Chapter 26

[193]Tigh.1052, 1061.Col. de Reb. Alb., p. 346.Seventy-five andsixty-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 offifty-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.andA. 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 twoDeemstersor Judges of Man.[198]Chron. Man.An. Ult.andA. F. M.1094. Godfrey is generally known in the Irish Annals asMeranach, or the Bad.[199]An. Ult.1087.[200]An. Ult.andA. 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 theHeimskringla, Saga11, c. 9, 10, 11.Chron. Man.1098.Chron. Sax.1098. From his partiality to the costume of the Islesmen, he obtained the name of MagnusBarefoot. 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. Saga11, 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. Saga11, c. 26–28.An. Ult.andA. F. M.1103.VidealsoAntiq.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 Gestis1107.Ailred de Bel. Stand(Twysden, p. 344).Fordun, l. 5, c. 55.[207]Ailred, in hisGenealogia 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,grandsonof ... 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’sgreat grandfather, not thedesignation 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 bishopselectbetween 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 Gestis1074 (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, exceptat 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 Gestis1109.[218]Sim. Dun. de Gestis1074 (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’sAnnals, 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, asa plentiful and hospitable board.”[223]Ead. Hist. Nov., l. 6.[224]Sim. Dun. de Gestis1124. 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 Gestis1122, 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 Gestis1122, 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 errorBeth) 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 ofAlanwas Flahald orFleald, 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 thoroughSaxonizingof 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.” IfThaneandThanageare supposed to be, not Saxonnamesapplied 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 asThane-landwas from a Thanage. The Saxon held by military service—cnicht-service, an expression scarcely traceable to Normandy; the Scot byScottishservice and rent—infee-farm. Why also is only one Thane traceable in the Lothians, if all the Thanes came from the Saxons? CompareAppendices 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]Videpreceding chapter, p.184, note.[234]Chron. Sax.,Chron. St. Crucis,Chron. Mel., andAn. 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. Hexham1136.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 theEarldom—or rather perhapsComitatus—but theHonourof 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 DavidsurvivedMalmesbury, 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 hisastutia(Gesta Regum, sec 400). Forty years later he must have been nearer sixty than fifty.[238]John and Rich. Hexham1136. 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 subpatrimonialijure reposcere consueverat.”[239]John and Rich. Hexham1137.Malm. Hist. Nov., l. 1, sec. 17.[240]TheGermansof 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 asReiters; and these free companies probably supplied many of theFlandrensesandFlamingiof the Scottish charters.[241]“In curiâ contra patrium morem captus,” are the words ofAilred, 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, orLevenach, was called so from the river Leven, and from the lake which was originally namedLoch Leven, and afterwards (from its principal mountain)Loch Lomond.Lavernaniis evidently a clerical error forLevenani; asLinenathin the Fœdera is a mistake forLevenach.[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]CompareJohn and Rich. Hexham1138.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 allFrank-allodialproprietors of three, four, or fivemansi(orhydes); every proprietor of an amount less than threemansicombining with others, so that the lowest on the list, the proprietor of half amansus, in conjunction withfiveothers (i.e., making upthree mansi) equipped one of their number for the army. The equivalents of this latter class amongst the English seem to have formed thegemeinredor 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 ofScotticanum servitium, sometimes known asforinsecum servitium(Reg. Morav. Cart. Orig.13), theSluaghor “hosting beyond the frontier.” The muster of the Highland clan in later times, including “Native men” as well as “Duine Uasal,” answered to the oldSluagh. The expressionsInware, andUtware, are sometimes used, the former answering, apparently, to the Welsh “Llwyd yn Wlad,” or hostingwithinthe borders; the latter to the “Llwyd yn Orwlad,” or hostingbeyondthe borders. It may be gathered fromReg. 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 nisiforinsecum servitium Scotticanumdomini regis ... et secursum ac auxilium quod nobis in defensione regni per potenciam suamarmigerorum et equorum et armorumfecit 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 Germanframea), 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. Hexham1138. 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,afterthe other dates.[253]J. and R. Hexham1138.[254]J. and R. Hexham1138. “Fœminca calliditate atque protervitate instante,” are the words of Prior Richard.[255]J. and R. Hexham1139. The hostages were the sons of Earls Cospatric and Fergus, of Hugh de Moreville and ofMac.andMel.(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. Hexham1141. All the occurrences in John of Hexham after 1140 are misdated one year, owing to the insertion of the passage “AnnoMCXLI.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. Hexham1142. The name has been changed intoOliphant.[258]J. Hexham1143–45.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. Hexham1150.Hen. Hunt., l. 8, p. 226.R. Hoveden1148, 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 inFordun, 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. Crucis1157.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 closeat least six yearsbefore 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 thereal 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. Hexham1152. In the words of Newbridge (l. 1, c. 22), “aquilonalis regio, quæ in potestatem Domini regis Scottorumusque ad fluvium Tesamcesserat, 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.VideBolton 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. Crucis1152.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]VidealsoAppendix 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 ofDingwalltells 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, orCavel, is the word used for “holding,” andLoth and Cavil, Share and Holding, occur in the Burgh Laws. All the authorities for what is here advanced will be found inAppendices 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.

[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.andA. 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 twoDeemstersor Judges of Man.

[198]Chron. Man.An. Ult.andA. F. M.1094. Godfrey is generally known in the Irish Annals asMeranach, or the Bad.

[199]An. Ult.1087.

[200]An. Ult.andA. 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 theHeimskringla, Saga11, c. 9, 10, 11.Chron. Man.1098.Chron. Sax.1098. From his partiality to the costume of the Islesmen, he obtained the name of MagnusBarefoot. 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. Saga11, 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. Saga11, c. 26–28.An. Ult.andA. F. M.1103.VidealsoAntiq.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 Gestis1107.Ailred de Bel. Stand(Twysden, p. 344).Fordun, l. 5, c. 55.

[207]Ailred, in hisGenealogia 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,grandsonof ... 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’sgreat grandfather, not thedesignation 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 bishopselectbetween 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.

Papam rite colo, sed te prostratus adoro;Tu facis hunc Dominum, te facit ille Deum.

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 Gestis1074 (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, exceptat 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 Gestis1109.

[218]Sim. Dun. de Gestis1074 (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’sAnnals, 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, asa plentiful and hospitable board.”

[223]Ead. Hist. Nov., l. 6.

[224]Sim. Dun. de Gestis1124. 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 Gestis1122, 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 Gestis1122, 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 errorBeth) 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 ofAlanwas Flahald orFleald, 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 thoroughSaxonizingof 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.” IfThaneandThanageare supposed to be, not Saxonnamesapplied 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 asThane-landwas from a Thanage. The Saxon held by military service—cnicht-service, an expression scarcely traceable to Normandy; the Scot byScottishservice and rent—infee-farm. Why also is only one Thane traceable in the Lothians, if all the Thanes came from the Saxons? CompareAppendices 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]Videpreceding chapter, p.184, note.

[234]Chron. Sax.,Chron. St. Crucis,Chron. Mel., andAn. 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. Hexham1136.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 theEarldom—or rather perhapsComitatus—but theHonourof 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 DavidsurvivedMalmesbury, 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 hisastutia(Gesta Regum, sec 400). Forty years later he must have been nearer sixty than fifty.

[238]John and Rich. Hexham1136. 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 subpatrimonialijure reposcere consueverat.”

[239]John and Rich. Hexham1137.Malm. Hist. Nov., l. 1, sec. 17.

[240]TheGermansof 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 asReiters; and these free companies probably supplied many of theFlandrensesandFlamingiof the Scottish charters.

[241]“In curiâ contra patrium morem captus,” are the words ofAilred, 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, orLevenach, was called so from the river Leven, and from the lake which was originally namedLoch Leven, and afterwards (from its principal mountain)Loch Lomond.Lavernaniis evidently a clerical error forLevenani; asLinenathin the Fœdera is a mistake forLevenach.

[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]CompareJohn and Rich. Hexham1138.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 allFrank-allodialproprietors of three, four, or fivemansi(orhydes); every proprietor of an amount less than threemansicombining with others, so that the lowest on the list, the proprietor of half amansus, in conjunction withfiveothers (i.e., making upthree mansi) equipped one of their number for the army. The equivalents of this latter class amongst the English seem to have formed thegemeinredor 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 ofScotticanum servitium, sometimes known asforinsecum servitium(Reg. Morav. Cart. Orig.13), theSluaghor “hosting beyond the frontier.” The muster of the Highland clan in later times, including “Native men” as well as “Duine Uasal,” answered to the oldSluagh. The expressionsInware, andUtware, are sometimes used, the former answering, apparently, to the Welsh “Llwyd yn Wlad,” or hostingwithinthe borders; the latter to the “Llwyd yn Orwlad,” or hostingbeyondthe borders. It may be gathered fromReg. 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 nisiforinsecum servitium Scotticanumdomini regis ... et secursum ac auxilium quod nobis in defensione regni per potenciam suamarmigerorum et equorum et armorumfecit 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 Germanframea), 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. Hexham1138. 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,afterthe other dates.

[253]J. and R. Hexham1138.

[254]J. and R. Hexham1138. “Fœminca calliditate atque protervitate instante,” are the words of Prior Richard.

[255]J. and R. Hexham1139. The hostages were the sons of Earls Cospatric and Fergus, of Hugh de Moreville and ofMac.andMel.(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. Hexham1141. All the occurrences in John of Hexham after 1140 are misdated one year, owing to the insertion of the passage “AnnoMCXLI.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. Hexham1142. The name has been changed intoOliphant.

[258]J. Hexham1143–45.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. Hexham1150.Hen. Hunt., l. 8, p. 226.R. Hoveden1148, 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 inFordun, 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. Crucis1157.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 closeat least six yearsbefore 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 thereal 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. Hexham1152. In the words of Newbridge (l. 1, c. 22), “aquilonalis regio, quæ in potestatem Domini regis Scottorumusque ad fluvium Tesamcesserat, 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.VideBolton 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. Crucis1152.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]VidealsoAppendix 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 ofDingwalltells 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, orCavel, is the word used for “holding,” andLoth and Cavil, Share and Holding, occur in the Burgh Laws. All the authorities for what is here advanced will be found inAppendices 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.

Back to Index Next