Chapter 29

[390]Chron. St. Crucis1160. 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. Crucis1154). He was claimed as a suffragan of York after the captivity of William, and when excommunicated in 1177 by Cardinal Vivian, legate forScotland, Ireland, and the Isles, for not attending a council of Scottish bishops, was sheltered by his metropolitan, at that time legate forEngland; 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 othermythsby 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]Hoveden1163.[392]Wendover1163. 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 theAnnales 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’ssoubriquetof “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 yearsafter 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 performedservicefor 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 ofEarl Davidholding 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 Henrygave back(reddidit) the fief to William, who granted it (dedit) to his brother. What wasgiven backmust have been previouslytaken away; and William must have been in possession of the fief before his capture. According toFordun, l. 8, c. 12, 13, he was refused Northumberland; and this refusalDiceto, 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.andHoveden1170.[400]Hoveden1173, 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]Diceto1173.[402]Hoveden1173, p. 307.Newbridge, l. 2, c. 30.Diceto1173. 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 ofTweeddividing the kingdoms of England and Scotland—a clear proof thatLothianhad not beenrestoredto Henry seventeen years previously.[403]Newbridge, l. 2, c. 30.[404]Hoveden, 1174, p. 307.[405]Newbridge, l. 2, c. 32.[406]Hoveden1174, p. 307.Newbridge, l. 2, c. 31, 32.[407]Ben. Ab.1174.Hoveden1174, 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 withDoc. 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 theirknowledgeof 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 (tanquampropellente vi aliquaproperantes) to accomplish five miles an hour, their ordinary movements must have been leisurely indeed.[411]Ben. Ab.1174.Hoveden1174, 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.Hoveden1174, p. 308.Newbridge, l. 3, c. 35.DicetoandChron. 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]Hoveden1174, p. 308.Newbridge, l. 2, c. 34, 37. Diceto improves upon the miracle of William’s capture by adding that on thevery same daythe 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 hadreceived 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. Thoughfivecastles are mentioned in this convention, onlythreeappear 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 Diceto1174, p. 584, andAppendix 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 inHailes’ 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 thatthe king of Scotland was the liegeman of the king of England; whilst the contemporary Simeon confines the dispute strictly toecclesiasticalpoints; though the ill success of the English advocates provoked him into writing “Scotti dicebantstulta garrulitate, etc.!”[418]The letter of the pope to Henry is preserved inDiceto, 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.VidealsoHailes’ Annals, vol. 1, p. 120.[421]Fordun, l. 8, c. 26, makes Gilbert Moray the spokesman of the Scots.[422]Hoveden1176, 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]Hoveden1188, p. 371. This privilege was confirmed by many subsequent bulls.[426]The best account of these transactions is given byAbbot 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 thekingdomof 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 behindScotia.[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 theroseChrist was figured, by thegold, his kingly office; by thered colour, his passion; and by theperfume, 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—inHoveden, 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 ofRosmarkinch.[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 theAllodiallands to which Henry had succeeded in right of his mother Gertrude, heiress of the Saxon Emperor Lothaire.[434]Ben. Ab.1185.Hoveden1184, 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 ofHerynfeloniously, 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 Scotiæper consensum et conciliumComitum et Baronum Regni Scotiæ,” are the words ofBen. 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 whostood 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.Hoveden1188, 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]Hoveden1189, p. 374–77.[450]Ben. Ab.1189.Hoveden1189, p. 377.Fœd., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 50.[451]Chron. Mel.1193.Hoveden1190, p. 387; 1194, p. 418. The 2000 marks were, probably, the usual feudal aid towards ransoming the superior of his fiefs in England.[452]Hoveden1194, p. 419.Fœdera, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 62.[453]Hoveden1194, p. 420.[454]Hoveden1195, 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]Hoveden1196, p. 432.[456]Heimsk.vol. 3,Sagaxi., c. 12;Sagaxii., c. 2.Antiq. Celt.-Scand., p. 239.[457]Torf. Orc., l. 1, c. 18. It would be difficult to saywhocanonized 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 inSutherlandwere 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 theirSenior, 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. Sagaxiv. c. 17.Antiq. Celt.-Scand., p. 264–65.[468]Heimsk. Sagaxiv. 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]Hoveden1196, 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]Hoveden1196, 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]Hoveden1196, p. 436.[479]Hoveden1196, p. 346. He calls the king of Man, Reginald, son ofSomarled. Reginald, the son ofGodfrey, was at that time king of Man; and the son of Somarled was hardly more than asubordinateking 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 toHarald the youngerafter 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’sfirst invasionof 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 occulorumin aliquosibi 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; inTracts 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]Hoveden1199, p. 450–51.[484]Hoveden1199, p. 451.[485]Hoveden1199, p. 453.[486]Hoveden1200, 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 toRobertson’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 thetractatus maritagiialludes 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.

[391]Hoveden1163.

[392]Wendover1163. 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 theAnnales 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’ssoubriquetof “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 yearsafter 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 performedservicefor 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 ofEarl Davidholding 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 Henrygave back(reddidit) the fief to William, who granted it (dedit) to his brother. What wasgiven backmust have been previouslytaken away; and William must have been in possession of the fief before his capture. According toFordun, l. 8, c. 12, 13, he was refused Northumberland; and this refusalDiceto, 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.andHoveden1170.

[400]Hoveden1173, 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]Diceto1173.

[402]Hoveden1173, p. 307.Newbridge, l. 2, c. 30.Diceto1173. 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 ofTweeddividing the kingdoms of England and Scotland—a clear proof thatLothianhad not beenrestoredto Henry seventeen years previously.

[403]Newbridge, l. 2, c. 30.

[404]Hoveden, 1174, p. 307.

[405]Newbridge, l. 2, c. 32.

[406]Hoveden1174, p. 307.Newbridge, l. 2, c. 31, 32.

[407]Ben. Ab.1174.Hoveden1174, 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 withDoc. 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 theirknowledgeof 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 (tanquampropellente vi aliquaproperantes) to accomplish five miles an hour, their ordinary movements must have been leisurely indeed.

[411]Ben. Ab.1174.Hoveden1174, 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.Hoveden1174, p. 308.Newbridge, l. 3, c. 35.DicetoandChron. 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]Hoveden1174, p. 308.Newbridge, l. 2, c. 34, 37. Diceto improves upon the miracle of William’s capture by adding that on thevery same daythe 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 hadreceived 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. Thoughfivecastles are mentioned in this convention, onlythreeappear 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 Diceto1174, p. 584, andAppendix 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 inHailes’ 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 thatthe king of Scotland was the liegeman of the king of England; whilst the contemporary Simeon confines the dispute strictly toecclesiasticalpoints; though the ill success of the English advocates provoked him into writing “Scotti dicebantstulta garrulitate, etc.!”

[418]The letter of the pope to Henry is preserved inDiceto, 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.VidealsoHailes’ Annals, vol. 1, p. 120.

[421]Fordun, l. 8, c. 26, makes Gilbert Moray the spokesman of the Scots.

[422]Hoveden1176, 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]Hoveden1188, p. 371. This privilege was confirmed by many subsequent bulls.

[426]The best account of these transactions is given byAbbot 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 thekingdomof 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 behindScotia.

[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 theroseChrist was figured, by thegold, his kingly office; by thered colour, his passion; and by theperfume, 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—inHoveden, 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 ofRosmarkinch.

[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 theAllodiallands to which Henry had succeeded in right of his mother Gertrude, heiress of the Saxon Emperor Lothaire.

[434]Ben. Ab.1185.Hoveden1184, 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 ofHerynfeloniously, 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 Scotiæper consensum et conciliumComitum et Baronum Regni Scotiæ,” are the words ofBen. 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 whostood 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.Hoveden1188, 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]Hoveden1189, p. 374–77.

[450]Ben. Ab.1189.Hoveden1189, p. 377.Fœd., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 50.

[451]Chron. Mel.1193.Hoveden1190, p. 387; 1194, p. 418. The 2000 marks were, probably, the usual feudal aid towards ransoming the superior of his fiefs in England.

[452]Hoveden1194, p. 419.Fœdera, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 62.

[453]Hoveden1194, p. 420.

[454]Hoveden1195, 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]Hoveden1196, p. 432.

[456]Heimsk.vol. 3,Sagaxi., c. 12;Sagaxii., c. 2.Antiq. Celt.-Scand., p. 239.

[457]Torf. Orc., l. 1, c. 18. It would be difficult to saywhocanonized 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 inSutherlandwere 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 theirSenior, 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. Sagaxiv. c. 17.Antiq. Celt.-Scand., p. 264–65.

[468]Heimsk. Sagaxiv. 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]Hoveden1196, 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]Hoveden1196, 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]Hoveden1196, p. 436.

[479]Hoveden1196, p. 346. He calls the king of Man, Reginald, son ofSomarled. Reginald, the son ofGodfrey, was at that time king of Man; and the son of Somarled was hardly more than asubordinateking 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 toHarald the youngerafter 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’sfirst invasionof 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 occulorumin aliquosibi 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; inTracts 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]Hoveden1199, p. 450–51.

[484]Hoveden1199, p. 451.

[485]Hoveden1199, p. 453.

[486]Hoveden1200, 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 toRobertson’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 thetractatus maritagiialludes 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.

Back to Index Next