Chapter II
_Critical Estimate of the Result of Norman Feudalism on the Civilisation of Scotland._
THIS important question demands a careful examination, inasmuch as it has usually been treated from one exclusive standpoint. It has been repeatedly stated in the preceding pages that the Angles or Saxons had occupied a portion of the country in the south-east since the middle of the sixth century, and that they had partly mingled with the Celtic inhabitants in that region. But it has been often averred that from about the beginning of the twelfth century onward into the thirteenth, there was a great influx of Normans and Saxons from England into Scotland. The real historic question is,――how far and in what form was the subsequent civilisation of Scotland indebted to this latter class of settlers? Several historians have boldly asserted that Scotland owes all her civilisation to these Norman and Saxon nobles, adding by way of evidence, that the Celts never showed any disposition to follow an industrious occupation or to congregate in towns; but that these Norman and Saxon nobles were men of exalted virtue and marked ability, and therefore the veritable originators of Scottish civilisation.¹ Before accepting this view, let us test its historic truth.
¹ Chalmers’ Caledonia, Volume I., pages 460, 495‒614, 775; Burton’s History of Scotland, Volume II., pages 85, 86; C. Innes’ Sketches of Early Scotch History, pages 10, 11; Origines Parochiales Scotiæ, Volume I., Preface, page 27; Registrum Episcopatus Moraviensis, Preface, pages 9, 10.
Seeing that the Saxons had occupied an important and extensive district of Scotland for upwards of four centuries, whatever customs and essential characteristics of political and social organisation which specially belonged to them, must have been in full operation in the south-east of Scotland centuries before the Norman conquest. Thus, at the outset, the real question becomes limited to the Normans alone, and without entering into unnecessary details, I will present the requisite historic facts and the real issue, in so far as Scotland is concerned.
The Normans were originally of the same race as the people noticed in the preceding pages under the name of Norsemen. Commencing their plundering raids about the end of the eighth century, they first seized the Shetland islands and then the Orkneys. Afterwards hordes of them proceeded to the Western Islands, plundered and destroyed the monastery of Iona, slew the monks and the inhabitants of the island. They occupied themselves in work of this description for many years, infesting and desolating the coasts of Scotland. Afterwards they effected a lodgment in Caithness and in other parts of the north, and in the Western Isles. Ultimately, however, except in the Shetland and Orkney Islands, and a portion of Caithness, they have left comparatively few traces of their civilisation on the mainland of Scotland, save the traditions associated with their heathen customs and their extreme cruelty.
Many other hordes swarmed off from the original hives in Scandinavia, which proceeded on plundering expeditions in different directions and to different countries, where they engaged in work similar to that indicated in the above paragraph. They made many raids into Gaul (France), plundered the country, and with ruthless cruelty slew all the people who offered any resistance to them. At first entering the mouths of the rivers with their vessels, they landed and spread devastation and suffering on every hand. Then, encouraged by their success and prompted by their savage propensities, they extended the range of their operations. They entered the mouth of the Seine with their vessels, proceeded inland and ravished the country on every side, and constantly threatened Paris. Under the leadership of their great hero Rollo, their raids and devastations had become so fierce and unbearable that King Charles of France granted to Rollo by treaty a tract of territory to be held as a feudal fief. After some natural demur on the part of the conquering hero, at last Rollo rendered due homage to his Lord Superior by kissing King Charles’ great toe. Rollo then gave the name of Normandy to the territory thus ceded to him, and he became the first Duke of Normandy.
Concerning the internal condition of this province after Rollo obtained possession of it, there is very little reliable information. It is said that the land was sold by auction amongst Rollo’s followers; and no doubt the Normans soon became the only land-owners. Rollo added the district of Bessin to his province, and in 927 he resigned the government in favour of his son. Five years later, the hero who founded the Dukedom of Normandy, expired at an advanced age. His son, who succeeded, was called William Longsword, but he was not a strong ruler. He was basely assassinated in December 942, on the Flemish side of the river Somme. Longsword was succeeded by his natural son, Richard the Fearless, his mother being Esprota, a Breton woman of great attractions, but of unknown lineage. His enemies made the fact of his illegitimate birth a ground for disputing his right of inheritance, and Richard was soon in the midst of trying difficulties. He was sometimes hard pressed in his struggles with the neighbouring princes, but he ultimately succeeded in holding his ground. Richard’s wife Emma had no children, but he had natural children by Gnenora, a woman of unknown lineage; her children were declared illegitimate by the Church, and Richard then married her according to the form of the Church, and thus his children became legitimised. Richard the Fearless died in 996, and was succeeded by his son, who was called Richard the Good.
Richard the Good was not long seated on the ducal throne when he had to face a threatening movement of the peasants under his sway. This class mainly consisted of the ancient Gaulish or Celtic inhabitants, who had since the fall of the Roman Empire, and the successive invasions of the Franks and the Normans, suffered grievous oppression. The Normans had begun in earnest to assume and to exercise all the functions of a military and ruling class. They had begun to erect baronial castles, and the swarms of illegitimate children of the successive Dukes, which required to be provided with lands, continually increased the number of petty and despotic lords. At last their oppression of the poor peasantry passed the limits of human endurance, and the sons of toil then thought of trying issues with their ruthless oppressors. As might have been expected, only an imperfect notice of the rising has been preserved, from which it appears that the grievances of the peasants were these: “The nobles do us naught but ill, and we gain no profit from our labours. Our days are spent in toil and fatigue, our cattle and horses are seized for dues and services, and our goods wasted by continual suits. We have no safety against our lords, and no oath is binding on them. Why should we not shake off all this evil? Are we not men as they? Dare we to do and dare again; a good heart is all we want. Let us then unite, and if they should make war upon us, have we not thirty or forty hardy peasants ready to fight with club and flail to each knight? Let us only learn to resist, and we shall be free to cut our own firewood, to fish and to hunt, and to do our will, in river, field, and wood.” They resolved to form a commune to discuss their common wrongs and the means of resistance.¹ As far as can be ascertained from imperfect indications and circumstances, it seems that the peasants obtained some slight relief.
¹ Roman ♦de Rou.
♦ “de ea Rose” replaced with “de Rou”
Under the government of Richard the Good the Norman power increased, and he died in 1026. He was succeeded by his son Richard; but he soon became involved in a dispute with his brother Robert, about the latter’s share of the Dukedom, and the possession of the castle of Falaise. At last they came to an agreement and met on friendly terms, but immediately after Richard died. It was reported that his brother Robert had poisoned him;¹ be that as it may, Robert then mounted the ducal throne. He became known as Robert the “Magnificent.” One day when looking around him from the cliffs of Falaise Robert observed an exceedingly attractive young woman washing clothes in the neighbouring brook, and he fixed his eyes and his heart on her. She was Harlotta, daughter of a tanner of Falaise, and in due time she gave birth to William the Conqueror. Of course he was an illegitimate child, and was sometimes called “the bastard;” but no one is accountable for his own birth, as no one was ever consulted on that point. It may, however, be observed that two of William’s lineal progenitors were the sons of women of humble and unknown lineage; and it is more than probable that these two women, and also the graceful and attractive Harlotta herself, were all of Celtic descent. It therefore follows according to the law of natural descent, and the well known law of sexual selection, that William the Conqueror was three-fourths Celtic and only one fourth Norman. This phenomena, if carefully examined, might perhaps explain why the Normans so soon disappeared from the world as a distinct race.
¹ Crowe’s History of France, Volume I. pages 87, 88. 1858.
Robert the Magnificent attempted to invade England when the great Canute was on the throne, but he completely failed. He went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and died when returning home in 1035. His natural son, William, then ascended the ducal throne; but the nobles of Normandy rebelled against him, and for many years he only held a wavering and perilous sway. At last, with the assistance of his Lord Superior, Henry I. of France, the conspiracy of his nobles was overthrown. But then the men of Alençon revolted, and William marched towards their town to subdue them: as he approached, they spread skins over the walls and beat upon them, shouting, “Hides for the tanner, plenty of work for the tanner.” This insult stung William to the core, and he swore by “the splendour of God, that he would deal with them as with a tree whose branches were cut off with a pollarding axe.” The town shortly after fell, and William then ordered that thirty-two of the citizens should be brought before him; and by his orders their hands and feet were cut off, and the dismembered limbs were thrown over the castle walls as emblems of his vengeance. The garrison were terrified, craved mercy, and at once surrendered.¹
¹ Crowe’s History of France, Volume I., page 91.
The character of the feudal government of Normandy may be indicated thus:――The Duke assumed all the functions of a King and ruled with the advice of a few of his nobles selected by himself. The nobles in possession of land were under feudal obligations to him, which they took every opportunity to cast off. Their rank was derived partly from Norse descent, and partly from relations with the ducal family; and thus they were kept in a sort of subordination by self-interest and by the strong arm of the Duke. It was mainly the energy and the decision of the Duke which kept the province from dismemberment; the attempts of his nobles to obtain independence led to continual quarrels, which were only checked by ruthless bloodshed. There was also the wild love of excitement inseparably associated with the life of idle and uncultured men, which often manifested itself in deeds and scenes of the utmost ferocity, and continually issuing in outbursts of anarchy at home, or in expeditions to foreign lands in search of plunder and new excitement. The people who lived and toiled under this military aristocracy were kept in absolute dependence on their lords, though possibly some of them may have still retained a faint remembrance of their former freedom.¹
¹ Freeman’s Norman Conquest, Volume V., page 482; _The Normans in Europe_, by A. H. Johnson, M.A., pages 103, 104. 1884.
War was the fundamental principle of Norman Feudalism and the essential condition of Norman organisation and life. William the Conqueror understood this very well, and looked out for a field to give it scope. He had fixed his eye on England long before he actually invaded it; and he prepared for the grand effort with a caution and deliberation, and an astuteness and craft which were truly amazing. He either obtained a promise from Edward the Confessor, his cousin, that he should succeed to the English throne on Edward’s death, or he pretended that he received it; and in 1064, an accident caused by the weather enabled William to meet Harold under the most favourable circumstances for himself; and it was reported that Harold became his man, promised to marry his daughter, to place Dover in his hands, and to support his claim to the English throne on Edward’s death. Edward died in 1066, and the Witan elected Harold King of England. William was enjoying himself hunting in the forest of Rouen when tidings of Harold’s election reached him. He then affected the utmost astonishment, and at once vehemently denounced Harold as a perjured man, planned a very plausible claim for himself, and appealed to Christendom. He was especially careful to obtain the sanction of the Pope; and he informed his holiness that he was undertaking a great missionary work, “which should purify the corrupted Anglo-Saxon State and Church, and bring England more closely under the sway of Rome.” All the turbulent Normans, needy and landless nobles, petty knights and adventurers, hastened to join his army, which consisted of a motley assemblage.¹
¹ Few of the higher nobles of Europe joined William’s invading army; indeed, it has been stated that a number of his own Norman nobles did not join his army, but remained in Normandy.
He defeated and slew Harold the English king, and if there had been no more resistance, then in that case, the Conqueror might have been merciful, but he never hesitated to sacrifice any number of human lives if they stood between him and his end; possibly he would have slain every man in England rather than relinquish his hold of the country. He gave some examples of the length to which he was prepared to go, as when he reduced the whole of the territory between the Tees and the Humber to a waste, and it remained for many years untilled. Toward the close of his career difficulties and failures thickened around him. In 1079 his own son, Robert, fought against him, and wounded and unhorsed his father. In 1087 William engaged in a war with the King of France, and after burning the town of Hantes he was riding over the ruins when his horse stumbled and he fell fatally injured. He was carried to Rouen, and declared his wishes before he expired. To his eldest son, Robert, Normandy was given; William Rufus, his second son, he named as his successor to the throne of England; and to Henry, his third son, he left 5,000 pounds of silver. Whenever his sons heard what their respective shares were, they all immediately departed before their father expired――Robert to Normandy, Rufus to England, and Henry to grasp his treasure. More inhumane and disgraceful conduct of sons toward their dying father it would be difficult to conceive. The remains of the Conqueror were stripped and disgracefully dispoiled, and hurried without decent burial into the grave, while the owner of the soil exacted his price for it before he allowed the remains to be interred.¹ Thus ended the career of William the Conqueror, the greatest of all the Normans. His intellectual powers were excellent, his natural sagacity and strength of will were striking features of his character; he had also the faculty of commanding and of organising; but morally and humanely he stood on an extremely low level. Indeed, this lack of humanity was the black and the degrading characteristic of the Normans from the beginning to the close of their career in Europe.
¹ Saxon Chronicle, Volume II., pages 183, 184; _The Normans in Europe_, by A. H. Johnson, pages 155, 180.
It has often been stated, and is still occasionally repeated, that the Normans had attained to a higher stage of civilisation than the people whom they conquered and subjugated in England. There is no difficulty in understanding how this view originated, or how it continued to be favourably received and strongly maintained. The first and most important result of the Conquest was the transference of the ownership of the greater part of the land of England to the Normans, who were a military and ruling aristocracy. Thus they almost at once became the absolute masters of the people, assumed the functions of government, and constantly endeavoured to maintain their position as the hereditary owners of the land, the hereditary legislators, and rulers of the people. The Normans introduced the claim of the divine right of kings, and exercised it themselves to an enormous extent in every direction. They covered England with castles, not for the protection of the people and their property, as in former times, but to enable each individual noble to oppress the people in his own district with impunity. They depopulated large tracts of the country to make forests for mere sport to themselves.
I have stated in preceding pages that war was the fundamental principle of Norman feudalism, and that morally and humanely the Conqueror himself stood on an extremely low level; the circumstantial evidence of this will now be adduced. What are the chief distinctions between civilised and uncivilised life? 1, So far as yet ascertained the pursuit and slaughter of wild animals is one of the most primitive and characteristic traits of savage life; 2, Extreme cruelty and a disregard of human life are features usually associated with tribes living in a savage state; 3, An utter disregard of the rights and of the lives of other men, whether this be exhibited by the head of a dukedom or the aristocracy under him, or by both acting together, must afford unimpeachable evidence that such a community is still in a low stage of civilisation.
Let us carefully examine if any of the above characteristics of life befit William the Conqueror and his Norman aristocracy as they exhibited themselves in Normandy and in England in the eleventh century. The Conqueror himself was so destitute of human culture that when he was not engaged in war or in scheming the overthrow of his enemies, no other form of amusement was brutal enough to satisfy his rude propensities but the pursuit and slaughter of wild animals. After he had subdued the people of England, and had leisure to enjoy himself, he then discovered that the natural and existing ranges were not sufficient for his favourite amusement. What was he to do? Did the Conqueror think that the rights and the homes of the people of England should be considered in preference to the gratification of his own extreme passion for sport? No, he never did. On the contrary, he ordered that in Hampshire thirty-six parishes should be destroyed, thirty-six churches pulled down, the whole of the inhabitants evicted from their homes, and the country utterly depopulated for thirty miles round, and all this was merely to make space for the Conqueror’s New Forest, in which he might satisfy his appetence for sport in full measure. The Conqueror’s son, King Rufus, greatly increased the forests, and in the early part of the twelfth century there were sixty-seven forests, thirty chases, and seven hundred and eighty-one parks, which were full of wild animals, specially and carefully preserved, and to be pursued and slaughtered only by the Normans.
It is unnecessary to detail the many acts of ruthless cruelty inflicted under the direction of the Conqueror himself. The cutting off of the hands and feet of thirty-two men for a ♦trivial offence, a mere joke, affords a characteristic example of his cold and revengeful nature. It is recorded that, on his death-bed, he said――“No tongue can tell the deeds of wickedness I have perpetrated in my weary pilgrimage of toil and care.” He was unquestionably an irresponsible and cruel despot, and in the words of a contemporary record I close my remarks on him:――“Alas! that any man should be so proud, so raise himself up, and account himself above all men! May the Almighty God show mercy to his soul, and grant him forgiveness of his sins.”¹
♦ “trival” replaced with “trivial”
¹ Saxon Chronicle, Volume II., pages 188‒190; Freeman’s History of the Norman Conquest, Volume IV. toward the end; Volume V., pages 6‒52, Note C., pages 747‒759.
In the preceding pages the internal government of Normandy under the Normans was twice referred to, and it appeared that the people under this military aristocracy were sorely afflicted by the continual recurrence of internal war and bloodshed among the local nobles. Indeed, war was the breath of life and the bread of life to the Normans, insomuch that they could not exist anywhere without it. They understood the requisite conditions of their own existence very well; and if at any time there was no war for them, then in that case, they had ample and carefully prepared substitutes in their great forests and preserves, and to these they returned, like the primitive savages, to the pursuit and slaughter of wild animals.
Thus it inevitably appears on every side that the Norman aristocracy were morally and socially in a comparatively low stage of culture and civilisation. That the ruder propensities and the lower passions were still rampant amongst them to an enormous degree, that they had not yet learned to respect the very rudiments of the rights of mankind, and consequently they were utterly callous to the people under them. They had no adequate conception of justice whatever, apart from the special interest of their own class, nor of truth, “for no oath was binding on them.” Hence Norman feudalism instead of being an advanced stage of society, shows an almost total absence of the fundamental and essential elements upon which progress and civilisation proceed.
Still it is quite true that the Norman Conquest produced great effects upon the English people, and in many directions influenced the subsequent history and progress of England. This, however, was not a consequence of any superiority of Norman civilisation at the time of the Conquest, but the very reverse. Very briefly the historic and social phenomena may be indicated thus:――The Norman Conquest created new historic conditions and relations in Britain. But owing to the uncivilised and ruthless character of the chief agents engaged in the military and the political processes of the creation of these new historic conditions, an enormous amount of cruel suffering was inflicted upon the great body of the English people. After two or three generations, which were strikingly marked by fierce outbursts of internal anarchy and bloodshed, and excessive oppression of the people, the new historic conditions, slightly modified, assumed what may be called their normal equilibrium. These new conditions were in some directions favourable to progress and civilisation, and in other directions an opposite tendency was often manifested. Considered externally, the Conquest created new historic relations between England and France, and it would require a long and careful discussion to determine whether these new relations were favourable or unfavourable to the internal development and the civilisation of England. This historic phase of the Conquest is of great interest, and much could be said on both sides of the subject. Considered internally, I can only notice one or two points which were permanent in their operation. The Conqueror introduced arrangements admirably calculated to strengthen the hands of the King. His aim was to limit the power of the feudal nobles and render them dependent upon the Crown; and in this he succeeded. He concentrated the ends of the threads of the local powers in the supreme power of the King; and the Kings of England soon became strong enough to hold the feudal nobles well under the control of the executive. Thus England was saved from many of the worst features of Norman Feudalism; although in succeeding ages the great power concentrated in the hands of the Kings of England, was sometimes used for mischievous purposes. Touching the effect of the Conquest on the body of the English people, its tendency was no doubt oppressive for many generations. “That the result of the Norman Conquest was the social thrusting down of the great mass of Englishmen, there can be no doubt.”¹ In fact, they were partly thrust down by the transference of the land to the Norman aristocracy, and the introduction of feudal forms of land tenure.
¹ Freeman’s History of the Norman Conquest, Volume V., page 476.
But it is a singular historic phenomenon that Norman Feudalism, with its worst features, was introduced into Scotland long after William the Conqueror was in his grave. This manifested itself in anarchical outbursts of internal war among the nobles of Scotland, similar to those which had occurred among the Norman nobles in Normandy in the eleventh century. Norman Feudalism was not forced upon Scotland by invasion or open conquest; it was introduced by the Scottish kings, partly owing to personal associations and circumstances, and partly owing to a misapprehension of the real nature and tendency of the system, which for several generations they fostered. The ultimate result of their policy was this:――1, The continuity of the progressive movement of the kingdom was in some districts dislocated by the introduction of Norman Feudalism. 2, Then the system ran its natural course, and the nobles reduced the power of the kings almost to a nonentity, rendered the functions of the executive ineffective, and sometimes totally inoperative. They frequently rebelled against the kings, and involved the kingdom in all the miseries of civil war. They often fought among themselves and created disorder and anarchy in endless forms, frustrated the development of every branch of peaceful industry, and inflicted untold suffering upon the people. Thus the development of the natural resources of the country, and the progress and the civilisation of the nation were greatly retarded for several centuries.
Chapter III
Narrative――Introduction of Feudalism.
RESUMING the narrative, on the death of Edgar in 1107, his brother Alexander succeeded to the throne, while his younger brother, David, claimed the districts on the south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde. This arrangement had been suggested by Edgar before his death, but Alexander at first objected to it; after some time, however, he agreed that his brother should rule these southern districts under the title of Earl David. Shortly after his accession the King had to face a rising of the men of Moray, which he boldly met and suppressed.
In the first year of his reign, Alexander appointed Turgot to the See of St. Andrews: he was a monk of Durham, and had been confessor to Queen Margaret, the King’s mother. A serious difficulty arose, the Archbishop of York claimed a canonical right to perform the ceremony of consecration; but the Scotch clergy and the King maintained that he had no authority over St. Andrews. At last a compromise was effected, leaving the disputed point unsettled; and in 1109, Turgot was consecrated by the Archbishop of York. The new bishop did not find himself happy in the See of St. Andrews. Difficulties soon arose between him and the King; and at last the bishop threatened to go to Rome and settle all matters of dispute, but he died in 1115.¹
¹ Dr. Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Volume I., pages 206‒7.
The bishopric remained five years vacant, but in 1120 the King nominated Eadmer, a monk of Canterbury, who was elected bishop by the Scotch clergy and the people. The point of consecration was revived, but this time the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed the right to perform the ceremony. There was for long a great rivalry between the Archbishops of York and Canterbury touching the limits of their respective canonical authority, and the point associated with the dignity of presidency. Eadmer himself thought that the rights of his mother church extended over all the British Islands. The King rejected this view, and declined to listen to it. The monk was as determined as the King, and at last he declared, “Not for all Scotland will I renounce being a monk of Canterbury.” He then handed back the ring to the King, laid the staff on the altar, and left St. Andrews and returned to his mother church. Shortly afterwards Eadmer showed much anxiety to return to the See of St. Andrews, and offered to yield to the King, but Alexander declined to receive him. About the end of the year 1123 Alexander appointed Robert, the prior of the monastery of Scone, to the See of St. Andrews, but the King died before he was consecrated. In 1128, the ceremony of consecration was performed by the Archbishop of York, and there was an express condition which reserved the rights of both Churches. A direct claim of feudal lordship over Scotland had not yet arisen, but it is obvious that if the dependence of the Scotch Church on the English Church could have been established, it would soon have affected the independence of the kingdom.¹
¹ Chronicles, pages 90, 91. Eadmer, though a strict monk, was a scholar, and wrote a history of his own time in clear Latin, and other works. He is supposed to have died at Canterbury in 1124.
Alexander I. founded the monastery of Scone, and restored to the Church of St. Andrews the lands called the Boars Chase. He died in 1124, and was succeeded by his brother, David I., who, under the title of Earl, had been ruling the districts on the south of the Forth. The kingdom was again placed under one head, and the era of the introduction of Norman Feudalism then commenced.
A large part of Scotland as yet hung loosely on the central authority; the country beyond the Spey was nominally under the Scottish Crown, and Galloway was more like a tributary province than an incorporated part of the kingdom. David I. had perhaps come into contact with some of the associates of the Conqueror. In his youth he frequented the Court of the Conqueror’s sons in England, and he appears to have associated much with the Norman nobles. These nobles were always on the outlook for more land and power, and doubtless with an eye to business some day, they had made themselves very agreeable companions for the young Scottish prince. The Norman nobles became his special favourites; and when only Earl, he seems to have surrounded himself with a company of them, and began to grant them lands by charter. He had resolved to introduce Feudalism and a Norman Aristocracy, so far as it was in his power. But there can be no doubt that David I. misapprehended the real nature and inevitable tendency of Feudalism; as his chief object must have been to strengthen the Crown, which shows clearly that he had misunderstood it. Possibly David I. may have imagined that he was imitating the Conqueror on a small scale, but then he had not the practical knowledge and the experience of the system which the great Norman possessed. The Conqueror executed his work in such a way that Norman Feudalism was never permitted to run its natural course in England. So the great achievement of transplanting Norman Feudalism into Scotland fell to the inexperienced genius of David I., and two or three of his successors on the throne, where alone it developed and exhibited itself in all its features and perfections for a period of upwards of three centuries.
The local chiefs were naturally and rightly averse to the planting of Norman nobles among them; although these adventurers and fortune-hunters were favourites at the court of David I. It seems that some of these Norman nobles brought their families and their own retainers with them, and thus, with the support of the king, they dispossessed the real owners and the occupiers of the land of Scotland. In 1130 the people of Moray, under their local chiefs, Angus and Malcolm, rose against the king. They advanced to Stracathro, in Forfarshire, where the king’s forces met them, and a severe engagement ensued. Angus was slain and his followers were overthrown; but his brother Malcolm retreated and prolonged the contest for four years. David I. became greatly alarmed, and called upon the Norman nobles of Yorkshire and Northumberland to rally round his standard, and having thus mustered an army, in 1134 the king marched with his force to the disaffected North, and succeeded in overawing the local chiefs. The king then proclaimed the province of Moray forfeited to the Crown. He next parcelled out large portions of the best land of Moray among the Normans and adventurers who had followed his banner.¹
¹ Saxon Chronicle, Volume II., page 227; Robertson’s Scotland under her Early Kings, Volume I., pages 189‒191.
In 1135 Henry I. of England died, the last of the Conqueror’s sons, and having left no male issue, he bequeathed his dominions to his daughter; but Stephen, a nephew of the late king, contested her right to the throne, and he proved successful. David I. naturally supported the claim of his niece, the queen, and led an army across the Border. Many of the northern castles of England opened their gates to him. When he had advanced nearly to Durham, Stephen approached with a large army to bar his progress. David then retired to Newcastle, and Stephen followed him. The two armies confronted each other for fourteen days, and finally a peace was concluded.¹
¹ Saxon Chronicle, Volume II., page 230.
But David I., besides his obligation to support the queen’s claim, had a strong desire to annex the northern counties of England, and some hope of succeeding to the throne of England himself. So early in 1138 he again led an army across the Tweed, and spent some time in attacking castles, and in ravishing the northern counties; but the approach of Stephen’s army caused David to concentrate his scattered forces and prepare for battle or retreat. After some fruitless movements and delay, David with his army advanced towards Durham; while the defenders of England, concentrated at Northallerton, planted their standard and prepared for battle. Before the battle began a most significant event occurred. Robert de Bruce and Bernard de Baliol appeared before David I., as emissaries from the English army; they had come to persuade David to retire at once with his army, and not offer battle to the Norman nobles, who were his greatest benefactors. Robert de Bruce held wide territories in Yorkshire, and David himself had granted to him the extensive and fine district of Annandale. De Bruce’s position was thus a deplorable one; he saw that he could not ride upon two horses at once when they were running in different directions, and accordingly he renounced his allegiance to David I. and returned to the English camp. This was the identical position of most of the great Norman nobles in Scotland from this date till the battle of Bannockburn. The strange thing is that David himself or his successors never seem to have realised its great political significance, and its consequent evil effect upon Scotland. Another dispute arose before the battle. David wanted his own small body of Normans and men-at-arms to lead the attack, but the Galloway men claimed the honour and the right to lead the van. A long wrangle ensued on the point, and Malise, the Scotch Earl of Strathern, said to the King: “Why trust you to these Normans? unprotected as I am, none shall be more forward in the fight.” David was forced to yield. The Galloway men advanced to the charge, and ♦rushed with such force on the enemy that the front ranks reeled and were driven back in confusion. But the English, supported by their bowmen, reformed, and the battle raged with great fury. Rank after rank of the Scots fell under the storm of arrows from the English bowmen, and at last the Scots were completely defeated. The battle was fought on the 22nd of August, 1138, and is known as the Battle of the Standard. The following year peace was concluded, on the conditions that King David’s son, Prince Henry, should receive the Earldom of Northumberland and his other fiefs in England, that the laws and local customs should remain intact, and the rights of the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Durham.¹
♦ “rnshed” replaced with “rushed”
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., pages 2‒6; Saxon Chronicle, Volume II., pages 232, 233; _Chronicles and Annals of the Priory of Hexham_, Volume I., pages 90‒93.
The remaining years of David’s reign were mainly devoted to the changes and the reforms which he introduced in connection with the land, the church, and the burghal communities, but these will be treated in another chapter.
David’s only son, Prince Henry, died on the 12th of June, 1152. By his wife, Ada Warenne, he left three sons and three daughters; two of his sons lived to ascend the throne of Scotland, and his third son, David, became Earl of Huntingdon.¹ The death of his only son cast a gloom over the hopes of David I. and the closing months of his reign; but to smooth the way for the succession of his grandson, Malcolm, a boy of eleven years of age, David placed him under the charge of Duncan Earl of Fife, who then proceeded with the young prince throughout the kingdom to obtain his recognition among the people as the heir to the throne. Thus having, as far as the circumstances admitted, secured the succession, David I. died on the 24th of May, 1153, after a reign of twenty-nine years.
¹ For future reference it may be noticed that this Earl David married a sister of Randolph, Earl of Chester, and by her he had three sons and four daughters. His eldest daughter, Margaret, married Alan of Galloway, and it was through her issue that John Baliol claimed the crown of Scotland. His second daughter, Isabella, married Robert de Bruce; Ada, his youngest daughter, married Henry de Hastings: we will find the representatives of the issue of these daughters of Earl David claiming the crown.
On the death of his grandfather the young prince was crowned at Scone, under the title of Malcolm IV. But before the end of the year his supporters had to meet a rising of the Celtic people led by the sons of Malcolm Mac Heth, and Somerled, the local ruler of Argyle. They attacked the kingdom at various points, and the war continued three years. In 1156 Donald, the eldest son of Malcolm Mac Heth, was captured at Whithern, in Galloway, by the King’s adherents, and was imprisoned in Roxburgh Castle along with his father, but Somerled continued the war; and from motives of policy the King came to terms with Malcolm Mac Heth, and liberated him from prison. In 1159 a peace was concluded between Somerled and Malcolm IV.,¹ but other dangers surrounded the King.
¹ Historians, Volume IV., pages 249, 250; _Chronicles of Melrose_.
It appears that the King was unpopular, and a number of the nobles seem to have conspired to dethrone him, or to secure his person and then make their own terms. They surrounded the King in Perth in 1160, but their attempt failed; and Malcolm at once proceeded to act with vigour; he mustered an army, and the same year he thrice invaded Galloway to bring the inhabitants under subjection. He subdued the local chief, Fergus, who then retired into the monastery of Holyrood, where he died the following year. Thus Galloway was placed in feudal subjection to the crown; but the inhabitants for long after this stoutly maintained their own local customs and laws. About the year 1161 Malcolm invaded Moray, drove out a number of the inhabitants, and attempted to supplant them by the Norman nobles and their followers.¹
¹ Historians, Volume IV., pages 251, 252, 257.
In 1164 Somerled attempted to invade the heart of the kingdom. He mustered an army, and a fleet of one hundred and sixty vessels, and when landing his army on the coast of Renfrew he was attacked by the people of the district, completely defeated, and Somerled himself and his son were slain.¹
¹ Ibid; Chronicles of Melrose.
Malcolm IV. died on the 9th of December, 1165, in the twenty-fourth year of his age, and was succeeded by his brother, William the Lion. The Scotch kings still desired to annex the northern counties of England, and William was waiting for a favourable opportunity to make an attempt, and the difficulties of Henry II. seemed to afford what was wanted. In 1173 William led an army across the Border and wasted the north of England, without any result except a temporary truce. The following year the Scots again invaded England, and William the Lion while amusing himself, was taken a prisoner by a party of English cavalry. The capture of the King entailed a serious disaster upon Scotland. Henry II. at once demanded that William the Lion should acknowledge the King of England as the feudal Lord Superior over the kingdom of Scotland, and that he should render due homage to his lord like other vassals. All the Scotch nobles, the clergy, and all other vassals, were to be under allegiance to the English king, and acknowledge that they held ♦their lands from him, and many other feudal promises and oaths to the same effect. The binding articles to secure the observance of the treaty were that the castles of Berwick, Roxburgh, Jedburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling, should be placed in the hands of Henry II. After the castles were delivered over to King Henry’s officers, William the Lion was liberated. This treaty continued in force for fifteen years, so far as it could be enforced. Henry II., to the day of his death, evinced the utmost determination to cling to its fulfilment. King William was continually summoned to attend as a vassal at the court of his English lord, and the Scotch nobles also were summoned to attend the court of their Lord Superior. Licence was granted by Henry II. to William for his expeditions into Galloway, and in every possible form it was attempted to be shown that the king and the kingdom were under the English crown.¹ In 1189 Richard I. ascended the throne of England, and one of his first acts was to annul all the concessions extorted by Henry II. from the captive William. The Scots paid ten thousand marks of silver to ♠Richard I., all the castles were given up to them, and the kingdom restored to its former independence.²
♦ “thir” replaced with “their”
¹ Fœdera, Record Ed., Volume I., pages 30, 31; Robertson’s Scotland Under Her Early Kings, Volume I., pages 375, 376.
♠ “Rirchard” replaced with “Richard”
² Fœdera, Volume I., page 50.
While the King was in captivity the people of Galloway had risen against the new Norman settlers, and the king’s officers, and they were all driven out or slain. When William returned in 1175 he entered Galloway with an army and the local chief, Gilbert, submitted. This district was soon in revolt again, and outbursts of rebellion recurred in it at short intervals for several generations. There is no doubt that the real causes of the rebellions in this district was the intrusion of the Norman nobles and their followers.
In 1179 William invaded the remote district of Ross at the head of his Earls and Norman nobles, subdued some portions of it, and erected two castles to support his authority; but he was not permitted to retain possession even of his castles without a contest. From 1181 to 1188 the districts of Moray, Caithness, and other parts of the north were in revolt. This rising was led by Mac William, who claimed to be a lineal descendant of Duncan, the eldest son of Malcolm Canmore, and he aspired to the throne of Scotland. It appears that there were a number of people in the centre of the kingdom hostile to the king; and this explains why Mac William was permitted to hold the districts beyond the Spey for six years, and to ravage parts of the kingdom which were under the king. The whole circumstances and position of the kingdom looked as if the play of Macbeth was to be reacted. King William and his adherents were greatly alarmed. In 1187 the king mustered all the feudal force of the kingdom which he could induce to rally round his banner, and marched to Inverness, with the intention of pursuing his enemy into the remote parts of the Highlands. Some of the king’s nobles had grave doubts about the fidelity of the royal army, and they advised William to remain at Inverness, and to entrust the immediate conduct of the war to those leaders on whom he could depend: but then some of the chief nobles positively refused to march against Mac William without the king; and matters looked dark and dismal. The king at Inverness was in the heart of a hostile country, with his own army in a state of insubordination; but one ray of hope remained, the king’s friends fixed their eyes on Roland of Galloway, when all other means of saving themselves from destruction had vanished. Roland then placed himself at the head of three thousand of his own followers, and proceeded in search of Mac William. After advancing for some time, Roland descried a body of the enemy encamped on the moor of Mamgarvie in the upper valley of Strathspey. The opposing armies were nearly equal in numbers on each side, and a severe engagement ensued. But Mac William was completely defeated, and slain on the moor. For a time peace was restored in the north, and King William’s crown preserved.¹
¹ Chronicles of Melrose; Robertson’s Scotland, Volume I., pages 385, 391‒393.
But again in 1196 the king was in the north suppressing a rebellion. The Earl of Caithness had married a daughter of Malcolm MacHeth; and although William the Lion had been making desperate efforts to subdue the northern regions, Earl Harold held the Earldom of Orkney under the King of Norway, and he possessed the Earldom of Caithness at the same time. Earl Harold invaded and seized the province of Moray, and it was against him that King William then waged war. The Earl was in the end defeated, and the royal power somewhat strengthened, but the region was not subdued. ♦In 1202, Harold, the Earl of Orkney, attacked the king’s adherents and drove them out of Caithness. William again sent an army to Caithness, which was unable to penetrate into the country; but Harold himself under a safe conduct met the King at Perth. Terms of peace were agreed to, by which the Earldom of Caithness was restored to Harold.¹ In 1211 a son of Mac William appeared in Ross and recommenced the tactics which his father had followed. The king sent an army to operate against him, and afterwards William himself marched towards the north. The Earls of Athole, Buchan, and Mar, at the head of four thousand men proceeded into the remote quarters of the Highlands in search of Mac William. The rebel’s fastness was upon an island, where his supplies and treasure were stored, and in it the royal army attacked him; but he made a desperate resistance, and the engagement was long and fiercely contested; and at last he retired and escaped to the mountains with a number of his followers. The main body of the royal army returned to the south, and the Earl of Fife was left in charge of Moray. Mac William soon reappeared, attacked one of the royal castles and burnt it to the ground. Shortly after he fell into the hands of Comyn, Earl of Buchan, and he was executed at the king’s manor in Kincardine.²
♦ “It” replaced with “In”
¹ Historians, Volume IV., pages 270, 271; _Chronicles of Melrose_; Orkneyinga Saga.
² Historians, Volume IV.; Chronicles of Melrose.
During the latter years of the reign of King William, there was much disaffection among the people in the southern quarter of the kingdom as well as in the north. William’s transactions and arrangements with King John of England were detested by many of his own subjects; as all the advantages of the English fiefs (if they were such) belonged exclusively to the royal family. It was of no importance to the Scots that the brother of their King should possess the Earldom of Huntingdon, or that their King should be received with a show of ceremonies at the English court whenever he thought fit to absent himself from his own kingdom. The people looked with well-founded suspicion at the concessions which William had made to King John, in order to avoid the forfeiture of his English fiefs and privileges.¹
¹ Fœdera, Volume I., pages 103, 120; Chronicle of Melrose; Historians Volume IV.
Feudalism made considerable progress during William’s reign, and the difficulties of his position greatly increased toward the end of his sway. He died at Stirling on the 4th of December 1214, having reached the seventy-third year of his age, and reigned nearly fifty years. He was succeeded by his son, Alexander II., a youth of seventeen years, who was crowned at Scone on the day after his father’s death. It is recorded that the Bishop of St. Andrews and the Earls of Scotland, viz., Fife, Strathern, Athole, Angus, Monteith, Buchan, and Lothian took Alexander to Scone, and there raised him to the throne in honour and peace, with the approval of God and man, and with more grandeur and glory than anyone till then, while all wished him joy, and none gainsaid him. So King Alexander held his feast at Scone on that day and the two following days.¹
¹ Historians, Volume IV. This is the first detailed notice of a coronation which occurs in our records.
About a year after Alexander II. ascended the throne, a son of the MacWilliam who had been slain in 1187, and Kenneth MacHeth, a grandson of Malcolm MacHeth, along with a son of one of the Irish local kings, invaded the province of Moray at the head of a large body of followers. But Ferquhard, Earl of Ross, mustered his adherents, attacked the insurgents, and soon completely defeated them, and captured and executed their leaders. He was knighted by the King as a reward for his prompt and effective action.¹
¹ Chronicles of Melrose.
On the hope of regaining the northern counties of England, Alexander II. in 1215 joined the disaffected English barons, who were then struggling against King John. In October the King with an army crossed the border and invested the castle of Norham, but failed to take it. King John was extremely wroth, and marched toward the north at the head of a rather mingled host of mercenaries. Alexander retired in the direction of Edinburgh, and John vowed, “by God’s teeth that he would smoke him out of his covert.” In his march he burned Roxburgh, Dunbar, and Haddington. Alexander posted his army on the river Esk, and awaited the attack of the enemy; but John was unable to advance farther than Haddington, as his troops were perishing for want of food. They plundered the Abbey of Coldingham, then retreated by Berwick; and King John gave the signal for burning that town by firing with his own hands the house in which he had slept the preceding night.¹
¹ Historians, Volume IV., page 299; Chronicle of Lanercost, pages 17, 18; Notes, page 373.
In the winter of 1216 the Scots again crossed the Tweed and took possession of Carlisle, and the castle after a long siege surrendered to them. King John died on the 19th of October 1216, and the following year peace was concluded. The line of the marches between England and Scotland had then become pretty well marked. In 1237 a more definite arrangement was come to, and from that date the efforts to extend the Scotch frontier southward ceased.
Alexander II. had now time to direct his attention to the internal state of the kingdom. It appears that he assembled an army at Inverness against Donald MacNeil in ♦1220. He mustered an army in May 1222, and advanced into Argyle with the intention of subduing and subjecting it to the authority of the Crown. There was no rising at the time in the district, and no resistance was offered to the progress of the royal army. The people were overawed; all those who were implicated in past rebellions fled for their lives, and their lands were given to the King’s own followers; some gave hostages for their future behaviour, and others gave sums of money to purchase the king’s peace. The expedition lasted from May to Christmas, and its result was that the south division of Argyle was placed more directly under the Crown and formed into a sheriffdom; but the lordship of Lorne remained in the possession of the Celtic chief, while a large part of North Argyle had been, a few years before, placed under the new Earl of Ross, who defeated and executed the MacWilliams and MacHeths. About twenty years before, the extensive districts lying to the west of the Drumalban mountains, which belonged to the bishopric of Dunkeld, were separated from it, and formed into a new bishopric called at first Argyle and afterwards Lismore.¹ The chief object of the erection of this diocese was to attach the inhabitants within its limits more firmly to the Crown. The province of a bishopric, with its extensive possessions in land held under feudal tenure, afforded a great support to the royal authority: insomuch that it appears improbable that feudalism could have been introduced into the kingdom without the assistance of the Church, which in the thirteenth century had obtained possession of about one-third of the whole land of the kingdom.
♦ “1820” replaced with “1220”
¹ Historians, Volume IV., pages 283, 284; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.; _Statutes of Alexander II._; Dr. Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, Volume I., page 301.
There were still occasional risings in the North and in Galloway. About 1229 there was an insurrection in Moray, which was suppressed by Comyn, the Earl of Buchan; and immediately after the Comyns were in possession of the district of Badenoch. The lands of those who manifested any disaffection were usually forfeited to the Crown, and then the kings granted such lands to their own favourites, or to some bishopric, monastery, or church.¹ As a matter of fact, much of the land which the Crown gave to the Church in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was obtained by the Crown itself in the way indicated.
¹ Historians, Volume IV., page 288; Robertson’s Scotland, Volume II., pages 19‒21.
In 1235 Alan, the son of Roland, Lord of Galloway, died, leaving one illegitimate son, who had married the daughter of the King of Man, and three daughters, who were married to Norman nobles. These nobles then divided Galloway betwixt themselves. But the men of Galloway preferred one lord rather than three; they had acquired some experience of the rule of these Norman nobles, therefore they rightly concluded that the government of one noble would be more bearable than the government or tyranny of three. Accordingly they requested the King to proclaim the fief lapsed to the Crown; but he declined to listen to their reasonable request. Then they invited Thomas, the natural son of their late lord, to at once assert his claim to the Lordship of Galloway. To prepare the way for their new lord, they immediately commenced to wage war on the neighbouring districts of Scotland, and in a short time Thomas appeared in Galloway. In July 1235, Alexander II. mustered his army and proceeded towards Galloway, and advanced into it; the insurgents kept upon the heights and watched the movements of the royal army. When the king’s forces had become entangled in marshy ground, the Galloway men attacked them, and would have destroyed the royal army, if it had not been for the Earl of Ross, with his body of Ross-shire men on foot, who by a rapid movement, turned the insurgents’ flank, and forced them to retreat. The following day, the king granted a free pardon to all the insurgents, who appeared before him with ropes round their necks. Alexander then retired with his army from Galloway.¹
¹ Chronicles of Melrose; Historians, Volume IV.
But Thomas and other leaders of the revolt fled to Ireland, and prepared for a renewal of the struggle. Thomas and his associates equipped a fleet, and along with a body of Irishmen, he landed in Galloway and recommenced the war. But the Earl of Dunbar and his followers, accompanied by the Bishop of Galloway and the Abbot of Melrose, faced the insurgents, and their leaders seeing themselves outnumbered, surrendered. Thomas was imprisoned in the Castle of Edinburgh.¹ Thus the disaffection in Galloway was stifled for a time. But in 1247, the oppressive tyranny of the Norman noble, Roger de Quinci, exasperated the people to such a degree, that they rose and besieged him in one of his own castles. He defended himself with great determination, until his provisions began to fail; as he had no reason to expect any mercy from the besiegers, he at last resolved to make a desperate effort to escape. So the gates of the castle were flung open and the noble and his men rushed through the ranks of their assailants, and rode for their lives to the court of Alexander II. As a matter of course, the King reinstated the Norman noble in his lordship.²
¹ Chronicles of Melrose; Historians, Volume IV. According to one account, Thomas was liberated from imprisonment in a short time, but the Lanercost Chronicle states that he was delivered into the hands of John Baliol as a hostage, and confined in the dungeons of Barnard Castle for fifty years.
² Robertson’s Scotland, Volume II., page 28.
The policy of Alexander II. was to extend the authority of the Crown to the utmost limits of the Highlands and the Isles. He attempted to obtain the Western Isles by treaty with Haco, the King of Norway, but this failed; and he then proposed to purchase the Isles, which offer also was declined. Alexander, however, had resolved to have the Isles; and he equipped a fleet, mustered a force, and proceeded to subdue the Western Isles. When engaged in this undertaking, Alexander II. died in the Isle of Kerrera, off the coast of Lorne, on the 8th of July 1249, in the fifty-first year of his age, and the thirty-fifth year of his reign. His remains were interred in the church of Melrose. He was a man of great energy, an able ruler, remarkably humane, and his reign was marked by progressive efforts.
In the reign of Alexander II. the Scotch Church began to hold regular provincial councils; as the national clergy were empowered by a bull from the pope in 1225, to assemble such, and to enact and promulgate canons. The conservator of the council was elected by the bishops from their own number; and he held office simply from one council to another, with power to punish transgressors of the canons, and to enforce their observance by the censures of the Church. He summoned the council by a writ to each bishop, and when absent himself from the meeting, the senior bishop present assumed his functions and presided. The Scotch clergy adopted a definite code of rules for the assembling of annual provincial councils, and diocesan synods. Before the end of the thirteenth century, they had passed and adopted some sixty canons, which appear to have been sufficient for the government of the Church till the sixteenth century. From 1225 till 1478, the Scotch Church was ruled under the Pope by her own national synods, and temporary presidents; although the Crown often interfered, and the kings occasionally asserted their supremacy in ecclesiastical matters.¹
¹ Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ, Volume I., Preface pages 49‒51.
Alexander II. was succeeded by his son Alexander, a boy in his eighth year; and five days after the death of his father, the boy was crowned at Scone. Walter Comyn, Earl of Menteith, and all his clergy, accompanied by the Earls of Fife and Strathern, and many other nobles, led Alexander up to the cross which stood in the cemetery at the east end of the church. Here they placed him upon the famous Coronation Stone, which was covered with cloth of gold, and the Bishop of St. Andrews, assisted by the rest, consecrated him King. Then the King received the homage of the feudal nobles of the kingdom. A venerable Highland bard robed in scarlet then advanced, and kneeling before the Stone of Destiny, hailed the boy King in the Gaelic tongue, as “Ri Alban,” and repeated his long line of pedigree from king to king till he reached Iber Scot.¹
¹ Historians, Volume IV., pages 289, 290.
During the minority of Alexander III., the nobles fully entered on the policy of faction and ambition which figured so darkly in the subsequent history of the kingdom. The marriage of King Henry’s daughter with the boy Alexander III., gave the English king the opportunity of continually interfering in the internal government of Scotland. The nobles were divided into factions, each of which in some measure represented opposite interests, feelings, and tendencies. One party consisted of the nobles of the north and west, which, in a qualified sense, might be called the national party; the other party was mostly connected with the southern quarters of Scotland, and with England. The leader of the national party was Walter Comyn, Earl of Monteith, and his kin were numerous and powerful. Alexander Comyn was Earl of Buchan, and many other members of the group possessed wide territories in different quarters of the kingdom, including the district of Badenoch; and the Earl of Mar and the majority of the chief men northward of the Firths of Forth and Clyde followed the Comyns. This party, so far as appears, desired to uphold the liberty and independence of Scotland, and consequently they were apt to resent and to resist the continual attempts of the English king to encroach upon the rights and liberties of Scotland. The ablest man among the other party was Alan Durward, who held the office of Justiciary of Scotland in the reign of Alexander II. He assumed the title of Earl of Athole from 1233 to 1235, and he married a natural daughter of Alexander II., by whom he had several daughters; and it was alleged in 1252 that he was endeavouring to obtain from the Pope the legitimation of his wife, so that in the case of the death of the boy Alexander III., Alan Durward’s daughters would be the heiresses of the crown of Scotland. Thus Alan was a great and aspiring personage; while most of his supporters were men of position, including the names of the Earls of Dunbar and Strathern, Robert de Bruce, fourth Lord of Annandale, the Steward, and other nobles chiefly connected with the south of Scotland, and with England.¹ This party at every turn showed a desire to forward the interest of the kings of England, to sacrifice the liberty and independence of Scotland, in the hope of thereby retaining their feudal fiefs in England, and at the same time securing their hold upon the land of Scotland. In short, they were always trying to ride upon two horses at once, running in opposite directions.
¹ Historians, Volume IV., pages 292, 293, et seq.; Chronicles of Melrose; Fœdera, Volume I., pages 272, 275, 278, 327, 329, 347, 352, 357, 358, 362.
The two parties of the nobles struggled against each other to obtain the chief positions in the government of the kingdom, and to seize and retain possession of the boy King and his wife, for Alexander III. was married before he had reached eleven years of age. The struggle was continued during the period of the King’s minority; sometimes one of the parties and sometimes the other obtained the position of rulers of the kingdom, while both parties tried to secure their hold by every means in their power. Henry III. rarely failed to render the state of affairs worse rather than better. Comyn, the Earl of Monteith died in November 1258, and Henry III. then advanced obnoxious proposals, which however failed in their aim, as the Scots rejected them.
The repeated attacks of the Norsemen, and their conquest of the Islands and part of the mainland in the north, have been noticed in the preceding pages. The islands of Orkney and Shetland were dependencies of Norway, ruled by local chiefs called jarls; the Western Isles were also claimed by her; and on the mainland, to the north-westward of the Moray Firth and Glenmore, there was a region forming a kind of debatable territory, which as we have seen, the kings of Scotland had long been attempting to subdue. When Alexander III. attained the age of twenty-one, he endeavoured to obtain the Western Islands by negotiation, and sent an embassy to the King of Norway which failed in its object. He then announced his intention to subject these Islands, and the war was commenced by the local chiefs of Ross. But Haco, the King of Norway, considered this attack on the Western Isles as an encroachment on his rights and prepared for war. He was a strong-willed man, well obeyed by his subjects, and he ordered a conscription over his dominions. Haco made great preparations for the expedition; a ship was specially built for himself, which mounted twenty-seven banks of oars, glittered with gilded dragons, and was manned by picked Norwegian seamen. Many of the ships were large and well equipped, and in all numbered upwards of one hundred and twenty vessels. On the 10th of July 1263, Haco with his fleet sailed for the Shetland Islands; whence he steered for the Orkneys, and anchored in Elwick harbour, opposite Kirkwall. Haco sailed from Orkney on the 10th of August and anchored in the Sound of Skye, where the King of Man and other Norwegian chiefs joined the expedition. He then sailed through the Sound of Mull to Cantyre, where the forces from the Isles were concentrated. He sent fifty ships under the command of the King of Man to plunder the coasts of Cantyre, and five ships to the island of Bute. The castles of Dunaverty in Cantyre, and Rothesay in Bute, having surrendered, Haco with the whole fleet rounded the Mull of Cantyre, sailed up the Firth of Clyde, and anchored off the island of Arran.¹
¹ Expedition of Haco, page 55, et seq.
The Scots had made preparations for the defence of the mainland. The castles of Inverness, Ayr, Stirling, Wigtown, and others, were repaired and the garrisons strengthened; while the King had concentrated the main body of his army in Ayr, where the great attack was expected to be delivered. Negotiations were opened, and Haco claimed a right to the whole of the Western Isles. As the object of the Scots was to gain time, they proposed to retain the islands of Bute, Arran, and the two Cumbraes; thus they protracted the negotiations till towards the end of September. Then Haco discovered their intention, and proclaimed the truce at an end. He sent sixty vessels to devastate the coasts, and prepared to land with the main body of his force at Largs. But on the morning of the 1st of October a hurricane arose which lasted several days; many of Haco’s ships were wrecked, and his main fleet much disabled. The royal flagship dragged her anchors, while the greater part of the fleet was drifting in distress. Five vessels were driven ashore upon the coast of Ayrshire, near Largs. The Scots had assembled in groups along the beach, observing ship after ship drifting past; and they began to attack the shipwrecked crews, who sheltered themselves behind their vessels. A reinforcement from the fleet landed and drove off the Scots. On the morrow a body of the Scots were posted in the vicinity of the village of Largs, ready to renew the attack. An engagement ensued, and the Norwegians fought heroically though outnumbered, and, after a somewhat protracted contest, they gained their boats and sailed off. By this time Haco’s fleet was greatly diminished, and all hope of success had vanished; so he steered his course for the Orkney islands, which he reached in November. The strain of the expedition, and its utter failure, affected the spirit and frame of Haco, and he died on the 15th of December, 1263. His remains lay three months in the Church of Kirkwall, thence they were carried and interred in the tomb of his ancestors at Bergen.¹
¹ Expedition of Haco, pages 77, 85, 87, 107, et seq.; Historians, Volume IV., pages 296, 297.
When the tidings of Haco’s death reached Alexander III., he resolved to reduce the Western Isles to subjection. A force was mustered and placed under the command of the Earls of Mar and Buchan, and Alan ♦Durward, and the army proceeded to the isles. On its approach some of the chiefs fled, some of them were hanged for the support which they had given to Haco’s expedition, while others were expelled or fined. The Earls secured much booty, and then returned to the mainland. With the view of a final settlement, negotiations were opened with the new King of Norway, Magnus VI. In July 1265, a treaty was concluded with Norway, by which the Isle of Man, and all the islands off the coasts of Scotland were ceded to Alexander III., on the condition that the Crown of Scotland should pay four thousand marks, and an annual rent of one hundred marks to the Crown of Norway. But the islands of Orkney and Shetland were to remain attached to the Crown of Norway.¹ Henceforth Scotland was freed from the ravages of the Norsemen.
♦ “Duward” replaced with “Durward”
¹ Historians, Volume IV., page 296; Chronicle of Man, page 52.
The remaining years of Alexander’s reign were peaceful and progressive in every direction. Alexander III. had a son and a daughter, and in 1281 the latter, Margaret, was married to Eric II., King of Norway; the same year the Prince of Scotland married Margaret of Flanders, a daughter of Count Guy de Dampierre. The prospects of the nation then looked exceedingly bright. But on the 9th of April, 1283, Alexander’s daughter Margaret, died, leaving an only child, called the Maid of Norway; and the Prince of Scotland died on the 28th of January, 1283‒4, without issue. The great difficulty was at once seen, and the king summoned a meeting of the Estates of Scotland, which assembled at Scone on the 5th of February, 1284. At this meeting there were present twelve Earls, namely, Mar, Strathern, Athole, Fife, Buchan, Angus, Monteith, Ross, Dunbar, Lennox, Sutherland, and Carrick; ten bishops; and twenty-five barons, all of whom bound themselves in the name of the nation to acknowledge the king’s grand-daughter, Margaret, the Maid of Norway, as the heir of the Crown of Scotland.¹
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., page 82.
Alexander III. married a daughter of the Count de Dreux, on the 14th of October, 1285, and he still hoped to leave lineal heirs to the throne. But on the 15th of March, 1286, when he was riding in the night along the coast of Fife, near Kinghorn, he was thrown from his horse and killed. A sad and mournful end; the lamentation was universal, and all the people looked forward to the future with dismay. The last king of the Celtic race slept with his fathers, and the crown of a far-descended line fell to a weakly infant.
A meeting of the nobles and clergy was held at Scone on the 2nd of April, 1286, and six guardians were elected to govern the kingdom. For the districts on the north of the Forth the bishop of St. Andrews, and the Earls of Fife and Buchan, were appointed; and for the country on the south of the Forth, the Bishop of Glasgow, John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, and the Steward of Scotland. The elements of the approaching contest were already stirring, as several of the nobles aspired to the throne, which they considered vacant. Robert Bruce of Annandale, entered into a bond with a number of Scotch and English nobles with the aim of supporting his claim to the throne of Scotland. This document is dated the 20th September, 1286, and it contained the names of the Earl of Dunbar and his three sons, the Earl of Monteith and his two sons, and the Steward of Scotland; Angus, Lord of the Isles, and his two sons; the Earl of Ulster, and Lord Thomas de Clare, two English barons. Thus it appears that Bruce’s party was pretty strong. In this document Bruce and his supporters ignored the infant queen, the Maid of Norway, but they assumed that the throne would be occupied by some one of royal blood, who should obtain it according to the ancient and approved customs of the kingdom.¹
¹ Historical Documents of Scotland from 1286 to 1306, published by Royal Commission, Volume I., pages 22, 23; Hailes’ Annals, Volume I., page 203.
It is uncertain whether Edward I. knew of this bond, but he had a project of his own. He had a son, and if his son could be married to the Maid of Norway, he imagined that all would go right. Edward I. therefore applied to the Pope for a dispensation to sanction the marriage; and a papal bull authorising the marriage of the two children was issued in November 1289, although they were within the prohibited degrees of relationship. A formal conference was held at Salisbury, at which various matters connected with the marriage were arranged, with the mutual concurrence of England, Norway, and Scotland. In March 1290, the Earls, barons, and clergy of Scotland, met the ambassadors of England at Brigham, and after deliberation the articles arranged at Salisbury, and other points, were confirmed and a treaty concluded, which sanctioned the marriage of the royal children. This treaty provided that the rights, the laws, and the liberties of Scotland should continue entire and untouched. No native was to be compelled to answer for any crime or cause at any court out of the kingdom; no parliament was to be held beyond the boundaries of Scotland to discuss Scotch affairs: in short, the complete independence of the nation was recognised and strictly guarded by this treaty.¹
¹ Historical Documents of Scotland, Volume I., pages 90, 91, 134, 35, 36, 111‒113, 105‒111, 129‒131; Hailes’ Annals, Volume I., pages 208‒212.
It seems that Edward I. imagined that he had thus secured the kingdom. He at once appointed the Bishop of Durham Lieutenant of Scotland, in the name of Queen Margaret and the Prince of England, to act along with the guardians, the bishops, and the nobles of the realm. Waxing bolder, Edward demanded that all the royal castles in Scotland should be immediately surrendered to him; but for once he had miscalculated the force of his influence and dignity, as the Scots refused to deliver the castles of the kingdom into his hands.¹
¹ Hailes’ Annals, Volume I., pages 212, 213.
Edward I. quickly equipped a ship to transport the young queen from Norway. This ship was well stored with provisions and luxuries ――thirty-one hogsheads and one pipe of wine, and ten barrels of beer; a very large quantity of salted beef, hams, dried fish, stock fish, lampreys, sturgeon, and fifty pounds of whale, along with twenty-two gallons of mustard, salt, pepper, vinegar, and onions. A stock of dainties, specially prepared for the delicate, young Queen, consisted of five hundred walnuts, two loaves of sugar, grits, oatmeal, mace, figs, raisins, and thirty-eight pounds of gingerbread. The ship carried the English flag, and the crew numbered forty hands. She reached her destination all right; and in due time she sailed from Norway with the Queen on board. Edward I. sent his agents to Orkney to meet her, he also sent a number of precious jewels to Scotland to bedeck her; indeed, he put himself to great trouble to secure the consummation of this marriage. But the child died just before she reached the Orkney Islands, in the end of September, 1290.¹ Thus perished the hopes which Edward I. had associated with his marriage project. He subsequently adopted a different line of procedure, still with the same end in view――the complete subjection of Scotland. Before proceeding with the historic narrative it is requisite to review the state of society and the progress of the nation up to the date of the outbreak of the War of Independence.
¹ Historical Documents of Scotland, Volume I., pages 139, 140, 182, 183‒192, 178, 179, 149‒153.
Chapter IV
_Social Condition of the Nation in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries._
THIS chapter will present an account of the social state of the kingdom. The government, introduction of charters, the powers granted to the nobles, and an explication of feudalism; customary law in a transitional stage, forms of trial and punishment, and the privileges associated with sanctuaries, will be treated. Royal burghs, church burghs, and burghs of regality, the coinage and the commerce of the kingdom, the organisation and the possessions of the Church, schools, literature, and architecture, will be dealt with. Agriculture and the state of the occupiers and toilers of the land will be detailed.
At the end of the eleventh century the people and the government were Celtic; although the Angles had long been settled in the south-eastern quarter of the kingdom, the Norsemen still held sway in Caithness and the islands. The proceedings connected with the introduction of Norman feudalism for some time seriously interrupted the continuity of the progressive movement of the kingdom, as the people in some quarters of the country were bitterly opposed to it; but it was fostered and supported by the kings, and had spread over the Lowlands before the close of the thirteenth century.
The king stood at the head of the feudal organisation, as the leader of the army, the fountain of honour, the dispenser of titles; and nominally the prime administrator of justice, and the chief landholder in the kingdom. His revenue was mainly derived from the rents of the crown lands, the feudal casualties of ward, marriage, relief, and non-entry, the rents of the royal burghs, and the customs on merchandise, and the fines imposed in the king’s courts. Public taxes were assessed on all lands, and levied according to the exigences of the nation. From these sources the feudal kings of this period raised a considerable revenue. The king had his Justiciary, Chamberlain, Chancellor, Constable, Steward, and other Crown officials; and before the end of the thirteenth century the offices of Steward and Constable had become hereditary in the families of Stewart and Morevil. In the thirteenth century the Chamberlain was the collector and also the disburser of the Crown revenues, and in virtue of these functions he was the most important of the great officers of the Crown. Out of the revenues in his hands he had to provide for all the branches of public expenditure, including the charges of the royal household, and all extra military expenses. He also had a complete jurisdiction over all the burghs. The immediate receivers of the royal revenues were the sheriffs and bailies, who collected the rents of the crown lands, the feudal casualties, and the fines imposed by themselves, by the Justiciaries, and by the Chamberlain himself at his annual circuit courts in the burghs, and by the magistrates and the custom officials, who accounted for the burgh rents and the customs. The Chamberlain and other officers intrusted with public money, had their accounts audited in exchequer usually once a year; and the more important of these audited accounts were then engrossed for preservation on parchment rolls.¹
¹ The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume I., A.D. 1264‒1359. 1878.
Meetings of the kings with their chief men and the clergy for the transaction of important affairs occurred at an early period, as we have seen in preceding pages. According to the feudal principle all the Crown vassals should have attended the king’s great council or court; as a matter of historic fact, only the chief officers of the Crown, a few of the churchmen and nobles, usually attended the meetings of the council; and further, it must be observed that the legislative functions of the king’s council were not clearly distinguished from the function of counselling the king in judicial proceedings: in other words, the legislative and the executive departments of Government were not as yet distinctly discriminated in Scotland. Alexander I. held a council in 1107, in which Turgot was chosen Bishop of St. Andrews by the king, the clergy, and the people; and in 1114, when he refounded the Abbey of Scone, the council consisted of the king and queen, two bishops, six earls, and some other persons, “witnessing and consenting.” Sometimes the laws were enacted and issued in the name of the king and his judges. The laws of David I. run in the form of an order or a declaration of enacting power, thus: “The King David has statuted,” “the King David has ordained,” “the King has decreed and delivered.” Some of David’s charters, granted with the consent of the council, assumed a rather imperative style, such as his foundation charter of Holyrood:――“I David, by the grace of God, King of the Scots, of my royal authority, and with the assent of Henry, my son, and the bishops of my kingdom, and with the confirmation and testimony of the earls and barons, the clergy also assenting and the people, of divine prompting, grant all the things under written to the church of the Holyrood of Edinburgh.” Malcolm IV., in royal grants of great importance, adopted the style of his grandfather, David I. In 1184 William the Lion held a council at Perth, in which the members present were described as bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, and all the good men of the land, and this meeting passed a number of acts. Alexander II. assembled a council at Stirling, in 1236, in which the Bishop of St. Andrews, the prior of Coldingham, the Earls of Fife and Buchan, the Steward of Scotland, the Justiciary of Lothian, John de Maxwell, and others, were present, and the record says that they passed the acts, nine in number, with the assent of the whole community. Alexander III. held a number of councils similar to the preceding ones, but there was no regular Parliament in Scotland, as now understood, during this period.¹ Although it is obvious that the kings did not assume to act in important matters solely in virtue of their royal authority, they usually sought and obtained the assent of the chief men of the kingdom.
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I.; National Manuscripts of Scotland, Part I., Number 16.
The Justiciary was a high legal functionary, and first appeared in the reign of Alexander I. In the reign of William the Lion there were two Justiciaries, one for Lothian, and the other for the country on the north of the Forth; and in the reign of Alexander III. there were four of these functionaries――one for Lothian, another for Galloway, and two for the country to the northward of the Forth. These judges usually went through their districts on circuits twice a year. Sheriffs were gradually introduced, and by the middle of the thirteenth century a considerable part of Scotland had been divided into sheriffdoms. The sheriff was intrusted with a wide jurisdiction, both in criminal and in civil cases, and also in fiscal matters. William the Lion enacted that each sheriff should hold his court at intervals of forty days, and in the latter part of the thirteenth century there were upwards of thirty sheriffdoms.¹ It will, however, shortly appear that there was not a regular code of laws, and that the judicial processes then in operation presented a curious jumble.
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., pages 55, 57, et seq.; Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume I.
In connection with the introduction of feudalism, and an extraneous aristocracy, the kings ♦adopted the expedient of granting lands by charter to their new nobles. A specimen of one of the earliest of these charters may be quoted:――“David, King of the Scots, to all good men of his whole land, greeting. Know that I have given and granted to Robert of Bruce, in fee and heritage, to him and his heirs, the valley of Annan, in forest, on both sides of the water of Annan, as the marches are from the forest of Selkirk as far as his land extends towards Strandnith and towards the Clyde, freely and quietly as any other forest of his is best and most freely held. Wherefore I forbid that any one hunt in the aforesaid forest, unless by his authority, on pain of forfeiture of ten pounds, or that any one go through the aforesaid forest unless by a straight road appointed.” How is this charter to be interpreted? Must I suppose that this fine valley of Annandale was then uninhabited? The charter tells nothing, save that Bruce is to possess it as a free forest exclusively for his own use. Fortunately, in this instance, the grant was confirmed by another charter in the reign of William the Lion, which will enable us to understand in some degree the former grant of “free forest”:――“William, King of the Scots, to the bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, sheriffs, and other good men of his whole land, greeting. Be it known to all present and to come, that I have given and granted, and by this, my charter, confirmed, to Robert of Bruce and his heirs, all the land which his father and himself have held in the valley of Annan, by the same marches by which his father held it, and he after his father. To be held to himself and his heirs of me and of my heirs in fee and heritage, in wood and plain, in meadows and pastures, in moors and marches, in waters, stanks, and mills, in forests and trysts, in hills and harbours, in ways and paths, in ♦fishings, and in all other just appurtenances, as freely, quietly, and fully as ever his father or he himself most freely held that land of King David, my grandfather, or of King Malcolm, my brother.” Thus the second charter renders the meaning of the first one intelligible, as we see that under the first grant of free forest there was also conveyed a grant of “free barony,” or the grant of “free barony” had been conferred some time before the free forest grant, which was the usual mode of procedure.¹
♦ “adapted” replaced with “adopted”
♦ “fistings” replaced with “fishings”
¹ National Manuscripts of Scotland, Part I., Numbers 20, 39, 19.
The above may be fairly taken as genuine historic example of a large number of similar ones. The Norman nobles obtained charters granting to them lands, and sometimes extensive tracts of territories. But it occasionally happened that the territory granted by the charter could not be made available to the holder of the charter, owing to the opposition of the real owners and occupiers of the territory in question; and there were instances of royal charters granting lands which never became operative. In order to overcome this opposition of the people, and to dispossess them of the land, so that the Norman nobles might be amply accommodated, various expedients were resorted to. David I., in reference to the rights and claims of the people in the possession of the land, had recourse to the following expedient: ――Those who were bold enough to oppose the schemes of the king were permitted to appear before his court, or a jury selected or controlled by him: then every one who held land had to prove that he and his lineal ancestors had continuously held the land in question for four generations, and every one that failed to prove this was told that he had no right to the land, and that the king would dispose of it as he thought fit. In the reign of William the Lion it appears that charters had become a requisite of the right to hold land; and in 1248, at a council held in Stirling, it was enacted “that from this time henceforth no oath should be taken touching the life or limb of any man holding land, except by those men who were freeholders by charter.” Thus the charter was made a test of freedom and of civil rights, as well as the requisite condition of holding land: and further, the Norman nobles in Scotland enjoyed the invidious privilege of sending substitutes or champions to fight for them instead of appearing in person when challenged to single combat by any Scotsman. Yet in 1230 it was enacted that every petty knight, or any man who held land by charter, if challenged to single combat at the Bridge of Stirling or anywhere else, could appoint substitutes to fight for them. By these processes and the means briefly indicated, from the accession of David I. to the throne, onward to the death of the Maid of Norway in 1290, a period of one hundred and sixty-six years, many thousands of the people of Scotland were deprived of their natural and just rights in connection with the ownership and the occupancy of the land of the kingdom. Many of them were then reduced to a state of extreme privation, and a considerable number of them fell into the condition of serfdom. When thus rendered landless, David I. enacted “If any man be found in the king’s land that has not a proper lord, after the king’s writ has been read in the courts, he shall have the space of fifteen days to find a lord. And if within that term he does not find a lord, then the king’s justiciary shall take from him five cows for the king’s use, and keep his body to the king’s behalf until he get him a lord.”¹ This act was expressly drawn with the object of compelling the people to yield and place themselves under the Norman nobles.
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., pages 9, 51, 70, 74, et seq.
With the support and assistance of David I., and some of his successors, the Normans shortly obtained possession of extensive territories held under feudal tenure. In some instances the rights and privileges of regality were granted along with the territory, though the title of Earl was withheld, and a right of regality meant an almost absolute jurisdiction over the whole inhabitants of the district included in the charter. The lower form of feudal tenure, called “free barony,” also embraced a pretty complete jurisdiction over all the people within its bounds. As a specimen, a portion of a Crown charter of the Earldom of Fife may be quoted:――“Alexander, by the grace of God, King of the Scots, to all good men of his land, greeting: Be it known to all present and to come that we have granted, and by this our charter have confirmed to Earl Malcolm of Fife, son of Earl Duncan, the Earldom of Fife, as Earl Duncan, his father, held it. To hold to him and his heirs of us and our heirs in fee and heritage, in wood and plain, in lands and waters, in meadows and pastures, in moors and marshes, in stanks and mills, in fish ponds and fishings, in ways and paths, with soc and sac, with gallows and pit, with toll and them, and ♦infangthief, ... with all things to that Earldom justly pertaining.”¹ Thus an Earl had a right not only to the land, but also to everything else within the borders of the Earldom. Even the natural elements, such as water, were appropriated by the feudal lords. There was a collection of Forest Laws, but they were not nearly so savage as the forest laws of England; and the penalties in connection with infringement of these laws were pecuniary fines.
♦ “infangthef” replaced with “infangthief”
¹ National Manuscripts of Scotland, Part I., Number 50.
The privileges of an Earldom embraced an authoritative jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases of every description; in a word, the Earl had the lives and the property of the people within the limits of his territories in his hands. He had the power of executing any one of his vassals; cases of assault, theft, and all the disputes which arose amongst the people of the territory came under the jurisdiction of the earl; and the fees, fines, and escheats of goods, which arose from the numerous feudal relations of the several ranks of his vassals. Further, an earl, or a baron, holding under free barony, was empowered to enforce ward, relief, merchant, and many other feudal services. If there were villages and towns in the earldom, the earl was the superior of these also, and might treat the inhabitants as he thought fit.¹
¹ Antiquities of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff, Volume II., page 109; Volumes III. and IV., in loc.: “All feudal lords through feudal Europe were equally fond and proud of the right of executing those whom they had first convicted and sentenced to death. The Gallowhill is still an object of interest, and, I fear, of some pride, near our old baronial mansions; and I know somewhere the surrounding ground is full of the remains of the poor wretches who died by the barons’ law. Perhaps the pit was for the female thief, for women sentenced to death, were, for the most part, drowned.” Innes’ Legal Antiquities, pages 58, 59.
An earldom or a great barony presented in miniature all the characteristics of a feudal kingdom. Like the king, the earl was the supreme ruler within his territories; he had his own courts, and appointed his own sheriffs and bailies, his chamberlain, constable, and other officials. Then portions of his lands, with its castles, formed his special personal domain for the accommodation of his family, his officials, and his personal retinue. But the far greater portion of the lands of the earldom were held by the vassals of the earl. These feudal vassals were of different ranks, consisting in some earldoms of thanes, knights, free tenants, tenants-at-will, down to bondmen and serfs. Tenants-at-will merely held land from year to year, and they, with the bondmen and the serfs, were the toilers of the lands of the earldom. The ranks above the toilers of the soil, formed the military force of the earldom, with the earl as their leader. All the ranks above the servile classes, were under feudal allegiance to the earl and bound to follow him in all his causes and quarrels against any person or party in the kingdom, save the king. Then the earl, or a baron with the rights of an earl, could grant lands to his vassals under various conditions, and so thanes and knights were frequently the vassals of a feudal earl. These thanes and knights in turn could re-let to the class below them; and these also might sub-let. In this way many of the small gentry ultimately became proprietors of land; but the greater number of them remained as the feudal vassals of their lords till quite recent times.¹
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., pages 60, 68, et seq.; Innes’ Legal Antiquities; _Antiquities of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff_.
An important part of Feudalism as it was introduced and developed in Scotland, was directly associated with the Church. It appears that monks and churchmen were amongst the first who obtained regal jurisdiction over the inhabitants of the lands which the kings granted to them by charter. Alexander I. refounded the monastery of Scone and empowered the abbot and monks to hold their own court, this was confirmed by Malcolm IV. and by William the Lion, and the latter charter ran thus――“William King of the Scots, ... know that I have granted, and by this my charter confirm, ... to the church of Scone and the abbot and canons serving God there, all the liberties as the charter of King Malcolm my brother witnesses: to wit, their court to be held with full jurisdiction, in battle, in iron, and in water, with all the liberties pertaining to a court, with liberty of answering to no one outside their own court. Let no one therefore of my subjects attempt to break this liberty of theirs under the pain of my forfeiture.” The abbots of Dunfermline, Kelso, Holyrood, Jedburgh, and other great monasteries, had their own courts; and the Bishop of St. Andrews had his own court. In the reign of Alexander III., at least one third of the best land in the kingdom was held by the Church. These lands were held under the most favourable feudal tenures, as the numerous Crown charters to churches, monasteries, and bishoprics amply testify. On these extensive church lands there were various ranks of vassals and tenants, bondmen and serfs. The highest class of church vassals were almost of equal rank with the lesser barons and freeholders of the Crown; they usually held their lands by charter, free of all services, and only paid a nominal rent. From an examination of many circumstances, it seems almost certain that the greater part of the lands which David I. and his two grandsons, Malcolm and William, granted to the Church, were the very lands of which the real owners and occupiers had been dispossessed. This accounts for the great numbers of bondmen and serfs which were attached to the church lands in the thirteenth century.¹
¹ National Manuscripts of Scotland, Part I., Numbers 16, 30, 36, 37, 54; Register of Dunfermline, pages 220‒222; Register of Kelso; Charters of Holyrood; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I.
If none of the real owners and occupiers of the land were deprived of it by the expedients and the processes associated with the introduction of charters in relation to the rights of holding land, then how is it possible that David I. and his two grandsons could have been in possession of all these fine tracts of land which they gave to the Church within so short a period? Is there any other historic interpretation which will meet the known conditions and the circumstances connected with this important social phenomena? There is no difficulty in understanding how it occurred that David I. was represented as a saint by certain chroniclers, who also looked upon the Norman nobles and their Feudalism as the real originators of civilisation in Scotland.
One striking characteristic of Norman Feudalism as manifested in Scotland, was its tendency to assume hereditary forms. The great officers of State; sheriffs, bailies, stewards, keepers of castles, forests, and parks, became hereditary; and indeed all titles and offices from the throne downward to the common occupations associated with the brewhouse and the smithy, assumed the hereditary form. Politically and socially, feudal organisation as developed in Scotland, contained within itself the very elements of anarchy; associated with extremely few of the agencies and influences which tend to promote order and advance civilisation.
The prevailing forms of trial by custom or law, and the modes of punishing crime, are important in all stages of society. It is interesting to note that the earliest fragments of the statute law of Scotland contain references to a still earlier common usage: “The assize of the country,” “As law will and custom is,” “According to assize of the land,” these expressions occur in the laws of David I.; and in one of David’s statutes a direct reference was made to a law of Malcolm Canmore, “as it was established in his father’s days.” These phrases meant that the matters in question were to be settled according to the local customs of the people, and present an illustration of custom or usage in the process of passing into written law.¹
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., pages 8, 9, 11‒13, et seq.
The earliest laws of Scotland were full of regulations concerning the punishment of murder and theft. When the thief was caught with the stolen goods in his hands, he was at once tried and punished. It was only when the crime in question was not evident that the peculiarities of the early laws appeared. In the reign of David I., a man accused of theft might have attempted to clear himself in two ways, by battle, or the purgation of twelve leal men; there was nothing adduced on either side by witnesses who were cognisant ♦of the facts, for evidence of that kind was not then deemed necessary. When the accused denied the charge, he had to find twelve compurgators, men of the neighbourhood, who knew the character of the parties, and these men swore that they believed the accused to be innocent. But the number of the compurgators varied from one to thirty, according to the rank of the parties and the nature of the crime: thus, two men were considered sufficient to prove that a person had violated the King’s peace, and accordingly punishment followed; but twenty-four men were requisite to acquit a man for an offence against the majesty of the King. In the reign of William the Lion, when a habit-and-repute thief was pursued by the suit of one or more baronies and could find no one to become bail for him, he was then seized and hanged without any trial.
♦ duplicate word “of” removed
When there was no evidence admitted by witnesses, if the accused person failed to bring the requisite number of compurgators, his last resource was to appeal to the wager of battle. There were definite and minute rules for its procedure, and during the combat the strictest silence was observed. The judges of Galloway decreed that any one who spoke in the place where the battle was being waged, after silence had been proclaimed, should forfeit ten cows to the king; and if any one interfered with his hand, or even made a signal in any way, his life and limb should be in the king’s power.¹
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., pages 5‒8, 55, 56.
During this period several restrictions were introduced in the application of the trial by battle. Churchmen were exempted from appearing in single combat; men past sixty years of age could decline it; and widows who could not fight, were to be protected in their just rights. Burgesses had privileges in connection with it; as the citizens of the royal burgh might claim combat against those who depended upon subjects, but in turn they were not obliged to grant it unless they thought fit; and the burgess might decline the challenge of an upland man. The thief’s lord might fight an accuser of his own rank if he thought proper, but the poor man could only challenge his fellow; the barons, knights, and freeholders, could also fight by proxy, appoint a champion to fight for them; while the body of the people were bound to fight in person. After the order for trial by battle, by hot iron, or by water, had been given, it was no longer open to the parties to compromise the case for a penalty; and any lord who promoted such a thing forfeited his court. There is ample evidence of the prevalence of the ordeals of hot iron and water in Scotland, but no detailed account of the forms of the process have been preserved in any of the early records. As mentioned in a preceding page, the right of trial by battle, iron, and water, was granted to a number of monasteries; but it appears that this privilege was open to endless abuses. David I. in one instance provided that his own judge should always be present at the court of the Abbot of Dunfermline, to see if justice was rightly administered. In 1180 William the Lion enacted: “That neither bishops, abbots, nor yet earls, barons, nor any freeholders, should hold their courts unless the king’s sheriff or his sergeant be there, or summoned to be there, to see that the court be rightly led.... That no baron have leave to hold a court of life and limb as of judgment by battle, or water, or hot iron, unless the king’s sheriff or his sergeant be there to see if justice be truly kept as it ought to be.” In the same reign it was enacted, that when any one was accused of theft by the magistrate and three leal men, he should underlie the law of water; if in addition to these accusers, three witnesses knowing the facts were found, he was not to be put through any of the ordeals, but immediately to be hanged.
Toward the end of this period ordeals were falling into disrepute, though there is no direct evidence as to when they were abolished, or when jury trial was introduced. One form of ordeal, the battle, later the judicial combat, afterwards called the duel, lingered on amongst a class of madcaps until recent times. The people of Galloway retained the modes of ordeals long after the other quarters of the kingdom had discarded them. In the reign of Robert Bruce they still continued to be governed by their own local laws, and had not obtained nor apparently desired trial by jury; and even down to 1385 Douglas, Lord of Galloway, while undertaking in Parliament to promote the execution of justice in his territory, protested for the liberty of the law of Galloway in all points.¹
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., pages 69‒71, 49, 55, 53, 122, 187; Register of Dunfermline, page 12; Ancient Laws and Customs of the Burghs of Scotland, pages 8, 11, 163. The best account of the process of trial by the ordeals of iron and water that I have seen is in Pike’s History of Crime in England, Volume I., pages 207, 208; there is also a mass of matter touching the subject in Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials.
In Scotland civil cases were tried by jury earlier than criminal ones. But throughout this period there was no jury trial in the modern sense, that is, a judge who finds the law, and a number of citizens who find the fact from the evidence placed before them; it was long ere this stage was reached. There were both civil and criminal cases reported as having been tried by jury, during the thirteenth century in Scotland, but then the jurymen were also witnesses in these cases: in England, about the same time, this prevailed in jury trials. The later history of trial by jury mainly consisted of the steps by which the jurors were changed from witnesses into judges of the facts stated by others to them. As yet the ideal of law was only dimly conceived and vaguely comprehended. Public justice was hardly at all discriminated in the minds of the people from the natural feeling of revenge. It seems strange that the crime of murder could be commuted by a fine; but in an age of fierce strife this may have been the most effective punishment. It appears to have rested with the family of the murdered man to abstain from prosecuting to the utmost, when their feeling of revenge could be appeased by a fine. Indeed, there was another penalty due to the king or the lord for the shedding of blood, if their peace was violated, in addition to the compensation paid to the kin of the slaughtered man.
The country for a limited distance around the king’s court and person, and the public highways, were in the king’s peace, under his immediate protection, and a breach of the peace within this area was severely punished. The king further extended his peace to pilgrims during their journeys to and from the tombs of the holy saints.
Amid all the rudeness of the society of the period there were indications of improvement and feelings of humanity. The poor and the weak were placed under the king’s protection; and in the ancient laws the widow and the fatherless children were not forgotten. Women in Scotland held a high position, a fact which was well understood and fully appreciated by the Norman nobles. If a criminal, doomed to the gallows, escaped with his life after the first attempt to hang him, then he was freed from punishment for his past offence; but the party who bungled the execution was subjected to a heavy fine. In connection with the stealing of cattle and sheep, the chief crimes of the period, it was enacted that no one should be hanged simply for taking as much as he could carry, unless it amounted to the value of two sheep; thus a distinction was drawn between the masterful rifler who drove off the cattle and sheep, and the needy thief who merely seized what he could carry. A severe punishment was inflicted on any one who intentionally killed a watch-dog.¹
¹ Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland, pages 4, 53; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I.
In an age when moral power was comparatively weak, the passions little restrained, and the inflamed feeling of revenge pursued its victims, it was a humane measure to make the church a place of refuge. By the canon law all churches were to afford protection to the criminal for a limited time, to allow the first burst of passion to assuage, before the injured party could claim redress. So in the early statutes of the Scotch Church it was enacted that every consecrated church, with a right of baptism and burial, should have the privilege of sanctuary, which extended for thirty paces round the graveyard. In early times the boundaries of sanctuaries were sometimes marked off by stone crosses, such as those at the monastery of Dull, in Athole; but the great sanctity of some places of worship arose from the extreme veneration for their patron saints, and the significance and virtue attached to the relics which were preserved in them; and yet the church and even the holy altar were not always safe from violence. The church of Wedale, now called Stow, was one of the most famous of Scottish sanctuaries. About the year 1166 William the Lion issued a precept to the ministers of the church of Wedale, intimating to them not to detain the men of the abbot of Kelso, who had taken refuge there, nor their goods, as the abbot himself was willing to give them full justice. David I. granted the church of Lesmahagow to the monastery of Kelso, and also confirmed its privilege of sanctuary in the following terms:――“Whosoever for escaping peril of life and limb flees to this church, or comes within the four crosses that stand around it, out of reverence to God and St. Machutus, I grant him my firm peace.” Tyninghame in Lothian, and Inverlethan in Tweeddale, were also noted sanctuaries in their day.¹
¹ Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ, Volume II., pages 18, 19, 37, 46; Sculptured Stones of Scotland, Volume II., Appendix to Preface, page 66, Notices of Plates, page 11; Register of Kelso, Volume I., pages 9, 10, 22, Volume II., page 317.
The law of sanctuary in Scotland was defined and regulated in the reign of Alexander II. Careful rules were stated to guard against the danger of encouraging crime by offering an easy escape and immunity to fugitive vagabonds, thieves, and homicides.¹
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., page 71.
In the introduction many references were made to the localities and the positions where the people fixed their habitations, and erected defensive dwellings and structures of various kinds for their security and protection. Further, it was shown that there were towns and villages from an early period. The people who lived in these towns were, no doubt, in a limited sense the vassals of the king or of the local chiefs, but it does not follow that these townsfolk had no proprietary rights or customary rights of trade before the era of granting charters. On the contrary, as there were rights of property in land centuries before charters came into use, so the townsfolk had their recognised customary rights in Scotland and elsewhere for ages before the period of charters. In accordance with this, the earliest charters of the royal burghs always implied the previous existence of an organised community; thus the royal charter simply recognised organised communities already existing. Dundee, Berwick, Inverness, Aberdeen, and other towns on the coasts, were places of foreign trade before the charter period; but the king’s charter, which placed the burgh communities under the special protection of the Crown, and also conferred on the burgesses privileges of trade, were great advantages, which tended to promote order and industry, and to advance civilisation. Although, when the kings granted charters to the burghs, they had their own interest in view, for originally each burgess was a Crown vassal, and paid a fixed yearly rent for his separate tenement. The Crown appointed officers to collect these rents, who accounted for them; the king also claimed the fines imposed in the courts of the royal burghs, and certain customs which were collected by the Crown officers. These arrangements continued in operation till about the end of the thirteenth century; and subsequently another arrangement came into practice by which the burgesses obtained short leases from the chamberlain, on the condition of paying a specific sum to the king, thus they acquired a right to the rents, the issues of their courts, and the petty customs. These leases were granted on comparatively easy terms, but sometimes a grassum was paid on their renewal. From this practice another arrangement gradually came into operation, by which the burgesses obtained from the Crown charters of feu-farm, converting their lease into a perpetual right. Aberdeen and Edinburgh were the first burghs which obtained these feu charters; the former in 1319, for a yearly rent of £213 6s. 8d.; and the latter in 1329, for a rent of 52 marks.¹
¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume I.; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., page 118; _Charters of Edinburgh, Burgh Records Society_, page 16.
Berwick, Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Aberdeen, and Roxburgh, were among the first burghs which received royal charters, but the greater number of the royal burghs in the kingdom were constituted before the close of the thirteenth century. At the same period the Church had its burghs; the nobles also had their burghs of regality and barony. The higher nobles imitated the king, and often granted exclusive rights and privileges to the inhabitants of the towns within their earldoms and baronies; sometimes the Crown attempted to assert its prerogative by extinguishing the privileges of such burghs, but it rarely succeeded.
There were associated trading communities on the north side of the Grampians in the reign of David I. As we learn from a charter of William the Lion, granted to the burgesses of Aberdeen and the north in the year 1196, in these terms:――“William, by the grace of God, King of the Scots, to all good men of his whole land, greeting. Know all men present and to come, that I have granted, and by this my charter have confirmed to my burgesses of Aberdeen, and to all the burgesses of Moray, and to all my burgesses dwelling to the north of the Munth (the Grampian mountains) their free hanse, to be held where they will and when they will, as freely and peacefully, fully and honourably, as their ancestors, in the time of King David, my grandfather, had their hanse freely and honourably. Wherefore I strictly forbid anyone to trouble or disturb them therein, on pain of my full forfeiture.”¹ The hanse meant the privilege of trade and association, but to what importance these burgesses of the north attained cannot be ascertained, further than that the hanse did not survive the War of Independence.
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., Appendix to Preface, page 77.
In the south of the kingdom the burgh communities had reached the stage of united action at the opening of the twelfth century; their union consisted of the towns of Berwick, Roxburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling. Their meetings were held under the presidency of the king’s chamberlain, and called the “Court of the Four Burghs.” Like other early assemblies, the proceedings of this body of burgesses presented a commingle of the legislative and judicial functions, and their court occasionally extended its operation beyond municipal organisation, and established rules on matters of private right and obligation. The members of this burghal court framed the code called “The Laws and Constitutions of the Four Burghs,” which is the earliest body of Scotch laws extant. This code was sanctioned by the Government in the reign of David I., and many of the early charters of the royal burghs contain internal evidence of having been drawn from it. These burgh laws have sometimes been attributed to the wisdom of David I., but they embodied the practical experience of several generations before his time, and some additions were made to them after his day. A portion of these laws were drawn from the customary usage of the Saxons in the south of Scotland. The Burgh Laws are the most complete of the early fragments of Scotch legislation, and their last editor declared that no such ancient and well-authenticated code of burgh laws exists in the world.¹
¹ Ancient Laws and Customs of the Burghs of Scotland. Edited by C. Innes. Preface page 21; _Report on Municipal Corporations of Scotland_, page 15. 1835.
The union of the Four Burghs gradually developed, and in 1405 delegates from all the royal burghs on the south of the river Spey were ordered to assemble once a year to deliberate upon their common affairs; and in 1454 its place of meeting was fixed at Edinburgh by royal charter. Under the name of the Convention of Royal Burghs it continued its annual meetings, and treated on matters relating to the burghs; and, although the Convention still meets, since 1835 most of its powers and functions have departed.¹
¹ “The towns of England, neither by themselves nor in conjunction with the shires, ever attempted before the seventeenth century to act alone in convention like the Scotch burghs, nor in confederation like the German League.” Stubb’s Constitutional History of England, Volume II., page 220.
The local rulers of the burgh community were elected by the whole body of the burgesses once a year. The newly elected alderman (chief magistrate) and the bailies then swore fealty to the king and to the burgesses――“That they should not punish any man or woman except with the sanction of the ordinary council and the judgment of the good men of the burgh. That neither for fear, nor for love, nor for hatred, nor for kinship, nor for loss of their silver, should they spare to do right to all men.” It seems that the distinction between skilled craftsmen and the men of commerce or merchants did not emerge in an acute form for a considerable time after the institution of the royal burghs. But the increase of trade and wealth, and a more minute division of labour among hand-craftsmen, tended in the direction of such a distinction. A few clauses of charters, and a statute of William the Lion, gives a general liberty to the merchants of the realm to buy and to sell, meaning that the merchant guild should have a ♦monopoly of buying and selling within the limits of the burghs. A short code, entitled the Statutes of the Guild, originated in Berwick about the middle of the thirteenth century, and was at first intended for the government of the guild merchants of that town. This code contains fifty-one statutes, all of which were framed before the end of the thirteenth century.
♦ “monoply” replaced with “monopoly”
The preamble of these statutes suppresses all other trading associations. The first statute enacted that all particular guilds previously acting in any burgh, should be extinguished, and that their goods and chattels ought and should be given to this guild, except the members form a union and come to an understanding to act together in all good deeds in fellowship, secure and faithful friendship without deceit. The regulations and binding clauses of these statutes are very definite and minute; and they were soon generally adopted in all the royal burghs of Scotland. The payment for entrants into the merchant guild was fixed at forty shillings, unless they were sons or daughters of the guild brethren. No one was permitted to deal in hides, wool, wool skins, nor cut cloth within the burgh, unless he was a guild brother. It was enacted “that no butcher, so long as he choose to practise his trade, should buy wool or hides, unless he will abjure his axe and swear that he will not lay his hand upon beasts.” In the Laws of the Burghs, an earlier code already noticed, it was enacted “that no dyer, flesher, shoemaker, or fisherman, can be allowed to entre the guild till he swear not to exercise his craft with his own hands, but only by ♦servants under him.”¹ At a later period a severe and long struggle ensued between the merchant guilds and the craftsmen, touching the privilege of trading and other municipal rights.
♦ “servands” replaced with “servants”
¹ Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland, pages 34, 35, 60, 64, 69, et seq.
It has sometimes been stated that there was no trace of thraldom in the Scotch royal burghs. This, however, is not historically accurate, for in the burgh laws the following occurs:――“If any wool-comber leaves the burgh to dwell with upland men, while he had sufficient work to occupy him within the burgh, then he ought to be taken and imprisoned.” There is another law in the same code which has often been misinterpreted: it runs thus:――“If any man’s thrall, baron’s or knight’s, comes to a burgh and buys a burgage, and dwells in his burgage for a twelvemonth and a day without challenge of his lord or his bailie, he shall be for evermore free as a burgess within that royal burgh, and enjoy the freedom of that burgh.”¹ Thus we see that before a serf could become free, he had to purchase a house――a burgage tenement in the burgh, and dwell in it for a year. But in those times wherewithal could a serf purchase a house? At the present time, how many day-labourers could purchase a house in a town?
¹ Ibid., page 9; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I., pages 23, 41.
Every royal burgh had right to hold markets. The market day was an occasion of unusual freedom, only the traitor, the outlaw, and the malefactor, could be arrested in the open market. Runaway serfs, debtors, and small offenders of every description, were at liberty unless they broke the peace of the market, and those who were guilty of this, were tried by a special court, known under the name of Dustyfeet. In this court the peace-breakers were tried by their peers――the community of the market. The Dustyfeet were the travelling pedlars, the real forerunners of the modern haberdashers; and these and other extraneous traders, who sold their goods from a stall, could claim cut and lot, that is, share and share of the market ground with the burgesses. Thus, in the market, all were placed on an equality, a characteristic which accords well with the origin of markets, indicated in a preceding page.¹
¹ Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland.
Although the government and organisation of the royal burgh communities seemed to be democratic, the guild brethren manifested strong aristocratic leanings. For instance, they enacted――“that every burgess having ten pounds worth of goods shall have in his stable a seemly horse, worth at least forty shillings. And if he be deprived of his horse by any chance, death, sale, gift, or in any other way, he shall within forty days provide another. If not, he shall be fined eight shillings to the guild.” Still these burgh communities were the only classes among the people, who possessed wealth and a measure of freedom, associated with some culture and intelligence. They were usually loyal and faithful supporters of the king, and contributed a considerable part of the gross revenue of the kingdom. Their organisations encouraged habits of industry, tended to promote order and security, and to advance civilisation.
In a preceding page reference was made to burghs under earls and barons, and church burghs. Thus there were three classes of burghs besides the royal ones. A burgh of regality held its privileges of some earl or lord; a burgh of barony was of lower rank, and also held its rights from its local lord; and from the earliest times the constitutions of both these classes of towns varied. In some burghs of regality the inhabitants had the right of electing the magistrates and officers of the town; in others, the superior or lord of the regality retained all these appointments in his own hands. Usually the superior of a burgh of regality took special care to hold the control of its inhabitants well within his own grasp. The rights and privileges of such burghs were――a right to hold markets, and the exclusive right of trade and manufacture within the town; and some burghs of regality had power to form bodies of craftsmen somewhat analogous to those of the royal burghs. Among burghs of regality may be mentioned Dunbar, which belonged to the Earl of Dunbar; Wick, to the Earl of Caithness; Inveraray and Campbeltown to the Argyle family. Burghs of barony became numerous, but at this period most of them were villages and small hamlets. The principal church burghs were St. Andrews, Glasgow, Brechin, Dunkeld, and Dunblane, which belonged respectively to the bishops of these sees; and Dunfermline, Paisley, Jedburgh, Kelso, the Canongate, Selkirk, and Arbroath, belonged to the abbots and canons of the respective monasteries of these towns. These religious corporations seemed as eager to obtain trading rights and exclusive privileges as any other organised class in the kingdom.
The early records of the Scottish mints were lost, and little information of the coinage of this period can be obtained, except what may be drawn from the coins which still remain. The earliest of these are the silver pennies of Alexander I.; there was no gold coinage in this period. From the reign of Alexander I. to the War of Independence there was a regular coinage of silver coins; and throughout this period the standard of fineness was at least equal to the current money of England. The money was then coined in many different burghs, in Berwick, Roxburgh, Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, Aberdeen, Inverness, Dunbar, and in other towns. The workmanship of these coins is rather rough, but not much inferior to the English coins of the same period.
It was already mentioned, that gold and silver were found in Scotland, plenty of iron and coal, and some lead. Few or no materials exist for tracing the rise and development of the use of iron and coal in Scotland. It was reported that iron was worked in the forests of Moray in the thirteenth century; and in 1265 sea coal was mentioned in connection with the castle of Berwick. The monks of Newbottle digged coal from rude surface pits about the middle of the thirteenth century; the Abbey of Dunfermline had a special grant from David I. of the gold produced in Fife; and it was reported that David had a silver mine in Cumberland.¹
¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume I.; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 45, 48; Innes’ Legal Antiquities, page 168.
The weights and measures in use were various; the old Scotch pound consisted of fifteen ounces. David I. enacted that the Caithness pound should be the standard weight throughout the kingdom. The people of the Orkney and the Shetland islands used the Norwegian weights and measures till a recent period. Grain was measured by the chalder, which contained sixteen bolls, the boll four firlots or six bushels; this Scotch firlot was equal to a bushel and a half of English standard measure. A skep of meal was a measure which appeared early in the records of the monasteries, and it contained twelve bolls. The ♦lagon was an old measure of wine, ale, and oil, which was well-known among the religious houses of the period. Wool was sold by the sack of twenty-six stones; and hides by the last = twelve dozen.
♦ “lagen” replaced with “lagon”
The internal trade and the external commerce of the kingdom had developed considerably during this period. Fish was a staple article of commerce from very early times, stretching back beyond the period of the national records. The herring fishing was extensively engaged in during the twelfth century and succeeding centuries. There were customs payable on the export of herrings, keeling, ling, haddocks, whitings, cod, and oysters. In the reign of William the Lion, the Abbot of Holyrood sent his own men to fish for him off the Isle of May. The charters and the laws of the period clearly show that the fishing formed an important part of the economy and trade of the kingdom.¹ The rich religious houses entered freely into commerce, and the Abbot of Scone had a ship of his own; and Alexander I. granted to this monastery the custom of all the ships which landed their cargoes there. Scone had some foreign trade from an early period; but it was soon outstripped by Dundee and Perth, as the latter burgh obtained the exclusive right of trading over the whole of Perthshire. Stirling, St. Andrews, and Aberdeen, had commercial relations with the Continent; but Berwick appears to have been the great mart of traffic in Scotland throughout this period.
¹ Ibid.
The exports mostly consisted of the raw products of the country. The furs entered for export duty, were fox, cat, marten, beaver, otter, and hare; and wool skins, deer and hog skins, lamb and goat skins; oxen, cows, and horse hides; salt, corn, meal, and malt, were among the articles taxed for export. The imports consisted of iron, lead, pots, pans, locks, knives, and other hardware articles; wax, pepper, alum, ginger, almonds, figs, raisins, rice, and very large quantities of wines. Attention had been directed to shipbuilding at a very early period, and the herring fishing trade must have employed a large number of small vessels. Ships were built at Inverness and other ports, and Alexander III. had a number of ships built at Ayr. Shortly before the outbreak of the long war, the merchants of Berwick were numerous, rich, and enterprising. Letters of safe conduct were granted to many of them by the king of England, to pass and re-pass through his dominions in pursuit of their commercial business; a burgess of Perth also received a passport to trade in England, and by its coasts. This friendly state of relations was by the subsequent current of events suddenly changed, and then we hear of the arrest of the ships which belonged to the merchants of Berwick by the English Government, and the keen remonstrances of the enterprising traders.¹
¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume I., pages 6, 34, et seq.; Book of Scone; _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 216‒221, 423‒426.
In 1293, the Court of Flanders granted letters of protection to the people of Scotland to trade in that country, upon the condition of their rendering and paying the usual customs and duties. As documents of a commercial and peaceful character were rare at this period, the main points of these letters may be quoted:――“Be it known to all that we, of our own good will and for our own pleasure, by the advice of the good men and wise people, grant and promise to all those persons of the realm of Scotland, who are alive at present, and who shall be hereafter, that they may visit and come to tarry in, and return from, our country of Flanders, frankly and freely, upon payment and rendering of the rights, customs and taxes of our country of Flanders: and that we will not arrest nor cause to be arrested, by ourselves or others, them or any of them, nor their goods of any description, nor their households, for debt, nor in consequence or through the actions of another person, in which they shall not be indebted, nor security, nor answerable; unless it so be that the present King of Scotland, or those who shall be kings hereafter, or who have been previously, was or were bound or under security to us, or our heirs, or our people therein; then we and our heirs shall be able to arrest, or cause to be arrested, the people of Scotland, their goods and households, and to detain them until justice be done therein to us, our heirs, and our people.
“And in like manner, as is above said, we promise to observe this well and faithfully for ourselves and our heirs, Counts of Flanders, in regard to the most excellent Lord John, by the grace of God, King of Scotland, and to all his countrymen, in such manner and on such conditions as that the most high lord the King above named, shall observe such similar arrangements to my people of Flanders, and to my country. And this agreement shall continue from the Feast of St. Peter at the beginning of August next for three years.”¹ There is some scant indications that a few emigrants from Flanders occasionally settled in the Scotch royal burghs; and there appears to have been a number of them in Berwick.
¹ Historical Documents of Scotland, Volume I., pages 399‒401.
The chief home manufacture in the textile department was a rough woollen cloth made of native wool, which afforded apparel for the people. Other branches of manufactures were not as yet in an advanced stage, though handcraft arts had made some progress. There were goldsmiths, armourers, smiths, tanners, shoemakers, weavers, fullers, dyers, tailors, carpenters, and other craftsmen in every royal burgh. The monasteries had craftsmen of their own connected with their great organisations; and a charter of Alexander I. authorised the Abbot of Scone to have one tanner, a smith, and a shoemaker. In relation to these matters, and, as illustrative of the armour and dress of the period, something may be learned from the Seals then used in Scotland.
The seal of Alexander I. represents the king on horseback, wearing a hauberk of flat rings fitted close to the body with a skirt, below which the quilted tunic appears. The hood was attached to the hauberk, and thrown back from the face; the sleeves were wide and left the hands uncovered; and the legs and feet were protected by ring mail, and from the heel the simple prick-spur projected. The breast-leather which secured the saddle was more ornamented than that on the seal of King Duncan. On the counter seal the king was sitting on a chair of state, and vested in royal robes. A richly embroidered cloak was thrown over his shoulders and fastened on the breast; both arms were extended, his right hand holding a sword, and the left a globe surmounted by a cross: he does not appear to have a crown upon his head. Only fragments of the seal of David I. remain, but the design seems to be similar to that of Alexander’s, and the seal of Malcolm IV. was also of the same design.
The seal of William the Lion remains intact, but its design and execution shows no advance in art. He was represented on horseback at gallop, with a lance and pennon of three points in his right hand, and in his left a shield. The shield was heater-shaped and plain; the sheath of the sword appears hanging from the left side of the saddle, but the breast-leather and saddle have no ornament. The seal of Alexander II. showed a marked advance in art. He was represented on horseback with a drawn sword in his right hand, and a shield suspended in front of the body, on which was boldly depicted the lion rampant; and he was armed in mail armour, with surcoat, a helmet square at the top, and with the aventaile for protecting the face. The breast-leather of the horse was decorated with tassels, and on the back part of the saddle the lion rampant was emblazoned. Some of the seals of Alexander III. were richly designed, and executed with spirit and taste in all their details. On one of them the King was represented on horseback at full speed, completely armed in chain mail which encircled the limbs and feet, and over it a surcoat; on his head a square-topped helmet with horizontal opening; in his right hand a sword, and in front a shield suspended by the guige, and ornamented with the arms of Scotland, which were repeated on the long flowing caparison of the horse. The girths which secure the saddle first appeared on this seal, and the horse’s head was decorated with a plume of feathers. The background was enlivened with trefoils. On the counter seal Alexander was represented after a design resembling those of the preceding kings, but much improved in style and enriched with ornament.¹
¹ H. Laing’s Ancient Scottish Seals, pages 2‒4.
The seals of the nobles were circular in form; and those of ecclesiastics were usually oval shaped. The most common design of the former class was a man on horseback, associated with the figures of animals and other objects. The lion rampant, one, two, or three were frequently depicted on their seals. The boar’s head, and the stag’s head, the boar’s head coupled, the fox, and the dog, often appeared; the hunter on horseback with spear, horn, and dog, and the falconer also on horseback, with his arm extended and holding a falcon by the jess, were represented. The eagle seems to have been the favourite bird, and he was displayed in various attitudes, sometimes his breast was charged with barbs, under his head an ornament, and at the back of his head a cross; or he was represented as alighting. The cock crowing, the raven, and other birds occur; and serpents, lizards, and fish, were figured on these ancient seals. In 1292, on the seal of the Earl of Caithness, there were two figures sitting in a galley without sails, the mast terminated in a cross, and the prow and the stern in the heads of dragons, and the whole within a double tressure, flowered and counter-flowered; there was a hare above the shield, and on each side of it a lizard. At the same period Alexander of Argyle had a representation of a galley on his seal, somewhat resembling the above. On a seal bearing the date of 1176, there was a full-length figure of a female dressed in long and flowing drapery, with both arms extended, and a falcon resting on her left hand. On an oval shaped seal of 1181 there was a figure of a monkey, clothed and kneeling on one knee upon the back of an animal resembling a lion, and there seemed to be the head of an animal in front of the lion; the background of the seal consisted of a series of crosses.
On the seals of the bishops and the monasteries the figures and objects were usually of a religious character. On those of the higher churchmen the most common figure was a bishop in pontifical vestments. In 1203, on a seal of the bishop of Glasgow there was the figure of a young man seated before a lectern, on which there was a book; in his left hand he held a rod of office, while his right hand was a little raised and the forefinger extended, as if he were discoursing from the volume before him.¹
¹ Laing’s Ancient Scottish Seals, pages 28, 29, et seq.
Many of the symbols and figures on the seals of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were similar to those which appear on the sculptured stones of Scotland. Thus a relation between the symbols and the art of the stone crosses and those exhibited on the seals may be considered as established; and this relation shows the continuity of the art.¹
¹ Sculptured Stones of Scotland, II., page 31, and Appendix to Preface pages 14‒18.
In the early part of this period the Church of Scotland was brought into accord with the prevailing form of Christendom. David I. refounded or organised most of the bishoprics and the monasteries, and endowed them very liberally. He was the first king in Scotland who enforced the payment of tithes. David and his successors introduced various orders of regular monks to supersede the Culdees; and in a comparatively short time most of the reorganised monasteries became very rich. The division of parishes and the parochial system began to assume form; but the monastic ideal and spirit was still strong, and cramped the development of the parochial organisation from its birth.¹ Many churches were conferred upon the great monasteries as property, and in this way it became the right and the function of the abbots of the monasteries to appoint many of the vicars of the parish churches; the result was that parochial duties and work were much neglected, and rarely became effectual in any quarter of the kingdom as a means of religious and moral instruction.
¹ “The term parish, meaning any district, was at first appropriated to the diocese of a bishop. In 1179 it is used as synonymous with diocese, and applied to the bishopric of Glasgow. In some instances it would seem to mean the jurisdiction rather than the district. The word shire, so common in our old records, is often equivalent to parish, but sometimes applied to other divisions of church territory, which cannot now be defined.” Origines Parochiales Scotiæ, Volume I., Preface, page 20.
The diocesan form of church polity, which scarcely existed at the close of the eleventh century, was almost completed before the end of David’s reign. He restored nunneries, and founded one at Berwick-on-Tweed; this nunnery was richly endowed, and had several small dependencies. It has been stated that “the principle of celibacy was effectively established among the Scotch clergy by David, along with his other reforms;”¹ but this seems doubtful. For there is ample evidence that celibacy never was effectually established among the clergy in Scotland, as their own records testify. Thus, “one great evil, it will be seen, the incontinence of the priesthood, stands confessed, deplored, and condemned through all the three centuries of Scottish ecclesiastical legislation. Here, as elsewhere throughout Christendom, every code of provincial, every code of synodical canons, calls, but calls in vain, upon the clergy to ♦separate themselves from their concubines as they were styled――their wives, rather, as we may charitably hope that in most cases they should have been, but for the law which forbade the churchman to marry.”² Listen to another great writer, well entitled to speak on the subject.――“The historian must not shrink from the truth, however repulsive. Celibacy, which was the vital energy of the clergy, was at the same time their fatal irremediable weakness. The universal voice, which arraigns the state of morals, as regards sexual intercourse among the clergy, is not that of their enemies only――it is their own. Century after century we have heard throughout our history the eternal protest of the severer churchmen, of popes, of legates, and of councils.”³
¹ Innes, Sketches of Early Scotch History, page 187.
♦ “seperate” replaced with “separate”
² Statuta Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ, Volume I., Preface, page 205; Register of Kelso, Volume I., pages 77, 131, 132, 136, et seq.
³ Dean Milman’s History of Latin Christianity, Volume VI., Book XIV., Chapter I. 1855.
Thus, though the clergy were a support to the Crown, their functions and duties as the teachers of morality and the national instructors of the people, were only very imperfectly performed. Still, any learning and education which existed in the kingdom was in their hands, for the chancellor of each diocese was entrusted with the general supervision of all the schools within the bounds of the bishopric. The rector or master of schools appears in record in the twelfth century in connection with the schools of Abernethy; and in that and the succeeding century many notices of the schools and schoolmasters of St. Andrews, Roxburgh, Berwick, Ayr, Perth, Stirling, Aberdeen, and of other places, occur in several records. Touching the character of the education imparted in these schools no details have been preserved; but probably the greater part of it consisted of the studies associated with the qualifications then necessary for admission to the offices and functions of the Church. There were also schools for teaching singing in the cathedral cities in the thirteenth century. It was enacted in the constitution of the Cathedral of Aberdeen, in 1279, that the master of the schools should see to the attendance of four singing boys at matins and high mass, and at all the great festivals: two to carry tapers and two to bear incense. Indeed, the services of the Church were accompanied with all the harmonic sound and ceremonial display which the resources of the kingdom could command.¹
¹ Register of the Priory of St. Andrews; Register of Dunfermline; Register of Paisley; Old Spalding Club Miscellany, Volume V.
Anything in the form of literature composed in Scotland during this period was usually written in Latin; Norman-French was not used either for literary purposes or official acts and State documents. Although, when Edward I. entered on his scheme of conquest, many writs and papers emanated from him in Norman-French relating to the affairs of Scotland.
In the Introduction reference was made to the writings in Latin, fragments of chronicles, and Gaelic memoranda and rhymes; and the following paragraphs present all the information of the writings of the period under review, which I could obtain. Robert, Bishop of St. Andrews, who died about the year 1159, was reported to have written Statuta Ecclesiastica, but it is not known to be extant. Gualterus, a prior of Kelso, who lived in the twelfth century, composed a tract entitled Pro Ecclesiæ Scoticæ Immunitate Contra Rogerum Eboracensem; and one under the title of Appellatio ad Curiam Romanam; and also letters Epistolæ Diversos. I have seen none of these writings, and am not aware that any of them have been preserved. Adam, an abbot of Melrose, afterwards elected Bishop of Caithness in 1213, and slain by the inhabitants in 1222, wrote a History of Scotland, in three books; also Epistolæ ad regem contra comitem de Caithness; Epistolæ ad Alexandrum Papam, in one book; Insularum Descriptiones, in one book; and Excerpta Bibliæ: but none of these works are known to be extant.
William Kilconcath was rector of the Friar preachers of Perth, and afterwards became Bishop of Brechin; he died at Rome in the year 1274. He wrote a tract, entitled Contra Ottobonum Papam, and another on De Scoticæ Ecclesiæ Dignitate. Robert Kildelith was a monk of Newbottle, then Abbot of Dunfermline, afterwards Abbot of Melrose, and at last he attained the position of High Chancellor of Scotland. He produced De Successione Abbatum de Melrose. William Fraser was for seven years Chancellor of Scotland, and was elected Bishop of St. Andrews in 1279. After the death of Alexander III. he was elected one of the regents of the kingdom, and for a time he played an active and rather questionable part in the affairs of Scotland. Fraser wrote De Jure Successionis Regni Scotiæ; and a work entitled Concordantia in Evangelia. He died in France in 1297.
Another class of writings of the period have more of the historic character, such as the Chronicle of Melrose, which begins with the year 735 and comes down to 1270. The early part of this chronicle seems to have been written about the end of the eleventh century, and it was afterwards continued by several scribes till it assumed its present form, probably about the close of the thirteenth century; and for the later part of the twelfth and the greater part of the thirteenth centuries it is of considerable historic value. The Chronicle of St. Crucis is in its early part chiefly drawn from Bede’s History; it then leaps to the year 1065, and follows Simon of Durham, with some slight variations and additions to 1129; from that year it is mainly filled with notices relating to Scotland, ending abruptly in the year 1153. Throughout the manuscript the handwriting is nearly similar. A few other short and slight chronicles of the period are still extant, but they contain little more than the names and succession of the kings, besides a few fragments of lost chronicles, the whole of which have been carefully edited and published by the authority of the Record Commissioners.
A few of the Chartularies of the monasteries, and parts of the Registers of the dioceses of Glasgow, Aberdeen, and others, were written in the thirteenth century; and, although these cannot be called literature, yet such records contain invaluable historical materials. Long lists exist of the Records of Scotland which were removed from Edinburgh by Edward I. pending the settlement of the disputed succession, and which were restored to John Baliol, King of Scotland, in December 1292; but of their subsequent fate nothing is known. All that now remains is the titles and headings of the numerous rolls given in the Indenture, which testifies that the whole of them were returned to King John. From the lists in this document we obtain an idea of the great historical loss which the nation has sustained from the disappearance of the records. These were of the most varied character, and many hundreds of rolls contained the very matter which would have enabled us to explain clearly the difficult problem connected with the lands of the kingdom in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.¹
¹ National Manuscripts of Scotland, Part I., Number 74. The document containing the lists of these lost Records was also printed in the first Volume of the Acts of Parliament of Scotland.
In preceding pages the defensive structures which the people erected for their self-preservation and security in the earlier periods, such as the hill-forts, crannogs, and brochs, were described. During the period under consideration a new form of defensive work was gradually introduced, usually called the Norman type of castle. The earliest remains of castles of this style in Scotland belong to the thirteenth century, and the best examples of them were the castles of Hermitage, Lochindorb, Bothwell, Kildrummy, Caerlaverock, and Dirleton. These appear to have been built in the later half of the thirteenth century. Massive walls of enormous strength were the chief features of these structures; but they presented little distinctive art characteristics, as strength and defence was the original idea and end contemplated by their owners.
At the time of Haco’s invasion the royal castles on the coasts were inspected, and their stores and defensive appliances increased. On the eve of the outbreak of the War of Independence, the castles held by the Crown numbered about thirty. In the southern quarter of the kingdom there were the castles of Berwick, Roxburgh, Jedburgh, and Edinburgh; inward and westward the castles of Kirkcudbright, Wigtown, Dumfries, Dumbarton, Ayr, Tarbet, and the important fortress of Stirling; northwards the castles of Dundee, Forfar, Kincardine, Aboyne, Cluny, Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, Nairn, Forres, Dingwall, Cromarty, and Inverness; in the island of Bute the royal castle of Rothesay, which was erected early in the thirteenth century, and several others. There were also a number of castles in commanding positions in the hands of the nobles; and besides these there were a considerable number of partially fortified dwelling-houses.¹
¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume I.; _Historical Documents of Scotland_, Volume I., pages 241, 263, et seq.
The greater part of the houses in the burghs and the villages were built of wood, or other materials which could easily be procured. Being built of such combustible materials, they were very liable to catch fire, and, as might be expected, great fires frequently occurred; in the year 1244 several of the burghs were almost entirely consumed by the flames.¹
¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I.; _Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland_, pages 14, 24, 40.
Reference was made in the Introduction to the early types of churches. These primitive structures were succeeded by the regular church architecture of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The chief characteristic of the churches of the twelfth century was massive masonry, short round pillars, semi-circular arches in windows and doors, which sometimes inclined to the horse-shoe form; at first the style was simple and comparatively plain, but it became excessively ornamented. A number of specimens and fragments of this style remain, such as the nave of the Abbey of Dunfermline, which was dedicated in 1150; the Cathedral of Kirkwall founded in 1138, which was many years in process of building, and the structure of which exhibits the characteristics of the earlier and later styles. A part of the abbey church of Jedburgh, and the church of Leuchars, in Fifeshire, belong to the early style; the monastery of Kelso, some portions of a few rural churches in the district of the Merse, and parts of the monasteries of Holyrood, Arbroath, and the small chapel of St. Margaret in the Castle of Edinburgh.¹
¹ Muir’s Characteristics; Walcott’s _Ancient Church of Scotland_, 1874.
In the thirteenth century the prevailing style of church architecture in Scotland was that which has usually been termed the early English or the first pointed period. This was the great church building era in Scotland; it was then that the fine old churches were erected, the very ruins of which attest the skill and the excellent workmanship of their builders. To this period the cathedrals of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Brechin, Dunblane, Whithorn, Dornoch, and a portion of the cathedral of Elgin, belong; the abbey churches of Paisley, Arbroath, Coldingham, Kilwinning, Restennot, Dundrennan, Ferne, Cambuskenneth, Inchmahome, Sweetheart, and Pluscardine, were either erected or begun to be built in the thirteenth century, for it must be observed that these fine structures were not rapidly built, as some of them were fifty years, and even much longer, in building from the date of their foundation till their completion.
The distinctive characteristics of the style of these churches were the pointed arch, tall pillars clustered round a circular pier, often divided by one or more bands, and with capitals, sometimes plain or usually worked in profuse variety; long and narrow lancet-headed windows, bold buttresses――in some examples unbroken, and in others divided into stages; the roofs were high pitched, and, when of stone, groined, and the crossings richly ornamented with bosses, but wooden roofs were common; in the later specimens of the style high steeples appeared. But a clear and just conception of the architectural features, the symmetry, and the beauty, of these buildings can only be obtained by actual observation of the structures themselves. For instance, the Cathedral of Glasgow externally is not a very striking building, but if a person enters and looks through its interior he will see one of the finest sights even yet to be seen in that great city. The massive ruins of the monastic buildings in Arbroath, and in other places mentioned above, the parts of the walls of the Cathedral of Elgin, still standing; and the Abbey Church of Paisley, with its sounding aisle, amply attest the architectural skill and taste, and the excellence of the workmanship of the period; and withal, they remain as the visible emblems of the veneration and devotion of many generations of our ancestors, and recall the memory of the departed worth and greatness of the mighty dead.
As yet the internal means of communication were extremely defective. In most parts of the country the roads were little better than mere tracks for cattle, and pack-horses and packmen were employed to carry goods through the kingdom. The bridges were mostly all built of wood. There was a bridge over the Forth at Stirling, frequently mentioned in the laws of the period; one over the Tay at Perth, one over the South Esk at Brechin, and another over the North Esk. There were three bridges over the Dee, one near Aberdeen and two farther up the river, and one over the rapid Spey in 1224.
A considerable part of the land was under tillage, but the system of agriculture was primitive and rude. Large herds of cattle, sheep, goats, and swine, were reared, and some attention seems to have been given to the breeding of horses. Dairy produce became a staple article of domestic economy, and upon the Crown lands large quantities of cheese were annually produced. David I. granted to the monks of Kelso the tenth of the cheese which the Crown drew from Tweeddale, and to the monks of Scone he gave the tenth of the can of his cheese from the Crown lands of Gowrie, Scone, Cupar, and Forgrund, and similar grants were made to other religious houses. It appears from the records of the monasteries that poultry formed a branch of the farm economy of the period. In the reign of Malcolm IV., on the feast of All-Saints the monks of Scone received ten hens from each ploughland within their territories, and the abbot of Kelso one hen from every house on the lands of the monastery, for which he paid a halfpenny.¹
¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume I.; Registers of Scone, Kelso, and the Priory of St. Andrews.
The principal grain crop was oats, though barley and wheat, pease and beans, were also grown. Wheat was chiefly raised in the southern counties and the lowlands of Morayshire. Large quantities of oats were ground into meal. Mills were numerous, and driven both by water and wind, although the hand mill was still used. The royal burgh communities placed restrictions on hand-mill grinding, and they enacted that no one should presume to grind wheat, mixed grain, or rye, with hand-mills, unless compelled by a storm or a scarcity of mills; and if any one dared to contravene this he was deprived of his hand-mills for ever, “and shall grind his malt at mills paying the 24th measure.” The mill was one of the oldest rights of a barony, and it was amplified by the addition of the multure dues and the sucken. Subsequently the people were thirled to the mill, which meant that all the inhabitants of the barony must send their corn to be ground at the barony mills. The people of the barony often fought with each other as to their round and order of service. One part of the service connected with the sucken was the bringing home of the mill-stones. “Considering that there were few or no roads, the simplest arrangement was to thrust a beam through the hole, and then for the whole multitude to wheel it along upon its edge――an operation of some difficulty and danger in a rough district.” The barons’ mills, with their multure and dues, became one of the most grievous forms of feudal oppression.¹
¹ Ancient Laws of the Burghs of Scotland, pages 74, 85; Innes’ Legal Antiquities, pages 47, 48.
A large quantity of grain was malted to make ale. The brew-houses were numerous, and have continued to be so. Every barony and every monastery had their brew-houses attached to them, and malt-ale held a primary place in the domestic economy of the community. The burghs were extremely jealous of the rights of brewing, and sometimes attempted to restrict the number of brew-houses. They enacted “that no one without the burghs shall have a brew-house unless he have a pit and gallows, and then one brew-house only.”
In the reign of Alexander III. the crown lands were extensive and valuable, especially in the north-eastern district of the kingdom. Of these lands a portion was forest, another portion was domain directly in the king’s hands, and cultivated by his bondmen, who seem to have been yearly tenants. These bondmen, according to my interpretation, were the descendants of the real owners of these lands, who were dispossessed in the reigns of David I. and his two grandsons by the feudal processes and expedients indicated in preceding pages. The free tenants held the land on lease for a stipulated number of years or as life renters at a fixed annual rent. A large portion of the Crown lands was held under thanage; the thane of the thirteenth century in Scotland was a Crown vassal, and held his land under a tenure called feu-farm.¹ At a later period thanages were converted into feudal holdings for knight or military service. The bondmen were the actual tillers of the soil, and the class above them――the free farmers on the Crown lands――probably lived in easy and comfortable circumstances.
¹ Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, Volume I., pages 8, 10, 11, et seq.
The organisation in feudal earldoms and baronies has been already explained. So far as ascertained, it appears that there was no class of free tenants or farmers holding land by a lease for a term of years at a fixed annual rent on the territories of the real feudal barons. Under them as on the Crown lands, the actual cultivators of the soil were bondmen or serfs――the descendants of the real owners and occupiers of the land, who were dispossessed by the feudal processes and expedients resorted to in the reigns of David I. and his two grandsons. Some of the class of bondmen may have held land from year to year under the feudal barons, but then they were merely tenants at the will of their masters. There seems to have been at least two grades of bondmen: one being attached to the land and transferred along with it when the ownership of the land was changed: the other grade were actual slaves, inasmuch as they could be bought and sold individually apart from the land, like any other article of merchandise; and instances of such sales of slaves frequently appear in the records. If they escaped and ran away, then there were minute legal processes for retaking and reclaiming them in any quarter of the kingdom, and replacing them in the hands of their owners.¹
¹ National Manuscripts, Part I., Numbers 30, 37, 54, 58, 59; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume I. _Charters of Holyrood Abbey_; Register of Dunfermline. I entirely dissent from Dr. Skene’s unwarranted inference to the effect that these feudal bondmen and serfs were merely similar in position and characteristics to the servile class in Celtic times in Scotland. One would wish to see some evidence adduced that such bondmen and serfs existed in Scotland before the twelfth century. These serfs and bondmen were created by the processes of feudalism in connection with the land and in no other way; thus the land of Scotland belonged to the Celtic people at the close of the eleventh century, but ere the end of the succeeding century the Celtic people were dispossessed of the greater and best part of the land, which was given to Norman nobles, to the Church, and retained in the hands of the kings. What else could have resulted but the reduction of the original owners to serfdom? _Celtic Scotland_, Volume III., pages 220‒223.
The fullest account of the agriculture of the period occurs in connection with the church lands, where perhaps the most favourable side of the rural people appear. According to a rent roll of the lands belonging to the monastery of Kelso, about the year 1290, the monks had extensive territories which were mostly held in their own hands and cultivated from their granges. Their arable land was measured in ploughgates, husbandlands, and oxgates; and pasture was measured by the number of sheep which it sustained. An oxgate was thirteen acres; and the husbandman who kept two oxen for the common plough, had thus twenty-six acres, which was called a husbandland; four of these neighbours joined in working their common plough, and their whole land made a ploughgate, which meant the extent of land tilled by eight oxen, or one hundred and four acres. A davoch of land in the eastern counties was four hundred and sixteen acres, or four ploughgates. On the western coast of the Highlands and in the islands, the lands were designated as mark lands, half-mark lands, and penny lands; a mark land contained thirty acres and two-thirds of an acre, and so in descending ratio to half-mark, and penny lands.
At the grange or farmstead of the abbey, the chief home on each estate, the cattle, the implements, the stores, and all the requisites for the cultivation of the land were housed, the bondmen and the serfs who tilled it, and their families. The serfs were the lowest class of the community of the grange, and they were transferable like the land which they laboured, and could be caught when they attempted to escape like runaway sheep or oxen. The cottars were the next class above the serfs; and each cottar had from one to nine acres of land along with his house, for which he paid a small sum in money, and services in seedtime and in harvest; some of the cottars had no land, but this seems to have been an exception to the general system. Beyond the cottar’s huts stood the establishments of the husbandmen, each of whom lived in his own separate farmstead. The husbandmen held a definite portion of land for which they paid a fixed rent, and specified services, which consisted of work in harvest and sheep-shearing times, and carrying the wool and the peats of the monastery. Another and higher class of tenant held his lands by charter, and could not be ejected; his holding was usually small, for fifty-two acres of land he paid eight shillings of annual rent, and specified services in ploughing and in harvest work. As already mentioned, the next and highest class of church feudal vassals were almost equal in rank and wealth to the lesser barons and freeholders of the Crown.¹
¹ Register of Kelso, pages 460‒463; Innes’ _Legal Antiquities_, page 243. In Northumberland the farming of the monastery was similar to that of Tweeddale. The monks of Hexham had numerous and large estates mostly in Tindale-ward. Among the benefactors of this monastery we find King David of Scotland, his son, prince Henry, and his grandson William the Lion, granting lands to it in Northumberland. At Hexham as at Kelso, the monks farmed a portion of their lands themselves; under them there were the husbandmen, who held a varying extent of land; the cottars who held a portion of land, usually under five acres, some had only one, others two or three. The annual rent of these lands belonging to the priory in Northumberland, ran from a sixpence to a shilling per acre. The annual rent of a cottage was from eighteenpence to two shillings; but in addition to this there were services which the tenants had to perform, such as a few days’ work at the mill or at hedging, in no case, however, were the services burdensome. _Black Book of Hexham_, Preface, pages 15‒20, 86.
In the thirteenth century the monks of Kelso had very large flocks of sheep, more than 6,600, and considerable numbers of oxen, cows, and swine. The monks of Melrose also had pretty large herds of cattle, sheep, and swine, and it may be reasonably inferred that the other great monasteries were equally rich and powerful in relation to the desirable things of this world.¹
¹ Register of Kelso.
In concluding this chapter let us recapitulate. The government, the introduction of charters, the powers and privileges granted to the Norman nobles in connection with the land and the people, and the organisation of feudalism, have been explained. The customary law of the country appeared to be passing into crude written forms. The prevailing forms of trial, the modes of punishment, and the privileges associated with sanctuaries, have been treated; and it was pointed out that the conception of justice was not as yet distinctly discriminated from the feeling of revenge. The incorporation of the burghs, their internal organisation and characteristics, have been explained, and burghs of regality and church burghs were noticed. The coinage and the commerce of the kingdom, the progress of industry and of art have been indicated. The re-organisation of the Church, the introduction of regular orders of monks into the monasteries, the literature and schools of the period, and the castles and church architecture have been briefly treated. Finally, the state of agriculture, and the social condition of the occupiers and tillers of the soil came under review, different ranks of holders and occupiers of land were indicated, and it appeared that in the processes associated with the introduction of feudalism a great number of the people had been reduced to an abject state of bondage and serfdom. Although material wealth, commerce, and internal organisation, had progressed considerably during this period, still the condition of society was unsatisfactory; the people were vigorous, and if external oppression had not been so severe, civilisation would have advanced at a more rapid pace.