Chapter 30

[487]Hoveden1200, p. 461. William swore upon the archbishop’s cross, because there was no “sacred book” at hand, says the Bridlington Chronicle inDocuments, etc., relating to Hist. Scot., No. xxi., sec. 35, p. 66. The decision of the question about the counties was again put off till the following Michaelmas, and it is difficult to say whether it was ever again raised during the reign of William, as after the conclusion of Hoveden’s work, no other chronicler alludes to the subject. Wendover succeeds to Hoveden, whose loss is great for the historian of Scotland; as the manner in which Wendover supplies his place can be appreciated from the description of the meeting at Lincoln, in which the latter, after copying the account of his predecessor, characteristically omits the reservation, “Salvo jure suo!” The want of anorthernchronicler is very much felt, as it will be generally found that the monastic writers are most accurate in their narration of events that occurred in their own neighbourhood. From exalting Brompton, who wrote at the close of the fourteenth century, to the position of a contemporary writer, and from some other similar oversights, Dr. Lingard’s version of these transactions is singularly inaccurate.Vide Appendix L, pt. 2.[488]Fordun, l. 8, c. 64. He places these occurrences in 1203; but as he describes the capture of Falaise and other places at the same time—and they were taken in 1204—and as John only reached England on 6th December 1203, I have placed them under 1204. William was frequently in England after this meeting at Norham. £10 were paid for his expenses in 1206; £15 when he was at York on 20th June, and £30 when he was at the same place on 16th August 1207. In July 1205 John wrote to William, thanking him for the favourable answer which he had received on the subject of their negotiations, and alluding to the lands of Tynedale, of which William was seized, and of which no mention had been made in their convention.Rot Claus., p. 43 b., 86, 90 b. These lands in Tynedale appear to have been held by simple homage.Vide Doc. etc. Illust. Hist. Scot. Introd., p. vii.[489]Fordun, l. 8, c. 66–67.[490]Trivet1209, and the Bridlington Chronicle (inDocuments, etc., relating to Hist. Scot., No. xxi., sec. 26, p. 66) state that William was going to marry one of his daughters to the Count of Boulogne.Hemingburgh, vol. 1, p. 242, affirms that the princess was to have been united to the Count of Flanders. Ida, who brought the earldom of Boulogne to her husband, Reginald de Dammartin, and whose heiress, Mahout, was married to Prince Philip of France, was married about 1191, and survived till 1216. There was no Count of Flanders in 1209. Baldwin of Hainault, who ascended the imperial throne of Constantinople in 1204, and was slain in the following year, left by Margaret his wife, who brought him the earldom of Flanders, two daughters, who became the wards of Philip Augustus. By that king the eldest, Jane, was given to Ferrand of Portugal in 1211, who in her right became Count of Flanders and Hainault. It is very clear, then, that William could not have been negotiating a marriage for one of his daughters with either a Count of Boulogne, or of Flanders, at that period; and if any negotiation on such a subject had been set on foot, it must have been respecting an alliance between the prince of Scotland and the heiress of Flanders and Hainault. Such a project would have suited well with the endeavours of Philip to enlist allies against John, and it would undoubtedly have brought the latter king in all haste to the northern frontier.[491]Chron. Mel.1209.Fordun, l. 8, c. 69. Some of the sentences in the Melrose Chronicle would almost appear to have been transposed. Their general sense seems to be that “John marched to Norham and summoned William to meet him at Newcastle. Thither went William, and both in going and returning, defrayed his own expenses at Alnwick, etc.”—the latter observation referring to an infringement of the Charter of Privileges, a sure sign of a want of cordiality between the kings, which was not restored until William recovered the “Benevolentiadomini nostri.”[492]Fifteen hundred English knights and their retainers, 7000 crossbowmen andBranchii(?), 13,000 Welshmen, and an overwhelming force of all arms.[493]Fordun, l. 8, c. 70.[494]These hostages were the sons of the Earl of Winchester, of William de Vetere Ponto, of William de Vallibus, of Philip de Mowbray, of Gervase Avenel, of David Lindsay, of Gilbert Earl of Strathearn, of Lawrence Abernethy, of Thomas of Galloway, of Earl Patrick of Dunbar, and of William Comyn, with the brothers of Robert de Bruce, and of Walter Clifford, and a daughter of Alan of Galloway, who died in England.—Rot. Claus., p. 137 b. They were given “et pro hac pecunia et ad prædictos terminos reddendâ, et pro eisdem terminis fideliter tenendis.” An attempt is sometimes made to include the princesses amongst the hostages. This is contradicted, both by the words of William, “exceptis duabus filiabus nostris quas ei liberavimus,” and by the omission of their names in the Close Rolls. These hostages were given as “security” for the money—warranters—and returned of course when the debt was acquitted. The princesses were given up to be married, and remained in England long after the death of John.[495]Chron. Mel.1209.Fordun, l. 8, c. 71.Fœdera, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 103.Robertson’s Index Introd., p. xx.Neg. tang. Ang.No. 3. Such is the account of these transactions preserved in the Scottish authorities, and the correctness of their dates is confirmed by the Fœdera and the Patent Rolls. Wendover is decidedly wrong in referring the whole transaction to one meeting only, and in placing the treaty, etc., before 28th June. The Bridlington Chronicle states that John built a castle at Berwick (i.e., Tweedmouth) in June, and that the kings came to terms in August (Documents, etc., xxi., sec. 26–27), Hemingburgh asserts that John at first demanded Alexander as a hostage for his father, the “plura et inaudita” perhaps of Fordun. In spite of the attempt of Fordun to represent the peace as the result of the interference of the principal men of both countries, it was evidently brought about through William’s aversion to war. The message that excited the wrath of John was dictated inthe Council of Stirling; the envoys to deprecate his indignation were dispatched by William; and the Melrose chronicler concludes his account with the significant sentence, “It was done against the wishes of the Scots.” The extreme secrecy about the tenor of these “mutual charters” is worthy of remark. The Scots always maintained that one of the princesses was to have married the heir of the English crown, and Alexander II. afterwards obtained a grant of lands in satisfaction for his claims upon the northern counties, and for the alleged infringement of the terms of this arrangement (Fœd., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 233). In the Patent Rolls (An. 21, Hen. III.) there is the following remark on this latter treaty, “Inter cœtera apparet quod concordia fuit quod Rex Angliæ duceret Marger’ sororem dicti Regis Scotiæ, quod modo relaxatum fuit ac al’.” All this tells for the Scottish account. On the other hand, when Hubert de Burgh was charged with preventing this marriage—in consideration of which William had agreed to waive his claims on the northern counties—the Earl of Kent replied that he knew of no such agreement, and appealed to the letters of Pandulf and others to prove that his own marriage with the princess Margaret was brought about with the full knowledge and consent of the English magnates (Mat. Par. Addit.p. 99); and theRot. Pat. ad an. 4 Hen. III., mention an arrangement at York before Pandulf, in which it was agreed that the sisters of Alexander should be married “infra Regnum Angliæ ad honorem suum.” Hubert’s statement, however, only had reference to a guarded defence of his own conduct, and throws no light upon the events of John’s reign. It is very probable that John retained the princesses at his court for the purpose of marrying them to his own sons if anything happened to thesole male heirof Scotland; and that may have been the reason why they remained unmarried until after his death. It is not to be supposed that Hubert de Burgh overlooked the proximity of Margaret to the Scottish throne when he married her, and it must be acknowledged that his interpretation of the secret treaties, if he was really aware of their existence, was very much to his own advantage. The wording of the letter of William in theFœderacontradicts the supposition that the payment of 15,000 marks “pro benevolentia domini nostri habendâ,et pro conventionibus tenendis,” etc., was a simplefineimposed by John on the Scottish king.[496]Robertson’s Index Introd.xx.Negot. tang. Ang., Nos. 7, 36, 40.Fordun, l. 8, c. 72. One of the Melrose charters (No. 168) proves the date of this homage of Alexander, and a fragment in theDocuments, No. xl., sec. 19, p. 136, states that the homage was performed “pro omnibusrectitudinibuspro quibus pater suus fecerat homagium Henrico Regi patri ejusdem Johannis.” Libertates etrectitudines—privileges and rights—are the words in Richard’s Charter of Privileges to William. As half the money—one year’s payment—was remitted, and the whole sum was to have been paid off in two years, it is allowable to infer that one year after the treaty,i.e., in 1210, John must have waived his claim to the payment of the remainder.[497]Chron. Mel.1210.Fœd., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 120.[498]Chron. Mel.1211.Fordun, l. 8, c. 76. TheThanes of Rossinvited him over, says Fordun.[499]Fordun, l. 8, c. 72. The “Mons in ea diruens” of Fordun was evidently the old Rath-inver-Amon. Boece drowns a youthful prince John and his nurse—very apocryphal characters—and rebuilds Perth upon its present site.[500]These castella appear to have been built of wood, as one was burnt in the following year.[501]Fordun, l. 8, c. 76.[502]Fordun, l. 8, c. 76.[503]Fordun, l. 8, c. 76.Walter of Coventry, ad an.1212. The words of this writer are, “Scotorum Rex Willelmus jam ætatis provectæ, cum interioris regni sui partes seditione turbatas pacificare non posset, ad Anglorum Regem confugiens, se et regnum filiumque quem unicum habibat, ejus commisit provisioni. At ille, cingulo militari commendatum sibi adolescentem donans, in partes illas cum exercitu proficiscens, dimissis per interiora regni suis Guthredum cognomento Mac William, seditionis ducem, cepit et patibulo suspendit. Erat hic de Scotorum Regum antiquâ prosapiâ, qui Scotorum et Hibernensium fretus auxilio, longas contra modernos Reges, sicut et pater suus Duvenaldus, nunc clàm nunc palàm exercuit inimicitias. Moderniores enim Scotorum Reges magis se Francos fatentur, sicut genere, ita moribus, linguâ, cultu; Scotisque ad extremam servitutem redactis, solos Francos in familiaritatem et obsequium adhibent.” This account, as is so often the case, contains a mixture of truth and error. The flight of William to John, and John’s campaign in the Highlands of Scotland during the summer of 1212 (for Godfrey was given up at that time), are apocryphal, for he was at that time engaged in his expedition against the Welsh, from which he returned so suddenly, through fear of treachery. He may have assisted William—perhaps with some of his foreign Reiters—though he was hardly in a condition at that time to yield much assistance to any one. The distinction between the “ancient and modern kings” of Scotland is also imaginary, for William and his rivals were cousins, equally claiming to represent the race of Malcolm Ceanmore; though the assertion that their kings were “Normans, not Scots,” is exactly what the disaffected subjects of the reigning family would have urged against them. Even the last sentence is only partially true, for out of the leaders employed in this very war, the Earls of Fife and Atholl, and Malcolm, son of Morgund of Mar, were of native Scottish origin; the Earl of Buchan owed his earldom to his wife, the heiress of a native earl; and Thomas the Durward was also apparently of a Scottish rather than of a foreign family. In fact, the feudalized upper classes ofScotiaand the lowlands of Moray, were at this time looked upon as “Normans;” the mountaineers who clung to “ancient custom,” as the real Scots; their position being reversed a few generations later, when the former claimed to be “Scots,” regarding the latter as “Erse” or Irish. There is much truth, however, in this passage, though it must be takencum grano.[504]Fordun, l. 8, c. 77.Chron. Mel.1212.Wendover1212 (vol. 3, p. 238).Fœdera, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 104. “Ubi voluerit ad fidem ipsius domini Regis, ita quod non disparagetur,” are the words. The result of this treaty relieved John from any fears lest Alexander should contract any alliance with his enemies. The “liege homage” rendered by William and his son to the prince Henry, was upon the same principle as he and his brother David, and, at an earlier period, Malcolm had performed homage to the eldest son of Henry the Second. Had this homage been rendered—as some seem to suppose—for the kingdom of Scotland, it is almost needless to observe that such a stipulation would have been carefully entered in the treaty, and the Scottish barons would have been summoned to attend the councils of the English king—as in the latter part of Henry’s reign—and to aid him in his wars.[505]Fordun, l. 8, c. 76.[506]If the story told by Hemingburgh is true (ad an.1215, vol. 1, p. 247)—that John’s anger against Eustace de Vesci was occasioned by the rejection of his suit by that baron’s beautiful wife—William may have acquired his knowledge of the disaffection of the English nobles through that very lady, who was his own natural daughter Margaret.[507]Fordun, l. 8, c. 78. He is the only writer who notices these transactions, but his account is strongly borne out by a letter in theFœdera, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 108, to the emperor Otho, dated at Bamborough 28th January 1213, in which John writes that he has been detained in the north by arrangements for the security of that part of his kingdom. It is clear, therefore, that he was upon the northern frontier in the early part of that year; and his abortive negotiations with the Scottish king might have easily escaped the notice of the English chroniclers amidst the important events that occurred so soon afterwards. From the commencement of the thirteenth century the authority of Fordun is of far greater weight than before, and I have found his statements frequently corroborated by the Fœdera and the Rolls. In the latter part of William’s reign can be traced the elements of those parties which appear in the subsequent reigns (but more especially in that of Alexander the Third) as the English and Scottish factions.[508]Flatey Book in Col. de Reb. Alb., p. 354.[509]Chron. Mel.1214.Fordun, l. 8, c. 79. The latter historian alludes to an old tradition that Stirling was once the spot where the territories of the Scots (i.e., Picts) marched with those of the Britons.[510]Newbridge, l. 2, c. 19. As he concluded his history in 1195, thelater yearsof William must refer to Richard’s reign. The influence of good Queen Margaret appears to have died out in the days of her great-grandchildren, and it is to this probably that the historian alludes, insinuating that it arose through the fault of their mother, Ada de Warenne. William left several illegitimate children. His sons were Robert de Lundoniis and Henry Gellatly, of whom little or nothing is known. His daughters were—1. Isabella, married in 1183 to Robert de Bruce, and in 1191 to Robert de Ros. 2. Ada, married in 1184 to Earl Patrick of Dunbar. 3. Margaret, married in 1192 to Eustace de Vesci; and 4. Aufrida, married to William de Say.Vide Hailes’ Annals, vol. 1, p. 156.[511]The passage occurs in the “Instructio Principis” ofGirald. Camb.“Distinctio prima;” but I quote it from “Innes’s Sketches,” etc., p. 144, note 2. Giraldus probably wrote feelingly, for though twice elected to the see of St. Davids, the choice of the Chapter was not confirmed. Right or wrong, the Scottish sovereigns seem to have persevered in William’s policy, and when Robert Bruce conferred the earldom of Moray upon Randolph “in libero comitatu et in liberâ regalitate,” the church patronage was expressly reserved.Reg. Morav.No. 264.[512]Innes’s Appendix, No. 1, sec. 3.Wynton (Macpherson), note to bk. 7, c. 8, l. 20.[513]Assize Will., 9, 29, 15, 8, 22, 23, 37, 38, 42.Assize David, 26, 27, 28. The right of the heir to inherit, in spite of the felony of his ancestor or kinsman, will be found in the old Germanic laws as well as in the Gavelkind tenure, which was originally allodial.[514]Assize Will.12.Assize David12. In David’s time it was frequently “the royal judge” who sat in the lesser courts. The sheriffdom was not universally established, at any rate, before the close of his reign. From the wording of his enactment, “prepositus vel ballivus ville,” it would appear that before his reign every “lord of a vill,” in other words, every “lord of the manor,”—or his equivalent—had the power of life and death.[515]Assize Will.20.Hoveden1197 (p. 440). His words are, “Eodem anno Willielmus rex Scottorumde bono sumens exemplum, fecit homines regni sui jurare quod pacem pro posse suo servarent, et quod nec latrones, nec robatores, nec utlagi nec receptatores eorum essent, nec in aliquo eis consentirent, et quod cum hujusmodi malefactores scire potuerint, illos pro posse suo caperent et destruerent,” exactly tallying with the regulations of the Council of Perth. From the expressionde bono sumens exemplum, it would appear that he followed some English example.[516]Assize Will.25, 19.Assize David25. In the reign of David all the greater magnates attended in person the royal Moots, held every forty days, which in William’s reign probably became Sheriffs’ Moots. The expression “all who have the freedom and custom of an earl,” occursAssize David16.[517]Videthe earlier charters in the Registers of Moray, Aberdeen, and Glasgow, particularlyReg. Morav.No. 5.Glas.13, 70.[518]Vide chap.10, p. 352, 357, notes.Chron. Lanerc.1213.[519]Assize Will.40.[520]Robertson’s Index Introd.p. xx.Neg. tang. Angl.No. 4. Scone was probably the port to which foreign traders brought their wares in the days of Malcolm and Margaret. A very full and interesting account of the Scotch Burghs will be found in “Innes’s Sketches, etc.,” c. 5.

[488]Fordun, l. 8, c. 64. He places these occurrences in 1203; but as he describes the capture of Falaise and other places at the same time—and they were taken in 1204—and as John only reached England on 6th December 1203, I have placed them under 1204. William was frequently in England after this meeting at Norham. £10 were paid for his expenses in 1206; £15 when he was at York on 20th June, and £30 when he was at the same place on 16th August 1207. In July 1205 John wrote to William, thanking him for the favourable answer which he had received on the subject of their negotiations, and alluding to the lands of Tynedale, of which William was seized, and of which no mention had been made in their convention.Rot Claus., p. 43 b., 86, 90 b. These lands in Tynedale appear to have been held by simple homage.Vide Doc. etc. Illust. Hist. Scot. Introd., p. vii.

[489]Fordun, l. 8, c. 66–67.

[490]Trivet1209, and the Bridlington Chronicle (inDocuments, etc., relating to Hist. Scot., No. xxi., sec. 26, p. 66) state that William was going to marry one of his daughters to the Count of Boulogne.Hemingburgh, vol. 1, p. 242, affirms that the princess was to have been united to the Count of Flanders. Ida, who brought the earldom of Boulogne to her husband, Reginald de Dammartin, and whose heiress, Mahout, was married to Prince Philip of France, was married about 1191, and survived till 1216. There was no Count of Flanders in 1209. Baldwin of Hainault, who ascended the imperial throne of Constantinople in 1204, and was slain in the following year, left by Margaret his wife, who brought him the earldom of Flanders, two daughters, who became the wards of Philip Augustus. By that king the eldest, Jane, was given to Ferrand of Portugal in 1211, who in her right became Count of Flanders and Hainault. It is very clear, then, that William could not have been negotiating a marriage for one of his daughters with either a Count of Boulogne, or of Flanders, at that period; and if any negotiation on such a subject had been set on foot, it must have been respecting an alliance between the prince of Scotland and the heiress of Flanders and Hainault. Such a project would have suited well with the endeavours of Philip to enlist allies against John, and it would undoubtedly have brought the latter king in all haste to the northern frontier.

[491]Chron. Mel.1209.Fordun, l. 8, c. 69. Some of the sentences in the Melrose Chronicle would almost appear to have been transposed. Their general sense seems to be that “John marched to Norham and summoned William to meet him at Newcastle. Thither went William, and both in going and returning, defrayed his own expenses at Alnwick, etc.”—the latter observation referring to an infringement of the Charter of Privileges, a sure sign of a want of cordiality between the kings, which was not restored until William recovered the “Benevolentiadomini nostri.”

[492]Fifteen hundred English knights and their retainers, 7000 crossbowmen andBranchii(?), 13,000 Welshmen, and an overwhelming force of all arms.

[493]Fordun, l. 8, c. 70.

[494]These hostages were the sons of the Earl of Winchester, of William de Vetere Ponto, of William de Vallibus, of Philip de Mowbray, of Gervase Avenel, of David Lindsay, of Gilbert Earl of Strathearn, of Lawrence Abernethy, of Thomas of Galloway, of Earl Patrick of Dunbar, and of William Comyn, with the brothers of Robert de Bruce, and of Walter Clifford, and a daughter of Alan of Galloway, who died in England.—Rot. Claus., p. 137 b. They were given “et pro hac pecunia et ad prædictos terminos reddendâ, et pro eisdem terminis fideliter tenendis.” An attempt is sometimes made to include the princesses amongst the hostages. This is contradicted, both by the words of William, “exceptis duabus filiabus nostris quas ei liberavimus,” and by the omission of their names in the Close Rolls. These hostages were given as “security” for the money—warranters—and returned of course when the debt was acquitted. The princesses were given up to be married, and remained in England long after the death of John.

[495]Chron. Mel.1209.Fordun, l. 8, c. 71.Fœdera, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 103.Robertson’s Index Introd., p. xx.Neg. tang. Ang.No. 3. Such is the account of these transactions preserved in the Scottish authorities, and the correctness of their dates is confirmed by the Fœdera and the Patent Rolls. Wendover is decidedly wrong in referring the whole transaction to one meeting only, and in placing the treaty, etc., before 28th June. The Bridlington Chronicle states that John built a castle at Berwick (i.e., Tweedmouth) in June, and that the kings came to terms in August (Documents, etc., xxi., sec. 26–27), Hemingburgh asserts that John at first demanded Alexander as a hostage for his father, the “plura et inaudita” perhaps of Fordun. In spite of the attempt of Fordun to represent the peace as the result of the interference of the principal men of both countries, it was evidently brought about through William’s aversion to war. The message that excited the wrath of John was dictated inthe Council of Stirling; the envoys to deprecate his indignation were dispatched by William; and the Melrose chronicler concludes his account with the significant sentence, “It was done against the wishes of the Scots.” The extreme secrecy about the tenor of these “mutual charters” is worthy of remark. The Scots always maintained that one of the princesses was to have married the heir of the English crown, and Alexander II. afterwards obtained a grant of lands in satisfaction for his claims upon the northern counties, and for the alleged infringement of the terms of this arrangement (Fœd., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 233). In the Patent Rolls (An. 21, Hen. III.) there is the following remark on this latter treaty, “Inter cœtera apparet quod concordia fuit quod Rex Angliæ duceret Marger’ sororem dicti Regis Scotiæ, quod modo relaxatum fuit ac al’.” All this tells for the Scottish account. On the other hand, when Hubert de Burgh was charged with preventing this marriage—in consideration of which William had agreed to waive his claims on the northern counties—the Earl of Kent replied that he knew of no such agreement, and appealed to the letters of Pandulf and others to prove that his own marriage with the princess Margaret was brought about with the full knowledge and consent of the English magnates (Mat. Par. Addit.p. 99); and theRot. Pat. ad an. 4 Hen. III., mention an arrangement at York before Pandulf, in which it was agreed that the sisters of Alexander should be married “infra Regnum Angliæ ad honorem suum.” Hubert’s statement, however, only had reference to a guarded defence of his own conduct, and throws no light upon the events of John’s reign. It is very probable that John retained the princesses at his court for the purpose of marrying them to his own sons if anything happened to thesole male heirof Scotland; and that may have been the reason why they remained unmarried until after his death. It is not to be supposed that Hubert de Burgh overlooked the proximity of Margaret to the Scottish throne when he married her, and it must be acknowledged that his interpretation of the secret treaties, if he was really aware of their existence, was very much to his own advantage. The wording of the letter of William in theFœderacontradicts the supposition that the payment of 15,000 marks “pro benevolentia domini nostri habendâ,et pro conventionibus tenendis,” etc., was a simplefineimposed by John on the Scottish king.

[496]Robertson’s Index Introd.xx.Negot. tang. Ang., Nos. 7, 36, 40.Fordun, l. 8, c. 72. One of the Melrose charters (No. 168) proves the date of this homage of Alexander, and a fragment in theDocuments, No. xl., sec. 19, p. 136, states that the homage was performed “pro omnibusrectitudinibuspro quibus pater suus fecerat homagium Henrico Regi patri ejusdem Johannis.” Libertates etrectitudines—privileges and rights—are the words in Richard’s Charter of Privileges to William. As half the money—one year’s payment—was remitted, and the whole sum was to have been paid off in two years, it is allowable to infer that one year after the treaty,i.e., in 1210, John must have waived his claim to the payment of the remainder.

[497]Chron. Mel.1210.Fœd., vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 120.

[498]Chron. Mel.1211.Fordun, l. 8, c. 76. TheThanes of Rossinvited him over, says Fordun.

[499]Fordun, l. 8, c. 72. The “Mons in ea diruens” of Fordun was evidently the old Rath-inver-Amon. Boece drowns a youthful prince John and his nurse—very apocryphal characters—and rebuilds Perth upon its present site.

[500]These castella appear to have been built of wood, as one was burnt in the following year.

[501]Fordun, l. 8, c. 76.

[502]Fordun, l. 8, c. 76.

[503]Fordun, l. 8, c. 76.Walter of Coventry, ad an.1212. The words of this writer are, “Scotorum Rex Willelmus jam ætatis provectæ, cum interioris regni sui partes seditione turbatas pacificare non posset, ad Anglorum Regem confugiens, se et regnum filiumque quem unicum habibat, ejus commisit provisioni. At ille, cingulo militari commendatum sibi adolescentem donans, in partes illas cum exercitu proficiscens, dimissis per interiora regni suis Guthredum cognomento Mac William, seditionis ducem, cepit et patibulo suspendit. Erat hic de Scotorum Regum antiquâ prosapiâ, qui Scotorum et Hibernensium fretus auxilio, longas contra modernos Reges, sicut et pater suus Duvenaldus, nunc clàm nunc palàm exercuit inimicitias. Moderniores enim Scotorum Reges magis se Francos fatentur, sicut genere, ita moribus, linguâ, cultu; Scotisque ad extremam servitutem redactis, solos Francos in familiaritatem et obsequium adhibent.” This account, as is so often the case, contains a mixture of truth and error. The flight of William to John, and John’s campaign in the Highlands of Scotland during the summer of 1212 (for Godfrey was given up at that time), are apocryphal, for he was at that time engaged in his expedition against the Welsh, from which he returned so suddenly, through fear of treachery. He may have assisted William—perhaps with some of his foreign Reiters—though he was hardly in a condition at that time to yield much assistance to any one. The distinction between the “ancient and modern kings” of Scotland is also imaginary, for William and his rivals were cousins, equally claiming to represent the race of Malcolm Ceanmore; though the assertion that their kings were “Normans, not Scots,” is exactly what the disaffected subjects of the reigning family would have urged against them. Even the last sentence is only partially true, for out of the leaders employed in this very war, the Earls of Fife and Atholl, and Malcolm, son of Morgund of Mar, were of native Scottish origin; the Earl of Buchan owed his earldom to his wife, the heiress of a native earl; and Thomas the Durward was also apparently of a Scottish rather than of a foreign family. In fact, the feudalized upper classes ofScotiaand the lowlands of Moray, were at this time looked upon as “Normans;” the mountaineers who clung to “ancient custom,” as the real Scots; their position being reversed a few generations later, when the former claimed to be “Scots,” regarding the latter as “Erse” or Irish. There is much truth, however, in this passage, though it must be takencum grano.

[504]Fordun, l. 8, c. 77.Chron. Mel.1212.Wendover1212 (vol. 3, p. 238).Fœdera, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 104. “Ubi voluerit ad fidem ipsius domini Regis, ita quod non disparagetur,” are the words. The result of this treaty relieved John from any fears lest Alexander should contract any alliance with his enemies. The “liege homage” rendered by William and his son to the prince Henry, was upon the same principle as he and his brother David, and, at an earlier period, Malcolm had performed homage to the eldest son of Henry the Second. Had this homage been rendered—as some seem to suppose—for the kingdom of Scotland, it is almost needless to observe that such a stipulation would have been carefully entered in the treaty, and the Scottish barons would have been summoned to attend the councils of the English king—as in the latter part of Henry’s reign—and to aid him in his wars.

[505]Fordun, l. 8, c. 76.

[506]If the story told by Hemingburgh is true (ad an.1215, vol. 1, p. 247)—that John’s anger against Eustace de Vesci was occasioned by the rejection of his suit by that baron’s beautiful wife—William may have acquired his knowledge of the disaffection of the English nobles through that very lady, who was his own natural daughter Margaret.

[507]Fordun, l. 8, c. 78. He is the only writer who notices these transactions, but his account is strongly borne out by a letter in theFœdera, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 108, to the emperor Otho, dated at Bamborough 28th January 1213, in which John writes that he has been detained in the north by arrangements for the security of that part of his kingdom. It is clear, therefore, that he was upon the northern frontier in the early part of that year; and his abortive negotiations with the Scottish king might have easily escaped the notice of the English chroniclers amidst the important events that occurred so soon afterwards. From the commencement of the thirteenth century the authority of Fordun is of far greater weight than before, and I have found his statements frequently corroborated by the Fœdera and the Rolls. In the latter part of William’s reign can be traced the elements of those parties which appear in the subsequent reigns (but more especially in that of Alexander the Third) as the English and Scottish factions.

[508]Flatey Book in Col. de Reb. Alb., p. 354.

[509]Chron. Mel.1214.Fordun, l. 8, c. 79. The latter historian alludes to an old tradition that Stirling was once the spot where the territories of the Scots (i.e., Picts) marched with those of the Britons.

[510]Newbridge, l. 2, c. 19. As he concluded his history in 1195, thelater yearsof William must refer to Richard’s reign. The influence of good Queen Margaret appears to have died out in the days of her great-grandchildren, and it is to this probably that the historian alludes, insinuating that it arose through the fault of their mother, Ada de Warenne. William left several illegitimate children. His sons were Robert de Lundoniis and Henry Gellatly, of whom little or nothing is known. His daughters were—1. Isabella, married in 1183 to Robert de Bruce, and in 1191 to Robert de Ros. 2. Ada, married in 1184 to Earl Patrick of Dunbar. 3. Margaret, married in 1192 to Eustace de Vesci; and 4. Aufrida, married to William de Say.Vide Hailes’ Annals, vol. 1, p. 156.

[511]The passage occurs in the “Instructio Principis” ofGirald. Camb.“Distinctio prima;” but I quote it from “Innes’s Sketches,” etc., p. 144, note 2. Giraldus probably wrote feelingly, for though twice elected to the see of St. Davids, the choice of the Chapter was not confirmed. Right or wrong, the Scottish sovereigns seem to have persevered in William’s policy, and when Robert Bruce conferred the earldom of Moray upon Randolph “in libero comitatu et in liberâ regalitate,” the church patronage was expressly reserved.Reg. Morav.No. 264.

[512]Innes’s Appendix, No. 1, sec. 3.Wynton (Macpherson), note to bk. 7, c. 8, l. 20.

[513]Assize Will., 9, 29, 15, 8, 22, 23, 37, 38, 42.Assize David, 26, 27, 28. The right of the heir to inherit, in spite of the felony of his ancestor or kinsman, will be found in the old Germanic laws as well as in the Gavelkind tenure, which was originally allodial.

[514]Assize Will.12.Assize David12. In David’s time it was frequently “the royal judge” who sat in the lesser courts. The sheriffdom was not universally established, at any rate, before the close of his reign. From the wording of his enactment, “prepositus vel ballivus ville,” it would appear that before his reign every “lord of a vill,” in other words, every “lord of the manor,”—or his equivalent—had the power of life and death.

[515]Assize Will.20.Hoveden1197 (p. 440). His words are, “Eodem anno Willielmus rex Scottorumde bono sumens exemplum, fecit homines regni sui jurare quod pacem pro posse suo servarent, et quod nec latrones, nec robatores, nec utlagi nec receptatores eorum essent, nec in aliquo eis consentirent, et quod cum hujusmodi malefactores scire potuerint, illos pro posse suo caperent et destruerent,” exactly tallying with the regulations of the Council of Perth. From the expressionde bono sumens exemplum, it would appear that he followed some English example.

[516]Assize Will.25, 19.Assize David25. In the reign of David all the greater magnates attended in person the royal Moots, held every forty days, which in William’s reign probably became Sheriffs’ Moots. The expression “all who have the freedom and custom of an earl,” occursAssize David16.

[517]Videthe earlier charters in the Registers of Moray, Aberdeen, and Glasgow, particularlyReg. Morav.No. 5.Glas.13, 70.

[518]Vide chap.10, p. 352, 357, notes.Chron. Lanerc.1213.

[519]Assize Will.40.

[520]Robertson’s Index Introd.p. xx.Neg. tang. Angl.No. 4. Scone was probably the port to which foreign traders brought their wares in the days of Malcolm and Margaret. A very full and interesting account of the Scotch Burghs will be found in “Innes’s Sketches, etc.,” c. 5.

Back to Index Next