
of Mar, or by whatever name the district may have been known, which
was once the principality of Cyric.[103] Originally an independent
province, it probably became subordinate at some remote period to the
kingdom of which the foundations were laid by the elder Angus and
Constantine, in other words, the lord of the district paid _can_
or _cios_ to the king of Scots in peace, or acknowledged his
authority in some similar manner, and led his followers to support the
royal cause in war; but beyond such vague tokens of dependence he ruled
with undiminished authority over all who acknowledged his claim to be
their _Cen-cinneth_, or the head of their race by “right of blood.”
During the earlier reigns of the kings of the line of Kintyre,
the “Mormaors” of Angus were evidently personages of considerable
importance, as their deaths are occasionally entered in the oldest
existing chronicle, the latest notice of a member of the family
occurring during the reign of Colin. In the time of Kenneth the direct
male line appears to have ended in Cunechat or Connor, who transmitted
his rights to a daughter of the name of Finella, and she hoped in
her turn to bequeath them to her son. In this expectation she was
disappointed, for upon some long forgotten pretext the heir of Angus
was condemned and executed at Dunsinnan;[104] and as the greater part
of this province was included in the deaneries of Gowrie, Angus, and
the Merns, which, after the changes introduced into the constitution
of the Scottish church by David the First, appear under the episcopal
jurisdiction of St. Andrews, it is highly probable that the “Bishop of
the Scots” first acquired his spiritual authority in this direction
when “the King of Scots” cut off the last heir of the ancient line of
princes and annexed his province to the crown, exercising the rights of
a conqueror by “giving Brechin to the Lord.”[105]
The bereaved mother never forgave the outrage, and the scene of
Kenneth’s death, Fettercairn in Kincardineshire, where he is said
to have perished through the treachery of his immediate attendants,
favours the tradition connecting the catastrophe with the vengeance of
Finella. If any credit can be attached to the accounts of authorities
who wrote four centuries after the occurrence, policy induced her
to wear the appearance of forgetfulness until she had succeeded in
persuading the king to entrust himself within the walls of her “castle
of Fettercairn,” where he lost his life by a curious and complicated
machine, most ingeniously contrived for the fatal deed! [Sidenote: A.
D. 995.] Be this as it may, Kenneth was assassinated after a reign of
twenty-four years, and if Finella, as is not improbable, was the author
of his death, it is likely that her purpose was accomplished without
the aid of any very elaborate mechanical contrivance, and scarcely
within the walls of a feudal castle.[106]
Fordun has attributed to this king the idea of limiting the succession
to his immediate family, gravely adding, that the example of the German
empire exercised much influence in deciding Kenneth to adopt this
line of policy.[107] The fate of Olave MacIndulf, at the commencement
of this reign, lends some degree of probability to the suggestion of
the historian, though the king was hardly successful in his supposed
policy, as the usual order of succession was preserved, and two princes
intervened before the accession of his son Malcolm. More than one
fabrication has been palmed upon this reign, and the memory of the king
has been needlessly blackened by the assumed murder of Malcolm MacDuff,
a personage of more than questionable reality, for whose existence
Fordun is the earliest authority; though it is possible that some
confusion may have arisen between the imaginary king of the Cumbrians
and the real Olave, whose death is noticed by Tighernach the Irish
annalist, a few years after the accession of Kenneth to the throne.[108]
Hector Boece is the first writer who places the victory of Loncarty in
this reign, for Fordun makes no allusion to it, though his continuator
Walter Bowyer mentions “the wonderful battle of Loncarty,” fought at
a time when a Norwegian army, after ravaging the country in every
direction, had shut up a Pictish king within the ancient city of Perth.
The provisions of the besieged were upon the point of failing, when
the wily Pict, by a judicious present of his two last casks of wine,
reduced his enemies to a state that ensured him an easy victory. A
successful sortie was directed against the invaders’ camp, their ships
were burnt and sunk at the mouth of the Tay, obstructing the river, and
originating the sandbanks of Drumlay, and every subsequent invasion
of the northern foe, down to the expedition of Haco, in the reign of
Alexander the Third, was supposed to have been undertaken in revenge
for this fatal disaster.[109]
Such is the earliest account of the famous battle of Loncarty.
There can be little doubt about its real occurrence, and it was
fought probably upon the occasion of one of the earlier inroads
of the Northmen at the most formidable epoch of their power. The
recollection of a great victory gained upon this spot would long be
preserved in the traditions of the surrounding neighbourhood, but for
the circumstantial narrative embellishing the pages of Boece, that
ingenious historian was probably indebted to the same sources from
which he procured such accurate information about the elaborate machine
for accomplishing the vengeance of Finella.[110]
_Constantine the Third_ 995–997.
_Kenneth the Third_ 997–1005.
The assassination of Kenneth at Fettercairn raised Colin’s son
Constantine to the throne of Scotland. The last inheritor of the blood
of the second Constantine, his reign, like his father’s, was short and
troubled, as he lost his life two years after his accession, in a vain
attempt to resist the pretensions of Kenneth MacDuff.[111] [Sidenote:
A. D. 997.] Upon the extinction of the Scottish branch of the “Clan
Aodh MacKenneth,” the radical defect of the old system of succession
was at once developed in the immediate division of the “Clan
Constantine MacKenneth,”--hitherto united by a common enmity,--into
two hostile “factions,” headed respectively by the grandsons of the
first Malcolm. Nothing whatever is recorded of the reign of Kenneth the
Third, sometimes known as Grim or Græme, a name supposed to signify
the profession of great strength, or a certain sternness of character.
The chronicles are silent beyond the barren facts of his accession
and death, [Sidenote: A. D. 1005.] placing the latter at Monaghvaird
in Strathearn, where his defeat eight years after his victory over
Constantine raised his cousin Malcolm, the son of Kenneth the Second,
to the vacant throne of Scotland.[112]
_Malcolm the Second._ 1005–1034.
In imitation apparently of the example of his father, Malcolm
signalized his accession by one of those inroads upon Northumbria
which point significantly to the gradual extension of the Scottish
kingdom on her southern frontier. Borne down by the weight of years,
Ealdorman Waltheof, shutting himself up within the walls of Bamborough,
placidly let the storm sweep by; but his son Uchtred, who had married
the daughter of the bishop, was neither of an age nor of a temperament
to look quietly on while the broad lands he had received in dowry with
his bride were wasted by the northern invaders. Summoning the men of
Northumberland and Yorkshire to join his standard, he soon collected
a numerous force, [Sidenote: A. D. 1006.] and suddenly attacking
Malcolm before the gates of Durham drove him from the territory of St.
Cuthbert.[113]
The next step of the victorious Uchtred affords a singular example of
the manners of the age. Severing from the bodies of the fallen Scots
a sufficient number of the best-looking heads, he committed them to
the charge of four women, each of whom was to receive a cow in payment
for plaiting the hair and arraying to the best advantage these grim
relics of the foe, which were then placed on stakes at equal intervals
around the walls of Durham, to answer the double purpose of striking
terror into any future band of marauding Scots, and of recalling to the
grateful townsmen the services of their brave deliverer. Having cleared
the country of the enemy and seen to the arrangement of his revolting
trophies, Uchtred bore to Ethelred the welcome news of his victory, and
was rewarded for his gallantry with the hand of the king’s daughter--he
seems to have had neither scruple nor difficulty in releasing himself
from his former wife--as well as with a grant of the _eorldom_
of the Yorkshire Danes, in addition to his father’s _ealdordom_
beyond the Tyne.[114]
About the same time as Malcolm’s disaster before Durham, Finlay
MacRory, who had succeeded his brother Malbride in the chieftainship of
Moray,--in the words of the Norwegian Saga--“marked out a battle-field
for Jarl Sigurd on Skida Moor.” To decline the proffered contest would
have been disgraceful, but the Jarl had serious doubts about the
result, for he was afraid that the Scots would outnumber him; and as
his followers were infected with a similar misgiving, they murmured at
the risk until Sigurd promised to restore the Odal privileges which
their ancestors had resigned in the days of Einar Rognwaldson. On
this agreement they followed him with alacrity, and to increase their
confidence Sigurd bore with him one of those mystic banners, so famous
amongst the ancient Northmen, wrought in the form of a flying raven
whose wings expanded in the wind. It was the work of the Jarl’s mother,
the daughter of the Irish Kerval, and upon it she had expended all the
magic lore for which she was renowned, promising victory to all who
followed, but death to him who bore it. On this occasion the charm was
successful, three warriors who carried the fated standard falling one
after the other in the battle; but Jarl Sigurd won the day, and the
Bonders of Orkney were rewarded for their valour by the restitution of
their Odal privileges.[115]
The success of Sigurd against the Moray Mormaor, far from embroiling
him with Malcolm, appears to have been rather gratifying to the
Scottish king, who immediately gave him the hand of his younger
daughter in marriage; and from this union sprung Thorfin Sigurdson, who
upon the death of his father in the memorable battle of Clontarf, was
immediately confirmed by Malcolm in the mainland earldom of Sutherland
and Caithness, whilst the Orkneys and other island possessions fell to
the share of the elder sons of Sigurd.[116]
Soon after Malcolm had thus established his grandson in the northern
extremity of his kingdom, an opportunity again occurred for extending
his dominions on the Northumbrian frontier, which ever since the days
of Indulf had been the object of the aggressions of the Scottish kings.
The sceptre of a great nation was fast escaping from the feeble grasp
of Ethelred, and Uchtred, the opponent of Malcolm’s earlier years,
after twice submitting to the Danish invaders, had been put to death
with the connivance of Canute from mingled motives of policy and
revenge.[117] The guardianship of the northern frontiers then fell
into the hands of Eadulf Cudel, the imitator of the supineness of his
father Waltheof, rather than of the energy of his brother Uchtred.
He could expect but little assistance from the Yorkshire Danes, who
upon the death of Uchtred had been placed under the authority of their
countryman Eric, and as the distracted state of Northumbria was not
lost upon Malcolm, twelve years after his former disaster, collecting
his followers for a second invasion, he prepared to exact a fearful
retribution for the trophies mouldering around the walls of Durham.
[Sidenote: A. D. 1018.]
During thirty days and nights, a comet, a baleful and ill-omened
prodigy in the eyes of the Northumbrians of the eleventh century,
blazed forth, a presage of impending woe; and when the men of St.
Cuthbert’s joined their countrymen at Carham, on the banks of the
Tweed, it was only to participate in the disasters of a defeat, and
to perish in multitudes in a disorderly flight. The aged bishop sunk
under the shock, dying within a few days of the battle, and such was
the confusion throughout the diocese of St. Cuthbert’s that for three
years no successor was elected. Despairing of resistance against the
power of the conqueror, Eadulf Cudel purchased an inglorious peace
at the price of relinquishing Lothian, the whole of ancient Bernicia
beyond the Tweed was ceded to the Scottish king, and Malcolm returned
in triumph to the north, having effectually obliterated the remembrance
of his failure by a more brilliant and substantial success than any of
his predecessors had hitherto achieved.[118]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1031.]
Towards the close of his life, and about thirteen years after his
successful invasion of Northumbria, Malcolm was brought into contact
with the most formidable antagonist that ever crossed his path, for
upon his return from Rome, Canute, now king of England, Denmark, and
Norway, marched with an army to the north, and both kings met upon the
frontiers of their respective dominions. As no allusion is made to the
cause which led to the expedition of Canute, it would be impossible to
determine whether it had any reference to Malcolm’s acquisition of
Lothian. A brief notice in the Saxon chronicle--all that is known of
the transaction--barely records that Malcolm met Canute, “bowed to his
power, and became his man, retaining his allegiance for a very short
time.” Canute with his army returned to the south, and the results of
the meeting faded away with the retreating footsteps of the mighty
Dane.[119]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1033]
Amongst the latest notices of this reign contained in the Irish annals,
an action is recorded of Malcolm, towards the close of his career,
which clearly demonstrates his determined purpose to transmit the regal
dignity to his own immediate descendants. According to the rule of
alternate succession hitherto observed amongst the Scots--a rule which
the later princes had invariably attempted to violate--the next king
after Malcolm’s death ought to have been chosen from the family of his
predecessor Kenneth. Boedhe, the late king’s son, was no longer living,
but he had left a son whose name is no longer preserved, the last male
representative of his race, and perhaps the Tanist, or heir apparent of
the king. The death of this prince is attributed to Malcolm, whose aim
it is evident in this deed of violence was to remove from the path of
his grandson Duncan the sole rival claimant of the throne.[120] In this
he was completely successful, no opposition awaiting his grandson when
he was called soon afterwards to reign; nor had Duncan long to wait for
the crown, for in the following year [Sidenote: A. D. 1034.] Malcolm
was assassinated at Glammis, in the same province of Angus which forty
years before had proved so fatal to his father.[121]
Of the direct male line of Kenneth MacAlpin, Malcolm the Second was
the last and greatest king, his renown extending to the neighbouring
countries, and procuring for him the title amongst the Irish annalists
of the “Lord and Father of the West.” He enlarged and consolidated his
ancestral dominions, advancing the frontier from the Pentland Hills to
the Tweed, and effecting an object that his predecessors had vainly
attempted--the transmission of the kingdom to his own immediate family.
The means employed for this purpose, it is to be feared, were neither
scrupulous nor just; but the annals of every country at this period
prove but too clearly that it was an age in which neither the ties of
relationship, nor indeed any other ties, were proof against the lust of
ambition.
Scotland had now reached her permanent and lasting frontier towards the
south, the dependent principality of Strath Clyde having apparently,
during the course of this reign, been finally incorporated with the
greater kingdom. When Donald, son of the Eogan who shared in the bloody
fight of Brunanburgh, died on a pilgrimage in 975, he seems to have
been succeeded by his son Malcolm, whose death is noticed by the Irish
Tighernach under the date of 997.[122] The last king of Strath Clyde
who has found a place in history is Eogan “the bald,” who fought by
the side of the Scottish king at Carham,[123] probably a son of the
British Malcolm whose family name he bears; and in the person of this
Eogan the line of Aodh’s son Donald appears to have become extinct. The
earliest authorities of the twelfth century give the title of “king
of the Cumbrians,” meaning undoubtedly the northern Cumbria or Strath
Clyde, to Malcolm’s grandson Duncan, and it is probable that upon the
failure of the line of Scoto-British princes, the king of Scotland
placed his grandson over the province, which from that time, losing the
last semblance of independence, ceased to be ruled by a separate line
of princes.[124]
To Malcolm the Second has sometimes been attributed the foundation
of an Episcopal See at Mortlach, which was afterwards transferred to
Aberdeen;[125] and though as far as relates to the establishment of a
regular diocese this account must be rejected, Malcolm, in imitation of
his father’s policy in the case of Brechin, may have “given Mortlach to
the Lord;” or, in other words, he may have founded and endowed a Culdee
monastery on this spot. As the erection of a religious establishment
in those days necessarily implies the possession of the surrounding
district, if the tradition is correct which connects Mortlach with the
reign of Malcolm the Second, the plains of Lothian were not his only
conquest; and, in the same manner as Kenneth acquired Angus, he must
have annexed to the dominions of the Scottish crown some portion of
the ancient kingdom which once aspired to be the leading principality
amongst the Pictish provinces of the north.[126]
Certain other changes are attributed to this king, which, however they
may have become warped and disguised by the _feudal_ ideas of the
authorities in whose pages they are found, when they are considered
in connection with the actual historical events of the period,
undoubtedly seem to point to Malcolm’s reign as the era of a certain
advance towards the consolidation of the royal authority, such as is
distinctly traceable at different epochs in many other countries. A
twofold bond of union existed from a very early period amongst the
communities into which the Celtic and Germanic people were divided,
and the noble, prince, or king, was followed either from the “tie of
blood,” as the actual head of the race, or from “the tie of service,”
as the lord and master who repaid all who rendered such service
according to the prevalent customs of the age; and as the former tie
was at the root of the _allodial_, so out of the latter gradually
arose the theory of the _feudal_ system. Originally the tie of blood
united freeman with freeman, whilst the tie of service connected the
free with the unfree, but as inequality of rank grew up from various
causes, the lesser freeman was glad to “take service” with the greater
in return for his protection and support, thus forming the class known
as _Gasinds_ (or _Gesiths_) amongst the Germans, and amongst the Gael
apparently in early times as _Amasach_--a word evidently akin to the
old Celtic _Ambact_--who were either quartered temporarily upon the
unfree tenantry of their patron as military retainers, or at a later
period frequently exercised a delegated authority over the crown lands
as _Grafs_, _Gerefas_, or _Maors_. As the royal power was increased by
acquisitions at the expense of a neighbouring state, or as the head
of one community acquired a permanent superiority over the rest, the
importance and numbers of the royal _Gasinds_ and _Amasach_ increased
proportionally, and very frequently, instead of the original usage,
according to which the greater part of the newly acquired territory
would have been portioned out more or less permanently amongst the
conquerors, as _Allod_, _Odal_, or _Duchas_, land--untaxed freehold
held by right of blood--as it was more advantageous to the sovereign
to reserve as much as possible for the use of the crown, the older
proprietary were retained as a tributary class, remaining undisturbed
under the authority of the Gasinds and Amasach, who, acting as royal
deputies, collected the king’s rents and led his dependants to
battle, reserving for their “service” a certain portion of the royal
dues, almost invariably a third. Such was the original tenure of the
_Graphiones_ of the early Frank kings, of the Ealdormen and Eorls,
amongst the Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Danes, and of the royal Jarls
established by Harald Harfagar and other kings throughout the north;
in short, it was, in early times, the universal tenure of the royal
_official_, before “knight service” and the _feud_ gradually superseded
nearly every other tenure amongst the nobility.[127]
In Scotland, the royal official placed over the crown or fiscal lands
appears to have been originally known as the _Maor_ (the type of the
royal _Maer_ amongst the Cymri), and latterly under the Teutonic
appellation of Thane, either a corrupted form of the Gaelic Ti’ern, or
a title like _Earl_, arising from the prevalence of Anglo-Saxon law
and technical phraseology after the introduction of feudalism; for the
feudalism introduced by David and his successors, though Anglo-Norman,
was very much based upon the Anglo-Saxon, or what was much the same,
the Lothian law and customs. The epithet of Thanage was applied as well
to the office as to the district over which it was exercised, of which
the old Scottish name may have been _Triocha-ced_ or _Cantred_, a name
long equivalent amongst the Irish to a _barony_.[128] The offices of
_Maer_ and _Cynghellwr_ (or judge), amongst the Welsh, could never be
conferred upon the head of a clan (or _Pencenedyl_), the same maxim
of policy very probably being equally in force in Scotland, for it
is in strict accordance with the immemorial Celtic principle “divide
et impera;” though it may be equally referable to the invariable
hostility of early royalty to _Allodial_ or _Duchas_ tenure from its
independence of the sovereign authority. The original Thanage then
would appear to have been a district held of the Crown, differing but
little except in tenure, from a tract of land held by _Duchas_ right;
the holder, Maor or Thane, being accountable for the collection of
the royal dues, and for the appearance of the royal tenantry at the
yearly “hosting,” and answering to the hereditary _Toshach_ or captain
of a clan--for the king stood in the place of the _Cen-cinneth_, or
chief--whilst the official who acted as judge, and was subsequently
known as the _Deempster_ (the Welsh _Cynghellwr_) represented the
hereditary _Brehon_ of the tribe, the place of the lesser _Duchasach_
or _Brugaidhs_ being generally supplied in course of time by the
kinsmen of the Thane, planted on the Thanage to hold under the head
of their race as _Ogtierns_, Mesne lords, or Vavassours.[129] The
theory of “a _Toshach_ over every _Triocha-ced_, and a _Brugaidh_ over
every _Baile_,” was equally familiar to the Irish Gael, and as the tie
uniting the officials with the population of the whole Thanage was
“service,” not “blood,” the Thane was often known amongst his followers
as their _Toshach_ or captain, rather than their _Cen-cinneth_ or chief
by right of blood.[130]
When lands were strictly retained in the crown, the Royal Thane or Maor
was answerable directly to the king, but there was a still greater
official amongst the Scots, untraceable apparently in his peculiar
Scottish characteristics amongst the kindred Welsh and Irish, known
under the title of the _Mormaor_ or Lord High Steward. One example
of the peculiar tenure of the Mormaor was still existing in the
thirteenth century in the Earl of Fife; for when the second Alexander
and his “Parliament” levied fines upon all who had failed in their
attendance on the occasion of his expedition against “Donald MacNiel of
the Isles,” the earls and their “serjeants” were strictly prohibited
from entering the lands of any “tenant _in capite_”--holding
directly of the king--to exact the penalty imposed, excepting only the
Earl of Fife, who exercised this privilege throughout his district, not
as the Earl, but as the Royal _Maor_ of the county of Fife, “to
claim his rights,” or, in other words, to secure his allotted portion
of the mulct.[131] The ancient Scottish Mormaor, then, was evidently
a Maor placed over a province instead of a thanage--an earldom or
country instead of a barony--a type of Harfager’s royal Jarl, who often
exercised as a royal deputy that authority which he had originally
claimed as the independent lord of the district over which he presided.
This change was rendered very popular amongst the aristocracy of the
north, from the great increase of wealth they derived through retaining
a third of the tribute exacted in the king’s name from the classes
hitherto untaxed; and similar considerations may have exercised an
influence in facilitating the conversion of the semi-independent
Gaelic _Oirrigh_ into a dependent, but probably far wealthier,
_Mormaor_.
The existence of the royal Maor and Mormaor--officials in direct
dependence on the king, and resembling the royal Jarls and Lendermen
amongst the Northmen, or the king’s Ealdorman and Gerefa amongst the
Anglo-Saxons--implies a greater consolidation and compactness in the
Scottish monarchy than was ever attained amongst the kindred Celts of
Ireland or Wales; and it is to the policy pursued during the reigns
of Malcolm and his father Kenneth that this result is probably to be
attributed. The Maor, indeed, was an official familiar to the Gaelic
people long before the era of Kenneth and Malcolm, and he probably
played an important part in the conquered provinces annexed by the
elder Angus and his successors; but the Mormaor--the head of a province
ruling as a royal deputy instead of an independent prince--points to
a revolution in the tenure of land resembling the changes introduced
by Harfager, when he cancelled “_Odal_ right” wherever he could
extend his authority, and levied _land-tax_ by means of his Jarls
and Lendermen; and it was a revolution of this description that may
possibly have been carried out in the course of Malcolm’s reign and
that of his father. Scotland, according to Fordun, was portioned out
in ancient times into Thanages, or Fee-farms paying rent, held of
course of the crown--for any other theory was incompatible with the
ideas of the feudal era--until Malcolm, remitting the rents, gave away
the whole kingdom, only reserving to himself the Moot Hill of Scone,
when in return for the royal prodigality his people confirmed their
sovereign’s right to wardship, relief, and other feudal privileges.
Lurking under this singular statement there are probably some grains
of truth, thoroughly misunderstood by the chronicler; and as in the
partition of Scotland into Thanages a tradition may be recognized of
its ancient division into _Triocha-ceds_ and _Bailes_, or Baronies
and Townlands--institutions of a character inseparable from the very
existence of a _settled_ community--so the reduction of the kingdom of
Scotland as it then existed to a more direct dependence upon the royal
authority, entailing land-tax, _merchet_, and other Celtic mulcts, in
quarters hitherto exempt from such exactions, seems to be shadowed out
under the _feudal_ grant of the whole kingdom and the _feudal_ return
made by the gratitude of the Scottish people. Like Wales and Ireland,
the whole kingdom was probably divided in theory into _Triocha-ceds_,
_Cantreds_, or Thanages, the tribe lands held by chieftains as untaxed
_Duchas_, the crown-lands by Maors or Thanes answerable for the rents
and dues; and if Malcolm, by cancelling “_Duchas_ right” as far as
it lay in his power, assimilated the tenure of the whole kingdom to
that of the royal Maor, or, in other words, taxed the hitherto untaxed
_Duchasach_, he only brought about the same change which Harfager had
already effected in Norway, and which the ministers of the Frank kings
were continually aiming at five or six centuries before his era. As the
Thanage was evidently regarded in feudal times as the ancient Scottish
tenure throughout the whole kingdom, some such change must have been
introduced upon the older state of society before the establishment
of the feudal system, and both tradition and history seem to point to
the second Malcolm as the sovereign who first carried out successfully
a revolution so important for the aggrandizement of the royal
authority.[132]
An apocryphal collection of laws, relating principally to the
regulation of the court, has been also ascribed to the same king; and
though the laws are unquestionably fabrications, it is not impossible
that they were framed in a feudal era to represent the regulations
which Malcolm was traditionally supposed to have enacted. The
promulgation of a code of laws necessarily involves the acquiescence of
all who submit to be bound by them in the supremacy of the lawgiver;
and when a king is said to have established or re-enacted such a code,
it may be regarded as an indirect proof of a certain stability in the
authority thus centred in the royal person. When “the Gael” assembled
at Forteviot to ratify with their king, Donald, the laws of his
ancestor Aodh the Fair, and when they gathered round the Moot Hill of
Scone, to confirm perhaps with Constantine the privileges conferred by
Cyric on the See of St. Andrews, the superiority of the dynasty, whose
representative presided in these assemblies, was evidently acknowledged
by all who attended at their summons. The establishment of a court, the
enhancement of the dignity of personal attendance on the sovereign,
and the regulation of the duties and privileges attached to such
service, point again to a further advance of the royal power, and to a
certain increase in the kingly dignity attendant upon a fixed court and
residence; marking as it were an approach to the gradual conversion of
a _migratory_ king quartering himself during his yearly progresses
upon the provincial aristocracy, and upon the stewards of the royal
manors, into a _stationary_ monarch, summoning his dependent
nobility to attend upon their sovereign’s person in his own court and
palace. The laws of Howel Dha, relating entirely to the duties and
privileges of “the Court of Aberfraw,” and the similar arrangements of
the Norwegian Olaf, probably have reference to the commencement or the
progress of a revolution of this description; and if the apocryphal
regulations of the Scottish court may be regarded as the _feudal_
embodiment of a true tradition, Malcolm may be looked upon as the
originator of that change through which the Scottish king, ceasing
gradually to migrate from one province to another, enhanced the dignity
of personal attendance upon the sovereign, and assembled his nobility
in his own “palace” of Scone.
CHAPTER V.
THE LINE OF ATHOLL.
_Duncan the First_--1034–1040.
Upon the death of Malcolm the Second the direct male line of Kenneth
MacAlpin became extinct; but the rights of the royal race, originally
inherited through the female line, were transmitted in the same manner
through heiresses to the two great families of Atholl and Moray, whose
disputes for the crown were destined to become as fruitful a source of
strife and bloodshed as the sanguinary struggle between their immediate
ancestors, or the earlier feuds between the lines of Constantine and
Aodh.
Boedhe, the death of whose son has been already noticed, left a
daughter, Gruoch, who, by her marriage with Gilcomgain, the son of
Malbride MacRory, carried the claims of the line of Duff, after the
death of her brother, into the family of the Moray Mormaors. Finlay
MacRory, the antagonist of Sigurd Lodverson, lost his life in a feud
with his nephews Malcolm and Gilcomgain, to the former of whom the
earldom reverted according to the Gaelic rule of succession, until his
death in 1029, when it fell into the possession of his younger brother
Gilcomgain. Three years later the Mormaor was surprised and burnt in
his _Rath_ or fortress, with fifty of his immediate followers,
leaving an infant son, Lulach, who, after the death of Boedhe’s son in
the following year became the sole remaining representative of the
line of Kenneth Macduff. Gruoch, the widow of Gilcomgain, was married
eventually to Macbeth MacFinlay,[133] who had succeeded her late
husband and his own cousin in the Mormaorship of Moray, when, as the
husband of Gruoch and the guardian of the infant Lulach, Macbeth became
the representative during the minority of the latter of his claims upon
the crown of Scotland.
Bethoc, or Beatrice, the eldest of the late king’s daughters, carried
her claims to the race of Atholl by her marriage with Crinan, Abbot of
Dunkeld, who was also the head of the Atholl family.[134] Their son
was Duncan, the heir and successor of his grandfather, who, before his
accession to the throne of Scotland, had been placed by Malcolm over
the dependent province of Strath Clyde.
Another of Malcolm’s daughters, a younger sister of Beatrice, married
Sigurd Lodverson soon after his victory over the Mormaor Finlay, the
father of Macbeth, when it was evidently the object of the late king
to secure the alliance of the Orkney Jarl as a formidable rival to the
hostile family of Moray. [Sidenote: A. D. 1014.] After the fall of
Sigurd in the battle of Clontarf, his son Thorfin, as has been already
mentioned, when a mere child, was placed by his grandfather over the
earldom of Sutherland and Caithness, whilst the Orkneys were inherited
by his three half-brothers, Einar, Somarled, and Brusi. Upon the death
of Somarled, a few years later, Thorfin claimed a share of the islands,
when Einar prepared to resist his pretensions by force, but through
the intervention of the other brother, Brusi, Thorfin succeeded in
attaining his object, and in this manner he first acquired a footing in
the Orkneys.
Einar perished shortly afterwards in a feud, when a fresh difficulty
arose upon his death about the division of his portion of the islands.
Brusi, fearful lest king Malcolm, who was then alive, should support
the claims of his grandson, determined upon enlisting the king of
Norway in his own behalf, and for this purpose he sailed for the latter
country, whither he was soon followed by Thorfin, who thought with much
justice (to use the words of the Saga), “that though he stood well with
Olaf, and many would support him in his absence, many more would do so
if he were present.” Before the arrival of his younger brother, Brusi
had already resigned his Odal rights into the hands of Olaf, agreeing
to be bound by the royal decision, and to hold all his lands as a
_Lenderman_ or royal Jarl at the will and pleasure of the king.
When a similar resignation was demanded from Thorfin, he hesitated at
first to acquiesce in any such arrangement; but after consulting with
his friends he agreed with such alacrity to every proposition of Olaf,
that the suspicions of the king were aroused, and deciding that Einar’s
portion had reverted to the Norwegian crown, he restored it to Brusi,
relying more upon the fidelity of the elder brother than upon the
youthful but ambitious Thorfin.
The pacific Brusi soon found reason to complain of his brother,
after their return to the Orkneys, for neglecting to contribute his
allotted portion towards the defence of the islands; as Thorfin,
residing continually on the mainland, was satisfied with limiting his
connection with his insular fiefs to the punctual exaction of his dues.
The younger Jarl offered to rectify his neglect, by taking the whole
trouble out of the hands of his elder brother, on condition that the
latter in return should surrender the disputed share; and as peace, not
power, was the object of the indolent Brusi, he willingly purchased
it at the price of insignificance, and at his death, which occurred
about the year 1030, Thorfin, [Sidenote: A. D. 1030.] without further
scruple, annexed the whole of the Orkneys to his dominions.[135]
Such was the state of Scotland when Duncan the First succeeded to
the throne of his grandfather. In the extreme north, dominions more
extensive than any Jarl of the Orkneys had hitherto acquired, were
united under the rule of Thorfin Sigurdson, whose character and
appearance have been thus described--“He was stout and strong, but
very ugly, severe and cruel, but a very clever man.” The extensive
districts then dependant upon the Moray Mormaors were in the possession
of the celebrated Macbeth, and though the power of those northern
magnates must undoubtedly have been weakened by the aggressions of the
Norwegian Jarls, it tells not a little for the energy and vigour of
the late king, that his grandson was able to ascend the throne without
encountering any opposition from the formidable representative of the
claims of the rival family.
The early portion of Duncan’s reign is void of incident, but, before
long, the mainland possessions of Thorfin appear to have become an
object of dispute, the king demanding the usual tribute due from a
dependancy of Scotland, whilst the Jarl denied the justice of his
claim, maintaining that he held his earldom by Odal right, as an
absolute and unconditional gift from their joint grandfather Malcolm.
At length Duncan, to punish his kinsman’s contumacy and assert the
rights of the crown, determined upon appointing another member of
his family, Moddan or Madach, to replace Thorfin in the earldom, and
dispatching Madach with an army to the north, he empowered him to take
possession of the royal grant.[136] [Sidenote: A. D. 1040.] Much about
the same time, the Scottish king, desirous of extending the conquests
of his grandfather towards the south, laid siege to Durham, but the
town was destined to become as fatal to the hopes of Duncan as it had
once been disastrous to those of Malcolm, a sudden and unexpected sally
spread confusion amongst the besieging army, and again the heads of
the Scottish slain were ranged in triumph around the hostile walls of
Durham.[137]
Madach had been equally unsuccessful in his attempt upon the earldom
of Thorfin. Warned of the approach of his rival, the Jarl summoned
Thorkell Fostri to join him with the Orkneymen in Caithness, and
Madach, perceiving that an engagement with their united forces would
only be attended with a disastrous result, retreated southwards for
reinforcements, whilst Thorfin availed himself of the opportunity
to overrun the neighbouring district of Ross. Intelligence of his
proceedings reached the king at Berwick, deciding him to march at once
towards the north, in order to support in person his grant of the
earldom to Madach. It appears to have been Duncan’s object to cut off
Thorfin from the Orkneys, thus preventing his junction with Thorkell
Fostri and his Norwegians, whom the Jarl, on the retreat of his rival,
had permitted to return to the islands; and to carry out his purpose,
he despatched Madach towards Caithness with the land army, whilst with
eleven vessels he sailed round Duncansby Head to interpose his ships
between the Jarl and his island home; hoping thus either to force him
to fight at a disadvantage with the superior numbers of Madach, or to
drive him southwards upon those Highland districts which were less well
affected to his cause.
The sight of Duncan’s sails in the Pentland Firth conveyed to Thorfin
the earliest intelligence of his enemy’s approach, and, baffled in
an attempt to put to sea, and thus escape to Sandwick, he was forced
to lie off Dyrness for the night and to await the king’s attack on
the following morning.[138] The ships of Thorfin were laden with the
plunder of the northern provinces of Scotland, and his men fought so
desperately in defence of their booty, that the king was beaten off
and obliged to make for the coast of Moray, whither he was speedily
followed by the united forces of Thorfin and Thorkell Fostri; the Jarl
watching the movements of Duncan and collecting reinforcements from
Caithness, Sutherland, and Ross, whilst he dispatched Thorkell to
surprise Madach, who had now reached Thurso, where he was resting in
unguarded security. The fidelity of the men of Caithness ably seconded
the projects of their Jarl, so effectually concealing the approach
of Thorkell, that the first notice of danger was conveyed to the
unfortunate Madach by the flames of his burning house, and he perished
in a vain attempt to burst through the ranks of his enemies, and escape
from the blazing ruins.
The Scottish king was still occupied in the province of Moray, where
he appears to have assembled a considerable force, to which Ireland
contributed her share. Strengthened by the return of Thorkell Fostri,
and by the arrival of the friendly clans from the Highland districts
of the north and west, Thorfin crossed the Moray Firth, and assuming
the offensive, attacked the royal army, which is said to have been
stationed in the neighbourhood of Burghead.[139] Duncan was defeated
after a severe struggle, and Thorfin, following up his success,
plundered the country to the frontiers of Fife, and returned without
molestation to his northern earldom; whilst the double failure in
Northumbria and Moray hastening the catastrophe of the youthful king,
he was assassinated “in the Smith’s bothy,” near Elgin, not far from
the scene of his latest battle, the Mormaor Macbeth being the undoubted
author of his death.[140]
The reigns of this king and his predecessor have been adorned in the
pages of Buchanan and Boece with numerous victories gained over the
Northmen which were totally unknown to the earlier authorities Wynton
and Fordun. Many difficulties beset the path of the early compiler
of Scottish history. The dearth of materials; the English claims so
thoroughly interwoven with the accounts which the rival chronicler
was fain to accept for his principal authorities; the necessity under
which he lay of distinguishing the “genuine Scots”--as he considered
them--as well from the “Irishry” to the northward of “the Mounth,” as
from the English to the southward of the Tweed, all combined to render
it a matter requiring no little trouble and ingenuity to compose an
appropriate history of his country. Under these circumstances the
numerous tumuli along the coast, each marking some spot where the men
of the olden time repulsed or fell before the invaders, suggested
the groundwork of a historical fabric which might at any rate escape
much questioning; and of these memorials of bygone conflicts Boece
has availed himself without scruple. Lords of the Isles and Thanes of
Strathearn valiantly sustain the contest against Sueno or Camus, Olave
or Onetus; and at a time when surnames were as yet unknown, a Keith
or a Hay, a Graham or a Dunbar, revives the failing courage of his
countrymen and points the way to victory. The fate of Loncarty must
attend upon the triumphs of Malcolm and his grandson. The crumbling
bones of the dead bear faithful witness to the reality of the battles,
but the circumstances and the characters called into existence by the
pen of Boece, must fade away from the page of history, and pass into
the realm of fiction.[141]
THE LINE OF MORAY.
_Macbeth_ 1040–1058.
_Lulach_ 1058.
[Sidenote: A. D. 1040.]
Very few kings of so remote a period have attained to the undying
celebrity of Macbeth. As long as the English language endures, his name
will be as widely known as that of the great Alfred, his character will
retain the familiar features impressed on it by the magic genius of
Shakspeare, and it will be as impossible to disentangle the historical
personage from the weird being of romance, as to picture “the meek and
hoary Duncan,” a young and inexperienced prince, meeting his untimely
fate in the flower of youth.
The quaint verses of the prior of Lochleven have embodied some of
the tales and traditions handed down by the partizans of the rival
families; and it will create little surprise to find that in a state
of society in which “the rights of blood” were paramount, the stigma
of illegitimacy was freely cast upon both competitors for the crown.
Wyntoun has recorded how Duncan, wearied with the chase, and separated
from his usual attendants, found rest and shelter within the humble
mill of Forteviot; how love bade the king return where chance had
shown the way; and how Malcolm, whose blood has flowed in the veins of
every English and Scottish king but Stephen, from the days of Henry
Beauclerc, sprung from this intrigue with the “milnare’s dowchtyr of
Fortewyot.” As the taint upon the blood of Malcolm was supposed to be
inherited from his mother, so the stain upon the pedigree of Macbeth
was attributed to the Mormaor’s father; and in the same old verses
it may be read how the mother of the Moray chieftain, wandering by
chance in the woods, met with “ane fayr man, nevyr nane sa fayre as
scho thowcht than,” and how Macbeth was born “the Dewil’s sone,” and
the inheritor of all his father’s evil propensities. As the talisman
of success was eventually upon the side of Malcolm, so the tales of
the tyranny and crimes of his antagonist increased and multiplied,
until they assumed the well-known form in the pages of Boece, which,
copied into the chronicle of Holinshed, attracted the notice of the
master-mind that has stamped the fiction with immortality.[142]
It may be gathered from the circumstances of his early life that
Macbeth did not attain even to the position of Mormaor without a
struggle. The two sons of Ruadhri--Roderic or Rory--the first known
member of the Moray family, succeeded according to the Gaelic custom,
Finlay filling the office of Tanist during the lifetime of his brother
Malbride. He was slain, as has been already mentioned, by his nephews,
who evidently intended to retain the right of succession within
their immediate branch of the family; Gilcomgain, who must have been
chosen Tanist on his brother’s accession to the Mormaordom, following
Malcolm to the exclusion of Finlay’s son, Macbeth, whose right to the
Tanistship was undoubted, and who must have thus found himself shut
out from the seniority to which he was fully entitled to aspire as
the representative of the junior branch of Rory’s family. The union
of Gilcomgain with a daughter of the MacAlpin family must have still
further strengthened his position, and as Macbeth is subsequently
entitled _Dux_ by the contemporary Marianus, it may be conjectured
that if he filled the office of _Toshach_--Duke or Constable of
the kingdom--during the reign of Duncan, it may have been conferred
upon him originally as the natural opponent of the rival line of
Kenneth MacDuff, with which the kinsman who had supplanted him was
closely connected. The last two years of Malcolm’s reign, however,
witnessed the deaths of Gilcomgain and of his wife’s brother; and
though the name of the Mormaor’s enemy is not mentioned, it is hardly
possible to doubt, that when he was surprised and burnt with fifty of
his followers, it was the deed of Macbeth avenging the murder of his
father, and re-asserting his claim upon the Mormaorship. The subsequent
death of Boedhe’s son transferred his claims upon the throne to his
sister Gruoch, whose marriage with Macbeth reversed the position in
which the Mormaor had hitherto stood, and placed him in the position
of Gilcomgain. Henceforth his interest was closely bound up with the
family to which he had hitherto been hostile, though, had Duncan
been prosperous, his fidelity might have stood the test. It was the
disastrous career of this unfortunate prince which first seems to
have aroused the ambition of Macbeth; but even then his hostility was
secret. It was not in open battle that Duncan lost his life, nor was
the crown of Scotland the prize of the victor in a hard fought field,
the final scene in “the Smith’s bothy” being strongly suggestive of
treachery.
The historical Macbeth appears to have been an able monarch, and
religious after the fashion of the age, for his reign has been handed
down in tradition as an era of fertility and prosperity--generally
a sign of the ability of the ruler; and he is recorded with his
queen amongst the earliest benefactors of the Culdee society of
Lochleven.[143] With their joint grant to the little priory is
associated the only historical mention of the true descent of the Lady
Gruoch; and the venerable Culdee who briefly registered their donation,
little thought that, in entering the simple notice, he was perpetuating
the sole record of the real nature of the claims of his benefactors
upon the throne they were accused of usurping. His liberality to the
poor of Rome is also mentioned by a contemporary historian; but in
such a manner as to leave it a matter of doubt whether the king was
ever present in person at the Eternal City.[144]
For five years after the fall of Duncan his successful rival reigned in
peace, when an attempt was made by the adherents of the late king to
regain their lost ascendancy. [Sidenote: A. D. 1045.] The children of
Duncan were still in their infancy, and their cause was sustained by
their grandfather, Crinan, the aged abbot of Dunkeld; but his defeat
and death, “with nine times twenty warriors,” extinguished for a time
the hopes of the House of Atholl, and only served to secure the throne
more firmly in the power of Macbeth.[145] Seven years elapsed and
the fortunes of the House of Moray were still in the ascendant, when
several of the Confessor’s Norman favourites, [Sidenote: A. D. 1052.]
who were driven from England on the return of Earl Godwin, fled for
refuge beyond the Tweed,[146] and the asylum granted to the fugitives
at Macbeth’s Court may have afforded a pretext for the hostility of
Siward, who, two years later, invaded the dominions of the Scottish
king. [Sidenote: A. D. 1054.] The whole force of the Northumbrian
provinces collected around the banner of the Danish earl, and attacked
Macbeth on the day of “the Seven Sleepers;” [Sidenote: 27th July.]
fifteen hundred of the Anglo-Danes fell in the contest, with the son
and nephew of the earl, but Siward gained the day, slew three thousand
of the enemy--the detested Normans amongst the number--and carried off
a booty unprecedented in the annals of Border warfare.[147]
The great success of the Anglo-Danish earl is generally supposed to
have reinstated Malcolm on the throne, but no such inference can be
drawn from the accounts of contemporary writers, by whom no allusion
is made to the Scottish prince; the espousal of the suppliant’s cause
by the Confessor, and the directions given by the saintly king to
Siward to re-establish the heir of Duncan in his ancestral kingdom,
only appearing in the pages of the Anglo-Norman chroniclers for
the purpose of indirectly furthering the subsequent feudal claims
of the English kings. As the rout of the Scottish army before the
walls of Durham, and their subsequent contest with Thorfin Sigurdson
hastened the catastrophe of the first king of the House of Atholl,
so the unsuccessful issue of his encounter with Earl Siward may have
eventually proved fatal to the Mormaor; but Macbeth held his ground
for four years, and the grave had long closed over the Danish earl,
[Sidenote: A. D. 1058.] when the defeat and death of his former
antagonist at Lumphanan, in Aberdeenshire, removed the first obstacle
from the path of the youthful Malcolm.[148] For three or four months
the contest still continued to be maintained by Gilcomgain’s son
Lulach, the feeble successor of his able kinsman, until his death at
Essie in Strathbogie, where he is said to have been betrayed, or to
have lost his life through some stratagem of his enemies, put an end
for the time to the struggle between the rival houses, and the heir of
Duncan without further difficulty obtained possession of the vacant
throne.[149]
CHAPTER VI.
THE LINE OF ATHOLL RESTORED.
_Malcolm the Third (Ceanmore)._ 1058–1093.
Three centuries had now elapsed since the conquests of the Pictish
Angus established the supremacy of his native province, and laid the
foundation of the future kingdom of Scotland. During the earlier
portion of this period no addition had been made to the territories
of the reigning family, the lords of the southern capital of
_Dunfothir_ contenting themselves with the vague dignity of
“Ardrigh of Alban,” and with excluding from the privileges of “a royal
race” the rival chieftains of _Dundurn_. The incursions of the
Northmen, above all the conquests of Thorstein Olaveson, weakened the
power of the southern kingdom, and by exhibiting the almost forgotten
spectacle of a prince of Dundurn sharing the throne of Scotland with a
scion of the royal race, resuscitated the hopes of the northern tribes;
the deaths of three kings of the MacAlpin dynasty in the province
of Moray testifying to the obstinacy with which the people of that
district continued to resist the pretensions of the southern family to
the right of _Can_ and _Cuairt_ throughout the north. But
the rise of the Jarls of the Orkneys again turned the scale in favour
of the south, and from the time when the second Kenneth favoured the
claims of Thorfin’s family upon the mainland earldom of their maternal
ancestor, Forres ceased to be fatal to his race, and he was at leisure
to carry out his projects against the heir of Finella, and to make
the first actual addition to the territories of the Scottish kings by
bringing the eastern coasts into a more direct dependancy upon the
crown. The “Bishopric of the Scots,” co-extensive in jurisdiction with
the royal power, henceforth reached to the Dee, and the fatality to the
royal race was transferred to the eastern provinces; for the struggle
was no longer in the north until the old rivalry again broke out on the
rupture of the alliance with the Orkney Jarl.
The fatality attending the northern districts never seems to have
extended to the junior branch of the reigning dynasty, whose alliances
and expeditions were essentially connected with the south and west.
It was over Strath Clyde that Constantine endeavoured to extend his
influence; Northumbria was the province from which Indulf wrested
Edinburgh; whilst Lothian, or the British frontiers, were fatal to
Colin and his brother Eocha. Hence it may be gathered that they were
the southern branch of the ruling family, the possessions of the
kindred race of Constantine the First probably bringing the latter
into more immediate contact with the northern division of the nation.
Upon the extinction of the line of Aodh in the person of Constantine
the Third, Malcolm the Second appears as the leader of the southern
interest, and whilst the children of Kenneth MacDuff eventually became
connected with the hereditary enemies of their race, Malcolm, in
pursuance of the traditional policy of the south, allied himself with
the House of Atholl, annexed Strath Clyde to the crown, and followed up
the conquests of Indulf, and the attempts of his own father, Kenneth,
upon the neighbouring possessions of the Northumbrian Ealdormen. The
preponderance of the south was greatly increased during his reign,
and as the conquests of Angus and his successors centred the royal
authority in one ruling family, so the great additions made to the
territory of the crown during the reign of Kenneth and his son Malcolm
fixed that authority in the House of Atholl. The northern policy of
these kings was reversed by their descendant Duncan, the result costing
him his crown and his life; but a period was now approaching when the
lengthened reign of an abler prince was to redeem the incapacity or
misfortunes of the first of his House, to extend the power of the crown
still further over the hostile provinces of the north, and to bequeath
to his descendants a more compact and powerful kingdom, which they were
destined gradually to knit together in the iron bonds of feudalism.
The early years of the reign of Malcolm have escaped the notice of the
chroniclers of his age, and there is nothing to be recorded beyond
the death of Thorfin Sigurdson, [Sidenote: A. D. 1064.] when the
dominions of the Jarl reverted to his two sons, whilst Ingebiorge,
his widow, became the wife of the youthful king.[150] Ever since the
days of Ethelred and Edwin, when the princes of Deira and the race
of Ida contended for the dominion of Northumbria, the territories of
the Picts and Scots had afforded a frequent asylum to all whom the
chances of war or of political intrigue banished from the land of
the Saxon; but in the troubled and distracted period then impending
over England, the neighbouring kingdom beyond the Tweed was destined
to receive a band of more than usually illustrious exiles. The first
amongst the fugitives who sought the protection of the Scottish king
was Tosti, Earl of Yorkshire and Northumberland. [Sidenote: A. D.
1061.] A friendship had long existed between the king and the earl,
who were united in the bonds of “sworn brotherhood,” a tie which seems
to have been no obstacle to the attacks of Malcolm upon the earldom of
his sworn brother when the latter was absent upon a pilgrimage to Rome;
though it may have softened the resentment of the earl, who passed over
unnoticed this foray on the people of his earldom, whom he plundered
and oppressed, on his own part, with scarcely less hostility, under a
show of rightful authority. At length in the autumn of 1065 the whole
of the north of England rose against their earl, put to death the
ministers of his tyranny--descendants of the Anglo-Danes--and chose
Morkar, the brother of Edwin, Earl of Mercia, in his place; whilst
Tosti, escaping with difficulty from the first outbreak of their fury,
took refuge with his wife at the Court of Flanders. Here he organized a
plan for winning back his earldom, and sailing along the English coasts
in the following March, he swept some booty from the Isle of Wight,
but failing in an attempt to plunder Lindesey, where he was met and
defeated by his rival Morkar, he was obliged to seek the protection of
his old ally Malcolm. The Scottish king, however, does not appear to
have shared in the intrigues of Tosti, nor did he take any part in the
memorable expedition of the Earl and Harald Hardrade against England,
resulting, [Sidenote: A. D. 1066.] as is well known, in the defeat and
death of both invaders in the battle of Stamford Bridge.[151]
Some years elapsed after his victory at Hastings before the power
of the conqueror was thoroughly established throughout the northern
provinces of England, and even then it is doubtful whether it ever
extended, except in a qualified degree, over the modern county of
Cumberland, or over Northumbria beyond the Tyne.[152] He was well aware
of the secret disaffection existing amongst the magnates of his new
people, but it formed no part of his policy to drive them in a body
into open rebellion, and they were retained in a species of honourable
captivity at his court, or accompanied him in his expeditions into
Normandy--nominally indeed as dignified retainers, but in reality as
hostages for the peace of their respective districts--whilst year after
year saw one or more of the nobles of English birth incarcerated or
put to death on one pretext or another. The vengeance of William might
be postponed, but it was never forgotten, nor did he ever pass over an
opportunity of crushing the man whom his sagacious but unsparing policy
had once marked as dangerous.
[Sidenote: A. D. 1068.]
It was to avoid some such ebullition of William’s wrath, that, in the
summer of 1068, Edgar the Atheling, with his mother and two sisters,
and many of the northern lords who had supported his claims after
the death of Harold, deemed it expedient to cross the borders into
Scotland. There appears to have been an abortive attempt at a rising
in that year in which the fugitives may have been implicated, and, to
curb the disaffection of the men of Morkar’s earldom, William built two
castles at York, garrisoning them with a strong detachment of Norman
soldiery. [Sidenote: A. D. 1069.] In the ensuing winter he dispatched
Robert Comyn, the first of a name destined to become celebrated in
the annals of the neighbouring kingdom, to preserve order amongst the
turbulent Northumbrians beyond the Tyne; [Sidenote: 28th Jan.] but the
Norman baron was surprised and slain at Durham, before he reached his
earldom, out of seven hundred of his followers but one escaping with
life. The perpetrators of this outrage then marched upon York, taking
with them Edgar, who had joined them from Scotland, and were entering
into a negotiation with the citizens of that place, when they were
discomfited by the sudden arrival of William from the south, who gave
up the city to be plundered, as a punishment for the disaffection of
its inhabitants.[153]
[Sidenote: Sept.]
The arrival of two hundred and forty ships in the Humber, under the
command of Jarl Osbern, the Danish king’s brother, summoned Edgar and
his partizans in the following autumn to make one more effort to free
their native land from the Norman yoke, even at the cost of delivering
it to the Danes; and the united armies, marching upon York, stormed
the two Norman castles, putting more than three thousand soldiers to
the sword, when the Danes, satisfied with the amount of their success,
returned at once to their ships, whilst Edgar and his adherents lost no
time in again retiring beyond the Tyne. On receiving the intelligence
of the destruction of his castles, and the lamentable slaughter of his
men, William swore to exact a fearful vengeance, and with unflinching
rigour he fulfilled his oath. He soon discovered the proper weapons for
combating Jarl Osbern, who was ready to sacrifice the interest of his
brother for his own personal emolument; and it was secretly arranged
that the hostilities of the Danish admiral should be limited during
the winter to pillaging the coast, and that in the following spring he
should return to Denmark without offering any serious opposition to the
movements of the Norman king. Secure against attack from Jarl Osbern,
William marched to the north, giving over the whole country between
the Humber and the Tyne throughout the ensuing winter to the unbridled
license of his soldiery.[154]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1070.]
With the approach of spring he returned to the south, to institute
a searching and rigorous scrutiny into the coffers of the English
monasteries; but scarcely were the inhabitants of the devastated
provinces relieved from the presence of the Norman army, than they were
destined to experience a repetition of their sufferings from a sudden
invasion of the Scots. In the confusion of the period Malcolm had
seized upon Cumberland, retaining it hitherto by open force, and its
possession enabling him to penetrate into England without crossing the
territories of his Northumbrian allies, he poured his followers down
the Vale of Teesdale into the North Riding of Yorkshire. At a spot
known as “the Hundred Springs,” long since covered by the luxuriant
woods of Castle Howard, he reached the limits of his incursion, and
dispatching homewards a portion of the army laden with the plunder of
the expedition, he sought to entice the population of the districts
which had hitherto been spared, from the caves and forests to which
they had hurriedly fled on the first tidings of his inroad. The
stratagem of the Scottish leader was only too successful, and the
miserable inhabitants of Cleveland, Hartness, and the eastern coasts
of Durham, were soon startled from their fancied security by the
unexpected approach of the very army which they had vainly imagined to
have quitted the country, and to have been already far advanced on its
homeward march towards the north.[155]
By this time, however, the confederates, in whose behalf Malcolm had
taken up arms, had ceased to be formidable to the English king. The
Danish fleet, after plundering Peterborough, quitted the English coasts
in June; and Osbern, meeting with his just reward, was banished from
the court of his indignant brother Sweyne. Not a few of the insurgents
had already made their peace with William--a similar transaction to
that which had corrupted Osbern, purchasing for Cospatric the Earldom
of Northumberland, on which he had claims through the descent of his
mother from Earl Uchtred. The rest of the Northumbrian leaders were
preparing to leave a country in which they could now no longer hope
to dwell in safety; and Malcolm, upon his arrival at Wearmouth, found
a vessel in the harbour with the Atheling on board, who, with his
mother and his sisters, Siward Beorn, Merlesweyne, and others of his
most faithful adherents, was only awaiting a favourable wind to quit
for ever his native land. The Scottish king hastened to assure the
illustrious exiles of a welcome reception at his own court, and his
offer of an asylum was readily accepted, though the courtesy of Malcolm
towards the representatives of Anglo-Saxon royalty tended very little
to alleviate the sufferings of their subjects. The work of destruction
proceeded as before, and the king was contemplating the burning ruins
of St. Peter’s Church, fired by his own retainers, when intelligence
arrived that Earl Cospatric was signalizing his newly-born fidelity
to the English king at the expense of the Scottish possessions in
Cumberland. The fury of Malcolm knew no bounds; but a few months
had elapsed since Scotland had sheltered Cospatric from William’s
vengeance; and her king, during his recent inroad, had purposely
abstained from any outrage upon the territory of Northumberland.
Hitherto plunder had been the object of the Scottish army, but
henceforth their aim was revenge; and though the walls of Bamborough
sheltered Cospatric with the spoils of wasted Cumberland, his earldom
was open to fire and sword, and dearly did its devoted inhabitants
rue the untoward zeal with which their earl had repaid his recent
appointment. No mercy was shown to either age, sex, or infancy; all who
escaped the massacre were driven in crowds along the homeward path of
the invaders; and though multitudes of the captives perished miserably
by the way, enough survived to satisfy the cupidity of their captors,
and to supply every hovel beyond the Borders with slaves of English
race.[156]
An incalculable amount of misery and loss of human life resulted from
these northern wars; for not a village was left standing between York
and Durham, nor for nine years was any attempt made at cultivation over
a space of sixty miles and upwards. _Waste_ is the term ominously
affixed in Domesday to all the possessions of Edwin, Morkar, and the
northern prelates, as well as to the lands of Waltheof and Cospatric,
of Siward Beorn, and Merlesweyne; and a province, once flourishing
and prosperous, became the haunt of beasts of prey, wild cattle, and
outlaws. To add still more to the wretchedness of the period, a partial
dearth, which had arisen from the ravages of William, was increased
by the events of the two succeeding years, until it became a famine
of the most intense description. Many sold themselves to slavery to
escape starvation; others were reduced to support life by the most
revolting substitutes for their accustomed food, such as carrion and
human flesh; houses and streets were filled with the unburied bodies
of the dead, none stopping to perform the last offices of interment;
and the roadsides were covered with dying wretches, perishing in a vain
attempt to seek a refuge in exile. Multitudes of every class abandoned
their native land during this frightful period of misery and despair;
Scotland became their asylum and adopted home, and in the veins of many
of the bravest and noblest of her sons, there flowed, in after times,
the best and purest blood of ancient Northumbria.[157]
An additional stimulus must have been afforded to this emigration by
the union of Malcolm, after his return from the south, with Margaret,
one of the sisters of the Atheling. History has left no record of the
fate of Ingebiorge, and possibly she was no longer living, though her
death is by no means necessarily to be implied from the second marriage
of Malcolm, as a laxity in the dissolution of the marriage tie was
not confined to the Gaelic people alone at that period.[158] Margaret
is said to have been at first averse to the marriage, not for any
personal dislike to her future husband, but because the misfortunes
of her country and of her family had sunk deeply into her heart,
inclining her to seek a refuge in the cloister, to which her sister
Christina subsequently retired. But the advantages of the connection
with the Scottish king were too obvious to be overlooked; her scruples
were at length overcome by her brother and his followers, and her
gentle disposition and sincere piety were destined to exercise a mild
and beneficent influence over the characters of her husband and her
youthful family.[159]
The English king was occupied during the following year in repressing
the rebellion of Edwin and Morkar, [Sidenote: A. D. 1071.]and in
crushing the attempt made by the latter earl to maintain a stand in
conjunction with Hereward, Siward Beorn, and Aylwyn bishop of Durham,
amid the fens and marshes surrounding Ely; but the invasion of Malcolm
was neither forgotten nor forgiven, and towards the close of the next
summer [Sidenote: A. D. 1072. August.] William marched to the north
with a formidable array of mounted chivalry, supported by a numerous
fleet, in the full determination of exacting vengeance, both for the
open hostility of the Scottish king, and for the support invariably
afforded in the same quarter to his disaffected subjects beyond the
Humber. If he had expected to find any of the insurgents in Scotland,
he was doomed, on this occasion, to disappointment, as they had
undoubtedly escaped elsewhere on the first rumours of the magnitude of
the expedition.[160] Edgar was apparently in Flanders,[161] a country
which, ever since the accession of Robert the Frison, had become
the asylum of all who fled from the wrath of the Conqueror; as the
connection of the count, by marriage, with the Danish and French kings,
both at enmity with the king of England, as well as the assistance
rendered by William to the nephew of Robert in his attempts upon
the appanage of his uncle, caused a ready welcome to be accorded in
Flanders to all who were disposed to assist the count in his attacks
upon the duchy of Normandy.
When William had penetrated as far as Abernethy in the county of
Fife[162] he was met by the army of his adversary; but as neither
king was really anxious to proceed to extremities, before long they
mutually agreed to the following arrangement. Malcolm received a grant
of certain manors in England, with the promise of a yearly payment of
twelve marks of gold, performing the usual homage in return for the
grant of English fiefs, and giving up Duncan, his son by his former
marriage, as a hostage for the fulfilment of his obligations.[163]
The Conqueror then retraced his steps to the south. His predominance
in the north at length established, Cospatric could be safely taxed,
both with his alleged connivance in the death of Robert Comyn, and
with his actual presence at the storm of the castles of York. Neither
of these charges had interfered with his advancement to the earldom
of Northumberland when it had been the aim of William to detach
a formidable opponent from the ranks of his enemies; nor did his
innocence of the first crime avail him now, and his fief was given to
Waltheof, whose feats at York upon the same occasion, where he long
defended the gate with his single arm, cutting down the Normans one
after another as they entered, were for the present either pardoned
or overlooked. Cospatric escaped by a timely flight, and after a
brief residence in Flanders, rejoined his countrymen in Scotland,
where he received from Malcolm, who seems to have forgotten his former
resentment against the Earl, the important fortress of Dunbar with an
ample portion of the surrounding territory, and he became the ancestor
of the noble family of Dunbar, long prominent amongst the barons of
southern Scotland as Earls of Lothian or the March.[164]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1073.]
Not long after the treaty of Abernethy, Edgar returned from the
continent to Scotland, where, though he was received with every mark
of honour and respect by his sister and her husband, Malcolm earnestly
pressed upon him the advantage of accepting the castle of Montreuil,
offered by the king of France for the purpose of establishing a
troublesome neighbour in the vicinity of the Norman possessions of
their mutual foe. Edgar accordingly once more left Scotland laden
with the costly presents of his relatives, but like most men of his
character the Atheling was doomed to misfortune, and ere long Scotland
again received him, a shipwrecked and homeless wanderer. It was no
part of the policy of Malcolm to risk the vengeance of the Conqueror
in fruitless attempts at assisting his feeble brother-in-law, and
he now strongly advised him to tender his submission to the English
king. It was accepted most willingly; and with much empty ceremony and
parade, Edgar was conducted to the English frontier, and from thence to
Normandy, where he resigned his pretensions to the English crown, and
passed the remainder of his life, for the most part, in indolent and
peaceful insignificance.[165]
Every cause for hostility between the English and Scottish kings was
removed for a time by the relinquishment of Edgar’s claims upon the
English crown, and Malcolm was at liberty to turn his attention to
internal policy, and to establish his authority, and secure it more
firmly, over the northern provinces of his dominions. The deaths of
Macbeth, and of his successor Lulach, had crushed without extinguishing
the hopes of the rival family; but though their pretensions were again
revived by Lulach’s son Malsnechtan, fortune continued adverse to
the men of Moray, and a sanguinary and decisive victory, [Sidenote:
A. D. 1077.] in which Malcolm is said to have “won the mother of
Malsnechtan, all his best men, his treasures and his cattle,” confirmed
the superiority of the king. This solitary passage in the Saxon
chronicle is the only indication of the occurrence of any contest in
the north of Scotland during the course of Malcolm’s reign; though
probably the battle thus recorded by the chronicler of a different
people, who adds that, “God’s justice was done upon Malsnechtan, for
he was all forsworn,” effectually established the royal authority over
the dominions of the hostile Mormaors. Malsnechtan, indeed, survived
his overthrow to “die in peace,” a few years afterwards, [Sidenote:
A. D. 1085.] when the title of “king of Moray,” conferred upon him by
the Irish annalist, implies (if correct) a partial independence; but
as there can be no doubt about the foundation of Mortlach before the
date of his death, the surrounding territory must have been by this
time annexed to the crown, and the influence of the Moray family must
henceforth have been confined to the westward of the Spey.[166]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1079.]
Two years after his successes in the north Malcolm again crossed his
southern frontiers with a hostile army; and, as at the time of this
inroad William was contending in Normandy against his eldest son, it
is doubtful whether the incursion was intended to effect a diversion
in favour of Robert, always a warm friend of the Scottish monarch,
or whether it was simply dictated, in the absence of the English
king, by a wish to sweep the country to the Tyne. William was very
shortly reconciled with his son, whom he dispatched with an army in
the following autumn [Sidenote: A. D. 1080.] to make reprisals for the
invasion of the Scots; but either from a want of ability, or from a
secret feeling in favour of Malcolm, Robert retreated without effecting
anything beyond a fruitless march to Falkirk; on his return southwards
laying the foundations of a new castle on the Tyne--the first link in
the chain of border fortresses destined to defend the English frontier
from the ever ready attacks of the Scots--around which the future
capital of Northumberland eventually grew into existence.[167]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1087.]
The two king’s were never destined to meet again. The stern soul of the
Conqueror was touched upon his deathbed with some feelings of remorse
for the numerous captives whom he had so long retained in hopeless
confinement, and he left directions to his sons to release, after his
death, all prisoners of state, and others whom motives of policy had
hitherto kept under restraint. Amongst the hostages set at liberty were
Malcolm’s son Duncan, and Ulf the son of Harold, whose good fortune
made Robert the arbiter of their fate; and the Duke of Normandy, with
an honourable regard for the wishes of the dead, not only carried out
the intentions of his deceased father, but conferred upon them both
the dignity of knighthood, dismissing them with presents and marks of
honour from his court; whilst the other prisoners, less fortunate, were
retained in close custody by Rufus.[168]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1091.]
Four years after the death of the Conqueror, when the contest between
his sons was brought to a temporary conclusion upon the pacification
between William and Robert, Edgar the Atheling was expelled from the
lands assigned to him in Normandy by the late king, and was once
more driven to seek a refuge in Scotland. Malcolm again espoused his
cause, and partly, perhaps, in the hope of enforcing by a hostile
demonstration the restoration of the Conqueror’s grant of manors, which
appears to have been withheld by his successor, he marched a numerous
army across the frontier in early spring, advancing as far as Chester
le Street on his route to Durham; but upon learning that the whole
country was in arms to oppose his progress, he lost no time, as his
purpose was anticipated, in returning at once to Scotland.[169]
Intelligence of this fruitless inroad reaching William in Normandy,
determined his return to England, and crossing the Channel with his
brother Robert, he dispatched a powerful fleet along the coast, and
prepared to follow in his father’s footsteps, and to march with his
Norman chivalry to the north. But the English king had miscalculated
the difficulties he would have to encounter, and though the summer was
already far advanced before he returned to England, unlike his politic
predecessor, who was always capable of postponing his vengeance to the
proper season, he pushed forward his preparations for an immediate
attack upon his enemy. Michaelmas passed away before he commenced his
march, and when he reached the north, towards the close of autumn, his
fleet was dispersed by a violent storm, and many of his horses had
perished from cold and hunger in traversing the wastes yet stamped with
the traces of his father’s vengeance. Instead of declining a contest as
before, Malcolm, who was aware of his adversary’s situation, advanced
into Lothian to meet the invaders; but a collision was prevented by
the intervention of Robert, who, sending for the Atheling from the
Scottish camp, arranged, with his assistance, a renewal of the treaty
of Abernethy. Edgar was reconciled to William on the same occasion,
accompanying him to England on his return to the south; but before
Christmas both Robert and the Atheling retired in disgust from the
English court, as the promises of the king remained in every case
unfulfilled.[170]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1092.]
Another bulwark against the inroads of the Scots was erected in
the following year, when William, marching into Cumberland, or
_Northumbria_ as it is called by the northern chroniclers, drove
out Dolfin, who then possessed the land, and rebuilt and fortified
Carlisle, which had lain in ruins since the days of Halfdan, peopling
the neighbourhood with a body of peasantry collected from other parts
of the country.[171] In spite of the non-fulfilment of William’s
promises, Malcolm had as yet proceeded to no open act of hostility,
and many of the leading men in England were anxious to carry out
the intentions of Robert, and to secure a firm and lasting peace on
terms honourable to both kings, and beneficial to their respective
subjects. The illness of William in the year after his expedition
into Cumberland, appeared a favourable opportunity for effecting
an arrangement, as the fear of approaching death had softened the
harshness of his character, and inclined him to listen to the
entreaties of his advisers, who urgently implored him to repair his
previous injustice; and accordingly, when Malcolm sent to demand the
completion of their treaty, William named Gloucester as the place of
meeting, delivered hostages for the safety of the Scottish king during
his absence from his own country, and deputed Edgar Atheling to conduct
his relative with all befitting honour to the English court.[172]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1093. 11th Aug.]
In his progress towards the south Malcolm assisted at the foundation
of a new church at Durham, and his presence at the ceremony marks the
connection which appears to have grown up since the annexation of
Lothian--and still more since the marriage of Margaret--between the
inhabitants of the northern counties and their Scottish neighbours,
before the frontier line of fortresses springing up along the borders
effectually severed the last links connecting the divisions of the
ancient Bernician kingdom. [Sidenote: 24th Aug.] Towards the close
of August he arrived at Gloucester, but William was no longer on
a bed of sickness, and his transient penitence, with the apparent
amelioration in his character, having passed away on the return of
health, Malcolm found the English king more haughty and exacting than
ever. Admission to the royal presence was contemptuously denied him,
and he was commanded to “do right” in the English court, and according
to the judgment of the English barons alone. To have yielded to this
demand would have at once placed the king of Scotland on a footing
with the English barons as “his Peers,” and would have been tantamount
to an admission of his absolute and unconditional dependence upon the
English crown. Exasperated at the affront, Malcolm indignantly refused
compliance, promptly asserting “that the kings of Scotland were wont
to do right to the kings of England upon the frontiers of the two
kingdoms, and according to the united judgment of the Peers of both
realms;” and having thus maintained his entire independence of the
English king, he departed in open hostility from his court.[173]
Hastily collecting an army on his return to his own country, Malcolm
again crossed the frontier before the close of autumn, and in spite of
the warnings of his anxious queen, [Sidenote: November.] headed his
followers in person to revenge upon the soil of England the insult of
her haughty sovereign. The forebodings of Margaret were destined to
be too fatally fulfilled, Malcolm perishing on the 13th of November
on the banks of the river Alne; and although the manner of his death
is involved in some obscurity, there is little doubt that it was
effected by treachery. His ostensible opponent was Robert de Mowbray,
at that time Earl of Northumberland, but the death-blow was dealt by
Morel of Bamborough, to whom he had once been bound by the ties of the
closest and most familiar friendship.[174] Edward, the eldest of the
sons of Margaret, and acknowledged as his father’s heir, fell mortally
wounded on the same fatal occasion, dying a few days afterwards at
a place in Jedwood forest long known as “Edward’s Isle;” whilst the
Scottish host, dismayed at their double loss, returned in confusion
to their own country, many perishing by the sword in their disorderly
flight, but more losing their lives in attempting to cross the rivers
swollen into torrents at that late season of the year. The body of
the king, abandoned by his followers, was found upon the field of
battle by two peasants, who cast it carelessly on a cart and brought
it into Tynemouth, where the royal corpse was consigned to an obscure
tomb--a judgment, in the eyes of the historian of Durham, for the
injuries inflicted by the living king on that very place--until about
twenty years afterwards, when it was removed by the filial piety of
the first Alexander to his native land, and the ashes of the warlike
Malcolm at length reposed in peace by the side of his sainted queen in
Dunfermline.[175]
Thus died Malcolm Ceanmore in the six-and-thirtieth year of a long
and prosperous reign. An able king, and a bold and fearless warrior,
the traits that have been preserved of his private character evince
the kindliness of disposition, and the frank generosity, which not
unfrequently adorn so gracefully the character of a brave man. Though
as ignorant of letters as most of his contemporaries, he loved to
choose the books which were the favourite study of his queen, and to
cause them to be emblazoned with gold and jewels as a testimony of his
affection and esteem; and when in the exercise of the lavish almsgiving
for which the royal Margaret was renowned, she would unhesitatingly
resort to the personal property of the king, after exhausting her own
resources, Malcolm, on discovering his loss, would merely tax her
laughingly with the theft.[176] According to an anecdote related by
his son David, he once received an intimation that a nobleman, whose
arrival at court was daily expected, had agreed with his enemies
to attempt his assassination. Strict secrecy was enjoined upon the
informant, and on the appearance of the visitor a royal hunt was
proclaimed; the king contriving, in assigning his position to each
sportsman, to separate himself from all the party with the exception
of the suspected noble, whom he then taxed with his intended crime,
bidding him on the spot, where there was none to see or to interfere,
enact the part of a brave foe rather than of a base and cowardly
assassin. Overwhelmed with shame and remorse, the nobleman threw
himself at the feet of his intended victim, entreating forgiveness for
his treachery; and the pardon was as freely bestowed by the generous
king as the combat on equal terms had been frankly proffered.[177]
The history of Malcolm’s career would be incomplete without an allusion
to one who exercised so great an influence over his court and people
as Queen Margaret. Firmly convinced of the infallibility of his queen,
whom he appears to have regarded as the incarnation of all that was
pure and holy upon earth, the king submitted to her guidance implicitly
in all matters connected with religion; and Margaret, conscious of her
own learning and eloquence, and perhaps not unwilling to display her
undoubted talents, frequently summoned the clergy to meet in council,
and laid before them her opinions on the state of the Scottish church;
Malcolm on such occasions acting as interpreter, and supporting her
views on ecclesiastical subjects with all the weight of his own
temporal authority.[178] Her piety was fervent and sincere, though
imbued with much of the formalism of the age. Every morning a certain
number of poor were ranged in front of the palace, and it was the
first daily duty of the king and queen to wash their feet, and to
supply them with food and clothing. Every night Margaret arose for
midnight prayer, and the severity of the discipline to which she chose
to subject herself, laid the foundation of a painful and lingering
disease which eventually shortened her life. But her influence was not
confined to matters of religion alone, and it was through Margaret
that pomp and ceremonial were first introduced at the Scottish court,
the king no longer riding out without a royal escort, nor regaling his
nobility in the rude fashion of his ancestors, but astonishing them
with a display of gold and silver plate.[179] A corresponding degree
of magnificence was encouraged amongst the courtiers, foreign traders
were invited to bring their rich and varied wares to Scottish ports,
whilst it was signified that all who wished to earn the royal favour
must become purchasers of the costly novelties.[180] In short, to the
influence of Margaret may be attributed the foundation of that change,
which gradually converted the king of Scotland from a rude and simple
chieftain, surrounded by congenial and semi-barbarous followers, into
a feudal monarch in the midst of a knightly and chivalrous court.
The impress of her character is very visible in the dispositions and
qualities of her children; and if from her they inherited the love
of ostentation and display, which seems to have been the foible of
their amiable mother, it must not be forgotten that from her also they
derived the purity of life for which they were all alike distinguished,
and which was so eminent a feature in the character of a queen, in
whose presence not even a word that could give offence was ever known
to have been uttered.
The disastrous intelligence of the battle reached Margaret after her
health had been long impaired, less by age, for she was scarcely
past the prime of life, than by a painful disorder brought on by the
austerities of the fasts, and penances, dictated by her fervent though
mistaken piety. The departure of the king with her elder sons, upon
their last unfortunate expedition, had already oppressed her mind with
a gloomy foreshadowing of the future; and when, on the third day after
the catastrophe, her son Edgar stood by her couch, in his expressive
silence she divined her loss, and bowed in submission to the blow.
But the shock was too great for her enfeebled frame, and sinking at
once under the intelligence, upon the same day on which the fatal
tidings arrived, she calmly and peacefully breathed her last, and death
released her from her sorrows.[181]
Six sons and two daughters were the offspring of the marriage between
Malcolm and Margaret. Edward, the eldest, perished with his father, and
Ethelred, created Abbot of Dunkeld and Earl of Fife, appears to have
survived his parents for a very short time: Edmund died in an English
cloister, a penitent and mysterious recluse; Edgar, Alexander, and
David, lived to wear, in succession, the crown of Scotland. Of the two
daughters, Editha was destined by Malcolm to be the wife of Alan, Count
of Bretagne, but she eventually became the queen of Henry of England,
who had long been attached to the Scottish princess, and claimed her
as his bride immediately upon his accession to the throne. Many blamed
Archbishop Anselm for countenancing the marriage, as they believed that
Editha had taken the vows of a nun; but she convinced the archbishop
of their mistake, and her words throw a curious light on the severe
discipline to which she was subjected under the rule of her mother’s
sister, the stern abbess of Romsey, as well as on the perils to which
even a lady of her exalted rank was exposed, in these stormy times,
from the licence of the Norman conquerors.[182] “I never took the
veil,” said the princess, “but when I was quite a young girl, trembling
under the rod of my aunt Christina, whom you must recollect, she used
to place a little black hood on my head, to protect me from the lawless
insolence of the Normans; and when I tore it off she would beat me
cruelly, scolding me during the punishment in the harshest language. So
in her presence I wore the black hood in tears and trembling; but when
my father saw it he would pluck it from my head in a rage, imprecating
the wrath of Heaven on the hand that placed it there, and adding that
he intended me for Count Alan’s bride, and not for a sisterhood of
nuns.”[183] She changed her name to Matilda in compliment to her
husband’s mother, and her memory was long venerated amongst the English
people, who fondly remembered her as “good Queen Maud.”[184] Mary, the
younger daughter, after the marriage of her sister with Henry, was
united to Eustace, Count of Boulogne, by whom she left an only child,
also named Matilda, the heiress of her father’s earldom, which she
brought as her dowry to Stephen of Blois, afterwards king of England.
CHAPTER VII.
_Donald the Third_ 1093 - 1094.
_Duncan the Second_ 1094 ----.
_Donald restored_ 1094 - 1097.
The lamentable occurrence on the banks of the Alne threw all Scotland
into confusion, retarding the progress of the country for the next
quarter of a century. Edward had been chosen by his father for his
Tanist, or successor, in preference to his elder half-brother Duncan,
probably because, as the eldest of the sons of Margaret, he united
her claims upon the allegiance of the Anglo-Saxons to his own right
to the fealty of the native Scots; but the illegitimacy of Duncan is
not necessarily to be inferred from the course pursued by Malcolm, for
the ideas of that period about inheritance were not of the fixed and
unvarying character which the custom of centuries has established in
the present and preceding ages. The race of Alfred occupied the English
throne to the exclusion of the children of his elder brother, nor
did the descendants of the great king succeed in the lineal order of
after-times. The claims of the Atheling were disregarded by the Saxon
Harold, as well as by the Norman William; Robert was equally set aside
by both his brothers; whilst Henry’s daughter, Matilda, was obliged to
support her right to the crown by force of arms against the pretensions
of her cousin the heir-male, himself a younger son. This uncertainty
about the rightful heir will explain the care with which the kings
of that age thought it necessary to secure the recognition of their
successors during their own lifetime. The elder Henry assembled the
magnates of his dominions to acknowledge the claims of his son William,
and at a subsequent period those of his daughter Matilda; whilst his
grandson, the first Plantagenet, celebrated in his own lifetime the
coronation of his eldest son, a proceeding of which he lived most
bitterly to repent. The name of David was associated, as the successor
of the reigning monarch, with that of his brother Alexander in the
grant to St. Andrews of the _Cursus apri_; that of the Scottish
prince, Henry, is to be found in many charters as the heir-elect of
his father; whilst the names of William the Lion, and of David of
Huntingdon, are of frequent occurrence, under the same circumstances,
as late as the commencement of the thirteenth century. In Scotland such
a custom was peculiarly desirable, where the early usage, extending the
right of election to the crown to every member of the royal family,
rendered the nomination of a Tanist during the lifetime of the reigning
sovereign a matter of absolute necessity, to prevent anarchy and
confusion after his decease.
Three parties may be said to have divided Scotland at the period of
Malcolm’s death. In the north, the partizans of the house of Moray,
crushed by the decisive victory gained by the late king over Lulach’s
son Malsnechtan, were in no condition to sustain the pretensions of any
member of his family to the vacant throne. Along the eastern coast,
and in the south, the supporters of the reigning family were divided
between the national and foreign factions; the former composed of the
hereditary adherents of the house of Atholl, mostly of pure Gaelic
or of Scoto-British descent; the latter of the refugees from England,
and probably of the descendants of the ancient Northumbrians of the
Lothians. The influence of Margaret at her husband’s court, as well
as motives of policy, had induced Malcolm to show especial favour to
the countrymen of his queen, thus implanting the seeds of a bitter
feeling of hostility in the breasts of many of the Scottish nobles at
a line of conduct exhibiting, as they thought, an undue partiality for
the Saxons and their innovations. The smothered enmity of the Scots
blazed forth after the death of the king, and the haste and secrecy
with which the body of the royal Margaret was removed by Ethelred
to its last resting-place, discloses the existence amongst many of
her contemporaries of a feeling of antipathy against the _Saxon
Queen_, widely different from the enthusiastic veneration paid
by their descendants to the memory of the _Royal Saint_.[185]
The election of Donald Bane to his brother’s throne was the natural
consequence of this wide-spread jealousy, [Sidenote: A. D. 1093.] as
well as of a reactionary feeling in favour of the ancient national
usage, according to which he was undoubtedly the rightful heir; and the
immediate expulsion of the detested _Saxons_ followed upon the
triumph of the national party.[186]
The state of Scotland had not been unnoticed at the court of the
English king, where Duncan appears to have resided, ever since the
death of the Conqueror, in an equivocal position between a guest and a
hostage. Brought from his native country at a very early age, he had
imbibed the ideas of a feudal baron, and when Robert conferred upon
him the honour of knighthood, after his liberation from his former
captivity, the youthful knight preferred remaining at a court to which
he was accustomed from his infancy, to returning to a country of which
he knew but little, and where he may have feared a doubtful reception.
Presenting himself before William, on learning the accession of his
uncle, he requested the grant of his fathers kingdom, promising to hold
it in fealty and allegiance in return for the king’s assistance. This
was readily accorded on the terms of the petitioner; [Sidenote: A.D.
1094.] and when the return of spring favoured the march of an army,
Duncan, placing himself at the head of a band of English and Norman
auxiliaries, drove out his uncle Donald and took possession of the
kingdom. The Scots appear to have been taken by surprise, for upon
recovering from their first astonishment, they at once returned in
sufficient force to overwhelm the followers of Duncan, putting most of
them to the sword; but as their hostility was confined to the foreign
soldiery, and they entertained no personal antipathy to a member of
Malcolm’s family, they readily permitted Duncan to retain the crown on
condition of introducing no more aliens into the country.[187]
The temporary success of Duncan appears to have thrown Donald Bane upon
the support of a partizan of the northern faction, and he enlisted in
his behalf the assistance of Malpeter MacLoen, the Mormaor of Mærne;
whilst another party to his conspiracy for regaining the crown was
Edmund, one of the surviving sons of Malcolm and Margaret, who was
to be rewarded for his connivance in the death of his half-brother
by sharing the royal power with his uncle Donald. Their intrigues
were only too successful, and the treacherous slaughter of Duncan
at Monachedin on the banks of the Bervie, where a rude stone still
marks the supposed locality of his death, reinstated Donald, after an
interval of six months, whilst the surviving followers of his murdered
nephew were slain or driven from the kingdom.[188]
The second reign of Donald lasted without opposition for three years,
but it would be impossible to say whether Edmund shared the throne,
for a veil of mystery has been thrown over all his actions. During
this period the remaining children of Malcolm were exiles from their
native land, whilst William was occupied in fruitless wars with the
Welsh, in reducing the too powerful de Mowbray of Northumberland,
and in negotiating with his brother Robert the purchase of the duchy
of Normandy. [Sidenote: A. D. 1097.] At length towards the close of
the year in which the Saxon chronicler laments over “the grievous
oppression of the people who were driven up from the country districts
to London, to work at the wall they were building about the Tower,
and the Bridge, and the King’s Hall at Westminster, whereby many
perished,”[189] Edgar Atheling was dispatched to Scotland, and, after
a severe struggle, he succeeded in placing his eldest nephew Edgar
upon the throne, under similar conditions to the terms imposed upon
Duncan.[190] Donald, falling into the victor’s power, was treated with
the severity of a cruel age, and was sentenced to pass the remainder
of his days, in blindness and in chains, at Roscolpie or Rescobie in
Forfarshire; whilst his confederate Edmund, the only degenerate son of
Malcolm and Margaret, seems to have adopted a course which saved his
own life, and preserved the honour of the family. He expiated his crime
by assuming the cowl at Montague, a Cluniac Priory in Somersetshire;
and the honourable imprisonment of the princely monk in the retirement
of a distant cloister, so effectually obliterated the recollection
of his treason amongst the people of his native land, that a halo of
peculiar sanctity gradually encircled his memory, and he was handed
down to posterity as a man of more than ordinary holiness. Such a
reputation must, for obvious reasons, have been favoured by the members
of his family, and the saintly character attributed to Edmund may have
been partly owing to the austerities of a repentance, which prompted
his dying wish to be buried in chains.[191]
_Edgar_ 1097–1107.
Hardly were the sons of Malcolm reinstated in their ancestral
dominions,--for the autumn must have been far advanced before the army
of the Atheling reached its destination,--when the western coasts of
Scotland were threatened with a repetition of the early invasions of
the Northmen.
From a very early period the whole of the islands along the western
coasts of Scotland were favourite resorts of the Scandinavian
Vikings, who established themselves amongst the scanty population of
the Hebrides with far greater ease than upon the mainland. From the
intermixture of the natives with the northern invaders, sprung the race
to which the Irish annalists, and occasionally the Sagas, give the name
of Gallgael, a horde of pirates plundering on their own account, and
under their own leaders, when they were not following the banner of any
of the greater sea-kings, whose fleets were powerful enough to sweep
the western seas, and exact tribute from the lesser island chieftains.
Man was from an early period the seat of the sovereignty of the Isles,
which was long centred in the family of the Hy Ivar, lords of Dublin,
and often kings or Jarls of Danish Northumbria. In the middle of the
tenth century the Islands fell under the dominion of Eric Blodæxe,
whose rivalry with Olave Sitricson weakened and divided the power of
the Anglo Northmen; and after the death of Eric they were ruled by
Magnus Haraldson and his family, the representatives of the elder
Sitric, who appear to have been driven from Limerick, the early seat of
that branch of the Hy Ivar. The exploits of this line of princes upon
the coasts of Wales are continually to be met with in the Welsh and
Irish chronicles of the period, but their title of Oirrigh is a proof
that they were not independent, and they probably paid tribute to the
head of their family at Dublin.
The united power of the Orkneys, the Islands, and the western coasts
of Scotland, in addition to the Irish Norsemen, failed to avert the
catastrophe of Clontarf, [Sidenote: A. D. 1014.] and the eleventh
century opened upon the decline of the Hy Ivar. The personal energy of
Thorfin, the great accession of territory resulting from his connection
with Malcolm the Second, and the union of all the northern islands with
his wide possessions on the mainland, enabled him to take advantage of
their weakness; and if the Sagas are correct, in attributing to him
a large _Riki_ in Ireland, and in extending his dominion from
Thurso Skerrey to Dublin, the Jarl of the Orkneys may have assumed the
prerogatives of the earlier kings of Dublin, exacted tribute from their
dependants, and become the acknowledged leader of the Scottish and
Irish Northmen. During the ascendancy of Thorfin the Islands were for
some time under the rule of a certain Gille, and of Suibne MacKenneth,
[Sidenote: A. D. 1034.] names pointing to the Gaelic element amongst
the Gallgael; and it is not unlikely that they owed their rise to the
Jarl, and were amongst the earliest of the mainland chiefs of the
Oirir-Gael who disputed the possessions of the Hebrides with the kings
of Man.[192]
Towards the middle of the eleventh century Dermot MacMalnembo, lord of
Hy Kinselagh and king of Leinster, was occupied in establishing the
supremacy of his family throughout his native province; and entering
the territory of the Dublin Norsemen, [Sidenote: A. D. 1052.] which was
known as Fingal, in the year 1052, he ravaged the country up to the
walls of their capital, driving out Eachmarcach, the son of Reginald,
then the head of the race of Olave Sitricson, and establishing
his dominion over the whole district and its inhabitants, whilst
Eachmarcach fled from his enemy to Man. [Sidenote: A. D. 1061.] Nine
years later, Murchad, the son of Dermot, following up the successes
of his father, pursued Eachmarcach to his island retreat, wrested the
sovereignty of the Islands from the race of Ivar, and rendered them
tributary to the line of Leinster. Thorfin, whose ascendancy appears
to have declined before this period, [Sidenote: A. D. 1064.] died soon
after the transfer of the Islands to Dermot; and his two sons, escaping
from the slaughter at Stamford Bridge, whither they had followed in
the train of the king of Norway, returned to their northern home,
[Sidenote: A. D. 1066.] and without dividing the possessions of their
warlike father, passed a peaceful and inglorious existence as joint
Jarls during the remaining thirty years of the century.[193]
Amongst the fugitives from Stamford Bridge was a son of Harald the
Black of Iceland, Godfrey, surnamed Crovan or “the White Hand,” who
found a hospitable reception in Man from another Godfrey who, at
the time of his arrival, was king, or Oirrigh, of the island.[194]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1072.] Six years after the arrival of the fugitive,
Dermot of Leinster fell in battle, after raising the power of his
province to the highest pitch, and uniting the supremacy over the
whole of southern Ireland, with the dominion of the Isles and of “the
Britons”--the inhabitants, apparently, of the Isle of Anglesey;[195]
and three years later, upon the death of Godfrey of Dublin, the son of
Eachmarcach and head of the race of Hy Ivar, Godfrey Crovan attempted
to seize upon the Islands.[196] [Sidenote: A. D. 1075.] Twice was
he defeated in his attacks upon Man; but refusing to be foiled, he
determined upon risking a final effort, and with a fleet collected
from the other islands, sailed up the river Selby by night, landed
his forces, and concealed a body of three hundred men amongst the
wooded sides of a neighbouring hill called Skeafell. As soon as it was
light, the Manxmen, perceiving the enemy whom they had already twice
defeated, assembled to give him battle, and attacked with headlong
confidence, heedless of the ambuscade, which fell upon them in the
heat of the engagement with decisive and fatal effect. They turned
and fled precipitately; but finding on arriving at the river that the
stream was unfordable, for the tide was then at its height, throwing
down their arms they begged for mercy from the conqueror; and as his
object was attained by their submission, he put an immediate stop
to the slaughter. His next step was to reward his confederates the
Islesmen, to whom he offered the choice of remaining and appropriating
the island, or of plundering it and returning to their homes; and as
the latter course was most congenial to his allies, the property of
the Manxmen was delivered over to their mercy. Many of the Islesmen,
however, consented subsequently to remain behind, and they were settled
by Godfrey in the south of the island, around his own immediate
residence, whilst the earlier Norse population was confined to the
north, a division which can long be traced in the little kingdom; and
the conqueror assuming to himself, as usual, the sole right of property
in his dominions, the Manxmen lost their Odal privileges in the same
manner as the Orkneymen had been deprived of theirs, from the time of
the first Einar, to the days of Sigurd Lodverson.[197]
Godfrey Crovan was of a character to afford his new subjects frequent
opportunities of repairing the losses incurred through the pillage
of the Islesmen; and he soon extended his conquests over the Irish
Norsemen, capturing Dublin, [Sidenote: A. D. 1078.] and retaining his
supremacy for sixteen years, until he was driven out by Murketagh
O’Brien, whose family appear to have made more than one attempt
subsequently upon Man.[198] His pre-eminence in the same quarter
was also disputed by the surviving sons of Eachmarcach; but they
perished in a fruitless effort to vindicate their rights, [Sidenote:
A. D. 1087.] and from the date of this failure the descendants of
Ragnar Lodbroc never again rose above the rank of subordinate Oirrighs
of Dublin.[199] In the year after he was expelled from his Irish
conquests, Godfrey died of a pestilence in the Isle of Isla, [Sidenote:
A. D. 1095] leaving three sons to inherit his dominions. His great
power was based upon his fleet, and to prevent any rivalry upon the
seas he is said to have forbidden the Scots--the inhabitants apparently
of the western coasts and the Galwegians--to build any vessel requiring
more than “three bolts” in its construction.[200]
Such was the condition of the Islands when Magnus Olaveson sailed with
a powerful fleet from Norway, [Sidenote: A. D. 1098.] purposing to
re-enact the part of Harald Harfager, and establish the rights of the
Norwegian crown over the western conquests of his predecessor. First
touching at the Orkneys, he seized upon the two Jarls, and dispatching
them in safe custody to Norway, carried off their sons as hostages,
placing his own son Sigurd over the Jarldom; though, as the new Jarl
was a mere child, the real authority was vested in his council. The
king then steered for the Hebrides, rapine and slaughter marking his
course, and the flames of the crops and houses which he burnt lighting
up his onward career. Some of the Islesmen escaped to the mainland
of Scotland; others fled further and sought a refuge in Ireland--for
the Norwegian fleet was far too powerful to be resisted with any hope
of success by the scattered population of the islands--whilst the
least scrupulous, or the most insignificant, escaping with life by
submitting to Magnus, swelled the number of his followers, and repaired
their own losses by relentlessly pillaging their neighbours. Among the
unsuccessful fugitives was Godfrey’s eldest son Lagman, who, before he
could escape to Ireland, was surprised amongst the northern Hebrides,
and captured off Skye, after a vain attempt to baffle his pursuers
amongst the islands. In one feature alone was the expedition of Magnus
distinguished from the incursions of his heathen ancestors--the
sanctity of Iona was respected. The king is reported to have landed on
the sacred island, and opening the door of St. Columba’s Church, to
have hastily drawn back, forbidding any of his attendants to enter,
and departing immediately after granting peace and immunity to the
inhabitants. None ever knew whether a vision had appeared to the king,
but his clemency was limited to the hallowed island of Columba, nor was
the sword of the destroyer stayed in any other quarter.
At length Magnus arrived at Man, where the inhabitants were in no
condition to resist his attack, as they had already wasted their
strength in a sanguinary contest between the northern and southern
clans near Sandwith--Ottir and MacMaras, the rival leaders, both
falling in the course of the battle. At once recognising the importance
of the island for retaining his western conquests, he ordered the
immediate construction of several wooden forts, built in the usual
manner of the age; procuring timber for this purpose from the opposite
shores of Galloway, and forcing the Galwegians to convey supplies
to Man, and to join in labouring at the entrenchments. From Man he
crossed to Anglesey, ravaging the country, exacting tribute from the
people, and killing Hugh, Earl of Shrewsbury, who attempted to oppose
his descent; whilst he could now boast at the extreme limits of his
expedition of having extended his conquests further to the southward
than any of his predecessors upon the throne of Norway.
Magnus was occupied during the ensuing winter amongst the Sudreys, or
Southern Hebrides, in securing the conquests of the preceding summer
and in arranging a treaty with the Scottish king, who is said by some
authorities to have admitted the pretensions of the Norwegian monarch
to the whole of the islands in the western seas. To such an arrangement
(if it were ever made) Edgar could have offered no valid objection,
as the majority of the islands could hardly be said, at this time,
to have ever been included amongst the dependencies of the Scottish
crown. It is further stated that the king of Norway established his
claim to his new possessions by sailing round each of them separately;
and he is even said to have been dragged across the isthmus at Loch
Tarbert in a boat, with his hand upon the tiller, in order to include
Cantyre amongst the islands--a story probably invented at a later
period to account for the severance of that district from the mainland
possessions of the Oirir Gael, and its lengthened occupation by the
Gallgael in dependence on the Norsemen and their kings.[201]
[Sidenote: A.D. 1099]
Magnus returned to Norway in the following summer, leaving Sigurd in
his new Iarldom; and he was occupied during the next three years in
warring against the Swedes, until peace was concluded, and cemented
by his marriage with a daughter of the Swedish king Inge. But his
former successes amongst the Hebrides had inflamed him with the desire
of further conquests in the same quarter, and hardly had he ratified
his alliance with Sweden before he again fitted out a fleet, to be
directed on this occasion against the Irish coasts. [Sidenote: A. D.
1102.] Murketagh O’Brien, collecting the men of Munster and Leth-Mogh,
prepared to oppose the invasion; but an arrangement was soon effected
between the kings, by which the daughter of Murketagh was given to
Sigurd Magnusson, whilst the claims of that prince upon the allegiance
of the Dublin Norsemen were probably supported by the Irish king.[202]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1103.]
Magnus passed the ensuing winter in Ireland, assisting his new allies
the Munstermen against their rivals, the northern Hy Nial, and
remaining until the following August, when he prepared to return to
Norway, and lay off the coast of Ulster awaiting a supply of cattle for
victualling his ships, promised by Murketagh O’Brien. The disastrous
defeat of the latter prince by the northern Hy Nial, early in the
same month, may have prevented or delayed the dispatch of the cattle;
and Magnus disembarked with a body of his men, both to ascertain
the fate of the scouts whom he had already sent out, and to victual
his fleet with the necessary supplies at the expense of the men of
Uladh. Whilst thus employed he gradually became entangled amongst the
neighbouring morasses; and his retreat to the ships being intercepted
by the Ulstermen, who flocked in numbers towards the spot, he fell,
with many of his followers,--through the cowardice or treachery of
one of his principal officers,--in a fruitless attempt to open a path
through the increasing numbers of the foe. On hearing the tidings of
his death, the fleet, weighing anchor, sailed immediately for Norway,
touching at the Orkneys, and taking on board Sigurd, who relinquished
his Irish princess and his island kingdom to claim a share of his
father’s dominions, when all the conquests of Magnus reverted to their
original possessors; though the Jarls of the Orkneys, and the lords of
the Western Islands long continued, whenever it suited their purpose,
to rank themselves amongst the feudatories of the Norwegian crown.[203]
With the exception of the expedition of Magnus Olaveson, the nine years
of Edgar’s reign seem to have been absolutely devoid of interest,
the total absence of event which distinguishes this period arising
probably from the personal character of the king. Of a gentle and
inoffensive nature, much resembling the Confessor, in his faults
perhaps as well as in his virtues, he provoked neither external
hostility from his ambition, nor internal revolt from his oppression;
whilst the marriage of his sister Matilda with the English Henry, must
have tended materially to strengthen his authority, by overawing the
turbulent spirits who otherwise might have presumed upon his indolent
disposition. He appears to have cultivated the alliance of the Irish
king Murketagh, who, from Edgar’s present of a camel, may have aimed
at resembling Henry of England in his partiality for rare animals.[204]
In imitation of the pious liberality of both his parents, he founded
the priory of Coldingham, granting it to the monks of Durham; thus
exhibiting his partiality for his mother’s country, and perhaps, also,
his attachment to her ancient confessor Turgot, the friend of his own
early youth, [Sidenote: A. D. 1107.] who at this time was prior of the
monastery of Durham.[205] Upon the 8th of January 1107, Edgar sunk into
an early grave, with his latest breath bequeathing the appanage of
Scottish Cumbria to his youngest brother David; not only as a testimony
of personal regard for his favourite brother, but as an acknowledgment
of the valuable assistance which he had derived, during his contest for
the crown, from the intelligence and sagacity of that able and politic
prince.[206]
_Alexander the First_ 1107–1124.
Widely different in character from his peaceful and indolent
predecessor was the next king who filled the throne of Scotland.
To a purity of life, a fondness for the devotional exercises and
austerities of the age, and a reverential demeanour towards the
clergy--qualities which he inherited from his mother--Alexander united
the high courage and warlike bearing of his father; whilst his own
restless ambition and indomitable will involved him in continual
contests throughout his reign, and earned for him the appellation
of the Fierce. In many points he resembled his sister the queen of
England; and the same lavish generosity towards strangers, with the
same somewhat ostentatious display of charity in feeding, clothing,
and washing the feet of the poor, to which “the Scottish Esther” (as
she is sometimes called) in vain endeavoured to incite her youthful
brother David, formed in Alexander a striking contrast to his haughty
and imperious bearing towards the great body of his subjects. Naturally
viewing with a jealous eye the dismemberment of his kingdom for the
advantage of his younger brother, he refused at first to carry out
the bequest of Edgar until David threatened to support his rights by
the sword; when the fear of the mail-clad auxiliaries, whom the long
residence and popularity of the Earl at his sister’s court would have
enabled him to call to his aid, at length extorted from Alexander a
tardy and reluctant recognition of his brother’s claims upon Scottish
Cumbria.[207]
The effects of the new king’s determination to enforce submission to
his will, soon became apparent in a simultaneous rising of the ancient
enemies of his family, who must have recovered much of their former
power during the anarchy and confusion resulting upon the death of
Malcolm the Third. Donald Bane was perhaps indebted to the crown for
their support, and his immediate successor was not of a disposition
to curb the increasing independence of his powerful and refractory
Mormaors; but Alexander, accustomed to the ideas of feudalism with
which he had become acquainted at the English court, was deterred by
no fear of consequences from exacting a very different species of
obedience from that which had satisfied the peaceful Edgar; and his
measures for controlling the disaffection of his subjects resulted,
before long, in a rebellion in the north.
The conspirators laid their plans with secrecy, and the men of Moray
and Mærne marched in haste to the south, in the hope of surprising
Alexander, and repeating the catastrophe of his brother Duncan. The
king was holding his court at Invergowrie--a residence to which he
always exhibited a marked partiality, as he had enjoyed the earldom of
the district from a very early period--when he received intelligence
of the near approach of his enemies, and with the prompt vigour of his
character, hesitated not an instant in confronting the danger, his bold
advance so daunting the conspirators that they turned and fled for the
mountains. Thither he followed without delay, so closely pressing the
pursuit that he swept through the northern earldoms without opposition,
until he reached the boundaries of Ross, where his opponents were
occupied in gathering their whole strength upon the opposite shores
of the Moray Firth. It was evidently their intention to dispute the
passage of the Firth, and to attack the army of the king whilst engaged
in crossing; but again anticipating their purpose, he reached the point
of passage, known as the Stockford, when it was high tide, plunged
at once into the stream, and crossing with his mounted followers in
safety, advanced upon the enemy before they could escape to mountain
or morass, and inflicted such a slaughter upon their surprised and
bewildered masses, that all disposition to revolt against his rule
was stifled in the blood of his opponents--his stern and sanguinary
vengeance upon this occasion earning for him the title of the Fierce.
The Monastery of Scone is supposed to have owed its erection to the
pious gratitude of Alexander for his speedy and triumphant success; and
in the foundation-charter of that ancient Abbey, the name of Heth, Earl
of Moray, stands prominently forward amongst the other Gaelic Mormaors,
who were assembled in dutiful attendance at the court of their lord the
Scottish king.[208]
This reign was destined to become the era of the first collision
between the ecclesiastical and secular powers in Scotland. The last
known Gaelic or Culdee bishop of St. Andrews was Fothadh, who died in
the same year as Malcolm Ceanmore,[209] the see remaining vacant during
the three succeeding reigns; but when Alexander ascended the throne,
he immediately determined upon appointing a bishop, who would be ready
to carry out the views upon religious subjects in which all the family
of Malcolm Ceanmore had been educated by their Anglo-Saxon mother.
Accordingly, in the first year of his reign he selected Turgot to fill
the vacant see of St. Andrews; but a difficulty, upon which he had
scarcely calculated, awaited him at the very outset of his undertaking.
Ever since the time when Bruno, Bishop of Toul, yielding (according
to the general opinion) to the advice of Hildebrand, Prior of Clugny,
relinquished the Papal insignia with which he had been invested by the
Emperor, and entered Italy in the garb of a pilgrim to abide by the
election of the Roman clergy, it had been the aim of the ambitious
churchman, whose master-mind is supposed to have directed the Papal
policy for a quarter of a century before he occupied the Pontifical
Chair, not only to emancipate the church from all dependence upon royal
authority, but to establish her dominion, as a temporal power, over the
whole extent of Christendom. The name of the Emperor disappeared from
Papal bulls; the titles of Apostolic Bishop and of Pope were declared
to belong to the occupant of St. Peter’s Chair alone; Archbishops
were appointed Metropolitans over other primates in spite of all
opposition; and Metropolitans were instituted without consulting their
clergy, solely by the force of Papal bulls;[210] measures calculated
to extinguish the remnants of independence in national churches, and
to place the whole Christian hierarchy at the disposal of the sole and
absolute will of the Pope. Whilst the clergy were thus to be reduced
to a dependent body, animated by the soul of one man, and carrying out
his vast schemes for temporal authority throughout the kingdoms of the
world, the secular power was attacked in more ways than one. The right
of granting kingdoms, and of releasing subjects from their allegiance,
was both claimed and exercised; Sicily was conferred upon the Norman
Guiscard; fealty was demanded from the conqueror of England;[211] Spain
and Hungary were claimed as Papal fiefs, and even the distant Russian
received his dukedom from the hands of the Bishop of Rome. It was then
also that the notorious Donation of Constantine first saw the light,
and the Papal claims to universal dominion were supported by apocryphal
documents, supposed to exist amongst the archives of Rome.[212] But
the great struggle was about the right of Investiture, or of granting
the Ring and Pastoral staff to a newly made bishop, in token of his
appointment.[213]
From the period when Christianity became the recognised religion of
the Roman empire, the head of the state participated in the nomination
of bishops, who were supposed to be chosen by their flock, approved
of and consecrated by their fellow clergy, and confirmed in their
appointment by their temporal ruler. The voice of the people had long
been silenced, on account of the disgraceful tumults and outrages so
frequently occurring at the election of bishops, when instead of a
little band of devout believers purified by the test of persecution,
the flock was composed of the licentious rabble of a city. The voice of
the clergy was intended by the policy of Hildebrand to become a mere
echo of the Lateran; and the voice of the ruler of the state to be no
more heard except in liege acquiescence. The conduct of the princes
of that era afforded ample scope to Hildebrand for appearing in the
character of a reformer of the abuses of the age, for as the elections
of bishops by the popular voice had too often degenerated into scenes
of tumult and factious violence, so in the hands of princes they had
become but too frequently mere mercantile transactions. Bishoprics
and abbacies were either openly bestowed upon the highest bidder, or
were suffered to remain vacant for years that their revenues might be
appropriated to purposes of private emolument; and too many of the
superior clergy were very ready to profit by an abuse which opened an
easy access to the high places of the church, to those whose profligacy
would otherwise have barred their advance to preferment of which they
were utterly unworthy. Had the policy of Hildebrand been directed
simply to the correction of such abuses, and to the establishment or
restoration of a discipline which he deemed essential, its motives
would have been high and holy; but it is only too evident that
earthly ambition was the ruling principle of a mind elevated above
the meaner vices of the age, and that the reforms which he advocated
served as a cloak for promoting with unscrupulous energy that temporal
aggrandizement of the Papal See, which attained its culminating point
when Innocent the Third proclaimed himself “less than God, but more
than man, God’s Christ, and Pharoah’s God.”[214]
With the influx of foreign clergy after the Conquest, the system
of Hildebrand penetrated into England, and its effects soon became
apparent, nearly every bishop rushing into a contest with the
neighbouring prelates about the rights, privileges, or possessions of
his see. Canterbury claimed jurisdiction over all the British Isles
in virtue of the Bull of Gregory the Great to Augustine; and York
asserted ecclesiastical supremacy over Scotland on account of the
signature of Wilfrith at the council of Rome, and the short episcopate
of Trumwin over the Picts. When, therefore, Alexander requested the
Archbishop of York to consecrate Turgot, he was met by a claim to the
canonical obedience of the Scottish bishops, to which he was by no
means inclined to submit. The difficulty was set aside for the time
by Henry of England, who desired the Archbishop of York to perform
the necessary ceremonies, reserving the rights of both churches for
future discussion;[215] when Anselm of Canterbury wrote to forbid the
proceeding, as he had not yet consecrated Thomas of York, who had
hitherto evaded all profession of canonical obedience.[216] But this
second difficulty was shortly removed by the death of Anselm; and soon
afterwards, the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of St. Andrews,
[Sidenote: A. D. 1109.] were both consecrated on the same day by the
Bishop of London.[217]
Differences quickly arose between the king and Turgot, and though it
is impossible to state their nature with precision, they were probably
connected with the opposite views entertained by Alexander, and the
bishop, upon the necessity of immediately remodelling the state of
the Scottish church. At length the latter requested permission to
proceed to Rome for the purpose of laying his case before the Pope;
but Alexander steadily refused his sanction to a journey of which he
was far too sagacious not to foresee the consequences; [Sidenote: A.
D. 1115.] and Turgot only obtained license to retire to his former
residence in the monastery of Durham, where he fell ill and died in
1115.[218]
Alexander determined that the next bishop should be chosen from the
province of Canterbury, in the hope of evading the claims of York
through the opposing pretensions of the rival see; but although he
wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury to this effect soon after the
death of Turgot, several years elapsed before he finally requested that
a monk of the name of Eadmer, [Sidenote: A. D. 1120.] who had been much
in the confidence of Anselm, should be sent to undertake the office
of Bishop of St. Andrews. Released from his allegiance to the English
king, and from his canonical obedience to the see of Canterbury, the
new bishop was duly installed in his diocese;[219] but Alexander soon
found that “he had gained nothing in seeking for a bishop out of
Canterbury,” for it would appear to have been the especial object of
Eadmer to exalt the See of Canterbury by reducing the Bishop of St.
Andrews to the subordinate situation of a suffragan of the English
Metropolitan, in which he was steadily opposed by Alexander,[220] who
showed the same determination in refusing permission to Eadmer to
retire to Canterbury in the capacity of Bishop of St. Andrews, as he
had previously evinced in opposing the departure of Turgot to Rome.
The English prelate was warned by the Bishop of Glasgow that he had
to deal with a prince of inflexible resolution, and that unless he
yielded the points in dispute, or relinquished the ring and crozier,
thereby surrendering up the bishopric, he would neither be able to live
in peace within the limits of the kingdom, nor would he be permitted
to cross its boundaries. Eadmer, at length giving way, resigned his
bishopric and retired to Canterbury; consoling himself with the thought
that the investiture of the ring, which he had received from Alexander,
had lost its spiritual efficacy by passing through the hands of a
layman.[221]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1122.]
Eighteen months of retirement and the advice of his friends, who
reminded him, with justice, that it was his duty to maintain the rights
and liberties of the church and kingdom in which he had accepted
the office of bishop, rather than to find suffragans for York, or
promote the claims of Canterbury,[222] wrought an alteration in the
opinions of Eadmer; and he wrote submissively to Alexander, urging his
claims to be reinstated in the see of St. Andrews, and adding these
remarkable words, which at once place in view the real objects of the
dispute--“I entreat you not to believe that I wish to derogate in any
way from the liberty or dignity of the Scottish kingdom; since if you
still persist in retaining your opinion about your former demands in
respect of the King of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the
sacerdotal Benediction (an opinion with which I would not then concur,
from entertaining ideas which, I have since learnt, were erroneous),
you shall find that I will no longer differ from your views, nor will I
let these questions separate me from God’s service, and from your love,
that in all things I may follow out your will.”[223] But it was now
too late; [Sidenote: A. D. 1123.] Alexander was inexorable; and at the
close of the following year he appointed Robert Prior of Scone to fill
the see, which he persisted in looking upon as vacant by the voluntary
resignation of Eadmer.[224]
The contest thus maintained by Alexander against the pretensions of
the English Metropolitans extended to the diocese of Glasgow, in which
a bishopric had been re-established by Earl David shortly after the
death of Turgot. The earl had appointed his own tutor John to the see;
but the bishop-elect, terrified at his unruly flock, and shrinking
from the laborious, and perhaps dangerous, undertaking of introducing
amongst them the remodelled Roman discipline, fairly fled from the
country; though he was subsequently consecrated by Pope Paschal,
and sent back to his diocese, where he remained till the return of
Thorstein, Archbishop of York, to England.[225] By a judicious line of
policy towards the Papal court, and by the essential services which he
contrived to render to the cause of Henry in Normandy, Thorstein had
been enabled to triumph over the opposition of Canterbury, and he now
summoned the Bishop of Glasgow to acknowledge his canonical dependance
upon the see of York, [Sidenote: A. D. 1122.] suspending him from his
sacred office on his refusal.[226] John appealed to Rome, but as the
archbishop was then in high favour, his cause does not appear to have
prospered, and he removed to Jerusalem, where he remained some months
with the Patriarch, occasionally exercising his episcopal functions
until he was recalled by the Pope and sent back to his diocese;
[Sidenote: A. D. 1123.] the dispute between the two churches remaining
undecided until many years afterwards, when Glasgow was liberated from
the claims of York, and declared to be in direct dependance upon the
see of Rome.[227]
Towards the close of his reign Alexander lost his queen Sibylla, a
natural daughter of the English king, of whom little is known, and--if
the account of a contemporary writer is to be trusted--that little is
not to her advantage, for her personal deficiencies were not redeemed
by the presence of moral virtues. She died suddenly at Loch Tay, in the
course of 1122, and within two years she was followed to the grave by
her husband, [Sidenote: A. D. 1124] who expired on the 25th of April
1124, whilst still in the vigour of manhood.[228]
It would be unreasonable to estimate the little that Alexander was
enabled to accomplish by the standard of his younger brother’s success
in following out a similar line of policy. Both brothers endeavoured
to assimilate their dominions to the feudal monarchies of the age,
and to introduce amongst their clergy the revised system of the Roman
Church; but the elder had greater difficulties to contend against,
with fewer advantages in his favour. The dismemberment of his kingdom
by the separation of Scottish Cumbria must have materially diminished
his power; and had not Alexander died without an heir, the impolitic
bequest of Edgar might have been fraught with most disastrous
consequences to Scotland. The principality of David must inevitably, in
course of time, have become dependant upon one of the greater kingdoms
by which it was surrounded; it could only have existed by skilfully
promoting disunion between its more powerful neighbours; and it is
more than probable that it would have eventually been annexed to the
greater kingdom, and been held by his descendants as a fief of the
English crown. The marked separation existing between the dominions of
the two brothers during the lifetime of the elder, is best ascertained
by a reference to the charters of the period. The dignitaries at the
court of Alexander were exclusively, Gaelic Mormaors--Earls of Moray,
Fife, Atholl, and Strathearn, and other native magnates of similar
origin--the grandsons of the Northumbrian Cospatric, ancestor of the
Earls of March and Dunbar; Edward the Constable, the son of Siward
Beorn--in short, the nobility of ancient _Alban_ and the Lothians;
whilst around Earl David gathered Moreville and Somerville, Lindsay and
Umphraville, Bruce and Fitz-Alan, Norman names destined to surround the
throne of his descendants, two of them to become royal, and all to shed
a lustre upon the feudal chivalry of Scotland.[229]
Alexander may have attempted to enforce, by resolute will, the changes
and alterations which were only carried out by David through an union
of consummate tact and policy; and it may have been to this part of
the king’s conduct that Ailred alludes when he describes him as
“endeavouring to compass things beyond his power;” for he was evidently
of a disposition to frame his policy, rather according to the dictates
of his own will, than to his ability to carry it out. He achieved
enough, however, to entitle him to be remembered as the first king
who essayed to place Scotland on a footing with the feudal states of
Western Europe; for Edgar left his kingdom much as he found it--his
very bequest of Cumbria, as an absolute property, was totally at
variance with the policy of either Saxon or Norman--and the innovations
of Margaret were confined to the court and the clergy.[230] The laws
and customs of the Gaelic people remained undisturbed in her days, and
her ideas of ecclesiastical reform were widely different from those of
Hildebrand, of whose system the church of her native country, at the
time she quitted it, was ignorant.
But the grant of the _Cursus Apri_ made by Alexander to St.
Andrews--a grant which must be regarded, not so much in the light
of an original donation, as of a restoration to the church of
the lands which had been alienated to the royal family in their
capacity of _Cowarbs_, or hereditary abbots of the old monastic
establishment--was, unquestionably, the earliest step towards
remodelling the Scottish church, though the king’s intentions were
frustrated by his dissensions with Turgot and Eadmer, and he died
before the consecration of Robert, Prior of Scone, the last bishop whom
he appointed. He was the first king also to introduce beyond the Forth
the custom of confirming grants by charter, in place of the outward
forms and ceremonies by which, in an earlier state of society, such
gifts were invariably accompanied; though upon the occasion of his
restitution of the _Cursus Apri_ all the ancient formalities were
observed. The great feudal office of Constable is also first traceable
in this reign, and to the same king may be attributed the earliest
introduction of the sheriffdom--for the _Vicecomes_ is to be met
with in some of his charters. Alexander may therefore be said to have
laid the first stone of the social edifice which David raised from the
foundation; though many a year was fated to elapse, and more than one
generation was destined to pass away, before the system inaugurated by
the sons of Malcolm Ceanmore, was effectually established throughout
the whole extent of their dominions.
CHAPTER VIII.
_David the First_ 1124–1153.
The death of Alexander, without heirs, reunited to the Scottish
kingdom the appanage of Cumbria, which had been so unwisely severed
from it by Edgar; and the last surviving son of Malcolm and Margaret,
the rightful heir by ancient Gaelic custom as well as by feudal law,
ascended the throne without dispute. An intimate connection with the
Court of England for upwards of a quarter of a century, had effectually
“rubbed off the Scottish rust” from David,--to use the words of the
contemporary Malmesbury,--converting him into a feudal baron; and many
years before he was called upon to fill the throne, he had gathered
around him in his Cumbrian principality a body of knights and barons,
from whom sprung the older Norman chivalry of Scotland. During his
residence in the south he married Matilda, the widow of Simon de St.
Liz and heiress of Earl Waltheof of Northumberland, a portion of
whose vast estates had been conferred upon each of her husbands in
succession--St. Liz having been created Earl of Northampton, whilst
the Honour of Huntingdon was granted to the Scottish prince; but the
great earldom of Northumberland was retained in the Crown, for after
the forfeiture of Robert de Mowbray, the English kings were jealous of
intrusting that important province out of their own hands.[231] The
sole offspring of the second marriage of Matilda was an only son, to
whom his parents gave the name of Henry, born about ten years before
the accession of his father to the throne of Scotland.
David was the first of his family who united the character of an
English baron to that of a Scottish king; and in the former capacity he
was soon called upon to exercise the political sagacity through which
he had reaped the reward of the appanage of Cumbria, which he held
during the lifetime of his brother Alexander. Upon the death of Henry
the Fifth of Germany, the English king, despairing of any male heir
from his second marriage, determined upon adopting as his successor
his daughter Alicia, who fifteen years before had been betrothed,
whilst a mere child, to the deceased Emperor. The princess, it is said,
was reluctant to leave a country in which she had resided since her
infancy, and where she still enjoyed vast possessions with the title
of Empress; but she had become a necessary instrument for furthering
the views of her father, and he turned a deaf ear to the entreaties
of the princes of Lombardy and Lorraine, whose desire to retain their
Empress interfered with the tenor of his policy. The assistance of the
Scottish king was early sought to join in securing the succession to
his sister’s child, and he passed a whole year in England in concerting
measures for this purpose. In the great council of London, to which
every baron of note was summoned, David was the first to swear fealty
to his niece,--who now, like her mother, had assumed the popular name
of Matilda--as heiress of the kingdom in which he held the Honour
of Huntingdon; and it was by his advice that the unfortunate Robert
Curtois was removed from the custody of the bishop of Salisbury,
and placed in Bristol Castle under the safer charge of the Earl of
Gloucester: [Sidenote: A. D. 1226.] for the fears of Henry were at this
time directed against Robert and his son William, nor did he harbour
any suspicion of his frank and jovial nephew, Stephen of Boulogne, upon
whom he had heaped honours and dignities in return for his gallant
services in war.[232]
The feudal obligations of his English fief, and his anxiety to promote
the interests of the future queen, led to the frequent and prolonged
absence of David from his own kingdom at this period of his reign,
offering many favourable opportunities for the inveterate enemies of
his family to enter once more upon a struggle for the superiority.
Heth the contemporary, and possibly the opponent of Alexander, was
no longer living, but his hereditary animosity survived in his sons
Angus and Malcolm, who availed themselves of one occasion when David
was detained in England, [Sidenote: A. D. 1130.] about six years after
his accession, to rise in arms and assert those claims upon the crown
of Scotland which they inherited through their mother, the daughter
of Lulach.[233] In the absence of the king, the leader of the royal
forces was the Constable, and the safety of the kingdom now depended
upon Edward, the first historical personage upon whom the dignity
is known to have been conferred, and the son of that Siward Beorn
who accompanied the Atheling into Scotland. Edward in this crisis
proved himself to be worthy of the trust, and meeting the Moraymen at
the entrance of one of the passes into the Lowlands of Forfarshire,
overthrew them with a loss of four thousand men at Stickathrow, not far
from the northern Esk--Angus the Earl, or as the Irish annalists call
him, the king of Moray, being left amongst the dead, though Malcolm the
other brother, escaping from the field, prolonged the struggle amidst
the recesses of the remoter Highlands, and the contest was not brought
to a conclusion until four years later.[234] [Sidenote: A. D. 1134.]
The prestige of the Moray Mormaors was still very great throughout
the northern and north-western Highlands, and as many of the national
party, even though partisans of the reigning family, viewed with
jealousy the increasing influence of “foreigners,” and the introduction
of laws and customs against which they entertained a rooted antipathy,
as long as a descendant of Kenneth Mac Duff remained at large, claiming
to be the representative of one of their ancient line of kings, his
standard became a dangerous rallying point both for open enemies and
disaffected friends. David, seriously alarmed, besought the assistance
of the barons of Yorkshire and Northumberland, who answering to his
call with alacrity, the flower of the northern counties speedily
assembled at Carlisle under the banner of Walter Espec. The numbers
and equipment of these Anglo-Norman auxiliaries, with the rumour of a
vast fleet with which the Scottish king intended to prosecute the war
to extremity amongst the island fastnesses of the western chieftains,
filled the supporters of Malcolm with such dismay, that, in the hope
of atoning for their disaffection towards the king by treachery to
his unfortunate rival, Mac Heth was surprised by a body of his own
partisans, and delivered into the hands of David. He was at once
dispatched as a prisoner to the castle of Roxburgh, and David, in the
full determination of eradicating every trace of his enemies from the
district in which they had so long ruled supreme, declared the whole
earldom of Moray forfeited to the Crown, regranting great portions
of it to knights of foreign extraction, or to native Scots upon
whose fidelity he could depend. The confiscation of their hereditary
patrimony struck a death blow at the power of the great Moray family,
and more than one Scottish name of note dates its first rise from the
ruin of the senior branch of that ancient and far descended race.[235]
Four more years had barely passed away before David was destined to
meet, in hostile array, the very men upon whose assistance he had
relied against his formidable adversary Malcolm Mac Heth. Upon the 1st
of December 1135, died Henry the First of England, [Sidenote: A. D.
1135.] bequeathing with his latest breath the whole of his dominions
to his daughter the Empress Queen. His spirit had hardly passed away
before Stephen, arriving suddenly in England, gained over to his cause
Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, the most favoured and confidential friend
of Henry, and William du Pont de l’Arche, who was joint keeper, with
the Bishop, of the immense wealth accumulated in the coffers of the
late king; and as the possession of the royal treasure in those days
was the surest means of opening a path to the throne, before the year
was ended Stephen was crowned king of England without opposition. The
Earl of Gloucester, whose unsuccessful contest for precedency with the
new king, when they both swore fealty to Matilda, had strengthened his
devotion to the cause of the latter, was still in Normandy with his
sister; but of all the other barons and prelates who pledged their
faith to support the Empress Queen in her claim upon her father’s
throne, none proved mindful of his oath save her uncle the king of
Scotland.
No sooner had intelligence of the death of Henry reached Scotland, than
aware of the necessity for promptitude, David led an army across the
frontier, and at the very moment of Stephen’s coronation in London,
the Scottish king was receiving the allegiance of the northern barons
in behalf of his royal niece. Carlisle and Norham, Werk, Alnwick, and
Newcastle, in short all the border fortresses beyond the Tyne, with
the exception of Bamborough, opened their gates at his appearance,
and he had advanced far into the territory of St. Cuthbert, upon his
route to Durham, when he was anticipated by the approach of a numerous
army under Stephen. [Sidenote: A.D. 1136.] No time could have been
lost by that prince in collecting his forces, as upon the 5th of
February, little more than six weeks after his coronation, he marched
into Durham. David retired upon Newcastle, and the two kings remained
in a hostile attitude for another fortnight before a conference was
arranged, at which conditions of peace were finally agreed upon. The
Scottish king, still true to his oath, refused to hold any fiefs of
Stephen; but Carlisle and Doncaster were conferred upon his son Henry,
in addition to the Honour of Huntingdon, with a promise that the claims
of the prince upon Northumberland, in right of his maternal ancestry,
should be taken into consideration if the English king ever regranted
that earldom. Peace was concluded upon these terms; all the castles
surrendered to David were restored with the exception of Carlisle;
and Henry, after performing homage at York for his English fiefs,
accompanied Stephen upon his return to the south.[236]
Advancing years, and a disposition naturally pliant and easy, are the
reasons assigned by a contemporary historian for the acquiescence of
David in the usurpation of Stephen; but however willing he might have
been to support the cause of his niece Matilda, he must naturally have
shrunk from sustaining the whole weight of a contest, in which he
alone was in arms in her behalf. Nor must it be forgotten, that the
wife of Stephen was equally a daughter of one of David’s sisters; and
however the approach of age may have increased his aversion to war,
it had hardly yet diminished his characteristic sagacity, as he was
undoubtedly a gainer by the conditions of the peace.[237]
The event, as it proved, frustrated the intentions of both parties.
Stephen, when he held his court in London at Easter, assigned the
place of honour, upon his right hand, to his guest the Scottish
prince; an arrangement which so excited the jealousy of some of the
English barons, more especially of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
of Ranulf Earl of Chester--the latter of whom had claims upon Carlisle
and Cumberland--that, after openly expressing their discontent in the
presence of Henry, they left the court in a body. Incensed at this
unprovoked insult to his son, David recalled him from England; and
though Henry was repeatedly summoned by Stephen to perform his feudal
obligations, he was not permitted by his father to return to the
south.[238]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1137.]
The absence of Stephen in Normandy, in the following year, afforded
David a favourable opportunity of avenging the indignity offered to his
son, and of forwarding, at the same time, the interests of his niece
Matilda. Already an army was collected to cross the Borders, and the
barons of the north of England were assembled at Newcastle to repel
the invasion, when Thorstein, the aged archbishop of York, by his
intercession with both parties, obtained a promise from the Scottish
king to abstain from hostilities until Advent, by which time it was
expected that Stephen would have returned from the Continent. Shortly
before Christmas, therefore, a Scottish embassy arrived at the English
court, charged to declare the truce at an end unless Prince Henry was
placed in immediate possession of Northumberland; and as this abrupt
demand for the earldom was all but tantamount to a declaration of war,
Stephen, who had just concluded a peace for two years with Geoffrey
of Anjou, and was consequently in a position to concentrate all his
energies upon establishing his power at home, at once declined to
listen to the proposal; and his refusal to comply with the conditions
of David led to an immediate rupture with Scotland.[239]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1138.]
Upon the 10th of January 1138 the advance guard of the Scottish army,
under the command of William Fitz-Duncan the king’s nephew, crossed the
Borders, and attempted to surprise Werk Castle before daylight; but,
failing in their object, they wasted the surrounding country until the
arrival of the main body under David and his son Henry, when a regular
siege was commenced with all the engineering appliances of the age.
The castle was the property of Walter Espec, and so gallantly was it
defended by his nephew, Jordan de Bussy, that, before long, the king,
converting the siege into a blockade, marched with the remainder of
his army to effect a junction with William Fitz-Duncan, whom he had
already dispatched to lay waste the remainder of Northumberland; and
once more the northern counties endured a repetition of the scenes
of horror enacted, nearly seventy years before, in the early days
of the Conqueror. David, who had been long preparing for war, had
gathered his army from every quarter of his dominions; and around
the royal standard, the ancient Dragon of Wessex, might be seen the
representatives of nearly every race contributing to form the varied
ancestry of the modern Scottish people. The Norman knight and the Low
Country “Reiter,” the sturdy Angle and the fiery Scot, marched side
by side with the men of Northumberland and Cumberland, of Lothian and
of Teviotdale; whilst the mixed population of the distant islands,
Norwegians from the Orkneys, and the wild Picts of Galloway, flocked
in crowds to the banner of their king, to revel in the plunder of the
south.[240] The Galwegians, an unruly host of tributary allies rather
than of subjects, claimed to march in the van, and a piteous account
of their ravages, and enormities, has been left on record by the
contemporary chroniclers of Hexham. It was only by a great exertion of
authority, that William Fitz-Duncan was enabled to save that priory
from the destruction with which it was menaced by a body of exasperated
clansmen, whose chieftain had fallen in an affray with some retainers
of the monastery; and to prevent the possibility of such a sacrilege,
David quartered a body of Scots within its walls, whilst he granted
to the community his own share of the plunder, in reparation for the
injuries they had sustained from his undisciplined and semi-barbarous
followers.
The approach of Stephen’s army, early in February, warned the Scottish
leaders that it was time to collect their scattered forces either for
battle or retreat; but David, who was in secret correspondence with
many of Stephen’s barons, entertained the hope of finishing the war
by a stratagem, without the hazard of a contest. All of the wretched
country-people who had escaped the slaughter--and they were principally
women--were either bartered for cattle on the spot, or driven northward
with the prospect of a hopeless captivity; whilst the main body of
the Scottish army withdrew to a small morass in the neighbourhood of
Roxburgh, inaccessible except to the few who possessed an intimate
knowledge of the locality. The burghers of the town were instructed to
throw open their gates, and admit the English army without resistance;
as it was David’s intention to enter with his followers in the dead
of night, and surprise Stephen in his fancied security, calculating,
that by the capture of the English king and his principal adherents,
the war would be brought to a successful conclusion; the accession of
the empress secured; and his own claims upon Northumberland readily
acknowledged by his grateful niece.
But though in the multitude of counsellors there may be wisdom, in the
multitude of confidants there is little chance of secrecy; and through
some unknown channel Stephen became aware of his enemy’s intentions.
Avoiding Roxburgh, he retaliated upon other Scottish districts the
injuries which had been inflicted on the north of England; but as
he began to entertain suspicions of the fidelity of certain barons,
and his army was weakened, as well by the want of provisions as by
the religious scruples--either real or pretended--of several of his
followers who objected to bearing arms in Lent, he soon retraced his
steps towards the south, first possessing himself of Bamborough on his
passage through Northumberland, and placing in it a garrison on which
he could depend. The castle belonged to Eustace Fitz-John, a powerful
baron, of whose fidelity the king was so mistrustful, that, contrary
to all feudal precedent, he caused his person to be seized whilst in
actual attendance at court upon a summons of military service; and
Eustace was not restored to liberty until he yielded up to Stephen
the key-stone of his power in the north, long famous as the ancient
residence of the royal race of Ida, and the strongest fortress in
Northumberland.[241]
The conclusion of the Easter festival set at liberty the scrupulous
chivalry of the age, to enter with renewed zest upon the pursuits of
war; and David was fast approaching Durham, when a mutiny amongst
the unruly Galwegians threatened both the life of the king, and the
safety of his army. A report, judiciously fabricated for the occasion,
that the enemy was approaching, restored order for the moment; the
mutineers flew to arms to repel the foe, and David at once leading
them to Norham, employed them, with the rest of his army, in besieging
the castle. The garrison surrendered after a short resistance, and it
affords a curious instance of the impregnability of the fortresses of
that age against the limited means of offence available to besieging
armies, that it was accounted a disgraceful occurrence when nine
men-at-arms, all of whom were inexperienced, and the majority suffering
from wounds, hopeless of relief from their lord the Bishop of Durham,
yielded a well victualled castle to the whole force of Scotland! An
offer was made to restore Norham to the bishop, if he would consent to
hold it as a fief from the Scottish king; but as the proposed terms
were declined, it was immediately reduced to ashes.
The success at Norham was counterbalanced by a sally from Werk, in
which the indefatigable castellan of that fortress overthrew a body of
knights and men-at-arms, capturing several of the party, whom he put
to ransom, and carrying off a convoy of provisions intended for the
army of the Scots, which by this daring feat he once more drew around
his walls. Again the siege of Werk was converted into a blockade when
David marched to join the force, collected by the exasperated Eustace
Fitz-John, in an attempt to recover Bamborough; but though the burghers
of that place were driven, with considerable loss, from an outwork
in front of the castle, no permanent impression was made upon the
fortress itself, and it was useless to attempt a blockade without the
assistance, and co-operation, of a fleet.
Whilst the king was engaged before the castles of Norham and Werk,
the intractable division under William Fitz-Duncan, of little use in
a regular siege, had been dispatched to the more congenial occupation
of harrying Craven, and the adjoining districts of the shires of York
and Lancaster. The inhabitants assembled to resist the invaders, and
upon the 10th of June took post in four divisions at Clitheroe on the
Ribble; but their courage failing at the sight of the enemy, they broke
and fled at the first onset. As this was the first occasion upon which
the hostile parties had met in arms in the open field, the result
increased the audacity of the victors, who, spreading over the face
of the country, plundered and wasted it on every side, surpassing if
possible their former excesses; but laying the foundation of future
retribution in the very extent to which they carried their ravages.
Hitherto the barons of Yorkshire had looked upon the distant warfare
with lukewarm indifference, each mistrusting his neighbour, and hardly
knowing whether to oppose the Scots, as became the trusty partizans
of King Stephen, or to support them as loyal subjects of the Empress
Queen, whose standard was already raised by Robert of Gloucester, and
her other friends, in the south and west. But when the war was now fast
approaching their own neighbourhood, when their own lands were about
to be plundered and their own vassals to be put to the sword, it was
time to shake off their apathy, and out of the very excesses of the
foe arose their strongest bond of union. Archbishop Thorstein preached
a holy war; and through every parish, priests bore the relics of the
saints, with all the imposing paraphernalia of the Roman Catholic
religion, proclaiming it to be the duty of every Christian man to
rise in defence of the church against barbarians, hateful alike to
God and man. Ilbert de Lacy and Robert de Bruce, the youthful William
Albemarle and the aged Walter de Ghent, summoned their followers to
meet at Thirsk; and even Robert de Mowbray, then a mere child, appeared
in armour at the head of his vassals to animate the courage of the
numerous retainers of his house. To the same place of meeting hurried
William Percy and William Fossard, Richard de Courcy and Robert d’
Estoteville; the knights of Nottinghamshire under William Peveril, and
the chivalry of Derbyshire under Robert Ferrers: whilst Stephen, too
much occupied to leave the south of England, dispatched a chosen body
of knights, under Bernard de Balliol, to join the flower of the midland
and northern chivalry in repelling the inroads of the Scottish foe.
Walter Espec, a baron of vast possessions, whose age and experience,
united to a gigantic stature and a ready eloquence, marked him out as
a leader fit to inspire confidence and exact obedience, reminded the
confederate nobles of the glories of their ancestry, and pointed out
to their retainers that the enemy was little better than an unarmed
mob.[242] Ralph, the titular bishop of the Orkneys, was commissioned,
in the place of the aged and infirm Thorstein, to grant a general
absolution to the army, which, strengthened by the consolations of the
ministers of religion, and encouraged by the exhortations of military
experience, viewed the impending contest in the light of a holy war,
and prepared with alacrity for battle.
After waiting in the neighbourhood of Bamborough until the arrival of
some expected reinforcements from Carlisle, Cumberland, and Galloway,
David moved southward to effect a junction with William Fitz-Duncan.
Their forces, when united, amounted to twenty-six thousand men,
and as most of the historians of the period represent this army as
“innumerable,” it affords some clue for estimating what was in those
days looked upon as a countless host. David was well aware of the
character of the army against which he was advancing, and with the
concurrence of his most experienced officers, he determined upon
opposing his own knights and men-at-arms to the mailed chivalry of
England; rightly calculating, that, if he once broke through the rival
phalanx, his light armed irregulars, of little real use in the first
onset, would easily complete the victory. But the native warriors of
Alban, elated with the victory at Clitheroe, and vainly imagining
that the flower of England’s knights and men-at-arms would fly before
their impetuous charge, like the undisciplined peasantry and townsmen
of the district, loudly exclaimed against such tactics. “Of what use
were their breastplates and their helmets at Clitheroe?” exclaimed
the Scots. “Why trust you to these Normans?” added Malise Earl of
Strathearn, when David still remained unmoved; “unprotected as I am,
none shall be more forward in the fight.” “A great boast,” retorted
Alan Percy, “which for your life you cannot make good.” Alarmed at the
probable consequences of dissension at such a moment, David reluctantly
yielded the point in dispute, and the post of honour in the approaching
conflict was assigned to the men of Galloway.
One course yet held out a fair hope of success--a surprise--and David
determined to make the attempt.[243] He ranged his army in four
divisions, the Galwegians marching in the van, with all who claimed
to share with them the honour of the first attack. The contingent
from Cumberland and Teviotdale composed the second division, with
the knights, archers, and men-at-arms under Prince Henry and Eustace
Fitz-John, by whom the battle ought to have been commenced. Then
followed the men of the Lothians, Lennox[244] and the Isles; whilst the
king in person brought up the rear with the Scots and Moraymen, and
his own body-guard of English and Norman knights.
The morning of Monday the 22d of August favoured the design of the
Scots. A dense fog hung over the country, and under cover of the mist
the Scottish host rapidly advanced in unwonted order; for the commands
of David were rigorous in prohibiting his men from firing the villages
along their route, according to their usual practice. They had reached
the Tees, and were already crossing, when they were accidentally
discovered by an esquire, who galloped back to Thirsk, to warn the
confederate barons of the rapid approach of the hostile army.[245]
In the hope of yet averting the contest, perhaps also to gain time,
Robert de Bruce and Bernard de Balliol,--names singularly associated
as the emissaries of an English army to a Scottish king,--rode forward
to hazard a last appeal, pledging themselves, in the joint name of the
confederates, to obtain for Prince Henry the grant of Northumberland.
Bruce, in particular, warned the king of the danger he was about to
incur, in entering into a contest with the very men upon whose aid he
most relied, for curbing the refractory Galwegians, or for repressing
his own disaffected subjects; whilst, with tears in his eyes, he
besought him to be mindful of his ancient friendship, and by accepting
the conditions of peace, to put a stop to the frightful enormities of
his followers. The easy and kindly nature of David was fast yielding
to the entreaties of Bruce, who had been his friend from childhood,
when William Fitz-Duncan, a man of high spirit and the chief promoter
of the war, angrily interposed, and reproaching the latter with a
breach of fealty to his lord, prevailed upon his uncle to break off
the conference; on which the two barons, formally renouncing their
allegiance to the Scottish king, turned their horses heads and rode
back to share the fortunes of the confederate army.
The delay was fatal to the attempted surprise; for it gave time to the
army of the barons to clear the town of Northallerton, and to take
up a favourable position, two miles further to the northward, upon
Cutton Moor. A ship’s mast, bearing upon its summit the consecrated
host, and surrounded by the banners of St. Peter of York, St. John of
Beverley, and St. Wilfred of Ripon, was elevated upon a waggon, and
marked the centre of the army, around which were grouped dismounted
knights and men-at-arms; whilst from the immediate neighbourhood of the
sacred standard, Bishop Ralph and his priests dispensed blessings, and
absolution, throughout the host. The front of the position was covered
by a line of archers, with a body of men-at-arms in support; all the
horses were then removed to the rear under the charge of a mounted
guard; and the remainder of the English forces--townsmen, apparently,
and the array of the county--were ranged around the real strength of
the army in the centre.[246]
Levelling their spears, long the national weapon of the Scottish
infantry, and with wild cries of Albanach! Albanach! the ancient
_slogan_ of the warriors of the north, the first division of the
assailants rushed to the charge; and such was the impetuosity of their
onset, that the front ranks of the English reeled beneath the shock,
and were borne back in confusion upon the dismounted knights around the
standard. But then came to pass all that David had anticipated, and the
unprotected lines of Scottish spearmen recoiled, and were dashed back
like breakers from off a reef, before the steady discipline of that
animated wall of iron. Broken, but not discouraged, they cast aside
their fractured and useless lances, and, with drawn swords, once more
flung themselves, with reckless valour, upon the foe: but the front
ranks of the English had now rallied, and, from behind their dismounted
comrades, the archers poured in a storm of arrows, those fatal Norman
weapons which won so many a field for England in the days of old.
Unsheltered from the shower of missiles by any defensive armour, rank
after rank of the assailants went down before the English bowmen,
the best and bravest of their leaders falling in fruitless efforts
to penetrate the fatal line; and already the attack was slackening,
when Prince Henry brought his mounted division into the battle, and
the Norman chivalry of Scotland, with the disciplined retainers of
Eustace Fitz-John, bore down with levelled lances to the charge. His
success was complete. That part of the English army which sustained
the shock, was ridden down and swept from the field; and the prince,
elated with his easy triumph, and imagining that the whole Scottish
army was pressing on in support, wheeled round in the rear of the
English position to complete a victory not yet achieved, and charging
the mounted guard left to protect the horses, broke and pursued them
for many miles. His error was fatal; for the critical moment of the
day had arrived, and the English were rapidly giving way, none holding
their ground except the veteran phalanx in the centre, when suddenly
a gory head was raised aloft, and the voice of one who was never
subsequently recognized, loudly proclaimed that the king of Scotland
was slain. More than once has such a cry turned the fortune of the day
against a brave, but undisciplined, army. Upon the field of Assingdon
it won the realm of England for Canute; at Hastings it all but wrested
the same prize from the Norman William, though he led the flower of
Europe to the field; and it decided the day upon Cutton Moor in favour
of the confederate army. No longer pressed by the division of Prince
Henry, the English rallied at the cry; and the Galwegians, who for
two hours had prolonged their attack with desperate and unflinching
courage, until the last of their chieftains fell beneath an English
arrow, panic stricken at their loss, turned and fled the field; whilst
the confederates, promptly taking advantage of the confusion, advanced
at once to the charge. The Saxons of the Lothians broke at the first
onset; and though David, leaping from his horse, and placing himself at
the head of the reserve, bravely endeavoured to stem the advance of the
enemy, the Scots wavered and were carried away in the rout; whilst the
king, maddened at the thought of defeat, refused to fly until he was
forced off the field by his own body-guard. High above his head still
fluttered the ancient Dragon of Wessex, contradicting the report of
his death, and numbers who had been swept away in the first confusion
of the flight, disengaging themselves from the crowd of fugitives,
and rallying around the banner of their king, presented a formidable
front to the advancing foe. The foremost of the pursuers were either
cut down or captured, and the rest soon gave up following the Scottish
army, which, without further molestation, retreated in perfect order to
Carlisle.[247]
The losses of the Scots upon this memorable occasion were estimated at
ten thousand men, a number probably exaggerated, together with all the
plunder they had accumulated, the place where it was captured being
long remembered as Baggage Moor. More perished in the flight than in
the battle--and such was generally the case--for not only were the
fugitives massacred by the exasperated peasantry, but whenever they
came into contact with each other, Angles, Scots, and Picts of Galloway
fought with all the animosity of mutual hatred. The victors, deprived
of their horses by Prince Henry’s charge, could make no attempt at
following up their success: so, separating with mutual congratulations,
they dispatched intelligence of their victory to Stephen, who, in
acknowledgment of their important services, raised two of their
number to the dignity of earls; Robert Ferrers obtaining the Earldom
of Derbyshire, whilst that of Yorkshire was conferred upon William
Albemarle.
The battle of Northallerton, long famous under the name of the battle
of the Standard, adds but another to the many bitter proofs, that an
army without discipline is simply a disorderly mob. The discordant
elements of the Scottish nation were naturally averse to coalesce;
whilst the custom of “Scottish service,” which bound every man to
attend “the hosting across the frontier,”[248] swelled the ranks of
the army with a body of men, fierce and warlike indeed, and endued
with that self-willed and reckless courage which has on more than
one occasion been their bane, but often indifferently armed, and as
undisciplined as they were unruly. David, brought up amongst the Norman
chivalry of the court of England, was well aware of the military
character both of his own followers and of his opponents, and framed
his plan of attack accordingly, the result of Prince Henry’s charge
fully justifying his original decision; and when the fear of a mutiny
at a most critical moment forced him to yield his better judgment, he
rightly determined upon the sole course left open--a surprise. But in
allowing Bruce and Balliol to gain time by parlying, thus confirming
the character ascribed to him by Malmesbury, he committed a serious
and fatal error, sacrificing every advantage he had already obtained,
and enabling the confederates to clear the town of Northallerton,
and receive the shock of his disorderly host in a favourable and
well-chosen position, that ensured victory to the defending army.
Upon the third day after the arrival of the Scottish army at Carlisle,
the anxiety of the king about his son was set at rest by the safe
arrival of the prince. Henry, upon his return from his second charge,
instead of meeting, as he had expected, with a victorious army, beheld
the royal standard slowly retiring in the distance, and at once
comprehending the catastrophe, arranged with his companions to mingle
with the pursuers and endeavour if possible to rejoin the king. In
order to prevent recognition, they agreed to disperse in different
directions, first divesting themselves of everything that could betray
their real character; so that out of two hundred knights originally in
attendance upon the prince, only nineteen entered Carlisle in armour.
Other fugitives reached the same place by degrees, and the king busied
himself in restoring discipline, and in punishing with severity all
whom he deemed guilty of misconduct or defection. Heavy fines were
levied upon the delinquents, who were also bound by oaths and hostages
never again to desert the royal person in battle, and when order was in
some measure restored, David once more led his army to the investment
of Werk.[249]
He was still prosecuting the siege when he was informed of the approach
of the Papal legate Alberic Bishop of Ostia, and hastened to meet him
at Carlisle, with the clergy and nobility of his dominions. [Sidenote:
A. D. 1130.] Eight years previously, upon the death of Honorius the
Second, sixteen cardinals had declared for Innocent the Second, whilst
the majority elected Peter of Leon under the name of Anacletus,
who through the wealth of his father, a converted Jew, was enabled
successfully to establish himself in Rome. Two princes alone adhered to
the antipope, his own brother-in-law Roger Count of Sicily, who by this
course converted his coronet into a crown, and David of Scotland, the
reasons for whose conduct are not so easily apparent. Upon the death
of Anacletus, which occurred in the beginning of this year, an attempt
to continue the schism by electing another rival to Innocent, who took
the name of Victor the Fourth, was rendered abortive by the speedy
resignation of the ephemeral pope; Innocent returned without opposition
to Rome, and it was principally to notify the extinction of the schism,
that Alberic was dispatched as legate to the kings of England and
Scotland.
[Sidenote: A. D. 1138.]
He arrived at Carlisle four days before Michaelmas, bringing with him
the Scottish chancellor William Comyn, whom he had ransomed from his
captors at Northallerton, and everything was satisfactorily arranged
during the three following days. Eardulf was admitted to the see of
Carlisle, and John was recalled to Glasgow from the monastery of
Tiron, in which that determined absentee had taken refuge from the
troublesome duties of his diocese;[250] whilst reparation was made by
David, even before it was demanded, for the injuries sustained by the
Priory of Hexham from an unauthorised foray of a party of the Scottish
army,[251] and the wildest tribes promised to set their captives at
liberty, and to abstain henceforth from indiscriminate slaughter. Still
the benevolent Alberic was oppressed with anxiety, for during his
progress through the north he had been an eyewitness of the frightful
consequences of the ravages of the hostile armies. All Northumberland
was a desert, no attempt was made at cultivation, nor was an inhabitant
to be met with along the route which he had traversed. The barons
with their retainers were shut up in their castles, the peasantry and
their families crowded the monasteries, or lurked in the wildest and
most inaccessible retreats. The good bishop, dreading a recurrence of
such horrors, and feeling that his sacred office imposed more than
the mere formal duties of his legateship, besought the king to accept
of his mediation with Stephen, and thus to put an end to the miseries
of the war. Long was David inexorable, until the representative of
the haughtiest prelate of Christendom, kneeling before the king of
Scotland as a humble suppliant for “peace upon earth,” prevailed so
far that a truce was arranged to last until St. Martin’s day, from
the benefit of which the garrison of Werk was alone to be excepted;
and Alberic, departing from Carlisle upon Michaelmas day, retraced
his steps towards the court of Stephen, in the true character of a
Christian bishop, as the bearer of a message of peace.[252]
The castle of Werk still held out, though David, having ascertained
that its defenders were short of provisions, continued to press the
siege with unabated rigour. But Jordan de Bussy was indomitable. The
horses of the garrison yet survived, and he was determined that they
should be sacrificed one by one to enable their masters to continue
their stubborn resistance, proposing, when this last resource failed,
to make a desperate sally in the all but hopeless attempt to cut his
way through the besieging army. From this last alternative he was
saved, for when his stock of provisions was reduced to two horses, one
alive and the other _in salt_, the abbot of Rievaulx arrived,
with the commands of Walter Espec to surrender the castle; and David,
in a spirit of knightly courtesy that does him credit, provided this
gallant little garrison, twenty-four in number, with fresh horses,
and permitted them to depart with their arms, and all the honours of
war.[253]
Much about the same time arrangements were concluded for the settlement
of a firm and lasting peace between the two kings. Alberic had not
been unmindful of his mission of peace, and, after the conclusion
of the council of London, he pressed upon Stephen the necessity
of putting a stop to the horrors of the northern war. At first the
English king showed as decided an aversion to conclude a peace as his
antagonist, and his exasperation was encouraged by a numerous party
amongst his barons, who burned to avenge themselves for their losses.
But Alberic soon found that he possessed an ally whose influence more
than counterbalanced that of the war party, in Matilda the queen of
Stephen, who was warmly attached to her uncle and cousin, and most
anxious to promote a friendly feeling between her Scottish kinsmen
and her husband. She joined her entreaties to those of the legate,
who, rightly appreciating the value of such support, hesitated not to
return to Rome long before the truce expired, in the full conviction
that his benevolent object was attained.[254] [Sidenote: A. D.
1139.] Nor were his anticipations destined to be falsified, and as
Stephen left the whole conduct of the negotiation in the hands of his
queen, in the following April she repaired to Durham for the purpose of
meeting her cousin Henry. Neither of the kings were present upon this
occasion,--indeed they never appear to have met,--but the conditions
of the peace had been already settled, and it had been decided that
Henry was to receive investiture of Northumberland in addition to his
other fiefs, the barons of the shire holding of the Scottish prince,
saving their fidelity to Stephen. The English king, however, continued
to retain Newcastle and Bamborough in his own possession, for which an
equivalent was to be provided in the south of England--Henry on his
side guaranteeing to preserve unaltered throughout his new fiefs, “the
laws and customs” of the late king Henry, and to respect the rights
of the Archbishop of York and of the Bishop of Durham. The barons of
Northumberland then swore fealty to their new Earl, who, delivering up
the sons of five of the principal nobles of Scotland as hostages for
the due performance of his part of the agreement, accompanied the queen
upon her return to the south, when the treaty was confirmed by Stephen
at Nottingham.[255]
During the whole of the following summer Henry remained in England,
sedulously courting popularity by his lavish munificence and gallant
bearing--qualities so acceptable to the Norman chivalry of the age. He
accompanied Stephen to the siege of Ludlow Castle, narrowly escaping
capture on this occasion; for, on approaching too closely to the walls,
he was unhorsed by a hook suddenly launched from the battlements, owing
his rescue solely to the prompt and daring gallantry of the king.
In the course of the same year he was united to Ada de Warenne, the
youngest daughter of the great earl of that name; and as the bride’s
family were staunch adherents of the cause of Stephen, and the Scottish
prince, bound by no ties to the empress, was probably far more attached
to the amiable character of Queen Matilda--whose influence seems
traceable in the marriage--than to her haughty and imperious cousin,
the arrival of the latter in England with the Earl of Gloucester,
appears to have produced no interruption of cordiality between Henry
and the English king. He was again present with his countess at the
English court in the following year, [Sidenote: A. D. 1140.] in
spite of the civil war then raging, barely escaping, on his return to
Scotland, the machinations of his ancient enemy the Earl of Chester,
the grant of Carlisle being once more the cause of their quarrel.
Ranulph, tempted by the prevailing anarchy, had planned the seizure of
Henry and the Countess Ada, counting probably upon extorting, as their
ransom, a surrender of the coveted fief; but the queen, anticipating
his design, warned Stephen of the danger, who, in accordance with
her suggestions, escorted his guests in person to the north, thus
frustrating the intentions of Ranulph, but, by so doing, drawing upon
himself the hatred of that fickle and revengeful baron.[256]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1141.]
After the defeat and capture of Stephen at Lincoln, David, who had
hitherto refrained from espousing the cause of either candidate for
the throne of England, hastened to join the empress, leaving his
chancellor, William Comyn, at Durham, with instructions to hold that
important bishopric in her name. He arrived in time to accompany his
niece upon her entry into London, his presence confirming the fidelity
of many of the leading barons, but failing to inspire Matilda with any
portion of his own sagacity, and her arrogant and imperious behaviour
soon alienated the affections of her new subjects. Driven out of
London by the hostility of the citizens, her personal antipathy to the
imprisoned king next caused a rupture with his brother, the influential
Bishop of Winchester, who turned a willing ear to the entreaties of
Stephen’s queen, now as eager in urging war in behalf of her captive
husband, as in advocating peace, a few years previously, with her
Scottish relatives. Participating in the ill success which he could
not avert, David was present at the rout of Winchester, only escaping
capture through the attachment and devotion of a youthful godson, David
Olifard, then serving in the hostile army, who, concealing him from all
pursuit, enabled him to return in safety to Scotland. The grateful king
was not unmindful of his friendly benefactor; and it was probably in
requital for his services upon this occasion that Olifard obtained a
grant of lands in Scotland, becoming the founder of a numerous family,
whose name is still well known in the country of his adoption.[257]
It has been already mentioned that in passing through Durham on his way
to the south, David left his chancellor, William Comyn, in that city,
in the hope that he might be elected to the vacant see, and hold the
bishopric in the interest of the empress queen. Nothing will convey a
clearer idea of the anarchy of the period, and of the extraordinary
measures that were occasionally resorted to by the gravest characters,
than a narrative of the proceedings of William Comyn. He had passed his
early years in the household of the late bishop Geoffrey, and, upon
the death of the latter, his relatives, wishing to favour the views of
Comyn, kept the catastrophe a profound secret, the body of the dead
bishop being submitted to an elaborate course of preparation, including
a process of _salting_, in order that it might be preserved above
ground until the arrival of the Scottish chancellor! One important
point remained to be gained--the consent of the chapter--and this was
resolutely refused. Escaping from Durham, they chose William Dean of
York to be their bishop; but their troubles were only commencing, for
they had to deal with a most determined character in the chancellor. In
vain the Pope deprived him of the Archdeaconry of Worcester which he
had hitherto enjoyed, and launched an anathema at his head; in vain the
newly-chosen bishop endeavoured to enter his Episcopal city by force of
arms. Comyn set at nought the anger of the distant pope, and drove out
the monks who attempted to give secret admittance to his rival. Filling
their monastery with his own men-at-arms, he converted it into a
regular fortress--a not unusual course of proceeding in that turbulent
era--and, secretly supported by Prince Henry and the Earl of Richmond,
for three years he kept the bishop at bay, until the sudden death of
a favourite nephew induced him to make overtures for an arrangement,
[Sidenote: A. D. 1144.] and the bishop was at length permitted to enjoy
undisputed possession of his dignity. A grant of the honour of Allerton
was conferred upon another of the chancellor’s nephews, Richard Comyn,
the founder of that name in Scotland, whose union with Hextilda, the
heiress of Bethoc, sole daughter of Donald Bane, may have contributed
to the greatness of the family; and, by this arrangement, a scandal by
no means of uncommon occurrence amongst the churchmen of that age, was
at length compromised, and brought to a satisfactory conclusion.[258]
Many years elapsed before the Scottish king was again induced to enter
upon the scene of English politics--internal rather than external
policy appearing to have occupied his attention during this period
of his reign, and many of the alterations he had previously set on
foot were now probably completed and confirmed. He had not lost
sight, however, of the interests of the empress and her son; and in
his anxiety to further the designs of the latter, [Sidenote: A. D.
1149.] about eight years after the siege of Winchester, upon the
crown of England, he was again brought to the verge of a rupture with
Stephen. The youthful Henry Fitz Empress suddenly arrived at Carlisle
to receive the honour of knighthood from the hands of his venerable
kinsman, Ranulph of Chester, who had purposely repaired to the same
city, with Henry of Scotland, assisting in the solemnities of the
occasion. Ceremonial and festivity, however, only served to cover
the real object of the meeting, and arrangements were set on foot,
at the same time, for cementing an alliance which was to place young
Henry upon the English throne. The Earl of Chester, consenting to
waive all claims upon Carlisle, performed homage to David on receiving
in exchange the fief of Lancaster, with a promise that a daughter
of Prince Henry should be given in marriage to his son. Henry Fitz
Empress bound himself, if ever he regained his grandfather’s throne, to
confirm, without let or hindrance, to David and his heirs, Newcastle
and Northumberland, from Tyne to Tweed, with all the other English
fiefs that belonged to the heir of the Scottish crown, in right of his
descent from Earl Waltheof; and, these preliminaries being adjusted,
it was agreed that the earl was to concentrate his followers upon
Lancaster; and that the Scottish army, strengthened by his retainers
and by the barons of the western counties who adhered to Henry, should
at once advance against Stephen, who, suspecting the proceedings at
Carlisle, had already reached York on his march towards the north. In
accordance with this arrangement, David and his young relative lost no
time in reaching Lancaster; but Randolph, fickle and treacherous as
usual, was as faithless to his new allies as he had been ever false to
Stephen. He failed in his appointment at Lancaster, Henry recrossed the
sea to Normandy, and the two kings, mutually averse to the hazard of an
open rupture, led back their armies without a contest.[259]
Towards the close of David’s reign the peace of Scotland was disturbed
for a considerable time by the pretensions of a most extraordinary
imposter, who, by a singular chance, has been confounded by the
historians of the last five hundred years with the very person whose
son, or nephew, he seems to have attempted to personate. In the course
of 1134, the same year in which Malcolm MacHeth was committed to
Roxburgh castle, Olave Godredson, king of Man, granted certain lands
to Ivo, abbot of Furness, for the erection of a priory at Rushen; and
amongst the brotherhood who, either at that time or subsequently, were
sent into the Isle of Man, was a monk of the name of Wimund, a man of
obscure birth but of considerable talents, and still greater and most
unscrupulous ambition. His jovial countenance and ready eloquence,
his stalwart frame and commanding stature--for he towered a head and
shoulders above the height of ordinary men--marked him out as a fit
leader for an ignorant and excitable multitude, though scarcely in
the capacity of a bishop. Yet the Manxmen thought otherwise, and, in
process of time, Wimund was advanced to the see of the Isles; though
such peaceful dignity suiting ill with his restless disposition,
he only regarded his appointment as a stepping stone to further
advancement, soon giving himself out as a son of the Earl of Moray,
and inviting the boldest and most reckless of his wild flock to assist
in avenging the injuries, and recovering the possessions, of his
supposed father, promising unlimited plunder to all who followed him to
Scotland. The descendants of the old sea-rovers flocked eagerly to the
call of their singular pastor, whose influence over them was unbounded,
and the warlike bishop lost no time in leading his followers to the
pillage of the western coasts. His proceedings, ere long, proved him to
be no mean proficient in the tactics of partizan warfare. The approach
of a hostile force was the signal for immediate departure, Wimund and
his followers dispersed amongst the islands, and upon the arrival of
the royal army the sole tidings of the enemy were the reports of his
excesses in another direction. No sooner had his pursuers retraced
their steps, than the bishop and his satellites were again on the
alert, carrying fire and sword throughout the district just evacuated;
and so often and so successfully were these tactics repeated, that
David is said to have experienced more trouble and anxiety on account
of this turbulent monk, than through any other enemy during the whole
course of his reign. Once, only, he sustained a check, which he
received from an appropriate quarter--another bishop, who refusing
to submit to his demand for tribute on the singular, but strictly
ecclesiastical, grounds that “one bishop should not pay tribute to
another,” summoned his own flock to resist the unorthodox intrusion,
and launched a light battle-axe at the head of Wimund with an aim so
accurate that the burly monk reeled beneath the blow, and his followers
fled from the field.
At length, in despair of succeeding by force, the king adopted an
opposite policy, and bought off the hostility of Wimund by a grant of
Furness in Westmoreland, where, for a short time, the bishop played the
tyrant with impunity, particularly directing his virulence against the
monastery in which he had passed his early days. At length the people
of the neighbourhood, whose patience was worn out by his exactions,
watching their opportunity, seized upon him at an unguarded moment,
and the luckless Wimund, to whom no mercy was shown, was deprived of
his see, and passed the remainder of his life, sightless and cruelly
maimed, in the monastery of Biland. No sufferings, however, could
subdue the reckless spirit of the man, who was wont to boast, with a
laugh, that “even Providence could only conquer him by the faith of a
foolish bishop;” adding, that if his enemies had only left him as much
sight as a “sparrow’s eye,” he would have soon shown them how little
cause they had for triumph.[260]
The whole of the north of England beyond the Tees had now for several
years been under the influence, if not under the direct authority,
of the Scottish king, and the comparative prosperity of this part
of the kingdom, contrasting strongly with the anarchy prevailing in
every other quarter, naturally inclined the population of the northern
counties to look with favour upon a continuance of the Scottish
connection. All southward of the Tyne, indeed, was held probably in
the name of the Empress Queen, but the influence of David extended
far beyond the Tees, and when a claim was raised upon the Honour of
Skipton in Craven, it was the Scottish, and not the English king who
decided upon its validity. William Fitz Duncan was the claimant, the
heir of Duncan the Second and the victor at Clitheroe, whose fiery
courage broke off the conference before the battle upon Cutton Moor,
and whose prominent position upon this and other occasions during the
war, seems to mark him as the Gaelic Toshach. Like his father, however,
he was more of a feudal than a Gaelic noble, and several years before
this date he married, during the lifetime of Archbishop Thorstein,
Alice de Rumeli, the heiress of her Norman name; three daughters and
one son, whose fame yet lingers in local tradition as William of
Egremont, being the issue of their union. It was in right of his wife
that William raised his claim; [Sidenote: A. D. 1151.] and as it must
have suited well with the policy of David to increase the feudal ties
incidentally securing the fidelity of his nephew, he lost no time in
installing him in the Honour, willingly providing him with the means
of enforcing his rights (as some opposition appears to have been
meditated), and atoning for the depredations of the more unruly portion
of the army by the gift of a silver chalice wherever the property of
the church was shown to have suffered from their licence.[261]
One of the most important objects of David’s policy at length appeared
to be satisfactorily attained, and the great northern fiefs of his
wife’s father added securely to the Scottish crown. They were at
present held by his son, and in some sort as a guarantee of neutrality
towards Stephen, which, though slight was so far effectual that it
restrained David from ill-advised hostilities; whilst the feeble hold
of Stephen upon the fiefs in question must have rendered him unwilling,
as long as a nominal peace was preserved, to risk the chances of an
ineffectual forfeiture which he could have scarcely hoped to carry
out. In the event of the Duke of Normandy’s accession, there was the
solemn contract ratified at Carlisle, which was to confirm the Scottish
princes in the hereditary possession of these fiefs, in which it might
well be hoped that a kindred people in language, origin, and laws,
would amalgamate in course of time, under the fostering rule of the
representatives of the sainted Edward, with the Anglian inhabitants of
the Lothians. Even the population of that great Episcopal Palatinate,
where the bishop ruled with regal power and privileges over a district
scarcely yet included in Norman England at the time of the Domesday
survey, was in sympathy and in race far more akin to the Angles of
Bernicia than to the descendants of the Scandinavian conquerors of
the Danelage; and the tendency of the men of Durham to turn their
regards towards the North, was sedulously encouraged ever since the
days of Margaret. It was her husband, the Scottish Malcolm, who laid
the first stone of the new church in the Episcopal city; her sons and
their leading nobles who enriched with their donations her favourite
monastery; and now the last and greatest of her immediate family
sheltered the sacred territory of St. Cuthbert from the miseries of
southern England, and secured for it the advantages of peace. The grant
of the English fief of Furness to Wimund, by which a troublesome enemy
was converted into a questionable feudatory, and the confirmation
of Skipton, also a dependency of the English crown, to William Fitz
Duncan, were carried out by the Scottish king without the slightest
reference to the prerogatives of the English sovereign; and owing to
the distracted state of England during the reign of Stephen, never was
Scotland at any period of her history more powerful relatively to her
southern neighbour, than during the last ten years of David’s reign.
[Sidenote: A. D. 1152. 12th June.]
Bright as were the hopes of the aged king, when he established his
nephew in the inheritance of the de Rumelis, in the following summer
they were doomed to disappointment, when a sudden gloom was cast
over Scotland by the untimely death of Prince Henry. Nor was the
sorrow thus felt confined to his native land alone, for his loss was
regretted throughout the neighbouring kingdom. His death was indeed a
calamity for Scotland, for all the virtues of his family are said to
have centred in his character; and handsome in person, and gallant in
bearing, he possessed in addition those popular qualities which, had
he lived, would have endeared him to his people; though the elaborate
praises dictated by the attachment of his early friend, the abbot of
Rievaulx, are perhaps less emphatic than the brief description of
St. Bernard, “a brave and able soldier, he walked like his father in
the paths of justice and of truth.”[262] By his marriage with Ada de
Warenne, who survived him, Henry left six children, three sons and
three daughters. Of the former, Malcolm and William lived to ascend
the throne of Scotland, and David, the youngest, long enjoyed the
Honour and title of Huntingdon. Ada, the eldest daughter, became the
wife of Florence Count of Holland, carrying with her as a dowry the
northern earldom of Ross. Margaret, the second, was twice married;
first to Conan Duke of Bretagne, by whom she left an only daughter,
Constance, who became the wife of Geoffrey and the mother of Arthur,
son and grandson of Henry the Second; and after the death of Conan, to
Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford. Matilda, the youngest sister, died
unmarried in the same year as her brother Malcolm.[263]
Amidst the deep affliction which he must have felt at the loss of
his only son, nothing was left undone by David that could ensure the
peaceful succession of his grandchildren. A crisis was even then
impending, for six months before the death of the prince of Scotland
Henry Fitz Empress had already landed in England, and Stephen,
whose good and gentle queen was no longer alive, seizing upon the
opportunity of Prince Henry’s death to strengthen his cause by a
fresh alliance, had at once made over Huntingdon to the Earl of
Northampton. Accordingly, under the charge of Duncan Earl of Fife,
upon whom the privileges of his earldom appear to have conferred this
office, Malcolm was dispatched throughout the Scottish provinces to be
acknowledged in every quarter of the realm as the heir and successor
of his grandfather, whilst the king, hurrying in person to Newcastle,
assembled the barons of Northumberland and took oaths and hostages for
their obedience to William, whom he presented to them as their future
feudal lord; and during the few short months he survived his son, he
busied himself in completing his arrangements for the regulation of the
kingdom in the event of his own decease.[264]
The close of his career, indeed, was not far distant, for though his
intellect was still clear and vigorous, his bodily health was failing
fast, and though his friends would assure him that he had yet many
years to live, he felt in his own mind a presentiment that his end
was at hand. It was on a Wednesday towards the close of May that the
venerable monarch perceived the approach of death. Calmly reviewing his
last instructions, he suggested a few additions, and having concluded
his earthly affairs, dedicated his remaining hours to religion. Even
at such a moment his kindly nature beamed forth, and when almost
speechless he beckoned to his almoner, who, bending over the couch
of his dying master, heard him whisper his latest instructions for
the distribution of his daily alms. [Sidenote: A. D. 1153.] Thus he
lingered over the remainder of the week, and as the sun rose upon
the morning of the 24th, the spirit of the aged king returned to his
Maker.[265]
David was a good man as well as an able king. His faith was of the
age, but his religion was from the heart, and there are few who will
not respect the feeling that prompted his dying wish to be carried
to pray before the Black Rood of his mother. The times in which he
lived, and the peculiar tone of his mother’s mind, which is easily
traceable in all her children, may naturally have influenced the
character of his religion, but the formal and saintly colours in which
he is occasionally depicted, represent the actual living man about as
much, probably, as a mediæval portrait in stained glass resembles the
real features of the original. Strict in the conception of his own
religious duties, he was exact in requiring from the ecclesiastical
body a decorous abstinence from all internal broils and dissensions, in
return for the immunities and external peace he was zealous in insuring
them, enforcing obedience if necessary; though, it is said, that on one
occasion he was obliged to kneel to an obdurate churchman before he
could shame him into propriety. A kindly and warm-hearted disposition
is traceable in many of his acts, and is especially displayed in his
consideration and thoughtfulness for his poorer subjects. In accordance
with a regulation often found in other codes, and which was, probably,
a well-known and general maxim of law, no one was allowed to bring a
lesser cause into the royal court of justice, except as an appeal from
a lower court: yet, in spite of this enactment, which he seems to have
been the first to introduce into Scotland, he appointed certain days
on which, like an eastern king of old, he “sat in the gate” to give
audience to the poor and the aged; and he would turn without a murmur
from a hunting party to examine the appeal of a suppliant; if his
decision was contrary to the expectations of his humble petitioners,
kindly endeavouring to convince them of its justice--in too many
instances a thankless and hopeless undertaking. The poor and the
defenceless, indeed, were the especial objects of his protection, and
he passed a law that whenever anything belonging to them was stolen,
if only one man of good repute was ready to testify to the thief by an
oath sworn on the altar before proper witnesses, “according to Scottish
usage,” the stolen property was to be restored, “on the footing of the
king,” and an additional fine of “eight cows,” the usual mulct for
serious offences, levied on the offender--a privilege of great moment
to the unprotected and oppressed in an age when, in ordinary cases, the
oaths of six, twelve, or even more men, were necessary to establish an
accusation of theft.[266]
Conciliation may be described as the leading principle of David’s
policy. Called in the prime of life to reign over a people differing in
race, in habits, and in language, and agreeing only in the perpetuation
of hereditary feuds, he determined upon introducing, amongst his own
subjects, the more orderly and settled system of government with which
he and his brother Alexander were familiar during their lengthened
residence at the Anglo-Norman court; and so ably were his measures
conceived, and so judicious was his admixture of conciliation and
authority in carrying out this project,--which seems to have been
entertained by both brothers,--that he is said to have succeeded in
establishing a more durable state of concord amongst the heterogeneous
population of his kingdom, than existed at that period amongst
people enjoying far higher advantages. Perhaps the true secret of
his popularity lay in the admirable tact with which he seems to have
entered warmly into the subject that lay nearest to the hearts of all
his people--their own affairs. David had nothing to conceal except his
councils, and the royal chamber was accessible at all times; every one
in turn was favoured with an audience; the great and the lowly; the
churchman and the soldier the burgher and the peasant, each departing
with the assurance that his own interests were a matter of attention
and care to a watchful and paternal ruler.
Pursuing the policy inaugurated by his mother, Queen Margaret, he
encouraged the resort of foreign merchants to the ports of Scotland,
insuring to native traders the same advantages which they had enjoyed
during the reign of his father; whilst he familiarized his Gaelic
nobles, in their attendance upon the royal court, with habits of luxury
and magnificence, remitting three years’ rent and tribute--according to
the account of his contemporary Malmesbury--to all his people who were
willing to improve their dwellings, to dress with greater elegance,
and to adopt increased refinement in their general manner of living.
Even in the occupations of his leisure moments he seems to have wished
to exercise a softening influence over his countrymen, for, like many
men of his character, he was fond of gardening, and he delighted in
indoctrinating his people in the peaceful arts of horticulture, and
in the mysteries of planting and of grafting. For similar reasons he
sedulously promoted the improvement of agriculture, or rather, perhaps,
directed increased attention to it; for the Scots of that period
were still a pastoral, and, in some respects, a migratory people,
their magnates not residing, like the great feudal nobles, in their
own castles, and in the centre of their own “demesnes,” but moving
about from place to place--not always upon their own property--and
quartering themselves upon the dependant population. By enforcing
tillage and agricultural labour, and by directing laws against the
indolent listlessness of a pastoral life--for it was an age when, from
the reaction which might be expected after a period of “irregulated”
independence, even the common occurrences of every day life were often
made the subject of legal statutes--David hoped to convert the lower
orders into a more settled and industrious population; whilst he
enjoined the higher classes to “live like noblemen” upon their own
estates, and not to waste the property of their neighbours, and spare
their own, under pretence of continual journeys. In consequence of
these measures feudal castles began, ere long, to replace the earlier
buildings of wood and wattles rudely fortified by earthworks; and
towns rapidly grew up around the royal castles and about the principal
localities of commerce. The monasteries of Kelso, Jedburgh, Melrose,
and Holyrood, with many another stately pile, also owed their first
foundation to the fostering care of David; for, independently of his
religious zeal, he appreciated the encouragement afforded by such
establishments to the pacific arts it was his aim to introduce amongst
his subjects. The prosperity of the country during the last fifteen
years of his reign contrasted strongly with the miseries of England
under the disastrous rule of Stephen; Scotland became the granary
from which her neighbour’s wants were supplied; and to the court of
Scotland’s king resorted the knights and nobles of foreign origin, whom
the commotions of the Continent had hitherto driven to take refuge in
England.[267]
David, for his own purposes, encouraged this immigration by every means
in his power; for many of the events of his reign disclose the dilemma
in which he was occasionally placed between his nobility of native
birth, and the Anglo-Norman feudatories whose allegiance was also due
to the English crown. On the former he could count with safety in any
of his inroads upon the south, and to the latter he could look for
assistance against the rebellions of the north and west; but there were
circumstances in which he could place entire dependance upon neither
party. If he threw himself into the arms of the native Scots he must
have resigned all hope of social improvement; but if he alienated their
affections and relied exclusively upon the Anglo-Normans, he must have
made up his mind to reconquer northern Scotland by force of arms, or
to resign it to some successful competitor. He gave, therefore, a
ready welcome to all who arrived unfettered by any tie to the English
king, depending on the knights for the creation of a baronage strongly
attached to his own interests, and equally to be relied upon against
Englishman and native Scot; whilst to the lower orders, whom he settled
in the towns, he looked for the promotion of commerce and the formation
of a burgherhood, devoted to the king from whom their privileges and
immunities were derived.
In furtherance of his contemplated innovations, and not a little also
of the views which he never ceased to entertain of still farther
aggrandizing his kingdom on her southern frontier, David may be said
to have laid the foundation of a radical change in the relative
importance of the two great divisions of feudal Scotland. Hitherto,
though the royal authority extended practically as far as the Spey,
and the king of Scots was obeyed nominally throughout the whole extent
of the mainland, the country between the Forth, the Tay, and the
central ridge of the Grampian range, was the real heart and centre of
_Alban_. Here were the royal capitals of Scone and Forteviot; here
the bishoprics of St. Andrews and Dunkeld, and Abernethy once also a
capital and bishopric, still an abbacy, and apparently the seat of the
learning of the age.[268] Here also were the religious foundations of
David’s parents, and of his brother Alexander; and here the late king
was wont to hold his court at his favourite residence of Invergowrie.
Southward of the Forth stretched Lothian and the ancient principality
of Strath Clyde, provinces still dependant on the kingdom beyond the
_Scots-water_, and never yet regarded as the seat of the central
authority. Northern Scotland may be compared to Wessex, the hereditary
province of the royal race and the centre of the English government;
the southern district between the Forth, the Solway, and the Tweed,
resembling the Danelage, secure in its own laws and customs, but
secondary in other respects to the remaining portion of the kingdom.
Southern Scotland was the creation of David. He embellished it with the
monasteries of his religious foundations; he strengthened it with the
castles of his feudal baronage; and here he established the nucleus of
feudal Scotland, and the foundation of that importance which eventually
transferred the preponderance in the kingdom to the south. Strath Clyde
and the Lothians were admirably adapted to his purpose, for all the
land appears to have been in direct dependance on the crown; he could
stud it at will with his favourite Anglo-Norman chivalry, and there
are no traces in either quarter of the powerful magnates who were in a
position, beyond the Scots-water, to oppose the policy of their king.
But it is not to be imagined that in any portion of the kingdom, except
in forfeited districts, David enacted the part of a conqueror, driving
out the earlier population and replacing the native proprietary by a
baronage of foreign origin. He was beloved by the Scots, and terrible
only to the men of Galloway, says his friend and biographer Ailred; and
it is impossible that he could have retained the affections of his own
people had he carried out a policy so hostile to their very existence.
He seems to have confirmed rather than destroyed proprietary right, and
though he introduced novel tenures into Scotland, the Thanes holding,
according to ancient custom, by Scottish service will be found, long
after his reign, side by side with the knights and barons holding by
the feudal tenure of military service. But this and other changes which
he accomplished, and the general policy he pursued in church and state,
will form the subject of the two succeeding chapters.[269]
CHAPTER IX.
THE STATE.
Scotland in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries still retained many
of the features of a confederated rather than of a consolidated
kingdom, acknowledging indeed, even in the earlier portion of that
period, the rule of one reigning family, but scarcely recognising the
authority of the same laws and customs, or bound together by the ties
of kindred, origin, and language. Between Forth and Tweed lay Lothian,
bordering towards the western frontiers upon the Cumbrian principality
and Galloway; both the former provinces having been annexed to the
Scottish crown by a course of successful aggression, if not by actual
conquest, though Galloway was still rather a tributary dependency than
an integral portion of the kingdom. Lothian, apparently, preserved
the same laws that were in force throughout Saxon Northumbria before
the reign of Canute; whilst two centuries of the dominion of a
Scottish line of princes over Cumbria must have introduced a Scottish
proprietary very generally throughout the province, without effecting
any material alteration in laws and customs, which, based upon the
Celtic principle of government, differed probably little, if at all,
from the code then and long afterwards retained in Galloway.
Northward of the Scots-water two great divisions were recognised,
_Scotia_, or Scotland proper, and _Moravia_. The former embraced the
whole of the Lowland districts from the Spey to the Forth, extending
to the summit of the _Mounth_ or Grampian range; thus including the
earldoms of Mar, Buchan, and Angus, Fife, Atholl, Strathearn, and
Menteith, with Gowrie and Stormont, the Merns and other districts
retained more directly in the king’s hands; together with the whole
of “Scottish Argyle,” which, before the creation of the shire and
bishopric, was connected with Atholl and the Abbacy of Glendochart;
whilst Cantyre and Cowal depended upon the earldom of Menteith.
_Moravia_ was made up of the earldoms of Moray, forfeited in the
earlier portion of David’s reign; Caithness, which still included
Sutherland, then extending as far as Dingwall; and Ross, a sort of
debatable land between the _Gall-Gael_, _Oirir-Gael_, and ancient
Mormaors of Moray: with “Northern Argyle,” or that portion of the
territories of the _Oirir-Gael_ which reached, at this period, from
the northern boundaries of the modern county to the frontiers of
the _Gall-Gael_ in Sutherland.[270] Feudal tenure, in the later
Anglo-Norman acceptation of the word, was unknown throughout these
provinces at the accession of Alexander the First; though the earlier
system of government, once existing amongst a number of independent
tribes and confederacies, had long given place to the royal authority
wherever the rights of the crown--as was certainly the case in
_Scotia_--were thoroughly established. But though the principle of
the system was changed, the features remained very much the same; and
a nobility, owing their original appointment or confirmation to the
crown, exercising as deputies the privileges of the sovereign, and
retaining as their prerogative a portion of the dues they exacted in
his name, stood in the place of the elective or hereditary magistrates
of tribes and confederacies. The Thane, or _Tighern_, and the official
known as the _Deempster_, represented the _Cean-cinneth_, or rather
perhaps the _Toshach_, and the _Brehon_--the chief, or captain, and
the judge of the clan; the earl or _Mormaor_ the provincial judge
answered to the chosen leader and judge of the confederacy; the kindred
of these officials, and the _Og-tiernach_, or “lesser lords,” formed
the _Duchasach_ and _Duine-uasal_, the gentry or freeholders of the
district; whilst none who could not claim to be enrolled amongst one of
these kindreds were entitled to the privileges of free or gentle birth.
The only tenure known at this period was the _Gavel_[271] one of the
earliest forms of the original allotment, which was enjoyed in common
by all within the limit of the immediate kindred--or, in Teutonic
phrase, all embraced in the _Mæg-borh_--a permanent property in such
a holding only being acquired by uninterrupted possession for the
usual period of “three generations.” No fixed or individual property,
in the modern sense of the word, was conveyed by such a tenure in any
certain spot of land as long as divisible and inheritable property
consisted of money, arms, and ornaments, and the stock and produce
of the land; but rather a right of joint-occupancy in the family
district or holding, shared by all who could claim a certain degree
of kindred with the Senior of the race. The Senior was elective,
every member of the kindred who had a right of joint-occupancy also
having an equal claim to choose the head of his family; though under
ordinary circumstances the precedency seems to have been generally
conceded to the actual representative of the original “eldest born.”
Seniority conferred privileges, but it also entailed obligations. To
every kindred occupant of a lesser holding was assigned a portion of
land, the Senior having the preference in the choice of allotments,
with a joint right to feed his live stock on the common pasture, and
a similar share in the house, barns, and stabling; the possession of
the hearth in the “capital messuage” generally being included amongst
the prerogatives of seniority. All that was not partitioned out in
this manner fell to the share of the Senior, who in return for his
privileges was responsible for the whole of his kindred. He was their
_plegius_ or security, and their spokesman on all occasions,--or, in
the language of the Anglo-Saxon laws, their _Borh_ and _Fore-Speca_. He
asserted their joint rights, he avenged their joint wrongs, and he was
answerable in their joint names for the receipts or payments invariably
following injuries whether inflicted or received--for community in good
or evil was the very soul of the system of kindred--as well as for the
due exercise of hospitality whenever the “overlord,” to use the feudal
phrase, was entitled, on his _Cuairt_ or Visitation, to demand the
“refection,” which was known amongst the Anglo-Saxons as “a night’s
feorm.” It may be safely assumed that similar features were exhibited
on a greater scale in the thanage, and in the holding belonging to the
district judge; the obligation of “refection” in the case of the thane
being confined to receiving the king, an earl, or an abbot or bishop,
according as he held office under a lay or ecclesiastical superior. To
judge from the parallel case of the Welsh nobleman, this was generally
on the occasion of the great winter circuit, when the Scottish kings
and magnates were accustomed to pass their Christmas amongst their
thanes, much as the kings and Jarls of Scandinavia were wont, according
to the old Icelandic chronicler, to move about during the winter months
amongst their baronage, or _Hersirs_, who held their lands in a similar
manner by the tenure of _Veitslo_, or provisioning the king. The same
rule may be supposed to have been applicable to the earldom; whilst
the principle of community of right in the kindred unquestionably
extended to ecclesiastical dignitaries amongst the Gael, _Tanist_ and
_Adbhar_ abbots--or the successor actually chosen, and all capable of
being nominated to the abbacy--being continually met with in the Irish
annals.[272] It may be gathered from the ancient Scottish laws that
the limit of the immediate kindred extended to the third generation,
all who were fourth in descent from a Senior passing from amongst
the joint-proprietary, and receiving, apparently, a final allotment;
which seems to have been separated permanently from the remainder of
the joint-property by certain ceremonies usual on such occasions.
On the death of a Senior, a redistribution of the land and offices
belonging to the family invariably took place; and it was at this
period, probably, that all who were beyond the limit of the immediate
kindred received their final allotment. The fourth in descent from a
thane, no longer entitled to his share amongst the joint-proprietary,
or _Tigherns_, became an _Og-tiern_, he and his descendants holding
henceforth of the representative of the Senior, by the same tenure
as the thane held of the king; the lapse of the necessary period in
both cases rendering them irremovable from their respective districts.
The _Tanist_, or next in succession--for the “law of Tanistry” is
only another phrase for the law of succession--was appointed at the
same time as the Senior, receiving an allotment in proportion to the
dignity of his office, and, at this period, generally holding the
_Toshachdorach_, or captaincy of the family,--which, in later days,
as the law of succession gradually altered, and the office of Tanist
sunk into disuse, seems to have become the especial prerogative of
the next in succession; and when the earldom, lordship, or thanage
passed out of the original family by female heiresses, was generally
confirmed by charter on the heir male, to be held hereditarily under
the head of the house. Nor was the _Toshach_ a character confined to
the Celtic people alone; for the Mayor of the palace under the early
Merovingian sovereigns, who was usually elected at the same time as the
king, and was perhaps a member of the same royal race, was known as the
_Dux Francorum_; very much resembling the Gaelic _Toshach_, and the
dignitary whose title appears upon the early British coins under the
Latinized form of _Tascio_.[273]
Many of the features, indeed, displayed in the Celtic Gavel were not
in any way peculiar to the Celtic people, but will be found to have
very generally existed in every part of western and northern Europe,
wherever a portion of the population continued to hold their land by
the older system, which was stigmatized as _Roturier_ after the
feudal theory of “knight-service” was recognised as the only principle
of “gentle tenure.” In the intermediate period, when the earlier system
still held its ground side by side with the principles of Roman law,
and the shifting allotment to which every member of the _Folk_ or
_Leod_ was entitled by “the right of blood” was passing gradually
into a fixed and permanent inheritance, length of possession,
variously reckoned in different early laws, alone conferred pure
allodial property in land amongst the German people--for the chartered
grant from the king was thoroughly Roman--whilst throughout the North,
long uninfluenced by contact with Imperial Rome, the original principle
of descent, which was still traceable in the Germanic nobility of this
period, and in the “inborn” right acquired by the lower orders, was in
full force; the _Bonder_ growing into the _Odal-Bonder_, and
if his blood was strictly pure, into the _Holder_, solely after
the lapse of the necessary number of descents. Long after the conquest
of the ancestral dukedom of the English kings by Philip Augustus of
France, the main features of the law of Tanistry, which seemed so
strange to the Anglo-Irish lawyers of the seventeenth century, were
still familiar to the Normans of the continental duchy. All the family
up to the sixth degree were joint proprietors with the Senior of the
race in the _Tenure-par-Parage_, holding by fealty alone, the
seventh in descent passing from amongst the privileged kindred and
holding by _homage_, thus becoming “_the man_” of the head
of the family, just as the fourth in descent by Scottish custom became
an _Og-tiern_ under the Thane. The difference in the number of
descents was simply the result of the introduction of a noble class
above the free, and in either case, all who passed beyond the limits
of the kindred evidently had an “inborn” right to a fixed and final
provision.[274] A similar principle seems to have regulated the holding
amongst the continental Angles, which never passed to an heiress until
the kindred could furnish no male heir within the necessary limit,
extending in this case to the fifth degree. The _share-house_ of
the Kentish _Gavel_ (the _Bold-getal_ perhaps of Alfred’s
laws), with the hearth reserved, as among the Welsh, for the youngest
heir; the allotment of which the name of _shifting_ betokens
the original character; and the freedom of the heirs from the
consequences of the father’s felony, alluded to in the old Kentish
rhymes, “the father to the bough, the son to the plough,”--a freedom
which was confirmed, rather than introduced, in Scotland by the laws
of William,[275]--closely resemble the characteristics of the Celtic
holding: though the preference of the youngest heir in the Welsh and
Kentish Gavel, and in the tenure known as _Borough-English_,
discloses the pre-existence of a state of society unknown, apparently,
amongst the Gael; whilst the allodial character of the Kentish Gavel
seems to have been almost peculiar to that county.
Both the principle of joint proprietary right, and the elective
character of the Senior, were thoroughly recognised in the Imperial
Benefice, at least as late as the eleventh century. The kindred, ending
at the seventh in descent, and never acquiring hereditary right before
the lapse of three generations, chose and presented their Senior to
their lord, their representative fulfilling all the obligations of the
benefice, which, being held by military service, differed in certain
particulars from the older Gavel.[276] Stated military service was
required for a stated portion of land, a well-armed soldier attending
his lord from every benefice, which was always originally of a certain
stated size, the holder of many being answerable for an equivalent
number of men-at-arms, whilst the responsibility in half a benefice
was shared between the Seniors of two such holdings. As the military
feud required the service of a man-at-arms, it followed that the lord
was entitled to provide a substitute whenever such service could not
be rendered through the minority or sex of the heirs; and out of this
right arose the claim of the lord of a military fief to control the
marriage of the heiress, and to act as guardian of the minor, rights
which, in the case of the Gavel, belonged to the kindred. The earlier
system was ruled by a different principle of military service: the
greater the numbers of the family or tribe, the more prominent their
position in battle, the wider the district allotted to them in the
annual distribution of the land; and hence it was the pride of the
German _pagi_, in the days of Tacitus, to contribute a far greater
number of warriors than their necessary quota of “a hundred.” The
earlier principle was still in full force amongst the Celts, every
freeman continuing to carry arms, and to be liable at the call of the
king to attend the yearly assembly of the _Sluagh_ or _Leuchte_--the
Welsh _Lluyd_, the German _Leudes_--if required for a “hosting across
the border;” a custom which was retained side by side with the military
service of the feudal system, under the name of “Scottish service,”
rendering an army thus levied, and armed only with weapons of offence,
more numerous indeed, but far less effective, than the well-equipped
body of mail-clad men-at-arms, who were bound by the tenure of
“knight-service” to follow their lord to the field.
Wherever the adoption of the benefice had introduced the principle of
stated military service, the representatives of the earlier freemen
had invariably sunk into a class of agricultural peasantry, free,
but occupying an intermediate station between the noble and the læt
or serf. The soldier, for instance, amongst the Anglo-Saxons in the
seventh century was exclusively represented by the Thane, whilst the
member of the _folk_ or people was only required to attend the
army in the capacity of a camp follower, unarmed and without either the
duties or responsibilities of a fighting man.[277] No such intermediate
class is traceable amongst the Celts of this period, who had not yet,
apparently, entered upon that stage of society in which the noble rose
out from amongst the ranks of the free, as a member of a distinct and
separate caste. The equivalent of the Anglo-Saxon Ceorl--the Boneddig
or Bonnacht--continued to rank amongst the lesser _Duine-Uasal_
who lived by the sword, and whilst the title of _Churl_ has passed
into an opprobrious epithet in the English language, the candidate
for a Welsh county still esteems it an act of courtesy to address his
constituency as _Boneddigion_ or “gentlemen.” A wide, and in
most cases apparently an all but impassable barrier, separated the
_Duine-Uasal_ from the agricultural population connected with the
land, a class which may be said, in a general way, to have comprised
all who were not connected by blood with the _Duchasach_ of the
district, answering to the _Attach Tuatha_ or _Daer-Clans_
amongst the Irish, and the _Alltudion_ and earlier _Lætic_
population--the _Wealh_--amongst the Welsh and Germans. Captives
and criminals formed the absolutely servile class, for, to judge from
the Welsh laws, the _alien_ enjoyed a certain degree of freedom,
being at liberty to change his residence as long as it was equally in
the power of his lord to remove him from his land; though after a lapse
of three generations in one locality, the fourth in descent acquired a
permanent right to remain in the ancestral dwelling, with a claim to
subsistence in that district from which he was now irremovable. No
fixity of tenure was acquired by such a claim, which was simply a right
to receive every year from the _maor_ or steward of the Tighern
a shifting allotment, representing literally the yearly assignment
of land alluded to in the descriptions of Cæsar and Tacitus; and at
the opening of the fourteenth century the agricultural population
throughout Scotland, as a class, still held their farms by a yearly
tenancy-at-will.[278] By that time, however, the shifting character of
the allotment had probably undergone a certain qualification, for the
earliest law laid down in the first year of the reign of Alexander the
Second seems to have been directed against the unsettled condition of
these _Attach Tuatha_, and their predilection for the listless
indolence of a pastoral life. Every “Bondman” was ordered to plough and
sow the land in the same locality, or _Vill_, he had occupied in
the preceding year; all who had held no land but were in the possession
of five cows or upwards--in other words, of more than a pound--were
bidden to take land from their lord and raise a corn crop for his
benefit; whilst the proprietor of less than that amount of cattle
was to sell his oxen, if he had any, to those who could use them in
tillage, and work as a labourer in digging and sowing, equally for the
benefit of his lord.[279] The dependance of the _Duine-Uasal_ for
their support upon the population thus attached to the soil, ensured
to the latter a certain amount of consideration; for it was on his
“native-men” that the Tighern quartered his kinsmen and retainers, and
from the same agricultural class he levied his rents. The necessity of
a class of this description in such an age was its safeguard, up to a
certain point, from extortion and oppression; they were protected like
a sheep for its fleece, as long as their Tighern was in a condition to
defend them, the want of fixed and settled rights being invariably most
felt when society is in a state of transition.
Such then were the two great classes into which the whole population of
Scotland was at this time divided. Earls, Thanes, Judges, and Ogtierns,
with their respective kindred, composed the _Duchasach_ or
_Duine-Uasal_, the free proprietary of the kingdom, together with
the lesser _Duine-Uasal_ who dedicated their swords to the service
of their Senior, answering to the Welsh _Boneddigion_. Amongst
the numerous burdens which pressed so heavily upon the Irish peasantry
in the Anglo-Irish period, was the payment of a certain sum under
the name of _Bonnacht_, to relieve them from the necessity of
supporting their lord’s retainers; the existence of this custom amongst
the Irish Gael pointing to the manner in which, in a similar state of
society, the lesser _Duine-Uasal_, or _Bonnacht_, amongst the
Scottish Gael were quartered upon the native-men of their respective
districts. Nor must the abbot and his kindred, with _Duine-Uasal_
connected with the _ab-thanage_, be omitted from amongst the
_Duchasach_; whilst as there were “inborn” clergy, who at a
later date were numbered amongst the _Nativi_, and the son of a
chaplain by the laws of William lost his free-right upon the death of
his father, the law of descent which was in force amongst the laity
was evidently in operation amongst the clergy also.[280] No especial
privileges of rank belonged to the ecclesiastical order in early times
amongst the people of Germanic origin; they were assessed according
to their actual birth, and it was an innovation upon ancient custom
amongst the Anglo-Saxons when the priest, “on account of his seven
orders,” was reckoned worthy of _Thane-right_ or nobility. The
earlier custom was still in force apparently amongst the Celts; and as
none beyond a certain limit of the “Founder’s kin” were privileged to
succeed to the abbacy, so the descendants of the married clergy, beyond
a similar limit, would appear to have become attached as dependants to
the abbey lands; forming, probably, those bands of monastic warriors
whose occasional conflicts, recorded in the Irish Annals, seem to
have rivalled in ferocity the tumults of the eastern monks. The
kindred of the sovereign enjoyed the rank and appanages of earls, the
line of Atholl unquestionably, and perhaps that of Fife, branching
off permanently in this manner from the royal stock--just as the
ealdormen of Saxon Mercia towards the close of the tenth century traced
their origin to Ælfhere the kinsman of Edgar. The remaining earls
represented, either the “inborn” descendants of Mormaors appointed
at an earlier period over conquered districts; or the inheritors
of a province from an independent ancestry, who, acknowledging the
superiority of the king of Scots, continued to hold their territories
by hereditary right, resembling the ealdormen of Saxon Northumbria.
Of the earls of Scotia, the majority probably answered to the
former description, though the ancient earls of Strathern may have
represented, either an offshoot from an earlier royal race, or the
descendants of a line of independent princes; whilst amongst the latter
class may be reckoned the forfeited earls of Moray, the earls of
Caithness, and perhaps of Ross, with the lords of Galloway and of the
Oirir-Gael.
The only recognised bond of union was the immemorial tie of kindred,
none being entitled to the privileges of gentle birth who could not
claim a certain degree of relationship to a Tighern or Og-tiern; none
being entitled to a right of subsistence whose kindred had not dwelt
for three generations in the district. Charters were unknown; a shake
of the hand before a witness settled a common bargain--the thirstier
southerns concluded such compacts with a _drink_--whilst the
delivery of a stick, a straw, or a clod of earth, in the presence of a
greater number of witnesses, apparently conveyed a more permanent grant
of land, though length of occupancy alone conferred hereditary right.
On important occasions a greater degree of ceremony was observed, one
of the latest displays of this description occurring in the reign
of Alexander the First, when the king restored to the Priory of St.
Andrews the tract of country known as the _Cursus Apri_, or “the
Boar’s Raik.” The king, in the presence of a vast concourse of people,
led up to the high altar his Arab charger, equipped with housings of
great value, and with a silver lance and shield; the royal saddle and
shield, with a complete suit of Turkish armour, being preserved in
the church of St. Andrews in testimony of the munificent donation.
Notices of such grants after the middle of the eleventh century were
occasionally preserved in writing, as _memoranda_, however, and
not as title-deeds; and instances of such _memoranda_ are to be
found amongst the Irish and Welsh, as well as amongst the Scots, in
the transitional period preceding the introduction of the regular
charter.[281]
The inevitable tendency of such a state of society was to call into
existence a class of lesser _Duine-Uasal_, clinging to the privileges
of gentle birth, and naturally averse to sink to the level of the
agricultural peasantry. The distant kinsman, removed beyond the limit
of the privileged branches of the family, was ever ready to dedicate
his sword to the service of the Senior of his race, and was quartered
upon the peasantry of the district as an _Amas_ or _Bonnach_, a member
of the _Arimannia_ or _Hird_; for he was always certain of a welcome
in an age in which the numbers of such a following, useless except for
purposes of aggression, were the source and evidence of a chieftain’s
power. Expansion thus became a vital necessity, the very numbers of a
kindred, which entailed the obligation, generally ensuring success in
their encroachments on a weaker neighbour; and the same causes that
impelled one German tribe upon another, or precipitated them in one
mighty wave upon the Roman frontier, ensured a normal state of warfare
amongst the Celts. Scotland was, however, in a far less disorganized
condition than Ireland at this period; and though the royal authority
was comparatively of little use in repressing internal warfare amongst
the mountains of _Moravia_ and Argyle, it was of greater power in
the more open districts of Scotland proper, and the south, where the
magnates no longer mustered their followers for “a hosting beyond
the frontier” except at the sovereign’s command. Oppression and
encroachment had taken the place of open warfare, and they were content
to quarter their followers upon a weaker neighbour, and to relieve the
native-men of their own district by moving about from place to place
under pretence of travelling, or of attending upon the royal court,
with a retinue numerous enough to support their own dignity, and
ensure for themselves and followers the necessary hospitality known
as “herbary.” It was to protect themselves against the abuses of such
a system, which was long in full force amidst the mountains of the
north and west, that the lesser barons at a later period entered into
bonds of _Manred_--or of allegiance in return for protection--with
the greater magnates, whose power and dignity were thus enhanced;
such engagements being only the _chartered_ form of the same tie that
united, in an earlier period, the Gallic and Germanic _clientes_ to the
greater confederacies upon whom they were dependant: for wherever the
circumstances of the age called it forth, the principle of clientage
was sure to be developed.[282]
Few material changes had been introduced beyond the Scots water, in
either church or state, when the youngest and greatest of Malcolm
Ceanmore’s sons succeeded his brother upon the throne. Malcolm was
a Gaelic king to the last, and the reforming energy of Margaret was
directed to the court and clergy; she scarcely aimed at effecting any
radical change in the principles of government. During the reigns of
Duncan and of Donald, Scotland must, if anything, have retrograded
rather than advanced, remaining stationary apparently whilst Edgar
was king--to judge from the little that is known of that period--the
disorganized condition of the see of St. Andrews, which was vacant
during the whole of these three reigns, typifying probably the general
state of the kingdom at large. Sufficient occupation was afforded
Alexander by his contest with the church, which was scarcely brought
to a close with his life, and by his northern wars; and though, from
the presence of some of the great feudal officers of the crown, and of
_Vicecomites_, on certain state occasions during his reign, it may
be gathered that his policy was identical with that of his successor,
David may be safely regarded as the first king who practically
introduced into Scotland the novel system of government in church and
state, which was hardly thoroughly established before the opening of
the thirteenth century. Many of the institutions and principles which
had grown into use, more or less, upon the Continent through the
gradual substitution of Roman law for the earlier Teutonic custom, and
which had been adopted by successive sovereigns of Alfred’s race in
the reconstruction of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy, were now substituted
in a similar manner for the earlier laws and customs of Scotland; some
of these changes being carried out at once, whilst in other cases
a considerable time elapsed, after the first introduction of the
principle, before it was thoroughly in operation throughout the country.
There was a period in early Frankish history, when the _Comes_ or
_Graphio_ was a royal deputy, answerable for the due collection
of the royal revenue, and exercising over the population, dependant
on the Crown, as fiscal-judge, a jurisdiction which did not extend
over the allodial proprietary. None of these attributes belonged to
the _Count_ of a later era, who, no longer either a fiscal-judge
or a collector of the royal revenue, was simply a greater baron,
enjoying only the title and dignity of his former office. A similar
change was in progress amongst the Anglo-Saxons, for in the reign
of Ini, the king’s ealdorman was the leading judge of the shire,
forfeiting his district for compounding a felony; and in Alfred’s
days, no man of a certain class could pass from one shire to another
without permission from the king’s ealdorman, who was still connected
with the shire as the leading personage in the _Gemote_, and
appealed to, on certain occasions, as an official. In Edward’s laws,
however, and in the laws of subsequent kings, the sovereign addresses
his _Gerefas_ alone, without any allusion to the jurisdiction of
the ealdorman; and though the presence of the bishop and the ealdorman
at the _Shire-Gemote_ was required by Edgar’s law, confirmed by
Canute, the Norman Conquest seems to have found the sheriff, a royal
official, and not the _Earl_--who was a _Duke_ rather than
a _Count_ at this period--the presiding officer in the county
court.[283] It appears to have been one of the leading features of the
policy introduced by Alexander and David, to carry out an alteration of
this character in Scotland, where the Earl and the Thane--the Mormaor
and the Maor--like the Jarl and the _Lenderman_ and _Stallr_
amongst the Northmen, were still invested with the full authority of
royal officials. In the Welsh Commot, which was supposed to be divided
by law, or custom, into twelve _maenols_, only one of these
divisions was the actual property of the _Maer_, who exercised
a joint authority with the _Cynghellwr_ over the whole district,
one-third of the Commot being composed of _Taog-trefs_, occupied
by royal villeins, in other words, being royal _demesne_; and
from the division of the crown lands in Scotland at a later period
into _Thanages_ and _Demesne_, it may be gathered that the
thanage was by this time restricted to the actual property of the
thane, who, no longer exercising authority over the demesne as a royal
official, was simply a hereditary tenant by rent, holding by Scottish
service instead of by knight service. In the same manner, the authority
of the Earl or Mormaor--a character unknown in the principality of
Wales, but who was simply a high steward or _Maer_ on a greater
scale,--appears to have been limited to his actual earldom, the
functions which he had hitherto discharged as a royal deputy devolving
on the _Vicecomes_, an official newly introduced, and directly
dependant on the sovereign; in certain cases standing in the same
relation to the royal thanes and the tenantry on demesne lands, as
the baron by military service did to the knights and tenantry of his
barony. Thus, for instance, the great sheriffdom of Perth was made up,
probably, of all the thanages and demesne lands withdrawn from the
superintendence of the various earls, of whose ancient Mormaordoms the
greater portion is now included in the modern county. In Gowrie there
was an earldom and a regality, both remaining under the jurisdiction of
the sheriff of Scone, as long as they were both retained in the king’s
hands; though, had the earldom been granted away, the authority of the
Vicecomes would have been limited to the regality. In Fife alone the
Earl continued in the thirteenth century to exercise the prerogatives
of a royal Maor; and when Alexander the Second, in accordance with
the original gift of David, issued his writs for assigning one-eighth
of the profits and fines of Fife and Fortrev to Dunfermlyn, one writ
was directed to the sheriff of Fife, the other to Earl Malcolm and his
bailies, directing him to make over to the abbey “the eighth, which
_ye levied with us_ in the county.”[284]
The sheriffdom, however, was introduced by degrees; and in Scottish
Argyle, and in Cantyre and Cowal, the duties which devolved in
_Moravia_ on the Vicecomes of Inverness were still performed by
the Earls of Atholl and Menteith, or the Abbot of Glendochart. David
still addressed his mandate in behalf of the abbey of Dunfermlyn to
“the earl and proprietary of Caithness and the Orkneys;” and when, in
the subsequent reign, Malcolm issued a mandate of the same description
to the Earl of Ross, it was similarly addressed to “Earl Malcolm and
his thanes.” Four centuries elapsed before there was more than one
sheriffdom in ancient _Moravia_--a sure sign of the weakness of
the royal authority in early times in the distant north, when the
earl, if so inclined, was probably a more efficient delegate to carry
out the king’s decrees than the royal Vicecomes of Inverness. Even in
Fife the Sheriff is not traceable before the days of William, David
always addressing, “the bishop, earl, and proprietary of Fife,” and
directing “my judge of that province” to assist at the court of the
Abbot of Dunfermlyn; in the same manner as it was incumbent on the
sheriff, or his substitute, to be present at a later period on similar
occasions.[285] Gradually, however, in all the settled portions of
Scotland, the Vicecomes assumed the prerogative of the royal Maor;
amongst other duties, settling the rents of the demesne lands, much
as his type, the English Sheriff, assessed the _ferms_ levied
upon the royal Hundreds or Wapentakes included in his shire. In both
countries the sheriffdom occasionally became hereditary, until a
statute of Edward the Third fixed a year as the limit of the English
Sheriff’s tenure of office. Permanency, and a certain degree of greater
dignity, seem still to have attached to the Vicecomes in Scotland,
where the equivalent of the lord-lieutenant of an English county is
known at the present day as “lieutenant and _sheriff_ of the
shire,” the acting official being the _sheriff-depute_, the tenure
of whose office is equally permanent.[286]
As it was the policy of the race of Alfred to knit together the whole
of Southern England and the Danelage in the bonds of Commendation, or
_hlaford-socn_, so amongst the first principles of the system of
government introduced by David, it was strictly enacted, that, within
a fortnight after the proclamation of the king’s writ in the royal
_Moot_, every man “should find him a lord,” or forfeit the usual
mulct of eight cows to the king, and remain at the royal mercy until
he had duly commended himself to some responsible person. So necessary
was this enactment considered for insuring the internal peace of the
kingdom, and the practical dependance of its unruly population upon the
sovereign, that it was a royal axiom in the reign of David’s grandson,
William, that any man accused of theft, who could not “find a lord” to
be his surety, was to be at once treated as a convicted felon; though
such must have been the difficulty of enforcing it in the remoter
districts, that four centuries after the first introduction of the
principle, enactments were still occasionally levelled against “the
broken clans” of the Highlands and Borders.[287] Violence and robbery,
the usual crimes of a lawless age, were severely dealt with, and the
sanctity of the _Gryth_ strictly enforced, its “infraction”--in
other words a breach of the peace--being heavily fined, according to
the rank and dignity of the personage whose _gryth_ or peace
was broken. All the district up to a certain limit around the kings
court and person, and all the public highways, were “in pace regis,”
or under the immediate protection of the king; whilst the earldom,
the barony, and the thanage were under the similar protection of
the proprietors, whether lay or clerical, who were entitled to the
privileges of a court. For threatening to strike within the limits of
the royal _gryth_, four cows were paid to the king, one to the
party threatened; the oaths of two “liel men” being required in proof
of the charge. For an actual blow the fine was raised, increasing in
proportion, if blood followed; a drawn dagger was struck through the
hand; and if the weapon were used, and with effect, the guilty hand
was forfeited--a stern enactment, enforced five centuries later by
the Star-Chamber;--whilst if death followed the blow, the full fine
of one hundred and eighty cows was paid to the king, the kindred
receiving that “satisfaction according to the law of Scotland”--the
_cro_ or wergild--from which the victim could no longer hope
to profit.[288] Petty thefts were summarily dealt with; the man
detected _backberand_--with a calf, a sheep, or anything he
could carry on his back--was mulcted of a cow or a sheep by the lord
of the property, was well scourged, and lost an ear, the presence of
two “liel men” being required to carry out the punishment. None were
to be hanged for less than the value of two sheep, each reckoned
at sixteen pence, or an _ore_.[289] The usual form of robbery,
however, was “cattle-lifting,” or the _Creagh_, a relic of that
lawless state of society in which the property of all who were not
connected by the ties of blood, or of intimate alliance, was looked
upon as the lawful spoil of the strongest. The _Creagh_ was on
land what the _Sumorlida_ was by sea; lawful warfare when carried
on under the royal authority, but robbery and piracy if wanting the
sanction of the sovereign power; which, as “the confederacy” was
gradually bound in the firmer bonds of “the kingdom,” was invariably
directed against the Cateran and the Viking, the last relics of that
barbarous independence which claimed the right of private warfare.
The rules laid down in the early Frank and Anglo-Saxon laws for
tracing the perpetrators of a robbery, leave little room for doubt
that, with the Frank and the Saxon, as with the Gael, there was a
time when “lost property” was but another word for stolen cattle.
It was to check the increase of “cattle-lifting,” against which the
ordinary night watches--the _stretward_ or road-guard of the
Conqueror’s laws--were thoroughly inefficient, that the early Frank
kings instituted the Canton, or Hundred, laying the responsibility of
the theft upon the district in which it occurred: and as such robberies
were generally carried out at night, the watch-dog was considered by
David an animal of sufficient importance to justify the enactment of
a special law, and whoever killed him was bound to watch his master’s
house for a year and a day, being answerable during that period for
any losses that might be incurred. It was probably to check this
tendency to night robbery that a law, very much resembling the Norman
regulation of the _Couvre-feu_--which may have been introduced
for a similar reason--was either passed, or confirmed, in the reign of
William, forbidding all but men in authority, or responsible persons,
from leaving their homes after nightfall, except to fetch a priest to
a sick man, to go to the mill, or to do the bidding of their lord; he
who was abroad after dark on an errand of this description being bound
to declare openly the reason of his absence from home. But the measures
of David were not confined to the protection of the watch-dog, and
he laid down rules for the course to be pursued in cases of robbery,
assimilating his regulations to the usages elsewhere in force.[290]
By Anglo-Saxon law, all property above a certain value was to be
bought in open market, and in the presence of _Witnesses_, who
were always men of property and good repute--the Reeve, the Landlord,
the Priest, or other “unlying men” of similar station, who were
chosen for this and other purposes in every _Burh_ and Hundred.
No sale was legal without a _Warranter_, who guaranteed that
the property offered for sale was honestly acquired; and if it was
subsequently claimed within a certain period as stolen goods, the
purchaser was bound to produce his witnesses and the warranter, the
responsibility from that time resting upon the latter. If he failed to
appear the purchase was void, though the oaths of the witnesses cleared
the purchaser from the legal consequences of theft; but if neither
witnesses nor warranter came forward in his behalf, he was at once
condemned as a thief. The name of the warranter was _Getyma_,
whilst the legal process, which was always numbered amongst the
privileges of the Baron’s Court at this period, was known as
_Team_, and was a part of that system which aimed at supplanting
the rude personal independence which answered every accusation by
an appeal to the sword.[291] The equivalent of the _Getyma_
amongst the Welsh was known as the _Mach_, and he seems to
be traceable in the Salic law under the name of _Hamallus_,
the prototype apparently of the Norman _Heimil-borch_, or
_Hemold-borh_--perhaps even of the Anglo-Saxon _Getyma_--the
similarity of the title by which the warranter was known beyond the
Tweed, or rather perhaps beyond the Forth, _Hamehald_, pointing to
the quarter from which the regulations of the _Team_ would appear
to have been introduced, at any rate beyond the “Scots-water.”[292]
In pursuance of this system, of which the germs are earliest found
in force amongst the Franks, David appointed certain places in every
Scottish sheriffdom to which all property “challenged for theft” was to
be brought, and all the warranters in such cases were to be summoned.
Scone, Cluny, Logierait and Dalginch were the places named for Gowrie,
Stormont, Atholl, and Fife; Kintulloch for Strathearn; Forfar and
Dunottar for Angus and the Mearns; and Aberdeen for Mar and Buchan.
Inverness was named for Ross and Moray, whilst Stirling was the place
appointed for transactions in which “the men beyond the Forth” were
implicated; for though in modern times this description would apply to
the northern Scots, when Scone was the capital and Gowrie the heart
of the kingdom, “all beyond the Scots-water” meant the inhabitants of
the Lothians, Cumbria, and Galloway. Just as amongst the Franks forty
days were allowed the accused to collect his evidence within Ardennes
and the Loire, eighty if the parties required dwelt beyond these
limits;--the time varying amongst the Anglo-Saxons from one week to
four, according to the distance of the shire from which the evidence
was summoned, six weeks and a day being allowed for all “beyond
sea,”--so if the warranter was within the limits of _Scotia_ the
challenged party was bound to produce him in a fortnight, an additional
month being allowed if he dwelt beyond the borders: and as it is
obvious that there must occasionally have been considerable difficulty
in procuring the attendance of a reluctant _Hamehald_, his lord
was bound to enforce his attendance under penalty of forfeiting one
hundred cows, the recusant himself being mulcted in three times the
value of the challenged property, whilst he who failed his warranter
was proclaimed an outlaw. Every assistance in the search was to be
given by the Vicecomes and his officers--the Sheriff of Inverness being
answerable for the whole of _Moravia_, whilst the Earl of Atholl,
or the Abbot of Glendochart, were responsible for Scottish Argyle, and
the Earl of Menteith for Cantyre and Cowal, the sheriffdom being as
yet unknown throughout the territories of the _Oirir-Gael_.[293]
Considerable light is thrown by these regulations upon the comparative
dependance of different parts of Scotland upon the crown during the
reign of David; and as they are not extended to the Lothians, which
remained under the jurisdiction of the Northumbrian ealdormen for
nearly a century after similar rules appear in the Anglo-Saxon codes,
it may be inferred from this silence, not that the law was not enforced
throughout southern Scotland, but that the _Team_ was a familiar
process to the population between Forth and Tweed, at the time when
David first extended its provisions over the rest of his kingdom.
Very stringent rules were either enforced, or confirmed, in a
subsequent reign for all cases in which a priest was called as
warranter. The necessity of open dealing in all transactions connected
with property was enforced upon the clergy by rendering it unlawful
for a priest to receive gift or tithe except in the presence of “good
and true men”--the _Witnesses_ probably of a bargain between
laymen--and he could not be summoned as a warranter without the
testimony of “three leal men,” evidently the witnesses in question.
If he named the donor, when the gift was challenged, and produced his
three witnesses, the responsibility was shifted upon the person named,
who, in addition to any other penalties, was bound to make good the
value of the gift to the priest; and if the latter stated that the
claimed property was his own, or, if cattle, reared by himself, his
assertion was to be corroborated by the oaths of “three leal men;”
and to guard against all undue influence, their credibility was to be
vouched for by the lord of the Vill. It was not from any suspicion of
the ecclesiastical body that the law required their evidence to be thus
corroborated on such occasions, but rather from a perfect appreciation
of the practice, not confined to cattle-lifters, of compounding for a
course of evil doing by dedicating a portion of ill-gotten gains to
the church. Hence the necessity of the lord of the Vill vouching for
the credibility of the witnesses, thus becoming responsible for the
penalties of their perjury; for the priest who was capable of receiving
stolen goods would have scarcely hesitated at exercising the influence
of his sacred character amongst ignorant, or unscrupulous, parishioners
in order to clear himself from the consequences of his offence.[294]
The strictest regulations, however, would have been of little avail
without securing the co-operation of the magnates of the land, whose
right to hold a court with the privileges of “pit and gallows,”
which in this reign carried with it jurisdiction in cases of theft
and homicide, must have rendered such co-operation absolutely
essential. Undue leniency towards offending relatives or dependants,
and occasionally connivance in a _Creagh_ for a share of the
spoil--for a gift might purchase immunity from the overlord as well
as absolution from the priest--must have been of only too frequent
occurrence in an age in which escape from the gallows was so likely an
event, evidently through a fellow feeling with the criminal, that the
very first law in the collection ascribed to David, whilst ensuring
the actual offender against a second hanging for the same offence,
visited the consequences of his escape upon the officiating party as
a crime of more than ordinary magnitude. Hence, as it was incumbent
upon every freeman to seek the protection of a lord, it was equally
necessary that such protection should be restrained within just and
proper limits; and for “selling a thief” for money, friendship, or any
other consideration whatever, a mulct of a hundred cows was levied upon
an earl, or upon any magnate enjoying the rights and privileges of an
earl--a description probably embracing the greater barons, the officers
of state, the higher clergy, and subsequently the lords of Galloway,
Argyle, and the Isles. The fine was reduced to thirty-four cows in the
case of personages of lesser dignity; whilst if a thief escaped from
prison, the lord of the prison was bound to clear himself from all
complicity by the oaths of three Thanes and twenty-seven “good men and
true;” the triple oath, in other words, of three Thanedoms or Baronies.
The complicity of “the Baronage” in offences of this description was,
but too often, a fruitful source of disorder; and in the subsequent
reigns, the practice of taking money for “remission of judgment” was
punished by withdrawing from “the lord,” found guilty of such an
abuse, all further right of “holding a court:” and if, in return for
a gift or rent of any description, he granted his protection to a man
accused of crime, who was proved by the verdict of “the good men of the
country” to be neither liegeman nor native-man of his protector, he
was condemned for so doing to be “at the king’s mercy.”[295] Laws and
enactments, however, are of little avail unless the lawmaker has the
power of enforcing them, and long after the rule of the House of Atholl
had passed away, the Scottish magnates, though capable of exercising
their “rights of regality” in a very summary manner, were only too apt
to overlook, if not to connive at, the excesses of an useful follower;
though a true idea of the state of Scotland under the later successors
of David would scarcely be gathered from confounding it with the state
of the same country in the fourteenth, perhaps even in the following
century; during which period the kingdom, at any rate in its more
settled and civilized quarters, had decidedly retrograded rather than
advanced from its condition in the thirteenth century.
Amongst the regulations either introduced, or confirmed, by David, at
any rate beyond the Scots-water, the system of the _Voisinage_,
or _Visnet_, holds a prominent place; through which the older
forms of trial were gradually supplanted by the verdict of “the good
men and true” of the neighbourhood. Two principles seem to have lain at
the root of the whole system of justice--compurgation, and the ordeal.
As individuality was unrecognized, or helpless, the testimony of a
single witness was, except under certain circumstances, inadmissible;
though the oath of a man of rank, or of a churchman, after the church
had acquired worldly station, outweighed the oath of an inferior,
and seems often to have been reckoned according to the proportion of
their wergilds. Thus, amongst the Anglo-Saxons, two thanes appear
to have answered to twelve compurgators of lesser note; five thanes
to the triple oath of thirty in Wessex, though the number of the
triple oath varied in Wessex, Mercia, and the Danelage; and a similar
principle is traceable in the laws of the kindred Old Saxons of the
Continent.[296] _Compurgation_ was originally the duty of the
kin, and the nearest relatives who received, or paid, the wergild were
bound to come forward to take oath in behalf of any member of the
brotherhood, every accusation being thus supported or repelled. The
number of compurgators varied according to the importance of the case,
judgment going against the party whose kin declined to come forward, or
who failed in obtaining the required number. The accusation frequently
had to be repelled by a number of compurgators doubling the amount of
those who supported the charge; and on some occasions, to judge from
the custom of the Imperial Benefice, each party went on increasing
in number until the greater _tourbe_, the most numerous body of
compurgators, carried the day; or else a final appeal seems to have
been made to the ordeal.[297] Witnesses, in the modern sense of the
word, are seldom or never alluded to; had they been examined, and borne
testimony against a man, as at present, they would have legally had
to “bear the feud” of his kindred--a danger actually provided against
by one of William’s laws. In an age in which the duty of revenge was
amongst the paramount obligations of the family tie, the kindred, in
such a case, were only too ready to wreak their vengeance on all
through whom their kinsman suffered; an offence which was visited with
the highest fine for a breach of “the kings peace,” except the victim’s
kindred had consented to the deed--had, in other words, declined “to
bear the feud.” The extent to which the blood-feud was acknowledged, at
this period, may be gathered from a proviso in the same law, that even
if the king had “granted grace” to the offending parties, his pardon
was of no avail unless it had been issued with the full knowledge of
the kindred of the slaughtered man, who otherwise retained their legal
right of vengeance on the homicide.[298] The liability of the kindred,
however, must have enabled the jurisprudence of the age, in ordinary
cases, to dispense with witnesses. The responsibility of the theft, or
homicide, was thrown upon the district; and if the responsible parties
failed to shift it elsewhere, the law visited them with the penalty.
Publicity was the test of innocence, secresy of guilty intent. In
the olden time, all who crossed the _mark_ openly were welcomed
as guests, safe and secure in the protection of the whole people,
amongst whom they were sacred characters; but he who failed to give
due notice of his approach, was slain at once as a foe or a thief; and
in later days, the magnate travelling through the royal forest might
always strike a deer or two if he first sounded his horn, to give due
notice to the forester of his intention. He who slew his foe in open
strife, proclaimed the deed, and told where the body lay--sometimes
even if he left his weapon sticking in the wound--was never reckoned
as a murderer, simply bearing the feud with his kindred, or paying
the wergild; whilst by Old Saxon law, a _murderer_ was fined
nine times the ordinary mulct, his kinsmen only paying one-third of
the usual wergild as their share of the fine, and being released from
all consequences of the feud; evidently on the principle of their
ignorance of the _secret_ intentions of the murderer.[299] So, at
a later date, it was the duty of the man who claimed his own cattle,
or “impounded” that of another for debt, to proclaim it openly in the
neighbourhood; when his neighbour, thus made aware of his intentions,
might stop him if in the wrong, and assist or clear him on oath if
right. Thus, publicity was necessary in all the transactions of social
life; and as its neglect was assumed to imply a guilty purpose, and the
kin, or the neighbourhood, was the joint security for all its members,
it would naturally become a legal axiom of the age, that the kinsmen,
or neighbours, were responsible that such publicity had been complied
with, and liable to pay the penalty of any neglect.
For all who doubted their ability to muster the requisite number
of compurgators--but too often, it is to be feared, for the
friendless--the ordeal was the last resource; either water, cold
or boiling; hot iron; or the wager of battle.[300] In primitive
societies the sword has ever been the freeman’s last appeal--still
remaining so where they congregate in numbers sufficient to constitute
a separate state--and the early Germans looked upon every other
mode of settling a disputed question as a novel and unheard of
method of proceeding.[301] Many of the rights which have long been
made over to the state were in early times supposed to be vested in
every _full-born_ member of the community, continuing until a
comparatively recent period, to be more or less enjoyed by the great
and privileged; and it must have been the aim of the early lawgiver to
control and regulate rights which he could not supersede; just as in
Scotland the royal official directed the judgment of the Barons’ Court
long before he superseded its jurisdiction. As long as the constituted
authorities were too weak, or too feebly supported, to retain the
sword of justice in their own hands, it is evident that it remained
in the power of every free kindred to execute the vengeance which the
laws allowed; and when the suit had not been compounded, or the feud
appeased, the criminal, instead of being “left for execution,” was
simply handed over to the _legal_ vengeance of his enemies; just
as amongst the Israelites of old it was not from the official, but
from the avenger of kindred blood, that the unintentional homicide
fled to the city of refuge. Men, under certain circumstances, were
allowed “to take the law into their own hands;” the thief caught by the
“sequela clamoris viciniæ”--the hue and cry of the neighbourhood--with
the stolen cattle in his possession, was hung without ceremony; and
in their rules for tracing stolen cattle, the men of London-burh were
bidden to be foremost, not in delivering the thief to justice, but in
taking prompt and summary vengeance on him. The regulations in the
Anglo-Saxon laws for clearing the man slain for a thief, show that
the well-known proverb about “Jeddart justice,” has been scarcely
exaggerated--“Hang first and try afterwards.”[302] The wager of battle
naturally arose out of such a state of society, when the “ultima ratio
regum,” with other royal prerogatives, was regarded as the right of
every full-born freeman; and the same arguments, which are now used to
palliate warfare between states, might then have been urged in favour
of the freeman’s last appeal. _Disseisin_, when the freeman was
dispossessed of his property, was simply invasion on a lesser scale;
and as long as the central authority was inefficient to rectify the
wrong, and reinstate the rightful owner, all that it could promise
was “non-intervention,”--open lists for the combat, and death to all
who interfered; whilst in doubtful charges affecting a man’s life, it
was quite in accordance with the rude justice of the age, that, as a
last resource, the accused might defend his head with his hand. The
challenger faced the west, the challenged party the east, and he who
was defeated lost all “right” for ever; though, if he “craved” his
life, he might live as a “recreant,” a _craven_ who “recanted”
the perjury he had sworn to; so that most brave men must have fought
to the death. Compurgation, which passed into the English law as “the
wager of law,” and was not quite forgotten in the Perthshire highlands
in the early part of the seventeenth century, was probably one of the
first compromises of the ancient “wager of battle”--perhaps suggested
by the softening influence of Christianity[303]--the same number of
the kindred who formed the _Wer-borh_, or cleared their kinsman
on oath, having, perhaps, in early times, like the second in a duel of
the seventeenth century, stood beside him occasionally in the actual
combat, or kept the ground during its progress--one of the latest
instances in Scotland of such a combat on a great scale being, perhaps,
the well-known contest on the North Inch of Perth.[304]
Compurgation and ordeal seem to have been as familiar to the Celts as
to the Teutons, until by degrees the system known of old in English
law as the “Jugement del Pais,” superseded all the earlier methods of
trial. Amongst the early Germans, a leading magnate, or prince, was
chosen in the yearly meeting to judge the people, making the tour of
the whole confederacy, with a hundred _comites_ to assist and
support him in his decisions; the _Vergobreith_ amongst the Gauls
being a very similar character, though, from the peculiar separative
principle of Gallic policy, the Druids supplied the place of the
Comites, the exposition of the law being one of the prerogatives of
the sacred caste. Every freeman, therefore, was tried in the open
_Mall_, or court, of his own district by a judge, in whose
appointment he was supposed to have a voice; and in the presence of his
equals, or of the class to which all legal and religious obligations
were deputed. For his family, his _Hird_ or followers, his
_Lœts_ and serfs--for all who were in his _mund_ or under
his protection--he was himself the judge; and as the class of Comites
increased in numbers, a greater body of freemen was transferred, so
to say, from the jurisdiction of the public to that of the private
judge, thus exhibiting the spectacle of a free population living, in
a certain sense, according to different laws. This is nowhere better
exemplified than in the case of Sweden in the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, when the whole of the Bonders, or allodial proprietary,
were under the jurisdiction of their chosen _Lagaman_, none of
“the king’s men” having a right to enter the Bonders’ Court without
their permission, where, when the king was present, the Lagaman sat
on a raised seat opposite the royal throne, on the footing of all
but equality.[305] A similar spectacle may have been exhibited, in a
certain stage of society, wherever a kingdom arose out of a number of
small allodial communities; but after the various members of the Frank
confederacy were united in one kingdom, under the race of Merovic,
the different laws acknowledged in the historical period were, not
allodial and royal, but Salic and Roman--a distinction generally
observable wherever a people of Teutonic race settled as conquerors
in the Roman provinces. Amongst the Burgundians, indeed, where the
Roman and his conqueror were on a footing of comparative equality, two
royal officials administered justice in the same court, each people
being judged by a Count of their own race, and according to the laws
of Gundobald, or the code of Rome; but with the Franks, amongst whom
the Roman was an inferior, there was but one official, the Graphio, or
Judex Fiscalis, whose authority extended, though in a different degree,
over both races. The Roman was judged solely by the royal official,
who was bidden when in doubt “to read the Roman law;”[306] but in all
cases in which the Frank was tried by the old Salic law, the official,
whether _Missus_ or Fiscal judge, simply pronounced the sentence,
the real judges of the cause being the _Scabini_. Originally
seven in number, latterly twelve, the Scabini were always chosen by
the Graphio, or the Missus, from amongst the “Meliores Pagenses,” or
leading proprietary of the district in which the cause was tried;
and in cases of doubt reference was made, not to a written code, but
to “nostrum placitum generale,” representing the whole community in
general _Mall_ or meeting; just as the Scabini represented the
“proportio visnetæ,” or the chosen portion of proprietors acting in the
name of the whole neighbourhood. The same principle was extended to
every lesser court, whether public or private; three _Sagibarones_
pronounced judgment in the court of the Canton; and when Sigwald
the priest, and Dodilo the noble--representing respectively the
ecclesiastical and lay element, as in the association of the Bishop
with the Ealdorman in the old Anglo-Saxon Shire-gemote--sat as Missi,
or deputies, of Hincmar in the archi-episcopal court of Rheims,
the judgment was pronounced by eight Scabini chosen from amongst
the leading Frank-tenantry of the archbishop.[307] This difference
between the Roman and the Teutonic systems is even yet recognisable in
English law--all questions falling within the province of the great
official, who derives his origin from the institutions of Rome, the
Chancellor, being settled by the fiat of the royal official alone; but
whenever the freeman is put on his trial for life or liberty, his fate
is still decided by “the Jugement del Pais,” the verdict of his own
_Visnet_ or neighbourhood--unless for some sufficient reason the
_venue_ is changed to another _Visnet_ or neighbourhood--the
presiding judge simply passing sentence according to the verdict thus
given; though in modern times the jury, and not the judge, leave the
court. Every Germanic people seems to have clung with tenacity to
this principle, and after the law of the Benefice, mostly founded on
the Roman Code, had replaced allodialism in Eastern Germany, it is
still recognizable in the stipulation that no man should be deprived
of his Benefice--for the jus Beneficiale had now replaced allodial
right--except “by the judgment of his peers”--the identical principle
maintained by the Anglo-Norman barons against the encroachments, not of
the Norman William, but of the Angevin Henry and his sons.[308]
There is not a trace of any similar institution amongst the earlier
Anglo-Saxons, as far as it is possible to judge from the collection
of laws in force in Wessex and Saxon Mercia during the reign of
Alfred. The king’s Ealdorman or his junior--the Vicarius, not the
Vicecomes--presided in the ancient Folk-mote, which was held in every
shire or district under an Ealdorman; and as every freeholder was bound
to be present at a meeting of this description, justice appears to have
been administered according to the ancient custom, in the presence
of the whole free population; though not by a Lagaman chosen by the
people, but by an official appointed by the crown. A solitary passage
in the laws of Athelstan seems to point to the exercise of judicial
functions by the “Meliores Pagenses” in the reign of Alfred’s grandson;
for in cases of manslaughter and fire-raising, if the accused was found
guilty, it was “to stand within the doom of _the Senior men of the
Burgh_ whether he should have his life or not.” The principle was in
full force, during the reign of Ethelred, amongst the Anglo-Danes of
the Mercian confederacy, twelve of the Senior Thanes binding themselves
to administer true justice with the Reeve in the Gemote; unanimity
in their verdict being aimed at by fining the dissentient minority,
when two-thirds of their number had agreed, the whole amount of the
sum which each had deposited as a _wed_--the decision of the majority
carrying the verdict, continuing to be a feature distinguishing the
Scottish from the English jury at the present day.[309] No innovation
appears to have been introduced amongst the Gaelic people upon the
older custom of assembling the whole free population of the district,
confederacy, or kingdom, in annual or occasional meetings, which in the
settled parts of the country were by this time probably represented by
the assemblages of the thanedom, the earldom, and the great meeting in
which the sovereign presided in person; for it is still possible to
trace the existence of district, provincial, and royal judges, who
must have had a part assigned to them in each separate assemblage of
this description. Four “Courts” are alluded to in the Welsh laws, but
the free proprietary had probably little to do with the courts of the
Breyr and of the Tawg-tref--the Baron’s and the Villein Court--their
attendance being only required at the courts of the _Cymmud_ and of the
king--for the earldom was unknown in Wales--where, in the absence of
the sovereign, the _Effeiriad_, the _Distyn_ and the _Brawddwr-Llys_
presided; or the royal chaplain (the equivalent perhaps of the
Scandinavian _Hird-Bishop_), the high-steward as president of all the
_Maers_, and the court judge as senior of all the _Cynghellwrs_.[310]
It was in a great assembly of the whole free population of the united
people that “the laws of Aodh the Fair,” involving, probably, the right
of his descendants to the throne, were recognised in the reign of the
first Donald; a similar assemblage under Constantine the Second, on
the Moot Hill of Scone, appears to have ratified, or assented to, the
ecclesiastical constitution of the Scottish church of that period; and
it was in great meetings of a similar description, and at the same
place, that it was “the custom of the Scots” to choose their kings,
or rather perhaps to confirm the selection of their Seniors.[311] The
affairs of a province, or _Mormaordom_, appear to have been regulated
in a similar assemblage on a smaller scale; and a description of such a
meeting in the olden time will be found in the Registry of the Priory
of St. Andrews, part of the property of the priory having been held
by a verdict given in a general assembly of the province. When Sir
Robert Burgoin encroached upon the lands of Kirkinnis an appeal was
at once made to king David, who despatched his messengers throughout
the united district of Fife and Fotheriff to convene the people of
the province. The place of meeting is not mentioned; but thither came
Earl Constantine of Fife, “a discreet and eloquent man,” at this time
Justiciary of Scotland, with “the Satraps, Satellites, and Hosting” of
the county; or the free proprietary who held under the Mormaor, with
their kinsmen, and the followers who would have been known amongst
the Northmen as _Thingmen_. The presence of the Bishop is not alluded
to, but thither came his _Hosting_, or all the Frank-tenantry of the
broad lands restored by Alexander to the church, under the captaincy
of Budadh and Slogodadh--_Toshachs_ or leaders apparently of the
military contingent due from the church-lands in the province--and
under the presidency of Macbeth, Thane of Falkland, probably the
Maor, Baillie, or _Vidame_ of the bishop. When the whole community
of the province was assembled, three arbiters were chosen to try the
case,--Earl Constantine as justiciary; Maldonaeth Mac Machedach, “a
good and discreet judge,” the _Brehon_ probably of the province; and
Dugal Mac Moccha, on account of his venerable age,--the number of
the arbiters exactly coinciding with the number of judges in a Welsh
court. The cause was conducted on the principle of compurgation--in
earlier times it would have been decided by battle--the abbot in legal
phrase “swearing _se sexta manu_;” or, in other words, Abbot Dubtach
and five of his clergy testified, by an oath sworn on the altar, to
the boundaries in dispute. As no notice is taken of the defence, it
is impossible to say whether Sir Robert failed in producing his twelve
compurgators--for he would have been bound to “lay twelve hands”
on the altar--or whether the oaths of his “jury” were disbelieved;
the arbiters, deferring to Dugal from his experience and “knowledge
of law,” pronounced in favour of the Culdees; and a notice of the
transaction, entered in the Registry of the Priory of St. Andrews,
attested the right of that foundation to the property in question, as
heirs of the Culdees of Kirkinnis.[312]
Such was the legal process, during the earlier portion of David’s
reign, for settling the numerous cases of disputed boundaries, which,
by the same king’s subsequent regulations, were decided by the
“perambulation” of the “good men and true” of the neighbourhood, and
in the presence of the royal _Missi_, or other notabilities,
appointed as “unlying witnesses” of the proceeding. There is no trace
at this period of the Vicecomes in Fifeshire, though he existed in
other quarters beyond the Forth; nor of the “Jugement del Pais,” by
which the arbiters chosen in public _Moot_ were replaced by the
good men and true of the country, appointed by the royal official.
As the division of power, so remarkable amongst the Gauls in the
days of Cæsar, was still traceable in the delegation of authority to
two officials, so the restriction of all judicial functions to the
Druids would almost appear to have survived, in a certain sense, in
the limitation of similar functions to their representatives, the
Cynghellwrs, Brehons, or Deempsters. Thus the _Hereban_ levied
during the reign of the second Alexander upon all who failed to attend
the _Hosting_ against Donald Mac Niel, was settled at Perth, on
the second Thursday in Lent, “by all the Judges of _Scotia_;”
condemnation was pronounced against Gillescop Mahohegan on “the
Tuesday before St. Denis” at Edinburgh, “by all the united Judges of
Galloway and Scotland;” the “Judges of Galloway” assessed the fine for
a breach of the king’s peace; and when the king crossed the borders
of a province in his great circuit, all the Judges of the district
were still bound, in the reign of William, to be in attendance upon
the royal court until it reached the frontiers of another province.
Pure blood and property qualified the Teuton to be chosen as a
_Scabinus_, but the Celtic Judge seems to have been selected from
a family of _Brehons_.[313]
It was probably, then, upon a system acknowledging the usual Ordeals
of water and iron, the Wager of battle, and Compurgation “by oath
sworn on the altar, according to the custom of Scotland,” and in which
justice was generally administered by the district, provincial, or
royal judge, whether inheriting his office, nominated by the crown,
or chosen as arbiter in the public _Moot_, that David introduced
the “Jugement del Pais” or _Visnet_; which must have, ere long,
replaced the judgment of the earlier Brehon, or Deempster, by the
verdict of “the good men of the country,” or the leading proprietary
of the neighbourhood. Henceforth judgment was to be given by “the
free-tenants, suitors of the Court,” sentence only being pronounced
according to their verdict by the Judge, Sheriff, Alderman, or Bailiff,
who was bound to leave the Court during their deliberation; and in
process of time, the representative of the ancient president of the
Gaelic Court of justice sunk so low, that the holder of the office
of Deempster, which had long been shifted upon the lowest official
of the law, no longer appeared at all in Court, except to pronounce
that sentence of death which he himself was bound to execute--he
was the _Hangman_. Every man, whether Earl, Baron, Vavassor,
or Burgess, was entitled to be tried by his Peers, though one of
lesser standing might be judged by the verdict of his superiors.
Damages, or the amount of injuries sustained, were to be assessed
by men of credit--_fide-digni_, the “unlying witnesses” of
Athelstan’s Laws; and in challenge of battle, the sum deposited was
to be estimated, not according to the claim of the challenger, but
by “the assize of the good country,” the “body of the defender”
being reckoned as one-third of the amount; whilst if a man accused
of theft could prove, to the satisfaction of a similar jury, that
the complainant had never possessed as much property as he charged
the accused with stealing, the latter was to be at once acquitted by
their verdict. Jurisdiction in the four greater causes known as “the
Crown-pleas”--murder, rape, robbery, and fire-raising--was removed
from the lesser Courts, no Alderman or Baron’s Bailiff being permitted
to try such cases unless by special mandate of the Justiciary or “his
attorney;” and it was ordered, that in every county a royal _Moot_
was to be held “within forty days,” or six week’s after the issue of
the king’s writ, which was to be attended by the Bishop, the Earl, the
Vicecomes, and by every free proprietor who was “Lord of a Vill.” All
direct appeals to the king were prohibited, except in cases connected
with the Crown-pleas, or where the officials in a lesser Court had
failed to do their duty; and if the last law, ascribed to David, is
not misplaced, all questions connected with property and inheritance
were to be referred to the decision of “the assize of the good
country.” The heir, no longer chosen according to the Law of Tanistry,
by the kindred, was to be declared successor by the voice of “the good
men of the neighbourhood;” whilst the claimant of property held by
another--he who urged that he had been unjustly _disseised_--was
not to support his claim by an appeal to the sword, but to submit it to
the verdict of a similar jury.[314] The older system, however, appears
to have been reluctantly abandoned, or at any rate to have died out
very gradually; and in Galloway, which, after its closer union with
the rest of Scotland, retained its peculiar code until the days of the
first Edward and Robert Bruce, the was the exception and not the rule,
none being judged according to its provisions except they refused the
older law, and claimed _Visnet_. The Ordeal, the Wager of battle,
and the Wager of Law, long held their ground side by side with the
Verdict of the “good men and true,” for most of the ordinary trials of
“Common Pleas;” and it seems doubtful even if in other quarters besides
Galloway it were not open to the contending parties, at a much later
period, to choose between the “Jugement del Pais,” and the misnamed
“Judgment of God.”[315]
Another of the innovations upon “ancient custom,” traceable apparently
to the reigns of Alexander and David, though more particularly to
the reign of the latter king, was the introduction of the written
charter as the necessary evidence of the right to freehold property.
It was long before any of the northern nations attached importance to
the written documents, which were at the basis of the whole system
of free rights, or property, held by Roman law. He who was freed “by
tablet” ranked merely as a Roman citizen, reckoned at half the value
of the man freed in open Court “by casting the _denarius_;” and
when the horn of the Graphio summoned the _Voisinage_ around
the body of the murdered man, or when the suspended shield of the
Centenarius marked the spot where the _Mall_ was to be held, the
parchment _writ_ would have been unheeded by the Frank living by
Salic Law, or despised as an unmeaning formula of _the Roman_.
Liability was transferred, or responsibility was shifted, by casting
a small stick into the lap, or by throwing a handful of earth, in
open _Mall_, or before witnesses; and allodial right was alone
acquired by undisputed possession for a term of years, or by descent.
The earliest application of the Roman principle appears in the royal
grant equivalent to the Franc-Alleu-noble--the permanent alienation
of a certain portion of the Fiscal or Folk-land, in which, by ancient
custom, the king, or the community, held a life interest alone: a
similar process, some centuries later, converting the Benefice into
the hereditary Feud, held by written charter. The royal grant of
_Bocland_ had long been familiar to the Anglo-Saxons as the sole
known form of permanent property; but the Benefice, rather than the
chartered Feud, was its equivalent amongst the Normans in the earlier
part of the eleventh century; and when they adopted the Charter after
the Conquest, it was always in the old Anglo-Saxon form, which can
scarcely be supposed to have been brought from the Continental Duchy;
and it was accordingly in this form that it penetrated subsequently
into Scotland.[316]
It is only from indirect evidence that it can be gathered that the
Charter became necessary, to prove the existence of freehold right,
from the time of David. The charters ascribed to Duncan II., and Edgar,
were connected with the Saxon Church of Durham. They were attested,
apparently, by witnesses of Saxon, or Danish, descent, connected
probably with the diocese--Ligulf of Bamborough, for example--and drawn
up by Saxon monks after the manner of their own country; so that they
afford no proof whatever of the existence, or the necessity, of public,
much less of private, documents of this description beyond the Forth
at the opening of the twelfth century; and when Alexander restored
to the Church the lands which had lapsed to the kings of Scotland,
as hereditary abbots of St. Andrews, the re-grant was completed with
all the studied ceremonial and display of “ancient custom.”[317] A
different course, indeed, was adopted at Scone; when, for the first
time, perhaps, was displayed the unwonted spectacle of six Gaelic
Mormaors affixing crosses to the signatures, which some clerkly scribe
had attached to a written document, confirming a munificent donation
of lands and privileges to the royal foundation: but no private
charters can be traced to an earlier date than the reign of David, who
appears to have first introduced them into his principality of Scottish
Cumbria. No law or enactment of any description has been left on the
subject; but a statute of William, by which all who were found guilty
of forging a royal charter were to be placed “at the king’s mercy”--the
forgery of a similar grant from a subject being also punishable, but
as a minor offence--affords the surest evidence of the necessity of a
charter, at that period, in proof of freehold rights.[318] The habit
of forging such evidence must have arisen out of the necessity of a
written title-deed, a similar necessity accounting for the multiplicity
of such forgeries in southern Britain; where a legend was occasionally
framed for a similar purpose, or a saint appeared in a vision to afford
miraculous, but suspicious, testimony about the extent and privileges
of his ancient patrimony. Henceforth the Charter marked the Freeholder,
or the member of the Community of the Realm; and whilst in southern
Britain knight-service was the test of gentle birth, the holder by
free socage, and the Kentish Gaveller, being only classed amongst the
yeomanry, in Scotland a similar test was afforded by the Charter; and
in the reign of Alexander II., all who were knights, sons of knights,
or holders of any portion of a knight’s fee, and all who held their
lands by free service, or by “fie-de-hauberc,” hereditarily and by
charter, ranked, with their sons, as men of free and gentle birth, who
could appear in the lists by their champion; the churl-born tenant of
land, the man of ignoble birth, and all who had neither free tenement,
nor free parentage, being bound to appear in person. It was from the
former class that the “good men and true” were chosen to perform the
duties of the _Voisinage_, and before the middle of the thirteenth
century none could be sworn to hold inquest touching “the life or limbs
of a land or _grass_ holding man,” except, “good men and true,
freeholders by charter.”[319]
It can scarcely, then, be doubted that David was the originator of
that important change by which a fixed title to land was acquired,
produceable when necessary in proof of ownership--a change which, in
connection with the formal perambulation of boundaries, in the presence
of “the good men and true,” must have done much to put a stop to
those constant disputes about proprietorship, which had hitherto been
settled by the sword. David is often represented, in modern times, as
the exterminator of his fellow-countrymen, granting their lands to
foreigners, and driving out the native Scottish race, or enslaving them
beneath the yoke of alien masters--a course that could have hardly
earned the character ascribed to him by his friend and biographer
Ailred, “he was beloved by his own people the Scots, and feared by the
men of Galloway.” It would be nearer the truth, perhaps, to describe
him as the great confirmer of proprietary right throughout the settled
portion of his kingdom; and it still seems possible to point out the
method which was adopted to carry out his purpose. By a law of a much
later period it was decided that the freeholder was not bound to
produce his charter to his overlord more than once, after which it
was to be returned to him immediately. It may be gathered, from this
regulation, that there were occasions on which the land-holder might be
required to prove his title to ownership; and the kings of Scotland,
at a later period, are sometimes found amongst the Western Highlands
demanding charters, and confiscating the property, or rather the
freehold rights, of all who could not produce the necessary title-deed.
Thus, at the opening of the fourteenth century, every Vicecomes was
commanded to attend “our council,” with the other magnates of the
realm, and to warn his bailies, amongst other duties, “to summon all
who have, without license, entered upon lands alienated after the death
of our predecessor Alexander, to show their right to do so”--a right
which could only be proved by a written document. How such a title
was originally acquired may be gathered from the example of Eogan,
Thane of Rothenec, who appeared at Inverness on the Monday before St.
Andrew’s Day, in the year 1262, and in the presence of the Bishop of
Ross, the Justiciary of Scotland, and the Sheriff of Elgin, proved to
the satisfaction of the good men and true of the neighbourhood, that
the lands of Mefth, with a house in Elgin Castle, which had been given
by William to Yothre Mac Gillies, had been held uninterruptedly by
Eogan and Angus, son and grandson of the first recipient of the grant;
passing from the last-named Angus to his son Eogan, the actual Thane
of Rothenec, who was thus the fourth in descent from the original
holder. The written and attested verdict of the good men and true,
formed, from this time forward, the chartered title-deed of the lands
of Mefth; and it may be conjectured that, at the first introduction of
the Charter, all who claimed the right of freehold proprietorship were
bound to attend the royal _Moot_, and prove to the satisfaction of
the good men and true, the necessary qualification of three descents
of ownership. He who was thus qualified could claim a charter as his
title from the king, earl, thane, or ecclesiastical superior, of whom
he held his lands; whilst in the case of all who failed in proving
the necessary qualification, it would remain in the power of their
overlord, either to confirm their proprietorship by the wished-for
title, or to enter upon the land as lapsed “demesne.”[320]
From this period two classes of Freeholders, besides the Earls and
greater Barons, may be traced in Scotland, who may be compared
to the Vavassors or Mesné tenants of the corresponding era in
Southern Britain; the holders by knight-service, who grew into the
_Lairds_, or lesser Barons, of a later age; and the holders by
Scottish service, who were, with few exceptions, confined to the
northward of the Forth.[321] The latter were the Thanes, who, on the
occasion of the festivities at York in 1251, when Paris notices the
presence of more than sixty Scottish knights, were also in attendance
upon their youthful sovereign, at least in equal numbers.[322] The
lowest amongst the Freeholders appears to have been the proprietor of
half a plough-land--the eighth part of a _Davoch_ or of a _Fief
de Hauberk_--containing fifty-two Scottish acres; the holder of
that amount of land, by free service, and by charter, answering to
the proprietor of the Half-holding, wherever the Imperial Law of the
Benefice was acknowledged, who, though widely changed in character, is
still known in the United Kingdom as “the forty shilling freeholder.”
The Quarter-holding of two _ox-gangs_, or twenty-six Scottish
acres, answering to the Anglo-Saxon _Virgate_ or quarter-hyde,
and known in many parts of Scotland as the _Husband-land_, gave
no pretensions originally to freehold rights.[323] Scottish service
was probably most popular in early times with the native Scots, for it
accorded best with their custom of planting the junior branches of the
family upon the land, liable to rent, as well as to general military
service--a system which may have also had its attractions in the eyes
of the greater Barons, who held their own lands by knight-service of
the Crown--but it died out gradually in the more settled portions of
the kingdom; and, in the case of certain well-known families, the
charters can still be produced by which the ancestral Thanedom was
converted into a Barony. The earlier system was traceable in the
Highlands as late as the opening of the seventeenth century, when
the proprietors were divided into Lords, Lairds--greater and lesser
Barons--and royal Bailies of lands, the latter holding in fee-farm,
and answering to the Thanes of an earlier period.[324] The patronymic,
as distinguished from the surname, still lingered in the same quarter,
where the _Tighern_ was known for his descent, rather than from
his property, though the custom was even then fast giving way; and at
the present time, in no part of the United Kingdom is the territorial
appellation so generally used as in the Scottish Highlands, where
“the Laird” is often better known by the name of his property than
by his own surname. A similar change had been in progress in ancient
_Scotia_ long before it penetrated to the wilds of _Moravia_
and Argyle; and after the introduction of the charter, when the
privileges of free and gentle birth, hitherto attached to a certain
degree of relationship to a thane, were transferred to the chartered
freehold, the freeholder, whether of native or foreign origin,
gradually became known from his barony or freehold; and as none but the
greater Norman barons were distinguished, as at present, by a separate
surname, the property itself supplied a designation for its owner. Thus
by degrees the whole of the freehold proprietary, without distinction
of race, relinquishing the shifting patronymic which had hitherto
belonged as much to the Saxon and the Northman as to the Gael, adopted
surnames from those chartered properties, which ensured to them the
privileges of free and gentle birth, which had formerly attached to
descent.[325]
If David may be looked upon as the regulator of the “Two Estates,”--the
Clergy, and the Baronage and Freeholders connected with the land,--he
may be regarded as the founder of the “Third Estate” in Scotland, the
actual creator of the free population connected with the towns. An
intramural population was an anomaly amongst the people of the North,
and in their older codes no provision was made for a free proprietary
dwelling in towns, land, and land only, being connected with freedom
and hereditary right. It is only in the old Burgundian code that the
craftsman connected with the city is mentioned, and he was placed by
the regulations of Gundobald upon a servile footing. It scarcely admits
of a doubt, indeed, that a civic population, for which no provision was
made in any Germanic code, must have lived, whether free or servile, by
Roman law, retaining probably their original institutions, after they
survived the first fury of the storm, without much interference from
their conquerors; nor would the privileges subsequently belonging to
free towns have been of much moment, had there not been a time when all
such communities were neither free nor privileged. Britain, however,
was peculiarly situated, no Roman population remaining to preserve
the civilized institutions of imperial despotism, side by side with
the rude, but free, traditions of their Anglo-Saxon conquerors--most
fortunately for the liberties of England--and as no regulations for a
free civic proprietary are traceable in the earlier Anglo-Saxon laws,
it may be doubted whether any such proprietary existed. The shattered
remnants of the old Roman cities of the island became the property of
the owners of the district in which they were situated--petty kings and
Ealdormen originally, like Hrofa and Cissa, who gave their names to
Hrofa’s _ceaster_ and Cissa’s _ceaster_, _Rochester_ and _Chichester_;
and latterly the sovereign of one of the greater states, or the
nobleman to whom he entrusted the district--the population remaining
probably on a _Lœtic_ or dependant footing, the Teutonic element
entering very little into its composition in early times. The British
_town_, according to Cæsar, was a portion of the forest separated from
the rest by a bank and ditch, the Briton in time of danger securing his
cattle and family within the precincts of this “circumvallation;” and
as amongst several of the Germanic tribes the same word _Wic_ meant _a
grove_, _a temple_, and _a town_, it may be surmised that the original
_Wick_ was a portion of the forest similarly encircled with a bank and
ditch, and used as a temple for the gods, and a place of security in
times of danger, instead of the caves which, in the days of Tacitus,
appear to have been used, for places of concealment rather than for
defence. London-_wic_ and other British towns may have occasionally
supplied the place of such earlier and ruder “places of strength,”
the resident population remaining on a dependant footing, and the
freeholders of the vicinity not habitually dwelling within the walls,
but sheltering themselves behind them in times of danger; for the _Tun_
of the Gesithcundman was scarcely capable of defence, and the Ceorl’s
_Hedge_ was only calculated to keep out cattle. Such seems to have been
the case at the time of the Danish wars, when the walls were seldom of
a more formidable construction than a strong wooden palisade, and were
easily broken through at the great battle of York. As soon as he had
saved the monarchy, Alfred directed his attention, as much to remedying
this defect, as to reviving letters amongst his subjects, or building
ships to protect the coast, constantly impressing the necessity of
building _Burhs_ upon his Reeves and Ealdormen, and providing skilled
artificers--a sure test of the ignorance of such arts amongst his
own people--to carry out his projects. London-_wic_, plundered and
ruined by the Danes, arose from its ashes as London-_burh_, and was
made over--_geset_ or let--by Alfred to his daughter’s husband, the
Mercian Ealdorman. The history of the next reign, after Edward was
once securely seated on his throne, is one continual record of the
progress of _Burh_-building and _Hlaford-socn_--or Commendation--the
_Burh-bote_, a permanent obligation attached to all property held of
the crown, whether church-land or thegn-land, binding the churchman or
thegn to keep in repair the _Burh_ with which his land was connected,
such associations being entered into for defence, not for trade; and it
would be a grave error to mistake the Anglo-Danish confederacy of “the
Five Burghs,” or the men of London-Burgh in the days of Athelstane--the
_Burh-Thegns_ as they are often called--whose Bishops and Reeves were
bound to keep the peace, as ordered by the king and his Witan, for
mercantile or trading communities. The rules laid down by the London
Reeves and Bishops at this period will be found to relate to tracing
stolen cattle, and keeping their “Hirdmen” in order; but it is vain
to look for the regulations about trades and craftsmen, which will be
found invariably in later Burghal laws.[326]
Amongst the innovations introduced by the Normans, it may be read in
the Saxon Chronicle how “they wrought castles throughout the land,”
novelties to the people of the country, who seem to have retained
much of that old Germanic aversion to castles which is traceable in
the Frison law against building stone walls above a certain height;
and accordingly from this time the Scots no longer swept the country
in their invasions to the gates of Durham, but were stopped at Werk,
Norham, and other feudal strongholds which they were obliged to invest,
or if they advanced further into the country, to blockade. The royal
castle was now attached to the royal burgh, and its garrison provided
by the knights who held their lands by the tenure of castle-guard; the
neighbouring gentry probably, differing little from the thegns who in
earlier times had been bound to keep the burgh in repair. The name of
Burgher henceforth undoubtedly belonged only to the actual possessors
of property within the walls, the bulk of whom had probably from the
earliest period of their location within burgh formed the commercial
part--the Twyhyndmen, as the Upland thegns were the Twelfhyndmen--of
the community. It was the Anglo-Norman Burgh, with its feudal castle,
and its civic population distinct and separate from the garrison,
which was the model of the burghs established, or confirmed, by David
beyond the Tweed. It may be doubted whether any free communities
engaged in commerce, and occupying walled towns, were in existence
much before this reign even in the Lothians, though the germs of such
societies may have existed at Scone, Edinburgh, Stirling, and other
places, which were of a certain importance at that early period. Had
there been burghs or walled towns in any part of Saxon Northumbria
before the close of the eleventh century, the invading Scots would
have surely been checked before they reached the gates of Durham;
the unopposed incursion of the Second Constantine as far as the Tees
marking apparently the non-existence, in that quarter, of any walled
town in the middle of the tenth century, capable of arresting the
progress of a hostile force. As the sees of Glasgow and St. Andrews
may be regarded as the models left by David for the regulation of the
other Scottish bishoprics, so the _Hanse_ or community of the
Four Burghs of Roxburgh, Berwick, Edinburgh, and Stirling, was the
leading commercial association of the same reign, all other burghs as
they grew into existence conforming to its rules and ordinances; and as
the _Hanse_ was composed of four burghs, so each Burgh seems to
have been originally divided into four Wards--in strict accordance with
the theory which divided in a similar way the great rural association
of the shire into four quarters. Over every Ward was placed a Bailie,
a type of the rural “Mair of the Quarter,” and sometimes known, like
the President of the Frison Quarter, as the _Ferthyngman_; the
leading personage being the Burgh-Reeve, or Provost, annually chosen,
with the Bailies and Bedells, by the community of the Burghers in the
first Burgh-Moot held after Michaelmas.[327] Complete self-government,
indeed, was conferred, from the outset, upon the Scottish Burghers
by a sovereign who was desirous of attracting such a class to his
kingdom; and the enlightened policy of David, together with the state
of peace and prosperity which he secured for the whole of the North
of England, as well as for the settled portion of his own kingdom,
soon filled the walled towns, which rapidly sprung up on every side,
with a crowd of willing settlers from Southern Britain and Flanders,
who were guaranteed the enjoyment of even more than the usual freedom
and privileges under the royal protection. They were to be judged
by their own chosen magistrates, by “the verdict of their peers”--a
privilege shared, indeed, with every Scottish freeholder--and according
to the laws and assize of the Burgh, sanctioned by the community, and
regulated by the Provost and twelve leading men. As in the case of the
Baron’s Court, the crown pleas were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of
the Provost and Bailies, but the royal justiciary, or his deputy, sat
in the Burgh-Court; the verdict was given by the “good men and true”
of the community; and no summons made by a royal serjeant was valid,
unless he was accompanied by the Town Bedell. Every burgher was bound
to possess at least one rood of land in the burgh, for which he paid
five pence yearly to the king; and to swear fealty to the sovereign,
the magistrates, and the community of the burgh--for the tie which
bound the burgher was the old fealty of the _Leud_, not the homage
of the _Antrustion_ with its attendant obligations; he plighted
his troth with his hand upon the Sacred Volume, not placed between
the hands of his overlord “after the Frank custom.” In this, and in
other points, burgage-tenure much resembled the tenures of socage, and
of gavelkind, which approached the earlier allodial custom, looked
upon in later times as _Roturier_; but from Merchet, Heriot,
and other exactions which had passed, with the principles of service
and dependance, into many of the tenures of the age, the Scottish
Burgher was exempt; as well as from the wardship which was attached to
knight-service. The heir, if a minor, remained with his “chattels” in
the custody of his mother’s relatives, the father’s kindred taking the
charge of the “heritage;” this heritage being strictly entailed upon
the heir, who could stop those deathbed transfers of property which
were occasionally suggested by designing personages, whether lay or
clerical. Under certain circumstances, such as the fear of starvation,
even the Allod might be parted with; and similarly the “Capital
Messuage” might be sold, or the property alienated, if the heir was
either unwilling, or unable, to relieve his father’s necessities, or
to pay his father’s debts; the Burghal Code justifying this exception
from the ordinary rule by the admission that “nede has na law.” Twelve
witnesses were required for the purchase of a burgage tenement, the
twelve next door neighbours apparently, who stood in the place of the
kindred of earlier times--the occupants of the four houses on either
side and of the four immediately opposite; and if the tenement was held
without dispute for a year and a day--the period which also seems,
from time immemorial, to have conferred the right of participating
in the privileges of “the neighbourhood” in the rural districts--it
became the absolute property of the purchaser, unless the former
owner could show that he was a minor, or beyond sea, at the time of
the purchase. The perfect freedom of burgage tenure was ensured by
the provision that “If any man’s _thryll_, baron’s or knight’s,
comes to the burgh and buys a burgage, and dwells in his burgage a
twelvemonth and a day, without challenge of his lord or his baillie,
he shall be ever more free as a burgess within that king’s burgh, and
enjoy the freedom of that burgh;” an enactment, not so much aimed at
encouraging fugitive native-men from the rural districts to settle in
the towns, as against a previous state of society which still exists in
Russia--or existed lately--in which the bondman might rise to wealth
and station as a citizen, without shaking off the thraldom which bound
him to his original proprietor. As, after the enfranchisement of towns,
the undisputed possession of a burgage tenement for a year and a day
conferred the proprietorship of a freehold, it necessarily carried with
it, like the gift of arms at an earlier period, the indisputable rights
of a freeholder.[328]
Every fortnight a _Moot_ was held within the burgh, at which every
burgher within the walls was bound to be present--in winter, before
_Undern_, or nine o’clock in the morning; and at _Midmorn_ during the
summer--a greater Burgh-moot being assembled at Michaelmas, Christmas,
and Easter, at which the presence of every upland burgher was also
required, their absence being punished by the highest fine levied--the
full forfeiture--as the burgher who dwelt without the walls was excused
attendance upon the lesser moots. The general Burgh-moot was evidently
a relic of the time before the separation of the Castle from the Burgh,
when the upland thegns were bound, under heavy penalty, to meet three
times a-year to fulfil the duties of their tenure; the lesser moots,
and the general regulations of the burgh having been probably left
very much to the _Twyhyndmen_ who dwelt within the walls. A watch was
established for the security of the town; and at the stroke of a staff
upon the door, an inmate was bound to come forth from every burgher’s
house, and, armed with two weapons, to join in keeping watch and ward
over the sleeping burgh from _couvre-feu_ to _cockcrow_, the houses
of widows alone being exempted from this duty. The trades were under
the general superintendence of the _Probi homines_, or leading men of
the burgh, and some of their regulations are remarkable. The baker
whose bread was not made and placed openly, in the window, for sale,
was fined “full forfeiture,” and his bread confiscated for the use of
the poor--a somewhat questionable method of disposing of it, if the
law was to punish its adulteration. The provision dealer was obliged
to sell all that was in his house beyond the value of fourpence,
if required, on the plea that it was public property--an enactment
levelled, probably, against hoarding provisions in a time of scarcity
for private use, or for profit; for when famines were of frequent
occurrence, the dealer in the necessaries of life might be tempted to
speculate in his neighbours need. The dignity of the magistracy was
kept up by prohibiting any Provost, Bailie, or Bedell, from making
bread, or brewing ale, for sale; and of the burgherhood, by excluding
from its privileges every dyer, butcher, or tanner, who worked at his
calling with his own hands. If he aspired to become a member of the
guild, the business was to be deputed to other hands, whom he was only
to superintend as “a master.” Cloth appears to have been the staple
product of the time, and wool was as jealously guarded as in England,
none but a burgher being allowed to buy it, for the purposes of dying,
or cloth-making. An occasional difficulty with “the hands,” as at
present, appears to have arisen, though from different causes; but the
age was less scrupulous, and the _Kemester_, or wool-comber, who tried
to escape to the Upland, might at once be committed to the town-jail,
on the plea that there was work to be done. The runaway was not
invariably a fugitive from the rural districts. It was a hard age for
the dependant classes wherever they were; and the “bondman in-burgh”
may at times have cast many a wistful glance towards the blue hills in
the distance. Monopoly and exclusive dealing were only in accordance
with the spirit and policy of the age; and must inevitably have arisen
in every quarter, when it was enacted that every sale and purchase
should be made “in port,” and in the presence of witnesses chosen “in
burgh;” which must, of course, have concentrated all the traffic of
the district connected with the burgh in the hands of the resident
population. The subdivision of the Hundred was unknown in Scotland,
and accordingly such privileges occasionally extended over the whole
County or Sheriffdom; as in Edinburgh, and as in the case of Perth;
where, perhaps in consequence of this wide monopoly, the unprivileged
trader from other quarters was allowed to retail cloth during the
summer, from Ascension Day to the 1st of August; though ordinarily
the privileges of the burgh were only suspended during Fair-time. The
Fair was in some respects a sort of regulated Saturnalia; none but the
outlaw, the traitor, and the malefactor whose crime was of too deep a
dye to admit of sanctuary, could be taken during its continuance; all
else, whether debtors, runaways, or minor offenders of any description,
being free from arrest, except they broke “the peace of the Fair,”
when they were tried and punished, not by the ordinary magistrates of
the burgh, but in a temporary Court, known universally as the Court
of _Pies-poudrees_, or _Dusty-feet_. The Dustyfoot was the travelling
pedlar, or merchant as he was called in Scotland, the original of the
modern Haberdasher--or “man with a _Havresac_;” and as, in Fair-time,
the _Stallenger_, or trader who sold from a temporary stall, or booth,
could claim “_lot and cavyl_”--share and share--with the more dignified
Burgher, with whom for the time he was upon an equality, it would have
been contrary to the true northern principle of justice if he had been
liable to be tried and punished in a strange Court, and by any other
verdict than that of “his Peers,” the Community, for the time being,
of the Fair. The Dustyfoot probably came by land, and only entered the
burgh for traffic during Fair-time; but the sea, or the river, bore
the vessel of the foreign trader to the burgh at all times, though,
except when it was otherwise provided, as at Perth during summer time,
the burghers alone could dispose of the traders’ wares, only salt or
herrings being sold on board ship. All disputes between a foreign
trader and a burgher were to be settled before the third flood of the
tide.[329]
No Burgh was complete without a Hospital--no royal Burgh without a
Castle. Leprosy was the disease of the age--a never-ceasing plague,
entailed by unwholesome food, a want of vegetables, and the salted meat
and fish, which formed invariably the winter diet, not a little aided
by uncleanliness. Every one struck with leprosy within the walls was
to be removed at once to the _Spittal_; and if he had nothing of
his own, a collection of twenty shillings--a considerable sum for the
time--was to be raised for his support. If the pauper was not cured by
the time the money was spent, he was probably dismissed as incurable,
and classed amongst the confirmed lepers, who were forbidden to enter
any town, but were allowed to sit at the gate and beg. By the Law of
Scotland it was allowable to give “Herbary” to a stranger for one night
without question, but if he stayed beyond that period the host was
answerable for the guest, and bound to produce him before the proper
officer. Even this relic of the unstinted hospitality of early times
was dispensed with in the case of this dreaded disease; and he who
sheltered a leper within the walls was liable to the heaviest fine
inflicted, “the full forfeiture.” Similar arrangements were once in
force in every burgh; as in London, for instance, where the _Spittal
Fields_ were the open meadows around the Hospital for Lepers, who
were allowed to ask for alms at the _Cripples Gate_, a spot which
the charitable may have sought out, but which a larger class must, most
assuredly, have shunned.[330]
The royal burgh was under the rule of its chosen magistrates, but the
royal castle was under the charge of the Constable appointed by the
king, this office often becoming hereditary in the family on which
it was originally conferred. Forty days were fixed as the period of
service on castle-guard, which, like everything else towards the
decline of the Feudal system, was gradually compounded for by a money
payment to the Constable; who, in other words, performed the service
with his own retainers, and exacted the usual fine, or its equivalent,
for the non-attendance of the party bound by the tenure of his land to
undertake such service. This custom, however, had scarcely grown into
general use in the reign of David, for it was one of the provisions
of Magna Charta that no Constable should summon a knight to perform
castle-guard whilst he was serving in the king’s army, nor exact the
fine for non-attendance when he was ready to perform the service in
person, or by proper substitute. Freedom from arrest was one of the
privileges attached to castle-guard, as well as to service in the
king’s “host,” lasting, like the similar privilege of Parliament, which
still exists, for the whole period of service; the same exemption being
extended to all who were in attendance on their duties in the county,
or who were sent to the burgh to buy provisions for their lord. The
Bailie of the castle was empowered to borrow of a burgher goods to the
amount of forty pence, and for a period not exceeding forty days; but
it was at the option of the lender to increase the amount of the loan
beyond that sum, or to defer the time of payment beyond the forty days.
At Easter, Whitsuntide, and Christmas, a “castellan” was entitled to
demand from a burgher pigs, geese, or chickens, “for the king’s need;”
but if the burgher could close his door no entry might be forced--his
house was his castle, according to the well-known English saying--but
the castellan might catch and kill any of the burgher’s stock that
he found beyond bounds, paying the price at which the neighbourhood
assessed the articles. The probable object of both these regulations
was to ensure the garrison a fair supply of necessaries without
entailing too heavy a burden upon the townsmen. In all disputes, if
a castellan complained of wrong, he was to claim his right in the
Court of the Burgh; and if the burgher considered himself aggrieved he
was to carry his plaint to the Castle gate. On these occasions there
appears to have been a mixed jury, as in the trial of an alien at the
present day, “the peers” of each party furnishing a portion; such at
least seems to have been the case in the following trial in the castle
of Dumfries for the homicide of a burgher, the party charged with the
offence being an Upland-man, probably on castle-guard, as he was tried
in the place appointed for appeals against a castellan. Adam, the
miller of Dumfries, meeting Richard, son of Robert Elias’s son, in the
churchyard of St. Fabian and St. Sebastian in the castle, abused him as
a thief, “because he was a Galloway man”--a species of reasoning still
sometimes current in cases of unpopular nationality. On the following
Thursday, when Adam was standing in the doorway of a house, a woman
called out to him that Richard was coming up the street, warning him
to be on his guard. “My knife is as sharp as his,” replied the miller;
attacking Richard at once, who drew his sword and struck Adam with the
flat side of the weapon. The miller closed his arm upon the sword, and
in disengaging it sharply, Richard inflicted a mortal wound upon his
assailant, exclaiming, on seeing the catastrophe, “you caused your own
death.” All the Burghers testified on oath that Richard was a man of
good repute, but that Adam was a rogue; and the “Barons” concurring, an
unanimous verdict of acquittal was pronounced. Barons and Burghers both
seem to have been concerned in this trial, which affords a very fair
specimen of the lawless manners of the age, and of the advantages of
the “jugement del pais” over the earlier system expressed in the legal
axiom “buy the spear or bear it”--pay the _were_ or stand the
feud.[331]
Such were the leading regulations of David’s community of Burghs. They
correspond closely with the ancient customs of Newcastle, to which
indeed allusion is made in the Burghal Code, the English community
having been consulted apparently upon the law of inheritance;[332] and
there can be little doubt that the Anglo-Norman Burgh, itself in most
respects a confirmation of the Anglo-Saxon, except where the custom
of Borough-English existed, was the model for the burghs introduced
by David throughout the land. In imitation of their sovereign, the
greater magnates, lay and ecclesiastical, occasionally enfranchised
their towns, or founded burghs, filling them with a class of freemen
on a footing with the royal burghers, though the latter were reckoned
higher in the social scale, and were privileged to decline the
challenge of a member of a lesser burgh; just as the _Scepenbar_
man, who could count his “four ancestors and his _hant-gemahl_,”
was entitled to refuse the challenge of his equal in position who
was not his equal in blood.[333] The royal burghs generally retained
their ascendancy, though not invariably; for in spite of the jealous
rivalry of Dunbarton and Rutherglen, upon the margin of her own fair
river, the great episcopal city of Glasgow has long been acknowledged
the undisputed mistress of the western waters. The original burghers,
as a class, were, with few exceptions, of foreign origin, emigrants
from southern Britain, and not unfrequently Flemings; as in Berwick,
where the Flemings long dwelt apart as a separate guild.[334] It was
long before the native element entered largely amongst the privileged
civic population, clinging to Scottish customs and to the rural
districts, especially in the distant North, where the towns must have
long stood out like commercial garrisons in a disaffected, and not
unfrequently a hostile, country. Not the least amongst the many changes
introduced by the burgher class beyond the Forth was the diffusion of
the language hitherto only spoken to the southward of that river, a
Teutonic dialect spreading over the country, as in Ireland, with the
gradual preponderance of the intramural population, a similar result
being traceable in France, though under exactly opposite circumstances;
for the language spoken in towns, where men congregate together in
large numbers, will always prevail over the dialects of a rural and
scattered population. It would be difficult to overestimate the utility
of the burgher class to the Scotland of that period, or its influence
in promoting the amelioration and prosperity of the country. The
increase it brought to the revenue, though perhaps one of its greatest
advantages in the opinion of the age, was comparatively of secondary
importance. The invariable tendency of such a class has always been
to favour peace, order, and civilization, as long as it has occupied
its natural position; for it is only when a burgherhood has become
over-powerful that it has afforded as frequent examples as a nobility,
or an _autocracy_, of the inability of human nature in any
condition to withstand the evil influences of unlimited power. Such was
not the case in Britain, where the burgherhood has never occupied the
same position as the great communities of Flanders, of Germany, or of
Northern Italy. It would be of little use to speculate upon what might
have happened had England remained under the rule of a feeble, or an
“unkindly” king--of Edgar Atheling or Harold--with her great provincial
_Jarls_, like the Dukes of Franee, distracting the country with
their contentions for power. Great burgher communities might have
arisen, especially in the Danelage, where the Socmen, representatives
of the _Land-agende_ men, or Odal-Bonders, of an earlier period,
were exactly the class to form a martial burgherhood; but such a future
was not to be. In neither England nor Scotland has the civic class
ever been the sole depositary of the ancient northern principles of
self-government, as on the Continent; where the _Echevin_, the
representative of the ancient _Scepenbar_ Freeholder, who could
alone pass judgment upon his equal, has for centuries been confined
to the towns. It may be read in the Capitularies of the Carlovingian
era, how it was offered to the ancestry of the French nobility to
declare the law they would live by, and their choice was destined to
be unfortunate; for wherever the hand of Imperial Rome is traceable,
it has sown the seeds of future despotism. In every part of Britain,
however, there was but one law for Baron and for Burgher, framed upon
the principles of the free north; and much as we may be indebted to
the civic portion of our “Third Estate,” the institutions of which
we are so justly proud, were not preserved by their intervention.
It is well that in the days of old there were other parties engaged
in the struggle; for where is the example that history can furnish
of a contest for liberty successfully carried out by an unassisted
Burgherhood?[335]
The Court was not forgotten in the reforming zeal of David, and
following up the innovations, which seem to have been first introduced
by Alexander, he assimilated the Scottish Court to the Anglo-Norman
model, with which both brothers must have been familiar. It must not
be supposed, however, that before this period a Court was unknown in
Scotland; but it was probably of a primitive character, even after
the innovations of Queen Margaret. Howel Dha is supposed to have laid
down certain regulations, about the middle of the tenth century,
for his Court in Wales; and without putting faith in the apocryphal
ordinances ascribed to Malcolm the Second, it may be safely assumed
that Scotland, in the eleventh century, was at least as far advanced
in this respect as Wales in the tenth. Fordun, who gives to Crinan the
title of Abthane of Dull and Seneschal of the Isles, describes the
Abthane as the Head of all the royal Thanes; and though the title is
evidently an error, the office may have been a reality, for it would
have been simply identical with that of the Welsh Distyn, the Lord
High Steward or Seneschal. In every Scottish Earldom the Seneschal was
next in authority to the Earl--his Deputy or Maor, who appeared in his
place at the greater Shire Moots appointed by William; and Crinan may
have filled such an office under the king. The feature most worthy
of remark, however, in the constitution of the Welsh Court, was the
rank and position of the royal attendants, the highest alone--the
Distyn--being on a footing with the Chief, and the royal officials of
the Commot; while only the leading Court officials were on a level with
the Breyr, or noble proprietor; and the other members of the household
ranked only just above the Boneddig, or Lesser Freeman. Dignity of the
highest description, therefore, was not attached at this period to
service about the royal person; and the classes from which the Welsh
king chose his courtiers and attendants were the lesser freemen, and
the dependants known as _Mab aillts_, rather than the noble class
which furnished the Maors and Cynghellwrs.[336]
It must not be imagined that this was a Welsh or a Celtic peculiarity,
for there was a time when the _Hird_, or Court, of the Frank kings
was of a yet more primitive description, the attendants in the Hird
being all on a servile footing, known as _Scalcs_, and chosen most
probably from the subordinate race. The Household appears to have been
under the superintendence of the _Sene-scalc_--perhaps the Senior
Slave--the Stable under the _March-scalc_, officials who seem
to be traceable amongst the Anglo-Saxons in the _Wealh-gerefa_
and the royal _Horswealh_, the latter raised by his office to
the footing of a _Ceorl_.[337] Totally unconnected with the
servile classes, and in the absence of the sovereign exercising royal
authority over the whole kingdom, as well as over the Household, was
the Deputy, the “Dux et Major Domus regni Francorum,” more familiarly
known as the _Maire du Palais_, whose original Teutonic title was
probably the _Stallr_. The office was originally elective, the
Franks choosing the Deputy as well as the actual sovereign; and it
must in some respects have resembled that of the Celtic _Tascio_.
It latterly became hereditary, as is well known, in the family of
Pepin and Charles Martel, who monopolized the office in Austrasia and
Neustrasia, until they exchanged the title of Maire du Palais for
that of king. No other great official besides the Stallr is traceable
in the Norwegian Court, for which, at the opening of the eleventh
century, Olive the Saint framed regulations, which must have been
adopted for the usages of other Courts of the same period; though the
use of the word _Hus-Carles_, both there and in England, may point
to the gradual replacement of the _scalc_ by the freeman about
the royal person. The progress of Roman innovation soon necessitated
the presence of officials whom the simpler institutions of the north
ignored; and to receive the offerings of the fiscal tenantry, made in
lieu of the _feorm_, _veitzslo_ or actual support afforded to
the sovereign and his retinue, a _Camera_, or treasure-chamber,
was required; the leading _Camerarius_, or Chamberlain, the Lord
High Treasurer of the age, becoming, as purse-bearer, a most important
member of the Court. The charter next became a necessary document
to attest the possession of proprietary right; and accordingly, in
the early part of the ninth century, it was ordered in the Frank
Capitularies, “that there should be chosen everywhere good and true
Chancellors, to write public charters before the Comes, Scabini,
and Vicarii.”[338] Much more, then, was it necessary that a similar
official should be in attendance at the fountain-head of all chartered
grants, and consequently the royal _Cancellarius_ became another
most important attendant upon the royal person, the clerkly attributes
required for the Chancellorship naturally placing it in the hands of
the clergy. Most of these changes were probably introduced amongst
the Franks after their king had been converted into the _Kaiser_
of the West; and as the old Allodial Stallr disappeared with the
institutions of which he was a part, the office, which raised a
subject to such a dangerous proximity to the throne, seems to have been
divided between his subordinates. His leadership in war fell to the
share of the _Constable_, the commander of the royal armies, in
the absence of the king, whose name is derived from the same title of
Stallr, held by a Comes, or Graphio, instead of by the _Heretoga_
of the whole kingdom. The _Mareschal_ had not yet arrived at
the leadership of the army; his duties were still connected with the
horse, but they had increased in dignity with the growing importance
of the _Chevalerie_; for though not the head of the army, the
representative of the royal farrier had become the captain and leader
of the _Chivalry_ of the age. The judicial functions of the
Stallr were performed by the _Grand Justiciary_, the President of
the royal Courts of Law; whilst the _Seneschal_, who, though he
retained his servile name, had, like the Mareschal, long discarded his
servile origin, rose to the office of “Maire du Palais;” and in France
he was also supreme over all the justiciaries. In Germany the Stallr
was unknown, the Dukes of the Alamanni, Bavarians, and Saxons, having
themselves been originally, in some sort, the Stallrs or Deputies of
the king of the Franks; and by the time that the Empire passed to the
eastward of the Rhine, the Court had become thoroughly Romanized,
the Allodial Stallr never forming any part of it. His functions
were accordingly divided between his two leading subordinates, the
Seneschal and the Mareschal, the former being the _Pfaltz Graf_,
or Count Palatine, and representing the Maire du Palais; whilst the
Mareschal was the _Heretoga_, and leader of the host. Together
with the three Chancellors and the Chamberlain, they were the first to
give their votes at the election of a _Kaiser_, whom they were
bound to accompany to Rome; and, in later times, with the subsequent
addition of the Grand Butler, they were known as the seven Electors,
monopolizing amongst themselves the sole choice of the Emperor.
Little can be said of the composition of the Anglo-Saxon Court after
the establishment of the sole monarchy by the race of Alfred, though it
was scarcely framed at first upon the Roman model, resembling rather
that of Wales or Norway, or the Teutonic _Hird_, after the freeman
rather than the noble had replaced the _scalc_. A nearer advance
towards the usages of the Feudal era is disclosed in a charter of the
Confessor’s reign, attested apparently by the royal court, the great
_Jarls_ or Dukes being the leading witnesses amongst the laity;
and next to them in importance the Stallr, known under his Latin title
of “Regiæ procurator Aulæ,” probably the Constable. The _Aulicus_
seems to be the next official--he may have been the Chamberlain--and
the _Palatinus_, perhaps the Pfaltz Graf, or Seneschal of the
Household; followed by the _Chancellor_, whose office was deemed
at this time of scarcely sufficient importance to be held by one of the
higher clergy. The _Butlers_ of the king and queen, with three
_Stewards_, close the list; two of the latter being attached to
the king, whilst the other was in attendance upon the queen.[339]
The Justiciary and the great Feudal functionary, whose name is still
identified with military command, are missed from the Court of the
Confessor; the Anglo-Saxons were not a race of horsemen--chivalry and
the Mareschal came in with the Normans.
Some of these officials may have been introduced into the Scottish
Court by Margaret, but with the exception of the Constable, the
Justiciary, and the Chancellor, who appear in the time of Alexander,
none of the great Feudal dignitaries who were in constant attendance
upon the royal court in the middle ages are to be met with in the few
existing charters which date before the reign of David. The earliest
Constable on record was Edward, son of Siward, who fully justified the
confidence of Alexander and David on the field of Stickathrow, the
office--of which the jurisdiction, like that of the ancient Stallr,
extended over all the country within a certain distance of the royal
person--after the death of Edward, becoming hereditary in the great
Norman family of De Moreville. Alan, son of Flahald, was another
noble of the same race, who, like most of the actual followers of the
Conqueror, crossed the Channel before the general use of surnames had
arisen amongst the Normans, and upon his son, Walter, David conferred
the hereditary Seneschalship of the realm; his descendants, it need
hardly be added, deriving their name of Stewart from the dignity thus
acquired by their ancestor. Neither the Chamberlain nor the Mareschal
held their offices by a similar hereditary tenure; the former in the
capacity of royal treasurer, exercising supreme sway over the Third
Estate, who paid the largest ordinary contributions into the treasury;
holding his “Courts of Eyre” or circuits, and presiding in the great
assembly of the burghs; whilst the Mareschal was the supreme judge
and referee in Courts of Honour and of Chivalry. The Justiciary and
the Chancellor completed the six greater dignitaries of the Scottish
Feudal Court, Constantine, Earl of Fife, being Justiciary at the
opening of David’s reign, the only Gaelic Earl who appears at that
time amongst the leading courtiers holding office. Service about the
royal person was scarcely yet regarded as befitting the great Gaelic
Mormaors, and as the Court henceforth was in reality the Supreme
Council of the kingdom, the preponderance of the Feudal element in the
direction of affairs was quickly developed.
Such were the leading features of David’s civil policy; the state of
the Scottish Church, and the changes introduced during the course of
this reign, will be the subject of the ensuing chapter. The influence
of David upon his native country has been compared to that of Alfred
upon England, and of Charlemagne upon a wider sphere, but in some
respects it was of a different character. Alfred was the saviour of
the Anglo-Saxon race from complete subjection to the Danes, and though
he can scarcely be called a king of England, he was the real founder
of the monarchy. Within the limits of his ancestral dominions, and
of the rescued principality of English Mercia, he was the reviver of
letters; the creator of a navy; the reformer of the army, upon which
he expended a third of his revenue; and, as the builder of walled
towns, he may in a certain sense be regarded as the originator of a
burgherhood; but, like Charlemagne, he was a collector and not a maker
of laws, the constitutional institutions which have been attributed
to him belonging, unquestionably, to other periods. His was a policy
of defence not of aggrandisement--not even of amalgamation beyond the
limits of the Anglo-Saxon race--of defence by sea and on land; of
renovation rather than of innovation, for it was not an era for the
development of great constitutional changes. But David was a mighty
innovator, scarcely reviving anything except bishoprics; and even
in his ecclesiastical policy, in all other respects, he was equally
an innovator. He instituted a feudal court, a feudal nobility, and
feudal tenures, governing the country upon feudal principles; for
the great dignitaries of the court, in his time, were not merely the
holders of honorary offices, but the actual ministers of the crown. He
introduced the charter into general use, confirming proprietary right
throughout the kingdom, the earls and freeholders by ancient Scottish
tenure, henceforth standing, side by side, with the new noblesse and
their vavassors, until all difference insensibly disappeared. He
created a burgherhood, and laid down a novel Code of Law, by which
the earlier system was gradually superseded by the principle still
acknowledged--“the verdict of the neighbourhood.” Augustus found Rome
brick and left her marble; but David found Scotland built of wattles
and left her framed in granite, castles and monasteries studding
the land in every direction. He found her a pastoral country, and
before the close of his reign she is described as the granary of
her neighbours; and though the expressions of Ailred are probably
exaggerated, as an exporting country she must have made considerable
progress in agriculture. England may trace the germs of her monarchy
to Alfred, and of the union of her people under one sovereign, though
it was certainly not consummated in Alfred’s time. First amongst the
Cæsars of the Western Empire stands Charlemagne, scarcely, however, the
originator of the mighty results of that revival which still continue
to influence the continent of Europe. But of feudal and historical
Scotland; of the Scotland which counts Edinburgh amongst her fairest
cities, and Glasgow, as well as Perth and Aberdeen; of the familiar
Scotland of Bruce and of the Stewarts, David was unquestionably the
creator. With the close of the eleventh century ancient Gaelic Alban
gradually fades into the background, and before the middle of the
twelfth, modern Scotland has already risen into existence.
CHAPTER X.
THE CHURCH.
At some remote and long-forgotten period, Christianity was first
preached amongst the Provincials of Britain; and it became the
established religion of the Romanized portion of the island after
the great revolution effected by Constantine. Three British bishops
accordingly sat at the Council of Arles, as representatives of the
three Imperial provinces; and the presence of a similar deputation
from the island is occasionally noticed in the accounts of other
important councils. After the Faith had reached Britain from the
neighbouring coasts of Gaul, it appears to have passed across the
western Channel into Ireland--for there were believers in that country
at the beginning of the fifth century;[340] although, from the success
attending the labours of St. Patrick amongst the leading clans of the
north and west, the conversion of the whole island has been generally
attributed to the preaching of that celebrated missionary. From the
date usually ascribed to the arrival of Patrick in Ireland, it is not
improbable that his mission to that country was connected with one of
the visits of Germanus and his companions to the neighbouring island
of Britain.[341] The progress of the Pelagian heresy in the country
of which its originator was a native, had excited the alarm of the
orthodox Britons, who craved the assistance of their brethren in Gaul
to aid them in eradicating the evil, and at a council which was held
by the heads of the Gallican Church, Germanus and Lupus, the bishops
of Auxerre and Troyes, were commissioned to cross the Channel, and
refute the doctrines of the arch-heretic Pelagius; whilst about the
same time, the notice of Celestine, Bishop of Rome, being attracted
towards the state of the West, he dispatched Palladius, the Deacon, to
exercise episcopal functions amongst the Irish believers in the name
of Christ.[342] The actions of Palladius have long been consigned
to oblivion, but the name of Patrick is still venerated as the great
Apostle of the Truth to Ireland.[343]
Born of parents of senatorial rank in one of the British provinces, at
the age of sixteen Patrick was carried off by a party of marauders, and
sold as a slave amongst the northern Irish.[344] Six years he passed
in captivity before he was enabled to effect his escape; and upwards
of twenty more elapsed, the greater part of which he probably spent
amongst the monasteries of Gaul, before he returned to settle in the
land of his birth, where his kindred earnestly entreated him to remain.
But he had long felt an ardent desire to effect the conversion of the
heathen Irish, and listening at length to the promptings of his fervent
zeal, he revisited the scene of his early captivity, and undertook the
holy task in which he was destined to be blessed with such complete
success. His lengthened residence in Gaul must have familiarised him
with the system so prevalent in that quarter; and the manner in which
Patrick appears to have planted his religious communities throughout
the provinces of Ireland, evinces the extent to which he had been
affected by the monastic spirit of the age.
Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli, about the middle of the fourth century,
was the first to introduce into Western Europe the custom of the bishop
and his clergy residing together according to monastic rule, and to
familiarize the inhabitants of cities with the presence of ascetics,
hitherto confined to the desert and the wilderness. His example was
followed by Augustine of Hippo, and Martin of Tours; and through the
latter, the founder of monachism in the Gallic provinces, the system
appears to have penetrated into the British Isles. Beda has left upon
record a description of the Church of Lindisfarne, founded by Aidan
in the best days of the Gaelic Church, which identifies the customs
of that bishopric, still remaining in force at the time of the Norman
Conquest, with the practice of Eusebius and Augustine.[345] Nor is it
necessary to adduce the traditionary relationship between St. Martin
and the Apostle of Ireland, as a proof how largely the Churches, which
preceded the mission of Austin to the Anglo-Saxons, must have been
indebted for their characteristic features to the celebrated Bishop of
Tours.[346]
Many of the Gaelic monasteries were founded in remote and inaccessible
situations; but the most important appear to have been placed, in
exact imitation of the Abbey of Tours, at a short distance from the
capital, or chief fortress, of the neighbourhood. Such was the case
at Armagh, Lindisfarne, and St. Martins near Canterbury--that ancient
British church which is said to have retained the early privilege of
maintaining a bishop within its walls down to the time of the Norman
Conquest.[347] Here the bishop dwelt with his clergy, and the rest of
the brethren, of whom the great majority were laymen. All were bound
to the observance of the same Rule; and all, as monks, were under the
superintendence of the abbot of the community. In one point, however, a
wide difference was observable between the constitution of the Gaelic
Church, and the ecclesiastical system elsewhere prevailing; and this
peculiar variation from the general rule may, in a great degree, be
attributed to the circumstances under which monachism was originally
introduced amongst the Gaelic people.
After Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, the
ecclesiastical system was naturally much influenced by the political
institutions of a highly civilized and artificial state of society.
The bishop and the city were inseparably connected; the diocese was
not unfrequently bounded by the city walls; and when a large country
district was included within the limits of the episcopal jurisdiction,
the Diocesan was assisted by one or more Chorepiscopi, or Country
Bishops, whose duties were strictly confined to that part of the
diocese from which their name was originally derived. Nothing, indeed,
more convincingly demonstrates how completely the Christianity of
early times must have been confined to the cities of the Empire,
than the epithet of _Pagans_, or “Country people,” which was
used to distinguish those who persisted in adhering to the antiquated
superstitions of their heathen forefathers. To the two great Christian
divisions of clergy and laity, a third was added, when the increasing
multitudes of ascetics and anchorites were collected by various
pious men, and established in communities as cænobites; and when the
ordination of certain members of the fraternity--which in early times
was exclusively composed of laymen--and the introduction of the system
into cities, brought these societies within the jurisdiction of the
bishop, the authority of the Secular Head of the diocese clashed with
that of the Regular Superior of the monastery, and frequently became
a matter of dispute. Accordingly, the submission of the monks to the
Diocesan, in ecclesiastical matters, was strictly enforced, by the rule
laid down in various councils of the fifth and sixth centuries, “that
no monastery should be erected without the consent of the bishop of the
diocese.” In societies already existing, the limits of episcopal and
abbatial jurisdiction were carefully defined, whilst a few monasteries
preserved the privilege of retaining within their walls a bishop
expressly for their own community, as was the case in the abbeys of St.
Denis, and of St. Martin at Tours.
Such was the manner in which the abbot eventually assumed a subordinate
position beneath the recognized Head of the clerical order, wherever
the monastery was introduced upon a state of society, amongst which
a settled ecclesiastical system had long prevailed. But neither
regular dioceses, nor secular clergy, existed in Ireland at the
time when Patrick disseminated throughout that country the rule,
and the discipline, with which he had become familiarized in Gaul.
Monachism may be said to have brought in Christianity; and the Faith
was ingrafted on the Rule, rather than the Rule on the Faith. The
monastery was all in all, and the whole scheme of Church government
was based upon a monastic foundation. Instead of dioceses under the
jurisdiction of metropolitan and suffragan bishops, wide districts were
under the sway of different monasteries, the greater number dependant
upon some leading community, like that of Armagh, or Iona. It is not to
be supposed, however, that there were no bishops.[348] Every monastic
establishment of any pretension possessed one bishop, sometimes
several, within the walls; but as the prelate was without a diocese, he
was in an anomalous, and in some measure in a subordinate situation.
It was amongst the privileges of the monastery of Bobbio, founded in
Italy by the Irish Columbanus, that the bishop of the diocese was
never allowed to enter the precincts of the abbey except for clerical
purposes alone; and the position in which the Italian prelate must have
been placed, during the brief period for which he remained amongst the
brotherhood of Bobbio, was the normal condition of a bishop in the
Gaelic and British Churches. As a priest, he was the ecclesiastical
Head of the whole community, upon whom he alone could confer orders;
whilst as a monk he observed the same rule as the rest of the brethren,
asserting no authority in this respect over the abbot, who, as the
Regular Superior of the Fraternity, became in reality the leading
churchman of the district.
Tithes and parishes were unknown, and the income of the community was
originally derived exclusively from dues and altar offerings; though,
by degrees, lands were conferred upon monasteries, fines were levied
upon offenders against certain laws, and the greater abbots asserted
their right to a _cuairt_ or _visitation_, similar to that
enjoyed by the secular princes of the age.[349] The promulgation of the
different laws, of which the infringement was punishable by fine, and
the progresses of the great Abbots of Armagh upon their Visitations,
with the tribute levied upon such occasions, are frequently to
be met with in the Irish annalists after the commencement of the
eighth century,[350] and as all fines, tributes, and other temporal
advantages, fell to the share of the Regular Superior of the monastery,
it is easy to conceive how the abbacy, rather than the bishopric, grew
to be the object of an Irish or Scottish churchman’s ambition.[351]
About the same time occurs the first mention of a personage, second
only in importance to the abbot--the Herenach, or lay tenant of the
lands of the monastery, answering in many respects to the Advocatus
Ecclesiæ upon the Continent. According to the invariable custom of
the Gaelic system of tenure, the possessions of the community, or
Termon lands, were made over to a tenant, generally some powerful
chieftain of the neighbourhood, in whose family the office remained as
an inalienable duchas, and who acted as the abbot’s deputy, or maor,
retaining the invariable _third_ as his prerogative.[352]
A hundred years passed away after the mission of St. Patrick before a
diversity of Rules crept into the Gaelic church, and a different mode
of celebrating the service was introduced, amongst some of the Irish
monasteries, from Britain.[353] In another century arose the question
about Easter and the Tonsure, causing a temporary breach between the
churches of the South of Ireland--which conformed to the practice of
the Western Church towards the middle of the seventh century--and the
churches of the North which, together with those of the Picts and
Scots, and their Anglo-Saxon followers, clung to their ancient usage
till the close of the same century, or the beginning of the next,
when the Britons alone remained consistent in their attachment to the
Eastern tonsure, and to the erroneous cycle.[354] Long before the
death of Beda flagrant abuses had crept into the English Church, and
the venerable historian laments the condition into which most of the
monasteries had fallen throughout the dominions of Northumbria.[355]
Very similar causes to those which brought about such results in
England, were rife both in Ireland and in Scotland; and the Gaelic
Church had varied widely from its original form and spirit, when it
presented to the astonished eyes of the dignified prelates of the
Roman Church in the twelfth century a picture, in which the abuses of
encroachment and neglect had left but the shadow of a long forgotten
system of church government. The greater abbacies had become the
hereditary appanages of powerful families, where they were not still
the objects of bloody contention; and the leading members of the septs,
who filled the office of abbot, had sometimes ceased even to be in
holy orders.[356] The Termon lands were leased out as the hereditary
property of Herenachs, members generally of the same families that
possessed the abbacies; whilst the vast communities of monks, that
Eastern peculiarity which formed so prominent a feature of the Gaelic
Church in her best days, had dwindled into small bodies of Culdees,
the representatives of the clerical portion of the brotherhood--the
_twelve_ companions so invariably attending the abbots of the
early period--who were frequently as remarkable for the amount of their
private wealth, as their predecessors, in the times of Columba and
Aidan, had been renowned for their disinterested reluctance to acquire
property of any description.[357]
The Scottish Church, at the commencement of the twelfth century, must
have presented many similar features to those which met the eyes of
the English prelates in Ireland, towards the close of the same period.
The whole of ancient Alban had once been subject to the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the Abbots of Iona, until the dispute between the
members of that community and the Pictish king Nechtan appears to have
resulted in transferring the supremacy to the Superior of Abernethy;
who, in turn, yielded the predominance to the abbot or bishop of
Dunkeld, after the establishment of that monastery by Constantine
Mac Fergus. The primacy was eventually transferred during the reign
of Cyric, from the foundation of Constantine to the establishment
endowed by his brother Angus; and, from that period, the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of St. Andrews extended in exact proportion with the
temporal authority of the kings of Scotland.[358] Each of the provinces
that were originally independent must, at one time, have possessed
its own monastery and bishop; but as the district kings sunk under
the dominion of the supreme sovereign, the bishops either disappeared
altogether, or became subordinate to, and dependant on, the Bishop
of St. Andrews; so that only three or, at most, four sees existed in
Scotland when David ascended the throne.[359] One of these must have
been the bishopric of Glasgow, created, or revived, by the king during
the lifetime of his predecessor Alexander; whilst the three remaining
sees were St. Andrews, Dunkeld, and Moray.[360] In two of the latter
the old abbacies had become hereditary appanages of the reigning
family, and the jurisdiction of the sees of St. Andrews and Dunkeld
embraced the whole of Scotland immediately dependant upon the royal
authority; whilst the North remained under the superiority of the
monastery, whichever that may have been, in which the earlier Bishops
of Moray were accustomed to fix their residence; thus demonstrating how
completely the two great provinces of _Scotia_ and _Moravia_
must at one period have been divided between the rival families of
Atholl and Moray.
The first step towards remodelling the Scottish Church was Alexander’s
re-grant of the ancient donation of the Pictish Angus to the monastery
of St. Andrews; but many years elapsed before David was enabled to
complete the measures which his brother had only commenced. Five
other bishoprics were added to the four already existing, and the
sees of Dunblane, Brechin, Aberdeen, Ross, and Caithness, were
created, or revived, in districts where hitherto the abbacy, rather
than the bishopric, had been predominant; but it was long before all
the Scottish dioceses attained the footing of regularly established
bishoprics, like those of Glasgow and St. Andrews. In Dunkeld, the
peculiar district of the royal family, all difficulties were originally
overcome, by electing the last abbot of the Culdee monastery to be the
first bishop of the remodelled see; but very little provision was made
for the Canons before the episcopate of Geoffrey, towards the middle
of the following century. In Aberdeen, the power of appointing Canons,
and constituting a Chapter in his Cathedral, was conferred by Papal
Bull upon Bishop Edward; but the first record of a constitution dates
from the episcopate of Peter Ramsay, about 1259; whilst in Moray, the
Chapter was first created by Bishop Bryce Douglas about the year 1220.
In Caithness, the establishment dates from about 1245, the service
before that time having been performed by a single priest, owing to
the impoverishment, through war, of a see which appears to have owed
little or nothing, in the way of endowment, to the Norwegian Magnates
of the Orkneys. Dunblane was in a very similar condition about the same
period; for although endowed by Gilbert of Strathearn with one-third of
his earldom (if Fordun is to be credited) fifteen years after the death
of this munificent patron the see had been ten years vacant through
poverty--a single chaplain, as in Caithness, celebrating divine service
in a church without a roof--a state of affairs which was remedied by
Bishop Clement in 1238.[361] With the revival of these sees by David,
the rule of discipline sanctioned by the Roman Church was introduced
into the Scottish monasteries; and wherever the authority of the Crown
was paramount, the numerous Culdee societies, which were scattered
in every direction over the face of the country at the beginning of
the twelfth century, were either suppressed altogether, or deprived
of their most important privileges. The state of the Scottish Church
at this period, and the nature of the changes brought about by David,
may be best appreciated from a sketch of the royal proceedings in the
diocese of St. Andrews, the principal bishopric of the kingdom.
A Prior and twelve Culdees constituted the College of Kilrimont, better
known under the subsequent name of St. Andrews. The possessions, which
they held in common, were small and poor; their private property,
which was inherited or acquired by the gifts of friends and penitents,
was large and valuable, reverting, upon the death of the possessors,
to their wives, children, or relatives. Upon seven of the community
devolved the duty of ministration at the altar; but the service was
never performed before the high altar of St. Andrews except upon
state occasions, in the presence of the king or the bishop; and at
other times the Culdees celebrated their office, after their own
peculiar manner, in a remote corner of the church. From the frequent
allusion to Seven Churches amongst the early religious societies in
Ireland and Scotland, it is probable that in ancient times each priest
officiated in a separate chapel, set apart for his own particular
ministration.[362] The altar-offerings were divided into seven
portions; one for the bishop, another for the hospital--that invariable
appendage of a Culdee monastery, which alone survived the changes
introduced by David; whilst the remaining five became the property of
the five Culdees, who never officiated at the altar, on the condition
of entertaining all pilgrims and strangers when the hospital (which
contained six) was full; and upon such occasions the host was decided
upon by lot. The origin of this custom may, probably, be traced to the
practice amongst the early Religious, of giving up the greater part of
the altar-offerings to a common fund, to be administered by the members
of the community who did not officiate at the altar, in relieving the
poor, and in exercising the duties of hospitality to pilgrims and
strangers. No Culdee, after his election, continued to dwell in the
same house with his wife and family.[363]
The privilege of electing the abbot, the bishop, and every member of
the community, was vested in the Culdees, who exercised, within the
walls of their monastery, the same rights that belonged in secular
affairs to the district and provincial chieftains. The right of blood
was as predominant amongst the ecclesiastics as it was all prevalent
amongst the laity of the Gaelic people; and as the abbot represented
the original Founder of the monastery, and came in time to be chosen
from the leading family of the district, so the Culdees appear to have
been selected from amongst the members of the same race who could
claim the privilege of Founder’s kin. Latterly, the abbots of the
greater monasteries in Scotland became altogether lay functionaries,
proprietors of the abbey lands, out of which the remainder of the
community were supported.[364] They seem to have resembled the Herenach
rather than the abbot of the Irish Gael; whilst those ecclesiastical
duties and prerogatives, which were very generally exercised by the
Irish abbots until the arrival of the English prelates in that country,
appear to have been divided in Scotland between the bishop and the
prior.[365]
After the establishment and endowment of the Regular Priory of St.
Andrews by David in 1144, nearly all the privileges originally
belonging to the Culdees of Kilrimont were transferred to the Canons
Regular. The Culdees themselves were permitted to retain their
possessions for their own lives, or to embrace the Regular life and
become Canons of the newly-founded Priory;[366] but the members of
smaller Culdee establishments, like that of St. Servans on Loch
Leven, were treated with far less ceremony; and when their possessions
were disposed of in other quarters, they were peremptorily ordered to
conform to the Regular discipline, on pain of summary ejectment from
their monastery.[367] Whilst the lesser religious houses were thus
converted into small dependant priories, filled with Regular monks, the
more important communities seem frequently to have retained one part of
their ancient establishment, and to have become “Hospitallers;” so much
so, that in the succeeding century, the name of “_Kildey_” is used
as an equivalent for a Hospital.[368]
The condition of the Culdees, after the reign of David, varied
according to the circumstances of the dioceses in which they were
placed. None can be traced to the south of the Forth, where they
appear never to have existed; nor within the limits of the see of
Moray, in which they must undoubtedly have been suppressed, upon the
forfeiture of the ancient earls of the province. In Aberdeen, only
those establishments seem to have been retained which were dependant
on the bishop of St. Andrews; whilst little or nothing is known of
the existence of Culdees in Ross and Caithness, though they probably
lingered for some time amidst the mountains of those remote districts.
In the bishoprics of St. Andrews and Dunkeld they remained in the
character of Hospitallers, retaining the tithes of certain parishes,
with the privilege of electing the prior and other members of their
fraternity, subject to the approval of the bishop. But the case was
widely different in the dioceses of Brechin and Dunblane, where the
Culdees long shared in the privileges of the Chapter--a compromise that
must be attributed to the peculiar circumstance of those bishoprics, in
which the church-lands were held by powerful feudatories, whom it would
have been dangerous and impolitic to offend.[369]
But even in those dioceses in which the church lands had reverted to
the crown, either through hereditary succession, or from the forfeiture
of their earlier possessors, the Culdees, chosen from amongst the
leading provincial families, were far too powerful a body to submit
without a struggle to the loss of their former privileges.[370] It
appears to have been their object to establish themselves as Regular
Canons, independent of the authority of the bishop; and they were
occasionally assisted in their endeavours to promote their aim by the
earl of the province, with whom they were frequently connected by the
ties of relationship. At the opening of the thirteenth century, the
Bishop of St. Andrews was obliged to obtain a Papal Bull to prevent
the refractory brethren of Monymusk from exchanging the character of
Hospitallers for that of Regular Canons; though the Culdees, who seem
to have enlisted in their behalf the Earl of Mar and the Bishop of
Aberdeen, eventually obtained their object, and before the middle of
the same century, they were addressed by the pope as Regular Augustine
Canons.[371]
Frequent contests between the Culdees of Kilrimont and the Prior and
Canons of St. Andrews can be traced in the Register of that Priory.
The Culdees seem to have been connected with the Comyns and their
adherents, and to have profited by the preponderance of the national
party during the stormy minority of Alexander the Third; for not only
was a Papal Bull issued in favour of the married clergy of Scotland,
representing that they were unjustly debarred from their rights,[372]
but the Prior and Culdees were about this time converted, by the
authority of a similar document, into the Provost and Chapter of St.
Mary’s; though a proviso was introduced into the latter Bull to secure
the privileges of the Canons of St. Andrews.[373] For a short time
the Provost and Chapter of St. Mary’s appear to have been placed on
a similar footing with the Culdee Chapters of Brechin and Dunblane,
and to have re-established a claim to share in the election of the
Bishop of St. Andrews; but they were once more reduced to their former
subordination after the state of Scotland became more settled, and when
the national party came to terms with the opposite faction, to which
the Canons of St. Andrews appear to have adhered.[374]
At the close of the century the Culdees again make their appearance,
when they elected their provost, William Comyn, to the bishopric of St.
Andrews, and as they still followed the fortunes of the party which now
supported Balliol, their appeal to Rome, in support of this election,
was backed by the whole interest of Edward of England.[375] The pope,
however, decided against the Culdees, and as they were now connected
with the losing side, they shared in the downfall of the Balliols,
and were finally subjected to the jurisdiction of the bishop of St.
Andrews.[376] From this time nothing more is heard of the Culdees,
though their monastery still existed in dependance on their former
rivals; and as in the sister island the Reformation found a prior and
twelve Culdees amongst the recognized clergy at Armagh, so at the same
era in Scotland, a prior and twelve prebendaries still remained in
the little monastery of Kirkheugh, humble representatives of the once
powerful and high-born Culdees of Kilrimont.
CHAPTER XI.
MALCOLM THE FOURTH--A.D. 1153–1165.
[Sidenote: A. D. 1153.]
Six months had barely elapsed since the death of David before the
evil consequences of a minority became apparent, and the peace of
Scotland was again disturbed by the attempts of the Moray family
upon the Crown. Malcolm Mac Heth, the head of the race, had married
a sister of Somerled Mac Gillebride, the ancestor of the Lords of
Argyle, an energetic and ambitious chieftain, who raised the power of
the _Oirir-Gael_ to a height hitherto unexampled, and who now
sought still further to increase that power by establishing one of his
sister’s children upon the throne. [Sidenote: 1st Nov.] Upon the very
day on which the King of England and the Duke of Normandy solemnly
pledged their mutual faith to the ratification of a lasting peace, the
storm burst over the south-western coasts of Scotland, and a desultory
war seems to have lingered throughout the ensuing winter, amidst the
mountains of the west, until an offer of the kingdom of the Isles, in
the following year, called away the most formidable supporter of the
rebellion.[377]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1103.]
When the death of the Norwegian Magnus relieved the Islands from the
dominion of his son Sigurd, Man again reverted to its former ruler
Lagman Godfreyson, though the remainder of his reign was disturbed
by the unceasing attempts of his brother Harald to obtain a share in
the government. Harald, at length falling into his brother’s hands,
was punished by the loss of his eyes; [Sidenote: A. D. 1108.] and
soon afterwards, Lagman, filled with remorse at his own cruelty,
undertook an expiatory pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which he never lived
to accomplish. At the date of his death, his youngest brother, Olave,
was residing at the English Court; but the nobility of the Islands,
passing him over, apparently on account of his extreme youth, solicited
the appointment of a regent, or guardian to the youthful heir, from the
Irish king Murketagh O’Brien; who, gladly acceding to their request,
dispatched his brother’s son, Donald Mac Teige, to fill that office
during the minority of Olave. Donald had already given considerable
trouble in his own country, and a desire to get rid of an impracticable
kinsman may have had its weight in the selection of Murketagh; but
three years of mis-government exhausted the patience of the Manxmen,
the regent was expelled in a general rising, and a successor was this
time sought for, in the opposite direction, from Norway. [Sidenote: A.
D. 1111.] The change was hardly for the better, for Ingemund, the next
governor, impatient at the idea of filling a subordinate situation, on
his arrival at the Lewis, summoned the chieftains of the Northern Isles
to meet upon a stated day, and choose him for their king. He and his
Norwegians, however, conducted themselves in the meantime with such
unrestrained licentiousness, that the Islesmen, carefully guarding the
outlets, set fire to the residence of their king-elect, who perished
with all his followers in vain attempts to escape from the flames.[378]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1112]
Four years had elapsed since the death of Lagman, when Olave, who was
now probably of age, assumed the government of his father’s kingdom. He
is described as a peaceful prince, voluptuous and devout--a combination
of opposite features in the same character, by no means confined to
that age--and his residence at the Court of Henry the First appears to
have assimilated his character in some respects to that of the Scottish
David, with whom he is also said to have cultivated a close alliance.
He instituted, or remodelled, the bishopric of the Isles, establishing
a priory at Rushen, which he filled with a body of monks from Furness
Abbey, conferring upon the latter monastery the privilege of electing
the bishop of the Isles. Their first choice was unfortunate, and Olave
became the patron of that singular bishop, Wimund, whose vagaries,
towards the close of David’s reign, have been already noticed in a
preceding chapter.[379]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1152.]
Towards the close of a long and peaceful reign, Olave dispatched his
son Godfrey to Norway, to obtain from Inge, who then ruled over that
kingdom, a confirmation of his claim upon the throne of the Isles.
Hardly had Godfrey left his home, when the three sons of the blind
Harald, landing upon the coast of Man, asserted their claim to a share
in the kingdom, as the lawful inheritance of their father. Olave
agreed to submit the question to the general assembly of the Manxmen,
and, on the 29th of June, both parties met at Ramsay, when Ronald
Haraldson, rising under pretence of opening the conference, struck the
unsuspecting Olave to the ground with his battle-axe, and proclaimed
himself and his brothers kings of the Isles. [Sidenote: A. D. 1153.]
Their usurpation, however, was of short duration, for upon the return
of Godfrey Olaveson from Norway, the whole of the island chieftains at
once declared in favour of Olave’s heir; and the sons of Harald, who
were made over to their kinsman, suffered the usual punishment of a
cruel age for their treacherous outrage upon his father.[380]
Shortly after his return to Man, overtures were made to Godfrey to
cross over to Dublin and place himself at the head of the Northmen of
Fingal, or Dublin _Ostmen_ as they now began to be called. He
willingly responded to the invitation, but by adopting this course, and
by some of his subsequent proceedings, he appears to have provoked the
serious enmity of one of the leading magnates of the Isles. After the
conquest of Man by Godfrey Crovan, the original clans, whose connection
with the Northmen of Dublin and the Isles has been already noticed,
were confined to the north of the island; whilst the south, partitioned
out amongst the Islesmen who had contributed to the success of Godfrey,
remained in the possession of their descendants, and became the seat
of the government, the locality of the episcopal see, and the favoured
portion of the island. The names of the leaders in the sanguinary
battle of Sandwirth, Ottir and Mac Maras, point to the different
descent of their followers; and it appears to have been the policy of
Godfrey Crovan and his descendants to preserve the distinction between
North and South, and to maintain their own ascendancy by holding the
balance between the two races.[381]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1142.]
About ten years before Godfrey became connected with the Dublin
Ostmen, Reginald Mac Torquil, a grandson of Jarl Ottir who fell at
Sandwirth--and, perhaps, also a member of the old Hy Ivar race, which
probably still lingered in the north of Man--had either been chosen,
or deputed, to assume the government of the Dublin Norsemen, this
leadership remaining in the possession of his descendants until the
capture of Dublin by the English.[382] The arrival of the king of
Man must have interfered with the authority of Reginald, and, upon
his return home, Godfrey appears to have directed his enmity still
further against the family of Reginald by depriving Thorfin Ottirson
of his possessions in the island. [Sidenote: A. D. 1156] Thirsting for
vengeance Thorfin sought out Somarled, who had married the sister of
Godfrey Olaveson, undertaking to place one of the great chief’s sons
upon the throne of the Isles in right of his maternal ancestry. Most
readily was the offer accepted, and Thorfin, accompanied by Somarled’s
eldest son Dugal, sailed amongst the northern islands, exacting the
submission of their chieftains to the joint heir of the Isles and the
Oirir-Gael, whilst Somarled, on his part, prepared to support his
son’s claim with a powerful fleet of eighty vessels. [Sidenote: 6th
Jan. A. D. 1157.] The proceedings of Thorfin could scarcely
escape the notice of Godfrey, and he was fully prepared to meet
the confederates when they appeared off the coasts of Man, where a
desperate and bloody battle, lasting through a whole winter’s night,
and terminating in favour of Somarled, led to the partition of the
islands; the permanent cession of all the _Sudreys_, or Southern
Hebrides, striking a fatal blow at the ancient ascendancy of the
Gall-Gael. Not content, however, with his partial success, the lord of
the Oirir-Gael aimed at the possession of the remainder, [Sidenote:
A. D. 1158.] and in the following year, landing in Man, he completed
his conquest by the reduction of that island, Godfrey flying before
his sister’s husband, and passing the next seven years in exile at the
court of Norway.[383]
The defection of Thorfin from Godfrey Olaveson was, probably, as fatal
in its consequences to the sons of Mac Heth as it was advantageous
to their powerful kinsman; for in the very year in which Somarled,
relinquishing his attacks upon Scotland, turned all his energies
towards acquiring the kingdom of the Isles, Donald Mac Malcolm was
captured in Galloway, [Sidenote: A. D. 1156.] and sent to share his
father’s imprisonment in Roxburgh Castle.[384] Three and twenty years
of hopeless captivity must have bowed the spirit of the forlorn
prisoner, and despairing of success when his son became the partner
of his dungeon, Malcolm Mac Heth came to terms with his enemies.
[Sidenote: A. D. 1157.] No account remains of the nature of the
transaction by which he at length repurchased his liberty; of the
claims which he relinquished, or of the concessions extorted by his
opponents. Once only his name occurs in the chartularies of the period,
when it appears amongst the signatures of the leading nobles who were
in attendance at the court of their youthful sovereign at Dunfermlyn;
and then, with one solitary and insignificant exception, the name of
the once mighty leaders of the ancient race of Moray disappears for
ever from the page of history.[385]
Three years had elapsed since the death of Stephen, and a very
different monarch now filled the throne of England. A true descendant
of the Norman conqueror, Henry Fitz Empress seems to have reunited, in
his own character, the different qualities bequeathed by his mighty
ancestor between his younger sons, and, together with the politic
sagacity of his maternal grandfather, the young king displayed all
the fiery passions of Rufus. Astute, ambitious, and little scrupulous
about the means by which his ends were attained, his first aim was
to re-establish the royal authority upon the destruction of the
all but independent power achieved by many of the greater nobles.
William Peveril, Hugo Mortimer, and the great Earl of Yorkshire--the
same William Albemarle who won his earldom upon Cutton Moor--were
either reduced to submission, or driven from the realm; and the once
all-powerful Bishop of Winchester deemed it prudent to consult his
safety in flight, seeking a surer refuge with his treasure in the
monastery of Clugny. In pursuance of a similar line of policy, after
the death of the Earl of Northampton, upon whom Stephen had conferred
the Honor of Huntingdon, had again placed that fief at the disposal
of the English king, Henry caused it to be notified to the young
king of Scotland, that he expected the restoration of all the fiefs
in the North of England which had been held by David in the name of
the Empress Queen. Such was the light in which Henry now chose to
regard the feudal dependance of the northern counties upon the king of
Scots; for of all the contracting parties who joined in the treaty of
Carlisle, eight years before, he alone survived, and, secure in the
possession of the throne of England, he little regarded the word he
had plighted in his days of exile and adversity to the firmest friend
of his early youth.[386] Compliance was the only course left open to
Malcolm, [Sidenote: A. D. 1157.] and meeting Henry at Chester, he made
a formal resignation of the three northern counties, with the castles
of Carlisle, Bamborough, and Newcastle on Tyne, putting forward his
claims upon Huntingdon on the same occasion, and receiving immediate
investment of the Honor, upon the same terms of homage as it had been
held by David in the days of the first Henry.[387] [Sidenote: A. D.
1158.] In the following year the two kings again met at Carlisle,
but the honour of knighthood which he appears to have expected was
not conferred upon Malcolm, as a coolness had arisen about some
long-forgotten point connected, probably, with the performance of
feudal service for the fief of Huntingdon; for, in the ensuing year,
after Malcolm had accompanied the English king in the expedition
against Toulouse, [Sidenote: A. D. 1159.] which was rendered abortive
through the royal scruples about attacking a town which contained
the person of his own feudal superior the king of France, the
coveted ceremony was performed at Tours, and the young king returned
immediately to Scotland.[388]
The departure of their king to render feudal service as an English
baron, was viewed with general disapproval by the Scots, to whom
this phase of the English connection appears to have been always
distasteful. For nearly twenty years David and his grandson had enjoyed
in succession the advantages of their English fiefs, without the burden
of their feudal obligations; as during the lifetime of Stephen, and for
the first three years of his successor’s reign, no king of Scotland had
ever met an English sovereign except at the head of a hostile army.
Under these circumstances, the cession of all the advantages which had
been acquired by David, the revival of a closer feudal connection with
England, above all, the departure of the king for France, in direct
opposition to the wishes of the great body of his native followers,
aroused a spirit of disaffection; a formidable conspiracy appears to
have been set on foot during his absence in France, and in his anxiety
to win his spurs in the service of Henry, Malcolm risked the loss of
his crown.
A veil of deep mystery enshrouds the proceedings of the conspirators.
Foremost amongst their number was Ferquhard, Earl of Strathearn, whose
father, Malise, had been the spokesman of the discontented Scots at the
battle of the Standard; together with a certain Gilleanrias Ergemauche,
and five other magnates, or “Mayster men,” as Wynton calls them,
including perhaps the Earl of Ross and the Lord of Galloway, or his
sons. [Sidenote: A. D. 1160.] Malcolm was holding his court at Perth,
soon after his return from France, when the confederates suddenly
surrounded the city, intending, either to secure the person of the king
and dictate their own terms, or, as one historian affirms, to place his
brother William on the throne. None of the race of Malcolm Ceanmore
ever failed in the hour of danger, and the young king displayed, in
this crisis, all the hereditary courage of his ancestry. Promptly
assuming the offensive, he at once attacked the conspirators, drove
them from the field, and following up his first success, led an army
into Galloway, in the determination of crushing the insurrection at its
source.[389]
The history of Galloway is a blank from the time when the father of
Kenneth the First was slain upon the borders of Kyle, until the age in
which the mutinous spirit of its unruly contingent to David’s army more
than counterbalanced the utmost efforts of their reckless valour. Three
centuries of antagonism appear to have engendered a feeling of bitter
hostility between the Galwegians and their neighbours of Scottish
Cumbria and the Lothians; whilst their continual encroachments upon the
ancient kingdom of Strath Clyde must, from a very early period, have
tended to throw the people of that province upon the protection of the
Scottish kings, and materially to advance the policy which eventually
placed a branch of the Mac Alpin family upon the Scoto-Cumbrian throne.
At some remote era the Lord of Galloway became dependant upon the king
of Scotland, and Fergus, the first known prince of the province, was
an attendant on certain state occasions at the royal court, whilst he
acknowledged the superiority of his contemporary David by the payment
of a certain tribute in time of peace, and by a contingent of turbulent
soldiery in war; resembling, in other respects, an ally rather than a
vassal, and enjoying a considerable degree of independence within his
hereditary dominions. He married Elizabeth, a natural daughter of Henry
the First, and Afreca, his daughter by this union, became the wife of
Olave and the mother of Godfrey, kings of Man and the Isles; the latter
connection, apparently, involving him in the attempts of Somerled, Mac
Heth, and others, who opposed the reigning family, either in the hope
of advancing their own rival claims, or through a repugnance to the
introduction of a novel system. It was in Galloway that Donald Mac Heth
sought his last retreat, and amidst the mountains and moors of the same
locality the discomfited conspirators seem to have hoped, after their
defeat at Perth, to elude the pursuit of Malcolm. Twice was the king
baffled in his attempts to penetrate the province; as much, probably,
from the natural difficulties of the country, as from the magnitude
of the opposition he encountered; but on the third occasion he was
successful. Fergus, reduced at length to liege submission, retired,
either of his own accord or from compulsion, into the monastery of
Holyrood, where he died in the course of the following year; the
whole of Galloway, thoroughly subdued, was brought into direct feudal
subjection to the Scottish crown; and a conspiracy, which at one time
threatened to entail the loss of a crown, through the energy and
abilities of the youthful sovereign, or of his advisers, terminated in
the acquisition of a principality.[390]
But Malcolm was never destined to fulfil the high promise of his
youthful career, the delicacy of constitution, bequeathed by Queen
Margaret to so many of her descendants, early developing itself in her
grandson’s eldest child. [Sidenote: A. D. 1163.] Three years after the
conquest of Galloway, during his progress towards the south, he was
overtaken by a dangerous illness at Doncaster; though his days were not
yet numbered, and he recovered sufficiently to carry out the original
purpose of his visit to England, concluding an alliance with Henry that
promised to ensure a firm and lasting peace.[391] He is also stated to
have been present shortly afterwards at Woodstock, to tender his homage
to the younger Henry, as his grandfather had done to the empress-queen,
with the usual reservation of fealty to the elder king.[392]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1164.]
One more triumph was in store to grace the closing years of his career.
Within a year or two of the liberation of Malcolm Mac Heth from
Roxburgh Castle, the lord of the Oirir-Gael appears to have made his
peace with the king of Scotland; though for some unknown cause, in the
year 1164, he again broke out into open rebellion, landing suddenly
on the coast of Renfrew with the whole force of Argyle and the Isles,
strengthened by a body of auxiliaries from Ireland. Hardly had he set
foot on shore before he fell, with his son Gillecolum--tradition says
by treachery--and his followers dispersing, as usual, upon the death of
their leader, returned at once to their island homes. Thus perished,
in an obscure skirmish, the mightiest and most formidable of Malcolm’s
enemies; the chieftain who raised the power of the Lords of Argyle upon
the ruins of the ancient kingdom of the Gall-Gael.[393]
The defeat of Somerled was the final event in Malcolm’s reign, for the
hand of death was already upon him, and, on the 9th of December 1165,
[Sidenote: A. D. 1165.] he sunk into the grave, at the early age of
twenty-four. His premature decease lent an interest to his memory, and
may, in a great measure, have led the historians of the succeeding
generation to invest the character of the king with the qualities
which were supposed, in those days, to constitute the attributes of a
saint upon earth. A certain effeminacy of appearance, resulting from
his constitutional delicacy, may have originated the epithet of “the
Maiden,” by which he was so often known; and though the same cause may
have undoubtedly affected the tone of his mind, so far from having
been an ascetic recluse, as he is frequently represented--more fit to
wear the cowl than to wield the sword--whenever Malcolm appears in
history, he stands forward as a prince of exceeding promise and spirit.
His reign was principally taken up in quelling the disaffection of
different powerful magnates, above all, of Somerled, whose hostility
only ceased with his life; and the character of the young king may be
best estimated by the successful result of those measures, through
which he secured the direct feudal submission of the principality of
Galloway, and the total cessation of all internal revolt during the
early years of his successor.[394]
A singular policy--recalling to mind the compulsatory migrations of
conquered races in the remote era of the early eastern empires--has
been attributed by Fordun to this king; who is supposed, by that
historian, to have transplanted the original inhabitants of Moray
from their ancient province, repeopling the district with settlers
from other parts of his dominions.[395] If such a proceeding was ever
carried out, it may have originated in the arrangement with Malcolm
MacHeth; but though it is impossible to pronounce with absolute
certainty upon the accuracy of Fordun’s statement, it is very difficult
to imagine that such a measure could have extended throughout the
Highland portion of the district subsequently erected into an earldom
for Randolph. The race, the language, and many of the customs of the
mountaineers, remained unchanged at a comparatively recent period; and
whilst the lowlands and the coast of Moray, which had already been
partitioned out amongst the followers of David, would have presented
comparatively few obstacles to such a project, it is hardly possible to
conceive how it could ever have been successfully put into execution
amidst the wild and inaccessible mountains of the interior. It appears,
therefore, most reasonable to conclude, that Malcolm only carried out
the policy pursued by his grandfather ever since the first forfeiture
of the earldom; and that any changes that may have been brought about
in the population of this part of Scotland--and which scarcely extended
below the class of lesser _Duchasach_, or small proprietors--are
not to be attributed to one sweeping and compulsatory measure, but to
the grants of David and his successors; which must have had the effect
of either reducing the earlier proprietary to a dependant position, or
of driving into the remoter Highlands all who were inclined to contest
the authority of the sovereign, or to dispute the validity of the royal
ordinances, which reduced them to the condition of subordinates.
CHAPTER XII.
WILLIAM THE LION--1165–1214.
Amongst the earliest acts of William after his accession was the
performance of feudal service for the fief of Huntingdon, accompanying
Henry for this purpose upon one of his numerous expeditions into the
French territories. [Sidenote: A. D. 1166.] By his ready acquiescence
on a point about which his brother had at first demurred, he may have
hoped to influence the English king in favour of his claim upon the
northern counties; but if he entertained such expectations he was
doomed to disappointment, as Henry limited his grant to the Honor of
Huntingdon.[396]
William, however, was not of a disposition to submit with patience
to the denial of his rights--for thus would he have characterised
his claims; and he was ready to enter warmly into any confederacy
promising to extort from the fears of Henry the cession of the coveted
fiefs. Two campaigns against the Welsh, conducted with more than
equivocal success; the continued hostility of Louis of France; and a
doubtful contest with the newly made Archbishop of Canterbury, whose
former reputation as a man-at-arms was destined to be eclipsed by
his subsequent renown as a martyr,[397] heightened the difficulties
of Henry’s situation: and his exasperation was increased against the
king of Scotland, whose envoys at the French court, uniting with the
representatives of the Welsh princes, were eager to enter into a league
with the enemies of the English king.[398] [Sidenote: A. D. 1168.]
But the hostility of William was not yet to be openly displayed, for
a peace was concluded between the French and English kings, and the
opportunity of attacking the latter at a disadvantage passed away.
[Sidenote: A. D. 1170.] It was with an appearance, therefore, of
renewed cordiality, that William and his brother David appeared at
the court of Henry, to assist at the coronation of his eldest son at
Westminster; when both the Scottish princes, taking the oaths of fealty
and allegiance to the younger Henry, swore upon the sacred relics to be
true to the heir of England, saving, as usual, their fidelity to his
father.[399] But in spite of these professions of mutual friendship,
the alliance in reality was hollow and insincere, the refusal of the
northern counties still rankled in the breast of William, and an
opportunity for enforcing his claim was not long wanting.
[Sidenote: A. D. 1173.]
Never did the fortunes of the second Henry appear more prosperous than
at the very moment when the flight of his eldest son to the court of
France, suddenly revealed the extent of the intrigues which were based
upon the disaffection of his own children. Whilst the elder king was
occupied in strengthening his defences upon the frontiers of France
and in securing the important services of twenty thousand Reiters
of Brabant, the younger Henry was busily corrupting the unfaithful
adherents of his father, and lavishing grants upon the allies whose
assistance he wished to purchase. The promise of Northumberland to
William, and the offer of the fief of Cambridge to his brother, the
Earl of Huntingdon, secured the active co-operation of both the
Scottish princes;[400] and towards the close of summer, whilst the
attention of the elder Henry was fully occupied in Normandy, the
frontiers of England were suddenly invaded from the north.
Siege was laid to Werk and Carlisle, whilst the main body of
irregulars, according to the usual tactics of Scottish armies, was
dispatched to lay waste the surrounding country. The Bishop of Durham
appears to have secretly favoured the confederates, and the Scots were
allowed a free passage through the lands of his diocese;[401] but their
further progress was checked, before long, by tidings of the approach
of a powerful force under the orders of Richard de Lucy, and Humphrey
de Bohun, the Justiciary and Constable of England. Raising the siege
of Carlisle, William retired across the borders, closely followed
by de Lucy and de Bohun, who were beginning to retaliate upon the
Lothians the ravages of the Scottish army in England, when the arrival
of messengers from the south, brought the unwelcome intelligence of
the landing of the Earl of Leicester on Michaelmas Day. Negotiations
were hastily opened with the Scottish king, and so well did the English
commanders succeed in concealing the real state of affairs, that they
obtained a truce until the following January, and were thus enabled to
lead back their army to oppose the Earl of Leicester, and to bend all
their energies towards confronting the novel danger.[402]
During the whole of the ensuing winter the war was carried on in
England without intermission, whilst, with the singular policy of the
age, a truce existed in all other quarters; thus enabling the partizans
of Henry, in his own kingdom, to unite their forces for the purpose of
crushing the Earl of Leicester.[403] [Sidenote: A. D. 1174.] At the
expiration of the truce in January, the payment of 300 marks, offered
by the barons of Northumberland through the medium of the bishop of
Durham, purchased from William a further cessation of hostilities until
Easter; and when the term of this second truce had also expired, the
armies of the allies[404] at length appeared in the field. Whilst
Louis prosecuted the war in Normandy, and the Count of Flanders, with
the younger Henry, meditated a descent upon England, William again
crossed the Borders with an army, strengthened by a body of mercenaries
from the Low Countries;[405] his brother David proceeding at once
to the south, as the earl had been chosen to command the English
confederates, now left without a head through the capture of the Earl
of Leicester.[406]
Leaving a division of his army to blockade Carlisle, William led the
main body into Northumberland. Brough and Appleby were captured without
resistance, and the castles of Liddel, Warkworth, and Harbottle, fell,
in succession, into the hands of the Scots, who then retraced their
steps to Carlisle. A close blockade extorted a promise of surrender
from the castellan, Robert de Vaux, if no relief arrived before
Michaelmas; for his provisions were beginning to fail, and he suspected
the townsmen--attached, probably, to the memory of David, who had
often made Carlisle his residence--of a favourable inclination towards
the Scots. William then marched to invest Prudhoe Castle, upon the
southern bank of the Tyne, where he was joined by Robert de Mowbray,
the youngest of the victors of Northallerton, who, sorely pressed by
the warlike bishop of Lincoln, eagerly advocated the advance of the
Scots into Yorkshire, before the fall of his last castle of Thirsk,
placing his eldest son in the hands of William as a hostage for the
sincerity of his request. William promised to march to his assistance,
but, warned of the approach of the Yorkshire barons, he relinquished
his intention of relieving Thirsk, and, raising the siege of Prudhoe
Castle, commenced his retreat towards the north.[407]
As he approached his own frontiers, the king dispatched the greater
part of his army, under the command of Duncan, Earl of Fife, with
instructions to disperse his forces over the face of the country,
and carry out the usual tactics of Scottish warfare. In order to
extend the circuit of his operations, Earl Duncan subdivided the
forces committed to his charge, entrusting two separate divisions to
Richard de Moreville and the Earl of Angus; whilst with the main body
under his immediate command he entered Warkworth upon the morning of
Saturday, the 13th of July; and the inhabitants of that place, no
longer protected by the garrison of the castle, fell an easy prey
to his followers. The town was burnt to the ground, and more than a
hundred miserable beings, who, in the vain hope of safety, had fled to
the Church of St. Lawrence, were torn from its sacred precincts and
massacred with remorseless cruelty. Little did Earl Duncan imagine,
as he contemplated the ruins of the burning church, that within a few
short miles the fate of Scotland was trembling in the balance.[408]
Upon reaching Newcastle, late on the evening of the 12th of July, the
Yorkshire Barons, so often destined to render good service to England,
found that the Scottish army had retreated; when a difference of
opinion arose as to the expediency of a further pursuit. Several of
their number urged that they had already done enough in frustrating
the intentions of the enemy against their own neighbourhood, and that
it would be merely courting unnecessary danger to pursue eight thousand
armed men with only four hundred horsemen. But there were others
amongst their ranks who argued that much might be done by a compact and
well-equipped body of knights, whilst the Scottish army was dispersed
over the country, and whilst William was still in ignorance of their
approach; and by the arguments and the authority of those who were in
favour of an advance, the hesitation of the dissentients was at length
overcome, and the bolder counsels prevailed.[409]
At earliest dawn upon the 13th, the Barons set out from Newcastle. A
dense fog overhung the country, appearing to increase as they advanced
northwards; and it was still early, though they had ridden fast and
far, when several of the party began to suggest the expediency of a
return, urging, that in their utter ignorance of their own locality,
as well as of the position of the enemy, they might be blindly rushing
upon unknown perils.[410] But Balliol, with a resolute determination
that has often extricated brave men out of difficulties, refused to
listen to such suggestions, avowing his own intention of proceeding at
all risks, and the waverers were ashamed to turn back. Onwards they
pressed, whilst close upon their right lay Warkworth, swarming with
the Scottish foe; but enshrouded in the obscurity of the friendly mist
they passed the river Coquet in safety, and continued their adventurous
progress. The fog rolled away as the morning advanced, displaying to
the delighted eyes of the little band the friendly walls of Alnwick,
and they were hastening with alacrity towards its welcome shelter, when
they perceived a small body of about sixty knights, who were engaged
in tilting in a neighbouring meadow. The tilting party was composed
of William and his attendant suite, who paid little or no attention
to the approach of a band of horsemen, mistaking them for a party of
Earl Duncan’s mounted force returning to the Scottish camp, until a
nearer view of the advancing barons revealed the English cognizances.
One moment of reflection would have warned the king not to imperil the
whole fortune of the war upon such an unequal contest; but no such
thoughts crossed the mind of William, and, with the hasty exclamation,
“Now will it be seen who is a true knight,” he dashed at once against
the enemy with all the reckless gallantry of a knight-errant. The
result can be easily imagined. His horse was immediately slain--for
this was no tilting match, and his opponents aimed at securing their
prize--and before he could disengage himself from the dying charger,
William was a helpless captive. His nobles determined to share his
fate; many of his suite, who had not been present at the catastrophe,
riding in and surrendering to the English barons to avoid the
imputation of deserting their sovereign; and, before the close of the
same fatal Saturday, the Barons of Yorkshire again entered Newcastle
with their illustrious captive in their charge.[411]
On the following morning the royal prisoner was removed, for greater
security, to Richmond castle; and the important intelligence of his
capture was forwarded in haste to London, where Henry had by this time
arrived. Alarmed at the assemblage of the hostile fleet, and anxious
to be upon the spot to oppose the threatened invasion, he had crossed
from Barfleur in a gale of wind, undeterred by the elements which held
his enemies wind-bound at Gravelines, reaching Southampton in safety
on the evening of the 8th of July. All that night, and the following
day, he is said to have hurried on, without rest or refreshment beyond
bread and water, to the tomb of the murdered Becket, at whose shrine
either policy, or repentance, dictated the performance of a penance,
that, to the ideas of the present age, appears degrading. After he
reached London, fatigue and excitement threw him into a fever, from
which he was only partially recovered, when the messenger of Ranulph de
Glanville, standing by the side of his bed on the morning of Thursday
the 18th, aroused him from sleep, before daylight, with the welcome
intelligence of William’s capture. All remembrance of his illness
vanishing at the joyful tidings, before the close of the same day
Henry departed for the north; and ere a fortnight had elapsed from the
date of his misfortune, the royal captive was removed from Richmond
castle, his legs were fettered under the body of a horse, and in this
degrading position he was presented to Henry at Northampton.[412]
The effects of the calamity which had befallen the king of Scotland
were at once instantaneous and decisive. His own army, stunned for the
moment, only recovered to break out, as usual, into mutual dissension
and strife. Gilbert and Uchtred, the lords of Galloway, hurrying
homewards, destroyed the castles which had been built in their province
to secure the authority of the king, drove out the royal officers, and
then dispatched gifts and envoys to the English king with the offer
of their fealty and submission. The Scots availed themselves of the
anarchy of the moment to vent their long suppressed animosity against
the townsmen and burghers, mostly of English origin, with whom David
and his successors had filled the royal burghs and cities of their
kingdom. The Earl of Huntingdon, relinquishing his high command,
returned in haste to Scotland. Ferrers and De Mowbray threw themselves
on Henry’s mercy; Gloucester and De Clare, the waverers of the western
counties, met him with assurances of their fidelity; Hugh Bigot
dismissed his Flemish auxiliaries; and the Bishop of Durham surrendered
his castles, protesting that the presence of his nephew, the Count de
Bar, was merely for his own protection: whilst the formidable fleet,
which had threatened the invasion of the English coasts, melted away at
the news of the disaster; and the Count of Flanders, with the younger
Henry, drew off their forces from Gravelines to join Louis of France at
the siege of Rouen. Within three weeks from the date of the catastrophe
the power of Henry was re-established throughout England; and, as he
had nothing more to fear in his own kingdom, he prepared to face his
opponents in France, [Sidenote: 8th Aug.] and sailed with his Scottish
prisoners for Normandy. Such were the first consequences of William’s
fatal error, in mistaking the rash folly of “a true knight” for the
gallant bearing of a king.[413]
In another month the war was brought to a triumphant conclusion by the
elder Henry, who, at the personal request of Louis of France, set all
his prisoners at liberty, with the exception of the king of Scotland,
detaining William in fetters at Falaise until the month of December,
before the terms of his release were finally arranged.[414] They may
be briefly described as follows:--
William was to become the liegeman of his lord, the King Henry, for
Scotland, Galloway, and all his other lands, and to perform fealty
to his liege lord in the same way as other vassals. His brother, his
barons, his clergy, and all his other vassals, were to become the
liegemen of the English crown, acknowledging that they held their lands
of the English king, and swearing to support him, their liege lord,
against the king of Scotland, if the latter ever failed in his fidelity.
The Scottish Church was to acknowledge the subjection due to the
English Church; and the English Church was to possess all those rights
over the Scottish Church to which the former was justly entitled.
For the strict observance of this convention, the castles of Berwick,
Roxburgh, Jedburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling, were to be made over to
Henry, and to receive English garrisons, all expenses being defrayed
by the Scottish king; David, and twenty-one of the earls and barons of
Scotland, were to remain as hostages until the delivery of the castles;
while each of these noblemen was further required to give up his son,
or his next heir, as a pledge for the due performance of his part of
the treaty after his own release. Three days after the conclusion of
the convention of Falaise, William was allowed to leave his Norman
prison, and proceed, in the first instance, to England; where he was to
remain, in a state of comparative freedom, until the castles already
mentioned were delivered over to the officers of the English king.[415]
The conduct of Henry upon this occasion has been characterised by his
advocates as generous and lenient; whilst it has been stigmatised
by his opponents as harsh and illiberal. Neither view appears to be
correct. When William, conceiving himself to have been aggrieved,
united in a confederacy which, if successful, would have probably
confined Henry within the walls of a monastery for the remainder of
his life, the Scottish king was fully prepared to profit to the utmost
at the expense of his enemy’s weakness; and Henry did no more with the
captive of Falaise than William would have done had their positions
been reversed. But to maintain, as it has been sometimes asserted,
that he might have put his prisoner to death, is to argue with a total
disregard of the principles and sentiments of an age in which the
death of an independent prince, like William, would have been even
more revolting to the feelings of his contemporaries, than the public
scourging of Henry in Canterbury Cathedral would be unsuitable to the
ideas of the present time. In depriving his captive of his English
fiefs, which were justly forfeited, and in extorting liege homage for
Scotland, Henry displayed neither mercy nor leniency, simply availing
himself, to the utmost, of an opportunity for advancing his own
interests at the expense of his unfortunate rival; and his conduct was
that of an able and unsparing politician, exacting his own terms from
a fallen foe. As such, it must be judged; and, as such, it is far less
open to censure, than his repudiation in prosperity of the promises
which he made in his adversity to his earliest and most faithful ally.
[Sidenote: A. D. 1175.]
In the course of the summer after the release of William, both the
English kings, who now affected the closest intimacy and regard,
repaired in company to York: and here, upon the 10th of August, they
were met by the king of Scotland, bringing with him Earl David, no
longer lord of Huntingdon, with the bishops, abbots, earls, barons,
knights, and other freeholders of Scotland, who united with their king
in swearing fealty to the two Henries, and in ratifying the convention
of Falaise. All became the liegemen of the English kings in the
Cathedral church of St. Peter--a fabric of an earlier date than the
present noble minster--and yet further to secure the exact fulfilment
of the treaty, the clergy swore to lay their native land under an
interdict, and the laity pledged themselves to hold, as true men, to
their English suzerains, if ever William of Scotland proved unfaithful
to his oath.[416]
For fifteen years the convention of Falaise remained in full force,
and every action of Henry, down to the day of his death, exhibits
the tenacity with which he clung to its scrupulous fulfilment. Not a
papal legate was allowed to enter Scotland who had not first sworn to
do nothing detrimental to the interests of the English king, with an
additional promise to return through England--a proviso that precluded
the possibility of evasion--whilst a similar pledge was exacted from
all the Scottish clergy who attended the eleventh Council at the
Lateran. William was continually summoned to attend, as a vassal, at
the Court of his English lord; and he brought his earls and barons,
when required, to assist at the councils of their common superior. He
crossed the sea to Normandy, at the command of Henry, to submit to that
king’s decision in his dispute about the bishopric of St. Andrews;
license was granted for his expeditions into Galloway; and he conducted
the lords of that province to perform fealty to Henry, or to promise
to abide by the decrees of the English court. In short, a comparison
between the usual state of Scotland, and her condition during these
fifteen years of real feudal subjection, affords one of the clearest
and most convincing proofs of her entire freedom from all dependance
upon her southern neighbour, at every other period of her history,
before the reign of the first Edward.
The oaths of fealty and allegiance tendered in the church of St. Peter
riveted upon Scotland the yoke of feudal dependance; but her Church was
destined to vindicate with success her ecclesiastical liberties, and to
evade the claims of the English metropolitans, which a special clause
in the convention of Falaise had, to all appearance, triumphantly
established. The contest which embittered the whole of the reign of
Alexander, seems to have slumbered in the days of David, to break out
afresh in the time of his eldest grandson, Malcolm, when the papal
chair was occupied by Nicolas Breakespear, under the title of Adrian
IV., the only Englishman who ever rose to be the head of the Church of
Rome.[417] His partiality to the land of his nativity was frequently
manifested, and availing himself of the papal claim to dominion over
all the islands, founded upon the imaginary Donation of Constantine, he
willingly lent himself to the ambitious policy of Henry, authorising
that king to conquer, and exact obedience from, the people of Ireland
for the advancement of the interests of the Roman Church.[418] It is
also probable that Adrian was inclined to favour the pretensions of the
English metropolitans to the obedience of the Scottish bishops; for,
immediately upon his death, a mission was dispatched to the next pope,
[Sidenote: A. D. 1159.] and the successive appointments of the bishops
of Moray and St. Andrews to the office of papal legate for Scotland
guaranteed, for the time, the independence of the Scottish Church.[419]
Upon the death of the bishop of St. Andrews, Roger, archbishop
of York--the same prelate who was the rival and opponent of
Becket--obtained the office of legate for England, [Sidenote: A. D.
1163.]and repaired to Norham towards the close of Malcolm’s reign, to
summon the Scottish bishops to submit to his pretensions. Ingelram
the archdeacon, and Solomon the dean of Glasgow, with Walter, prior of
Kelso, were deputed to maintain the liberties of their Church; both
parties appealed to Rome, and the Scots achieved a notable triumph when
Ingelram was consecrated to the bishopric of Glasgow in spite of the
opposition of the archbishop.[420]
The dispute again languished until the concessions recently extorted
from William appeared to deal a death-blow to all the liberties
of Scotland. [Sidenote: A. D. 1176.] A great council was held at
Northampton in the January after the meeting at York, at which, in
obedience to a summons from his suzerain, William was in attendance
with the bishops, abbots, and other ecclesiastical dignitaries of his
kingdom, as liege subjects of the English king; and at the conclusion
of the council the Scottish clergy were commanded, upon their
allegiance, and in virtue of the oath which they had already sworn,
to acknowledge their dependance upon the English Church. They denied
that any such submission was due; and in reply to the assertion of
the archbishop of York that the bishops of Glasgow and Galloway were
rightfully his suffragans, Jocelyn of Glasgow, the spokesman of the
Scottish party, affirmed that his see was “the daughter of Rome,” and
consequently independent of all other authority.[421]
But the cause of the Scottish bishops was best served by the disputes
of the English metropolitans, as the archbishop of Canterbury opposed
the pretensions of his own see to the rival claims of York; and
Henry, foreseeing that he would be called upon to decide between the
archbishops, and dreading the very idea of another collision with a
churchman, hastily dismissed the Scottish clergy without exacting
from them any admission of canonical dependance upon either see.[422]
Upon their return to Scotland a deputation immediately set out for
Rome,[423] and in the course of the same year an injunction was
obtained from the pope forbidding the archbishop of York to press his
claims except before the Roman Court:[424] and twelve years later the
dispute was finally set at rest by the declaration of Pope Clement
III., that the Church of Scotland was in immediate dependance upon the
see of Rome.[425]
But the difficulties of William were not confined to ecclesiastical
disputes, for the confusion amongst the Scottish army, after
his capture at Alnwick, was only precursory of the anarchy, and
disorganization, prevailing in the remoter provinces of his dominions
for several years afterwards. Conspicuous amongst the disturbed
districts was Galloway, for the alliance between the brothers, who
were lords of the province, lasted only as long as it was their mutual
interest to unite for the overthrow of the Scottish supremacy. The
king’s officers, or _Maors_, [Sidenote: A. D. 1174.] who appear
to have been paralyzed at the suddenness of the attack, were either
massacred or driven out of the country almost without resistance;
and fourteen years after the conquest of the principality, the royal
authority was eradicated from Galloway, in fewer weeks than it had
taken years to establish.
It then occurred to the elder brother Gilbert that his father had
suffered no rival to share his dominions; and, after ascertaining the
sentiments of his immediate adherents, he determined upon entrusting
a body of men to his son, Malcolm, with instructions to remove all
impediments from his path to undivided power. The son was worthy of the
father, and surprising the unsuspecting Uchtred in his island home,
he tore out his eyes and tongue, and then, with still more atrocious
barbarity, left him in this state to perish slowly and in agony. So
speedily had this tragedy been enacted, that when Henry dispatched his
chaplain, Roger Hoveden, from Normandy, with directions to put himself
in communication with Robert de Vaux at Carlisle, and to negotiate
with the lords of Galloway about the transfer of their allegiance to
the English crown, the envoys, upon their arrival in Galloway, found
Gilbert sole ruler of the province. He entered with eagerness upon the
subject of their mission, guaranteeing a yearly tribute of two thousand
marks of silver, and a thousand head of cattle and hogs, if Henry would
release him from his dependance upon the king of Scotland; but as the
envoys possessed no power to conclude an arrangement without submitting
the terms to Henry, they could only promise to lay the proposal before
their king, and, with this reply, they took their leave. [Sidenote:
23d Nov.] As it was late in November before they reached Galloway,
by the time they returned to Normandy the convention of Falaise must
have been decided upon, if it had not been already completed; and as
the clause accepting the homage of William for Galloway precluded
Henry from entering into a separate agreement with Gilbert, he availed
himself of the crime of the latter as an excuse for breaking off
the negotiations, and for refusing to treat upon any terms with the
murderer of “his cousin Uchtred.”[426]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1175.]
Immediately after the conclusion of the ceremony at York, Henry granted
license to William to march an army into Galloway, empowering him to
seek out and seize the murderer, and bring him before the court of his
liege lord for punishment.[427] Gilbert submitted without resistance;
and, in the autumn of the following year, William again presented
himself at the court of Henry, [Sidenote: A. D. 1176.] with the lord
of Galloway in his suite; but a fine seems to have been considered as
a sufficient atonement for fratricide, and, upon the 9th of October,
Gilbert swore fealty to the English king, giving up his eldest son
Duncan as a hostage for his allegiance, and purchasing the royal favour
at the price of a thousand marks of silver. No sooner had he returned
to his principality than, driving out of the province all who were
not of native origin, he denounced the penalty of death against every
true-born Galwegian who dared to acknowledge that he held his lands
of the king of Scots. His hatred against William was intense, and as
no fear ever seems to have crossed his mind that he might forfeit the
newly acquired favour of Henry by hostilities against his subject and
ally, until the day of his death the Galwegian prince never omitted
an opportunity of harassing and plundering the neighbouring provinces
of Scotland; nor did his estimate of Henry’s character prove to be
incorrect.[428]
Few kings who lived in that age were fortunate enough to escape a
collision with the Church of Rome, nor was William destined to be
amongst the number. His quarrel with Pope Alexander III. arose out
of a dispute connected with the bishopric of St. Andrews. Upon the
death of Bishop Richard in 1178 the chapter elected John Scot to
the vacant see; but the king, who had destined the bishopric for
his own confessor Hugh, and was not accustomed to be dictated to in
matters of church patronage, ordered his nominee to be installed and
consecrated by the Scottish bishops, [Sidenote: A. D. 1180.] whilst
the pope, espousing the opposite side, commissioned his legate, the
sub-deacon Alexis, to consecrate John. Yielding to the advice of his
clergy, William offered no opposition to this proceeding, but he swore
by the arm of St. James--his favourite oath--that the same kingdom
should not hold himself and John Scot, and after the conclusion of
the ceremony he effectually frustrated the intentions of the pope
by banishing John, with his uncle Matthew, bishop of Aberdeen, and
all his relations, from the country. Alexander, highly exasperated,
retaliated by threatening to extinguish the liberties of the Scottish
Church which he had hitherto protected, and he engaged the king of
England to interfere in his behalf, conferring the office of legate for
Scotland upon the archbishop of York, and authorizing that prelate to
excommunicate William, and to lay his dominions under an interdict if
he still persisted in his determination. [Sidenote: A. D. 1181.] It was
in vain that Henry summoned William to Normandy, where the banished
prelates had taken refuge, and endeavoured to effect an arrangement.
The king steadily refused to permit John Scot to enjoy the bishopric
of St. Andrews, offering to appoint him to the chancellorship, with
a promise of the first see that fell vacant in his dominions; and as
the pope determined with equal firmness that none but John Scot should
preside over the contested diocese, refusing to listen to any sort of
compromise, every one who acknowledged Hugh was excommunicated by the
papal legate, whilst all who denied his claim were banished by the king.
Such was the state of Scotland towards the close of the year 1181,
when, to the unfeigned delight of William, he was unexpectedly released
from his difficulties by the deaths of the aged pope and of Roger,
archbishop of York, the inveterate opponent of the liberties of the
Scottish Church. The bishop of Glasgow and the abbot of Melrose
were commissioned to set out immediately for Rome, for the purpose
of negotiating an arrangement with the new pope; and Lucius III.,
[Sidenote: A. D. 1182.] reversing the policy of his predecessor,
absolved William from the excommunication, released his kingdom from
the interdict, and forwarded to him the Golden Rose in token of
amity.[429] It was subsequently agreed that both bishops, resigning
their sees, should be reinstated by the pope, Hugh retaining the
bishopric of St. Andrews, and John Scot receiving Dunkeld; and though
six years elapsed before the dispute was brought to a final close,
after the death of Alexander no serious misunderstanding arose between
the king of Scotland and the papal see.[430]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1181.]
During the absence of William in Normandy, whilst he was in attendance
at the court of Henry upon the subject of his dispute with the
papal see, some of the leading nobility of Scotland--probably of
_Moravia_--taking advantage of the distracted state of the
kingdom, made overtures to Donald Bane, a son of William Fitz Duncan,
inviting him to assert his claim upon the throne of Scotland. This
Donald, better known as Mac William, had already put forward his
pretensions to the Scottish crown, but his attempts had been hitherto
limited to predatory incursions, nor had he ever yet obtained a
permanent footing in the country; but the old spirit of disaffection
still lingered in the north and west, where the enemies of the king
flocked to the standard of his hostile kinsman as readily as they
had once gathered around the banner of the heir of Moray, and the
insurrection soon rose to a formidable head.[431] Upon his return
to England towards the close of July, William received intelligence
of the invasion of Donald Bane, but it was not until the middle of
September that he obtained the permission of Henry to absent himself
with his attendant barons from the English court, and to take measures
for the defence of his kingdom. He at once hurried with his brother
David toward the provinces in possession of the enemy, but Mac William
appears to have avoided an encounter, and the king was obliged to
remain satisfied with strengthening his hold upon the marches and
lowlands of Ross-shire, and confining his enemy to the remoter
Highland districts, by the erection of the two castles of Eddirton and
Dunscath.[432]
Although he was now released from the interdict, William found too
much occupation, in attending to the internal dissensions of his own
kingdom, to attempt any interference in the quarrels between Henry and
his sons. Mac William in the north was still unsubdued, whilst Gilbert
of Galloway openly invaded the Lothians, plundering the country,
massacring the inhabitants, and refusing to listen to any terms of
accommodation. [Sidenote: A. D. 1184.] Such was the state of disorder
created by the Galwegians, that in the year 1184 William had assembled
an army to repress the outrages of Gilbert, when the return of Henry
from Normandy induced him to alter his intentions, and, dismissing his
followers, he hastened southwards to meet the English king. Mingled
motives may have dictated this change of purpose, though, as a vassal
of the English crown, he was not strictly justified in avenging himself
upon another vassal without the license of his superior; but at this
time particularly, he was anxious to avoid every cause of quarrel with
Henry, for the Duchess of Saxony had arrived in the train of her father
from Normandy, and William was a suitor for the hand of her daughter
Matilda. Simon de St. Liz also, upon whom the Honor of Huntingdon had
been conferred, had lately died without an heir, and the Scottish king
was equally on his guard lest any misunderstanding should interfere
with his claims upon his former fief.[433]
Henry readily promised his consent to the proposed union if a papal
dispensation could be obtained, but though the relationship was
somewhat distant--for Matilda was eight degrees removed from William
according to the old computation of the civil law, though only four by
the later canonical method of reckoning--the pope refused compliance,
and from subsequent occurrences it is not improbable that Henry was
secretly opposed to the marriage. As a set off to the failure of
his suit with Matilda, the forfeiture of Huntingdon was reversed,
and though several of the English barons put forward pretensions to
the fief, [Sidenote: A. D. 1185.] offering large sums of money for
its possession, it was restored by Henry to the Scottish king, who
immediately sub-infeoffed it to his brother David.[434]
The renewal of the grant of Huntingdon was decided upon at a council
held at London in the middle of Lent 1185, at which the king of
Scotland and his nobility were in attendance, to consult upon a
letter which had been received from Pope Lucius respecting the relief
of Jerusalem.[435] William had been recently released from one of his
bitterest and most implacable foes, for Gilbert of Galloway had died
in the preceding January. Duncan, the heir of the deceased lord, was
still residing at the court of England in his original capacity of a
hostage; but a competitor for the principality had already arisen in
Roland, the eldest son of the murdered Uchtred, who had now passed ten
years in exile at the Scottish court, where he had married Helena, the
daughter and heiress of the Constable--the same Richard de Moreville
who had been included in the excommunication of William for his
staunch adherence to the cause of his royal master. Roland, therefore,
was attached to the connection with Scotland both by interest and
inclination; he was a Scot rather than a Galwegian, and in his
attempt to recover the inheritance of his father he was assisted by a
numerous band of auxiliaries from the kingdom in which he had so long
resided.[436]
[Sidenote: 4th July.]
The summer found him in Galloway, entering upon a course of brilliant
and unchequered success. Gillepatrick, Henry Kennedy, and Samuel, the
partners of the late lord in his hostilities against Scotland, and
the leaders of the faction now in arms to secure the succession of
his son, were one after the other defeated and slain: a similar fate
was in store for Gillecolum, who appears to have held the lands of
Gilbert against either claimant, but of whom little else is known
except his incessant ravages of the Lothians; and further resistance
was soon crushed out by the vigorous measures of Roland, who inflicted
summary vengeance on all who refused to acknowledge his authority. His
residence in Scotland had converted him into a feudal baron, and he
lost no time in securing the submission of the province by rebuilding,
and garrisoning, the royal castles which had been destroyed by the sons
of Fergus, on their return after the catastrophe at Alnwick.[437]
Intelligence of Roland’s proceedings must have reached Henry in the
course of the same year, but he passed them over without notice until
his return from Normandy, [Sidenote: A. D. 1186.] when, shortly after
Christmas, William and his barons were again in attendance at the court
of England. They were treated by Henry with the most marked and studied
courtesy, for it was his object to prepare them for the marriage which
he had projected between Ermengarde de Bellomont and William; and the
anxiety of Henry to conclude a union which would confer no increase of
political importance upon his royal vassal, strengthens the supposition
that he had looked unfavourably upon the alliance with Matilda of
Saxony. Such thoughts may have passed through the mind of William,
for he delayed his final consent to Henry’s proposal until after a
lengthened conference with his barons, who were possibly influenced in
favour of the projected marriage by the prospect of regaining, as the
dowry of their future queen, the important castle of Edinburgh.[438]
As the grand object of Henry was now attained, he was at liberty to
turn his attention to the affairs of Galloway; and accordingly he
directed William, on his return to Scotland, to summon the new lord
of the province to repair to the English court, for the purpose of
rendering an account of his conduct in entering upon the lands of
Duncan, and other barons of Galloway, seizing upon their castles, and
disposing of their possessions without any reference to his suzerain.
Roland took no further notice of the summons than to strengthen the
natural defences of the country by felling trees in the passes, and by
endeavouring, in various other ways, to render the approaches to the
province impassable for an invading force. But Henry was in earnest,
and he concentrated the whole military force of England on Carlisle,
where he was met by the Scottish contingent under William and his
brother David, whom he deputed to bring Roland to his presence. They
returned at first without success, for the lord of Galloway appears
to have been reluctant to entrust himself within the power of Henry
without some pledge for his safety; but after a second mission, in
which the bishop of Durham and Ranulph de Glanville were associated
with the former envoys, and empowered to give hostages for his security
and safe conduct, Roland placed himself in the hands of the Scottish
princes, and was presented by William to the English king. It was not
the object of the latter to proceed to extremities, for as long as the
lord of Galloway admitted his dependance upon the English crown, it was
immaterial to Henry by whom the fief was held; and he was satisfied
with accepting the allegiance which Roland tendered for his father’s
lands, with his promise to abide by the decision of the English court
respecting the claims of his cousin Duncan. The three sons of the
Galwegian chieftain were then delivered over as hostages for the
fidelity of their father; William, his brother, and his barons bound
themselves on oath to enforce the adherence of Roland, if necessary, to
his English allegiance; and as a further security against a breach of
faith, the bishop of Glasgow promised, upon the relics of the saints,
to fulminate against the prince, if he proved a traitor, all the pains
and penalties incurred by a disobedient son of the Church.[439]
Such was the conclusion of the disturbances of Galloway, and from the
date of this arrangement Roland remained in undisputed possession of
the whole principality. It is impossible to say whether Duncan ever
prosecuted his claim upon his paternal inheritance; but, immediately
upon the death of Henry, William, who had all along been favourable to
Roland, conferred the district of Carrick as an earldom upon Duncan, on
condition that the new earl should resign all claims upon the lordship
of his cousin.[440] In this arrangement Duncan willingly acquiesced,
thus becoming the first possessor of the Earldom of Carrick, a
fief which was destined once more to revert to the crown, when the
illustrious great-grandson of the first earl ascended the throne of
Scotland as Robert the First. Ere long William reaped the full benefit
of having secured a firm and devoted adherent in Roland of Galloway.
[Sidenote: Sept.]
Upon his return from this expedition, Henry celebrated the marriage
of William and Ermengarde with much pomp and ceremony, placing the
palace of Woodstock at the disposal of the royal pair. After four
days spent in feasting and revelry, the young queen departed for her
husband’s kingdom, the earl of Huntingdon escorting her, with the rest
of the Scottish nobility who had been present at the celebration of the
marriage; whilst William, instead of attending upon his bride in her
progress to the north, accompanied the English king to Marlborough.[441]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1187.]
Six years had now elapsed since the establishment of Mac William
in the country, where his influence and power had increased to a
formidable extent, and the affairs of the north began to assume an
alarming aspect. The majority of the barons and thanes of Ross, and
other portions of _Moravia_, had by this time ranged themselves
beneath his banner;[442] whilst the connection of the lords of
Argyle, and the Isles, with the family of Malcolm Mac Heth, must have
disposed the leading nobles of the Western Highlands to display a very
lukewarm adherence to the royal cause. With the greater part of the
north and west either openly, or secretly, in his favour, Mac William
could also calculate upon the support of many other leading men, who
had been parties to his first establishment in the country; and the
king perceived that a crisis had at length arrived, in which he must
either immediately crush his competitor, or risk the loss of half his
kingdom.[443]
Accordingly, in the summer of 1187, all the military force of
Scotland which had not openly declared for Mac William, was ordered
to concentrate upon Inverness; and William contemplated placing
himself at the head of his army, following his rival into the remoter
Highlands, and forcing him to a decisive contest, about the result
of which he entertained little doubt. Many of his barons, however,
who were alive to the dangers of the impending campaign in a wild and
mountainous region, vehemently opposed the royal project, dreading the
repetition of some disastrous accident from the fiery and impetuous
courage of the king. They were uneasy, also, about the fidelity
of a certain portion of the royal army, who were quite as well
inclined to favour Mac William as to support the cause of the king;
and, acquiescing at length in the prudence of their advice, William
consented to remain at Inverness, and to entrust the immediate conduct
of the war to leaders upon whose ability and fidelity he could depend.
A fresh difficulty arose, after the king’s decision, from the positive
refusal of some of his principal nobles to march without the king
against Mac William. At a moment of such vital importance to the royal
cause, when the exertions of the well-affected were paralysed by this
unexpected sedition, the eyes of all the army were turned upon the Lord
of Galloway; and it was well for William that, in this crisis, he could
count upon the fidelity of that powerful baron.[444] No hesitation
marked the conduct of Roland, who at once threw the whole weight of his
influence and authority upon the side of his royal master; and when,
in consequence of the dispute, it was arranged that the main body of
the army should remain with William at Inverness, placing himself at
the head of three thousand of his own followers, upon whose fidelity he
could depend, he set out in search of Mac William, in the determination
of carrying out in person the original intentions of the king.
The fate of Scotland was decided by an accident; and it has twice been
the destiny of Inverness to witness, in its vicinity, the termination
of a contest for a crown. Upon the moor of Mamgarvy, some long
forgotten spot in that neighbourhood, the party of Roland unexpectedly
fell in with a body of the enemy, whose numbers were about equal to
their own. Neither party shunned the contest, but the royalists gained
the day, and amongst the slain was discovered the lifeless body of
Mac William. His death terminated the war, and the victor returned in
triumph to Inverness, to earn the grant of the broad lands of Galloway
with the head of his royal master’s most formidable and inveterate
opponent.[445]
The death of Donald Bane at once restored peace throughout the north
of Scotland. The strength of his cause had lain, not so much in the
devotion of his adherents to his own person, as in their disaffection
towards the reigning sovereign; and the same feelings which had
induced many of the Scottish nobles to look with indifference upon the
increase of Donald’s power, rendered them equally careless about its
extinction. No enthusiastic clansmen burned to avenge the slaughter
of their chief; for no hereditary attachment united his followers to
Mac William, like the feelings which once bound the men of Moray to the
descendants of their early kings and mormaors.[446] The cause of Mac
Heth was identified with the claims of the ancient line of Kenneth Mac
Duff; but the powerful chieftains of the North and West, who adhered to
that family from hereditary associations, must have followed the banner
of Mac William from enmity to the reigning family, or from dislike to
their feudal innovations, rather than from any clannish feeling of
attachment to the heir of Malcolm Ceanmore’s eldest son, who claimed to
be the rightful representative of the rival line of Atholl.
[Sidenote: A. D. 1188.]
Scotland had at this period almost regained the position in which she
stood before the fatal capture of her king. Galloway was at length
pacified, the north and west were no longer in open rebellion, and
Scottish men-at-arms once more garrisoned the castle of Edinburgh; but
Henry still retained Roxburgh and Berwick, the keys of the southern
frontier, and for the cession of these important fortresses William
offered to pay 4000 marks of silver. Henry signified his readiness
to restore the castles if William, in return, would agree to grant
him the tenths of the kingdom of Scotland for the projected crusade,
an arrangement to which the latter promised to consent, if he could
prevail upon his people to give their sanction to the terms; but
when the bishop of Durham, who was deputed by his king to collect
the promised aid, arrived for this purpose upon the frontiers of
Scotland, he was met between Werk and Brigham by the Scottish king,
who unexpectedly prohibited his further advance. William renewed
his original offer for the castles, explaining to the bishop, that,
personally, he was still ready to adhere to his compact with Henry;
but that upon assembling his barons and clergy in council, they had
unanimously refused to listen to the arrangement, asserting that they
would refuse to grant away the tenths of Scotland, though both kings
had sworn to levy them in person. In vain the English envoy attempted
to turn the Scots from their purpose; threats and persuasion were
equally unavailing, for the determination of the latter was inflexible;
and as the bishop was not empowered to take into consideration the
propositions of the Scottish king, he was obliged to return empty
handed to the south, and convey to his master in Normandy the impotent
result of his mission.[447]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1189.]
In the following year the ingratitude of his favourite son John, for
whose sake he had provoked the hostility of Richard, by evading the
acknowledgment of the latter as his rightful successor, completed the
ruin that fatigue and chagrin had commenced, and, early in July, Henry
of England died of a broken heart at Chinon. Earl David appears to have
been implicated in the rebellion of Richard, for Huntingdon was amongst
the fiefs granted by the latter at Tours, upon the day after the army
of the confederates was enabled, through the continued drought, to
enter that town by fording the shallow Loire.[448] The death of Henry
was fraught with most important consequences for Scotland, for Richard,
with all the enthusiasm of his impetuous nature, was burning to lead
the chivalry of Europe to the re-conquest of the Holy Sepulchre, and
as money was most essential for carrying out the crusade, in every
imaginable method he sought to procure it. The great offices of the
crown were put up for sale; the favour of the king was purchased by
his illegitimate brother Geoffry; and the earldom of Northumberland
was bought by the bishop of Durham.[449] Ten thousand marks of silver
were paid by William as the price of the independence of his kingdom
and of the restoration of the castles of Roxburgh and Berwick; and
in the following November, about six weeks after the coronation of
Richard, at which the earl of Huntingdon had assisted, bearing one
of the swords of state, the archbishop of York, with the sheriff and
barons of the shire, met William at the Tweed, and in obedience to the
commands of their sovereign, escorted him with every mark of honour to
Canterbury. Here upon the 5th of December, after duly performing “such
homage for his English dignities as his ancestors were wont to render
to the predecessors of the English king,” he received from the hands of
Richard a charter annulling all the concessions extorted by Henry at
the time of his capture; and after fifteen years of feudal subjection,
the consequences of the disastrous accident at Alnwick were at length
repaired, and the independence of Scotland re-established.[450]
CHAPTER XIII.
WILLIAM THE LION--1165–1214.
Peace reigned throughout the northern borders of England during the
absence of her king in the Holy Land; and when Richard languished in
the dungeons of the emperor, William contributed two thousand marks
towards his ransom. [Sidenote: A. D. 1193.] No countenance was afforded
by the Scottish sovereign to the intrigues of Philip and John; but upon
the release of the royal captive, Earl David of Huntingdon was the
first to declare in his favour, and uniting with the Earl of Chester,
[Sidenote: A. D. 1194.] whose sister he had married, he joined in
besieging the strong castle of Nottingham on behalf of the liberated
king.[451]
Early in April, and shortly after the Council of Nottingham, William
met the king of England at Clipston, passing the remainder of the month
in his company. He soon found an opportunity for urging a restoration
of the dignities and honors which had belonged, as he maintained, to
his predecessors, putting forward a formal claim upon the earldom of
Northumberland, and the Honor of Lancaster, together with the counties
of Cumberland and Westmoreland--the whole territory, in short, which
had once been held by his father, Earl Henry. Richard returned an
evasive answer, alleging that he must consult his barons: and after
the council held at Northampton, in Easter week, he replied that, in
his present circumstances, it was impossible to listen to William’s
demands; as concession on his part would be attributed to his fear of
the French war, rather than to his affection for the Scottish king. As
a set off to a reply which was tantamount to a refusal, he conferred
upon William a charter of privileges, specifying that whenever the
king of Scotland attended the English court, the whole of his expenses
should be defrayed out of the English exchequer; and providing that he
should be escorted, both in arriving and on his return, by the bishops
and sheriffs of the different dioceses and counties, through which it
was necessary for him to pass in the course of his progress. William
was obliged to be satisfied with this concession; and he assisted, in
token of amity, at the second coronation of Richard, bearing, upon this
occasion, the principal sword of state.[452]
Another opportunity soon occurred for again advancing his claims. After
the conclusion of the coronation, the bishop of Durham resigned his
earldom of Northumberland into the hands of Richard, and the king was
on the point of transferring it to Hugo Bardolf, when William hastened
to offer 15,000 marks for the fief. The magnitude of the sum tempted
Richard, who was seldom proof against an offer of this description,
and, after a short deliberation, he consented to grant the earldom
without the castles--or, in other words, the pecuniary, but not the
political, advantages of the fief--a compromise which did not accord
with the views of William. He made a final effort to obtain his object
a few days before the departure of Richard for Normandy, but equally
without success, for the latter would only hold out the hope that
he might take the matter into consideration on his return from his
expedition into France; and the Scottish king, towards the close of the
month, retraced his steps towards the north in bitter chagrin at his
failure.[453]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1195.]
In the course of the following year, William was seized with an
alarming illness at Clackmannan, and, in the momentary expectation of
death, assembling his leading nobles, he made known his intention of
declaring as his successor Otho of Saxony, a son of Henry the Lion, and
subsequently emperor of Germany, on the stipulation that the prince
should marry his eldest daughter Margaret. The proposal was but coldly
received by many of his nobility; Earl Patrick of Dunbar, as the
spokesman of the dissentient party, maintaining that it was contrary
to the custom of Scotland for the crown to descend in the female line,
as long as there was a brother, or nephew, in the succession.[454]
The question was terminated for the time by the recovery of the king;
but he did not relinquish his purpose, and, at Christmas, he gave an
audience at York to the archbishop of Canterbury, who was empowered
by Richard to conduct the negotiations connected with the marriage in
question. Lothian was to be the dowry of the Scottish princess, and
the castles of that province were to be made over to the keeping of
the English king; whilst Richard engaged to bestow the earldoms of
Carlisle and Northumberland upon his nephew the Saxon prince, and to
place all the castles of those fiefs in the hands of William.[455] But
this convention was never destined to be carried out; the return of
health, and the hopes of an heir, induced William to procrastinate; and
the reasons which influenced him in entering upon the negotiation were
finally removed, three years afterwards, when his queen presented him
with a son.
It was in the year following this abortive negotiation about the
marriage of his eldest daughter with the Prince of Saxony, that the
attention of the king was directed to renewed commotions in the north;
but, to explain the origin of these disturbances, it will be necessary
to revert once more to the history of the Orkneys.
Paul and Erlend, the joint earls, who were deposed and sent prisoners
to Norway by Magnus Barefoot, never revisited their native land. They
died in exile; [Sidenote: A. D. 1199.] and about two years after Magnus
lost his life in Ireland, Hacon, the son of Paul, who had rendered good
service in the Irish expedition, [Sidenote: A. D. 1105.] obtained from
the sons of the deceased king a grant of the earldom of the Orkneys.
The sons of Erlend had been also carried off by the Norwegian king; but
Magnus Erlendson, taking advantage of a moment, when he was unobserved,
to plunge into the sea, swam to the neighbouring shore of Scotland, and
thus escaped; whilst his brother Erlend, who remained on board, lost
his life subsequently in battle.[456]
Magnus Erlendson remained quietly at the Court of Scotland until the
departure of Sigurd Magnusson for Norway, when he sailed for the
Orkneys to claim his share in the earldom. Hacon viewed his arrival
with displeasure, but as the feeling of the islanders was in favour
of his cousin, he consented to abide by the decision of the Norwegian
Court, and Magnus was shortly afterwards confirmed in the possession
of his father’s portion of the earldom. Little cordiality existed
between the earls, and they were at length upon the brink of an open
rupture, when it was agreed that they should meet upon the small
islet of Egillsey for the arrangement of their mutual differences. To
this spot, accordingly, Magnus repaired upon the appointed day, and,
faithful to the conditions of the meeting, he brought with him only a
few unarmed friends. Hacon arrived soon afterwards with a squadron of
eight ships, filled with the rovers of the sea; and as the armed crews
stepped upon the shore, the son of Erlend foresaw his doom. He met it
with fortitude and resignation; his head was severed from his body; and
the islanders, horror stricken at the perfidious murder, long venerated
their favourite earl as a martyr and a saint.[457]
Success affording leisure for repentance, Hacon sought to expiate his
crime by a pilgrimage to Jerusalem; and upon his death, some years
afterwards, the earldom was divided between his two sons by different
marriages, who were known respectively as Paul the Silent, and Harald
the Eloquent. The latter, who was the younger, appears in some of the
Scottish charters as earl of Caithness, a province which then, and
long afterwards, seems to have extended as far as Dingwall.[458] The
usual jealousy existed between the brothers, ceasing only with the
life of Harald, who is said to have met his death in a mysterious
and unaccountable manner, and, as was generally supposed, through
wearing, by mistake, a poisoned garment intended for his half-brother
Paul, who was an object of hatred and aversion to Helga and her sister
Frakarka, the mother and aunt of Harald. The opportunity was not lost
upon the surviving earl, who, very easily convinced of the guilt of
Helga, banished her immediately from the islands. Her brother Ottir
was lord of Thurso, and her sister also held large possessions on the
mainland. To them accordingly she repaired, with her grandson Erlend
Haroldson and her daughter Margaret, who was soon afterwards married
to Madach, Earl of Atholl, one of the greatest nobles of the day, and
a first cousin of David, who, at this period, occupied the throne of
Scotland.[459]
Earl Paul was not destined to hold for any length of time undisputed
possession of the whole earldom, for a competitor arose in the person
of a descendant, and heir to the claims, of Erlend Thorfinson. In one
of his numerous conflicts in the western seas, Magnus Barefoot lost
an attached and faithful follower of the name of Kali, upon whose son
he conferred large possessions in the Orkneys and elsewhere, with the
hand of Gunhilda, the daughter of the elder Erlend. Gunhilda, after
the death of her brothers, became the heiress of her father’s rights;
and it was her son who now demanded his share of the earldom from the
surviving son of Hacon. His real name was Kol, the same as that of his
father, but he assumed the name of Rognwald, which was popular amongst
the Orkneymen, from his supposed resemblance to Rognwald Brusison,
who is said to have still lingered in the recollection of an aged
Norwegian queen as the handsomest man of her time.[460]
Paul refused to listen to the claims of Rognwald, though they were
supported by the authority of the Court of Norway; but Frakarka and
her sister Helga willingly agreed to further his cause, promising to
attack the earl from the mainland, whilst Rognwald assailed him from
the sea. But Paul was on the alert, holding his ground successfully
against both attacks; nor was it until some years later that Rognwald,
to whom the Shetlanders steadily adhered, [Sidenote: A. D. 1135.] was
enabled to extend his authority over the whole of the Orkneys, through
the surprise and capture of Paul by the contrivance of the Earl of
Atholl.[461]
The first step taken by the new earl was to identify his cause with the
memory of his murdered uncle, whose aid had been invoked in support
of the second and successful expedition. Policy as well as gratitude
suggested that the fortunate result should be attributed to the
intervention of the popular martyr, and Rognwald vowed that a lasting
monument should hand down the remembrance of his murdered kinsman,
and commemorate, at the same time, the manner in which the saint had
interfered in his own behalf. In accordance with his vow a stately
cathedral church arose at Kirkwall, which was dedicated in honour of
St. Magnus; but it was a work far beyond the means of the earl, and to
further its completion, he was obliged to restore their rights to the
Odallers, who were permitted to regain their ancient privileges on
payment of a large contribution in aid of the building.[462]
In the meantime the luckless Paul was conducted to the residence of the
Earl of Atholl by his captor Sweyne Asleifason, a powerful nobleman of
Caithness at feud with the earl on account of his banishment from the
Orkneys. Here he was treated with the most ceremonious courtesy. The
chair of state was resigned to him by Madach; the beautiful Margaret,
surrounded by her ladies, received him with the cordial welcome of a
sister; mummers and jesters relieved the monotony of the hour; and in
the true spirit of northern hospitality the evening was devoted to
drinking. Thus passed the leisure time of a Scottish nobleman in the
twelfth century, when he was not engaged in the more stirring pursuits
of war, or of the chase. One thing alone reminded the deposed earl
of the real position in which he stood--the doors were invariably
locked.[463]
Paul long maintained his reputation for taciturnity, but at length he
appears to have spoken, and to the purpose; [Sidenote: A. D. 1137.]
for two years after the accession of Rognwald, whilst that earl was
celebrating with his friends some festive occasion in the month of
July, their attention was attracted by the arrival of a vessel from
the south with a venerable personage on board, whose purple cloak
and quaintly trimmed beard aroused the curiosity of the Orkneymen,
until the earl’s chaplain pronounced the mysterious stranger to be a
Scottish bishop.[464] He was received with every mark of respect, and
subsequently escorted to Egillsey, the residence of William, Bishop of
the Orkneys; and the result of a conference between Rognwald and the
two prelates was the admission of the claim of Harald Mac Madach to his
uncle’s share in the earldom, in virtue of the resignation of Paul. The
rights of Harald, then a child between four and five years of age, were
confirmed at an amicable meeting, held in Caithness, by the leading
chieftains of Atholl and the Orkneys, representing “the communities”
of the respective earldoms;[465] [Sidenote: A. D. 1138.] and, in the
following spring, he was consigned to the charge of Earl Rognwald,
though his real supporters appear to have been Sweyne Asleifason and
Thorbiorn, a grandson of Frakarka, married to the sister of Sweyne, and
guardian to the youthful earl.[466]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1153.]
Fifteen years elapsed without any diminution in the friendship of
Rognwald for his youthful colleague; Madach and his royal cousin sunk
into the grave; and the elder earl departed for the Holy Land, leaving
Harald in charge of the earldom.[467] The same year witnessed the last
expedition, in which a Norwegian king enacted the part of a pirate in
the western seas; Eystein, in a time of profound peace, inflicting
upon the unoffending inhabitants of the English and Scottish coasts
a repetition of the ravages of his heathen predecessors. Amongst the
sufferers was Harald, who was surprised and captured off Thurso, but he
regained his liberty at the price of several marks “in gold,” and an
acknowledgment of his dependance upon Norway;[468] though he was less
fortunate some years later, when his cousin Erlend Haraldson arrived to
claim his share in the earldom. Erlend, who appears to have succeeded
to the authority of his uncle, Ottir of Thurso, had taken advantage
of the absence of Rognwald to obtain from the youthful king of
Scotland, Malcolm the Fourth, a confirmation of his right to the half
of Caithness, and he now demanded a similar division of the islands.
Harald demurred to his claims unless they were confirmed by the Court
of Norway, nor would he consent to acknowledge Erlend as his colleague,
even after his rights were recognized by the Norwegian kings, till the
defection of Sweyne Asleifason forced from him a reluctant acquiescence
in this arrangement. Not content with depriving Harald of half the
earldom, Erlend carried off the Earl’s mother, the still beautiful
Margaret, bearing her to that singular fort of Mousa, in the Shetland
Isles, of which the remains still exist to excite the curiosity of
modern times; where he defended his prize with such tenacity, that he
forced Harald to consent to their marriage, and this singular union of
a nephew with his aunt is related in the Saga without a comment![469]
After a lengthened absence in the Holy Land, Rognwald returned from
Palestine to find Erlend established in his place. In this dilemma the
Bonders were assembled, whose unanimous verdict pronounced Rognwald
to be the lawful representative of one line of their rulers; and as
it then remained for them to determine which of the other earls was
entitled to the remaining share in the islands, their decision was
given in favour of Erlend. Their award was probably just, but Harald
could hardly be expected to acquiesce in it. Retiring to the mainland
he sought the assistance of his kinsmen, and when he reappeared in
the Orkneys in the following spring, Rognwald immediately declared in
favour of his early friend. But the redoubtable Sweyne Asleifason, who
espoused the side of Erlend, long upheld the cause of the latter earl,
by his courage and counsels, until the confederates, watching their
opportunity, surprised and slew their rival whilst he was stupified
by the effects of his potations.[470] Rognwald did not long survive
their victory, falling a victim to the revenge of Thorbiorn, the
former guardian of Harald, [Sidenote: A. D. 1158.] who waylaid and
assassinated the earl whilst hunting in the dales of Caithness. His
surviving colleague conveyed the body to Thurso, from whence, after a
lapse of thirty years, [Sidenote: A. D. 1188.] it was removed to the
cathedral church of Kirkwall, when the name of the murdered Rognwald
was enrolled in the Calendar of the Saints.[471]
In this manner Harald found himself, at the age of five and twenty, in
undisputed possession of the earldoms of Caithness and the Orkneys.
In appearance, as well as in character, he must have resembled his
maternal ancestor Thorfin; for, like that earl, he is described as
“tall, strong, and hard-featured,”[472] and he raised his power, by
his talents and military prowess, to a height unprecedented since the
days of his formidable predecessor. To Sweyne Asleifason, his early
friend and subsequent opponent, he appears to have been thoroughly
reconciled. Sweyne was a genuine type of the chieftain of that era, a
veritable representative of that numerous class which viewed, with such
suspicious jealousy, the curtailment of their lawless liberty by the
introduction of a novel system of government. The spring and autumn he
dedicated to agriculture; a scanty crop was rudely sown and as rudely
gathered in: the summer was devoted to a course of piracy; and the
winter was spent in revelry. Such were still the habits of life amongst
the chieftains of the north and west of Scotland; and in earlier times,
as in Scandinavia and Northern Germany, the practice had been similar
throughout the whole country, with the sole difference, that the
dwellers upon the coasts were rovers by sea, and the inhabitants of the
interior were plunderers by land.[473]
For nearly forty years Harald remained in the contented enjoyment of
his two earldoms, acknowledging a nominal dependence upon the crowns
of Scotland and Norway, but in all other respects as untrammelled as
the most independent of his maternal ancestors. He was married to a
sister of Duncan, Earl of Fife, and this connection with one of the
firmest partizans of the reigning family may have kept him steady in
his allegiance. At length, at the mature age of sixty and upwards, he
transferred his affections to a daughter of Mac Heth, and he married
the object of his elderly love after divorcing his former wife by
one of those summary processes which lingered latest, with other
barbarisms, in the extreme north. The union was inauspicious, as might
have been expected; a daughter of Mac Heth could not fail to remind
her husband of her hereditary claims upon Moray, and, yielding too
readily to the suggestions of ambition, ere long Harald seized upon the
province.[474]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1196]
It was the intelligence of these proceedings on the part of the earl
that now brought William in haste from the south; for he had already
suffered too much from such a cause to think lightly of a rebellion
in the northern Highlands. Meeting Harald’s son, Thorfin, in the
neighbourhood of Inverness, he defeated him with ease, killing Roderic,
a partizan, apparently, of the family of Mac Heth;[475] whilst Harald
retreated as the king advanced, until at length, despairing of success,
he fled to his ships in the hope of escaping to the Orkneys. But
the earl was doomed to misfortune; an adverse gale detained him in
port, and he was compelled to become a reluctant eyewitness of the
destruction of his castle at Thurso, and of the unwonted spectacle of
a royal army ravaging the extremity of Caithness. Submission was now
the only course left open, and he was fain to purchase the withdrawal
of the hostile army by promising to surrender the enemies of the king,
to place his son Thorfin as a hostage in the hands of William for his
own fidelity, and to resign half the earldom of Caithness to Harald
Ericson.[476]
Satisfied with the earl’s concessions, the king withdrew from his
territories; again proceeding northwards as far as Nairn in the
course of the same autumn, to await the fulfilment of the treaty. On
his return from hunting late one evening, he found Earl Harald in
attendance with two children, his nephews, whom he offered in the place
of his own son as hostages for his fidelity and allegiance. Surprised
at this evasion of their agreement, the king demanded the reason of
it, remarking upon the absence of Thorfin, whom Harald had promised as
a hostage. The earl’s reply was remarkable, though it could scarcely
be considered satisfactory. Thorfin, he said, was his only son, and he
was reluctant to part with the sole heir of his earldom; and as for the
enemies of the king whom he had promised to deliver into his hands,
they had actually accompanied him as far as the port of Lochloy, within
a few miles of Nairn, when he had suffered them to escape, reflecting
that their doom was certain if once surrendered to the king.[477] As it
is impossible that the earl could have imagined for one moment that
William would permit so palpable an evasion of their treaty, it can
only be supposed that, repenting of his promise as he approached Nairn,
he preferred braving the royal anger by conniving at the escape of his
prisoners, to surrendering friends, and probably connections, of his
own, or of his wife, to the certain doom of death; or the even worse
alternative of perpetual imprisonment, with probable mutilation or loss
of sight. William and his barons in council--the peers of the earl,
before whom he was immediately arraigned--at once pronounced him guilty
of a breach of fealty, declaring that he had thereby forfeited his
liberty; and he was carried in the train of William to the south, and
retained in custody until, upon the arrival of his son Thorfin, he was
released from captivity, and permitted to return to the Orkneys.[478]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1197.]
But the earl had not yet reached the conclusion of his troubles;
for Harald Ericson, after receiving a grant of half the earldom of
Caithness from the king of Scotland, sailed to Norway, and obtained a
recognition of his right, from King Suerer, to a similar partition of
the Orkneys. This Harald, generally known as the younger earl, was a
son of Ingigerda, the only child of Rognwald; but the elder Harald,
unmindful of his early friend, seems to have ignored the claims of
his heir to a partition of the earldom. A band of followers, however,
was easily collected in Norway, and so little was the elder earl
prepared for an attack, that, upon the arrival of his competitor in
the Orkneys, he fled precipitately to Man. He was shortly followed by
Harald Ericson; but again eluding pursuit, he returned suddenly to the
Orkneys, visiting with summary vengeance all who had declared for the
younger Harald. He had lost no time in the interval in gathering his
own partizans, and, upon the return of his opponent from the Western
Isles, he no longer shrunk from a contest for which he was now fully
prepared.
The rival earls met near Wick, in Caithness; victory declared for the
elder Harald, and the last descendant of Erlend Thorfinson perished
upon the field of his defeat. Availing himself of the protection of
the bishops of Ross and of St. Andrews, the conqueror sought the
Scottish Court, and hastened to offer a large sum for the restitution
of that portion of Caithness which had been conferred upon his deceased
competitor. The king promised his consent if the earl would comply with
his conditions, and agree to take back his former wife, and surrender
Bonaver, the son of Ingemund, together with his chaplain, Lawrence,
as additional hostages for his allegiance. Which of these conditions
was distasteful to the earl the chronicler has failed to specify; but,
in the opinion of Harald, half the earldom of Caithness would have
been too dearly purchased at such a price; and upon the refusal of
the proposed terms, William, without further parley, sold the fief to
Ronald, king of Man.[479]
According to the usual custom of the age, Ronald placed his
_Maors_, or deputies, over his newly acquired earldom, whilst
Harald, retreating to the Orkneys, busied himself in preparations for
the forcible recovery of his possessions; and suddenly reappearing in
Caithness with an overpowering force, he drove out all who opposed him,
treating the bishop of the diocese with savage cruelty for a supposed
predilection to the cause of his rival.[480] Although Christmas was
approaching, William lost no time in hastening to the scene of action,
first retaliating the barbarities of the earl upon his unfortunate
hostage Thorfin; but by the time the king reached Caithness, Harald
had escaped to the Orkneys, returning immediately upon the departure
of the royal army. William again marched to the north in the following
spring, and again the earl sought refuge amongst his islands; but as
such a fruitless contest was harassing to both parties, without being
beneficial to either, it was at length terminated by Harald, who,
[Sidenote: A. D. 1202.] placing himself under the safe conduct of the
Bishop of St. Andrews, tendered his submission to the king at Perth,
and was permitted, for a sum of 2000 pounds of silver, to enjoy his
earldom in peace during the brief remainder of his life.[481]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1198.]
The six years over which these disturbances in the extreme north of
Scotland extended had not been destitute of other events of importance,
for, on the 24th of August 1198, the question of the succession to the
Scottish throne had been finally set at rest by the birth of a prince,
to whom the name of Alexander was given. [Sidenote: A. D. 1201] Three
years afterwards, according to the usual custom of the age, William
summoned the barons of his realm to swear fealty to his infant heir
at Musselburgh; the Earl of Huntingdon imitating the example of the
Scottish nobles, and performing homage to his youthful nephew about
four years later.[482] [Sidenote: A. D. 1205] By the death of Richard,
in the year following the birth of Alexander, [Sidenote: A. D. 1199]
the relations between the English and Scottish kings had once more
become unsettled. Doubt and mistrust overshadowed England, bishops
and barons strengthening their castles, and preparing for the contest
anticipated between the uncle and his nephew; whilst numbers of the
continental vassals of the English crown openly declared for Arthur.
Following the course invariably adopted upon such occasions by all
aspirants to the crown, John possessed himself of the late king’s
treasures at Chinon, and this important point secured, he dispatched
the Archbishop of Canterbury across the Channel, with William the
Mareschal, and Geoffry Fitz Peter, the Justiciary of England,
empowering them to pledge his royal word to all whose allegiance
appeared doubtful, that full justice should be rendered on the arrival
of the king to every faithful adherent of his cause. William, as might
have been expected, had seized upon the opportunity afforded by John’s
uncertain position to revive his claims upon the northern counties;
but the royal deputies, after the council held at Northampton, forbade
the Scottish envoys, who had arrived there, to cross to Normandy,
prevailing upon the Earl of Huntingdon, one of the principal of the
dubious adherents who had been gained over at the recent meeting, to
notify to his royal brother that he should await the arrival of the
king. A similar request was conveyed directly from John by Eustace
de Vesci, who bore a promise to his wife’s father--for Eustace had
married Margaret, one of William’s natural daughters--that complete
satisfaction should be afforded him in all that he sought, if he would
only refrain from immediate hostilities.[483]
Soon after his coronation upon Ascension day, John gave audience to
William de Hay, and the priors of May and Inchcolm, who, in the name of
the Scottish king, demanded a full restitution of his “patrimony”--the
northern counties; promising liege and faithful service if he gained
his suit, but threatening, in case of refusal, to win his rights by
the sword. The reply of John was characteristically evasive;--“If your
king, my very dear cousin, will come in person, I will do him right in
this and in all that he demands.” The bishop of St. Andrews, with Hugo
Malebise, were made the bearers of this message to William, whilst,
that no point of courtesy or ceremonial might be omitted, the bishop of
Durham was directed to proceed at once to the frontiers and escort the
Scottish king to the place of meeting.
John reached the appointed rendezvous at Nottingham upon Whitsunday,
but the king of Scotland declined to come, only sending word by
Malebise and the bishop that, if his demands were not immediately
granted, he would resent the refusal by a declaration of war. John
stipulated for a further truce of forty days, promising a final answer
at the end of that time; but after collecting a powerful army,
and placing the counties in question under the charge of William
d’Estoteville, he hastened to embark for Normandy within a fortnight,
leaving the Scottish envoys, who had hurried after him to the coast, to
convey what answer they pleased to their king.[484]
At length perceiving that the promises of John had been merely
subterfuges for gaining time, William prepared to put his threats
into execution; but the proper season for action had already passed
away, and the English barons, not yet disgusted by the falsehood and
tyranny of John, had for the present declared in his favour. A natural
feeling of anxiety oppressed the mind of William as he recalled the
events of his early manhood, and remembered the consequences of his
former war with England. His kingdom was still unsettled, his health
was beginning to fail, whilst his heir was still a mere child, and
Scotland had hardly yet recovered from the disastrous state of anarchy
into which she had been plunged by the capture of her king at Alnwick.
Impressed with gloomy forebodings, the king determined upon passing the
night by the shrine of his sainted ancestress at Dunfermline; where
his reluctance to engage in hostilities assuming the form of a warning
dream, he dismissed his army on the following morning, assuring them
that he had been forbidden by a heavenly vision to attempt the invasion
of England.[485]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1200.]
William had given up all present thoughts of open war, but he refused
to listen to any overtures from John, declining to meet the English
king at York in the following Lent, whilst he cultivated an alliance
with Philip of France, and a marriage was negotiated between the young
prince of Scotland and an infant French princess, the daughter of
Agnes de Meranie.[486] The rumour of this alliance seriously alarmed
John, and after the second of his numerous coronations, he dispatched
a distinguished embassy with letters of safe conduct to the borders,
to propose an interview with the king of Scotland, and to escort him
for this purpose to Lincoln. With the Bishop of Durham and the Sheriff
of Northumberland were associated the Earl of Hereford and the Lords
de Vesci and de Ros, the nephew and sons-in-law of William, who, with
the Earls of Huntingdon and Norfolk, and a brilliant retinue of other
barons, awaited the arrival of the Scottish king on the frontiers, and
conducted him, with every mark of respect, to the place of meeting.
Here, upon a neighbouring hill, which was at that time without the city
of Lincoln, William performed homage to John “for his right saving his
own right;” [Sidenote: 22d Nov.] swearing fealty upon the cross of the
Archbishop of Canterbury--a breach of the usual custom, explained by
one of the chroniclers as arising “because there was no sacred book
at hand.” The question about the northern counties was again brought
forward for discussion, but with no satisfactory result, although a
final decision was again promised at the end of another six months;
and the king of Scotland, who had in reality gained nothing beyond
his ordinary feudal advantages by his journey, was obliged to rest
contented with the empty honour of returning to his own kingdom under
the same distinguished escort that had accompanied him to Lincoln.[487]
The interview between the kings had not been of a nature to promote
any real feeling of cordiality; for William had again proved from
experience that the promises of John were merely empty words, whilst he
had permitted his crafty rival to discover how little real importance
he need attach to the threats of a Scottish war. No more dangerous
knowledge could have been acquired by a prince of such a character
as John, who, in his subsequent transactions with the Scottish king,
turned this backwardness to his own account, evidently presuming upon
the reluctance of William to venture upon the chances of a war.
A rupture, however, had almost occurred through the contemplated
erection of a castle at the mouth of the Tweed, for the purpose of
commanding the Scottish burgh of Berwick, with its important fortress;
thus endangering the prosperity of the foremost commercial town in
Scotland, and neutralizing the cession of one of the keys of the
Lothians, restored by the charter of Cœur de Lion. It was impossible
for William to overlook so dangerous an encroachment, and whenever the
English attempted to begin the building, the Scots drove them away by
force, levelling their work with the ground; proceedings which were
more than once repeated, until, upon his return from the disastrous
campaign of 1203, John hastened to the north of England, [Sidenote: A.
D. 1204.] where he was met upon the frontiers at Norham by William, who
was hardly recovered from one of those dangerous attacks of illness
to which his advancing years appear to have rendered him liable. The
conference was stormy, and the kings parted in anger; but John was
either too much occupied with the French war to add another to the
list of his open enemies, or he treated the whole affair with his
usual fickle levity, and in spite of the hostile character of their
interview, their kingdoms remained in a state of nominal peace.[488]
However averse he might have been to risk the chances of hostilities,
William was evidently a very cool friend to England during the next
five years, eagerly testifying his devotion to the papal see when the
interdict was levelled against John, and receiving in return from Pope
Innocent a bull, or rescript, fully confirming every liberty and
immunity that had at any time been conferred upon the king, church, or
kingdom of Scotland, by the head of the Roman Church.[489] He appears,
also, to have set on foot a negotiation for procuring a foreign
alliance for one of his children;[490] [Sidenote: A. D. 1209.] but the
fears of John were by this time aroused, and he marched with an immense
army to the north, in the determination of calling William to account
for destroying his castle at Tweedmouth, for aiming at an alliance with
his open enemies, and for negotiating the intended marriage without
consulting the suzerain of whom he held his English fiefs. To guard
against the chances of invasion, William occupied a strong position
in the neighbourhood of Roxburgh, where he gave audience to the
envoys of John, who, upon reaching Norham, dispatched a safe conduct
to the Scottish king, with a requisition to meet him at Newcastle;
but three days after his arrival at the place of meeting, and before
their conference had resulted in any satisfactory conclusion, it was
unexpectedly interrupted by the sudden illness of the Scottish king,
and all further proceedings were broken off after a temporary truce had
been arranged.[491]
The return of health revived the reluctance of William to yield to
the demands of John, and, after ascertaining the sentiments of his
baronage and clergy in a council held at Stirling, he dispatched the
bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow, with William Comyn and Philip de
Valoniis, the Justiciary and Chamberlain of Scotland, charged with so
decided an answer to the English king, that John’s fury was aroused to
the utmost pitch, and he issued immediate orders for the assemblage of
his army, and the reconstruction of the castle at Tweedmouth. William,
upon learning the result of his embassy, hurried from Forfar towards
the Lothians, deputing the bishop of St. Andrews to convey a qualified
refusal to the incensed John. Arrived at Edinburgh, the king was met by
Sayer de Quinci, Earl of Winchester, and Robert de Ros, who had already
reached the future Scottish capital, and dwelt upon the wrath of their
royal master, and the magnitude of the army with which he was hurrying,
by forced marches, to the north.[492]
Without awaiting the return of the bishop of St. Andrews, William
dispatched a third embassy to avert, if possible, the impending
war; and when the bishop reached his royal master at Traquair with
intelligence that the English army was fast approaching the borders,
the reverend envoy was commissioned, for the third time, to return in
the utmost haste to John, and to use every effort to delay his advance
until the Scottish army could be concentrated upon the frontiers.[493]
By the time John reached Bamborough, towards the close of July, his
formidable preparations for hostilities had fully attained the end upon
which he had probably calculated, by working upon the fears of his
opponent. A brave and warlike army was ranged along either frontier,
prompt and ready for a contest, but advancing years and increasing
infirmities had bowed the once fierce and haughty spirit of the
Scottish king, who was now as averse to risk the chances of war as, in
early manhood, he had been eager in courting its dangers. Under such
circumstances the result could not long remain in doubt, and William,
yielding his consent to the conditions imposed by John, covenanted to
pay 15,000 marks for his “good will” (in other words for peace, and for
the confirmation of his fiefs and privileges, which appear to have been
in danger of forfeiture), and for the performance of certain conditions
specified in their mutual charters. Hostages were to be given by the
Scottish king for the payment of the stated sum within two years.[494]
Two of his daughters, Margaret and Isabella--the third was probably
under age--were to be delivered into the charge of John, and to be
suitably married according to the tenure of their secret arrangement;
whilst, in return, one of the articles of the treaty provided against
the erection of a castle at Tweedmouth at any future period. The final
settlement of the treaty took place at Northampton, and, within ten
days from its completion, the Scottish princesses were placed in the
hands of the English Justiciary at Carlisle.[495]
From the date of this arrangement a close alliance existed between
the kings, and still further to cement their union, [Sidenote: A.
D. 1210.] the prince of Scotland proceeded in the following year as
far as Alnwick, where, upon the 10th of May, he performed homage to
John as liegeman for all the fiefs held by his father of the English
crown; and it was probably upon this occasion that the English king,
after receiving the half of the sum of 15,000 marks, in token of amity
remitted the payment of the remainder.[496]
William, however, in his anxiety to avoid an encounter with John,
appears to have deeply offended many of his own powerful subjects, to
several of whom the English connection had all along been distasteful.
All the advantages of the English fiefs belonged solely to the
royal family; and as it was of little or no importance to many of
the Scots that the brother of their king should enjoy the earldom of
Huntingdon, or that their sovereign should be received with certain
ceremonies whenever he absented himself from his own dominions to
attend the English Court, they looked with jealousy and discontent
at the concessions extorted from William, through his double anxiety
to prevent hostilities, and to avoid the forfeiture of his English
fiefs and privileges. The treaty concluded at Northampton had been in
direct contradiction to the wishes of the nation, and ere long William
discovered that, in his solicitude to avert the evils of a foreign war,
he had re-kindled the embers of civil discord at home.
The discontent must have been widely disseminated which first
threatened to explode in the south. Thomas de Colvill, a powerful
baron in constant attendance at the court of Scotland, was accused of
conspiring against his liege lord, and detained in Edinburgh Castle
until he was permitted to redeem his treason by the payment of a fine,
and was subsequently dispatched, in a species of honourable captivity,
as a hostage to the king of England.[497] The storm which had thus
threatened the southern, or feudalized, division of the kingdom was
shortly destined to burst in all its fury upon the distant north and
west, where a Mac William still existed in the person of Godfrey, one
of the sons of Donald Bane. Ireland, as usual, had been his home when
he was not amongst the western isles of Scotland, where he had never
ceased to assert the claims of his family; and either Godfrey, or some
of his partizans, had probably been amongst those “enemies of the
king” whom the Earl of Caithness had suffered to escape at Lochloy. No
time could have been more favourable for the revival of his pretensions
than a period of general discontent, and his partizans in Ross, with
all the disaffected clans of the neighbouring provinces, invited him to
cross from Ireland, with promises of their warmest support.[498]
But in the course of the same autumn, and before the arrival of
Godfrey, the lives of William and his family were threatened by an
unexpected danger from a totally different quarter. The king, with
his brother and the prince of Scotland, was staying with the court at
Perth, when a sudden inundation, occasioned by a spring tide meeting
the swollen waters of the Tay, menaced the town and its inhabitants
with destruction. The old hill-fort at the junction of the Almond with
the Tay was swept away in the deluge, carrying along with it many
houses, and destroying the bridge and an old chapel, whilst the royal
party were at one time in imminent danger, escaping with difficulty the
fury of the flood.[499]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1211]
It was winter when Mac William arrived in Ross, and six months elapsed
before an army could be dispatched to operate with effect against
him, the king following by easy marches, as well as his debilitated
condition would allow. Each party pursuing their usual tactics, the
campaign was opened on the royal side by the construction of two
forts, or rather, perhaps, by the repair of the buildings, which had
been raised in the previous war to command the most important points
in the district;[500] whilst Godfrey, carefully avoiding a battle,
endeavoured to harass the royal army by continued surprises and night
attacks. Steadily pursuing the course which he had proposed to follow
in his campaign against Donald Bane, the king placed 4000 men under
the command of the Earls of Atholl and Buchan, with Malcolm of Mar and
Thomas the Durward, ordering them to penetrate the recesses of the
mountains in every direction, and force Mac William to an encounter.
Godfrey’s place of strength was upon an island, where he had collected
his treasure and supplies; and here he was at length discovered and
brought to bay by the royal leaders. The struggle was most obstinate,
for the rebels were animated by despair; victory, however, declared for
the royal arms, Godfrey with a few of his companions escaping, though
with difficulty, amongst the clefts and thickets of the neighbouring
mountains.[501]
Satisfied with his success, William returned with the main body of his
army to the south, leaving Earl Malcolm of Fife in charge of Moray.
His departure was the signal for the reappearance of Godfrey, who
suddenly presented himself in force before one of the royal castles,
and commenced preparations for a siege. Alarmed at the prospect of an
attack, and the probable consequences of its success, the garrison
offered to capitulate on condition that their lives were spared; and as
Godfrey willingly agreed to their terms, they were permitted to depart
in safety, and the fort was burnt to the ground.[502]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1212.]
The tidings of Godfrey’s proceedings reached William in the winter,
when any hope of taking the field amongst the northern mountains
with the least probability of success was frustrated by the unusual
severity of the season; and as he had calculated upon his forts
securing the advantages gained in the preceding campaign, he was
incensed and embarrassed at this unexpected loss. A renewal of such
a doubtful contest as the struggle in which he had been engaged with
his cousin, the elder Mac William, was an anxious prospect at his time
of life, and he naturally felt inclined to draw yet closer the ties
connecting him with his English ally.[503] Ere the winter passed
away the two kings met once more, and for the last time, at Durham;
their conference was adjourned from that place to Norham, where the
queen of Scotland is said to have exerted her influence with both
parties to obtain the treaty of mutual alliance, which was concluded
upon this occasion. [Sidenote: 7th Feb.] Both kings are said to have
agreed, that, in case of the death of either, the survivor should be
bound to protect and support the youthful heir in securing the rights
of his crown; William conceding to John the privilege of marrying
his son Alexander, now in his fourteenth year, according to his own
pleasure during the next six years, so that the alliance was suitable
to the dignity of the Scottish crown; at the same time confirming his
own, and his son’s, liege homage to the English prince Henry, saving
their fealty to John. The Scottish prince then accompanied the king
of England, upon his return, to the south, and received the honor of
knighthood at St. Brides in Clerkenwell, where John held high festival
in Mid-Lent.[504]
[Sidenote: 4th Mar.]
With his mind set at rest upon the subject of the English alliance,
William prepared to bend all his remaining energies to the suppression
of the dangerous rebellion in the north. About the middle of June a
considerable force was dispatched to the scene of action, the prince of
Scotland accompanying the army to prove himself worthy of his golden
spurs; and the reserve was to have followed by easy marches, under the
immediate orders of the king, when its departure was arrested by the
welcome intelligence of the capture of the head of the rebellion. The
Earl of Fife, during a temporary absence from his command, left the
province under the charge of the Justiciary, William Comyn, Earl of
Buchan, into whose hands the adherents of Mac William, terror-stricken
apparently at the magnitude of the royal preparations, had just
surrendered their leader. The earl had already reached Kincardine
with his prisoner, whom he was in haste to present to William before
death robbed him of his prize--for Godfrey had resolutely refused
all nourishment since his capture--when he was met by a significant
message from the king, that he had no desire to see his enemy; and the
unfortunate Mac William was at once beheaded, and hung up by the feet,
lest starvation should anticipate his doom.[505]
[Sidenote: A. D. 1213]
The ensuing winter once more found John upon the Scottish frontier.
Whilst on the march in the preceding summer to repress the revolt of
Llewellyn, he had received letters from William, as well as from his
own natural daughter Joanna, the wife of the Welsh prince, warning him
against the intentions of his own barons, if he involved himself in the
intricacies of a mountain warfare in Wales.[506] The coincidence of the
arrival of similar warnings from quarters so far apart, aroused his
fears lest the intelligence should be true; and returning in haste to
London, he sent to his principal barons, demanding hostages for their
allegiance and good faith. All obeyed the royal command except Eustace
de Vesci and Robert Fitz Walter; the former, too deeply implicated
apparently to entrust himself within the power of John, at once seeking
refuge with his father-in-law in Scotland. The flight of De Vesci was
amongst the causes which brought John to the north, for it appears that
he had already written to William to claim the fugitive as a traitor.
Norham, as usual, was the place chosen for the conference; but William,
who had been for some time detained at Newbattle by another severe
attack of illness, was unable to proceed farther than Haddington; and
John, who had every reason for desiring, at this period of his reign,
to draw still closer the bonds of union between himself and his fellow
king, earnestly adjured him to depute the young Prince Alexander in
his place, holding out magnificent promises to induce compliance. The
aged king was inclined to send his son, some of his advisers agreeing
with him; but the majority of his council strongly opposed the project,
objecting to entrust the heir of Scotland within the power of John,
of whose intentions they were, not unnaturally, suspicious. They
were fearful, also, lest the English king should detain Alexander as
a hostage for the delivery of De Vesci, and as William eventually
deferred to their opinion, John was obliged to relinquish all hope of a
conference, and return disappointed to the south.[507]
During William’s contest with Earl Harald, Olave, the earl’s
brother-in-law, and John Halkelson, sailed from the Orkneys to assist
the son of the Norwegian Regent Erling in placing Sigurd Magnusson upon
his father’s throne. Their fate was most unfortunate; the flower of the
Orkneys assembled around the banner of Olave perishing, with both their
leaders, in the disastrous battle of Floravagr; and their ill-omened
expedition entailing the wrath of the conqueror upon Harald, who only
made his peace with the indignant Sverer by yielding up to Norway the
whole of the Shetland Isles. It was a diminished and impaired dominion,
therefore, which Harald, upon his death in 1206, left as an inheritance
between his three sons; [Sidenote: A. D. 1206.] Heinrek succeeding to
his claims upon Ross, whilst David and John divided his possessions
in Caithness and the Orkneys, the latter, upon the death of David,
becoming the sole possessor of both his father’s earldoms.[508] To
ensure the submission of Earl John to his authority, William, during
the summer of 1214, proceeded as far as Moray, [Sidenote: A. D. 1214.]
when the earl, unwilling to provoke the hostility of his sovereign,
yielded at once to his terms, giving up his daughter and heiress as
a hostage for his fidelity and allegiance. The king then returned by
easy journeys towards the south, but he had far over-taxed his feeble
strength, having risen from a bed of sickness to ensure the tranquil
succession of his son. As he approached the Forth he expressed a wish
to be carried to Stirling, a place for which he appears to have felt
an especial fondness; and here he lingered over the autumn within the
walls of that royal castle, from whence his failing sight could gaze
upon one of the fairest prospects of his native land. He was never
destined to see another year, and on Thursday, the 4th of December,
he breathed his last, expiring in the seventy-third year of his age,
and within five days of entering upon the fiftieth of a chequered and
eventful reign.[509]
Few materials remain for estimating the personal character of William
beyond the actions ascribed to him in the chronicles of the period.
Newbridge, perhaps a prejudiced authority, contrasts him unfavourably
with his brother Malcolm, regarding many of his misfortunes in the
early part of his career as punishments for his addiction to worldly
pleasures, and attributing the comparative peace and prosperity of his
later years--meaning the period of Richard’s reign--to the beneficial
effects of his marriage with Ermengarde de Bellomont.[510] He was a
great man, however, in the opinion of the archdeacon of Brecknock,
Giraldus Cambrensis, and worthy of praise in many things, one blot
only resting upon his glory--throughout the whole length and breadth
of Scotland his will alone decided the disposal of church patronage,
expressly imitating, in this respect, the policy of the English
kings, stigmatized by the archdeacon as “the enormous abuses of the
Norman tyranny in England.”[511] Giraldus wrote in the spirit of a
churchman of the twelfth century; but it must at least be admitted
that it tells not a little for the energy of William’s character, that
in his contest with the Church of Rome, in the very zenith of her
power, he was successful; neither legate nor pope bending him from
his purpose, though they launched anathemas at his head, and were
supported by Henry, at that time feudal overlord of Scotland. But
though high-spirited and impetuous, even to rashness, in his youth and
manhood, William appears to have been broken down by repeated attacks
of illness as he advanced in life; and the reckless knight-errant,
who rushed upon seven times his numbers at Alnwick, grew into an
over-cautious sovereign, who aroused the discontent of his subjects,
and risked the newly recovered independence of his kingdom, by his
inordinate dread of the consequences of a rupture with England. Some
allowance may be made for his anxiety to carry out the policy of his
grandfather, and re-annex to the Scottish crown the appanage of his
early years, which his brother had resigned at Chester; but from the
comparative ease with which his successor crushed every rebellion
within a few years of his accession, firmly established the royal
authority over the whole mainland of Scotland, and vindicated on every
occasion the liberties of his crown and kingdom, it is very evident
that William carried his caution too far; and though circumstances
may have been more favourable to his son, the temporizing policy of
William towards the close of his life must have increased, rather
than diminished, the difficulties of his situation. From the use of
the lion rampant upon his seal, a device which has since become the
well-known cognizance of Scotland, he was very frequently known as
“William the Lion;” and the names of _Rufus_ and _Garw_--or
the Rough--have also been applied to him, indicating, apparently, some
distinguishing feature in his character, or personal appearance.[512]
By his marriage with Ermengarde de Bellomont, he left four children; an
only son, Alexander, who succeeded to the throne, and three daughters,
Margaret, Isabella, and Marjory. Margaret, the eldest, was married to
Hubert de Burgh, and left an only daughter, Magota, who died apparently
at an early age. Isabella became the wife of Roger Bigod, Earl of
Norfolk; and Marjory, who appears to have been celebrated for her
beauty, which made a deep impression upon the susceptible heart of
Henry the Third, was subsequently united to Gilbert the Mareschal, Earl
of Pembroke, both the younger princesses dying without issue.
The lengthened reign of William was the era of the more complete
development of David’s changes in church and state; and Scotland, at
the opening of the thirteenth century, was fast progressing towards
the condition of a thoroughly feudalized kingdom in her more settled
portions. Traces of her earlier institutions, however, were still
abundant; the more lenient custom, for instance, of the allodial
system, by which the property of the felon was not confiscated
but descended at once to the heir, was confirmed as the general
law of Scotland, the strict feudal theory being, in other words,
relaxed in favour of “ancient custom;” though where the homicide, or
cattle-lifter, escaped the penalty of the crime by flight, his property
reverted to the lord, the heir only succeeding on the death of the
forfeited proprietor. Even sedition against the king did not disinherit
the heir, if the property was not held directly of the crown; but for
treason against the royal person both life and lands were irretrievably
forfeited. Another concession in favour of “ancient custom,” perhaps,
is traceable in the permission granted to the kindred of a murdered
man to take full legal vengeance on the homicide, even when under
the protection of “the king’s peace,” if they could prove that their
consent had not been obtained to compromise the feud; though, from the
wording of the law in question, this relaxation of the royal power of
pardoning the highest offences, may have been confined to the case of
a murdered witness. In most other respects the usual feudal customs
were generally established; the charter was required as a necessary
document for every freeholder--a stringent enactment being levelled
against all who were convicted of forging such evidence of rights to
which they were not entitled; and the Visnet was fast becoming the
recognised law of the land. Galloway alone formed an exception, in
this point, to the rest of Scotland, retaining her ancient code; no
Galwegian being judged by “the verdict of the neighbourhood,” except
at his especial demand; but very strict rules were laid down for its
substitute, “the wager of battle,”--a fine of _ten cows_ being
enacted for speaking during the progress of a judicial combat; he who
raised his hand, or made a sign, being “at the king’s mercy.” The fines
assessed at Dumfries by “the Judges of Galloway,” appear, indeed, to
have been heavier than in Scotland proper; and the regulations about
collecting the king’s _Can_ in this turbulent province, are marked
with a degree of severity which seems to point to a state of society
in which the royal imposts were still regarded as unwelcome novelties,
all recusants being mulcted in _a hundred cows_, and bound to
pay one-third more than the original demand. Agriculture was still a
subject of legislation, and the regulations of David, which discouraged
pasturage, were repeated; the barons and greater clergy being exhorted
“to live like lords and masters upon their own domains, not like
husbandmen and shepherds, wasting their lands and the country with
multitudes of sheep and cattle, thereby troubling God’s people with
scarcity, poverty, and utter _hership_.” Constant travelling with
a retinue unnecessarily large, was also a social feature which it was
still necessary to discountenance; as well as _sorning_, or living
at free quarters; and unnecessary exaction of _herbary_, or food
and lodging for the night; the repetition of David’s laws on all these
points displaying the tenacity with which the native baronage clung to
the habits of an earlier age, the sole difference noticeable in the
later enactments of William pointing to one of those changes from a
simpler state of society, which the progress of civilization is sure to
introduce upon “the good old times”--the herbary which, in the time of
David, was to be given “for the sake of charity,” in the reign of his
grandson was to be duly recompensed--_with pence_.[513]
But though the regulations of David still continued to be the
groundwork of the Scottish constitution, certain modifications were
introduced by William which tended still further to increase the power
of the crown. In the fifteenth year of his reign, “on the Monday before
the festival of St. Margaret” in 1180, in one of these great assemblies
of the whole Frank-tenantry of the kingdom, lay and ecclesiastical,
in which the germs of future parliaments are traceable, and which,
on this occasion, was held at Stirling, it was agreed that, for the
future, none were to hold ordinary courts of justice, or a court of
ordeal, whether “of battle, iron, or water,” except in the presence
of the sheriff, or of one of his serjeants; though, if the official,
after due summons, failed to attend, the court might be held in his
absence. At the same time, the four great pleas, which had been
removed from the jurisdiction of burgh provosts and baron baillies
in the reign of David, were reserved absolutely for the crown.[514]
Seventeen years later, in 1197, perhaps in consequence of abuses in
the exercise of authority, these minor courts were further regulated
by an ordinance passed in a similar “Parliament” held at Perth, and
attended by “the Bishops, Abbots, Earls, Barons, Thanes, and Community
of the Realm;” in which the great barons were pledged to give no
support to law-breakers, whether their own followers or others, and to
take no money for remission of judgment after sentence had been duly
passed; all failing in their duty, in either of these points, being
condemned to forfeit for ever their right to hold a court.[515] The
regulations of David about the great royal _moots_, and about
the sheriffs’ courts, were also modified at some period of William’s
reign; and it was ordered that two great assemblies were to be held
yearly at Edinburgh and Peebles, at which every freeholder was bound
to attend, unless prevented by sickness, or other sufficient cause. In
every province the sheriff was to hold a court every forty days--in
this particular following the Norman, or Frank, rather than the Saxon
custom; but bishops, abbots, earls, and probably the greater barons
who enjoyed “the rights and custom of an earl,” were now excused
from personal attendance, appearing by their Seneschals or Stewards,
and only being bound to attend in person upon the court of the royal
justiciary, or of his deputy.[516] Henceforth the privilege of a
“Regality” was confined to the greater barons or clergy, upon whom it
was conferred by royal favour; a sure sign of the progress of order,
and of the royal authority. It may be remarked that a Regality in
the feudal period was generally on some frontier; or was a district
made over to some powerful noble to control, as he best might, by the
strong hand; and in England, the sole provinces of this description
were the _Palatinates_ of Chester and Durham, the former on
the Welsh frontier, the latter upon the borders of that turbulent
Northumbrian province which, at one period, could be scarcely reckoned
as an integral, or settled, portion of either England or Scotland.
David probably interfered but little with the privileges of the ancient
earls within their immediate possessions, limiting his innovations
upon their earlier duties and prerogatives to the introduction of the
royal _Vicecomes_: but William was enabled to advance a step
further; the royal authority was becoming firmer, and was now made
paramount throughout the settled portion of Scotland, except where the
greater barons or higher clergy were specially privileged; though the
right to execute within the precincts of his own barony the homicide
taken “red-hand,” or the robber captured with the stolen cattle, still
remained the privilege of every baron who claimed the jurisdiction of
“pit and gallows.”
In pursuance of his usual line of policy, William also carried out the
ecclesiastical and commercial measures of his predecessors, ordering
the general payment of tithes and dues throughout the kingdom, defining
the means by which his edicts were to be put in force, and assimilating
the dioceses of Aberdeen and Moray to the model bishoprics of Glasgow
and St. Andrews.[517] More than this he appears to have been unable to
effect, for the church lands in the sees of Brechin and Dunblane were
still in the possession of great lay feudatories, disinclined as yet to
restore the property to the bishops, and too powerful to be rendered
discontented by any overprompt measures of alienation. Even in Dunkeld
the chapter was not as yet provided for; Ross was in a chronic state
of rebellion during the greater part of this reign; and Caithness was
at this time hardly more than a nominal province of Scotland. Only one
religious foundation is ascribed to William, the monastery of Arbroath,
which he dedicated to the memory of Thomas à Becket, with whom he
is sometimes said to have been on terms of familiar intimacy at the
English court in his earlier years; and from the date of this tribute
to the memory of the martyred archbishop, which was completed and
endowed within a very few years after the king’s return from captivity,
it would certainly appear as if William had been very much impressed at
the time by the peculiar circumstances of his capture.[518]
Though David may be regarded unquestionably as the founder of the
Scottish burghs, many were indebted to William for the earliest
charters confirmatory of their original privileges. Monopoly was,
as usual, ensured to the privileged class within the walls, no one
being allowed to sell the produce of his lands or flocks except
to burgesses;[519] commerce, thus forbidden to the nobility, was
confined to the burgher class; and the result was the same all over
Europe. There is not a trace amongst the Teutonic people, in early
times, of that broad line of distinction which grew up in a later age
between the soldier and the merchant, the man of arms and the man of
commerce--though the few actual trades, or rather handicrafts, of the
period, were probably confined to the unfree. “Biorn the merchant”
was the son of a king, and the spirit of commerce was strongly
developed amongst the early Northmen. But the burghers claimed it as
their exclusive privilege, and their monopolies were fostered and
encouraged, stringent laws prohibiting the _upland_ nobility
from entering into competition with the freemen within the walls; and
accordingly they soon grew to despise pursuits in which they were
thus precluded from engaging. No such restrictions existed in Italy,
and her merchants were amongst the noblest in the land. Elsewhere the
exclusive monopolies of a _Roturier_ class very much contributed
to stamp commerce, in the Middle Ages, as a pursuit generally confined
to the low-born. David’s commercial, like his religious, foundations
were principally to the southward of the Forth--his views were directed
towards Northumberland--and though many of his burghs were planted
to the northward of that river, and particularly in the forfeited
province of Moray, it is from the confirmatory charters of William
that their existence is first discovered. Not a few additions were
also made by William to the number of Scottish burghs--foremost in
importance to future ages the bishop’s burgh of Glasgow--and Galloway,
Scottish Cumbria, and the northern and eastern coasts of Scotland
proper, were studded with commercial garrisons. Berwick still appears
to have monopolized the foreign trade, and its importance may be best
appreciated by the clause inserted in one of the treaties between John
and William, engaging the English king to stop the further progress
of the castle at Tweedmouth, which had evidently been intended
to aim a fatal blow at the most flourishing emporium of Scottish
commerce.[520] But it was upon the northern and eastern coasts of
_Scotia_ proper, and upon that portion of the northern coast
which had been reclaimed from _Moravia_ by the establishment
of Inverness, that the progress and advancement of the kingdom were
most marked in William’s reign. David’s favourite residences appear
to have been generally in the south and centre of his kingdom, but
William was often in the north, and many of his charters are dated
from Forfar and Aberdeen, and from the Moray burghs of Nairn, Forres,
Elgin, and Inverness. The latter burgh was a thorough garrison, and
in return for certain privileges which its inhabitants enjoyed over
other burgesses, they were bound to keep in good repair the ditch and
rampart, which the king had thrown up around the town. Most of the
great families which are still to be found in this quarter--Chisholms,
Roses, Bissetts now represented by the Frasers, and others--are of
Scoto-Norman origin, descendants of the auxiliaries planted in, by the
Scottish kings, “in the times of eld,” to defend the lands they had won
from the supporters of Mac Heth, or Mac William; their names, though
they have long been enrolled most worthily in the ranks of “Scottish
Highlanders,” yet recalling the time in which the ancient house of
Moray was finally crushed by the power of the rival house of Atholl;
and when the hereditary earldom of Macbeth was the real _march_
of royal Scotland towards the north, held by the disciplined valour
of the Normans. Inverness was the key of the lowlands of Moray, and
in many respects an outpost of civilization, from which, in the next
reign, the royal power extended still further over the north and west.
The views of David were turned southwards, and he never ceased to hope
that the ancient territories of the Northumbrian Ealdormen might yet
be numbered amongst the appanages of the Scottish crown. But William,
in his later years, if the Scottish version of his secret treaty with
John is correct, was ready to waive his claims upon Northumberland; and
as the unsubstantial vision of the fair English earldom faded from his
sight, he may have directed his attention more exclusively to his own
kingdom, and have inaugurated that wiser line of policy which, in the
course of his son’s reign, united the whole of the Scottish mainland in
loyal obedience to the king.
END OF VOL. I.
_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, _Edinburgh_.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Amm. Marc._ l. 28, c. 8. In a treatise, “de situ Britanniæ,”
palmed off upon Richard of Cirencester, the district beyond the
northern wall is erected into a province, and called _Vespasiana_, a
name which in itself is a palpable blunder of the age which attributed
every Roman relic in Scotland to the time of Agricola. The work abounds
in internal evidence of its falsity. Vespasiana is said to have
received the name in honour of the Flavian family, and in compliment
to Domitian “in whose reign it was conquered” (l. 2, c. 6, s. 50),
and with _Mæata_ to have been lost under Trebellius, the successor of
Lucullus, who had been put to death by Domitian (l. 2, c. 2, s. 16):
but of these two provinces, which must have been created by his own
father-in-law, Tacitus, writing during the reign of Trajan, displays a
profound ignorance. Valentia again, the creation of Theodosius, about
369, is said to have been made a consular province by Constantine, who
died two and thirty years before! (l. 1, c. 6, s. 3.) Such are a few
specimens of the stupid blunders of its fabricator Mr. Bertram.
[2] _Nen. Geneal._ The See of Dôl, in Brittany, dates its rise from the
flight of Bishop Samson from York.
[3] _Nen. Geneal._--_Llywarch_, _Marwnad Urien_ and _Taliesin_, quoted
by _Carte_, vol. i. p. 209, and by _Turner, Ang. Sax._, bk. 2, c. 4. A
translation of the latter poem will be found in _Camb. Reg._ v. 3, p.
433, fully justifying the regrets of Turner “that any historical poem
should be translated into verse.” A tract of hill and moor, stretching
from Derbyshire into Scotland, is often known in the early chroniclers
as “Desertum,” the waste or desert. The battle in which Ida fell was
probably the famous “battle of Badon,” which, according to Taliesin,
“avenged the blood of the lords of the north,” and Urien was, I
suspect, the “good and valiant uncle,” for opposing whom Gildas blames
Maelgwn Gwynnedd.
[4] _Tigh._ 502, 574. _Adam. Vit. Col. (Reeves)_, App. 2, p. 435. _Bed.
Ecc. Hist._, l. 3, c. 3. According to Beda, the grant of Iona was made
by the Pictish king, and the question is a matter of dispute--as what
question in early Scottish history is not? Dr. Reeves, the learned
editor of Adamnan, is inclined to a compromise, Conal granting, and
Bruidi confirming, the grant.
[5] _An. F. M. (O’Donovan)_, 554, and Note; and _Adam. Vit. Col.
(Reeves)_, _passim_. The great family of the _Hy Nial_ supplied the
_Ardrighs_ or kings paramount of Ireland, uninterruptedly from the dawn
of authentic history, until their power was shaken by the Northmen.
The northern branch was subdivided into the _Cinel Eogan_ and _Cinel
Conal_, more familiarly, but less accurately, known as Tyrone and
Tirconnell; the southern into _Clan Colman_ and _Siol Aodh Slane_.
[6] _Tigh._ 563. _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 3, c. 4, 5, 26. _Adam. Vit.
Col. (Reeves)_, l. 1, c. 37; l. 2, c. 35. _Craig Phadrick_ is supposed
by Dr. Reeves to represent the _Rath_ of Bruidi. The southern Picts
had been already converted by Ninian, a British bishop, according to
Beda (l. 3, c. 4); and if the conjecture is correct which assigns this
conversion to the early part of the fifth century, it must have been
effected during their temporary occupation of the province of Valentia.
If reliance can be placed on traditional chronology, the migration
of _Cynedda Gwladig_, the ancestor of the “noble tribes” of Wales,
from _Manau Guotodin_--supposed to mean the “Debateable Land” between
Picts, Scots, Angles, and Britons [_Adam. Vit. Col. (Reeves)_, p. 371,
d.]--must have taken place about the same period, and was caused,
probably, by the encroachments of the Picts.
[7] _Beda_--as above.
[8] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 5, c. 24. _Tigh._ 717. The foundation of
Abernethy is ascribed by the chronicle of the Picts to a Nectan, who
lived 300 years before this reign, but I suspect the later builder of
the “stone church” was the real founder. Innes (Ap. ii, v.) quotes
from the book of Paisley, “In illa ecclesiâ (Abernethy), fuerunt tres
electiones factæ quando non fuit nisi unus solus episcopus in Scociâ.
Tunc enim fuit ille locus principalis regalis et pontificalis per
aliqua tempora tocius regni Pictorum.” As the “primacy” originally
vested in Iona, passed subsequently to Dunkeld and St. Andrews,
neither of which were in existence before the early part of the ninth
century, it may be inferred that, during the intervening period, it
remained with Abernethy. It was usually vested in the _Cowarb_, or
representative of the original founder; and its leading privileges
were the _Lex_, or right to _Can_ and _Cuairt_--tribute and free
quarters--and other dues.
[9] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 3, c. 1, 3.
[10] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 2, c. 5; l. 3, c. 24; l. 4, c. 2, 12. _Edd.
Vit. Wilf._, c. 19. The _tenero adhuc regno_ of Eddius is changed by
Malmesbury (_de Gest. Pont._) into _teneram infantiam reguli_, an
expression scarcely applicable to Egfrid, who was twenty-five when he
ascended the throne. Thus inaccuracies creep into history.
[11] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 4, c. 26. _Nen. Geneal. Tigh._ 686. _An.
Ult._ 685. According to Nennius, no Saxon tax-gatherer ever again took
tribute from the Picts. Tribute and a foreign bishop--or abbot--were
the true tests of dependence at this period. _Tulachaman_ seems to
have been the place often known as _Rath-inver-aman_--“the fort at the
mouth of the river Almond,” where vestiges of it are I believe still
traceable. _Dun Ollaig_ was probably a place at which Talorcan of
_Atholl_ was killed some years later.
[12] _Tigh._ 726, 728, 729. _An. Ult._ 728. _Bed. Hist. Ecc. Contin._
740, 750.
[13] _Adam. Vit. Col. (Reeves)_, p. 370, note A, p. 435.
[14] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 1, c. 34. _Uladh_ may be said to have had
three meanings--1. Legendary Uladh, the northern kingdom of Ireland
answering very nearly to modern Ulster; 2. Historical Uladh, the
province lying to the eastward of Lough Neagh, and the rivers Bann
and Newry; 3. Uladh proper, the southern and principal portion of
the historical province, answering to the diocese of Down. The other
historical divisions were, _Iveagh_ on the south-west, answering to
the diocese of Dromore, and _Dal-Araidhe_ on the north, the “district
of the _Airds_,” or hill-country, equivalent to the diocese of Connor.
_Dalaraide_ must not be confounded with _Dalriada_. It was gradually
restricted to the northern portion, known as _Tuisceart_ or the north.
[15] _Tigh._ 723, 726, 734. _An. Ult._ 730, 732, 733, 735, 742. I
have touched very slightly upon the annals of Dalriada, a very vexed
question, which bears about as much upon the general history of
Scotland, as the early annals of Sussex might do upon the general
history of England.
[16] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 1, c. 34; l. 2, c. 4. _Nen. Geneal._
[17] _Caledonia_, b. 2, c. 2. One of the localities in which a battle
was fought during the Northumbrian civil wars in this century is called
by _Sim. Dun._, _Eildon_; by the Saxon chronicler, _Edwin’s Cliff_.
Edwin’s _burgh_ in Lothian has long supplanted any earlier name which
the locality may have borne, but upon the borders of Selkirk forest,
and in the neighbourhood of the Catrail, the British _Eildon_ has long
outlived the Anglian monarch’s _Cliff_.
[18] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 2, c. 20; l. 3, c. 1, 24. _Tigh._ 631,
632. _Nen. Geneal._ Egfrid gave to St. Cuthbert Carlisle, with a
circuit of fifteen miles, Creke with three miles--in short, all the
open country in the north of Cumberland which was thus interposed
between that district and Strath Clyde; whilst his donations of South
Gedlet and Cartmel “with its Britons,” in the north of Lancashire,
together with his grants on the Ribble and elsewhere to Wilfrid, shew
that the greater part of Lancashire must have intervened between the
Britons of English Cumbria and North Wales. Manchester and Whalley,
or Billingaheth, were also in the Northumbrian territories. _Sim.
Dun. Hist. Dun._, l. 1, c. 9. _Hist. St. Cuth._, p. 69. _Edd. Vit.
Wilf._, c. 17. _Chron. Sax._ 798, 923. Nennius states that Cadwallader
died of the great plague in Oswy’s reign, which can only refer to
the pestilence of 664, though he has been purposely confounded with
the West Saxon Ceadwalla, who died at Rome in 688. In spite of the
assertion of Gildas, that all the records of his countrymen had
perished, it was maintained that he had written a history and then
destroyed it (_Gild. Capit._ 20); and Walter Mapes, bringing a book (as
he said) from Brittany, where no other copy has ever been found, gave
it to Geoffrey of Monmouth to translate. The work is called in Welsh
the _Brut Tyssilio_, and is attributed to a certain Tyssilio living
in the seventh century, who writes familiarly of _Scotland_, _Moray_,
and _Normandy_, and brings the “Twelve Peers of France” to Arthur’s
Coronation! Granting the existence of these Twelve Peers, how could
Tyssilio, living in the seventh century, have been familiar with the
institution of Charlemagne, who died in the ninth? In the nineteenth
century the _Brut_ has been “done into English” with some very
marvellous notes, in which the curious inquirer will find Cæsar refuted
by Tyssilio, and Homer corrected by Dares Phrygius!
[19] _Bed. Hist. Ecc._, l. 4, c. 26; l. 5, c. 12, 23; _Do. contin._,
750. _Sim. Dun._, 756.
[20] I allude to the _Lex Aodh Fin_, meaning, apparently, the right
of Aodh and his family to _Can_ and _Cuairt_, which were amongst the
leading privileges of royalty. The following may explain the succession
at this period--
Fergus Feredach
| |
Fergus /--------------\ /-------------\
| Angus Bruidi Kenneth Alpin
/--------------------\ d. 761 761–3 763–75 775–8
Eoganan---d. Constantine Angus | =============
| 789–820 820–34 Talorcan Bargoit Conal MacTeige
| | | 778–82 | 784–9
Alpin Drost Eoganan | /-------------\
| 834–6 836–9 Drost Feredach Bruidi
Kenneth 782–4 839–42 842–3
843
[21] _Innes_, bk. 1, art. 8. _Caledonia_, bk. 2, c. 6, p. 302, note
A, with other authorities cited by both. The marriage of Kenneth’s
grandfather with a sister of Constantine and Angus rests solely on
tradition, but it appears the most probable solution of his peaceful
accession to the throne. The examples of Talorcan, son of _Eanfred_,
perhaps also of his cousin Bruidi son of _Bili_, which is a British
name, shews that the alien extraction of the father was no bar to the
succession of the son. Such a succession would be exactly in accordance
with the old custom mentioned by Beda, that “in cases of difficulty”
the female line was preferred to the male; _i.e._, a near connection
in the female line to a distant male heir. From not attending to the
expression “in cases of difficulty,” the sense of Beda’s words has been
often misinterpreted.
[22] The name of Heathored occurs as the last amongst the bishops
of Whithern in _Flor. Wig. App._, and his predecessor Badwulf is
alluded to by _Sim. Dun._ under 796. The topography of Galloway
and the language once spoken by the Galwegians (who acknowledged a
_Kenkinny_--_Cen-cinnidh_--not a _Pen-cenedl_) distinguish them from
the British race of Strath Clyde--the _Walenses_ of the early charters
as opposed to the _Galwalenses_. Beda, however, knew of no Picts in
the diocese of Candida Casa (_v. Appendix K_), and consequently they
must have arrived at some later period, though it would be difficult
to point with certainty to their original home. Some authorities bring
them from Dalaraide, making them _Cruithne_ or Irish Picts; and the
dedication of numerous churches in Galloway to saints popular in the
north-east of _Uladh_ seems to favour their conjecture. The name of
Galloway is probably traceable to its occupation by _Gall_, in this
case Anglian strangers.
[23] _An. Ult._ 793, 813. _Sim. Dun._ 793. _Innes_, Ap. No. V. _Myln,
Vit. Ep. Dunk. Ford_, l. 4, c. 12. This is the earliest historical
appearance of the _Vikings_ on the Scottish coasts. The name has no
connection with _king_, being derived from _Vik_ a bay, _Viking_ a
baysman. By northern law, every freeman was bound to be enrolled in a
_Hafn_, and to contribute towards building and manning a ship for the
royal service, the office of _Styresman_ being always hereditary in the
family of an _Odal-Bonder_. Thus, the royal ship, authorized to kill,
burn, and destroy in lawful warfare, sailed from the _Hafn_, whilst the
rover on his own account, stigmatized in “degenerate days” as a pirate,
put off from the _Vik_ or open bay. He was as little likely to sail
from a royal _Hafn_, as a Highland chieftain bent upon a _creagh_ to
issue from the royal castle of Inverness. Hence perhaps the name.
[24] It must always be remembered, that the change of name from _Pict_
to _Scot_ was originally merely the substitution of one arbitrarily
applied name for another--a change in the names used by chroniclers
and annalists, not by the people themselves. The names of _Picti_ and
_Scoti_ may be compared with those of _Germani_ and _Alamanni_, given
arbitrarily to the people who called themselves by names which have now
become _Deutsch_ and _Schwabe_.
[25] _Cæs. de B. G._, l. 1, c. 16; l. 2, c. 4; l. 3, c. 17; l. 5, c.
11, 22, 25, 54; l. 6, c. 32; l. 7, c. 4, 32, 33,63. _Tac. Germ._, c.
12, 42. _Am. Marc._, l. 31, c. 3. _Bed. Hist. Eccl._, l. 5, c. 10.
_Vergobretus_ is evidently the Latin form of _Fear-go-breith_, “the
Man of law,” the _Breithimh_, _Brehon_, or _Breen_; the Celtic judge,
_Toshach_, is derived from the same root as the Latin _Dux_; the
Thessalian Τάγος and the German _Toga_ bear the same meaning. It is
the title that appears on several of the early British coins under the
Latin form of _Tascio_.
[26] _Cæs de B. G._, l. 6, c. 10, 11. The _factio_ was evidently the
result of Celtic _policy_, not of Celtic _temperament_, as has been
too often represented. The policy may have gradually influenced the
temperament rather than the temperament the policy.
[27] _Cæs. de B. G._, l. 7, c. 88; l. 8, c. 12.
[28] “Legibus æduorum, iis qui summum magistratum obtinuerent excedere
ex finibus non liceret.”--_Cæs. de B. G._, l. 7, c. 33.
[29] “Convictolitanem, qui per sacerdotes more civitatis ... esset
creatus.”--_Cæs. de B. G._, l. 7, c. 33.
[30] Some such a character still exists in Japan, which is under the
divided rule of _two_ emperors; one a sacred puppet, nominally
the head of the empire, but practically kept aloof from all mundane
matters; the other known as the _Ziogoon_, or general, and the
real ruler of the empire. This example of a _double head_ to an
empire certainly bears some resemblance to the divided authority of the
old Celtic system, or rather to what that divided authority might have
become under certain circumstances.
[31] δημοκρατοῦνταί τε ὡς πλήθει is the expression of Dio (in
_Severo_). Strabo (l. 4, p. 197) describes the Gallic states as
Aristocracies, annually choosing “in ancient times”--_i.e._, before
the Roman Conquest--a ruler ἡγημόνα, and a general στρατηγὸν; in other
words, a _Vergobreith_ and a _Toshach_.
[32] _Leg. Gwyn._, l. 2, c. 18. The words of Bruce’s charter (_Thanes
of Cawdor_) are “Ita tamen quod terra quam Fergusius dictus Demster
tenet ibidem respondeat eidem Willelmo (Thano de Calder) de firma
quam reddere consuevit.” It is doubtful whether _Vercingetorix_
was a name or a title, like _Brennus_. _Cynghed_ in Welsh means
a _convention_; gorsez _cynghed_ cynnal, a convention held upon
urgency. _Ver-cinget-o-rix_ might thus mean “the man chosen king in
the convention.” The authority of the Anglo-Saxon princes, sometimes
known as _Bretwaldas_, probably resembled that of the earlier Celtic
Toshach--they were supreme _Heretogas_ rather than supreme _kings_.
Cæsar calls Vercingetorix _Imperator_; commander-in-chief.
[33] The verses ascribed to Columba will be found in the various
“Chronicles of the Picts,” of Innes, Pinkerton, and the “Irish Version
of Nennius,” _J. A. S._ The _rev_ in Mu_rev_, Fort_rev_ is probably
to be derived from _reim_ or “realm,” the names meaning “the realms
along the sea (Murray, _Muireim_ or Armorica), and along the Forth.”
_Ath_-Fodla is equivalent to “Fodla _on this side_ of the Mounth,”
exactly answering to the situation of Atholl, immediately to the
southward of the Grampian range. Northwards of Atholl the country
is still known as _Badenoch_, “the district of the groves,” a name
singularly inapplicable to its present state, answering probably to
_Fidach_. _Fodh_, a word evidently derived from the same source as the
Scandinavian _Odh_, and meaning “earth, land,” is probably at the foot
of _Fodhla_ (_Fodh-lad_), or _Fo’la_, which seems to have answered
amongst the Gael very much to _Gwlad_. _Fodh_ also means “learning in
Gaelic.” The close connection between “mystic lore,” or “divination,”
and the possession of land, was not confined to the Gael; it thoroughly
pervaded the early Scandinavians.
[34] _Camb. Descr._ l. 1, c. 4. _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 19, 20.
_Innes_, “_Sketches, etc._,” p. 365 _et seq._ In the middle of the
seventeenth century, the second son of the Earl of Argyle was fostered
by Campbell of Glenurchy, ancestor of the Breadalbane family. “In the
Lowlands,” says Mr. Innes, “the practice was evidently common under the
civil law.” In fact, fosterage was not peculiar to the Highlanders and
Celtic people in particular, though, like many other old customs, it
remained in force amongst them long after it had disappeared elsewhere.
By Ini’s Law (63), the _fosterer_ was one of the three dependants whom
the Gesithcundman might take with him under any circumstances. The
system was admirably adapted for implanting the members of a dominant
amongst a subordinate race, who, in the course of a few generations,
must have thus become united in the ties of interest and affection
with the ruling “caste.” No such ties bound the _villein_ to his
feudal lord; and the evils and advantages arising out of each system
were totally different. It was this custom which above all others
tended to render the Anglo-Norman lords “beyond the pale,” _Hibernis
Hiberniores_. As much devotion was shewn to a _Geraldine_ as to a
_MacArthy_.
[35] _Adam._ _Vit. St. Col._, l. 3, c. 5. It was the _Vergobreith_,
not the _Toshach_, who was “consecrated” by the Druids, _v._ p. 28,
n. †. Giraldus Cambrenses has left an extraordinary description of
the barbarous rites with which the inauguration of the princes of
Cinel Conal was celebrated. He wrote from hearsay, and very probably
heightened the colouring of a picture that was exaggerated in the first
instance; for he fully participated in that rooted antipathy which
seems to have long existed between the Welsh and the Irish. Still
the words of Ailred shew that certain barbarous ceremonies on such
occasions lingered amongst the Scottish Gael in the twelfth century,
shocking the more fastidious ideas of David after he had “rubbed off
his Scottish rust.” “Unde et obsequia illa quæ a gente Scottorum in
novella regum promotione more patrio, exhibentur ita exhorruit ut
ea vix ab episcopis suscipere cogeretur” (_Twysden_, p. 348). The
conspicuous part still assigned at coronations to the Scottish “Stone
of Destiny” is as well known as are the numerous tales and fables
connected with it. In his “Essay on Tara” Mr. Petrie impugns the
identity of the stone in St. Edward’s chair with the genuine _Lia
Fail_, upon which the Ardrighs of Ireland were inaugurated at Tara;
where, in his opinion, the mystic stone of the “Tuath de Danan” still
remains in spite of the claims of the Dalriads and the fables of the
Connaughtmen. It indeed seems extraordinary that a small and migratory
tribe from the north of Antrim should have been permitted to carry off
with them the “sacred stone” of the Irish kings, and I am inclined to
look upon the Scottish _Lia Fail_ as the stone upon which the _Pictish_
kings and their successors were consecrated, its only migration, unless
it was removed from _Dunfothir_ to _Scone_, having been undertaken
at the order of Edward the First; though after the Gaelic people of
Scotland had identified their own ancestry with that of the MacAlpin
line of princes the _Lia Fail_ necessarily became mixed up with the
supposed wanderings of the latter.
[36] The early Frank kings used to migrate in this way from _manor_ to
_manor_, and the custom long prevailed amongst the Scandinavians. It
was the origin of the “_sorning_,” a word derived from the same source
as the French _sejourner_, and “_Waldgastnung_,” so often prohibited
in the old laws of Scotland and the north. The Anglo-Saxons were
perfectly well acquainted with the same custom, and lands were held for
a certain number of “night’s _feorm_”--so many nights’ free quarters
_originally_,--the name of the tenure being at length permanently
transferred to the _tenant_ and _tenement_. Hence our words _Farmer_
and _Farm_.
[37] Most of the materials for this sketch have been taken from
“Martin’s Western Isles,” the “Irish Annals,” and the “Works of the
Irish Archæological Society,” particularly the “Hy Fiachrach,” where
the subject is ably illustrated by Mr. O’Donovan in _Appendix L_. The
“Circuit of Murketagh” contains an interesting account of the manner in
which hostages and tribute were exacted, and the different methods of
proceeding with kinsmen, allies, and rivals. The theory of _Tanistry_
extended to ecclesiastical offices, and we meet with _Tanist_ bishops
and _Adbhar_ abbots; the former signifying, apparently, the successor
_actually_ chosen, the latter one _eligible_ to be chosen. Thus, and
in many other ways, the old Celtic principle of division appears to
have gradually pervaded their branch of the church. Even the careful
separation of sacerdotal _authority_ from practical _power_ seems to
have clung to the Gaelic people for some time after their conversion;
for while the Hy Nial for centuries monopolized the supreme power,
the _Primacy_ was the exclusive appanage of the Clan Colla, _a race
excluded from the throne_.
[38] A king of Atholl was amongst the rivals who succumbed to Angus
(_Tigh._ 739), and from the foundation of Dunkeld and St. Andrews by
Constantine and the second Angus, it may be gathered that the provinces
connected with those monasteries were “in the crown.” In the Irish
annals _Fortreim_ is latterly almost synonymous with the kingdom of the
Picts. Its capital, _Dun-Fothir_, was evidently the Scottish _Tara_,
and _Dundurn_ in the north perhaps the Scottish _Cashel_. Moray and
Mærne seem to have long been the leading subdivisions of the north, but
it would be difficult to name the corresponding divisions of the south.
Abernethy appears to have been connected with Strathearn, Dunkeld with
Atholl, and St. Andrews with Fife.
[39] _Lodbroka Quida. Str._, 12. The epithet of “the Hardy” is applied
to Kenneth in the _Duan_. The old chronicle continues to apply the name
of _Pictavia_ to Scotland proper, or _Alban_, and _Saxonia_ to the
Lothians; whilst the Ulster annals call the MacAlpin dynasty “Kings of
the Picts” to the close of the century.
[40] _Innes App._, No. 3.
[41] This expression, the “laws of Aodh,” may have found its way into
the chronicle without the transcriber being aware of its meaning. In
the Irish annals the _lex Patricii_ or _lex Columbæ_ alludes to the
right of visitation and other dues belonging to the representatives or
_Cowarbs_ of those saints; and the confirmation of the “lex Aodh Fin”
by the Gael may mean the recognition of the claims of his descendants,
the MacAlpin family, to _Can_ and _Cuairt_ over the provinces of the
Picts. Royal _law_ was identical with royal _supremacy_.
[42] Their first arrival, or rather permanent settlement, is placed by
the _An. Ult._ in 839. The district of _Fingall_ may derive its name
from _Fine_ gall, “the stranger clans,” as well as from _Fin_-gall,
“the white strangers.”
[43] The Fingall are sometimes supposed to have been Norwegians and
the Dugall Danes, a fanciful distinction apparently, as Thorstein
Olaveson was king of the Dugall (_An. Ult._ 874), and his father Olave
was undoubtedly a Norwegian. The Hy Ivar, chiefs of the Dugall, were
undoubtedly a Danish race, for the Northmen who slew Elli at York in
867 were Dugall, and known as _Scaldings_ or _Skioldungr_ of the royal
race of Denmark. _An. Ult._ 866. _Twysden_, p. 70.
[44] _A. F. M._, 847, 849, 850, 851. Olave “took hostages from every
clan, and tribute from the Gael.”
[45] _Innes App._, No. 3. _An. Ult._ 865, 869, 870, 872. _Sim. Dun. de
Gestis_, 866. _Ware. Antiq. Hib._, c. 24. Ivar was unquestionably the
Inguar of early English history, and perhaps Olave was the Ubba; for in
the Langfedgatel quoted by Lappenberg (_Eng. under Ang. Sax._, vol. i.,
p. 114, n. 4), Olave is substituted for Uffo, evidently the same name
as Ubba. The _Chron._ 3 ascribes the death of Olave to Constantine,
whilst the Landnamaboc says he was killed in Ireland.
[46] _An. Ult._ 856. Laxdæla Saga and Landnamaboc in _Col. de Reb.
Alb._, p. 65 to 69. The _Gallgael_ must be distinguished from their
rivals the _Oirir-Gael_, or Gael of the coasts (_i.e._, of _Argyle_).
Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_, pt. 2, c. 2) considers them to have been
identical, on the strength of a passage which, I think, scarcely bears
him out. When the fleet of Turlough O’Connor ravaged Tir Conal and
Inch Eogan in 1154 (A. F. M.), the clan Eogan sent to hire “Longus
Gallgaidhel, Arann, Cinntire, Manann et Cantair Alban” ships of the
Gallgael, Arran, Kintyre, Man, and “the coasts of Alban,” _i.e._
Oirir-Gael. Gallgael must here mean the Islesmen. The Orkneyinga Saga
(_Antiq. Celt.-Scan._, p. 180) calls the Caithness men Gaddgedlar or
Gallgael; in short, it was the name of the two races when blended,
and in later days there was a continual struggle for superiority
between the Oirir-Gael and the Gallgael--represented by the families
of Somarled and of the later kings of Man,--in which the former were
ultimately successful, uniting at length under one head the dominion
of Argyle and the Isles. There is a slight discrepancy in the accounts
of Ketil contained in the Sagas. He was leader of the Gallgael
when Harfager was an infant, and appears to have succeeded Godfrey
MacFergus, whose name betokens a mixed descent, and who died in 853
(_A. F. M._, 851). The Gallgael possessed the islands before the time
of Harfager.
[47] _Ekkialsbakka_, according to Mr. Skene “the Mounth;” according to
Johnstone, the Ochil Hills, appears to be rightly translated by Mr.
Laing (_Heimskringla_, vol. 1., p. 291); “the banks of the Ekkial, or
Oikell, a river which still marks the limits of Sutherland, the ancient
_Sudrland_ of the Orkney Jarls.
[48] _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._ (_Landnamaboc_), p. 20, 21.
[49] _Chron. Sax._ 875. Halfdan was a brother of Ivar. According to
_Sim. Dun. Hist. Dun._, l. 2, c. 13, he was driven from Northumbria
very soon after he settled there, and perished miserably, slain by “his
own people.” He was probably the Albdan Toshach of the Dugall, who was
killed in battle by the Fingall in 877 at Loch Cuan, or Strangford
Lough. _An. Ult._ 876.
[50] Compare _An. Ult._ 874 with _Chron._ 3, _Innes’ Ap._ “Thorstein
ruled as king over these districts, Caithness and Sutherland,
Ross, Moray, and more than the half of Scotland”--_Landnamaboc_.
“Thorstein at length became reconciled with the King of Scots, and
obtained possession of the half of Scotland, over which he became
king.”--_Laxdæla Saga_ (_Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 66 to 69). Such were
the results of Thorstein’s victory, which were evidently admitted
by the old chronicle in its brief notice, “Normanni annum integrum
degerunt in Pictavia.” The half of Scotland plainly refers to the
ancient territories of the Northern Picts.
[51] This account of the wars of Sigurd and Thorstein is taken from
the Sagas already quoted, the Ulster annals and Chron. 3 in Innes’s
Appendix. They must have occurred between the deaths of Olave, about
871, and of his son in 875; and the decisive conflict between the
Picts and Dugall in 875, when the former were defeated with great
slaughter (_An. Ult._), the battles of Dollar and Coach-Cochlum, two
years before the death of Constantine, _i.e._, in the same year; and
finally the death of Oistin or Thorstein MacOlave, placed by the
Ulster annals under the same date, all mark the year 875 to have
been the era of his brief triumph. All accounts agree that Thorstein
perished by unfair means. “He was betrayed by the Scots and slain in
battle.”--_Landnamaboc._ “The Scots did not keep the treaty long, but
betrayed him in confidence”--_Laxdæla Saga._ These authorities are
confirmed by the Ulster annals, which record the death of Thorstein
Olaveson _per dolum_.
[52] _Innes’, App._ 5. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 8. _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 16.
Macpherson, in his “Geographical Illustrations of Scottish History,”
explains the _Werdofatha_ of the Register of St. Andrews and Wynton
to mean _Wem-du-fada_, “the long black cave,” in which Constantine is
supposed to have suffered the cruel death of “the spread eagle.” The
period of this reign is easily ascertained. Under the first year the
Chronicle No. 3 places the death of Malsechnal, king of Ireland; and as
that king died on Tuesday 20th November (_A.F.M._), his death must have
occurred in 863. The same chronicle records the death of Aodh MacNial,
king of Ireland, which happened in 879, under the second year of Eocha
and Cyric (Grig), thus placing their accession, and consequently the
death of Constantine’s brother Aodh, in 878. As the reign of Aodh
lasted for only a year, that of his brother must have begun in 863 and
ended in 877.
[53] Cyric (or Ciric, the same as the French St. Cyr) was the original
name, which has been corrupted into Grig, Girg, and Gregory the Great.
It seems to be a different name from _Gregor_, which is apparently the
Scandinavian _Griotgar_. Eccles Girg or Grig is the modern _Cyrus_kirk.
Dundurn or Dunadeer, in the Garioch, appears long to have held the
same place amongst the Northern Picts as Dunfothir or Forteviot in the
South, _i.e._, it was the capital of the leading province. _Caledonia_,
bk. 3, c. 7, p. 383, note I.
[54] _Innes_, Ap. 3, 5. _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 16. _An. Ult._ 877. Eocha is
described as the _alumnus_ of Cyric, who was evidently the real king of
Scotland for the time.
[55] _Innes_, Ap. 5. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 9. It was probably to the
gratitude of the monks, the only chroniclers of the age, that Cyric was
partly indebted for some of his posthumous fame as Gregory the Great,
an universal conqueror. The line of Aodh appears to have been connected
with _Atholl_, which may account for the deposition of Dunkeld from its
prominent position.
[56] _Innes_, Ap. 3. The title of _Civitas Regalis_ is given to Scone
early in the next reign. The _palatium_, or royal residence of Kenneth,
was at Forteviot, the ancient Pictish capital.
[57] _Innes_, Ap. 3 and 5. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 9. _Fordun_, l. 4, c.
17, 18; l. 11 c. 40, 59. Wynton, Fordun, and the _Chron. Ryth._ at
the end of the _Chron. Mel._--the same evidently as that quoted by
Wynton--agree in giving eighteen years to Cyric, and placing his death
at Dundurn, Dornedeore, or Dunadeer, in the Garioch. The reigns of the
three kings extended over twenty-two years, from 878 to 900, the dates
in the Ulster annals of the deaths of Aodh and Donald; and as Eocha
reigned for eleven years (_Chron._ 5), Donald must have succeeded in
889. The Chron. No. 3 places an eclipse on St. Ciric’s Day (16th June)
under the ninth year of Eocha and Cyric. This actually occurred on 16th
June 885, in the _eighth_ year of their reign; and allowing for the
trifling inaccuracy of a year, it is evidently the eclipse referred
to. From confounding St. Ciric with St. Siriac, on whose day (8th
August 891) an eclipse also happened, both Pinkerton and Chalmers have
misdated all these reigns.
[58] _Innes_, Ap. 3, 5. _An. Ult._ 899. _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 20. Either
this king, or one of his predecessors, must have been the sufferer at
Mundingdene, a mile south of Norham, when the obedience of Guthred, son
of Hardicanute (rather a mythical personage), to the dictates of Abbot
Edred’s vision, in restoring the lands of St. Cuthbert between Tyne and
Wear to the Church, was rewarded by the intervention of the Saint in
behalf of the sacred territory, when it was invaded by a band of Scots,
who were miraculously engulphed in the yawning earth! _Sim. Dun. Hist.
Dun._, l. 2, c. 14. _Leland_, vol. i. p. 329. It is a pity the miracle
was not repeated a few years later, when Reginald Hy Ivar divided
these very lands amongst his pagan followers. What with the _sac_,
_soc_ and _infangthief_, granted by Guthred in the ninth century, the
fine of 96 Anglo-Norman pounds, and the near vicinity of the Scots to
St. Cuthbert’s territory, the story affords a very fair specimen of
the inventions by which the monks occasionally tried to give a title
to lands which they often really possessed rightfully, though without
legal proof of such right. A miracle or a victory, especially if either
were at the expense of the Scots, lent an air of sanctity or authority
to the fabrication, which it would have been impious or unpatriotic to
doubt.
[59] _Innes_, Ap. 3. _An. Ult._ 903. As the annals call the victors
“the men of Fortren,” I have rendered the _Sraith Eremi_ of Pinkerton’s
version of _Chron._ 3, Strathearn.
[60] _Innes_, Ap. 3. It probably resembled those meetings of the
Anglo-Saxon _Witan_, at which the ecclesiastical _Dooms_, so
often preceding the secular _Dooms_ in the Anglo-Saxon laws, were
promulgated, and may have had some reference to the recent elevation of
the See of St. Andrews to the primacy.
[61] _An. Ult._ 871. According to this authority, Constantine
“_procured_” the death of Artga.
[62] _An. Ult._ 876, 877. _An. Camb._ and _Brut y Tywys_, 880.
_Caradoc, Hist. Wales_, p. 38. _Caledonia_, vol. i., bk. 3, c. 5, p.
355. Chalmers gives the name of Constantine to their first leader,
whilst, according to Caradoc, Hobart was their chief when they
reached Wales. To some old tradition of this migration, and to the
encroachments of the Galwegians, the _Inquisitio Davidis_ probably
alludes:--“Diversæ seditiones circumquaque insurgentes non solum
ecclesiam et ejus possessiones destruxerunt verum etiam totam regionem
vastantes ejus habitatores exilio tradiderunt” _Reg. Glasg._ In fact it
would appear as if a Scottish party had dated its rise from the days
of Kenneth MacAlpin, and secured a triumph by the expulsion of its
antagonists, on the accession of Eocha to the Scottish throne, and by
the election of Donald in the reign of the second Constantine.
[63] _Innes_, Ap. 3. Donald and Eocha, or Eogan, were the invariable
family names (with only one exception) of the princes of Strath Clyde,
until the extinction of the race in the time of Malcolm II.
[64] _An. Ult._ 901–903. The Egill’s Saga (_Antiq. Celt.-Scand._ p.
32), in describing Olave the Red, calls him “the son of a native Scot,
by a descendant of Ragnar Lodbroc,” meaning by the expression “a native
Scot,” that his father was of Scottish descent by both parents. This
description cannot apply to Olave’s father Sitric and his brothers,
the well-known grandsons of Ivar, whose children could not possibly
have been of pure Scottish descent. It is remarkable, however, that the
name of the _father_ of Sitric and his brothers is never mentioned by
the Irish annalists, who invariably call them Hy Ivar, or _grandsons_
of Ivar (for the _Hy_ had not yet become a family prefix), whilst they
also frequently allude to Godfrey and Sitric, the sons of Ivar, and
their descendants, who never attained to the same celebrity as the
others. These latter more famous Hy Ivar appear to have been in some
way connected with the Western Isles, where their descendants were long
regarded in the light of a royal race. The first appearance of Reginald
Hy Ivar is in a naval battle off the Isle of Man; and as his family
had no footing at that time either in England, Scotland, or Ireland,
he must have recruited his fleet from amongst the Gall-Gael. Nearly
thirty years later the son of Reginald was driven from the same Western
Islands, which he probably had inherited in his childhood (for Reginald
and his brothers were young), when the English and Irish possessions
of his father fell to the share of his uncles Sitric and Godfrey.
(_An. Ult._ 942. _An. F. M._ 940.) After the death of Godfrey Mac
Fergus in 853, who figures in the genealogy of Somarled, lord of the
_Oirir-Gael_, and must have been (from his name) of Scottish descent
by the father’s side, the Isles next appear under the rule of Caittil
or Ketil, a Norwegian, but as his sons settled in Iceland after the
expedition of Harfager (Landnamabok), he could not have transmitted his
power to his descendants; and the Sagas say that the Isles then fell
into the hands of Scottish and Irish Vikings. If one of these Vikings,
a Scottish lord of the Gall-Gael or Oirir-Gael, had married Ivar’s
daughter, the description in the Egill’s Saga would exactly apply to
himself, his wife, and his sons, and it would be only necessary to
suppose that the writer of the Saga, aware of Olave’s descent from
a Scottish Viking and a grand-daughter of Ragnar Lodbroc, made him
by mistake the _son_ instead of the _grandson_ of the Scot. This
supposition would equally account for the connection of the Hy Ivar
with the Isles, and the ignorance of the Irish annalists respecting
their father’s name.
[65] _An. Ult._ 913–917. In 888 the Irish annalists record that Sitric,
the _son_ of Ivar, killed, or was killed by, his brother. In 919 the
same authorities mention that Sitric, the _grandson_ of Ivar, slew
Nial, King of Ireland, in battle. Some of the Anglo-Norman chroniclers,
and one late MS. of the Saxon Chronicle, evidently confounding these
events, make the younger Sitric the murderer of his brother Nial.
[66] _Sim. Dun. Hist. Dun._, l. 2, c. 16. _Hist. St. Cuth._, pp.
73, 74. _Innes_, Ap. 3. _An. Ult._ 917. The engagement is called by
Simeon the battle of Corbridge-on-Tyne, and in Chron. 3 the battle of
Tynemore, evidently Tyne Moor.
[67] _An. Ult._ 920.
[68] _An. Ult._ 926. _Chron. Sax._ 925, 926. According to the Irish
annalists, Sitric died _immaturâ aetate_, and consequently his son
Olave must have been too young to offer any opposition to Athelstan.
The MS. _C. T._, B. iv., which alludes to Sitric and Godfrey, is, like
the Ulster annals, a year behind the true date at this period. As
Godfrey was present at a battle in Ireland, fought on 28th December
926, and left Dublin in the following year, upon hearing of the death
of his brother, returning thither after an absence of six months, the
transactions to which Malmesbury and the Chronicle allude must have
taken place during this interval.
[69] _An. Ult._ 926. _Chron. Sax._ 926, 927. _Malm. Gesta Regum_, l.
2, s. 133. The Saxon Chronicle (MS. _C. T._, B. iv., of the eleventh
century) states that the kings met at Emmet, in Yorkshire, and
renounced idolatry, a singular compact for a prince who, twenty years
before, had presided at an ecclesiastical council at Scone! Malmesbury,
who takes his account from an old volume containing a metrical history
of Athelstan, “in quo scriptor cum difficultate materiæ luctabatur (et)
ultra opinionem in laudibus principis vagatur,” places the meeting
at Dacor in Cumberland, adding that Athelstan commanded the son of
Constantine to be baptised! Here again the Scottish King figures as a
pagan, as he also does in the same writer’s description of the battle
of Brunanburgh, where he says that the survivors of the vanquished host
were spared to embrace Christianity. There is an evident confusion here
between the pagan Northmen, to whom all this is very applicable, and
the Christian Scots. It is highly probable both that Sitric “renounced
idolatry” on the occasion of his marriage with Athelstan’s sister, and
that his son Olave, who ended his life in the monastery of Iona, was
baptised through the intervention of the English king, but the same
cannot be said of the Christian King of Scotland. From time immemorial,
as we learn from Malcolm Ceanmor (_Sim. Dun._ 1093), it was the custom
of the English and Scottish kings to meet upon their respective
frontiers; but though the borders of Yorkshire and Cumberland were
the most appropriate places of meeting for Sitric and his English
brother-in-law, they were on the Danish, not the Scottish frontier;
and what should bring Constantine thither to renounce idolatry in his
declining years, and baptise his son at the bidding of the English
king? Much of the history of this period appears to have been derived
from old songs and lays, in which due allowance must be made for the
confusion and mistakes incidental to such legendary compositions,
as well as for the “genus dicendi quod suffultum Tullius appellat,”
especially in the struggles of the transcriber to Latinise the
barbarous idioms of the vernacular, alluded to with such contemptuous
pity by Malmesbury. The vague and exaggerated expressions of these
old ballads were frequently copied literally, and latterly in the
feudal idiom, into the dry chronicle of a subsequent era, a fate which
has frequently befallen the sole Saxon record of the famous battle
of Brunanburgh. In the scanty records of this, the most glorious and
least known period of Anglo-Saxon history, it is very evident that
Constantine has frequently usurped the place of Sitric,--just as in
the Egill’s Saga Olave Sitricson figures as King of Scotland, to the
total exclusion of his own father-in-law,--but it would be difficult
to do more than point out the confusion. The Anglo-Norman writers, of
course, take advantage of the confused and indistinct idea of a treaty
between Athelstane and Constantine to turn it to their own account,
but they have been far outdone by a modern historian, who has actually
described the manner in which the Scottish king performed fealty to
Athelstan--_More Francico_, in set form, as laid down in the Liber
de Beneficiis--though it would be impossible to say from what source
he has obtained his vivid description of the feudal ceremony, for it
certainly is not contained in any of the authorities to which he refers
(_Malm._, 27, 28. _Flor._, 602. _Mail._, 147), nor was the Frankish
ceremony of homage in force amongst the Anglo-Saxons of that era.
[70] Olave was Constantine’s son-in-law at the time of the battle of
Brunanburgh, but as Sitric died at an early age, and Olave survived his
father for nearly sixty years, it is improbable that the connection
could have existed till some years after Sitric’s death, when it will
explain why Constantine, who at that time was not at variance with
Athelstan, and who had supported the Northumbrian Saxons against their
mutual enemies the Hy Ivar, became an object of suspicion to the
English king when it appeared to be his aim to favour the establishment
of his son-in-law in the Danish province, as he had already secured his
brother upon the throne of Strath Clyde.
[71] _Chron. Sax._ _Sim. Dun. ad an._ “Athelstan went into Scotland
as well with a land army as with a fleet, and there _over-harried_
much.” Such are the expressions of the _Chronicle_, the earliest
and best authority respecting an expedition which has grown in the
pages of the Anglo-Norman annalists into the complete conquest of
Scotland. Simeon gives three versions: in his first, from original
sources, merely mentioning the extent of the incursion to Dunfœder (or
Forteviot) and Wertermore. In his second, copying Florence, he makes
Constantine purchase peace at the price of his son’s captivity; and in
his third, in return for the gifts of Athelstan to the shrine of St.
Cuthbert--and on such occasions the chronicler is never behind-hand
in liberality--Scotland is thoroughly subdued (_Twysden_, pp. 134,
154, 25). It is a very appropriate occasion for the exhibition of
the _suffultum genus scribendi_ by the Anglo Norman writers; and the
opportunity has not been passed over. According to Brompton (_Twysden_,
p. 838), Athelstan demanded a sign from St. John of Beverley, “quo
præsentes et futuri cognoscere possent Scotos de jure debere Anglis
subjugari.” It was granted, and the king’s sword clove an ell of rock
from the foundations of Dunbar Castle! “Possessiones, privilegia, et
libertates,” rewarded the miracle, a price for which there was scarcely
a patron saint in the country who would not have been made to confirm
with signs and wonders the rightful supremacy of the English king
over any people he chose to name. The monks of Newburgh outdid even
Brompton, detaining Athelstan for three years in Scotland, whilst he
placed “princes” over her provinces, provosts over her cities, and
settled the amount of tribute to be paid from the most distant islands!
(_Doc. etc. Illus. Hist. Scot._, No. 33.) The tale reappears, as might
be expected, in the time of the first Edward, in its most exaggerated
form, as “Inventa in quodum libro de vita et miraculis beati Johannis
de Beverlaco _quæ sunt per Romanam curiam approbata_ (_Fœd._, vol.
i., p. 771). Dr. Lingard, through one of those oversights which
occasionally serve to strengthen his arguments in Scottish matters, has
transferred to this expedition the epithets applied by Æthelward to the
battle of Brunanburgh.
[72] At this time there were two prominent characters amongst the
descendants of Ivar of the name of Anlaf or Olave, who have frequently
been confounded. Olave, the son of Sitric, known in the Sagas under
the name of Olave the Red--the _an t sainnr_ of the _A. F. M._
978--sometimes as Olave Cuaran (for his son Sitric, who fought at
Clontarf is called Olave Quaran’s son in the Niala Saga, _Antiq.
Celt.-Scand._, p. 108), became the head of his family upon the death
of his uncle Godfrey, and to him the Sagas invariably attribute the
supreme rule over the Norsemen at Brunanburgh and elsewhere. Upon
the death of Athelstan, the whole of England north of Watling Street
was ceded to “Olave of Ireland,” and for four years Olave Sitricson
retained his hold upon the conquered districts, until the successes of
Edmund drove him across the channel to Ireland. He frequently appears
in English history subsequently as the opponent of Eric of the Bloody
Axe and the Anglo-Saxon monarchs; but his name does not occur in the
Irish annals before he was driven from Northumbria in 944; and about
eight years later, relinquishing all hopes of obtaining his father’s
English kingdom, he established himself permanently in Dublin, ruling
the Irish Norsemen for nearly thirty years, and bequeathing his
dominion to his descendants. Olave, the son of Godfrey, succeeded
his father in Dublin in 934, crossed the sea in the autumn of 937,
and joining in the battle of Brunanburgh, reappeared in Ireland
in the following year. He again appeared in England when Olave of
Ireland was chosen by the Northumbrian Danes for their king, and
shared the supremacy with his kinsman until his death at Tyningham in
941. Guthferd or Godfrey, the son of Hardacanute, a personage whose
existence is somewhat doubtful, but who is supposed to have succeeded
Halfdan, is often confounded with either Godfrey _mac_ Ivar or Godfrey
_hy_ Ivar. The Irish annals, sagas, and Simeon, are my authorities for
this sketch.
[73] _Chron. Sax._ 937. _Egil’s Saga_, _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._ The story
of Olave’s adventures in the camp of Athelstan is also told of Alfred,
and, if I recollect aright, of others. It is probably true in one
instance, and ascribed to the rest. Eogan of Strath Clyde was probably
amongst the kings who fell, as his son Donald soon afterwards appears
as king of Strath Clyde.
[74] _Heimskringla, Saga_ 4, c. 3. The tie of blood was the great bond
of union in these days, and a member of a “royal race” could unite
the most discordant elements under his standard. The invaders of the
British Isles, like their greatest leaders Olave and Ivar--the one an
Ingling, the other a Skioldung--were of Norwegian and Danish race,
but after the death of Thorstein, Olave’s son, without known issue,
as no prominent scion of the race of Halfdan Hvitbein remained, Dane
and Norwegian both looked for their leaders to the family of Ragnar
Lodbroc, the Hy Ivar. Eric, however, was of the blood of Halfdan
Hvitbein, and by placing him amongst the Northmen, Athelstan skilfully
sowed the seeds of discord, which yielded an abundant harvest a few
years later in the contests between him and Olave Sitricson.
[75] It is doubtful which Olave is meant. When Edmund regained
Northumbria, Olave Sitricson and Reginald Godfreyson appear to have
been joint kings, so that it is probable that the two Olaves divided
the supremacy in return for the assistance of the son of Godfrey
in reinstating his kinsman. The death of Athelstan is assigned to
the years 939 and 941. Ethelward places his death two years after
Brunanburgh, in 939, and the charter 411 (_Cod. Dip. Ang. Sax._, vol.
ii.) would favour this date. There are many charters of Edmund in 940,
none of Athelstan after 939.
[76] _Heimsk., Saga_ 4, c. 4. _An. Ult._ 941. _A. F. M._, 940.
Sacheverell, in his History of the Isle of Man, p. 25, mentions a Manx
tradition that the first of a line of twelve Oirrighs or underkings was
the son of a king of Denmark or Norway, whose successors Guthfert and
Reginald are evidently Godfrey Haraldson and his son Reginald, kings of
Man after Maccus or Magnus Haraldson, who killed Eric in 954, at which
time he probably acquired the kingdom of Man and the Isles. The Irish
annals mention that in 942 the son of Reginald Hy Ivar was driven from
the Isles by “Gall from beyond sea;” and it seems highly probable that
these were the followers of Eric, who must have established himself in
the dominion of the islands about this time.
[77] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, 941.
[78] _Innes_, Ap. 3. A Culdee abbot was not at this time strictly an
ecclesiastical dignitary. The office appears to have been frequently
held by the next in consideration to the head of the family in whose
province or kingdom the monastery was situated.
[79] The period of this reign has been chosen by the Anglo-Norman
writers as the era in which a feudal supremacy, in a strict
Anglo-Norman sense, was first acquired over Scotland by her southern
neighbour; and the theory, as might be expected, is supported in an
appropriate manner. Three years after the death of Reginald, the fiery
Dane is resuscitated from his grave, and placed, by the fiat of the
English chroniclers, side by side with Constantine and the Prince of
Strath Clyde, brought, together with the whole free population of
Cumbria, Scotland, and Danish Northumbria, from the borders of the
Forth, the Clyde, and the Humber, to the distant Peak of Derbyshire, to
tender homage to the Saxon Edward at Bakewell! Yet their submission,
and even the unwonted journey so far from their respective frontiers,
fail to avert their sorrowful fate; for though Reginald is permitted to
return to his tomb, his luckless companions are wantonly hurled from
their thrones upon the accession of Athelstan; whilst, to enhance the
glory of the Saxon king, Aldred of Bamborough is made the companion
of their flight. He was the faithful friend of Edward, the son of
Eadulf, “the darling” of the great Alfred,--considerations which have
little weight with the ruthless chroniclers; and Aldred is raised to
an evanescent independence, to swell the triumph of Athelstan by being
ejected from what is called “his kingdom!” As history advances, fresh
links are added to the chain of bondage, and the decreasing power of
the Anglo-Saxon monarchs marches hand in hand with the increasing
submission of the Scottish kings. Then is exhibited the singular
anomaly of an obedient and obsequious vassal appropriating without
ceremony the territories of his sovereign lord, until the climax
is attained in the reign of the Confessor; and at a time when the
over-powerful subjects of that prince seem to have been fast verging
towards independence, freely and willingly does the Scottish king
tender that allegiance for his entire kingdom which the iron-willed
successors of the feeble Edward in vain attempted to extort. Into such
errors and inconsistencies have the great majority of Anglo-Norman
chroniclers fallen in endeavouring to found a claim to a feudal
supremacy over Scotland in an age in which neither amongst Scots nor
Anglo-Saxons was the feudal system in force.--_V. Appendix L_, pt. 1.
[80] _Chron. Sax._ _An. Ult._ 943.--Roger of Wendover is the earliest
authority for the tale of Edmund expelling Dunmail--hardly the same
person as Donald MacEogan, who died in 975--and putting out the eyes
of his two sons (vol. 1., p. 398). The story is probably about as
true as the account of the same chronicler that the English king was
assisted on this occasion by Llewellyn of South Wales. In 945 Howell
Dha was king of South Wales, and as none of his sons bore the name
of Llewellyn, the only person whom the Welsh writers can find to
participate in the expedition is Llewellyn ap Sitsylt--who died 76
years later, in 1021--the father of Harold’s opponent, Griffith, and of
Blethyn and Rhywallon, who figured, considerably more than a century
later, in the reign of William the Conqueror. The next thing heard of
this Llewellyn is in 1018, when, says Caradoc (_Hist. Wales_, p. 79),
“Llewellyn ap Sitsylt having for some years (_seventy-three_) sat still
and quiet, began now to bestir himself.” It was time!
[81] _Sim. Dun. Twysden_, pp. 14, 74.
[82] _Chron. Sax._ 945. _Midwyrhta_, “fellow workman,” is the
expression used, which the feudal ideas of a later age naturally
rendered _fidelis_; and an alliance, only lasting for the life of
Malcolm, was accordingly transformed into a regular feudal transaction,
existing for generations. The earlier authorities, from the chronicle
and Æthelward, make no mention of any such thing; and Kenneth the
Second appears to have been as ignorant of it when he harried
Cumberland in 971, as Ethelred when he wasted the same province in
1000; nor could Simeon of Durham have been aware of such a compact
when he wrote that, in 1072, Malcolm the Third held Cumberland “Non
jure possessa sed violenter subjugata,” expressions which can scarcely
be reconciled with the uninterrupted possession of the province as a
feudal fief for 127 years. When John of Fordun compiled his history,
he eagerly seized upon the means of escaping the numerous claims for
homage put forward in the rival English chroniclers; and Cumberland, in
his pages, becomes the counterpart of the earldom of Huntingdon during
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Scottish king invariably
granting it to the heir, or tanist, who duly performs homage to the
Saxon monarch for the fief held of his crown. On one occasion a tanist
is called into existence for this sole purpose, and the veracious
historian, after fabricating the apocryphal being, is obliged to murder
his own creation to account for his not appearing amongst the Scottish
kings. The same _myth_, Malcolm, king of the Cumbrians, unites with
Kenneth the Second in witnessing a charter which the latter is supposed
to have signed as king five years before he ascended the throne, and is
very appropriately placed amongst the eight oarsmen who manned the boat
of Edgar in his apocryphal progress on the Dee.--_V. Appendix L_, pt. 1.
[83] _Chron. Sax._ 946, 948.
[84] _Chron. Sax._ 949. _Innes_, Ap. 3. The seventh year of Malcolm
corresponds exactly with 949, the year in which Olave reappeared in
Northumbria, and the curious tradition preserved in the old chronicle
that Constantine resumed his authority for a week to head the Scottish
army in an incursion to the Tees, must surely be connected with the
arrival of his son-in-law, and the reluctance of Malcolm to break the
engagement by which he held Cumberland.
[85] _A. F. M._, 950. _Chron. Sax._ 952.
[86] _Tigh._ 980. _A. F. M._, 1014. The account of Tighernach reveals
both the extent of Olave’s power and the far greater importance of the
first victory which broke it. The death of the old warrior is described
rather quaintly by the annalist “post pœnitentiam et _bonos mores_.”
[87] _Chron. Sax._ 954. _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, 1072. _Wendover_, vol.
i., p. 402. _Heimskringla, Saga_ 4, c. 4. The Henricus and Reginaldus
of Wendover are probably the Harek and Rognwald of the Saga. Simeon
calls Maco or Maccus a son of Olave, but Olave had no son of that name,
and Maco was probably “Maccus Archipirata,” or Magnus Haraldson, king
of Man and the Islands, who was the head of a different branch of the
Hy Ivar. His father, Harald, who was killed in Connaught in 940, was
the son of Sitric _Mac_ Ivar, or the elder Sitric, who killed, or was
killed by, his brother Godfrey, and was the head of the Norsemen of
Limerick. The power of the Limerick Hy Ivar appears to have received
a severe shock when Olave Godfreyson, shortly before the battle of
Brunanburgh, destroyed all their ships and captured their leader, Olave
Cen-Cairedh. _A. F. M._, 934, 938.
[88] _Innes_, Ap. 3. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 10. _An. Ult._ 953. The men
of Mærne occasionally make their appearance in early Scottish history,
and generally in company with the men of Moray. It has been frequently
assumed that they belonged to a certain earldom of the Merns, comprised
in modern Kincardineshire, though Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_, vol. ii.,
c. 9) places them on the western coast, where he supposes that there
once existed an earldom of Garmoran. The same objection, I fear, may
be raised against the earldom of Garmoran which is urged against the
earldom of the Merns--the total silence of history respecting it.
When a dim light is first shed upon the northern provinces, the name
of Moray, which must have once been applied to the whole line of
sea-coast--_Armorica_--in this direction, is confined to the westward
of the Spey, whilst the eastern tract of country is broken up into the
earldoms of Mar and Buchan, and the districts of Strathbogie and the
Garioch, both “in the crown,” _i.e._, conquered. The name of Mærne
has by this time disappeared, unless it still survived in _Mar_,
representing only a portion of the ancient province, but I should
imagine it is to be sought for in this quarter, which would account
for the connection of its people with the men of Moray; and if ancient
Mærne once included Kincardineshire, the name of “the Merns” may
have been retained, like that of Northumberland or Cumberland, by a
comparatively small portion of the original province.
[89] _Innes_, Ap. 3. _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, 854, and p. 139.
[90] _Innes_, Ap. 3. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 10. _Fordun_, l. 4, c.
27.--The old chronicler calls the Northmen “Sumerlide”--summer army--an
expression similar to the “micel sumorlida” of the Saxon Chronicle 871.
In fact, piracy was the _summer_ occupation of the Norsemen.
[91] _Innes_, Ap. 3. _An. Ult._ 964. The hostility of the house of
Atholl was destined in the end to be fatal to the line of Duff.
[92] _Innes_, Ap. 3, 5. _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 28. _An. Ult._ 966. From the
first authority it would appear as if Duff never recovered the throne,
and the story of his death rather favours the idea that he was killed
when in exile.
[93] _Innes_, Ap. 3, 5. _An. Ult._ 970. Wynton and Fordun give the name
of Radoard to the British prince. The line of Constantine the Second
generally appears in connection with the south of Scotland.
[94] _Tigh._ 977.
[95] _Innes_, Ap. 3. Kenneth’s ravages reached “ad Stammoir, ad
Cluiam et ad stang na Deram,” according to Pinkerton’s version
of the Chronicle. The captive is called a son of the king of the
Saxons--probably of the Northumbrians.
[96] _V._ Chap. 2, p. 47.
[97] They were the sons of a female slave. The surviving legitimate
sons of Rognwald were Thorer, who succeeded his father in Norway, and
the famous Gangr Rolf, founder of the Norman dynasty, and ancestor of
William the Conqueror. The _Holder_ was the old _Allodial_ proprietor
amongst the Scandinavians of those days, answering to the _Eorlcundman_.
[98] Eric Blodæxe was killed in the year 954. His sons attacked Hakon
the Good for the second or third time, after he had reigned twenty
years, _i.e._, about 957. The arrival of Gunhilda and her sons in the
Orkneys must have fallen between those two years.--_Heimsk. Saga_ 4, c.
22.
[99] Hakon reigned for 26 years, and Harald Greyskin for 15, after the
death of Harfager in 937, which would place the death of Harald in
978.--_Heimsk. Saga_ 4, c. 28; _Saga_ 6, c. 13. When the sons of Eric
escaped to the Orkneys, immediately after the death of Harald, they
found the sons of Thorfin in possession of the islands.--_Do., Saga_ 6,
c. 16. The Orkneyinga Saga says that Thorfin was still alive but died
soon afterwards. His death must have occurred about the year 978.
[100] _Ork. Saga in Col. de. Reb. Alb._, p. 339.
[101] All these events must have occurred between 978 and 994, for the
battle of Dungal’s Nœp was fought in or before the latter year. Kari
Solmundason, and the son of Nial, were present at this engagement, and
after remaining two winters and a summer with Sigurd, departed for
Norway in the following summer, _i.e._, two years after the battle,
with the tribute for Jarl Hakon, and as the Jarl’s death occurred
in 996, the battle must have been fought at least two years before
that date. It probably occurred a few years earlier, as the same Saga
alludes to the defeat of Godred of Man, whose reign extended from
the death of his brother Magnus, about 977 to 989. _An. Inisf._ 977.
_Tigh._ 989. _Niala Saga, Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 334, 338. The Hundi of
the Sagas seems to have been Crinan. The account of these transactions
is taken from the _Heimskringla Saga_ 3, c. 27 to 32; _Saga_ 4, c.
3, 4, 5; _Saga_ 7, c. 99; and the _Olaf Tryggvessonar Niala_ and
_Orkneyinga Sagas_ in _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 327, etc.
[102] _Heimsk. Saga_ 6, c. 52; _Saga_ 7, c. 99.
[103] The Isla and the Dee are the boundaries assigned to one of the
old Pictish kingdoms in the description of Andrew, bishop of Caithness,
in _Innes_, Ap. 2.
[104] Such is the account of _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 10, and _Reg. St.
And., Innes_, Ap. 5, with which _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 15, agrees. Boece of
course is able to supply every deficiency in his own peculiar way.
[105] The principle of “the right of blood” latterly exercised a social
influence over the ecclesiastical as over the political system of
the Gaelic people, and bishops and abbots made their visitations and
exacted their dues amongst a population united to them, in a certain
sense, by the ties of kindred, whilst most of the superior offices
in a monastery became hereditary. Not that they were invariably held
from father to son, but the right of presentation to certain offices
becoming vested in certain families, the people grew by degrees to
be united to their abbots and other ecclesiastical dignitaries by a
similar tie of blood to that which bound them to their chiefs and
princes, and an abbot not chosen from one of the families of the
district in which his monastery was placed, would have appeared (in an
unconquered country) as great an anomaly as a chieftain or a king of
alien blood--an _ungecyndne cyning_. When, therefore, Kenneth founded
Brechin, which must undoubtedly have enjoyed the privilege of _Cuairt_
or visitation over the same extent of country as was afterwards
included in the diocese of that name, he must have possessed the power
of insuring to the abbot and his monks the free exercise of their
rights amongst the people of the district; in other words (as he had
not inherited it), he must have conquered it. Beyond the territories
over which the monastery exercised _Cuairt_, the country up to the
Dee was placed under the jurisdiction of St. Andrews, the bishop of
this diocese being the spiritual head of the conquests of the kings
of Scots--as in the case of Lothian, for instance--except when it was
otherwise arranged.
[106] _Innes_, Ap. 5. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 10. _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 36.
_Tigh._ 995. The king’s visit to Fettercairn was probably a _Cuairt_
or royal progress. The Prior of Lochleven merely says that Kenneth was
slain by some members of his own court--the _socii sui_ of Tighernach.
Fordun, or rather perhaps Bowyer, names the assassins, Grim, the _son_
of Kenneth MacDuff, and Constantine, the son of Culen, whilst he and
Boece describe the machine which cost the king his life. It was as
follows:--“In the middes of this hous was ane image of bras, maid to
the similitude of Kenneth, with ane goldin apill in his hand, with sic
ingine that als sone as any man maid him to throw this apill out of
the hand of the image, the wrying of the samein drew all the tituppis
of the crosbowis up at anis, and schot at him that threw the apill.”
_Bellenden’s Boece_, bk. 11, c. 10.
[107] _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 30.
[108] _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 36. He merely alludes to the death of Malcolm
MacDuff in the twentieth year of Kenneth’s reign; but _Boece_, bk. 11,
c. 9, makes the king poison him.
[109] _Boece_, bk. 11, c. 8. _Fordun_, l. 10, c. 17. Drumlay is
characteristically explained to mean (in good Lowland Scotch)
_Droun-it-lay!_ The whole description is transferred by Boece to the
reign of Duncan the First, the _Rex Noricus_ of Bowyer assuming the
name of Sueno.
[110] As Kenneth was the contemporary of the Anglo-Saxon Edgar, it
is not to be supposed that he has escaped the claims of the Norman
writers, and accordingly, at a time when he was harrying Cumberland,
he figures in their pages as an attendant at the court of Edgar at
Chester, forming one of a a crew of eight “underkings,” who in token
of humble submission rowed the king’s barge in a triumphal procession
on the Dee. During another visit to the English court at Lincoln, a
crafty suggestion of the Scottish king about the difficulty and trouble
of defending Lothian, is rewarded by the gift of the province as a
feudal fief, to be held by various acts of homage, amongst others
on condition of carrying the crown on all state occasions, whilst
manors are provided to cover the expenses of the royal vassal on his
progresses towards the southern court! It is curious to remark the tone
of increasing feudalism pervading the fabrications of each succeeding
century. The composers of the fictions about Kenneth and Edgar,
which are only to be found in the later chroniclers connected with
St. Albans, have been even more than usually imaginative, and their
transparent fabrications remain as a warning to the impartial historian
to look with mistrust upon all claims connected with such a tissue of
anachronism and fable. _V. Appendix L_, pt. 1.
[111] Rathinveramon, “the fort at the mouth of the Almond” where it
joins the Tay, is named as the place of his death in _Innes_, Ap. 5,
the same locality as the “caput amnis Awyne” of Wynton, _v._ also
_Tigh._ 997. It is said to have been the site of the ancient _Bertha_,
and was swept away by the great flood at the close of the reign of
William the Lion.
[112] _Innes_, Ap. 5. _Wynton_, b. 6, c. 10. _An. Ult._ 1004.
[113] _Sim. Dun. de obs. Dun._ (_Twysden_, p. 79). _An. Ult._ 1006.
Through the error of some transcriber probably, these events are
placed by Simeon in the year 969, when neither Malcolm nor Ethelred
were reigning, nor was Ealdun bishop of Durham. The real date must
have been in 1006, as the Ulster annals mention that in 1005 the Scots
were defeated by the Saxons “with great slaughter of their nobles.”
Fordun (l. 4, c. 43) has either mistaken this battle for the later one
at Carham, or has unblushingly claimed it as a victory. Before the
time of Canute the difference in titles of Eorl and Ealdorman, marked
the different people over whom the possessor of the title was placed
in authority. Oslac is addressed as _Eorl_, Ælfhere and Æthelwine as
_Ealdormen_, in the Laws of Edgar, Sup. 15.
[114] _Sim. Dun._, as above; _V. Appendix M_.
[115] _Olaf Tryggvessonar Saga_ in _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 330, and
_Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 119. The battle must have been fought after
1005, the date of Malcolm’s accession, and before 1009, the year of
Thorfin’s birth. The latter was five when his father was killed at
Clontarf, bearing the fatal banner himself, for it seems to have
acquired an evil reputation, and Hrafn the Red, on Sigurd committing
it to his charge after the death of its first bearer, refused to
lift it, adding somewhat unceremoniously, “Bear thine own devil
thyself.”--(_Story of Burnt Njal_, c. 156.)
[116] _Heimsk. Saga_ 7, c. 99, with the Sagas already quoted; _vide_
also the account of the battle of Clontarf in the Irish Annals.
[117] _Chron. Sax._ 1016. _Sim. Dun. Twysden_, p. 81.
[118] _Innes_, Ap. 4. _Sim. Dun. Hist. Dun._, l. 3, c. 5, 6--Do. _De
obs. Dun._ p. 81, _de Gestis_ 1018. On comparing the passages of Simeon
it is impossible to doubt that the cession of Lothian by Eadulf Cudel
was the result of the battle of Carham, though there is an evident
reluctance in the English chronicler to allude to the defeat and its
consequences. The men of the Lothians, according to Wallingford,
retained their laws and customs unaltered, and though the _authority_
is questionable, the _fact_ is probably true, for _Lothian_ law became
eventually the basis of _Scottish_ law. Conquest indeed in these times
did not alter the laws and customs of the conquered, unless where they
come into contact and into opposition with those of the conquerors,
and the men of the Lothians remained under the Scottish kings in much
the same position as the men of Kent under the kings of Mercia and
Wessex, probably exchanging the condition of a _harassed_ for that of a
_favoured_ frontier province.
[119] _Chron. Sax._ 1031. _MS. Cot. Tib._ B. iv. is the authority. Two
later MSS. add the names of two other _kings_, Mælbeth and Jehmarc.
Macbeth became Mormaor of Moray in the following year through the
death of his kinsman Gilcomgain. These two kings reappear in the
Heimskringla (_Saga_ 7, vol. 2, p. 196. _V._ also _Lodb. Quida_, p.
101), as “_Nordan of Skotlandi of Fifi_.” If _Fifi_ is here put for
_Fiord Riki_, it is probably a mistake, for “the Firth kingdom” might
mean Moray as well as Fife, and the name in this instance would be more
appropriate to the former.
[120] _An. Ult._ 1033. He is called M., son of Boedhe, probably Malcolm.
[121] _Tigh._ 1034. _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 10. _Fordun_, l. 4, c.
46. Angus was as fatal to Malcolm and his father Kenneth, as the
neighbourhood of Forres had proved to the first Malcolm and his father
Donald.
[122] _Tigh._ 975–997.
[123] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, 1018. _Lutinenses_ is evidently a clerical
error for _Clutinenses_.
[124] _Flor. Wig._, 1054. _Malm. de Gest._, l. 2., c. 196. The
Cumbrensis regio was again detached and given by Edgar to his brother
David, who held it, in spite of the opposition of Alexander, throughout
that king’s reign. _Ailred in Twysden_, p. 344.
[125] _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 44. He connects it with a victory over the
Danes. Whatever may have been the cause of its erection, the founder
must have possessed an influence over the surrounding territory. In the
preface to the Register of Aberdeen, the editor inclines to the opinion
that Malcolm the Third was the founder of Mortlach, in which case the
annexation of Strathbogie and the Garioch to the Scottish crown would
have been the result of the successful northern wars of the latter king.
[126] Strathbogie and the Garioch were “in the crown” at a later
period, and before the reign of David, though it would be difficult
to say with certainty when these districts were annexed. Moray was
forfeited under David, and the summary manner in which that king and
his successors were able to deal with church property in the diocese
of that name, as well as in that of Aberdeen, discloses the different
relation in which the Scottish kings stood towards the people of those
bishoprics and towards the population of some of the other dioceses.
No Culdees appear struggling for their rights in the earlier charters
of Moray and Aberdeen (though in the thirteenth century the Culdees
of Monymusk tried to shake off the supremacy of St. Andrews), a proof
that the powerful Gaelic families in whom these rights would have
been vested, were either extinct, or so far reduced as to be in no
condition to offer any resistance to the measures of David. Such was
not the case in the bishoprics of Brechin and Dunblane, where the
Culdees held their ground long after the time of that king, owing
probably to a reluctance on his part, and on that of his successors, to
alienate their great feudatories, the earls of Strathearn and abbots of
Brechin, by an over prompt interference with Church property in their
possession. The tradition connecting Mortlach with Malcolm the Second,
has induced me to notice the annexations of these districts under this
reign, in which the royal authority may have been considerably extended
and consolidated in this direction, though I think it most probable
that the final conquest and submission of the province was the result
of the frequent and successful, though little known, northern wars of
Malcolm the Third, and the subsequent successes of his son Alexander
in the same quarter. The last Mormaor of the mysterious province of
Mærne appears in alliance with Donald Bane; the people of the district
attempted, in conjunction with the Moray men, to assassinate Alexander
at Invergowrie, and then nothing more is heard either of the Mormaor or
the men of Mærne; and I am inclined to connect with this disappearance
the forfeiture of the ancient family, and the distribution of the
ancient kingdom between Dee and Spey into the two subordinate earldoms
of Mar and Buchan, and the two lordships of Strathbogie and the
Garioch, long retained by a member of the royal family.
[127] This subject is further treated in _Appendices_ _D_ and _N_.
[128] _Triocha-ced_ is the proper name, often rendered _Cantred_, but
erroneously. The Irish _Triocha-ced_ was supposed to be a collection
of thirty _Baille-biataghs_, or hundreds, each supposed to contain
four hundred and eighty Irish acres, thus constituting a _Barony_
of _nominally_ 14,400 Irish acres (_A.F.M._, 1225, _Note_ S). The
_Cantred_--the hundred _trefs_ or villages--belonged properly to Wales,
and was supposed to contain 25,600 Welsh acres, answering rather to the
Continental _Canton_. The Irish and Welsh _Cantred_, therefore, must
not be considered identical. For _Thanes_, _V. Appendix N._
[129] There appears to have been the same difference amongst the
ancient Irish between the _Brugaidh_ and the _Biotagh_, as between the
_Bonder_ and _Landbu_ amongst the Scandinavians. The _Brugaidh_ was
originally the free or adopted member of the Clan or _Cyn_, tracing
his origin either really or theoretically to the founder of the race,
and hence entitled to his free allotment, or _duchas_, of the tribe
land; the freeholder, in short, deriving his name from his _Brugh_,
_Burh_, or separate house, just as the _Bu-ander_ (Bonder) from his
_Bu_--the _Hus-bond_; _V._ “_Hy Fiachrach_,” _passim_. The Biotagh was
the man who held his land by paying _Biodh_--_Feorm_ or _rent_--the
colonus _Geneat_ or tenant farmer, dwelling in the baille or village.
The Brugaidh might have complained, like his type the Bonder, at a
very early period, of being changed into a Biotagh or Land-Bu--made to
pay rent; when his position must have somewhat resembled that of the
Kentish _Alodiarius_ or Gaveller at the time of the Norman Conquest;
but after the English invasion all distinction between the two classes
was speedily forgotten, both merging in the _Villeinage_. In later
times, indeed, the Biotagh occasionally appears to have been of more
consequence than the Brugaidh, probably because members of the former
class might be holders of a far wider extent of land than the small
peasant proprietor, and of comparatively greater importance. Hence the
_Ard-Biotagh_, sometimes met with in the Irish annals, was probably
nothing more than “a great land-holder”,--the possessor of many
“benefices” held by payment of Biodh or rent.--_V._ Appendix _O_.
[130] _A.F.M._, 3922. The Masters attribute the institution to
_Ollamh Fodla_, into whose claims I will not enter; but it is very
evident, I think, that they alluded to an institution well known
at least in tradition. The word _Toshach_ simply means “captain”
or “leader”--_dux_; the Irish _Taisigeacht_ meaning “captaincy,”
“leadership,” or “precedency.” When the office of _dux_, originally
elective, became hereditary, according to the invariable principle of
“divided authority” so characteristic of all the Celtic communities,
it remained permanently in the family of the eldest cadet of the clan,
the Tighern farthest removed from the chieftainship. The “Captains
of Galloway” and the “Thanes of Ross” were probably known in their
native tongue as _Toshachs_--captains by right of office--for though
the oldest cadet and the thane, in his military capacity, were known
as _Toshachs_, it by no means follows that a Toshach was necessarily
either one or the other.
[131] _Reg. Magest._ _Stat. Alex._ II., c. 15. In some respects the
Irish _Oirrigh_--under-king--resembled the Mormaor; but he was a
tributary king, reigning in “right of blood,” not a royal _official_,
though in certain cases he appears to have acted as a _Maor_.
[132] _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 48. Compare _Appendix N_ (Thanes).
[133] _Reg. Prior. St. And._ p. 114.
[134] Fordun, to whom such a being as a married abbot would have been
an abomination, metamorphosed the ancestor of the royal family of
Scotland into an _Abthane_, asserting that the word _Abbas_ could only
be a clerical error for _Abthanus_, an officer whom he places over all
the king’s Thanes, l. 4., c. 43. The contemporary Tighernach, however,
Wynton, and the author of the Chronicle in the _Reg. Prior. St. And._
(_Innes_, Ap. 5), were ignorant that Crinan was known under any other
title but that of abbot, and though _Abthanages_ are to be met with in
the charters, I have never yet chanced to light upon an _Abthane_. Such
a name, in fact, would have been simply applicable to the maor of an
abbot instead of the king--the holder of an ecclesiastical Thanage.
[135] _Heimsk. Saga_ 7, c. 100 to 107. _Ork. Saga_, in _Col. de Reb.
alb._, p. 340.
[136] _Ork. Saga, Col. de Reb. alb._, p. 341.
[137] _Sim. Dun. Hist. Dun._, l. 3, c. 9. The fifth year of Canute’s
son, Harold, fell in 1040.
[138] Dyrness appears to mean Turness, in the isle of Hoy, not Durness
the north-western extremity of Sutherlandshire.
[139] Torfnes, south of Bœfiord, seems to mean Burghead on the Moray
Firth; Breida Fiord was the Dornoch Firth. The account of these
transactions is from the _Ork. Saga_, in _Col. de Reb. alb._, as
above. Kali Hundison, the name given in the Saga to the successor of
Malcolm and opponent of Thorfin, can mean no other than Duncan. _Vide_
_Appendix P_.
[140] _Innes_, Ap. 5. _Tigh._ 1040. _Mar. Scot._ 1040. Slain “a duce
suo,” writes Marianus. Tighernach adds _immaturâ ætate_, contrary to
all modern ideas of Duncan. Marianus was born in 1028, Tighernach
was his senior; their authority, therefore, at this period, as
contemporaries, is very great. _Bothgowanan_ means “the smith’s
bothy,” and under this word may lurk some long forgotten tradition
of the real circumstances of Duncan’s murder. The vision of a weary
fugitive, a deserted king, rises before the mind’s eye, recalling
“Beaton’s mill” and the fate of James the Third. Two hundred years
after his death a chaplain was appointed by his descendant, Alexander
the Second, to celebrate masses in Elgin Cathedral for the benefit of
Duncan’s soul. No allusion is made in the Saga to any alliance between
Thorfin and Macbeth, and whilst the former is described as collecting
reinforcements from Ross, Sutherland, and Caithness, Duncan retires
upon Moray as a friendly province in which he recruits his forces.
Considering the hereditary enmity between the Jarls of Orkney and the
Mormaors of Moray, it seems more probable that the ill fortune of the
young king tempted Macbeth to aspire to the crown, and to murder his
rival in “the Smith’s bothy,” where he was resting after retreating
from the field of his last defeat. In the Saga, Kali disappears after
the battle and is heard of no more, from which it would appear that the
Orkneymen and their allies had nothing to do with his death, of which
they were probably ignorant.
[141] Chalmers, who has traced in his _Caledonia_ the memorials of
these contests with all the zeal of an enthusiastic antiquary, is
angry with Pinkerton for asserting that “there is not a shadow of
authority for the Danish wars of Malcolm the Second;” remarking that
“popular tradition, with well vouched remains, are historical documents
of sufficient authority for narrative facts.” For the _facts_,
undoubtedly, but not for the _narratives_, which have been subsequently
appended. The remains, so industriously noted down by Chalmers, fully
attest the frequent conflicts occurring along the Scottish coasts with
the Northmen, but they do not prove the truth of minute descriptions of
battles unknown before the time of Boece, who wrote in the early part
of the sixteenth century.
[142] _Wynton_, bk. 6, c. 16, 18. Much needless confusion is thrown
over the period of Macbeth by raising unnecessary questions about
his birth and his rights to the crown. All the best authorities--his
contemporaries Tighernach and Marianus, and the Registry of the
Priory of St. Andrews, which records his gift to the Culdees of
Lochleven--unite in calling him the son of Finlay, the Register
describing his wife as the daughter of Boedhe, whose claims she
inherited. Another difficulty is raised because Macbeth appears as the
immediate successor of Malcolm the Second in _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_,
1034, contrary to every other authority. That this is an error, of
some transcriber apparently, is very evident, for the same Simeon, in
his History of Durham, l. 3, c. 9, calls Duncan the king of Scots,
adding that he was defeated before Durham in the fifth year of Harald’s
reign, _i.e._, 1040, and soon afterwards slain by his own subjects. The
supposed relationship between Macbeth and Duncan may have been grounded
upon the real connection between the king and Thorfin, with whom the
Moray Mormaor seems to have been confounded in more ways than one.
[143] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. 114.
[144] _Mar. Scot._ 1050.
[145] _Tigh. An. Ult._ 1045. The flight of Duncan’s children--mere
infants--one to _Cumbria_, the other to _the Isles_, is a fiction
founded on the ideas of the time when it first appears, three or four
centuries later. They probably remained amongst their hereditary
partizans in Atholl and the southern provinces, occupying the same
position which their cousin Lulach had done during the reign of
their father--the position of the Head of the Hy Nial, when Brian
Boru achieved the sovereignty of Ireland; or of a Duke of Bavaria or
Austria, in the olden time, when another magnate had been elected to
the empire.
[146] _Flor. Wig._ 1052.
[147] _Tigh. An. Ult. Chron. Sax._ 1054. Neither the contemporary
Irish annalist, nor the two MSS. of the Chronicle which describe the
expedition of Siward, allude to any cause for it, or note any result
beyond the immense booty obtained. They never mention the name of
Malcolm or of the Confessor, and the _MS. Cot. Tib._, B I, expressly
adds that Macbeth escaped from the battle. It remained for the writers
of the Anglo-Norman era to confound the events of two separate years
for their own purposes, and to represent Siward as the slayer of
Macbeth and the restorer of Malcolm to the throne of Scotland, at the
command of Edward the Confessor, though the Northumbrian earl died
three years before the accession of the Scottish prince. The ever ready
pen of the Prior of Belvoir, to a literal transcription of Florence,
adds the words “de se tenendum,” to complete the feudality of the
transaction; the addition resting on grounds quite as good as the rest
of the story, which almost seems to have been adapted upon the events
which occurred forty years later, in the days of Malcolm Ceanmore’s
sons, Edward standing in the place of Rufus, Siward in that of the
Atheling, and Macbeth playing the part of Donald Bane.
[148] _Tigh. An. Ult._ 1058. _Innes_, Ap. 5. Wynton is the first to
mention the popular story of Birnam Wood coming to Dunsinnan, but he
places the death of Macbeth at Lumphanan, attributing it to “a knycht
nowcht borne of wyf,” who is transformed by Boece into Macduff. As
Fife was “in the crown” in the days of Malcolm Ceanmore, who granted
the earldom to his son Ethelred, the Macduff Earl of Fife of the
fabulists--a being unknown to Wynton--must be set down as _a myth_.
Since the days of the younger Angus, the founder of St. Andrews, the
province appears to have been connected with the royal family--the
abbacy of the leading monastery of the district having been held
by Constantine the Second, just as the abbacy of Dunkeld belonged
invariably to a member of the house of Atholl--and the first earl,
who cannot be traced to the reigning family, was Dufagan or Duff, a
witness of the Foundation Charter of Scone in the time of Alexander
the First; his immediate successors being Constantine and Gillemichael
Macduff. Fife appears to have been the latest earldom held by the old
Scottish tenure, and its earls, like the earls of Atholl--a branch of
the reigning family--never appear in the ranks of the king’s enemies.
Indeed they may be looked upon in early times as premier Earls of
Scotland, with certain privileges attaching to their dignity, to
account for which the legend of Macduff was probably framed; though
it is not impossible that the earldom with its prominent position and
privileges was granted to the _historical_ Duff or Dufagan as a reward
for his assistance in restoring _the sons_ of Malcolm to the throne.
Many examples could be given of the _transposition_ of events from
one period to another. A prominent one occurs in Norwegian history,
the whole of the actions of _Olaf Tryggveson_ in England having been
transferred to _Olaf the Saint_.
[149] According to Tighernach, Lulach perished, _per dolum_, a vague
word, which may imply either treachery or simply an ambuscade. The
Latin chroniclers sometimes call him Lulach _fatuus_--the simple.
[150] Chalmers (_Caledonia_, vol. i., p. 422) maintains that Ingebiorge
could not have been the mother of Malcolm’s eldest son Duncan, as her
first husband, Thorfin, survived till 1074, and Duncan was knighted
soon after 1072, when he must have been at least fifteen years of age.
But Thorfin died “in the latter days of Harald Sigurdson,” whom his
sons accompanied as Jarls of the Orkneys to the battle of Stanford
Bridge in 1066. Malcolm was married to Margaret in 1070, Duncan was
not knighted before the death of the Conqueror, in 1087, when he must
have been more than fifteen; and as five or six years elapsed between
the death of Thorfin and the marriage of Malcolm to Margaret, I see no
reason for doubting the account of the Orkneyinga Saga, though many
for hesitating to affix the stigma of illegitimacy upon Duncan, whose
donations to Dunfermlyn are confirmed by David without any allusion to
such a bar to his right to the crown.
[151] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1061, 1065, 1066. _Chron. Sax._ 1065–66.
[152] In 1070 Malcolm held Cumberland by force (_Sim. Dun._), and it
was only in 1092 that Rufus drove Dolfin, apparently a son of Cospatric
of Dunbar, out of the province, and rebuilt Carlisle. This part of
England was not included in the Domesday Survey.
[153] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1068–9. _Hist. Dun._, l. 3, c. 15. _Chron.
Sax._ 1067–68. The dates of the Chronicle are wrong, as Easter fell on
the 23d of March in 1068, and the historian of Durham is consequently
correct. Indeed he is the first authority for the affairs of the north
at this period. William three times entered York as a conqueror. A
passage in Ordericus Vitalis is sometimes brought forward as a proof
that Malcolm sent his submission to William through Aylwin, bishop of
Durham, after the failure of the attempt of Edwin and Morkar in 1068. I
have given the reasons why I cannot concur in this opinion in _Appendix
Q_.
[154] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1069. _Chron. Sax._ 1069.
[155] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1070.
[156] _Sim. Dun._, _as before_.
[157] Marianus alludes to this famine. Compare the account of Simeon
with Domesday in Ellis’s Introduction. At the date of the Survey,
Lincolnshire contained 11,504 Socmen and 11,747 Villani and Bordarii,
whilst in Yorkshire only 447 Socmen are recorded, with 6914 of the
other classes. Yorkshire was the head-quarters of the Anglo-Danes
of Northumbria, and as the Socmen represented the old Danish
_Odal-Bonders_, there is no difficulty in recognising the real class
that bore the brunt of the northern wars, and contributed most largely
to the _emigrants_ and _outlaws_.
[158] In the beginning of the century Uchtred, the son of Waltheof,
seems to have married and put away his wives without the slightest
scruple, nor could bishop Ealdun procure a permanent husband for
his daughter Egfreda even by alienating the lands of his see in her
favour. Twice was she divorced in spite of her dowry, and neither the
bishop nor the chronicler who records these proceedings appear to have
regarded them as extraordinary. _Sim. Dun. Twysden_, p. 79.
[159] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1070. _Vit. St. Marg._ Edgar and his family
appear to have left Scotland in 1069, and to have returned thither in
the following year.
[160] Such appears to be the meaning of the expression of the
Chronicler, “he found nothing there for which he was the better,”
_Chron. Sax._ 1072. Compare _Wendover ad. an._ 1072.
[161] Edgar, according to the Chron. Sax., returned to Scotland from
Flanders in 1074, and he probably sought refuge in the latter country
at the approach of William.
[162] Lord Hailes, vol. 1, p. 17, thinks it improbable that Abernethy
on the Tay can be the place intended, from its lying out of William’s
probable route. He appears, however, to have forgotten that all the
early invaders of Scotland who combined a fleet with their land
force--and none else were successful--must have held their course
_along the coast_, or their fleet would have been useless. Abernethy,
according to Ailred, was _in Scotia_ (_Twysden_, p. 340), or beyond the
Forth, and it was exactly because William had succeeded in penetrating
into the heart of the real kingdom of Scotland that Malcolm came to
terms.
[163] _Chron. Sax._ 1072. _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1072–1087. _An. Ult._
1072. It may be gathered from _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1091, that Malcolm
held twelve manors of William and received a yearly payment of twelve
marks of gold, and as the kings only met once, these grants must have
been made on this occasion. The homage of Malcolm would appear to have
been _simple_ not _liege_, for he never seems to have been called upon
to perform any feudal service; whilst his subsequent repudiation of the
demands of Rufus shows that the homage was not rendered for the kingdom
of Scotland, but was simply the feudal recognition of his subsidy. In
short, the meeting appears to have resulted in a compromise, William
endeavouring to secure the peace of his northern borders by what in the
present age would take the form of a pension or subsidy, then conferred
as a feudal grant, for which Malcolm performed homage, giving up his
son as a hostage for his faithful observance of the treaty. _Vide
Appendix L_, part 2.
[164] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1072. _Malm. Gesta. Regum_, l. 3, sec. 253.
[165] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1073. _Chron. Sax._ 1074. _Malm. Gest.
Reg._, l. 3, sec. 251.
[166] _Chron. Sax._ 1077. _An. Ult._ 1085. Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_,
vol. i., p. 123) supposes, on the strength of a very ambiguous entry
in the Ulster Annals, that a certain Donald MacMalcolm, a son or
descendant of Malcolm MacMalbride, the Mormaor of Moray who died in
1029, reigned over the north of Scotland from the death of Thorfin in
1064 to his own death in 1085. It is impossible, however, that this
Donald could have been the representative of Malcolm of Moray, or he
must have been Mormaor of that province in place of Macbeth, Lulach,
and Malsnechtan, of whom the latter died in the same year as Donald,
in the peaceful possession of Moray. Neither would Donald have had
any claim upon the crown, as he was not the heir of Gruoch, and it
is impossible that he could have reigned over the north of Scotland
for upwards of twenty years, whilst his kinsman Malsnechtan, _the
real heir_, was content with the province of Moray. If the entry is
correct it is just as possible that the words “Donald, son of Malcolm
king of Scotland” may apply to a son of Malcolm the Third; but the
word _Righ_ in the Irish Annals is very ambiguous, and ought to be
translated _prince_ rather than _king_, a title which answers more to
the _Ardrigh_.
[167] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1079–80. _Chron. Sax._ 1079. _Fordun_, l.
5, c. 21. _Vide Appendix Q._
[168] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1087.
[169] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1091. _Chron. Sax._ 1091.
[170] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, _Chron. Sax._, and _Flor. Wig., ad an._
1091. Orderic also gives an account of this expedition--as usual
a gossiping mixture of truth and absurdity. Malmsbury (l. 4, sec.
311) says that “William performed nothing worthy of his greatness,
whilst he lost many of his men and baggage-horses.” Wendover, from
his frequent literal transcriptions of Malmsbury, must have had this
passage before him when he wrote “venientes igitur rex et frater
ejus Robertus in Angliam, acies duxerunt in Scotiam, unde Malcolmus
_nimio terrore percussus_ homagium regi fecit Anglorum, et fidelitatem
juravit,” (vol. ii., p. 37). In a similar manner “that most authentic
and valuable volume, the Book of Abingdon,” (?) expands the short
sentence in which Simeon describes the abortive invasion of Scotland by
Robert in 1080--“Cum pervenisset ad Egglesbreth nullo confecto negotio
reversus, etc.”--into the following inflated narrative:--“Verum rex
illi Lodoniis occurrens cum suis, pacisci potius quam præliari delegit.
Perinde ut _regno Angliæ principatus Scotiæ_ subactus foret, obsides
tribuit. Quo pacto inito Regis filius cum exercitu ad patrem hilaris
repedavit” (_Vide_ _Appendix Q_). When the comparative failures of
Robert and William in 1080 and 1091 are thus misrepresented--failures
which were notorious, and admitted to be so by the contemporary English
chroniclers--what degree of confidence can be attached to the inflated
descriptions of the successes of the earlier English kings, which are
to be found in the same authorities? We can only judge by _results_.
[171] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax._ 1092.
[172] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax. ad an._ 1093.
[173] Malcolm was evidently taken by surprise. “He sent and demanded
the fulfilment of the treaty that was promised him. And the king,
William, cited him to Gloucester, and sent him hostages to Scotland,
and Edgar Atheling afterwards and the men returned that brought him
with dignity to the king. But when he came to the king he could not
be considered worthy either of our king’s speech or of the conditions
that were formerly promised him.” Such are the words of the Saxon
Chronicler, yet Malmesbury says (sec. 311), “Malcolm came of his
own accord to Gloucester, an earnest suitor for peace on equitable
conditions, but he obtained nothing, though he was permitted to return
in safety, as the king disdained to capture by fraud one whom he had
subdued by valour.” The safe conduct and the hostages detract something
from this much vaunted magnanimity, but Malmesbury would sacrifice a
good deal for the sake of a well turned period. The assertion which
Simeon and Florence have placed in the mouth of Malcolm conveys a
valuable piece of historical information, though it does not follow
that the king spoke _feudal Latin_ because they have written it. The
presence and intervention of the leading nobles of both kingdoms at
meetings on the frontier implies the independence of both kings;
for if the king of Scotland had been the vassal of England _for
his kingdom_, he and _all his followers_ would have been liable to
have been cited to the court of their suzerain at the will of the
latter, as actually happened in the reign of William the Lion. In
the convention between Rufus and Robert, twelve barons on each side
confirmed the agreement in token of the independence of both parties
(_Flor. Wig._ 1091). In the treaty between Richard and William the
Lion four barons appear in the same way on either side (_Fœd._ vol.
i., pt. 1, p. 50); and both Scottish and English nobles invariably
affix their names to the conventions between their kings, recorded so
often in the Fœdera. In attempting to force Malcolm to submit to the
judgment of the English barons when he had come to Gloucester on an
errand of a totally different description, William appears to have
been actuated principally by overweening arrogance, though he may also
have endeavoured to found a precedent injurious to Scotland; and it is
singular to mark how nearly all the English authorities accuse Malcolm
of “a breach of faith” because he resented the conduct of William,
whilst they pass over without notice the glaring “breach of faith” on
the part of their own king.
[174] Morel was king Malcolm’s “Godsib,” or, in other words, they
had stood Godfathers together. This bond of spiritual relationship
appears to have been thought a very sacred tie in those days, and to
be unfaithful to the _Godsib_ was considered a heinous sin, at any
rate amongst the Gael; for the four Masters describe the state of the
country as peculiarly wretched when “there was no protection for Church
or Fortress, _Gossipred_ or mutual oath.” _An. F. M._ 1050, _O’Donovan_.
[175] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax._ 1093. _Fordun_, l. 5,
c. 25. _Malm. Gesta Regum_, l. 4, sec. 311. Both Malmesbury and the
Saxon Chronicler imply that Malcolm lost his life by treachery, and the
account of Orderic, as usual a strange mixture of truth and error, goes
far to prove the existence of a tradition to this effect. He is next
said to have been slain at the siege of Alnwick Castle, though it is
more than doubtful if a castle then existed on the banks of the Alne.
From _Alnwick Castle_ the step was easy to the family so long connected
with that border fortress, and the Scottish king was at length said to
have been slain by a knight, who, issuing from the castle gate with the
keys on the point of his lance in token of surrender, suddenly _pierced
the eye_ of Malcolm, acquiring from this feat the name of _Pierce eye_
or Percy! About two centuries after the fall of Malcolm an improbable
story was circulated at Tynemouth, that the body of a peasant had been
palmed off upon Alexander for that of his father, _Mat. Paris Addit_,
p. 129. The writer adds that Malcolm was conquered “by order of Henry
the First,” and winds up his account of the deceit with these quaint
words “ita delusa est _Scottorum improbitas_.” The keen relish with
which he enjoys the idea of overreaching “_the Scotch rogues_” is
amusing. Pleasures of rare occurrence are sometimes supposed to be the
sweetest.
[176] Life of Margaret, ascribed to Turgot, and contained in the “_Acta
Sanctorum_, June 10.” Malcolm was obliged to put up with his losses,
but to every one else she restored twofold what she borrowed for
charity.
[177] _Twysden_, p. 367. Ailred heard this anecdote from Malcolm’s
son David. It has been transferred by some later writers to the Saxon
Edgar, the Scottish Kenneth playing the part of the guilty nobleman.
The hunt was conducted “secundum legem venandi quam vulgus _tristam_
vocat.” An open plain, encircled by a belt of wood, was the scene of
the sport; a flowery hillock in the centre the place of rendezvous for
the sportsmen; whom Malcolm placed in different commanding positions,
ready to let slip their dogs upon the game as it was driven by the
beaters from covert.
[178] The principal point which Margaret succeeded in carrying out was
connected with Lent, which the Gaelic Church kept from Quadrigesima
Sunday instead of from Ash Wednesday. The Gaelic practice was long the
universal custom, and it is still doubtful who added the four days.
Pope Gregory the Great speaks of _the thirty-six days_ of abstinence,
though some maintain that he was the first to begin Lent from Ash
Wednesday, whilst others refer the change to the time of Gregory the
Second (_Bingham_, bk. 21, c. 1), in which they are probably correct,
as the custom would otherwise have penetrated into the Gaelic Church
when it conformed to the Roman practice in the days of Nectan and
Ceolfrith. The other practices which Margaret endeavoured to reform
were--1. A reluctance to communicate on Easter Sunday. 2. Labour on
Sundays. 3. Marriage with the widow of a father or brother. 4. The
celebration of the service with _barbarous rites_, or, in other words,
in a manner to which she was unaccustomed. In the latter point she
seems to have been unsuccessful, for the Culdees still continued to
celebrate their office _more suo_ in the days of Alexander and David
(_Vide_ Margaret’s Life by Turgot, c. 2). It is worthy of remark that
Margaret seems to have made no attempt to separate the Culdees from
their wives; and as numbers of the Anglo-Saxon clergy were married
men at that time, particularly in the provinces beyond the Humber,
where the customs of the Northmen were little interfered with, it is
probable that she did not consider their manner of life contrary to
ecclesiastical discipline. The system of Hildebrand did not penetrate
into England until after the Norman Conquest. In one of his Charters
(_Ancient Laws, etc., of England_, vol. i., p. 495) William says,
“Sciatis ... quod episcopates leges, quæ non bene nec secundum
sanctorum canonum precepta usque ad mea tempora in regno Anglorum
fuerunt ... emendandas judicavi.”
[179] “At least,” says the honest historian, “the dishes and vessels
were gilt or silvered over.”--_Hailes_, vol. 1, p. 44.
[180] The _diversis coloribus vestes_ are sometimes supposed to have
been _tartan_. The earliest dresses of the Gael were stained of a
saffron colour, which was also used at one period amongst the Rajpoots.
[181] This account of Margaret is entirely taken from her life,
written by her confessor, generally ascribed to Turgot, and I think
with reason. The writer was not her confessor latterly (c. 4), and as
Turgot entered into orders in 1074 (not 1084 as Papenbroch says), and
became Prior of Durham in 1087, six years before the death of Margaret,
this would agree very well with the theory that ascribes the work to
him. It must have been written in the reign of Edgar, as the messenger
who brought the news of Malcolm’s death to Margaret was “the son who
succeeded to the king”--not Duncan, who was neither present at the
battle nor was he a son of Margaret--and as _three_ sons succeeded,
though the writer only alludes to _the son_ who succeeded, he must have
written before the second son came to the throne. _Vide_ also _Hailes’
Annals, in loc._
[182] Wherever the followers of Rufus were quartered, it was their
custom to burn everything that they could neither eat, sell, nor carry
off, whilst all that they could not drink in their orgies they either
spilled or used to wash their horses feet. “Quæ vero in patresfamilias
crudelia, quæ in uxores et filias indecentia fecerint, reminisci
pudet.” Hence the approach of the court was the signal for the wretched
inhabitants of the neighbourhood to fly to the woods, and leave their
houses to the mercy of their oppressors. Henry endeavoured to repress
the evil with the stern justice of his father, tearing out the eyes of
the perpetrators of such enormities, or punishing them by amputation of
the hands or feet. _Ead. Hist. Novell._, l. 4, p. 94.
[183] _Ead. Hist. Novell._, l. 3, p. 56. Malcolm seems to have been
fortunate in his choice between the sisters. It may have been the
influx of ladies like the Scottish princess amongst the nuns, that
introduced the use of ornamented pins and gold rings amongst the
sisterhood, with the wreathing and dressing the hair, forbidden in
several subsequent councils. The words of Matilda convict Orderic of
one of those blunders which render that chronicler such a broken reed
to lean upon whenever historical accuracy is required. He says that
Count Alan of Bretagne sought the hand of Matilda _from Rufus_, “sed
morte præventus non obtinuit,” (l. 7, p. 702). As Alan died on the 19th
October 1119 (_L’Art de verifier les Dates_, vol. ii., p. 897), it is
difficult to conceive how his death could have prevented his marriage
with Matilda, who had then been eighteen months in her grave (she died
1st January 1118), after having been the wife of Henry the First since
November 1100! Alan’s first wife died in 1090, and he re-married in
1093, before Matilda could have sought refuge in England, for Malcolm
was alive until the 13th November in that year. Alan, however, was once
a suitor for the hand of Matilda, but to her father Malcolm (according
to her own words) not to Rufus. This is the little grain of truth
which, as usual, lurks in an infinity of error; for Orderic seems to
have retailed all the gossip of the day, generally contriving to get
hold of a wrong version of the story.
[184] Matilda appears to have been very amiable, very devout, very fond
of music and poetry, very vain, and rather pretty; not a perfect, but
a feminine and loveable character, which earned her the title of “Good
Queen Maud.” The feeling which prompted her aversion to the unbecoming
black hood is easily to be traced in the character which Malmesbury
has left of her (_Gesta Regum_, l. 5, sec. 418), though the good Queen
would have forgiven serious offences sooner than the lukewarm praise
accorded by that writer to her personal charms, “haud usquequaque
despicabilis formæ.” Like most of her family she died in the prime of
life.
[185] _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 3, l. 96, who says that Ethelred took
advantage of a mist to convey the body of his mother out of the
west gate before her death was generally known. The good prior was
as ignorant of any divine agency on this occasion as Turgot was
unconscious of any pretentions on the part of his royal mistress to
supernatural gifts; but in the account of Fordun, l. 5, c. 26, the body
of Margaret is conveyed through the host of Donald Bane under cover of
a miraculous mist “That a mist on the Firth of Forth should be held
miraculous,” remarks Lord Hailes, “must appear to the inhabitants of
the Lothians a strange example of prepossession and credulity.”
[186] Boece palliates the usurpation of Donald by attributing it to
the detestation--to use the words of his translator Bellenden--“of
the pepil at the riotus and intemperat manneris brocht amang thaim be
Inglismen;” the same high authority enumerating amongst the virtues
of David that “he ejeckit the vennomus custome of riotus cheir quhilk
was inducit afore be Inglismen.” David probably introduced the Norman
habits, for at this period the Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Danes were
renowned for their love of “riotus cheir,” though they were hardly
the corrupters of the austere morals of the ancient Scots. Robert de
Mellent is said to have introduced the custom of one meal a day from
Constantinople, for his health as he affirmed--for his niggardliness,
as was grumblingly insinuated by the hungry Saxons, who loved to
recall the jovial days when Hardicanute set four meals a day before
his overfed dependants, and rejoiced to see the dishes carried away
full, because his followers could literally eat no more. There may have
been some truth in the complaints of the Saxons, for the Normans, with
many high qualities, were a hard and close race in all that concerned
money. “The vennomus custome of riotus cheir” among _Inglismen_ is
again attributed by Lambarde entirely to the corruptions of the Danes,
probably with equal justice; and upon their shoulders must the blame
rest, till some Yorkshireman, or other denizen of ancient _Danelage_,
vindicates the character of his ancestry at the expense of some other
scapegoat.
[187] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Ch. Sax., adan._ 1093. Donald reigned
from Nov. 1093 till May 1094; Duncan from the latter date to the close
of the same year, and Donald again from the close of 1094 till after
Michaelmas in 1097.
[188] _Innes_, Ap. 5. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 3, l. 145. _Sim. Dun. de
Gestis_, _Chron. Sax._, and _An. Ult. ad an._ 1094. _Malm. Gesta
Regum_, l. 5, sec. 400.
[189] _Chron. Sax._ 1097.
[190] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax. ad an._ 1097. According
to Fordun, l. 5, c. 30, the Banner of St. Cuthbert won the day, three
knights, through its aid, defeating the whole of Donald’s army!
[191] _Malm., as above._ _Innes_, Ap. 4. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 3, l. 108,
and c. 8, l. 49. The Prior of Lochleven tells a singular tale about
Donald, how in his blindness he enticed into his power the eldest son
of David “a gangand chyld ... and wyth tympanys sharpe set till hys
naylis ... thrystyd and swa handlyd the chyld ... quhil he deyd at the
last,” and how “the modyr than that herd the cry ... for sorow gave the
gast rycht thare.” As the latter part of the story is unquestionably
false, it may be hoped that the whole tale is a fabrication. In the
version of the same tale recorded by Orderic, the supposed murderer
is an outcast priest, a pensioner on David’s charity. _Vide Hailes’
Annals_, vol. i., p. 112, note.
[192] _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 108. _Tigh._ 1034. Gille, Jarl of
the Sudreys, was either the nephew or the brother-in-law of Jarl
Sigurd,--or both, as a marriage between an aunt and her nephew
occasionally took place in the distant north.
[193] _Tigh._ 1052, 1061. _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 346. _Seventy_-five
and _sixty_-five years have been given to Thorfin, but as he was five
years of age when his father fell at Clontarf in 1014, and his own
death occurred before the expedition of Harald Hardrade in 1066, he
probably died at the age of _fifty_-five, in 1064.
[194] _Chron. Man._ 1047. The dates of this Chronicle are occasionally
very inaccurate, but they are easily rectified. Godfrey Crovan
conquered Man five years after the inroad of Malcolm the Third into
Cleveland, _i.e._, in 1075.
[195] _Tigh._ 1072.
[196] _Tigh._ _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M. ad an._ 1075.
[197] _Chron. Man._ 1056. The abrogation of the Odallers’ rights
appears to have been the first step invariably taken by Scandinavian
conquerors. The result was taxation, the king or Jarl asserting his
right to the land. This division of the island was probably the reason
of the two _Deemsters_ or Judges of Man.
[198] _Chron. Man._ _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M._ 1094. Godfrey is
generally known in the Irish Annals as _Meranach_, or the Bad.
[199] _An. Ult._ 1087.
[200] _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M._ 1095. _An. Inisf._ 1078. _Chron.
Man._ “Nullus qui fabricant navem vel scapham ausus esset plus quam
tres clavos insere.” Such are the words of the Chronicle; their exact
meaning I do not pretend to understand.
[201] This account of the first expedition of Magnus is taken from the
_Heimskringla, Saga_ 11, c. 9, 10, 11. _Chron. Man._ 1098. _Chron.
Sax._ 1098. From his partiality to the costume of the Islesmen, he
obtained the name of Magnus _Barefoot_. The later Scottish Chroniclers
assert that the cession of the Isles was the price of the assistance
of Magnus, which placed Donald Bane upon the throne. He must have been
resuscitated from the grave.
[202] _Heimsk. Saga_ 11, c. 25. _An. Ult._ _A. F. M._ 1101, 1102.
According to the Chronicle of Man, Magnus sent his shoes to Murketagh,
ordering that king to carry them on Christmas day, in token of his
inferiority. The Irish chieftains were naturally indignant, but their
king replied that he was ready to eat the shoes rather than one
province of Ireland should be wasted! This singular tale was unknown
to the Norse and Irish Chroniclers; and indeed, if Magnus deserved the
epithet appended to his name, it would have been difficult for him to
send such articles of apparel to the Irish court.
[203] _Heimsk. Saga_ 11, c. 26–28. _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M._ 1103.
_Vide_ also _Antiq._ _Celt.-Scand._, p. 231 to p. 244.
[204] _An. Inisf._ 1086. _Malm. Gesta Regum_, l. 5, sec. 409.
[205] _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 34.
[206] Sim. _Dun. de Gestis_ 1107. _Ailred de Bel. Stand_ (_Twysden_, p.
344). _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 55.
[207] Ailred, in his _Genealogia Regum_ (_Twysden_, p. 367, 368),
describes the character of the three brothers, Edgar, Alexander, and
David. He also relates an anecdote which he heard from David, that
whilst that prince in his younger days was in attendance at the English
court, he received a sudden summons, when amongst his companions, to
repair to the presence of his royal sister. He found the Queen engaged
in her evening occupation of washing the feet of a number of lepers,
and pressing the feet of each leper to her lips as she completed the
ceremony. Matilda invited her brother to follow her example, but he
excused himself, not unnaturally expressing a doubt whether the royal
Henry would approve of the manner in which his Queen bestowed her
favours. Matilda did not press the subject, and David rejoined his
companions. Wendover has copied this anecdote, dating it in 1105.
[208] _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 5, l. 21 to 62. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 36. _Lib.
de Scone_, ch. 1. I have principally followed the account of Wynton.
It was evidently the object of Alexander to bring the men of Moray
and Mærne to an engagement where his mounted followers could act with
effect, whilst it was equally the aim of his enemies to attack the king
at a disadvantage, which they calculated upon doing if he attempted
to cross by the usual ford. It was from no mere reckless bravado that
Alexander swam across, at an unguarded spot probably, and at full tide,
when he was least expected, thus out-manœuvring the enemy and falling
upon them in the open country. Swimming a river was no uncommon feat
amongst the heavy-armed soldiery of those days. Robert of Gloucester
swam the Trent before the battle of Lincoln, when the fords were
impassable from floods. Fordun (or Bowyer), frightened perhaps at the
idea of the king and his men-at-arms swimming the Moray Firth, places
the battle at the Spey, and divides the honour of the feat with Sir
Alexander Scrimgeour. He and Boece are eloquent about the escape of
Alexander from the treachery of one of his chamberlains in league with
the enemy; but Wynton knew nothing of the tale, which probably rests
on a very doubtful foundation. Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_, vol. i., p.
129) has attributed the attack on Alexander to Ladman, a son of Donald
Bane, on the strength of the following entry in the Ulster Annals under
the year 1116. “Ladmunn M. Dom. h ... righ Alban killed by the men of
Moray.” But Ladman son of Donald, _grandson_ of ... king of Alban, can
scarcely be a description applicable to a son of Donald Bane; and the
word now lost must have been the name of Ladman’s _great grandfather_,
not the _designation of his father_. Donald Bane appears to have left
no son, for both Wynton and the Comyn pedigree in the Fœdera, represent
Bethoc as his heiress. Ladman also appears to have been at enmity with
the Moraymen; but who or what he was must remain a matter of conjecture.
[209] _An. Ult._ 1093. Fordun supplies four bishops _elect_ between
Fothadh and Turgot; but of “Gregory, Cathrey, Edmar, and Godric,”
Wynton, a canon of St. Andrews, and well read in the archives of the
see, was profoundly ignorant. The words of the old MS. quoted in
Selden’s preface to Twysden p. 6, “Electus fuit Turgotus ... et stetit
per annos septem. In diebus illis totum jus Keledeorum per totum regnum
Scotiæ transivit in Episcopatum St. Andriæ,” imply that a great change
was brought about at this time.
[210] The appointment of the Archbishop of Lyons to be Metropolitan
over Tours, Rouen, and Sens, by Hildebrand, in spite of the opposition
of the bishops of those Metropolitan sees; and the elevation of
Toledo into the Metropolitan see of Spain, by Urban II., without in
any way consulting the wishes of the Spanish clergy, may be quoted as
instances. The state of the Papacy in the early part of the eleventh
century had been scandalous. In 1012 Benedict VIII. obtained the see
through the influence of his kinsman the Marquis of Toscanella, one of
a family which had influenced the elections of the bishops of Rome for
upwards of a century. His brother John XIX. fairly bought the Papacy,
and was in the same day a layman and the head of the Roman Church.
Similar means obtained the election of his nephew, Benedict IX., a
mere child, who after scandalizing Rome with his excesses, retired in
favour of Gregory VII., who was in turn deposed for simony on account
of the bribe by which he procured the abdication of Benedict. The
latter then again reappeared to contest the popedom with two German
bishops, Clement II. and Damascus II.; and after their deaths the
Romans appealed to the emperor against the threatened intrusion of
Benedict for the third time, and the papacy was conferred upon Leo IX.
In allusion to the influence of Hildebrand, his great friend the Bishop
of Ostia wrote the following lines:--
Papam rite colo, sed te prostratus adoro; Tu facis hunc Dominum, te
facit ille Deum.
[211] The reply of William was very characteristic of the great Norman:
“Homage neither have I sworn, nor will I swear it, for I never promised
it, nor can I find that my predecessors ever performed it to yours.”
Though perfectly respectful to the Pope, he said, “If ever monk of my
land carry plaint against his sovereign lord I’ll have him hanged on
the tallest tree in the forest.”
[212] “Il n’y avoit pas de Royaume qu’il ne prétendit être tributaire
du saint Siege, et pour le prouver, il ne craignoit point d’alléguer
des titres qui se conservoient, disoit-il, dans les Archives de
l’Eglise Romaine, mais qu’il n’osa jamais produire.” Such are the
words of the Benedictine editor of “L’Art de verifier les Dates.” The
Donation of Constantine was first openly brought forward in the letter
of Leo IX. to Michael Patriarch of Constantinople, written in 1054, and
it was one of the causes of the separation of the Greek Church. It is
a fair specimen of the supposed contents of “the Archives of the Roman
Church.”
[213] The manner of choosing a bishop, and the abuses which had sprung
up in such elections, are nowhere better described than in a letter of
Apollinaris Sidonius, written about 470. (_Epist._ l. 4. _Ep._ 25.)
[214] The “Pharoahs” of the age of Innocent were the temporal princes,
whom the same Pope elsewhere describes as subordinate moons revolving
round the papal sun, and deriving all their light from that luminary.
[215] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1074 (p. 207). Like Boece, Stubbs, a stout
partizan of York, writing at the close of the fourteenth century,
was far better informed than the contemporary chronicler of all the
circumstances of this dispute. _Twysden_, p. 1712, _et seq._
[216] The deprecatory answer of Thomas to Anselm is very characteristic
of the age, “The money which I had collected for coming to you--and
it was a large sum for my means--was all spent at Winchester, where
I stopped too long. I then hurried home to scrape together some more
to send to Rome for my pallium,” adding, “and I am still seeking for
money, but very little can I find, except _at a grievous rate of
interest_,”--a complaint alas! common to those in the Archbishop’s
circumstances in every age. _Ead. Hist. Nov._, p. 98.
[217] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1109.
[218] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1074 (p. 207), 1115.
[219] “Eligente eum clero et populo terræ, et concedente Rege,” are the
words which seem to have rather puzzled Lord Hailes (_Annals_, vol. i.
p. 63, _note_). But all bishops were originally supposed to have been
chosen in this manner; though it is probable that the rights of the
“clerus et populus” were at this time as exclusively possessed by the
Culdees as they were subsequently vested in the Chapter.
[220] “Nolebat enim ecclesiam Cantuarensem anteferri ecclesiæ Sancti
Andreæ de Scotia:”
[221] _Ead. Hist. Nov._, l. 5, p. 117, 130–135.
[222] _Ang. Sac._ ii. 234, quoted in Hailes’s _Annals_, vol. i., p. 66.
“He said that nothing would be so conducive to soften the barbarity
of the Scots, promote sound doctrine, and establish ecclesiastical
discipline, as _a plentiful and hospitable board_.”
[223] _Ead. Hist. Nov._, l. 6.
[224] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1124. Four months before his own death,
_i.e._, in December 1123.
[225] _Reg. Glasg. Inquisitio Davidis._
[226] _Ead. Hist. Nov._, l. 5, p. 124–126. “Romanos in causam suam, quo
in quæque negotia pertrahi solent, largitatis officio transtulit,” are
his words; and on another occasion he says, “literas ab ipso Calixto,
more quo cuncta Romæ impetrantur, adeptus fuerat.” In short, Eadmer
is continually insinuating the venality of the papal court, though
of course the practice of corrupting the Roman clergy was strictly
confined to the partizans of York, and never extended to the purer
clergy of Canterbury. The latter, however, are represented in a very
different light in the pages of the Yorkist Stubbs, who does not
hesitate to charge them with forgery and the perpetration of every
species of dishonesty against the immaculate clergy of York. Henry the
First stands out in honourable relief, for when Pope Calixtus pressed
him to break his promise to the Archbishop of Canterbury, assuring the
king that he would grant him absolution, Henry replied with dignity
“that it would be inconsistent with the honour of a king to agree to
any such proceeding; for who would put any faith in a promise, if
the royal example taught them how easily it could be set aside by
absolution.”
[227] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1122, 1123. _Chron. Mel._ 1123. On the 25th
of April 1174, Pope Alexander III. declared Glasgow to be “Specialem
filiam nostram nullo mediante.” _Reg. Glasg._, No. 32. Hence in after
times “the two great grievances of the bishops were being forced to
admit to benefices or pensions upon the dictation of the pope, and the
liability to be summoned on church cases out of the kingdom.” _Vide
Preface to Reg. Glasg._, p. 28.
[228] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1122, 1124. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 40, 41.
_Malm. Gesta Regum_, l. 5, sec. 400.
[229] _Lib. de Scone_, No. 1. Six earls attest the charter; Heth
(written through a clerical error _Beth_) of Moray, Madach of Atholl,
Malise of Strathearn, Dufagan of Fife, and Gartnach and Rory, who may
be assigned to Angus, Mar, or Buchan. Heth appears to have married the
sister of Malsnechtan (for his successor, Angus, is described as the
son of Lulach’s daughter, _An. Ult._ 1130), and thus to have inherited
and transmitted the claims of the line of Kenneth MacDuff. He must have
been an inveterate opponent of the reigning family, as his son Malcolm
is described by Ailred as “the inheritor of his father’s hatred.” The
real descent of the Stewarts was well known as late as the fourteenth
century, when Richard Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel in 1336, sold the
Stewardship of Scotland to Edward III., a transaction which was
confirmed by Edward Balliol (_Tiernay’s Hist. of Arundel_, vol. i., pp.
193, 299, _notes_). The sale was of course a political fiction, founded
on the assumed forfeiture of the Scottish branch of the earl’s family,
through which their hereditary office was supposed to have reverted to
their English connections. The real king and the pseudo-king united in
the joint exercise of an act of shadowy sovereignty--a joint protest
of their claims as vassal king and overlord of Scotland--the sole
substantial gain, the purchase-money, falling to the earl; though, had
the Plantagenets succeeded in conquering Scotland, the transaction
would have become a reality, and the ancestry of the hereditary Earls
Marshal of the present day would have lost their claim to supplant the
ancestry of the reigning sovereign. The father of _Alan_ was Flahald or
_Fleald_, a name which reappears under the familiar form of “_Fleance_,
son of Banquo, Thane of Lochaber.”
[230] The reign of Edgar has been occasionally regarded as the era of
a thorough _Saxonizing_ of all Scotland, except the Highlands; but
with respect to this opinion I can only use the words which Father
Innes applies to the laws of Aodh Fin--“De hisce...... _altissimum apud
scriptores nostros silentium_.” If _Thane_ and _Thanage_ are supposed
to be, not Saxon _names_ applied to Scottish institutions, but actual
Saxon institutions introduced beyond the Forth, it should be explained
why the Saxon Thane was as totally different a character from the
Scottish Thane as _Thane-land_ was from a Thanage. The Saxon held by
military service--_cnicht_-service, an expression scarcely traceable
to Normandy; the Scot by _Scottish_ service and rent--in _fee-farm_.
Why also is only one Thane traceable in the Lothians, if all the Thanes
came from the Saxons? Compare _Appendices N and R_.
[231] _Chron. Sax._ 1124, calls David Earl of Northamptonshire. If this
authority is correct, he must have held that earldom as guardian of the
younger St. Liz, who was Earl of Northampton at the date of his death
in 1153.
[232] _Malm. Hist Nov._, l. 1, sec. 1–3. _Chron. Sax._ 1126–7. The
chroniclers of that age call the empress Alicia, oftener than Matilda;
perhaps to distinguish her from Stephen’s queen.
[233] _Vide_ preceding chapter, p.184, note.
[234] _Chron. Sax._, _Chron. St. Crucis_, _Chron. Mel._, and _An. Ult._
1130. _Ord. Vit._, l. 8, p. 701–3. The Saxon Chronicler declares Angus
to have been “all forsworn.” The account of Orderic is, as usual,
a strange mixture of truth and error. As Heth witnessed the first
Dunfermlyn charter in company with Constantine Earl of Fife, who died
in 1128, he must have survived David’s accession; and it was possibly
on the death of the Moray chieftain that his sons broke out into
rebellion.
[235] _Ailred de Bel. Stand._ p. 344. _Chron. Mel._ 1134. “Deinde cum
cohortibus suis jam triumpho elatis fugientes avidé insecutus est, et
Morafiam defensore dominoque vacantem ingressus est, totumque regionis
spaciosæ Ducatum, Deo auxiliante nactus est.” Such are the expressions
of Orderic relating to the course pursued by David after Stickathrow.
There is no allusion to Malcolm suffering the usual barbarities
inflicted on state prisoners, so it is to be hoped, for David’s credit,
that he escaped all such tortures.
[236] _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1136. _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 222.
_Malm. Hist. Nov._, l. 1, sec. 12. Lingard has no authority for
saying that “David claimed Cumberland as having formerly belonged
to the heir-apparent of the Scottish kings,” c. 11, note 13. There
is no allusion to any claim except upon Northumberland (in right of
his wife), and this was waived at the time for the fiefs of Carlisle
and Doncaster. Strictly speaking, the Scottish royal family never
appear to have held the _Earldom_--or rather perhaps _Comitatus_--but
the _Honour_ of Huntingdon. A grant of the “_tertius denarius de
placitis_,” seems generally to have entitled its holder to the earldom
at this period, whilst the holder of an honour was “overlord”--or
constable--of a number of knights and barons; for all the tenants of
an honour held by military service, and with manorial rights. It was
in the power of the king, however, to grant the dignity of an earl,
or attach the dignity to any fief, without reference to the “tertius
denarius.” _Vide Appendix L_, pt. 2.
[237] _Malm. Hist. Nov._, l. 1, sec. 13. There is some uncertainty
about David’s age, and Lord Hailes, a little rashly, finds fault with
Malmesbury for writing about “the approach of age.” But as David
_survived_ Malmesbury, the latter would hardly have written what was
not true, in such a trifling point, about one who was then living.
Neither Alexander nor David appear to have taken any prominent part
in the events immediately occurring after the death of their father;
but David was old enough to assist his brother Edgar in 1097 by his
_astutia_ (_Gesta Regum_, sec 400). Forty years later he must have been
nearer sixty than fifty.
[238] _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1136. Ranulph was the son and heir of
Ranulph le Meschines, who obtained a grant of Cumberland, probably
about the time when Rufus restored Carlisle. John of Hexham, under
1150, says, “Remisit indignationem quæ Karleol sub _patrimoniali_ jure
reposcere consueverat.”
[239] _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1137. _Malm. Hist. Nov._, l. 1, sec. 17.
[240] The _Germans_ of Richard of Hexham were probably mercenaries
from the Low Countries, whose services were then, and long afterwards,
at the disposal of the highest bidder. They were generally known as
_Reiters_; and these free companies probably supplied many of the
_Flandrenses_ and _Flamingi_ of the Scottish charters.
[241] “In curiâ contra patrium morem captus,” are the words of
_Ailred_, p. 343. Eustace appears to have been in the actual
performance of the services by which he held the fief; and in strict
feudal justice he ought not to have been deprived of the fief until he
had failed to render such service.
[242] The speech which Ailred has attributed to Walter Espec is
valuable on account of many historical allusions which it contains; but
it is not to be supposed that on such an occasion the speaker would
stop to weigh his words, especially as it was his object to raise the
courage of his own men by depreciating the Scots. Strict historical
accuracy is hardly to be expected at such a time, even if we are to
regard such speeches as real, and not the composition of the chronicler
himself.
[243] The continuator of Florence of Worcester relates this fact.
[244] _Lavernani._ The district known as the Lennox, or _Levenach_, was
called so from the river Leven, and from the lake which was originally
named _Loch Leven_, and afterwards (from its principal mountain) _Loch
Lomond_. _Lavernani_ is evidently a clerical error for _Levenani_; as
_Linenath_ in the Fœdera is a mistake for _Levenach_.
[245] The meeting between the king and the two barons took place
immediately before the battle, according to Ailred. John of Hexham
writes that they met on the Tees, which David crossed a few hours
before the commencement of the engagement.
[246] Such appears to be the meaning of Ailred’s description of the
English position. The monkish chroniclers are seldom very clear in
their accounts of battles. The species of standard used in this battle
was well known in the Italian wars.
[247] Compare _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1138. _Ail. de bel. Stand. Flor.
Vigorn. Contin._ 1138. _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 222. In the description
of the battle I have principally followed Ailred. A comparison between
the Priors of Hexham and the Continuator of Florence, will show the
difference between the chronicler who lived in the neighbourhood of
the scenes he describes, and he who, a tenant of a distant monastery,
probably relied upon hearsay evidence. The battle of Northallerton was
naturally a disagreeable subject for the Scottish chroniclers. Wynton,
with characteristic honesty, says “the Scottis ware discomfyt and mony
... in depe lowchys drownyd was.” Fordun, Major, and Buchanan, divide
the battle into two, perhaps from some confusion with the fight at
Clitheroe. At the battle of Northallerton the English are routed; but
in the following year the Scots, through despising their enemy, who
are in great numbers, receive a check at the Standard. Boece, with a
soul above such half-measures, stoutly claims a victory, ransoming the
English leader, _the Duke of Gloucester_, at an enormous sum! _Ford._,
l. 5, c. 42. _Maj._, l. 3, c. 11. _Buch._ l. 7. _Boece_, bk. 12, c. 17.
[248] By old, and probably universal, custom, every freeman was bound
to attend the “hosting across the frontier” once every year in arms. By
Charlemagne’s law, all holders of benefices were bound by their tenure
of military service to come, and all _Frank-allodial_ proprietors of
three, four, or five _mansi_ (or _hydes_); every proprietor of an
amount less than three _mansi_ combining with others, so that the
lowest on the list, the proprietor of half a _mansus_, in conjunction
with _five_ others (_i.e._, making up _three mansi_) equipped one of
their number for the army. The equivalents of this latter class amongst
the English seem to have formed the _gemeinred_ or yeomanry. A less
numerous, but a better armed, and probably a more orderly body of men,
would be furnished by the Imperial law than by the older custom, which
was preserved in Scotland under the name of _Scotticanum servitium_,
sometimes known as _forinsecum servitium_ (_Reg. Morav. Cart. Orig._
13), the _Sluagh_ or “hosting beyond the frontier.” The muster of the
Highland clan in later times, including “Native men” as well as “Duine
Uasal,” answered to the old _Sluagh_. The expressions _Inware_, and
_Utware_, are sometimes used, the former answering, apparently, to the
Welsh “Llwyd yn Wlad,” or hosting _within_ the borders; the latter
to the “Llwyd yn Orwlad,” or hosting _beyond_ the borders. It may be
gathered from _Reg. Morav. Cart. Orig._ 17, that “Scottish service” was
rendered on foot and without defensive armour. “Non habemus jus habendi
aliquod servitium de domino Willelmo de Moravia nisi _forinsecum
servitium Scotticanum_ domini regis ... et secursum ac auxilium quod
nobis in defensione regni per potenciam suam _armigerorum et equorum et
armorum_ fecit ex libera voluntate sua.” The Thane of Tullibardine had
assisted his lord, the Earl of Strathearn, with men-at-arms, horses,
and armour, which he was not bound to do in return for his Thanedom,
held by Scottish service alone. The arms required for Scottish service
were probably those with which the Clans Hay and Qwhele fought on
the North Inch (_Reg. Morav._, p. 382), bows, axes, swords, and
daggers, with the addition of the long Scottish spear. The arms of the
native Irish in the days of Cambrensis appear to have been a spear,
two javelins (resembling the old German _framea_), and a formidable
battle-axe introduced by the Northmen. They gloried in fighting without
defensive armour, like Earl Malise.
[249] _J. and R. Hexham._ _Ailred_, as above.
[250] The Bishop of Glasgow was not present at the dedication of his
own Cathedral Church on 17th July 1136. _Vide Reg. Glasg._, ch. 3, in
which his name does not occur.
[251] Edgar, a natural son of Earl Cospatric, and Robert and Uchtred,
sons of Maldred, were the offenders on this occasion--all Saxon names,
and from the Lothians apparently, so that for once at any rate those
scapegoats, the Picts of Galloway, may be acquitted from blame.
[252] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1138. The 10th and 11th November, and 3d
March, are all festivals of St. Martin. The truce probably extended to
the latest date, for Alberic did not bring the subject before Stephen
until Christmas, _after_ the other dates.
[253] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1138.
[254] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1138. “Fœminca calliditate atque protervitate
instante,” are the words of Prior Richard.
[255] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1139. The hostages were the sons of Earls
Cospatric and Fergus, of Hugh de Moreville and of _Mac._ and _Mel._
(supposed to mean Macduff of Fife and Malise of Strathearn), whom
Prior Richard calls five earls of Scotland. Moreville was hardly an
earl, though he was probably amongst those greater barons who had “the
freedom and custom of an earl.” _Assize Dav._ 16.
[256] _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 223. _J. Hexham_ 1141. All the occurrences
in John of Hexham after 1140 are misdated one year, owing to the
insertion of the passage “Anno MCXLI. Calixtus Papa concilium Remis
instituit xiii. Kal Nov.” This council was held in 1119. Thorstein,
whose death is placed in 1141, died on Thursday 8th February 1140, and
the battle of Lincoln was fought in the following year.
[257] _J. Hexham_ 1142. The name has been changed into _Oliphant_.
[258] _J. Hexham_ 1143–45. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 43, confounding William
Comyn the Chancellor, with William the Treasurer, Archbishop of York,
relates his supposed death by poison, with a rather ambiguous comment
of his own, “Hic Willelmus Comyn Archiepiscopus Eboracensis, ad missam
suam in ecclesiâ Sancti Petri a ministris altaris pecuniis corruptis,
venenis potionatus est; qui licet venenum videret in calice nihilominus
illud fide fervens sumpsit, _et non diu post supervixit, Deo Gratias!_”
[259] _J. Hexham_ 1150. _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 226. _R. Hoveden_ 1148,
p. 280.
[260] It is singular how Wimund has been confounded, by nearly every
historian down to the present day, with Malcolm MacHeth. Newbridge, who
relates his adventures at length, l. 1, c. 23, 24, and who had often
seen him in his blindness and captivity at Biland, merely says that he
was born at some obscure spot in England, and pretended to be “a son
of the Earl of Moray.” Ailred (quoted in _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 51) also
alludes to him as an impostor, “Cum misisset ei Deus inimicum quemdam
pseudo-episcopum qui se filium Comitis Moraviensis mentiebatur,” and
again (Dominus regem) “monachi cujusdem mendaciis flagellavit.” But
in l. 8, c. 2, Fordun treats MacHeth himself as an impostor, “erat
enim iste Malcolmus filius MacHeth, sed mentiendo dicebat se filium
Angusii Comitis Moraviæ.” Here begins the confusion; but it can be
clearly shown that Wimund and MacHeth were totally different persons.
Malcolm MacHeth, “the heir of his father’s hatred,” was captured in
1134 and confined in Roxburgh Castle until 1157, when he was liberated
by Malcolm the Fourth and attested one of the Dunfermlyn Charters
(_Ailred_, p. 344. _Chron. Mel._ 1134. _Chron. St. Crucis_ 1157.
_Reg. Dunf._ No. 40). Wimund could not have gone to Rushen, at the
very earliest, before the year of its foundation, 1134; he was a monk
before that date, and could not have been made bishop until after the
imprisonment of MacHeth. From an entry in Wendover under 1151, “Eodem
anno Johannes ..... factus est secundus antistes Monæ insulæ .....
Primus autem ibi fuerat episcopus Wimundus ..... sed propter ejus
importunitatem privatus fuit oculis et expulsus,” it may be gathered
that the career of Wimund was brought to a close _at least six years_
before the liberation of MacHeth, and the Bishop of Man, who probably
enacted his singular vagaries about 1150, may have personated the son,
the brother, the nephew, of the _real claimant of the earldom_--or
even that very claimant--but it is impossible to identify him with the
solitary captive in Roxburgh Castle without attributing to one, or
both, ubiquity.
[261] _J. Hexham_ 1152. In the words of Newbridge (l. 1, c. 22),
“aquilonalis regio, quæ in potestatem Domini regis Scottorum _usque ad
fluvium Tesam_ cesserat, per ejusdem Regis industriam in pace agebat.”
Wynton, therefore, was justified in saying (bk. 7, c. 6, l. 241), “In
swylk dissentyowne De kyng Dawy wan till his crown All fra the Wattyr
of Tese of brede North on till the Wattyr of Twede, And fra the Wattyr
of Esk the Est, Til of Stanemoor the Rere-Cors West.” The Esk was the
river flowing into the sea at Whitby, and Stanemoor is on the borders
of Yorkshire, Durham, and Westmoreland. As late as 1258 a bishop of
Glasgow claimed jurisdiction as far as “the Rere-Cross,” and singularly
enough he was an Englishman (_Chron. Lanerc._ 1258). Camden (_Brit._,
p. 987) mentions the Brandreth Stone in Westmoreland as a meer-stone
between Scots and English; but it probably was only a boundary of the
lands held by the Scottish kings near Penrith. Alice de Rumeli was the
daughter of William Meschines and Cecilia de Rumeli, who founded the
Priory of Emmesey, which Alice removed to Bolton. _Vide_ Bolton Priory
Charters, _Dugd Monas_, vol. 6, p. 203. William of Egremont lost his
life through his greyhound pulling him over “the Strides.”
[262] _Chron. St. Crucis_ 1152. _J. Hex._ 1153. _Newbridge_, l. 1, c.
23. _Ailred (Twysden)_, p. 368. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 43. _St. Bernard
Vit. Mal., quoted by Hailes_, vol. i. p. 103, _note_.
[263] Malcolm was born in 1141, William in 1142, and David in 1143.
Fordun, in l. 5, c. 43, places David before William, but in l. 6, c.
1, David is rightly called the younger son. Wynton has been wrongly
accused by Lord Hailes of countenancing this mistake, for he says
nothing of the kind. “Sownys thre on hyr he had, Malcolme, Wyllame, and
Dawy,” are his words; and though he subsequently calls William “the
yhowngare brodyr,” it is only with reference to Malcolm. bk. 7, c. 6,
l. 144–5, 353–65.
[264] _J. Hex._ 1153. _Jorval, quoted in Lytt. Hist._, vol. ii. p. 243.
[265] _Fordun_, 1. 5, c. 55, sec. 9. From c. 45 to c. 60 he is quoting
Ailred, the friend and contemporary of David and his son Henry, and the
principal authority to whom I am indebted for most of the features of
the private character of the king.
[266] _Act. Parl. Scot. As. Dav._, 24, 30. _Fordun_, as above.
[267] _Fordun_, as above. _Malm. Gest. Reg._, l. 4, sec. 400. _As.
Dav._, 26–29. Strictly speaking most of the agricultural laws are
in the assize of William, and the statutes of Alexander the Second;
but many of the laws of these kings are to be regarded as simply the
enforcement of principles of policy laid down by David and his brother
Alexander.
[268] There is an allusion to the University, and the Rector of the
Schools of Abernethy, in the Confirmation Charter of Admore. _Reg.
Prior. St. And._, p. 116.
[269] _Vide_ also _Appendix R_.
[270] _Act. Parl. Scot Assiz. Will._ 3, 4, 16. The northern limits of
Scottish Argyle were identical with those of the subsequent Sheriffdom
or modern county. Argyle in Moravia, or northern Argyle, was afterwards
in the Sheriffdom of Inverness and earldom of Ross. The lands of
Dingwall and Fern-Croskry in “the county of Sutherland,” were made over
to the Earl of Ross by Robert Bruce in 1308. (_Acta, etc._, p. 117).
The name of _Dingwall_ tells of the Norsemen, and Ross is frequently
claimed for the Jarls of Orkney in the Sagas. In fact, the kings of
Scotland at a certain period seem to have favoured their pretensions in
this quarter as a counterpoise to the power of the Moray family.
[271] In Stat. Alex. II. 2, _Gavel_, or _Cavel_, is the word used for
“holding,” and _Loth and Cavil_, Share and Holding, occur in the Burgh
Laws. All the authorities for what is here advanced will be found in
_Appendices D, E, F, and N_. The tenure of the West Saxon “Ceorl upon
Gafol-land,” seems to have been very similar, if not identical, with
that of the Celtic Gavel.
[272] The Irish _Adbhar_ probably answered to the Welsh _Aelodeu_, or
all the members of a family within the fourth degree.
[273] In 1275–6 Alexander II., and subsequently, in 1372, Robert II.
confirmed a grant by which Niel, Earl of Carrick, had conferred upon
Roland de Carrick, “ut ipse et heredes sui sint capud tocius progenie
sue, tam in calumpniis quam aliis articulis et negotiis ad _Kenkynoll_
pertinere valentibus,” with the office of Bailliary (Seneschalship) of
the Earldom of Carrick, and “_the leading of the men thereof_,” under
the earl and his heirs (_Robertson’s Index_, 134. 6). The earldom
went to Niel’s grandson, Robert Bruce. So MacDougal of Dunolly, the
male heir of the _de Ergadia_ family, was hereditary Bailie of Lorn.
“The MacDuff” seems also to have been the next of kin to the Earl
of Fife for the time being. The office of Tanist must have become
obsolete when the heir was declared by the Probi homines of the Visnet
instead of by the Kin. A royal grant, very similar to that of the Earl
of Carrick, was in one celebrated case the cause of a feud lasting
for centuries. As the _Toshach_ seems originally to have been the
second personage in the clan, so the _Senior_ often appears to have
monopolized the ecclesiastical preferment. The kings of the MacAlpin
race were Cowarbs of St. Andrews; of the Atholl family, Cowarbs of
Dunkeld; the Earls of Ross were descended from “Mac-in-Sagart”--the
priest’s son--and it is highly probable that the older chiefs of
Clan Chattan and representatives of Gillie-Chattan-More were also
“Cowarbs of St. Chattan.” When the clan, after the breaking up of
the confederacy of Donald Balloch, made its peace with the king, the
headship was, for some unknown reason, conferred, not on the _Senior_,
but the _Toshach_, and accordingly a constant state of hostility
existed between the Captain of Clan Chattan by royal grant--“the
Mac-in-_Toshach_”--and the claimant of the chieftainship by right of
blood--“the Mac-in-_Pherson_,” filius personæ, or son of the Cowarb.
The Macphersons are neither mentioned amongst the “Landislordis and
Bailies,” nor “the Roll of Clans” appended to “the General Band;” but
only amongst “the brokin men of the surname of Macinpherson.” (_Col.
de Reb. Alb._, p. 35, _et seq._) Nothing but the tenacity with which
the “old Clan Chattan” clung to their “chiefe” (_do._, p. 207) could
have prevented a family, representing, probably, the ancient line of
MacHeth, from sinking to the condition of _Og-tiernach_ under a junior
branch.
[274] _Grand Coutumier_, c. 30. _Vide Appendix D._
[275] _Act. Parl. Scot. As. Wil._ 9.
[276] _Lib. de Beneficiis._
[277] _Appendix D._
[278] _Chron. Lanercost._ 1268.
[279] _Stat. Alex. II._ 1. It shows how stationary--or rather
retrograde--was the condition of Scotland in consequence of the
disastrous English wars, and the weakness of the sovereign authority at
a later period, that in the reign of James I., two hundred years after
Alexander endeavoured to settle the agricultural population, a statute
was passed to prohibit the lords spiritual and temporal from removing
from their lands “colonos et husbandos pro anno futuro,” unless they
required the land “ad usos suos proprios.”--_Act. Jac. I._, 1429; _Act.
Par. Scot._ vol. 2, p. 17.
[280] _Reg. Morav._ No. 76. _Assize Wil._ 28.
[281] Reg. St. And. quoted by Pinkerton, _Inquiry_, _Appendix_ 7, pt.
2 s. 3. Such were the Irish Charters in the Book of Kells (_Miscell._,
I A S, vol. 1, No. x., p. 127), the Welsh in the Book of Llandaff, and
the Memoranda in the _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. 113, _et seq._
[282] _Assize Dav._ 26–28. For examples of _Manred_, _Vide Col. de Reb.
Alb._, _passim_. The word is often written _Man-rent_, but the tie had
nothing to do with _Rent_ or any species of tenure. The _red_ is simply
a termination, as in gossip-_red_, gemein-_red_, equivalent to the
modern _ry_ in such words as infant_ry_, caval_ry_.
[283] _Ini_, 36·50. _Edg. II._ 5. _C.S._ 18. The _Vicarius_ seems to
have been the original deputy of the Frank Graphio, and the _Gingra_,
or junior, of the king’s Ealdorman, _Alf._ 38. Both were replaced by
the royal _Vicecomes_ and _Gerefa_; amongst the Franks probably when
the _Comes_ became a hereditary noble instead of an official.
[284] _Stat. Alex. II._ 5. _Reg. Dunf._, No. 79. Amongst the privileges
of the Earls of Fife was numbered the _Lex Clan Macduff_, by which
“when ony man-slayer being within the ninth degree of kin and bluid
to Macduffe, sumtime Earle of Fife, came to that croce (the cross of
Macduff ‘above the Newburgh beside Lundoris’), and gave nine kye and
ane colpindach, he was free of the slauchter committed be him.” It
saved the life of Hugh de Arbuthnot as late as 1421 (_Innes’s Sketches
of early Scottish History_, p. 215, _note_ 1). It was probably a relic
of the old “right” once belonging to every _Mormaor_ or _Oirrigh_, of
retaining all his kindred in his _mund_; for amongst the rights of
the Welsh _Brenhin_ were all causes appertaining to the crown, king,
or _royal family_. Another right belonging to the Welsh king was the
patronage of all the abbeys, which, though not retained by the Earls of
Fife, was certainly vested in those of Strathearn.
[285] _Assize Wil._ 3, 4. _Reg. Dunf._, Nos. 13, 23, 43, 45, 56. I
have rendered _Probi homines_ by Proprietary. _Probus_ has passed into
the French language as _Preux_; probus homo, as _Preud-homme_. They
are continually found in the Frank laws and capitularies as _Meliores
pagenses_, the class furnishing the _Scabini_, the _Mediocres_ of some
of the other early laws. In _burghs_ they were the class from which
echevins, bailies, and aldermen were chosen. They represented the
leading members of all that part of the _communitas_ which was not
comprised in the clergy, greater barons, and royal officials, answering
very much to the class from which in modern times--whether _in burgh_
or _upland_--the grand jury, magistrates, and members of Parliament are
supposed to be chosen. Amongst the old Saxons the _Scepenbar_ man--he
who was qualified to be chosen for a _Scabinus_--was required to be
“probus, prudens, indigena, ingenuus, et quatuor avis natus, liber et
opulentus;” in other words, the qualifications for a _Probus homo_ were
supposed to be birth, property, and character. In the old Scottish laws
the _probus homo_ is always rendered “good man”--and the _gude-man_ is
still the equivalent of “the master” in a certain class--the _probus
homo et fidelis_, “the good man and true,” being a man of a class
superior to the simple _fidelis_ or “_leal man_.” The _good_ equally
appears in his equivalents amongst the Welsh,--the _Gwr dha_ “bonus
homo;” and amongst the Spaniards--the _Hidalgo_, “fijos d’algo,” or
“filius boni hominis.” Amongst the Northmen he appears seemingly as
the _Danneman_, and amongst the Irish Gael as the _Saoi_. The Scabinus
derived his name from the same source as the _Scop_; both were
_Makers_--to use the old English word answering exactly to ποιητης--and
in times when an unwritten code was preserved in the memory by such
verses as “the father to the bough, the son to the plough;” by a
sort of _memoria technica_ like the Welsh Triads; or by a quaint
system of question and answer, as is traceable amongst the Irish; the
qualifications to constitute a good “law maker” may have often produced
a good “maker” of poetry.
[286] 14 _Edwd. III._, _Stat._ 1, c. 7. In Scotland the same tendency
to act by deputy is observable as on the Continent, and the Lord
Justice _Clerk_ and Lord _Clerk_ Registrar--the deputies of the
Justiciary and Registrar--appear in the place of their principals, just
as in the case of the sheriff-depute.
[287] _Assize Dav._ 18. _Will._ 6.
[288] _Assize Dav._ 14, 15. I have adopted the reading of the Ayr MS.;
xx.^{ix}. instead of xxix., as 180 cows--nine times twenty--were paid
as _manbote_ for homicide throughout _Scotia_. According to the other
reading, the fine for homicide “in the king’s gryth” would have been
less than elsewhere. _Vide Act. Parl. Scot._, vol. 1, p. 3.
[289] _Assize Will._ 13. This was known as _Berthynsak_. Cases of this
description and _Blodwite_--petty thefts and assaults--long continued
to be tried in the lesser courts.
[290] _Assize Dav._ 33. _Wil._ 11. _Leg. Wil. Conq._ 1, 28. For the
Hundred, _vide Appendix F_.
[291] _Thorpe’s Ancient Laws, Ed._ 1. _Ath._ I. 10, 12, 24, v. 10.
_Edm. C._ 5. _Edg. Sup._, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10. _C. S._, 24, and Gloss
in voc _Team_. By the laws of Edward and Athelstan none were to buy
or sell except “in Port,” and before the Port-Reeve; but after the
institution of the Hundred, purchases and sales might be made, in
conformity with the legal forms, in the _upland_ as well as _in burgh_.
The regulations about warranty first appear in the laws of Kent, the
king’s _Wic-gerefa_ of Lunden-_wic_ being the personage in authority,
the king’s hall in the _wic_, the place of trial. _H. and E._ 16.
[292] _Wootton Welsh Laws_, l. 2, c. 4; l. 5, c. 5, s. 79, 80. _Leg.
Wil. Conq._, 1, 21. _Lex. Sal. Tit._ 49. _Assize Wil._ 5. The Frank
_Hamallus_ was the “super quem res primitus agnita fuerit, vel
intertiata,” the “third hand,” apparently, of the Welsh bargain. From
the Conqueror’s laws it would appear that the Norman _Hemold-borh_ was
not identical with the _Getyma_, but he was a character of a similar
description. As late as the seventeenth century, the _Borch Hamel_ was
well known in the Scottish Highlands, and no cattle was bought without
“sufficient caution of burgh and hamer.” _Innes’ Sketches, etc._, p.
382, _note_ 1.
[293] _Assize Wil._, 3, 4, 5, 16. _Lex. Sal. Tit._ 49. _Leg. Hen. I._
xli. The Welsh gave, for finding witnesses, three days within the
Commot, nine if in the neighbouring Commot, and a fortnight beyond that
distance or across an estuary.--_Wootton_, l. 2, c. 10.
[294] _Assize Wil._ 18.
[295] _Assize Dav._, 1, 13, 16. _Wil._ 20. _Slat, Alex. II._ 4. The
_three Thanedoms_ are evidently the same as the _three Baronies_, so
continually met with in later laws. Both are evidently counterparts
of the “three _tuns_” amongst the Anglo-Danish confederacy of Mercia,
and the “three _Dorfern_” amongst the Saxons, with whom it was lawful,
“if a theft be committed _hand-habend_, or a robbery in which the
offender is taken, to choose a Go-graf” from at least _three villages_
(_Dorfern_), “and they shall form a court and judge the case, provided
the judge who has the office in fee (belehenten Richter) cannot be
had.” _Leg. Eth. III._ 15, and _Sach. Spieg._, l. 1, c. 55, quoted in
_note d_. The fine of 34 _cows_ is called in William’s laws (14), the
thief’s _wergild_. By a law of Chlovis whoever saved a man from the
gallows paid his wergild.
[296] _Eth. I._ 1. _Wil. Conq._, I. 11. _Leg. Hen._, I. lxvi., 8–10.
_Lex. Sax. Tit._ 2. As the penalties of this period, when not capital,
were invariably fines, it is probable that the expression “a pound
oath,” or “swearing for so many hydes,” meant that the compurgator,
like the modern bail, was to be up to a certain point “a man of
substance.”
[297] _Lib. de Ben._ 98.
[298] _Assize Wil._ 15. This was not the result of “Celtic barbarism;”
for two centuries after the reign of William the Frisons still claimed
their right to “blood for blood.” _Leg. Fris. Tit._ 2, n. 5, (Canc.)
_Vide_ also _Appendix E_.
[299] _Lex. Sax. Tit._ 2.
[300] According to the laws of Athelstan, iv. 7, the simple ordeal
of water was to take a stone out of boiling water as deep as the
wrist; the triple ordeal deepened the water to the elbow. The ordeal
of iron was to walk nine feet over hot iron; sometimes to carry it,
probably the same distance. In all cases the hand or foot was bound
up and inspected three days afterwards. If it had healed, the man was
pronounced innocent. The ordeal of cold water was the _dyke-pot_, to
which poor wretches accused of witchcraft were too often subjected.
[301] _Velleius Paterculus_, l. 2, c. 118 (quoted by Blackstone).
[302] _Assize Wil._ 7. _Ath._ v. 8. I. 11.
[303] A passage in the laws of Childeric ad an. 550, somewhat
unintelligible indeed, seems to point to this, where, in reference to
the “duodecim juratores,” it is said, “Propterea non est sacramentum in
Francis, quando illi legem composuerunt, non erant Christiani.” _Pertz.
Leg._, vol. 2, p. 6, c. 4. The only meaning I can make out of it is,
“For this cause there is no oath amongst the Franks--no provision for
compurgation in their code--when they made their laws they were not
Christians.” The passage has rather a colloquial form, like the Welsh
Triads or the Irish laws, so often framed in question and answer;
pointing to an age in which the law was not written but committed to
memory.
[304] On such occasions, by Welsh law, if an _Alltud_ joined in the
combat to make up the necessary number of combatants, and escaped
with life, he ranked as a _full-born_ member of the kindred for whom
he had entered the lists. In the battle on the North Inch of Perth
thirty men appeared on each side, armed with bows, axes, swords, and
daggers, but without defensive armour. The number resembles the triple
oath of “three Thanes and twenty-seven leil men,” by which the lord of
the prison from which a thief escaped was bound to clear himself; the
equipment was probably that required in the old “Scottish service.” It
is generally supposed that the contest was for the chieftainship of the
Clan Chattan, but it seems very doubtful that this was the case. The
oldest account of the battle, which took place on 28th September 1396,
is contained in a memorandum in the _Reg. Morav._ p. 382, which says
that thirty of the _Clan Hay_ fought thirty of the _Clan Qwhwle_ “quia
firma pax non poterat intra duas parentelas.” Four years previously,
in the second year of Robert III., the latter clan had figured as the
_Clan Qwhevil_ under _Slurach_ and his brothers, in the raid upon
Angus, celebrated by _Wynton_, bk. ix., c. 14. _Act. Parl. Scot._, V.
1, p. 217. They were the victors, and the Clan Hay disappears for ever;
but the _Clan Chewill_ figures in a Roll of Clans of the sixteenth
century as a distinct family from the Clan Chattan and Macphersons.
_Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 39.
[305] _Heimsk. St. Olaf. Saga_, c. 76, 80.
[306] _Capit. Carl. Mag. Pertz. Leg._, vol. 1, p. 121.
[307] _Arch. Adm. de Rheims_, vol. 1, p. 35. The seven assessors of
the Graphio seem to have been originally known as _Rachimburgii_,
who, according to _Edict. Chilp._ 7 (_Pertz. Leg._, vol. 2, p. 10),
were to be “Antrustiones boni credentes.” They were afterwards known
more generally as _Scabini_, and numbered twelve in the Carlovingian
era. _Cap. Leg. Sal. Add. ad an._ 819, 1, 2, (_Do._ vol. 1, p. 227).
_Vide_ also _Ap. Form. Marc. Canc._ vol. 2, p. 247, _note_ 3. The
number of compurgators appears to have been occasionally _seven_ as
well as twelve (_Cap. Add. Leg. Rip. ad an._ 803, s. 10. _Canc._ vol.
2, p. 320), and a similar number is also sometimes assigned to the
mystic “Peers of Charlemagne,” a body which perhaps may have owed its
creation to some confused idea in later times that the Graphio and his
assessors were but the reflection of “nostrum placitum generale.” The
_Sagibaro_ seems to have been of a lower class than the _Rachimburg_ or
_Scabinus_, for the latter was necessarily an Antrustion or nobleman,
the former if _ingenuus_ was raised to this rank by his office, and
might be a _Lœt_ (V. Wergilds). As any cause decided by the three
_Sagibarones_ could not be reopened before the Graphio, it is evident
that they sat in the lesser Courts. _Lex. Sal._ 56.
[308] _Canc_, vol. 1, p. 236. _Magn. Chart._ II., s. 39, 52. No freeman
was to be dispossessed of his freehold, liberties, or customs, “nisi
per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terræ.” The former
still continues to be the privilege of the “Majores Barones,” or House
of Lords, the latter belongs to the “Minores Barones,” or the rest of
“the Community.” Had not the old “judicium per pares” been superseded
in the case of “the Community” by the “Jugement del Pais,” the _Pares_
would now be counted by millions!
[309] _Leg. Ath._, iv. 6. _Eth._, iii. 3, 13. The _Folk-mote_ was
probably the meeting of the whole people in early times, but after
a king’s Ealdorman presided at it, it was surely only a meeting of
the _Folk_ under his special jurisdiction. It is last alluded to
in the laws of Athelstan, being replaced probably by the biennial
_Shire-gemote_ provided by Edgar’s laws, in which the Bishop and
the Ealdorman were the leading personages (_Edg._ ii., 5. C.S. 18).
These _Moots_ had nothing whatever to do with the government of the
kingdom, which was vested in the king and his _Witan_,--his Court or
Privy Council, not his Parliament; for the voice of “the Community”
was unheard in the _Witanagemote_. Self-government up to a certain
point is traceable in the institutions of this period, but not beyond
it. The Londoners might choose their Tything-men and manage their own
affairs, but the right to do so was laid down in “the ordinance which
the Bishops and _Reeves_ belonging to London ordained;” the Reeves
being appointed by the Crown, and Bishops, Reeves, and Ealdormen being
answerable for holding the _Frith_ “as _I and my Witan have commanded_”
(_Ath._ v. 11). It is in vain to attempt to trace the germs of the
English parliamentary system in the Anglo-Saxon Witan. Our modern
Parliament was gradually developed out of the right, acknowledged by
“Norman feudalism,” of the whole community of freeholders to gather
round the sovereign. The _Majores Barones_ still exercise the right,
once belonging to the whole community, of assembling in person; the
lesser barons, and the rest of the community, whether _in burgh_ or
_upland_, assemble by their representatives, chosen originally by “the
Reeve;” but from the reign of Henry IV. (who appears to have finally
carried out the intentions of his grandfather, after a lapse of thirty
years), by all freemen of a certain standing. The government of a
king and his Witan--his Court or Privy Council--could only have been
developed in course of time into, either a powerful but irresponsible
despotism, or a feeble monarchy torn by the dissensions of a few
powerful magnates contending for the real power. Such was the phase it
assumed in England, unless the history of that period is gravely in
error.
[310] _Wootton_, l. 4. _Triad_ 85.
[311] Malcolm IV., according to John of Hexham, was chosen in an
assembly of this description, or rather, as amongst the Germans in the
days of Tacitus, the assembly ratified the choice of their Seniors.
“Tollens igitur _omnis populus terræ_ Malcholmum ... apud Scotiam,
_sicut consuetudo illius nationis_ ... constituerat regem pro David avo
suo.” _J. Hex._ 1154.
[312] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. 117. This meeting must have taken
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_.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 74317 ***