\ 
 
 Dfl 765 
 .W96 
 Copy 1 
 
/ 
 
 Ufte IHniversitp of Cbicago 
 
 ^UNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 
 
 FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 , BETWEEN THE 
 
 KINGS OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND 
 UNDER THE EARLY PLANTAGENETS 
 
 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTIES OF THE GRADUATE 
 
 SCHOOLS OF ARTS, LITERATURE, AND SCIENCE, IN CANDIDACY 
 
 FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES TRUMAN WYCKOFF 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 1897 
 
p. 
 
 publ. 
 
 230 *ui 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction 
 Chapter I. 
 Chapter II. 
 Chapter III. 
 Chapter IV. 
 Chapter V. 
 Chapter VI. 
 Chapter VII. 
 Chapter VIII. 
 Bibliography 
 
 The "Great Commendation" . 
 
 The Cessions of Cumberland and Lothian 
 
 Norman Influence in Scotland. 
 
 The Reign of the First Plantagenet . 
 
 Treaty of Falaise and Charter of Release 
 
 The Period of the Great Charter 
 
 The Reign of Alexander II . . . 
 
 The Reign of Alexander III 
 
 Page 
 V 
 
 I 
 19 
 
 33 
 
 64 
 
 77 
 
 95 
 
 115 
 
 129 
 
 155 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The exact nature and extent of the feudal relations existing 
 between the crowns of England and Scotland have been a fiercely- 
 mooted question. It lost its practical interest for 
 
 the people at larcre with the permanent union of the 
 
 Subject . 1 • J ■ \t t^u- 
 
 two kmgdoms m May, 1707. ihis union, on terms 
 
 of complete independence and perfect equality, marks the 
 abandonment of the early English claims, and indicates the just 
 basis on which the Scotch claims are grounded.' 
 
 In May, 1604, Lord Bacon prepared a draft of "An Act 
 for the better grounding of a further Union to ensue between 
 the Kingdoms of England and Scotland." In his report of a 
 conference with the lords he gives " the reasons of the lower 
 house m point 0/ law, in the question whether the Scots born since 
 the King [James] came to the crown be naturalized in Eng- 
 land." 
 
 Both of these passages have a bearing on the present discus- 
 sion. 
 
 The first speaks of 
 .... these two ancient and mighty kingdoms, which have been so many 
 ages united in continent and language, but separated in sovereignty and 
 allegiance .... 
 
 The second gives the reasons of the Commons against natu- 
 ralization : 
 
 There is no subordination of the crown of Scotland to the crown of 
 England, but they stand as distinct and entire souverainties ; whereas 
 Aquitaine, Anjou, and other places in France were subordinate to this 
 crown, as appears by good records that a corpus capias or any writ 
 under the great seal was of force among them, and they had access 
 here for there complaints in Parliament.^ 
 
 'For the Act of Union see Journal of the House of Commons, XV, 1705-1707. 
 * Works, III, pp. 204, 329-30. 
 
vi ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 But though the union removed the question from the sphere 
 of practical politics, it did not lose its scholastic interest. How 
 
 intense that interest had been was apparent when 
 Its Interest Rymer, who began the " Foedera " in 1693, dis- 
 covered and published what purported to be a charter ' of hom- 
 age by Malcolm Ceanmore and his son to Edward the Confessor. 
 It proved to be a gross forgery from the pen of John Hardyng, 
 the poet and chronicler, who had deposited it in the treasury 
 in 1457. He professed to have obtained it and other documents, 
 in Scotland, at great expense and at the hazard of his life. 
 James I (of Scotland), he said, had offered him 1,000 marks 
 in gold to give them up. King Henry VI rewarded him with 
 a life pension of £20 per annum. The publication of this char- 
 ter just at a time when union was being discussed created great 
 excitement. Writers took up the cudgels on both sides. The 
 arguments of William Atwood "had the distinction of being 
 burned by the Edinburgh hangman, at the command of the 
 Scottish Parliament."^ 
 
 Among recent writers on this subject two deserve especial 
 mention, though their notes and appendices relating to it form 
 
 only a small part of works on other topics. The 
 
 *^*° author of "The History of Scotland under Her Early 
 
 Writers ■' •' 
 
 Kings" handles in a masterly way a period dis- 
 missed by other historians as dark, fabulous, and unworthy their 
 attention. 3 The results of his work, so far as it relates to 
 purely Scottish history, have been generally accepted as scholarly 
 and authoritative. Mr. Robertson incidentally introduces much 
 valuable material in proof of the independence of the kingdom 
 of Scotland, though such proof is not the real purpose of his 
 work. 
 
 This position Mr. Freeman, in his " Norman Conquest," sys- 
 tematically combats, insisting that from A. D, 924-1328 the 
 
 ' Palgrave, Docts. and Records, I, p. cxcvii ; Bain, Cal. Docts., I, pp. xii and I. 
 • Bain, Cal. Docts., I, p. xi. 
 
 3 E. W. Robertson. I am greatly indebted to his invaluable guidance. Cf. also 
 Skene, Celtic Scotland, and Burton, History of Scotland. 
 
INTRODUCTION VU 
 
 eyitire kingdom of Scotland was in a state of legal and permanent 
 dependence on the English " Emperor ; " that during this time 
 " the vassalage of Scotland was an essential part of the public 
 law of the isle of Britain."' In his essay on "The Relations 
 between the Crowns of England and Scotland " he complains 
 because so many of his countrymen condemn Edward's assertion 
 of rights as unjust and illegal, and sympathize with the Scots in 
 the struggle to maintain their independence in the face of over- 
 whelming numbers.^ This feeling on the part of Englishmen 
 themselves is one more of the slender twigs of testimony which, 
 though weak singly, together form an unbreakable bundle of 
 proof in favor of the justice and truth of the claims of Scot- 
 land. 
 
 It was an often expressed desire of Mr. Freeman's to take up 
 this topic and discuss it at length. "The subject," he says, "is 
 one excellently suited for a monograph." ^ But death came 
 before the desire could be realized. Mr, Robertson's death had 
 occurred a short time before the criticisms on his work were 
 made. Nothing of note has been written since on either side, 
 beyond brief references to the works of these two men. Since 
 so eminent and recent a writer as Mr. Freeman has attempted to 
 maintain in the most absolute terms the dependence of the king- 
 dom of Scotland on her imperial overlord, it cannot be deemed 
 a work of supererogation to review the subject in the light of all 
 the materials now accessible. The interests of all who seek to 
 know what is authentic history demand such a reconsideration 
 of traditional theories. 
 
 In taking up the subject afresh, a brief glance at the origin 
 
 and early history of the people who inhabited North 
 Important -r. . . .,, , t, -n i i • 
 
 Britam will be necessary. It will also be imperative 
 Considerations - _ ^ ^ 
 
 to keep several points constantly in mind : 
 I. The sources are largely from English writers, who may 
 naturally be expected to show a bias in favor of their own land and 
 
 ' Norman Conquest, I, p. 59. 
 
 " Hist. Essays, First Series, 4th ed. 
 
 3 Norman Conq., I, Note G. 
 
viii ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 king — especially when, as in the case of monastic chroniclers, 
 
 that king was the source of their bounty. The 
 
 Sources Largely p^y^j^y q£ historical material in Scotland is due 
 
 °^ ^^ ' to several causes. One writer charges it to the 
 
 possibly Biased. 
 Reasons "malicious policy" of Edward I of England, who, 
 
 in order to establish his claim to feudal supremacy 
 
 over Scotland, 
 
 . . . . seized the public archives, ransacked churches and monasteries, and 
 getting possession by force or fraud, of many historical monuments, 
 which tended to prove the antiquity or freedom of the kingdom [Scot- 
 land], carried some of them into England, and commanded the rest to 
 be burnt. 
 
 This opinion is based on a statement in Innes' "Essay."' In 
 his preface, however, Innes somewhat qualifies the position taken 
 in the main body of his work. Edward, by a writ dated August 
 12, 1291, at Berwick-on-Tweed, required 
 
 . . . . all the charters instruments rolls and writs whatsoever that might 
 concern the rights of the competitors, or his own pretended title to the 
 superiority of Scotland, to be carried off and placed where he should 
 appoint ; and these to be put into the hands of five persons, two Scots 
 and three English ; and these last to act by themselves, if the two first 
 happened to be hindered. All which was accordingly executed, and 
 all either lost or destroyed, or carried up to London ; whereof the 
 remains of our records, partly printed by M. Rymer, partly to be met 
 with as yet in the Tower of London and archives of Westminster, make 
 too evident a proof. ^ 
 
 Another writ, published by Rymer, certifies that on the 
 coronation of King John, in 1292, certain documents were deliv- 
 ered on his behalf to Alexander de Balliol, chamberlain of Scot- 
 land, at Roxburgh Castle. The catalogue, which gives only a 
 general statement of the number and contents of the various 
 " sacks, hanapers and pyxes, .... is too vague to warrant more 
 than a mere guess " as to what documents were included. 3 
 Innes well says : 
 
 'W. Robertson, Hist. Scot.; Innes' Essay, p. 303 ; Memoir, p. xxv. 
 • Innes' Essay, p. 305. ^ Bain, I, p. vii. 
 
INTRODUCTION IX 
 
 I have some doubt whether King Edward, having during the con- 
 fusions of a divided and headless nation, gotten himself declared supe- 
 rior lord of Scotland, would be so very scrupulous as to restore back 
 those very special records by which that superiority had been renounced 
 by his predecessors, and Scotland acknowledged as an independent 
 kingdom, such as the charter of release granted by King Richard I to 
 King William, since it still remains in England, and was very candidly 
 published by M. Rymer, from the original.' 
 
 A document generally called by historians " An inventory 
 taken of the Scotch Records at the time of their being brought 
 into the Exchequer at London by King Edward the First" found 
 its way to the English Exchequer. It is said to be in reality 
 " a schedule of all the bulls, charters, and other muniments in 
 the King of Scotland's Treasury at Edinburgh on Michaelmas day 
 1 282 (three 3^ears before the death of Alexander III). . . . What- 
 ever became of these," says Mr. Bain, "it is pretty certain 
 that nothing but the mere inventory ever reached the English 
 Exchequer." It hardly seems possible, however, that such a col- 
 lection of documents could have escaped the rigorous search insti- 
 tuted by Edward. The presence of the inventory in the English 
 Exchequer ought also to be good presumptive evidence, all other 
 proof being wanting, that the articles recorded in it accompanied 
 it. It is said Edward's anxiety "was rather to discover than to 
 suppress writings, as is clear from his many writs to the religious 
 houses of his kingdom, commanding search to be made for evi- 
 dence in support of his claims of superiority." It is true he 
 ransacked the records far and wide to get support for his claims, 
 but it may be fairly questioned what would have been the 
 fate — in the hot partisanship of that period, and among the 
 adherents of the powerful king — of a document which clearly 
 proved that he had no claim to a feudal overlordship in Scot- 
 land.= 
 
 But these long-suffering records were to endure worse things 
 at the hands of fate. King John had hardly won in his appeal 
 before he renounced his homage and allegiance to the English 
 
 ' Innes, as above. *Bain, I, p. vii. 
 
 V 
 
X ANGL 0-SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 crown, "wearied with King Edward's provocations, with the 
 reproaches of his subjects, and probably of his own conscience.' 
 A league with Philip of France called down the vengeance of 
 Edward, who, 
 
 .... intending to ruin entirely the monarchy, and abolish the regal 
 dignity among the Scots, the better to secure his title of superior lord 
 over them, carried off not only the public records, but the regalia, and 
 even the famous stone chair on which our kings used to be crowned. 
 
 There is little doubt that Edward intended, if possible, to 
 reduce Scotland to the same condition as Wales. Under the 
 brave Bruce the tide was turned, and at York, in 1328, in a writ 
 sanctioned by Parliament and sealed with the great seal, Edward 
 III was compelled to solemnly renounce "all title, right, and 
 pretension to any superiority over the kingdom of Scotland ; 
 and to declare null and of no force all past acts, writs, and con- 
 ventions to the contrary."' 
 
 Another factor in the destruction of the Scottish records was 
 John Knox and the Scottish reformers, who faithfully carried 
 out their maxim, "The surest means to hinder the rooks to come 
 back was to burn their nests." Cromwell also had a part in their 
 destruction.^ 
 
 About the close of the fourteenth century John of Fordun 
 made an effort to gather up the then existing fragments of 
 Scottish history, and compiled a chronicle "in a new form, that 
 suited best with the taste of the times in which he wrote." He 
 sought for material in England and Ireland, as well as in Scot- 
 land, talking with learned men and jotting down all the bits of 
 information he could find. A chronicle based on such fragments 
 and on the hearsay of centuries naturally has little weight. For 
 the later period his work becomes more valuable, but his con- 
 tinuators and revisers are not trustworthy. His imitators, Boece, 
 
 ' Innes' Essay, pp. 11-12. There was an old prophecy that wherever the famous 
 Stone of Destiny was, there Scottish kings should rule. It was placed under the 
 coronation chair in Westminster Abbey, and the prophecy seemed fulfilled when 
 James VI of Scotland became James I of England. (Gardiner,-Students' Hist, of 
 Eng., p. 219.) 
 
 ' Bain, I, p. ix. 
 
INTRODUCTION XI 
 
 whose work is " stuffed with fables," and Buchanan, who followed 
 Boece simply because it favored his designs against monarchy, 
 are still less reliable. 
 
 But not only must our sources and authorities be sought 
 among English writers ; they are also 
 
 2. From men who almost without exception 
 Sources tor lived and wrote after the Norman Conquest had 
 . . brought in feudal ideas, institutions, and language. 
 
 Feudal Coloring Where they draw their materials from earlier writers, 
 the narrative usually receives a feudal coloring 
 under their hands, if it does not become absolutely corrupt. 
 Stubbs, referring to certain parts of Walter of Coventry, says : 
 
 I dare not say that this part of the work is of any historical value. 
 It illustrates the way in which history was used politically, during the 
 struggle with Scotland, and it has afforded us some slight hints as to 
 the circumstances under which the compilation was made.' 
 
 Mr. Robertson says : 
 
 The claims grounded in the feudal era on the chronicled dependence 
 of the Scots upon the Anglo-Saxon Monarchy before the Conquest, 
 may be said to rest either upon passages interpolated in a true text ; 
 actual forgeries and fabrications ; or else upon amplifications and 
 exaggerations of the truth. 
 
 An example of the first class is the story (in Simeon of Dur- 
 ham) of Malcolm's meeting with King Edward in 1059. The 
 editor of the Rolls Series notes that this is a marginal entry of 
 a later date than the text. Mr. Robertson continues : 
 
 As Roger Hoveden, who at the opening of the 13th Century, 
 copied the whole of Simeon's chronicle word for word in his own, has 
 omitted all notice of it, the entry, — of which the object is unmistakable, 
 — must have been added to the original ms. at a very late date, and, 
 once incorporated with the body of the work, has been falsely stamped 
 with the almost contemporary authority of Simeon.' 
 
 The ancient laws of William the Conqueror also afford an 
 interesting illustration of the way in which an historical basis for 
 
 ' Walt. Cov., I, p. xxxiv. 
 
 *Sim. Dun., 11, p. 174; Hoveden, An. 1059; Early Kings, II, pp. 385-6. 
 
xii ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 the claim of feudal supremacy arose. The author of the " Select 
 Charters" says : 
 
 The following short record, which is found in this, its earliest form, 
 in the 'Textus Rofensis,' a ms. written during the reign of Henry I, 
 contains what is probably the sum and substance of all the legal enact- 
 ments actually made by the Conqueror, independent of his confirma- 
 tion of earlier laws ; they are probably the alterations or emendations 
 referred to by Henry I in his charter, as made by his father in the laws 
 of King Edward. 
 
 It reads thus : 
 
 In primis quod .... pacem et securitatem inter Anglos et Nor- 
 mannos servari. Statuimus etiam ut omnis liber homo foedere et Sacra- 
 mento affirmet, quod infra et extra Angliam Willelmo regi fideles 
 esse volunt. 
 
 Compare with this the record as it was moulded to suit the 
 purposes of later writers : 
 
 Statuimus .... pacem, et securitatem, et concordiam, judicium, 
 et justiciam inter Anglos et Normannos, Francos et Britones, Walliae 
 et Cornubiae, Pictos et Scotos Albanie, similiter inter Francos et 
 insulanos .... 
 
 Statuimus .... intra et extra universum regnum Anglie (quod 
 olim vocabatur regnum Britannie) . . . .' 
 
 It must be noted, 
 
 3. That the physical features of Britain iavor the f/ieory of an 
 English overlordship, but are against the practical realization of 
 Influence of such a claim. In fertility, in acreage, in popula- 
 Physical Con- tion, England has a great advantage. One writer on 
 ditions the subject estimates the relative populations as one 
 
 to six or seven. This was taken into account in adjusting 
 the relative amount of taxes at the time of the union. To offset 
 
 ' Stubbs, Sel. Charters, pp. 83-4 ; Thorpe, Anc. Laws, I, p. 490 ; Hoveden (An. 
 1 180) gives these laws in their simpler form. Cf. also the statement that Edgar was 
 rowed on the Dee by six or eight kings, among them the King of Scots. Robertson 
 shows this is a fabrication. Even Freeman admits that " William of Malmesbury or 
 even Florence of Worcester may have blundered or exaggerated about Edgar's triumph 
 at Chester." (Early Kings, II, p. 386 ; Norman Conq., I, Notes G and Q; Burton, Hist. 
 Scot., I, p. 33I-) 
 
INTRODUCTION XIU 
 
 this, however, is the fact that nature has marked out Scotland as 
 the home of independence — "a country well adapted for union 
 and defence."' Two mountain ranges, intersecting at right 
 angles, form the backbone of the land, and furnish a safe base 
 for attack, sudden retreat, and the overwhelming defeat of an 
 enemy who dares penetrate these defenses of nature. A rugged 
 climate, and a soil from which the fruits of nature can be 
 obtained only through diligence, favor the development of a 
 hardy, warlike race, while the fertile south tempts them to 
 pillage, and thus to the acquirement of skill in war. They 
 imitated the example of the Teuton rather than of the Celt, in that 
 they avoided walled cities, as traps, and fought in the open, 
 where they could make a sudden onset against their foes, or an 
 equally sudden retreat, if necessary, to the fastnesses of their 
 native hills. Such warfare is preeminently difficult to meet and 
 overcome, as in the case of the Germanic tribes in conflict with 
 Rome, the Saxon opposition to the might of Charles the Great, 
 the successful struggle of the Swiss cantons for independence, 
 and eventually of Scotland herself. 
 
 4. The conscientious student can hardly hope to see this 
 subject in its true light, unless he views the history of Scotland 
 Must View ^s ^ whole, and not in detached periods. He will 
 History in its then be impressed with the fact that this history 
 Entirety shows certain continuous characteristics. It begins 
 
 with a warlike, independent people, who constantly resist any 
 encroachment on their rights and liberties. Weak or handi- 
 capped kings may be untrue and bring their appeals to the Eng- 
 lish king, in the hope of gaining thereby what they could other- 
 wise never have. But they soon pass away, while the struggle 
 goes on. At length, the great object which has been the cause 
 of struggle for centuries — an object at first dimly perceived, or 
 only felt instinctively, but constantly growing in clearness and 
 force with the growth of a national consciousness — is attained, 
 and Scotland comes into the full possession of her birth-right. 
 This is the true inference to draw from these centuries of dis- 
 
 'Burns, Scot. War of Indep., I, p. 16 (1874); Burton, Hist. Scot., I, p. 83. 
 
xiv ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 pute. They witnessed claims put forth only to be strenuously 
 
 denied, and in the end successfully resisted.' 
 
 It is necessary to turn now for a moment to the beginnings 
 
 of Scottish history. In the early Christian era the north of 
 
 Britain was inhabited by a number of savage, war- 
 Early History .-^ , ^ ' 
 
 like tribes, who were at once a menace to the Roman 
 
 power, and the terror of the native Britons. The Scots proper 
 came from Ireland at an early date — certainly by A. D. 502 — 
 and settled in the region north of the Firth of Clyde. Farther 
 north and east were other tribes, the Picts predominating. South 
 of the Clyde the Britons found a temporary refuge in the 
 regions known later as Strathclyde and Cumbria, while east of 
 them lay a group of Saxons or Angles. These early centuries 
 are full of warfare and shifting populations, and call up many 
 Kenneth complicated and still disputed questions. But the 
 
 MacAlpin, accession of Kenneth MacAlpin, in 843 A. D.,^ fur- 
 
 843 A. D. nishes a safe starting point for historical investiga- 
 
 tion. It is no longer considered probable that the true Scots, 
 to which line Kenneth belonged, could have conquered or exter- 
 minated the larger body of Picts. ^ But whether by a gradual 
 process of amalgamation, or otherwise, in the twelfth year of his 
 reign over the Scots he was recognized as king of the Picts also, 
 the united kingdom being bounded on the south by the Clyde 
 and the Forth. The supremacy of the Scots was due in part to 
 their superior civilization. Their literature was supreme before 
 the spread of Anglo-Saxon literature had begun. Their scholars 
 were welcomed everywhere. They stigmatized the Saxons as 
 barbarians, just as a Roman might have done. Even the patri- 
 otic Beda concedes the civilizing influence which came to the 
 Saxons from lona.'* 
 
 'Burton, Hist. Scot., II, p. I. 
 
 ==844 A. D., Skene, Celtic Scot., I, p. 309. 
 
 3 Kenneth's Scottish kingdom included only the modern shires of Perth, Fife, 
 Stirling, Dumbarton, and the larger part of the county of Argyle. (Early Kings, I, 
 P- 39-) 
 
 ^ Oswald, king of Northumbria, sojourned with the Scots in his youth. On 
 becoming king, he sent to them for a missionary. The illustrious Aidan responded. 
 
INTRODUCTION XV 
 
 Kenneth, on his accession to the throne of the united Picts 
 and Scots, was met by three foes — the Britons in Strathclyde, 
 the Danes, and the Saxons living in the region of the Tweed. 
 He made an alliance with the Britons by marrying his daughter 
 to Cu, prince of Strathclyde. The government of this province 
 thus passed to a Scoto-British prince on the death of Cu.' Ken- 
 neth and his successors had need of all the strength they 
 could command. Scotland, like England, felt the force of 
 invasion from the continent. A process of redistribution of 
 population, which had been started by the waves of the great 
 migrations, was still going on. The bloody wars of Charles the 
 Great with the Saxons drove them out in crowds. The outward 
 pressure of his policy of aggrandizement, and that of others who 
 imitated his example, set in motion great masses of piratical sea- 
 rovers. The conquests of the Norwegian state early in the 
 tenth century and the establishment of a strong government mul- 
 tiplied the number of the pirates, who hovered, like birds of 
 prey, on every coast. Of these Scotland received her share, 
 and the influences thus exerted and the needs created may 
 have had something to do in determining the relations between 
 her and her southern neighbor. 
 
 and established a second lona at Lindisfarne. On the battle of Degsastan cf. W. 
 Malmes., I, p. 47 ; Bedae, Hist. Eccl., p. 88; A. S. Chron., Ad an. 
 • After 908 A. D. (Early Kings, I, pp. 54, 55.) 
 
^4 
 
 .13^^ 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE "GREAT COMMENDATION," HAS IT AN HISTORICAL BASIS? 
 
 Did Constantine II sustain a feudal relation to Edward the 
 
 Elder? is the question which greets one on the very threshold of 
 
 ^ , ,. „ this discussion, "the most important point in the 
 Constantine II, r i • i i 
 
 _ ^ j)_ whole dispute," "the primary fact from which the 
 
 Edward the English controversialist starts," "the root of the 
 
 Elder, 901-925. whole matter." The so-called "commendation" of 
 
 Athelstan, Constantine to Edward forms the first great prece- 
 
 925-940 jgj^^. jj^ ^ long line of precedents, on which the 
 
 English claims to a feudal overlordship in Scotland are based. 
 
 "As long as the fact of the great commendation is admitted, the 
 
 case of the West Saxon Emperors of Britain stands firm."' 
 
 Are there, then, authentic historical sources on which to base 
 a belief that Constantine did thus " commend " himself, in such 
 a feudal sense as to make this act a precedent, good in law, on 
 which to found true feudal claims? 
 
 The sole authority for this act, so momentous for future ages, 
 is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The record is found " not in a 
 ballad, or in a saga, not in the inflated rhetoric of a 
 Latin charter, but in the honest English of the 
 Winchester Chronicle." "No passage," says Mr. Green, "has 
 been more fiercely fought over than this, since the legists of the 
 English Court made it the groundwork of the claims which the 
 English crown advanced on the allegiance of Scotland." ^ The 
 Chronicle covers the period from the invasion of Britain by 
 Julius Caesar to the accession of Henry II, in 11 54. Together 
 withBeda's "Ecclesiastical History" it forms thebasis forthe later 
 chroniclers. The MSS., of which there are six, are considered 
 
 ' Freeman, Norman Conq., I, Note G. 
 
 =* Norman Conq., I, note G ; Green, Conquest of England, p. 208, note. 
 
 I 
 
2 ANGLO SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 to have been based on a common original. In MS. A., the 
 Corpus Christi, the first original hand ends with the year 891 
 A. D., "whence it is continued in a variety of hands." "It 
 contains many interlineary additions, apparently of the 12th 
 Century," This copy has the following: 
 
 In this year [924] before Midsummer, King Eadweard went with a 
 force to Nottingham, and commanded the burgh to be built on the 
 south side of the river, opposite to the other; and the bridge over the 
 Trent, betwixt the two burghs; and then went thence into Peakland, 
 to Bakewell, and commanded a burgh to be built and manned there in 
 the immediate neighborhood. And then the King of Scots and all the 
 nation of the Scots, and Ragnald, and the sons of Eadulf, and all 
 those who dwell in Northumbria, as well English as Danish and North- 
 men, and others, and also the king of the Strathclyde Welsh, and all 
 the Strathclyde Welsh, chose him for father and lord. 
 
 MS. B. comes down to 977 A. D. " It is written in one uni- 
 form hand, apparently of the latter part of the lOth Century," 
 and has no reference to the event of 924. 
 
 MS. C. reaches 1066 A. D., "written apparently in the same 
 hand to 1046 A. D." No mention of the great gathering of 924. 
 
 MS. D. extends a little further than the other two — to 1079, 
 being " written in one hand to 1016 A. D., afterwards in several 
 .... It sometimes enlarges the text, not only by fuller 
 extracts from Beda, but by the addition of many events, relating 
 especially to Mercia and Nortlmmberland ." Yet it is absolutely 
 silent regarding any great commendation. 
 
 MS. E. "The hand as well as the ink vary but little to 1122, 
 whence to A. D. 1154, where it ends, mutilated, it is in various 
 hands." It has no mention of the act of 924. 
 
 MS. F. to A. D. 1056, in Saxon, "is in a hand apparently of 
 the 1 2th Century, and nearly of the same character through- 
 out. It is often carelessly written, has many erasures, and is 
 sometimes illegible, in which state it ends." It has the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 In this year [924] King Eadweard was chosen for father and for 
 lord by the King of Scots, and by the Scots, and by King Ragnald, 
 
THE ''GREAT COMMENDATION" 3 
 
 and by all the Northumbrians, and also by the King of the Strathclyde 
 Welsh, and by all the Strathclyde Welsh.' 
 
 These entries in two of the MSS. of the Chronicle form 
 the sole foundation for the feudal superstructure which later 
 generations essayed to rear. Of these MSS. one is confessedly 
 unreliable and comes from the hands of a writer living after the 
 Norman Conquest — probably in the twelfth century. The other 
 is in two principal parts, one section closing with the year 891 
 A. D., the other being by various writers of a much later date. 
 Mr. Green says, regarding the entry of 924 : 
 
 Nor is there, indeed, ground for placing the compilation of this 
 section of the Chronicle of Winchester earlier than 975, or the end of 
 Eadgar's reign, some fifty years after the "commendation" (Earle, 
 Introd. pp. xix-xxii); and as the " imperial " claims of the English crown 
 seem to date pretty much from the later days of Eadgar or the begin- 
 ning of Aethelred's reign, an entry made at that time would naturally 
 take its form from them.^ 
 
 This MS. also has many interlineary additions, apparently of 
 the twelfth century. There is, therefore, reasonable ground for 
 
 expecting to find in this record, and on this mooted 
 Objections to point, erroneous or fraudulent entries, and the 
 Traditional ,,, , . , „ .. r ^1 /-i • 1 n 
 
 "honest Angflo-Saxon of the Chronicle, as well as 
 View , ° 
 
 the "inflated rhetoric of a Latin charter, will bear 
 
 the closest inspection. For among the four MSS. which are 
 ignorant of any great " commendation" is the one which is espe- 
 cially rich in events relating to Mercia and Nortlmmberlafid. 
 
 What are the reasons, then, for doubting, in whole or in part, 
 the record of 924 ? Here the Celtic scholarship of the author of 
 the " Early Kings " 3 has proved of great value. His chief Celtic 
 sources are Tighernac* and the Annals of Ulster, of which he 
 says they are "at this period most accurate and trustworthy 
 
 » Cf. Thorpe, Introd. A.-S. Chron. (Mon. Hist. Brit, preface, p. 75.) 
 * Conquest of Eng., p. 208, note. 
 
 3 " It is a work of deep research and ability, and Mr. Robertson has the advantage 
 of an acquaintance with Celtic literature to which I can make no pretensions." (Free- 
 man, Norman Conq., I, Note G.) 
 
 4 Died 1088 A. D. 
 
4 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 authorities in all connected with the Hy Ivar family," to which 
 the Reginald of the Chronicle belonged. Mr. Skene also says : 
 
 The older annals [Irish] stand in a different [more trustworthy] 
 position. Those of Tighernac, Inisfallen, and the Annals of Ulster, are 
 extremely valuable for the history of Scotland.' 
 
 Mr, Robertson shows that the Ragnall, or Reginald, of the 
 Chronicle was a member of the Hy Ivar family of Northmen, 
 who appear to have come to England and Scotland by way of 
 Ireland. At the beginning of the tenth century the most power- 
 ful among these pagan leaders were the grandsons of Ivar, who, 
 being driven from Dublin after it was captured by the Irish King 
 Malfinan in 902 A. D., sought to establish themselves in Scot- 
 land. In 904 they were expelled by Constantine II. Ten years 
 later Reginald, having developed strength, was victorious over 
 a rival in a contest off the Isle of Man. His followers rapidly 
 increase in numbers. He lands at Waterford in 917, while his 
 brother Sihtric threatens the coast of Leinster. Between them 
 they regain their power over their old dependency of Dublin. 
 The next year Reginald prepares to assert his right to Northum- 
 bria, as heir of his Danish kinsman Halfdan. When he landed 
 among these northern Danes, he found them ready allies in an 
 attack on York, which he took, dividing among his followers the 
 lands of St. Cuthbert and others. Edred, Aldred of Bamborough, 
 and his brother Uchtred, abandoning the lands they had pos- 
 sessed, appealed to Constantine, king of Scots, for aid. This 
 resulted in their alliance in the first battle of Corbridge-on-Tyne, 
 or Tynemoor, in which Reginald gained a doubtful victory. A 
 second battle at Corbridge left him master of the field. After 
 his death in 921 (An. Ult. 920) his brother Sihtric remained 
 king of Northumbria. Reginald, therefore, could not have com- 
 mended himself to Edward the Elder in 924 A. D. 
 
 This question is one of the greatest difiiculty, as the chron- 
 ology of the period is almost hopelessl)^ confused by the Eng- 
 lish chroniclers. The value of the contemporary Irish historians 
 is apparent. Besides these, the next best authority is probably 
 
 ' Celtic Scotland, I, p. 25. 
 
THE " GREAT COMMENDATION'' 5 
 
 Simeon of Durham, whose monastery had suffered at the hands 
 of the Dane. His work was compiled after the Conquest, and 
 the dates are often confused or entirely wanting.^ It was based 
 on the A.-S. Chronicle and a copy of an old Northumbrian 
 chronicle, known only through Simeon's work, and certain pas- 
 sages common to him and the A.-S. Chronicle.^ "It is so 
 much more circumstantial than the A.-S. Chronicle on northern 
 events, and its chronology, as I shall hope to show presently, is 
 so much sounder than that of the Chronicle that we can hardly 
 be wrong in making it the original store." 3 Simeon also used as 
 a basis for parts of his work the Chro?iico?i ex Chronicis of Florence 
 of Worcester, "next after Beda and the Saxon Chronicle the 
 principal source of English history." It supplements the work 
 of Marianus Scotus in the earlier parts, with references to Beda, 
 the Saxon Chronicle, and Asser's "Life of Alfred." 
 
 Though Florence translates the Saxon Chronicle .... his narra- 
 tive is in several instances much more circumstantial than any to be 
 found in the existing mss. of that record, from which he also not 
 unfrequently deviates in dates, particularly in his relation of events 
 during the reign of Edward the Elder and Edward the Confessor. 
 Whence it seems probable that he had before him a copy of the Chron- 
 icle varying from any now extant. 
 He translates as follows : 
 
 Eo tempore, rex Scottorum cum tota gente sua, Reginoldus rex 
 Danorum cum Anglis et Danis Northanhymbriam incolentibus, rex 
 etiam Streatcledwalorum cum suis, regem Eadwardum Seniorem sibi in 
 patrem et dominum elegerunt, firmumque cum eo foedus pepigerunt.i- 
 
 He assigns this event to the year 921 A. D. 
 
 Simeon states that Tilred, the successor of Cutheard, bishop 
 of St. Cuthbert's, was in the seventh year of his episcopate when 
 Athelstan, " suscepta regni gubernacula gloriosissime rexit.' 
 
 •Sim. Dun., Hist. Dun. Eccl., I, pp. 72, 74 ; Hist, de St. Cuth., I, p. 208 ; De Mir. 
 et Trans., I, p. 238 ; Hist. Reg., H, pp. xl, 93, 123. See also Innes' Essay, Ap. 3, and 
 War of the Gaedhill with the Gaill, Introd., specially pp. Ixxxiv ff. 
 
 ''Gesta veterum Northanhymbrorum (?). 
 
 3 Stubbs, Rog. Hoveden, Preface, p. xxvii. 
 
 -•Thorpe, Introd. Flor. Wig., pp. vi, vii. Also An. 921. Florence died 11 18 A. D. 
 
6 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 He also says that the taking of York, the first battle of Cor- 
 bridge, and the division of the lands of St, Cuthbert among 
 Reginald's followers had all occurred while Cutheard was 
 bishop.' He alone mentions the death of Reginald (prior to his 
 account of the death of Edward the Elder), but has a greater 
 interest in the fact that the pagan Dane carried nothing away 
 with him but his sins, than in the exact date of his death. He 
 uses the expression ''tandem.'" From other sources it is certain 
 he died in 920 or 921,^ and, therefore, could not have taken the 
 part assigned him in 924 by the Chronicle. 
 
 It cannot be denied that there was at this period in Ireland 
 and Northumbria a Reginald — not of any family in general, but 
 of the Ivar family, a great Danish leader and king, who passed 
 back and forth with a fleet between Ireland and Scotland ; that 
 he had brothers, Godfrey and Sihtric ; that a Godfrey suc- 
 ceeded Reginald in Ireland, and a Sihtric as king in Northum- 
 bria, both by the year 921, both of the Ivar family. It cannot 
 be doubted that Reginald made an expedition across the chan- 
 nel and took York by storm before the year 923, assigned to 
 that event in the Chronicle. There is no evidence that he lost 
 or retook York at this period. It is highly improbable that 
 there should have been two men of the same name and family 
 and age, whose careers should have been thus identical. That 
 part of the Chronicle, therefore, which affirms the taking of York 
 in 923 and the commendation of Reginald in 924 must be in 
 error, since it conflicts with these undoubted facts, shown by the 
 
 ' Sim. Dun., Hist. Dun. EccL, I, p. 74. Cutheard's predecessor, Eardulf, died in 
 the same year with King Alfred (901). Cutheard died "cum jam quintumdecimum suo 
 in episcopatu ageret annum." Then Tilred succeeded. There is evident error in the 
 chronology, since Edward the Elder was, according to this, still reigning in Tilred's 
 seventh year. But the taking of York by Reginald could not have been in 923, the date 
 assigned by the Chronicle, and probably not later than 918, since it occurred during 
 the life of Cutheard. 
 
 ^ "The entry [A.-S. Chron. 924] cannot be contemporary, for Reginald, whom it 
 makes king in Northumbria, had died three years before, in 921." (Green, Conquest 
 of England, p. 208.) Mr. Skene expresses the opinion " that Mr. Freeman has failed, 
 on the whole, to meet Mr. Robertson's criticism " regarding the death of Reginald, 
 and the bearing of this passage on the commendation of the Scot king to Edward the 
 Elder. (Celtic Scotland, I, p. 350.) 
 
THE ''GREAT COMMENDATION" 7 
 
 comparative testimony of the other early sources. It cannot, 
 therefore, be made a basis for argument.' 
 
 A similar instance of error or fraud occurs in two charters of 
 Athelstan of the year 930 A. D.,^ in which the signature of 
 Reginald appears. These are both marked by Kemble as 
 untrustworthy, and are given up by Freeman. 
 
 But there are other grounds on which to question the cor- 
 rectness of this statement of the Chronicle. It implies (i) a 
 meeting at Bakewell in Peakland, and not at some other place 
 and time; (2) a meeting of the people as well as of their kings. 
 Mr. Freeman seeks to maintain (i) that this gathering did not 
 necessarily occur at Bakewell, nor at this specific time; (2) 
 that the English king did not become the personal lord of each 
 man, but of the kings, or chiefs, only .3 In reply it may be 
 said (i) that the chronicler would hardly have followed the 
 course of Edward's military expeditions so explicitly as he has 
 done throughout his reign, only to break down at the most 
 important point in his last year. There is, moreover, not a 
 particle of evidence for any advance beyond Bakewell, or of a 
 meeting at any other time than this. (2) It is evident from 
 the history of Edward's reign, and from the opinion of later 
 writers, that such acts of submission took place in the immediate 
 neighborhood of the people concerned (including both people and 
 leaders), or in the later period, in the case of kings, on the bor- 
 ders between the two kingdoms. The following are illustrations : 
 
 King Eadweard went with some of his force to Maiden in Essex, 
 and there encamped, while the burgh at Witham was being wrought 
 and built; and a good deal of the folk submitted to him, who were 
 before under the power of the Danish men. 
 
 King Eadweard went with his force to Buckingham. . . . And 
 Thurkytel jarl sought him for his lord, and all the holds,* and almost 
 
 ' Mr. Freeman admits that "a scribe might easily put Reagnald instead of some 
 other name," thus admitting the force of the argument. (N. C, I, Note G.) On similar 
 errors in Chronicle see Cod. Dip., I, p. Ixxxv. 
 
 "Cod. Dip., II, Nos. 351, 352. 
 
 3 Norman Conq., I, Note G. Per contra cf. Green, Conq. of Eng., p. 208. 
 
 <A.-S. Chron., An. 905, Note 4. 
 
8 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 all the chief men of Bedford, and also many of those belonging to 
 Northampton. 
 
 King Eadweard went with an army to Bedford .... and gained 
 the burgh ; and almost all the townsmen who had previously dwelt 
 there turned to him. 
 
 Kifig Eadweard, with a force of West Saxons, went to Passenham, 
 and sat there while they surrounded the burgh at Towcester with a 
 stone wall. And Thurferth jarl, and the holds, and all the army 
 which belonged to Northampton, north as far as the Welland, sub- 
 mitted to him and sought him for their lord and protector .... 
 and all the folk that were left there [Huntingdon] of the peasantry 
 submitted to King Eadweard and sought his peace and protection. . . . 
 
 Eadweard, with an army of West Saxons, went to Colchester .... 
 and a great number of people submitted to him, both in East Anglia 
 and in Essex, who had before been under the power of the Danes. 
 And all the army in East Anglia swore unity with him, that they all 
 that would that he would, and would protect all that the king would 
 protect both by sea and by land. And the army which belonged to 
 Cambridge chose him specially for their lord and protector and con- 
 firmed it by oaths as he it then dictated. 
 
 Eadweard went with a force to Stamford, and commanded the 
 burgh to be wrought on the south side of the river; and all the people 
 who belonged to the northern burgh submitted to him and sought 
 him for their lord. . . . He took possession of the burgh at Tam- 
 worth, and all the people in the Mercians land, who had before been 
 subject to Aethelflaed, submitted to him. And the kings of the North 
 Welsh, Howel, Cleduac, and Jeothwell, and all the North Welsh race, 
 sought him for lord. He then went to Nottingham, and reduced the 
 burgh, and ordered it to be repaired and peopled, both with English- 
 men and Danish. And all the people who were settled in the 
 Mercians land submitted to him, both Danish and English. 
 
 Athelstan in like manner received the submission of the 
 North Welsh at Hereford and of the Cornishmen at Exeter.^ 
 
 These instances, which might be multiplied, show what 
 was the universal custom of that age. The king went from 
 place to place, fortifying and strengthening defenses, and 
 received the submission and oaths of allegiance of the people in 
 
 » A.-S. Chron., An. 913, 915, 919, 921, 922; W. Malmes., Gest. Reg., I, p. 148. 
 
THE ''GREAT COMMENDATION'' 9 
 
 groups, which gathered from the country centering on the 
 places where he was. Each freeman swore to be faithful and 
 true to his Saxon "Hlaford and Mundbora." This would render 
 it imperative that the place of meeting should be centrally 
 located, and not so far removed but that the distant freemen 
 could be present without serious hardship or delay. It is inter- 
 esting to note the number of places at which Edward received 
 the submission of his people.' But Bakewell in Peakland is in 
 Derbyshire, on the border of Edward's dominions, and far 
 removed from Strathclyde and distant Scotland. The idea of 
 these peoples going thither to do homage is completely at vari- 
 ance with the customs and history of this period. Writers of a 
 later age testify what they conceive the earlier custom to have 
 been. The kings met, if at all, on the borders of the two king- 
 doms,^ and such a meeting was usually supported by the march 
 of an English army into the north. It is noteworthy that in all 
 Simeon's work drawn from original sources there is not the 
 slightest trace of any act of submission to Edward the Elder on 
 the part of the people of the north. He writes of the troubles 
 with the Danes, of the alliance which the Scottish king headed 
 against them, of the life and death of Reginald and of King 
 Edward. But he is profoundly ignorant of any union of these 
 foes and of the gathering of their hosts at Bakewell before their 
 feudal lord. Is it likely such an event, affecting the north so 
 radically, could have occurred and escaped absolutely the notice 
 of the northern, Irish, and Danish chroniclers ? He shows his 
 conception of the matter when he says of Athelstan : ''primusgue 
 regum totius Britanniae quaqua versum adeptus imperium."^ 
 
 The only authority, then, for the so-called "commendation" 
 is the passage cited from the Winchester MS. of the A.-S. Chron- 
 
 „ icle. Of the first part of the entry there is no doubt. 
 
 Summary ^ j 
 
 It is in perfect accord with the narrative of the rest 
 of Edward's reign in its language, in the mode of action, and in its 
 
 ' A careful comparison of the Chronicle with Droysen, or some good atlas, is helpful. 
 
 ^ Fl. Wig., and Sim. Dun., An. 1092. 
 
 3 Cf. Ritson, Annals of Picts, etc., An. 937. 
 
I O ANGLO -SCO TCH FE UDA L KELA TIONS 
 
 particularistic character. This is especially noteworthy. There 
 is good cause for believing that the original entry closed with 
 the words "immediate neighborhood," though it may have 
 included the submission of the Danes living near the Peak in 
 Derbyshire. Some such entry seems to have been enlarged by 
 the later writers to support the claims of a feudal age. For 
 now the narrative suddenly abandons its old character, becomes 
 universal rather than particular, violates all its precedents as to 
 custom, and uses an expression nowhere again found in the his- 
 tory of the reigns of Alfred, Edward, or Athelstan.^ 
 
 ' And then the King of Scots and all the nation of the Scots, and 
 Ragnald, and the sons of Eadulf, and all those who dwell in Northum- 
 bria, as well English as Danish and Northmen, and others, and also 
 the King of the Strathclyde Welsh, and all the Strathclyde Welsh, 
 chose him for father and for lord. 
 
 Everywhere else the words are either '^ hlaforde and rnund- 
 bora,'' "lord and protector," or simply "hlaforde." By its very 
 universality the statement overreaches itself. It bears on its 
 face the stamp of exaggeration and fabrication which charac- 
 terizes the narratives of the reign of Edgar. Nor is the phe- 
 nomenon difficult to explain in the light of the fact that he 
 endowed no less than forty-eight religious houses.^ It is cer- 
 tainly contradicted by the fact that Reginald died before the 
 year 924. If 921, the date given by Florence, be accepted, it 
 involves a worse quandary, for it leaves the last three, and most 
 important, years of Edward's reign a blank. 3 It is inconsistent 
 with the desperate struggle which Athelstan and Edmund had 
 with the people of the north. It would not have been had they 
 submitted after conquest. But that they should take the trouble 
 vohintarily to go and submit to a possible, but far-distant foe, 
 who had never entered their territories nor in any way threat- 
 ened them, is beyond reason. Equally absurd, in this quest of 
 voluntary servitude by a rugged, daring, turbulent people, is the 
 
 ' Malcolm II (1005-1034) is called "Lord and Father of the West." 
 
 ^Pinkerton, An Enquiry, etc., II, p. 219. 
 
 3 Mr. Freeman rightly insists on 924 as the true date. 
 
THE " GREA T COMMEND A TION'' 1 1 
 
 willing union of Constantino and his Saxon allies with the Dane 
 Reginald, by whom they had been but recently defeated, who 
 still held, and his brother Sihtric after him, the northern king- 
 dom he and his followers had won. 
 
 The conclusion is inevitable. At his death Alfred was king 
 "over all the Angle race except the part that was under the 
 dominion of the Danes.'" His son Edward pushed out the 
 bounds of the kingdom on the north to the Peak of Derbyshire. 
 But the submission of the Northumbrian Danes did not occur 
 till the death of Sihtric, under the reign of Athelstan. The 
 story of the great "commendation" of the north to Edward 
 cannot, therefore, be accepted as an historical fact. 
 
 King Edward the Elder died in 925 A. D., and left to his 
 son Athelstan the work of consolidating and extending the 
 kingdom. The historical records of his glorious 
 Athelstan, ^.^j^^ ^^^ scanty, and largely based on traditions 
 
 925-940 A. D. ^^^ legends, old poems, and sagas— materials 
 which, literally translated or adopted into the Latin of the 
 writers of a feudal age, did not lose in power to enhance the 
 glories of an English king. Constantine II was in the midst of 
 his long reign, and Sihtric, the brother of Reginald the Dane, 
 was king in Northumbria. Malmesbury speaks of him as one 
 "qui ... . antecessorum regum potentiam rugatis naribus 
 derisisset"^ — a striking commentary on the supposed voluntary 
 submission to Edward the Elder, of which, however, Malmes- 
 bury was ignorant. These words indicate that the Northum- 
 brian Danes did not submit to a Saxon overlord till Athelstan's 
 day. He courted the alliance of Sihtric by giving 
 His him his sister in marriage. Doubtless he saw here 
 
 Relations to ^^ opportunity to gain a legal claim on the North- 
 Northumbria ^^\^^-^^^ possessions, which was indeed afforded 
 him on Sihtric's death soon after, in 927 A. D. The names of 
 the Danish earls now f^rst appear in the authentic charters of 
 Athelstan.3 
 
 'A.-S. Chron., An. 901. "Wm. Malmes., Gesta Reg., I, p. 146. 
 
 3 Robertson, Early Kings, Ap. L ; Cod. Dip., Nos. 353. 363- 
 
12 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 One MS., only, of the A.-S. Chronicle relates any meeting 
 
 between Athelstan and Constantine, the king of 
 and Scotland o t i 
 
 bcots. It reads : 
 
 And Sihtric died ; and Athelstan assumed the kingdom of the 
 Northumbrians ; [and he subjugated all the kings who were in this 
 island ; first, Howel king of the West Welsh, and Constantine king of 
 the Scots, and Owen king of Gwent, and Ealdred, son of Ealdulf of 
 Bamborough :] and with pledge and with oaths they confirmed peace, 
 in the place which is named Eamot [Emmet in Yorkshire ?].... and 
 renounced every kind of idolatry ; and after that departed in peace. 
 
 William of Malmesbury also represents Constantine and 
 Eugenius, king of Strathcl3'de, as coming to Athelstan at 
 Dacor, in Cumberland, to surrender their kingdoms to him ; by 
 whose order, also, Constantine's son is baptized.^ The confusion 
 here between pagan Danes and Christian Scots who renounce 
 idolatry, is apparent, nor is it in accord with the fact that Con- 
 stantine, some years before, had presided over a church council 
 at Scone. If, however, as Mr. Robertson suggests, that portion 
 of the Chronicle in brackets be omitted, the sense will be at 
 once restored. It seems to be an interpolation, and certainly 
 shows the chronicler was in error.'' Malmesbury is in the same 
 confusion. It is quite probable that the Dane Sihtric renounced 
 idolatry when he married Athelstan's sister, and that his son 
 Olave, who ended his days in the monastery of lona,^ was 
 baptized through the agency of the English king. " As neither 
 Constantine nor Eogan ever appear in the character of subreguli, 
 the first part of the story may be dismissed as an exaggeration, 
 the supposed paganism of [Constantine] throwing great sus- 
 picion on the remainder." This is only one instance of the way 
 in which Scots and Danes are recklessly confused as the com- 
 mon subjects of the English crown.* 
 
 'Gesta Reg., I, p. 147 ; A.-S. Chron., An. 926. (Cott. Tiber., B. IV.) 
 
 2 Haddan and Stubbs, Counc, II, p. 144 ; A. D. 906. Cf. Ritson, An. of Picts, 
 etc., II, p. 79. Constantinus rex et Cellachus episcopus, leges disciplinasque fidei, 
 atque jura ecclesiarum evangelorumque. ... in colle credulitatis prope regali civitati 
 Scoan devoverunt custoditur [custodiri], (Skene, Celtic Scot.. I, p. 351.) 
 
 3 In 980 A. D. Cf. Early Kings, I, p. 74. •* Early Kings, I, p. 60; II, p. 3971 
 
THE " GREA T CO MM EN DA TION " ^ 3 
 
 Sihtric left a son, Olave, or Anlaf, who fled to Ireland, being 
 too young to oppose Athelstan. At a later time Olave became 
 Constantine's son-in-law, and it is this alliance which first 
 excited Athelstan's suspicion and hostility. An English army 
 wasted the land, while a fleet swept the coasts, preventing the 
 junction of Irish and Scottish forces. The Chronicle reads : 
 
 Athelstan went into Scotland with both a land force and a ship 
 force, and ravaged a great part of it. 
 
 This is given in all the MSS. now published, but there is 
 not a word which can be twisted to imply any submission, 
 or anything on which a feudal claim might be based. Anglo- 
 Norman writers magnified this into a complete subjugation of 
 Scotland, but the battle of Brunanburh is evidence to the con- 
 trary It was rather a military and naval demonstration to pre- 
 vent the union of forces hostile to the English king. There is 
 no record of any actual contest at this time.^ 
 
 The battle of Brunanburh, just mentioned, occurred in 
 937 A D , probably in a place some distance south of the Hum- 
 ber, and near the Trent. Here a great host met 
 Brunanburh ^^ ^j^j^^. f^j. dominion in Northumbria. Athelstan 
 and his Saxon and Danish forces were aided hy the " pagan 
 rovers of the German Ocean." And it is to these Norsemen that 
 
 ' A.-S. Chron., An. 933 ; Celtic Scotland, I, p. 352- 
 
 Mr. Robertson (Early Kings, I, p. 62) calls attention to the three versions winch 
 Simeon gives of this event. (Hist. Dun. Eccl., I, p. 74. Hist. Reg., II, P- 124.) The 
 fi "from original sources, mentions only the extent of the incursion to Dunfoeder (or 
 For'eviot) and Wertermore, the fleet reaching the coast of Caithness ; the second, which 
 copies Florence of Worcester, represents Constantine as purchasing peace by giving 
 his L as a hostage; the third, in recognition of the gifts of Athelstan to the 
 ^ine of St Cuthbtt declares Scotland to be thoroughly subdued. " According o 
 Br mpton (Twysden, p. 838), Athelstan demanded a sign from St. John of Beverly 
 < nuo praesentes et futuri cognoscere possent Scotos de pre debeie Anglis sub.ugar. 
 I^was granted, and the king's sword clove an ell of rock from the foundations of 
 Dunbar Castle ! ' Possessiones, privilegia, et libertates,' rewarded the miracle, a price 
 fo'vhkh there was scarcely a patron saint in the country who would not have been 
 Lade to confirm with signs and wonders the rightful supremacy of the English king 
 Tver any people he chose to name. The monks of Newburgh outdid even Brompton, 
 detaining Athelstan for three years in Scotland, whilst he placed ' princes over her 
 provinces, provosts over her cities, and settled the amount of tribute to be paid from 
 the most distant islands ! " 
 
14 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 the saga attributes the victory. Opposed to them was a mixed 
 force led by Constantine, king of Scots ; it included his son-in- 
 law, Olave Sitricson ; Olave, the son of Godfrey, from Ireland; 
 and Eogan, king of Strathclyde, who also was a kinsman of 
 Constantine. The strife was terrific, the slaughter frightful, 
 the victory of the English king glorious. The clang and roar 
 of the battle still resound in the ancient war song with which 
 the Chronicle celebrates the valor of the heroes of that day. It 
 left Athelstan the undoubted master of Northumbria, and spread 
 his fame far among the royal courts of the continent. But 
 there is no evidence that he pursued his retreating enemy into 
 the north, or made terms with them. Nor indeed was there 
 reason for it, since he had gained his object — the defeat of 
 the powers that threatened his supremacy in Northumbria. It 
 should be borne in mind that this was an agressive war on the 
 part of the allies of the north — probably on English soil south 
 of the Humber. 
 
 The exact site of Brunanburh is one of the unsolved prob- 
 lems of history. Nor is it possible to reach more than an 
 inferential conclusion with the sources at present 
 available. Johnstone and Spruner have located it 
 in the extreme limits of Northumbria, just south of the Tweed. 
 Others advocate a site in Lancashire, to explain the flight of 
 Anlaf, son of Godfrey, after his defeat — "o'er the deep water, 
 Dublin to seek." Capgrave says a battle between Athelstan,. 
 Anlaf, king of Ireland, and Constantine, king of Scots, occurred 
 at Bamborough ; but as he did not write till the fifteenth 
 century, and adds the pleasing information that "thorow 
 the prayeres of Seynt Ode, a swerd fel fro Hevene into his 
 [Athelstan's] schaberk," his testimony is not of the highest 
 value. ^ The original authorities are the A.-S. Chronicle, Flor- 
 ence of Worcester, and Simeon of Durham. The poem in the. 
 Chronicle clearly indicates that a large part of the hostile forces 
 came and departedhy sea (the Humber and the Forth — not the 
 Tweed — were the great gateways for the entrance of invading 
 
 ' Chron. Eng., p. 1 1 7. 
 
THE " GREA T COMMEND A TION " 15 
 
 hordes into England and Scotland). But Florence is more 
 explicit, and the later writers follow him almost without excep- 
 tion. As he had a copy of the A.-S. Chronicle not now extant, 
 his authority is of the very first order. He distinctly says that 
 Anlaf, king of Ireland and of many islands, incited by his ally 
 and father-in-law, Constantine, king of the Scots, entered the 
 month of the Humber with a powerful fleet, and that Athelstan 
 and his brother Edmund met them at a place called Brunan- 
 burh.^ One of the accounts given in Simeon relates that the 
 battle was fought at Weondune, which is also called Etbrunnan- 
 werc, or Brunnanbyrig," and that Anlaf had a fleet of six hun- 
 dred and fifteen ships. The other account follows Florence 
 without comment. Hoveden combines the accounts of Florence 
 and Simeon, bringing the large fleet into England through the 
 Humber. There seems no doubt, therefore, that the battle 
 occurred somewhere within easy reach of the Humber, since the 
 enemy not only entered thence, but fled in their ships after their 
 defeat. Droysen prefers the spot in Lincolnshire already 
 referred to. Mr. Skene considers that Aldborough, situated on 
 the Ouse, a little northwest of York, and accessible by water from 
 the Humber, best fulfills the conditions required for the site of 
 Brunanburh. His chief objection to a location further south is, 
 that if a large part of the allied forces came from the north by 
 land, it is unlikely that Athelstan would have permitted them to 
 penetrate so far into his dominions without giving them battle. 
 But, granting that they came thus, the objection does not seem 
 valid. The region north of the Humber, and even Lincolnshire, 
 was still distinctly Danish in race and sympathy. Among the 
 numerous burhs built by Edward the Chronicle does not men- 
 tion one in Lincoln. The northern extent of his power was 
 apparently limited by Stamford on the Welland, by Nottingham, 
 the Peak in Derbyshire, and Manchester. So that, in reality, 
 Athelstan's distinctive kingdom had not been touched nor 
 scarcely threatened till the allied forces reached the Humber. 
 The movement from the north was a serious menace to his 
 
 . Y\. Wig., I, p. 132. =^ Etbrunnanmere (Skene). 
 
1 6 ANGL C-SCO TCH FE UDAL RE LA TIONS 
 
 power — a menace which was carried into effect when the Danes 
 wrested from his brother Edmund half the kingdom. The 
 originator of a wise policy might well hesitate in the presence 
 of this organized effort to check the extension of English 
 supremacy beyond the Humber. He would seek to draw the 
 allies as far as possible from their base of supplies, to make the 
 attack against them with all the forces of the kingdom thor- 
 oughly organized, and, if possible, on English soil, rather than 
 in the midst of the hostile north. Malmesbury suggests just this 
 process. Anlaf Sitricson "spe invadendi regni .... terminos 
 transierat ; " "multum in Angliam processerat juvenis audacis- 
 simus." He apologizes for Athelstan's apparent dilatoriness on 
 the ground that he had purposely retreated, in order to derive 
 greater honor from conquering his furious assailants. The 
 Norse sagas also intimate that all the country beyond the 
 Humber was in a turmoil, and that the two earls set up by 
 Athelstan had been driven out. It is not out of place, there- 
 fore, to look for this battlefield south of the Humber. While 
 Aldbourough doubtless formed a convenient "trysting place," 
 accessible alike from the Humber, the north, and the west, a 
 vital objection to it is the comparative ease with which Athel- 
 stan and his army might have blocked the waterway which fur- 
 nished the line of retreat for the Danish fleet of six hundred and 
 fifteen ships. This objection does not hold against the site in 
 Lincolnshire. It also was accessible from the north and west. 
 The people were akin to the invaders. At the same time it had 
 such an intimate connection with the English kingdom that 
 Athelstan could easily approach it, or at need fall back on his 
 more loyal subjects. It was an ideal choice for the invaders. 
 On the east was the sea, to the west the Trent, while in the 
 rear their fleet could lie at anchor in the Humber or the Trent. 
 A Roman road, crossing Watling street at right angles, con- 
 nected the lands of the Mercians and West-Saxons (who figure 
 in the poem on Brunanburh) with Lincoln ; another, starting at 
 London, passed through Lincoln and on to the Humber; still 
 another crossed the Trent above Lincoln, affording easy com- 
 
THE " GREA T COM MEND A TION" 1 7 
 
 munication with Chester and the important centers in the 
 extreme north and west. Here, then, the great hosts met to cast 
 the lot of battle for supremacy in Northumbria. From dawn to 
 twilight the West-Saxons "followed the footsteps of the hostile 
 nations." Congenial it was to Edward's offspring that they 
 "'gainst every foe, should the land defeiid, treasure and homes." 
 Nor did they rest till the great host was dispersed in flight by 
 sea and land, or "by swords laid to sleep" on that famous 
 battle-stead. There can be no doubt that this was an aggres- 
 sive movement on the part of the allies for the recovery of the 
 Northumbrian districts which Athelstan had annexed to his 
 kingdom on the death of Sihtric. Athelstan was on the 
 defensive, and the site in Lincolnshire assigned by Droysen as 
 the scene of this famous battle seems most reasonable and prac- 
 ticable. It certainly was in the immediate vicinity of the 
 Humber.^ 
 
 Athelstan, having now secured himself on the north, turned 
 to Wales and determined the regular tribute which the Welsh 
 
 kings should pay to their Saxon overlord.^ Their 
 Athelstan in , ^, ^.^, , , ,• ^ 
 
 Wales names, under the title of subregidi, first appear, 
 
 together with those of the Danish leaders, in the 
 charters of Athelstan. Welsh bishops eventually become suf- 
 fragans of the archbishop of Canterbury, and the English king 
 is the common lawmaker and defender of Welsh, Danes, and 
 English alike. 3 But the name of the king of Scots does not 
 
 ^ Cf. A.-S. Chron. and Hoveden, An. 937; Sim. Dun., I, p. 76; II, pp. xxxiii, 
 125; Skene, Celtic Scot., I, pp. 352 ff. ; Malmes., Gesta Reg., I, p. 142; The 
 Contemp. Review, Nov., 1876; Guest, Origines Celticae, II, p. 218. 
 
 *\Valt. of Gov., whose unreliability has already been commented on, puts into 
 Athelstan's mouth the words, " Gloriosus est regem facere quam regem esse." Cf. 
 also A.-S. Chron, An. 1063 ; W. Malmes., Gesta Reg., I, p. 148 : Ita quod nullus ante 
 eum rex vel cogitare praesunipserat, ipse in effectum formavit, ut ei nomine Vectigalis 
 annuatim vigenti libras auri, trecentas argenti, penderent, boves viginti quinque milia 
 annumerent, etc. 
 
 ^Cf. Robertson, Early Kings, II, p. 393; Cod. Dip., Nos. 353, 363, 364, 411, 
 426, 433, 451 ; Thorpe, I, p. 275, Laws of Edgar: "Let this ordinance be common 
 to all the people, whether English, Danes, or Britons, on every side of my dominions.'''' 
 This does not include the Scots. Makower says : " As regards Wales in particular, 
 the princes of that country fell, from the beginning of the 9th century, into political 
 
l8 . ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 appear in any authentic charter, as an attesting stibregulus ; the 
 church is notably independent of English control ; and from the 
 days of Oswy and Egfrid to the time of Henry II, no tribute 
 is levied on the kingdom of the Scots, nor is there any super- 
 vision exercised by an English king in its internal affairs. 
 Stronger proofs of an independent kingdom could scarcely be 
 produced. 
 
 dependence on the Anglo-Saxon kings. Soon afterwards began the gradual coales- 
 cence of the constitutions of the two churches. The bishoprics of South Wales came, 
 from the end of the 9th century, into more or less close connection with the Anglo- 
 Saxon church. But it was not until the beginning of the 12th century that the Welsh 
 bishops completed their submission to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and still another 
 century passed before Welsh independence in state and church was wholly overthrown." 
 (Constit. Hist. Ch. of Eng., p. 6.) Cf. also Haddan and Stubbs, Counc, I, pp. 202-620. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE CESSIONS OF CUMBERLAND AND LOTHIAN. 
 
 On the death of Athelstan, his successor, Edmund (940-946 
 
 A. D.) was unable to hold together the kingdom which his 
 
 brother had conquered. The Danes of Northumbria 
 Accession Oi 
 Edmund. rose in revolt, and again called in the two Olaves. 
 
 Reduction of It is not known what part, if any, Constantine took, 
 the Danelagh j^j^ increasing old age would be a good reason for 
 his non-participation in the movement. This time the victory 
 rested with the rebels. Eric, the son of Harold Harfager, was 
 driven from Northumbria,' and all Athelstan's dominions north 
 of Watling street were ceded to the two Olaves. It required 
 years of hard fighting to bring the Danelagh again to submission, 
 but in 944 A. D. Northumbria was forced to yield. Edmund 
 then turned his arms against Cumberland. He 
 .... harried over all Cumberland and gave it all up to Malcolm [I] 
 King of Scots on the condition that he should be his co-operator both 
 on sea and land. 
 
 The later chroniclers add nothing essential to this record, except 
 to give it a feudal coloring by translating midwyrhta, "fellow- 
 workman," diS Jidelis.^ 
 
 It is difficult to determine just what " Cumbraland " meant in 
 Edmund's day. Mr. Freeman says, "I wish to keep myself as 
 
 clear as possible from all mazes as to the ever fluc- 
 " Cumbra- tuating; boundaries of Strathclyde and Cumberland." 
 
 But he does not hesitate to declare that Edmund 
 conquered and abolished the kingdom of Strathclyde, conferring part 
 
 X He had threatened the northern coasts of England soon after the battle of Brun- 
 anburh. Athelstan was perhaps unwilling to undertake another conflict of arms so 
 soon, or desired to " t^ght fire with fire." Hence he secured the alliance of Eric by 
 giving into his care the disputed territory. 
 
 ' A.-S. Chron., An. 945. Four MSS. have this record. Two mention only the 
 
 19 
 
2 O ANGLO -SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 of it, under the name of Cumberland on Malcolm by the "usual 
 tenure of faithful service in war."' Mr. Freeman has no authority 
 for this statement. The chronicles he cites use the term Cum- 
 berland, or Cumbria. His statement implies that Strathclyde 
 and Cumberland were the same, which is the very point at issue, 
 and in regard to which he adduces no proof. Mr. Robertson shows 
 that at one time the name Cumbria, or Cumberland, was applied 
 to a wide territory extending at least from Dumbarton to North 
 Wales. This was gradually reduced by the additions made to 
 Northumbria, by the grants of Egfrid to St. Cuthbert, taking in 
 the modern Cumberland and Westmoreland, and by the settle- 
 ments of the Angles in Candida Casa. There can be no doubt 
 that the natural tendency would be in favor of a gradual division 
 of the extensive Cumbria of the earlier period into two parts, 
 one English, the other Scotch, the dividing line being one of 
 nature's own making — the Solway. This accords perfectly with 
 the history of this region, so far as it is known, and is borne out 
 by the fact that the term Cumberland is still applied to the 
 region south of the Solway, while Scottish Cumbria, or Strath- 
 clyde, lost its title eventually and was united (about 1018 A.D.) 
 with the northern kingdom. But it remained as a semi-inde- 
 pendent kingdom under the control of a branch of the MacAlpin 
 family from the opening of the tenth century to the reign of 
 Malcolm II (1005-1034 A. D.) English Cumbria was probably 
 under the Northumbrian earls, or in a state of anarchy. With 
 its numerous lakes and its situation on the northwest coast, it 
 formed an admirable retreat for the pirate fleets from Ireland 
 and the islands. And it was doubtless of this nest of intruders that 
 
 Edmund made havoc, delivering the province over 
 
 Ceded to Mai- tvtii/ at-v\ j-^.- i.Ui.u 
 
 to Malcolm (943-954 A.D.) , on condition that he 
 
 should defend it, as his ally, by sea and land.^ Had 
 
 Malcolm been a vassal of the English crown, there would have 
 
 expedition to the north. Cf. Rog. Werd., Flor. Hist., I, p. 500, with Robertson^ 
 Early Kings, I, p. 70, note. 
 
 'Norman Conq., I, Note H., p. 62; William Rufus, II, p. 545. 
 
 * Early Kings, I, p. 70. 
 
THE CESSIONS OF CUMBERLAND AND LOTHIAN 21 
 
 been no need to purchase his alliance at such a price. It is 
 noteworthy that there is here no intimation of any previous 
 relations such as this, nor of any service due as of right from 
 the king of Scots to the king of the English because of previous 
 acts or compacts. It is only after this time that references to 
 precedents occur, viz., when feudal ideas take shape and a legal 
 basis is sought for feudal claims. Then it is that the language 
 of the ordinary incidents of victory and defeat, of submission or 
 alliance, are translated into feudal terms, and interpreted in a 
 way that the actors in those events little dreamed of. The com- 
 pact with Malcolm was for his lifetime, as will appear presently, 
 and there is no intimation in the writers before the feudal age 
 that his successors were involved in any way. When Edmund 
 died in 946 A. D., the compact was renewed with Eadred. Mr. 
 Freeman says : " That the Scots renewed their oaths on the acces- 
 sion of Eadred is no proof of hostile feelings on 
 
 CO s an either side." Malmesbury's statement that the 
 
 Danes Confused -' • , • 
 
 Northumbrians and Scots made Eric their kmg and 
 
 suffered a common punishment by Eadred again illustrates the 
 
 confusion between Scot and Dane in the mind of the English 
 
 monk. His statement is correct regarding the Northumbrians, 
 
 but contradicts the facts of Scottish history by ignoring the 
 
 kingship of Malcolm I. It entirely lacks the support of the 
 
 Chronicle, which says, " Eadred harried over all Northumberland, 
 
 because they had taken Eric for their king." In 954 he 
 
 " assumed the kingdom of the Northumbrians," having apparently 
 
 had the assistance of his Scottish allies. As there is no further 
 
 mention of the "Scottish oaths," it seems clear 
 Reversion of .^ ^^^^ ^ j^^ ^^ ^^^^^ events that they were given 
 Cumberland " , r /- l 1 j j 4.u 4. 
 
 in return for the grant of Cumberland, and that 
 
 it was held by Malcolm I for his own lifetime only.' 
 
 A charter of Edgar's reign, dated 966 A. D., bears the sig- 
 nature of Kenneth, "rex Scotorum," and of Malcolm, "rex 
 Cumbrorum." Its spurious character is noted by Mr. Kemble, 
 
 ' A.-S. Chron., An. 946, 948, 954 ; W- Malmes., Gesta Reg., I, p. 162 ; Norman 
 Conq., I, p. 63. 
 
2 2 ANGLO -SCO TCH FE UDAL RE LA TLONS 
 
 SO that it affords no proof that the Scots still held the grant 
 
 of Cumberland.' Kenneth did not become king 
 Evidences 
 
 until five years later, 971 A. D. As for Malcolm, 
 
 Mr, Robertson says: 
 
 There could have been no ' King of the Cumbrians ' at this time, 
 for the grant of Cumberland, made to Malcolm the First in 945, and 
 for which he renewed his oaths upon the accession of Edred, ceased 
 upon the death of the Scottish King, and the feudal subinfeudation of 
 that province as a fief held by the Scottish Tanist is totally contrary to 
 the real history of the period. Donald, son of the Eogan who 
 appears to have fallen at Brunanburgh, was King of Strathclyde during 
 the whole of Edgar's reign, dying in the same year as the English 
 King, whilst on a pilgrimage to Rome ; and if the ' rex Cumbrorum ' 
 means 'King of Strathclyde,' no Malcolm could have appeared at 
 Chester' in that capacity. Malcolm, King of the Cumbrians, is 
 indubitably a fttyth.^ 
 
 The subsequent history also conflicts v^ith the theory that 
 the king of Scots retained the grant of Cumberland after the 
 death of Malcolm I. Kenneth II (971-995) on his accession 
 " statim predavit Britanniam ex parte." He threw up earth- 
 works at the fordable places along the Forth, and carried his 
 ravages " ad Stammoir, ad Cluiam et ad Stang na Deram." * 
 Ethelred also "went to Cumberland and ravaged it very nigh all." 
 No mention is made of the Scots by a single authority till John 
 of Fordun. He seized on Cumberland as a convenient means of 
 escaping the claims of the English chroniclers, and made it the 
 counterpart of the later earldom of Huntingdon. He explained 
 Ethelred's invasion on the ground that the king of the Cum- 
 brians (?) had refused to pay his share of the Danegeld. Mr. 
 Freeman admits Fordun is not an authority " of the first order," 
 but does not scruple to base his argument upon his testimony. 
 There is not a shred of evidence elsewhere to show any con- 
 nection between the king of Scots and Cumberland at this 
 
 ' Cod. Dip., No. 519. 3 Early Kings, I, pp. 72, 92, note. 
 
 ' In Edgar's royal progress on the Dee. 
 
 ■* Innes' Essay, Ap. 3. Stanemor is in Cumberland near its junction with West- 
 moreland, Northumberland, and Durham. 
 
THE CESSIONS OF CUMBERLAND AND LOTHIAN 23 
 
 time. Henry of Huntingdon (An. looo) says Ethelred went 
 into Cumberland " iibi maxima ma?isio Daconim. erat, vicitque 
 Dacos bello fnaximo." Had either Cumberland or Lothian been 
 held of the English crown, it can hardly be doubted that Ethel- 
 red would have demanded the Danegeld from them, and the 
 fact would have been noted by the earlier English chroniclers.^ 
 Simeon of Durham adds further proof when he describes the 
 ravages of Malcolm HI in Teesdale and up and down the coast. 
 His army was led through Cumberland and then eastward, avoid- 
 ing Northumbria. He describes the ravages of Earl Cospatric 
 in Cumberland, and expressly states that it was under Malcolm's 
 dominion " non jure possessa sed violenter subjugata.'' ^ The 
 weight of evidence is certainly against the theory that Cumber- 
 land was continuously held of the English king by the king of 
 Scots as a feudal fief. Whether it was withdrawn because of 
 Malcolm's lack of fidelity, or for other reasons, is not stated. 
 But it is significant that this should have been the period in 
 which Malcolm's successor, Indulf (son of Constan- 
 tine H), began the extension of Scottish domin- 
 ion toward the Tweed. It may well be that this was in retalia- 
 tion for the withdrawal of Cumberland on the death of Malcolm 
 I. Whatever the cause, it is certain that Indulf (954-962) 
 invaded Lothian, and that Edinburgh, "the frontier fortress of 
 the great Northumbrian Bretwalda," passed from English to 
 Scottish control. 3 
 
 This is the first definite step toward the acquirement of 
 Lothian. None of the early chroniclers state how the cession 
 
 came about. The St. Albans chroniclers, Wen- 
 [ts Cession , ,, ^ , i- 1 ^u 
 
 dover and Wallmgford, wrote not earlier than the 
 
 thirteenth century. They give a minute account of how Kenneth 
 
 II (991-995) was brought to Edgar, and of the arrangements by 
 
 which the transfer of Lothian was accomplished. Full details 
 
 'A.-S. Chron., An. 1000; Early Kings, I, p. 72, note; II, pp. 186, 387; Nor- 
 man Conquest, I, p. 300. Ap. H, FF. Hume bases his narrative on Fordun. 
 » Sim. Dun., Hist. Reg., pp. 190, 191. 
 3 Innes Essay, Ap. 3 ; Freeman, Norman Conq., I, Note II. 
 
2 4 ANGL 0-SCO TCH FE UDAL RE LA TIONS 
 
 of the feudal homage to be rendered and of the provisions for 
 the progress of Kenneth to Edgar's court are not overlooked. 
 Simeon of Durham, who wrote at least a centur)' earlier than 
 these chroniclers, is quite ignorant of their story, and makes a 
 very different statement. Malcolm II (1005-1034) invaded 
 Northumbria. The old Ealdorman Waltheof shut himself in 
 behind the walls of Bamborough. But his son Uchtred took 
 the field and not only defeated the Scots, but decorated the 
 walls of Durham with the heads of the slain.' Some years 
 later Uchtred was murdered, and his cowardly brother Eadulf, 
 fearing the vengeance of the Scots, ceded Lothian to them. The 
 passage reads : 
 
 Quo [Uchtredo] occiso, frater ipsius Eadulf, cognomento Cudel, 
 ignavus et valde at timidus ei successit in comitatum. Timens autem 
 ne Scotti mortem sacrum, quos frater ejus, ut supradictum est, occi- 
 derat, in se vindicarent, totum Lodoneium ob satisfactionem et firmam 
 concordiam eis donavit. Hoc mode Lodoneium adjectum est regno 
 Scottorum. 
 
 The editor of the Rolls Series says of the De Obs. Dun.: 
 It is an authentic though fragmentary record of the wild and mis- 
 erable age of Ethelred. . . . The date of writing seems to have been 
 about 1090. 
 
 These are the sources. The question of the cession has been 
 fully discussed on both sides. "" Mr. Freeman concedes 
 
 .... the infinite superiority of Simeon, our very best authority for 
 Northumbrian affairs, over two late and often inaccurate writers like 
 John of Wallingford and Roger of Wendover. . . . Simeon's state- 
 ment proves that some cession of Lothian was made by Eadwulf, and if 
 so, we can hardly be wrong in setting it down as a result of the battle 
 of Carham. (1028 A. D.) 
 
 The stories of John and Roger, however, support Mr. Free- 
 man's theory of the feudal dependence of Scotland on her 
 Imperial Lord, and he, therefore, seeks with his wonted 
 ingenuity, to weave out of them something to his purpose. But 
 
 ' On the date cf. Sim. Dun., I, pp. 2i5-i6|jwith Early Kings, I, p. 92. 
 ''Sim. Dun., I, p. 218 ; Norman Conq., I, Note I; Early Kings, I, pp. 95, 96; 
 II, pp. 390, 399. 
 
THE CESSIONS OF CUMBERLAND AND LOTHIAN 25 
 
 the legends and fabrications which came from the hands of the 
 later chroniclers, centering about the reign of Edgar as one of 
 several foci, have been already referred to, and are too well 
 known to need further characterization. The monastic writers 
 knew no bounds when singing the praises of those who had 
 been generous to their houses — of whom Edgar was one of the 
 first. Richard of Cirencester says of Edgar's reign: "God 
 helping him, he had the whole island in his hand, and Scotland, 
 Wales, and Cumbria, gladly ran to submit themselves to him." 
 Mr. Green says, 
 
 .... side by side, two, with this statelier song [of Athelstan's day], 
 we catch glimpses of a wilder and more romantic upgrowth of popular 
 verse, which wrapped in an atmosphere of romance the lives of kings 
 such as Athelstan and Eadgar. 
 
 These ballads were preserved down to the twelfth century, 
 when 
 
 .... they were introduced by the writers of the time into our own 
 history much to its confusion. . . . Historically these legends stand 
 on the same footing as the other romances embedded in Malmesbury.' 
 
 It is, therefore, unwarrantable to base an argument on such 
 questionable authorities, especially when they disagree with the 
 definite, trustworthy statement of an authority like Simeon. It 
 is objected that in his account of the battle of Carham the Eng- 
 lish forces are represented as coming from the region between 
 the Tees and the Tweed, and that it should have included the 
 people of Lothian as well, if that province had not already been 
 ceded to the king of Scots." But it is only necessary to remem- 
 ber that the Scots took the stronghold of Edinburgh during the 
 reign of Indulf, and had held it for some fifty years, during 
 which they had been steadily pushing southward. Lothian 
 thus became a border territory, harried from both sides. The 
 march of Malcolm's host to Carham, moreover, must have 
 
 ' Ric. de Cirenc, II, p. 91 ; Conq. of Eng., pp. 284, 310, note ; W. Malmes., Gesta 
 Reg., Ad. an., and Introd. (Stubbs), p. Ixvi. Malmesbury is the first exponent of pop- 
 ular legend in history. 
 
 'Norman Conq., I, Note LLL. 
 
26 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATLONS 
 
 caused the people of this district either to join him or to remain 
 neutral. 
 
 Thus, either by cession through the fears of Eadulf Cudel,or 
 by conquest, Lothian passed under the dominion of the king of 
 Scots. It may well be asked how two feudatories could annex 
 or resign territories without the consent, or remonstrance, of 
 their overlord, and the whole transaction points to the fact that 
 Malcolm could not have been a vassal of the English crown at 
 this time. 
 
 Cnut, on his return from Rome, some fourteen years later, 
 made an expedition to the north, which may have had some ref- 
 erence to the transfer of Lothian. The authority 
 Cnut for this expedition is the Chronicle, under the year 
 
 103 1 A. D.:' "The Scots' king Malcolm submitted 
 to him [Cnut] and became his man, but held that only a little 
 while." This is from MS. D, which, after 1016 A. D., is written 
 in several hands, and is especially full on events relating to Mer- 
 cia and Northumberland. Two other MSS., E and F, one in 
 the same hand to 1 122 A. D., the other apparently of the twelfth 
 century, add "and two other kings, Maelbaethe and Jehmarc." 
 Their addition of these names and their omission of the phrase 
 "he held that [allegiance] only a little while," render their tes- 
 timony suspicious. Mr. Robertson has shown that Macbeth was 
 not even Mormaor of Moray till the death of his kinsman Gil- 
 comgain, in 1032.^ In any case, the results of the meeting, on 
 Scotland, were as transitory as the passing clouds. There is no 
 intimation that the expedition imposed any penalty on Malcolm 
 or in any way curtailed the territories he had annexed to his 
 kingdom. And it may well be questioned whether the Dane, 
 whose rule in England was so distinctly an interlude, could trans- 
 mit any feudal right in Scotland to his successors. Certainly 
 Denmark and Norway did not so pass, and claims to Scotland 
 
 'This date is questioned by both Robertson and Freeman, 1027-28 preferred. 
 
 * Early Kings, I, p. 97 ; II, p. 400. That the expression "he held that only a little 
 while" does not refer to Malcolm's death is evident from the fact that the chroniclers 
 use the phrase often, and always with reference to a rejection of allegiance. (A.-S. 
 Chron., An. 947, 1091, etc. 
 
THE CESSIONS OF CUMBERLAND AND LOTHIAN 27 
 
 could only be made good in future by force of arms or new com- 
 pacts. 
 
 Malcolm II, whom the Irish annalists entitle "Lord and 
 Father of the West," had pushed his dominions southward to the 
 
 Tweed. The line of Scoto British princes in Strath- 
 Malcolm II, ^jy^^ having failed with Eogan "the Bald," who 
 ^ jj fought with Malcolm at Carham, that province 
 
 seems to have passed to the family of Malcolm, in 
 the person of his son Duncan. Malcolm was able, whether by 
 violence or otherwise, to set aside the prevailing custom and to 
 secure the succession of Duncan as king of Scotland. With the 
 
 death of Malcolm in 1034, the direct male line of 
 
 Kenneth I became extinct. The succession should 
 Annexed 
 
 have passed to the line of Duff, had not the heir 
 
 perished, probably by foul means, in 1033. This act left the 
 rights of the crown to be transferred through the female line, by 
 which the royal rights had been originally inherited, and occa- 
 sioned a bloody strife between the families of 
 
 Break in AthoU and Moray, to which Duncan and Macbeth 
 
 Succession. .• 1 1 1 1 t-i ^ ■^• 
 
 respectively belong'ed. ihe lesritimate successor 
 Duncan, 1034- f J Q o 
 
 ,„ « A n was Lulach, whose mother Macbeth married, thus 
 
 1040 A. U. ' ' 
 
 becoming the guardian of Lulach during his minor- 
 ity. These claims had been set aside in favor of Malcolm's 
 daughter's son, Duncan, who reigned from 1034 to 1040. He 
 was opposed by Thorfin, son of a second daughter of Malcolm, 
 who married one of the jarls of Orkney. The youthful Duncan 
 was unsuccessful in his expedition against Thorfin, as he had also 
 been in a foray into Northumberland, and was treacherously 
 slain, "in the smith's bothy," near one of his unfortunate battle- 
 fields, by his rival Macbeth, who then seized the 
 
 , 1040- ^j.Q^j^ £qj. hii^self.' Duncan left two sons, Malcolm 
 1058 A. D. _ , . 
 
 Ceanmore and Donald Bane. Fordun is poor 
 
 authority for the theory of a relationship between them and 
 
 Siward, earl of Northumbria. Mr. Robertson says: 
 
 The flight of Duncan's children — mere infants — one to Cumbria, 
 
 'Sim. Dun., I, p. 90; Early Kings, I, p. no; Norman Conq., II, p. 55. 
 
2 8 ANGLO-SCO TCH FE UDAL RE LA TLONS 
 
 the other to the Isles, is a fiction founded on the ideas of the time 
 when it first appears, three or four centuries later. They probably- 
 remained amongst their hereditary partizans in Atholl and the southern 
 provinces, occupying the same position which their cousin Lulach had 
 done during the reign of their father — the position of the head of the 
 Hy Nial, when Brian Boru achieved the sovereignty of Ireland ; or of 
 a Duke of Bavaria or Austria, in the olden time, when another mag- 
 nate had been elected to the empire.' 
 
 This opinion is corroborated by the fact that Malcolm 
 reigned till 1093 A. D., when he died in battle, apparently in the 
 prime of manhood. He must, therefore, have been quite young 
 in 1040, the date of his father's murder. Moreover, it would 
 have been quite contrary to the custom of "fosterage," which 
 prevailed among the Picts and Scots, for a member of the royal 
 family to leave his own kinsmen and followers for an Anglo- 
 Danish earl. By this custom 
 
 . . . . each 'full born' son having a claim upon the inheritance of 
 his father .... was placed in the family of a dependant, who regarded 
 such a charge as a mark of the highest confidence and honor; and 
 even in the 17th century, men of rank and station in the Scot- 
 tish Highlands still esteemed it a privilege to educate in this manner 
 one of the children of the head of their lineage.' 
 
 In 1045 3.n attempt was made to vindicate the rights of Dun- 
 can's children, by their aged grandfather, the abbot of Dunkeld, 
 which proved, however, premature. Nine years 
 Is Defeated later Macbeth was attacked by Siward, earl of 
 Northumbria, and put to flight. Two MSS. of the 
 Chronicle record this event. No mention is made, however, of 
 Malcolm or of Edward the Confessor, nor of the object of the 
 expedition, but the facts that Macbeth escaped and 
 / that great booty was captured are explicitly noted. 
 
 IO58-IO93 A. D. ^ ■' ^ , TT 
 
 Of Macbeth's escape there can be no doubt. 3 He 
 maintained himself in the kingdom till 1058, and after his 
 
 » Norman Conq., II, p. 55 ; Early Kings, I, p. 122, note. 
 "Early Kings, I, p. 34. 
 
 3 A.-S. Chron., An. 1054 (Cott. Tiber., B. I ; Cott. Tiber. B., IV) ; Norman Conq., II, 
 p. 665 ; Early Kings, I, p. 122 ; Bain, I, p. xvii, note. 
 
THE CESSIONS OF CUMBERLAND AND LOTHIAN 29 
 
 death his ward Lulach kept Malcolm from the throne sev- 
 eral months longer. The Anglo-Norman writers consistently 
 make this record a part of the chain of historical testimony 
 whereby the feudal dependence of Scotland is maintained. 
 Fordun, in the same spirit, tries to maintain the 
 Feudal gj^^g Qf |.j^g Scots. A good illustration of his 
 
 authority is found in the statement that the Scots 
 Apparent 
 in Chronicles ^^*^ ^^ ^^^^ ^'^^^ sound of Malcolm's trumpet — a 
 
 very different picture from the hard fight described 
 by the English and Irish writers. Florence of Worcester 
 writes : 
 
 Siward, the mighty Duke of Northumbria, by order of the King, 
 entered Scotland with an army of cavalry and a strong fleet, and fought 
 a battle with Macbeth King of the Scots ; and many thousands of the 
 Scots, and all the Normans, of whom mention was made above, being 
 slain, he put him to flight, and established Malcolm, son of the King of 
 the Cumbrians, as king, "ut rex jusserat." ' 
 
 A careful study of this passage seems to justify the belief 
 
 that Florence, compiling his account from several sources, is not 
 
 entirely free from error. While he mentions the 
 
 Englisn establishment of Malcolm as a reason for the expe- 
 
 Influence ,. . , . . . i- .1 , ^1 xt 
 
 . „ ,, , dition, the entire narrative implies that the JNorman 
 in Scotland ^ 
 
 favorites of Edward who had taken refuge with 
 
 Macbeth were the true cause of it.^ He describes their expul- 
 sion from England, and apparently takes pains to call attention 
 to them again in his account of the battle with Macbeth. The 
 feeling of the English against them was intense. They had by 
 their intrigues compelled Godwine to go into exile.^ On his 
 return the situation was reversed. But in 1054 Godwine had 
 been dead upwards of a year, so that this expedition could not 
 have been the result of his personal hostility toward his enemies. 
 And of Harold Mr. Freeman says : 
 
 His policy of conciliation would forbid him to be needlessly harsh 
 
 'Ad. an. 1054. 
 
 ^Sim. Dun. has no independent record of these events. 
 
 3 Norman Conq., II, p. 125 ; Early Kings, II, p. 400. 
 
30 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 even to a Norman, and he had every motive for dealing as tenderly as 
 possible with all the wishes and prejudices of the King. 
 
 Hence there would be no reason for an order to issue from 
 King Edward or Earl Harold which would devote the Normans 
 to total destruction. Why should Edward attempt to aid a 
 claimant to the Scottish throne at their expense ? Macbeth had 
 been ruling fourteen years. His reign was confessedly able 
 and prosperous.' There is no indication of any feudal or hostile 
 relation toward his southern neighbor. Why should Edward 
 order the northern earl to attack him just at a time when the 
 court favorites were finding refuge there ? It would seem more 
 reasonable that Siward acted on his own responsibility ; that the 
 flight of the Normans and the national hatred of them afforded 
 an excellent pretext for an attempt to win back the ancient 
 bounds of his earldom of Northumbria. If there was a rela- 
 tionship" between himself and Malcolm, it would furnish an 
 additional reason for intervention on purely family grounds. In 
 any event, Macbeth continued his reign till 1058, and as Siward 
 died in 1055, it cannot be said that he established Malcolm as 
 king. In general, it should be noted : 
 
 1. The extent to which the orders of the king had weight at 
 this period, especially in the north, is very questionable. Royal 
 writs during the reign of Edward the Confessor were very com- 
 mon in Wessex and East Anglia, but only one crossed the 
 Humber, addressed to a Northumbrian earl, and that was in the 
 days of Tostig.^ 
 
 2. The jealousy which the great earls felt toward each other 
 would render concerted action on their part unlikely. 
 
 3. Malcolm was not "regis Cumbrorum filium " at this time, 
 His father Duncan was very likely placed over Strathclyde by 
 Malcolm II. But Duncan had become kiyig of the Scots twenty 
 years before the invasion of 1054. The statement seems to be 
 based on the erroneous belief, which the English chroniclers had, 
 
 'Norman Conq., II, pp. 55, 367, 369; Early Kings, I, p. 121. 
 ^Celtic Scot, I, p. 408. Skene gives no authority for his statement. 
 3 Norman Conq., II, p. 55. 
 
THE CESSIONS OF CUMBERLAND AND LOTHIAN 3^ 
 
 that Macbeth directly succeeded Malcolm II in 1034, instead of 
 Duncan in 1040, and is a clear evidence of the composite and in 
 part unreliable nature of the record of Florence.' 
 
 4. Malcolm III (Ceanmore) became famous in English as 
 well as Scottish history. He was, moreover, the first to receive 
 a strictly feudal holding from an English king. Legend and 
 romance had even in the days of Florence been busy with the 
 names of Duncan, Macbeth, and Malcolm.' As Florence read 
 his early English sources and compared them with this legend- 
 ary material, it was easy to attribute to the weakness of 
 Edward's reign the strength exhibited by the Conqueror, by 
 William Rufus, and by Henry I. It was easy to infer that 
 Siward's expedition, unaccounted for by the Chronicle, must 
 have been by the order of the king, to unseat the usurper Mac- 
 beth and establish Malcolm, the vassal later of William the 
 Conqueror — and therefore by inference of Edward the Confessor. 
 But there is absolutely no evidence of homage paid by Scottish 
 kings during the reign of Edward, nor of any feudal relation 
 between the two kingdoms.^ 
 
 With Florence of Worcester the feudalizing influence in the 
 chronicles has only just begun to appear. There can be no doubt 
 as to its purpose. It often discloses, and at the same time 
 defeats its aim and end, by its gross exaggeration of truth, its 
 perversions of known facts, or its open fraud and forgery. This 
 throws doubt on the whole plea. Henry of Huntingdon relates 
 how Siward sent his son into Scotland to conquer it. The son 
 havinsf met his death, the father advances into Scotland and, 
 after defeating the king in battle, '^regtuim totum destruxit^ 
 destructum sibi subjugavit" / He is ignorant of any order of the 
 king, and explains the invasion as one for the acquirement of 
 territory. His extreme statement is entirely lacking in any his- 
 torical basis. William of Malmesbury adds another element of 
 
 ' Sim. Dun., Hist. Reg., II, p. 158. 
 
 '6y. Shakespeare. It appears that "the meek and hoary" Duncan had not 
 reached his prime. Siward also " was a hero whose history had a mythical element 
 about it from the beginning." (Norman Conq., II, p. 374.) 
 
 3 Florence is not above " an unsuccessful guess." (Norman Conq., IV, Note R.) 
 
32 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 fiction in his statement that Macbeth was despoiled of life as well 
 as of kingdom. Roger of Wendover gives the finishing touch : 
 
 Edwardus regnum Scotiae dedit Malcolmo, filio regis Cumbrorum, 
 de se tenendum.^ 
 
 After the death of Siward in 1035, Godwin's son Tostig 
 
 received the earldom of Northumbria. Some sort 
 
 Malcolm III q£ alliance or friendship seems to have existed 
 
 between him and Malcolm. Simeon of Durham 
 
 writes : 
 
 Interim rex Scottorum Malcolmus sui conjurati fratris, scilicet 
 comitis Tostii, comitatum ferociter depopulatus est, violata pace Sancti 
 Cuthberti in Lindisfarnensi insula. 
 
 This was in 1061, 
 
 .... Edwardo regnante, quando Tosti comes Eboracensis profectus 
 Romam fuerat. 
 
 Of this "sworn brotherhood" Mr. Freeman says, "This was 
 a tie by which reconciled enemies often sought to bind one 
 another to special friendship." ^ He considers that the tie must 
 have been formed some time between 1055 and 1061. It seems 
 most reasonable to infer that it was soon after Malcolm's acces- 
 sion to the crown in 1058; also that it was sought by Tostig 
 rather than Malcolm, who was now secure in his rights. It is 
 only thus that Malcolm's raid over the border, for which Tostig 
 in no way inflicted any retribution, can be explained. 
 
 The hour of the conquest is at hand. Invaluable as the 
 works of the monastic chroniclers are to the historian, it is a 
 relief to turn from their oft-conflicting tales to the more trust- 
 worthy records of the feudal era which now dawns in its fullness 
 upon England. 
 
 ' Hen. Hunt., p. 194 ; W. Malmes., Ad. an.; Flor., Hist., I, p. 573. Roger died 
 1237 A. D. 
 
 *Sim. Dun., Hist. Reg., II, pp. 174, 221; Norman Conq., II, p. 392. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE INFLUENCE OF THE NORMAN KINGS IN SCOTLAND. 
 
 The reign of the Normans in England marks the establish- 
 ment of a definite feudal policy, consistently followed by the 
 kings of England and Scotland till the days of 
 
 ^ ^ Edward I. Its rapid and marvelous development 
 
 Definite Feudal ^ . 
 
 Policv ^^^ radically affected by the allied policy of inter- 
 
 marriage between the royal houses of the two 
 realms, hitherto strongly antagonistic. 
 
 The court of the king of Scots, like that of Flanders or 
 
 Denmark, had often proved a refuge for those compelled by the 
 
 chance of war or by political intrigue to flee from 
 
 Influenced by g i^^^j j^ the summer of 1068 A. D.' such a 
 
 Inter-Marriage ,,p., ,. ,, .. . 
 
 band of exiles, havmg aroused the suspicion ot 
 
 William the Conqueror, or fearing his wrath, had sought refuge 
 with Malcolm III, in the land of the Scots. With Merlesweyne, 
 Cospatric, and other influential leaders of the English party, 
 came Edgar Atheling, attended by his mother and two sisters, 
 Christina and Margaret. The Princess Margaret speedily won 
 the heart of the Scottish king, and the union of the lines of Cer- 
 dic and McAlpin gave to the Scots their first claim to the 
 English crown. It was an event of the greatest moment, not 
 only because of its immediate effect on the welfare of Scotland, 
 but also because of the far-reaching influences which take their 
 source from it, Editha, a daughter of this royal pair, became 
 the wife of Henry I of England. Three sons, Edgar, Alexander, 
 and David, destined to attain the kingship and to control the 
 national policy, grew up under their care, acquiring daily from 
 their mother English sympathies and tastes. It will not be 
 
 ' Fl. Wig.; Sim. Dun., Hist. Reg., An. 1068. On date tf. Early Kings, I, p. 130. 
 note. 
 
 33 
 
34 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 strange, therefore, under this bond of blood-relationship, to find 
 
 heirs to the Scottish crown maintaining intimate relations with 
 
 their kinsfolk at the English court. But even under the great 
 
 Edward, when the drift of the nobility was almost wholly 
 
 in favor of submission to his suzerainty, the Scots themselves, 
 
 as a people, constantly preserve their spirit of independence, 
 
 their purpose to acknowledge no foreign overlordship in the 
 
 affairs of their kingdom. 
 
 The marriage of Margaret and Malcolm bound the king of 
 
 Scots to his brother-in-law, Edgar Atheling, identifying him 
 
 with the efforts of the English to throw off the Conqueror's 
 
 yoke, and restore their native dynasty. But apparently he did 
 
 not directly co-operate in the combined attack of Danes 
 
 and English upon York (1069). Nor did William extend his 
 
 ravages beyond the Tyne.^ On the return of the Conqueror 
 
 to the south, however, Malcolm crossed the border. 
 
 Holding Cumberland by riefht of conquest,' he 
 Invades '^, , M > 
 
 Eneland passed through it, and then, turning eastward as 
 
 already noted, ravaged the valley of the Tees to 
 the coast. Cospatric, who but a short time before had found 
 shelter and welcome at the Scottish court, had made his peace 
 again with William, and had bought a title to the earldom of 
 Northumberland. Forgetting Malcolm's kindness, he now 
 invaded Cumberland, carried off large booty, and shut himself 
 up in the castle of Bamborough. Malcolm's revenge was sec- 
 ond only to the terrible punishment which the Conqueror 
 inflicted on the north. The chronicler of Durham dilates 
 on the atrocities committed, and declares that "even to this 
 day" not a hovel can be found in Scotia without slaves of 
 English blood. ^ It is a little strange that the English over- 
 lord (?) should have allowed his vassal to take such liberties 
 with English subjects, and that a restoration of the captives 
 
 ' A.-S. Chron.; Sim. Dun., Hist. Reg., An. 1069. 
 
 ^ Sim. Dun., Hist. Reg., H, p. 191. Erat enim eo tempore Cumbreland sub regis 
 Malcolmi dominio, non jure possessa sed violenter subjugata. 
 3 Sim. Dun., Hist. Reg., II., pp. 190-2. 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 35 
 
 should not have been required. The invasion was, however, not 
 
 foro-otten, and in 1072 A. D. William set out for Scotland — not 
 
 to punish a rebellious vassal or require a restoration 
 
 Meeting of Qf captives, but to secure his northern border against 
 
 William and ^^^^^^ by a foreign foe. It is unlikely that the Eng- 
 Maloolmlll, ,. , ./ f* ^ ^, . ^. ' , ^, 
 
 lish exiles were here at this time, though they may 
 
 have fled on William's approach, as Edgar returned 
 from Flanders to Scotland in 1074.' The record of the meet- 
 ing between Malcolm and William is brief : 
 
 In this year King William led a naval force and a land force to 
 Scotland, and lay about that land with ships on the sea side ; and him- 
 self with his land-force went in over the ford, and he there found 
 naught for which they were the better.' And King Malcolm came and 
 made peace with King William, and gave hostages and was his man ; 
 and the king went home with all his force.^ 
 
 The brief record gives no clue as to that for which Malcolm 
 became the man of the Conqueror. Later events, however, 
 throw some light on the question. 
 
 In 1079 Malcolm came into England "with a large force, 
 and harried Northumberland until he came to the Tyne, and 
 Subsequent slew many hundred men ; and led home many 
 Invasions of treasures, and precious things, and men in cap- 
 England tivity."'* As William was fighting with his son 
 Robert in Normandy, this raid may have been prompted by 
 Malcolm's friendship for the duke, or simply by a desire for 
 plunder. It illustrates how lightly the feudal oath rested on 
 men's consciences in these days — Malcolm was no exception — 
 and how little real significance it had for the king of Scots and 
 his people. In 1080 William and Robert were reconciled to 
 each other, and the duke was sent against Malcolm. But the 
 
 ' A.-S. Chron., An. 1075. 
 
 'Possibly referring to the escape of Edgar and his English followers. The cross- 
 ing was probably at the fords of the Forth, fortified by Kenneth II in the days 
 of Edgar. Fl. Wig. says the meeting was " in loco qui dicitur Abernitbici." 
 
 3A.-S. Chron., An. 1073. 
 
 ^A.-S. Chron., Fl. Wig., Ad. an. 
 
36 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 expedition was a failure.' Sir Francis Palgrave tries to prove 
 that such an expedition occurred in 1068-9. ^^ says that 
 Malcolm refused obedience to William the Conqueror, who then 
 sent Robert to enforce it. The military tenants were summoned, 
 among whom was Adelelm, abbot of Abingdon. Robert was 
 instructed to offer peace to the Scots in case of obedience, other- 
 wise war. Malcolm met the English forces in Lothian, and 
 acknowledged that the dominion of Scotland was subject to the 
 crown of England. The story is based on the Book of Abing- 
 don (compiled not earlier than the reign of Henry III).^ 
 
 "This important transaction," says Palgrave, "which is related 
 with great obscurity by Orderic Vitalis (p. 511), is told clearly 
 and distinctly in the book of Abingdon. In consequence of the 
 abbot being personally present, the compiler of that most 
 authentic and valuable volume was, without doubt, better 
 acquainted with the circumstances than other writers could be, 
 who had not the same sources of information. "3 The obscure 
 passage from Orderic, which Palgrave tries to elucidate with the 
 Book of Abingdon, is as follows : 
 
 The bishop of Durham [Aegelwina], also, being reconciled to King 
 William, became the mediator for peace with the king of the Scots, 
 and was the bearer into Scotland of the terms offered by William. 
 Though the aid of Malcolm had been solicited by the English, and he 
 had prepared to come to their succor with a strong force, yet when he 
 heard what the envoy had to propose with respect to a peace, he remained 
 quiet, and joyfully sent back ambassadors in company with the bishop 
 of Durham, who in his name swore fealty to King William. In thus 
 preferring peace to war, he best consulted his own welfare, and the 
 inclination of his subjects; for the people of Scotland, though fierce 
 in war, love ease and quiet, and are not disposed to disturb themselves 
 
 'Sim. Dun., Hist. Reg., An. 1080. 
 
 "It seems certain Robert reaped no special glory in his Scottish expedition." No 
 authority for the legend that Malcolm met Robert in Lothian and gave hostages. 
 (Norman Conq., IV, p. 67 1.) "Whether from want of conduct on the part of the com- 
 mander or of efficiency in the troops, the expedition was shamefully unsuccessful." 
 (Palgrave, England and Normandy, III, p. 548.) 
 
 * Early Kings, II, Note Q. 
 
 3 Palgrave, Eng. Com., II, p. cccxxxi. 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 37 
 
 about their neighbors' affairs, loving rather religious exercises than 
 those of arms.' 
 
 Now the citation from the Book of Abingdon is clearly proved 
 to have been transferred from the year 1080, where it belongs.' 
 The true nature of the expedition of 1080, and hence of the sup- 
 posed expedition of 1068-9, has already been explained, and 
 characterized as "shamefully unsuccessful." The passage from 
 Orderic, therefore, remains as "obscure" as ever, and the impres- 
 sion is confirmed that it is nothing more than "a confused and 
 erroneous version of the events which actually took place in 
 1072, transferred by one of his usual blunders to 1068. "3 A 
 careful examination of the work of Orderic, however great its 
 value in other respects, makes it impossible to accept his testi- 
 mony in regard to Scottish history as a safe basis for argument. 
 He was born in 1075. At the age of ten he was sent to Nor- 
 mandy, and spent the remainder of his days in the monastery of 
 St. Evroult. He probably visited England once, possibly twice, 
 for a few weeks, but no more. It would not be strange, there- 
 fore, to find his work representing the gossip and hearsay of the 
 times, or his own imaginings, rather than the facts of history. 
 All the passages relating to Scotland exemplify this. That on 
 the submission of 1868-9 is unique. Not another chrofiicler -wdiS 
 aware of any such event. It contradicts the facts of history in 
 its characterization of the Scots — a contradiction which Pal- 
 grave endorses, when he says : "A strong desire for religious con- 
 templation and domestic tranquillity existed among the Gael of 
 Albania. Malcolm's determination of submitting to William 
 was received by the clans with the greatest joy — as a boon, and 
 not an humiliation. His embassadors, accompanied by the Bishop 
 of Durham, appeared before the Conqueror, and the oath of 
 fealty, taken by proxy, renewed the bond of dependence between 
 
 'Ord. Vit., II, p. 19. 
 
 ^ Robertson, Early Kings, II, Ap. Q ; Freeman, Norm. Conq., IV, Note X. 
 
 3 "Edgar and his partizans passed the whole of the following winter in Scotland, 
 which the Conqueror would surely have provided against had he already received the 
 submission of Malcolm." Orderic '^ alone passes over without notice the really impor- 
 tant meeting between the two kings in 1072." (Early Kings, II, Ap. Q.) 
 
38 ANGL 0-SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 the kings of the Scots and the Basileus of the British Islands."' 
 Yet it was under Malcolm III that five of the most cruel Scottish 
 raids known were made into English territory, and on his death 
 these Gael who were so desirous for "religious contemplation" 
 began a fight to expel the English whom Malcolm had brought 
 into Scotland — a fight which ended in the death of the claim- 
 ant to the throne who had English support. Orderic describes 
 at length the expedition of William Rufus, in 1092, against Mal- 
 colm, recounts the conversations which took place back and 
 forth between the two kings on the impassable banks of the 
 Forth, and the negotiations with Count Robert. He makes 
 Malcolm confess that King Edward had given him the county 
 of Lothian with the hand of his niece Margaret — a fact quite 
 unknown to other chroniclers. The negotiations for peace are 
 finally concluded. The two armies are disbanded, and the two 
 kings depart for England together. Malcolm, wishing after a 
 time to return to Scotland, is murdered on the way by Robert 
 de Mowbray. "The King of England and his great nobles 
 hearing of this, were deeply distressed, being ashamed that so 
 foul and cruel a deed should be done by Normans."^ Such 
 sentiments were truly characteristic of William Rufus ! Edgar 
 then succeeded Malcolm, but, being opposed by Donald, was 
 slain. Alexander then slew Donald and ascended the throne. 
 This, as will soon appear, directly contradicts well-known 
 facts. Orderic, therefore, as an origmal authority on Scot- 
 land, may hereafter be left undisturbed in his monastic seclu- 
 sion. 
 
 It seems probable that there was some tie of friendship 
 between Malcolm III and Robert, the eldest son of the Con- 
 queror. Instances of playing into each other's hands have 
 already been noted. It is Robert and Edgar Atheling who 
 
 'Mr. Freeman says, however (1068), " Scotland Bernicia, and the northwestern 
 shires of Mercia, were still left in their precarious independence." And again, "The 
 men of the still independent England beyond the Tees." (Norman Conq., IV, pp. 207, 
 254.) 
 
 »Ord. Vit., Eccl. Hist., Ill, p. Ii. 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 39 
 
 negotiate the final treaty between Malcolm and William Rufus ; 
 and apparently William's failure to keep his engage- 
 Agreement ments occasioned the departure, about Christmas 
 
 be ween time, lOQi, of both Robert and Edgar from the 
 
 Malcolm and . 
 
 ^.,.. English court.' In its account of these transactions 
 
 the Chronicle gives the first definite intimation of 
 the feudal arrangements between Malcolm and William the 
 Conqueror. 
 
 While King William was out of England, King Malcolm of Scotland 
 came hither into England, and harried a great deal of it, until the good 
 men who had charge of this land sent a force against him, and turned 
 him back. When King William of Normandy heard of this, he made 
 ready for his departure, and came to England, and his brother the count 
 Robert with him, and forthwith ordered a force to be called out, both a 
 ship-force and a land-force ; but the ship-force, ere he could come to 
 Scotland, almost all perished miserably; .... and the king and his 
 brother went with the land-force. But when King Malcolm heard that 
 they would seek him with a force, he went with his force out of Scot- 
 land into the district of Leeds (provincia Loidis, Fl. Wigorn.) in Eng- 
 land and there awaited. When King William with his force approached, 
 then intervened Count Robert and Eadgar aetheling, and so made a 
 reconciliation between the Kings; so that King William came to our 
 King, and became his man, with all such obedience as he had before 
 paid to his father, and that with oath confirmed. And King William 
 promised him in land and in all things that which he had had before 
 under his father.^ 
 
 Florence of Worcester says that besides the destruction of 
 William's fleet many of his horsemen also perished with cold 
 and hunger before he could reach Scotland. Malcolm came to 
 meet him with an army "in provincia Loidis." Earl Robert, 
 perceiving this, concluded a peace between the two kings, with the 
 assistance of Edgar Atheling, "ea conditionc, ut Willelmo, sicut 
 patri suo obedivit, Malcolmus obediret ; et Malcolmo xii, villas, 
 quas in Anglia sub patre illius habuerat, Willelmus redderet, et 
 xii. marcas auri singulis annis daret."^ Simeon adds the infor- 
 
 ' A.-S. Chron., An. 1091 ; Early Kings, I, p. 142. 
 
 = A.-S. Chron., An. 1091. 3F1. Wig., II, p. 29. 
 
40 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 mation that William came to Durham and restored the bishop to 
 his seat. He continues, "Sed antequam rex intrasset Scotiam " — 
 and from this point quotes from the chronicle of Worcester con- 
 cerning the destruction of the English forces. Malmesbury passes 
 his judgment on the expedition in the words " nihil magnificentia 
 sua dignum exhibuit ; militibus desideratis, jumentis interceptis." 
 Roger of Wendover illustrates the spirit in which the later 
 writers approach such events when he says that Malcolm, ''nimio 
 terrore percussus," did homage to William and swore fealty." 
 
 A comparison of these materials makes certain points clear : 
 
 1. Malcolm sought a meeting with William. 
 
 2. The destruction of a large part of William's forces left 
 him in no position to compel Malcolm to an agreement. 
 
 3. The agreement negotiated between the two kings had for 
 its basis the treaty to which Malcolm and the Conqueror were 
 parties in 1072. Malcolm was to render the same obedience to 
 William that he had rendered to his father, and William was to 
 restore to Malcolm the twelve manors he had "m A?iglia" under 
 the Conqueror, and to pay him twelve marks of gold each year. 
 
 Such an agreement was quite in accord with the keen-sighted 
 policy of the great William. He had won England. But how 
 to keep it was not an easy problem. It does not seem that 
 his thoughts extended beyond the consolidation of England 
 and Normandy. If they did, there were richer lands to conquer 
 than the barren north. He treated the Scots very much as he 
 did the Danes, buying their inactivity or peace, that he might, 
 by thus securing his borders, develop the internal strength and 
 unity of his kingdom. Any other policy would have been almost 
 suicidal, even for the Conqueror. Some such arrangement with 
 the Scots as had been made with the Danes during the revolt of 
 the north might, therefore, be reasonably expected. It took 
 the form of an annual pension or subsidy in gold, together with 
 certain lands in England, for which Malcolm did homage.^ It 
 
 'Hist. Reg., II, p. 218 ; Gesta Reg. Ang., II, p. 365 ; Flor. Hist., An. 1090. 
 ^ A somewhat similar policy was followed in the pacification of the Highlands in 
 1691-2. (Gardiner, Student's Hist. Eng., p. 653.) 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 4 1 
 
 is hardly conceivable that Malcolm would surrender without a 
 blow the independence of his kingdom, or that William Rufus 
 would consider his suzerainty over Scotland dearly bought, at such 
 a price. Yet William was certainly unwilling to compl}^ with 
 his treaty obligations, while Malcolm was equally anxious to 
 have them fulfilled — an attitude on the part of both kings that 
 indicates that Malcolm's homage was for this grant of the Con- 
 queror in England. Mr, Freeman, seeking with his wonted per- 
 sistency and ingenuity to establish his theory of Lothian as an 
 English earldom, says : "At this stage Lothian was the land 
 held within the Kingdom of England ; it was what Northumber- 
 land, Huntingdon, or any other confessedly English land held 
 by the Scottish King, was in later times." For this statement 
 he cites no authority. Again he says: "One would like to 
 know whether the 'xii. villae quas in Anglia sub patre illius 
 [Willelmi Rufi sc] habuerat [Malcolmus]' were in Lothian or 
 where." Mr. Round, whose critical research has exposed many 
 of the fallacious theories propounded by Mr. Freeman and 
 others, has incidentally given at least a partial answer to this 
 query in his discussion of the Northamptonshire Geld-Roll. 
 "Although written in old English, it is well subsequent to the 
 
 conquest," but "cannot be later than 1075 Of the very 
 
 few names mentioned, one may surprise and the other puzzle us. 
 The former is that of 'the Scot King,* holding land even then 
 in a shire where his successors were to hold it so largely." This 
 reference, taken with two such sources as the Chronicle and 
 Florence of Worcester, is certainly significant, nor does it 
 require any stretch of imagination to conclude that these 
 Northamptonshire lands were connected with the Conqueror's 
 grant to Malcolm IIL Unfortunately the reference is not defi- 
 nite enough to do more than suggest the fact of such holdings 
 by the Scot king. It may also be urged that this document 
 proves too much, that possibly these lands were held prior to 
 the grant of the Conqueror — thereby implying homage and a 
 closer relation than has been admitted hitherto. But conceding, 
 at most, that Malcolm Ceanmore was related to Siward, that he 
 
42 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 lived in England in exile during the reign of Macbeth, perhaps 
 here in Northamptonshire, and that the earl of Northumberland, 
 with the consent, if not at the command, of Edward the Con- 
 fessor, aided him in his first attempts to regain his kingdom, the 
 admission does not touch the main point at issue, viz., the inde- 
 pendence of the kingdom of Scotland. For it is inconceivable 
 that the weak Confessor King should have enjoyed — apparently 
 without lifting a finger — or that his powerful successors should 
 have lost, what Henry II wrung by special charters from the 
 dire necessity of his royal captive, William the Lion, and what 
 the great Edward appropriated, only after the failure of all 
 direct heirs to the Scottish crown left the kingdom to be the 
 spoil of anarchy. The truer view and the one most in accord 
 with the best sources, is that the Scottish kings did not hold 
 definite feudal fiefs in England till this grant of the Conqueror.^ 
 Two years passed, and then 
 
 .... the King of Scotland sent and demanded the fulfilment of the 
 treaty that had been promised him. And King William summoned 
 him to Gloucester, and sent him hostages to Scotland, and Eadgar 
 aetheling afterwards, and the men back again, who brought him with 
 great worship to the king. But when he came to the king, he could 
 not be held worthy the speech of our king, or the conditions that had 
 been previously promised him, and therefore in great hostility they 
 parted, and King Malcolm returned home to Scotland. But as soon 
 as he came home, he gathered his army, and marched into England, 
 harrying with more animosity than ever behoved him. And then 
 Robert, the earl of Northumberland, ensnared him with his men 
 unawares, and slew him. With him also was slain his son Edward, 
 who should, if he had lived, have been king after him.^ 
 
 Malcolm's action may have been prompted by William's 
 
 ' Norman Conq., I, Note I ; Wm. Rufus, I, p. 303 ; Round, Feudal Eng., pp. 
 147-8. I am greatly indebted to Mr. Round for the favor of a personal letter, giving 
 the results of a special examination of the puzzling passage in the Northampt. Geld- 
 Roll, and of others which might have a bearing on it. But neither he nor Mr. W. H. 
 Stevenson (probably the best authority on eleventh century Anglo-Saxon) has been able 
 to determine, as yet, its exact meaning and force. Mr. Round takes it to imply own- 
 ership at the time. Mr. Stevenson thinks the entry may be corrupt. 
 
 'A.-S. Chron., An. 1093. 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 43 
 
 invasion of Cumberland, in which he drove out Dolphin, the son 
 of Cospatric, seizing and fortifying Carlisle. By a grant to 
 Cospatric, after his flight from England, he and his descendants 
 became vassals of the king of Scots, and Dolphin probably held 
 in Cumberland under Malcolm, who might well object to the 
 high-handed policy of William Rufus. Hence the demand for 
 a fulfilment of the treaty of 1091. William had fallen so seri- 
 ously ill at Gloucester "that he was everywhere reported dead.' 
 His weakness made him more willing to listen to the appeals of 
 his primates that a firm peace should be established with Scot- 
 land.' But returning health revived his arrogance, and he 
 refused to meet Malcolm, hoping to compel him to "do right" 
 in his own court, and in the presence of English barons only. 
 But Malcolm indignantly refused to do right "nisi in regnorum 
 suorum confiniis, ubi reges Scottorum erant soliti rectitudinem 
 facere regibus Anglorum, et secundum judicium primatum 
 utriusque regni." Returning to his own land, he prepared for 
 the war in which he lost his life.^ 
 
 The words which the chronicler puts in the mouth of Mal- 
 colm show what the custom was in the later age in which he 
 wrote, after the feudal relation had been definitely established 
 for several generations. Mr. Robertson says : 
 
 Certain inferences are sometimes drawn from the expression recti- 
 tudinem facere, 'to do right,' — though it is always dangerous to lay 
 too much stress upon the strict and exact legal meaning of every word 
 employed by a chronicler, — and it is implied that 'right' could only 
 be 'done' by 'a vassal to his superior,' and that therefore Malcolm 
 was William's vassal — for the Kingdom of Scotland. The simple answer 
 to this is, that not an acre of land could be held under the feudal system 
 by 'noble tenure' except by homage, or vassalage, the extent of the 
 vassalage being identical with the extent of the fief, and not neces- 
 sarily implying the entire dependance of the holder upon the over- 
 lord of the fief. He might hold other fief s of innumerable other over- 
 
 ' Norman Conq., V, p. 1 18; Sim. Dun., II, pp. 196-9; A.-S. Chron., An. 1092-3; 
 Skene, Celtic Scot, I, p. 430. 
 
 "^Fl. Wig., Sim. Dun., Hist. Reg., An. 1093; on Wm. Malmes., Gest. Reg. Ang., 
 II, p. 366, cf. Early Kings, I, p. 145, note. 
 
44 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 lords. Thus in a treaty of peace between Philip Augustus and Richard, 
 the latter agrees 'ut ipse faciet Regi Franciae servitia et justicias in curia 
 Regis Franciae de singulis feodis quos ab eo tenet' (Foed., Vol. I, Pt. 
 I, p. 6i), .... without in the least implying the subjection of the 
 English crown to the French. Rectitudo simply means 'a right,' and 
 when Prince Alexander performed homage to John 'pro omnibus 
 rectitudinibus, etc.,' and when Richard, by his Charter of Privileges, 
 confirmed to William 'omnes libertates et reciitudines, etc.,' the 
 'rights' were claimed of the English crown, and in the latter case 
 settled 'secundum quod recognoscetur a quatuor proceribus nostris 
 . . . . et a quatuor proceribus illius,' exactly as Malcolm claimed on 
 this occasion .... If a question was to be raised about the right, it 
 was to be decided not 'secundum judicium tantum baronum .... in 
 curia [Willielmi]' but 'secundum judicium primatum utriusque regni ' 
 and on the frontiers (Doc. Illust. Hist. Scot., XV, sec. 19; Foed., Vol. 
 I, Pt. I, pp. 50-62).' 
 
 There seems no doubt, therefore, that Malcolm's relation to 
 the Conqueror and to his son was that of a holder of certain 
 lands in England — for which, and for an annual subsidy of 
 gold, he did homage. That he did not stand in a feudal rela- 
 tion to William for Lothian might be inferred from the fact that 
 he granted, without remonstrance from the Conqueror, Dunbar, 
 and the adjacent lands in Lothian, to Cospatric, after he had 
 rebelled against the Norman king. It indicates that William's 
 policy was to secure peace on the border rather than overlord- 
 ship in Lothian.^ 
 
 The unexpected death of Malcolm's son and successor, 
 
 Edward, threw the kingdom into great confusion, and made 
 
 English interference possible. The conditions were 
 
 Disorder fol- similar in many respects to those which prevailed 
 
 lows Mai- .^^ England after the death of Henry L How 
 
 colm's Oeath 
 
 strong was the opposition to the English became 
 
 apparent in the broils and tumults which followed Malcolm's 
 
 death. The Chronicle reads : 
 
 The Scots then chose Donald, Malcolm's brother, for king, and 
 
 'Early Kings, I, pp. 144-5 ; II, p. 402, notes. 
 
 * On Malcolm's character cf. Early Kings, in loco, and Celtic Scot., I, p. 432. 
 
NORMAN I NFL UENCE IN SCO TLAND 4 5 
 
 drove out all the English who were before with King Malcolm. When 
 Duncan, King Malcolm's son, who was in King William's court, — his 
 father having before given him as a hostage to our king's father, and 
 he had so remained afterwards, — heard all that had thus taken place, 
 he came to the king, and performed such fealty as the king would have 
 of him, and so, with his permission went to Scotland, with the support 
 that he could get of English and French, and deprived his kinsman 
 Donald of the kingdom, and was received for king.' But some of the 
 Scots afterwards gathered together, and slew almost all his followers, 
 and he himself with a few escaped. Afterwards they were reconciled, 
 on the condition that he never again should harbor in the land either 
 English or French. 
 
 This illustrates anew the steady opposition of the native 
 Scots to English intervention in their affairs. The following 
 year Duncan was killed and Donald restored. He reigned for 
 three years, and was then driven out by Edgar Atheling, who came 
 with an English army to establish his namesake, the son of the 
 English Margaret and Malcolm, as king of the Scots. ^ It can- 
 not be doubted that Edgar, like Duncan, sustained some feudal 
 relation to the king of England, but what it was can only be 
 learned incidentally from the later history. As it is not referred 
 to as a special precedent, or basis of comparison, as in the case 
 of Malcolm IV, it could hardly have been moie than an indefi- 
 nite and temporary relation, fitting in naturally with the troubled 
 condition of the times and the kinship which existed between 
 the royal families. 
 
 Before passing to the reign of Henry I, two points require 
 notice. 
 
 I. The meeting place of Malcolm and William Rufus. If it 
 
 was in Lothian, what is meant by this designation ? In general 
 
 Lothian is regarded as part or all of the region 
 
 lying between the Forth and the Tweed. But what 
 of 1091 . . 
 
 was its relation to Bernicia, Saxonia, Northumbria ? 
 
 The Roman restrained the incursions of the Picts by a wall from 
 
 Tynemouth to Solway, and it seems that the Scots at times laid 
 
 'The Scots were evidently taken by surprise. (A.-S. Chron., An. 1093-4.) 
 'A.-S. Chron., 1094. 
 
46 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 claim to the district north of this line as theirs by right of 
 inheritance. Northumbria had a varying boundary, and the 
 region from Tyne to Forth seems to have been included, now 
 under the name Bernicia, again under Saxonia, and sometimes 
 under the varying names of Lothian. "The Border" was an 
 exceedingly unstable quantity. But in the feudal period Lothian 
 seems to have been always shut off from the Tweed by the Scot- 
 ish March. The similarity, in the Latin, of Lothian and Leeds 
 has increased the confusion. Beda twice refers to Loidis, and it 
 seems pretty clear that to his mind "regio Loidis" meant the 
 district of Leeds.' 
 
 The A.-S. Chronicle reads, "when King Malcolm heard that 
 they [William and Robert] would seek him with a force, he went 
 with his force ut of Scotlattde into Lothetie on Englaland and there 
 awaited" (1091). This Mr. Thorpe translates "the district of 
 Leeds," in accordance with Florence of Worcester, who wrote 
 "provincia Loidis." It should be remembered that Florence 
 followed a copy of the Chronicle which has not been preserved. 
 Simeon of Durham and later writers agree with Florence in using 
 "provincia Loidis," though in 1018 Simeon designates Z^//m<7w 
 as " Lodoneium." Walter of Hemingburgh writes " provincia 
 Lowdicensis juxta confinia ad resistendum praeparatus.' 
 
 Was the meeting of Malcolm and William, then, in the 
 district of Leeds, or north of the Tweed in what was definitely 
 known as Lothian, or at some place between the Tyne and Tweed, 
 in the region anciently claimed by the Picts and Scots? Mr. Bur- 
 ton maintains the first view, and is supported by Mr. Thorpe's 
 translation of the Chronicle.3 Mr. Skene and English writers 
 oppose this view in favor of the second."* Pinkerton is a strong 
 advocate of the third view, making the place of meeting in the 
 modern county of Northumberland. ^ 
 
 There is at least one objection to a meeting in the district of 
 
 » Beda, Bk. II, Cap. 14 ; Bk. Ill, Cap. 24 ; Celtic Scot, I, p. 254. 
 ^Chronicon, I, p. 23. ■» Celtic Scot., I, p. 429, note. 
 
 3 Hist. Scot., I, pp. 378, 444, notes, 
 s An Enquiry, etc., II, p. 209. Cf. Hailes' Annals, I, p. 24. 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 47 
 
 Leeds. It may be inferred from Simeon's narrative that William 
 advanced as far north as Durham, and restored the bishop to his 
 see, before the loss of his forces prevented his entrance into 
 Scotland. Hence a meeting with Malcolm in the district of 
 Leeds could only be brought about by a retreat on William's 
 part to the south. There is no positive evidence to prove such 
 a retreat, but there is nothing against it. William was in a 
 region which had always been a menace to English kings. Here, 
 "the authority of the king and the unity of the monarchy were 
 most likely to be threatened." Malcolm had completed the 
 Conqueror's work of desolation in the land, so that its own inhab- 
 itants had to flee to escape starvation. William had reached 
 Durham, but in the unseasonable period which he chose the 
 expedition had met with serious disaster, by sea and land. He 
 might well hesitate about entering a hostile country with a starv- 
 ing army and no supplies, to meet a formidable enemy who had 
 his kingdom at his back. Is it unreasonable to suppose, there- 
 fore, that after the disaster to his fleet and army William fell 
 back on the province of Leeds, whither Malcolm, anxious for a 
 renewal of the grant of the Conqueror, came and awaited either 
 an attack or negotiations for peace ? Mr. Haddan, in discussing 
 the church of Cumbria, marks the northern boundary of the 
 district of Leeds, and it appears that if William had retreated 
 south and west only across the Tees, Florence and Simeon might 
 naturally, and with propriety, have spoken of him as being "in 
 provincia Loidis." It is noticeable, also, that on the return 
 journey Florence does not speak of William as goingy^ow Lothian 
 through Northumbria, as might have been expected, had he been 
 north of the Tweed, but from Northumbria through Mercian As 
 evidence that this meeting occurred north of Durham (and 
 therefore in Lothian !), Mr. Freeman cites a " Carta Willielmi 
 Dunelmensis Episcopi de ecclesiis Alverton Siggestune at Brun- 
 ton," which is witnessed, among others, by the king and his 
 brothers Robert and Henry, as also by Duncan (son of Malcolm III 
 
 'Norman Conq., IV, p. 349; Haddan and Stubbs, Counc, II, Pt. I, pp. lo-ii; 
 Fl. Wig., II, p. 29. 
 
48 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 by Ingebiorg) and Edgar Atheling. As Edgar had been expelled 
 from his lands in Normandy and had fled to Scotland, he could 
 not have signed such a charter till after the reconciliation between 
 Malcolm and William, which included the renewal of friendly 
 relations between William and himself. And as both Robert and 
 Edgar Atheling withdrew from the English court just before 
 Christmas of 1091, the charter could not have been signed after 
 that time. Mr. Freeman infers, therefore, that it must have been 
 witnessed sometime between the last of September and the Christ- 
 mas gemot — probably at Durham, on the southward march from 
 Scotland. Hence William must have advanced into Lothian ! 
 The argument is ingenious, but it rests on a very unsubstantial 
 basis. The charter itself is of a very dubious character. It is 
 found in bad company. The charters which precede and follow 
 it are clearly fraudulent. And even this one, as Mr. Freeman 
 admits, has some startling elements which make its authenticity 
 doubtful. It has been considered that Henry was not in Eng- 
 land at this time. Malmesbury is the sole authority for the con- 
 trary view, and is opposed by Orderic, whom both Freeman and 
 Palgrave so frequently rely on to prop up their theories of an 
 English Imperium and its Scottish dependency. Furthermore, 
 granting the genuineness of the charter, there is not the slightest 
 ground for saying that it was witnessed at Durham, on the south- 
 ward march from Lothian. Rather, there is much against such 
 a view. There were nearly three months after the treaty with 
 Malcolm was completed, and before the departure of Edgar 
 and Robert from the English Court, in which the Durham charter 
 might have been witnessed. Among the names appended are 
 those of the archbishop of York, the bishops of Lincoln, Bath, 
 and Salisbury, the abbots of St. Augustine, St. Edmunds, and 
 St. Mary, Robert the Chancellor, and " Ranulphi thessarii,' 
 besides presbyters, earls, and others. It is almost inconceivable 
 that Simeon, the Durham chronicler, should have specially, and 
 i-n detail, noted the visit of William to Durham, and the restora- 
 tion of the bishop to his see, only to pass over in absolute silence 
 such a gathering of prominent clerics and laics, and so important 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 49 
 
 an event as the confirmation by the Red King of a charter to 
 Durham. The prevalence of forged charters at Durham, and the 
 "singular and startling" character of this one, forbid its use as 
 evidence that William Rufus advanced beyond the Scottish bor- 
 der in the expedition of 1091.' 
 
 A meeting place in the border country, south of the Tweed, 
 has more in its favor. There is no doubt that Malcolm went 
 out of Scotland into England to meet William. Now, if Lothian 
 was a part of Scotland at this time, the meeting could not have 
 occurred there. If, on the other hand, it was English, as Freeman 
 and Palgrave claim, the statement of the chronicler that Malcolm 
 went out of Scotland "into Lothene on Englaland" is quite 
 without point. He would never think of saying the king went 
 from Gloucester to Hereford in England, unless there were a 
 Hereford in Wales, which he wished to distinguish. That is to 
 say, a Lothian in England implies clearly a Lothian in Scotland, 
 which could be nothing else than part or all of the region 
 between the Forth and Tweed. And if plain Lothian did not 
 mean the region north of the Tweed, surely "Lothene on Eng- 
 laland" would not make such a meaning any more clear. Indulf 
 had made the first step toward its acquirement by seizing Edin- 
 burgh stronghold (952). After the battle of Carham Eadulf 
 Cudel ceded the whole district, which may have extended south 
 of the Tweed, to the king of the Scots. Thereafter it remained 
 in his hands. The Scots, through the Picts, had a claim to all 
 the northern portion of Bernicia, from the Tyne to the Forth. 
 The unsettled condition of the border, which continued till a 
 much later period, favored the extension of Scottish dominion 
 over this district, because of its contiguity to the seat of Scottish 
 power. The author of the article on Lothian in the Bntannica 
 says: "There is no trace of any special homage for Lothian 
 except in two dubious charters by Edgar to William Rufus, so 
 that it seems certain that from the beginning of the i ith Century 
 it was an integral part of Scotland. Freeman, in his Historical 
 
 ' Freeman, Wm. Rufus, I, pp. 296-307 ; II, note P ; Hist. Dun. Script. Tres. 
 (Raine), Ap. XXII. 
 
50 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 Geography, styles it an English earldom, but it is never so called 
 in any authentic record." 
 
 The conclusion seems inevitable. The meeting must have 
 been in the district of Leeds, or in the border marches south 
 of the Tweed. The latter location is confirmed by another 
 citation from the Chronicle, which, in 1125, mentions the 
 fact that J., bishop of Lothene, went to Rome. Mr. Haddan 
 shows that this refers to John, bishop of Glasgow, who was con- 
 secrated by Paschal II about 1117, and died in 1147. His see 
 varied in its bounds, and in the jurisdiction to which it was 
 subject. Scottish kings ruled over Cumberland and Westmore- 
 land, as well as Scottish Cumbria, from 1070 to 1091, but Glas- 
 gow bishops, from 1053 to 11 14, were probably consecrated at 
 York. Conflicting claims arose as to jurisdiction. Durham 
 claimed Teviotdale, while York claimed Glasgow. About iioo 
 English Cumbria and Teviotdale were taken from Durham, the 
 former being assigned to York, the latter to Glasgow. "Glas- 
 gow is found in possession of Teviotdale, and indeed of all 
 Roxburghshire south of the Tweed, at the revival of that See 
 by David, A. D. 1107-1124, thus bringing down Durham to 
 nearly its later northern boundary. And Glasgow, of course, 
 also claimed Cumbria."^ The see of Glasgow, therefore, or the 
 bishopric of Lothene, had as its southern boundary pretty much 
 the present line of demarcation between Scotland and England, 
 but did not embrace the region known as the Scottish March and 
 Lothian proper. When Lothian was ceded to Malcolm II in 
 1018, its ecclesiastical jurisdiction was transferred from Durham 
 to the Scottish bishop. But it "did not at any time include 
 Teviotdale, which remained subject to Durham until about A. D. 
 IIOO, and was then seized by Glasgow." Hence Teviotdale at 
 this time, though politically allied with, if not subject to Scot- 
 land, was ecclesiastically under the see of Durham or Glasgow, 
 and might have been regarded by the monastic chronicler, 
 together with the whole of Roxburghshire south of the Tweed, 
 as the English portion of the bishopric of Lothene, or Glas- 
 
 ' H. and S., Counc, Vol. II, Pt. I, pp. 10-13, 16, 23. 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 5 1 
 
 gow.' This region would afford an advantageous position in which 
 Malcolm could await William Rufus, and is the very situation 
 chosen nearly a century later by William the Lion in his deal- 
 ings with John. A study of the sources from this standpoint 
 strengthens the conviction that the meeting was not in the region 
 generally known as Lothian. 
 
 2. The influences set in motion b}^ Queen Margaret, making 
 the connection between the Scottish and English churches 
 
 closer, were continued by her sons. Though they 
 Queen Margaret <j j 
 
 and the Church operated mainly in the realm of the church, they 
 
 reached out into the political and territorial rela- 
 tions of the two kingdoms. Christianity gained access to south 
 Britain at a very early date, through Roman channels, and to 
 the north in the fifth and sixth centuries, chiefly through Irish 
 missionaries. Augustine was commissioned to go to Britain 
 A. D. 597, and was consecrated after his arrival by the arch- 
 bishop of Aries, with the pope's consent. He was to consecrate, 
 per singula loca, twelve bishops subject to himself, and after his 
 death to a metropolitan at London. He was also to consecrate 
 a bishop of York, who in turn, having received h\s pallium from 
 the pope, should consecrate twelve others subordinate to himself. 
 After the death of Augustine the two sees were to be equal in 
 principle, precedence being given to the occupant of the see of 
 first origin. Difficulties arose which prevented the realization 
 of this scheme, chief among which was the independent spirit 
 of the Scots in regard to their church relations. Their ecclesi- 
 astical capital was Dunkeld, under Kenneth MacAlpin, but about 
 907 A. D. the seat of the head bishop was removed to St. 
 Andrews. His position was that of a diocesan bishop, of whom 
 there were few in Scotland till the twelfth century.^ Conflict 
 between York and Canterbury as to jurisdiction arose very 
 soon. Councils were held in 1072 at Winchester and Windsor, 
 in which the Humber was recognized as the boundary between 
 
 •Haddan and Stubbs, Counc, Vol. II, Pt. I, p. 142, note. For map, see Celtic 
 Scot. Cf. Pinkerton, An Enquiry, etc., Vol. II, p. 209. 
 *Makower, Const. Hist., Ch. Eng., p. 105. 
 
52 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 the two sees. Scotland was without doubt intended to form 
 part of the northern diocese, as Wales did of the southern. But 
 "political causes kept the Northumbrian primate from exercising 
 
 any effective authority north of the Tweed and Solway 
 
 Scotland was never subdued to any practical purpose, and the 
 result was that the archbishops of York were left with a vast 
 region under their diocesan care, and with the single suffragan 
 see of Durham under their metropolitan jurisdiction." The 
 popes at first ratified the Scottish subjection to York, but the 
 Scot kings, mainly on national grounds, refused their assent to 
 any such transference of rights, while the Scottish clergy made 
 a lasting resistance to the pretensions of York. In 1188 A. D., 
 under William the Lion, their claims were conceded, and 
 Clement III declared the Scottish bishops immediately subject 
 to the papal see. In 1472 A. D. "Scotland received the normal 
 church constitution, St. Andrews being raised to an arch- 
 bishopric." Glasgow became a metropolitan see in 1492 A. D.^ 
 Queen Margaret was the first to enter into close relations 
 with the English church. She offered submission to Lanfranc as 
 her spiritual father, to which he replied, " De tunc igitur sim 
 pater tuus, et tu mea filia esto." But while her sons were ready 
 to follow her example, they were unwilling to lose their inde- 
 pendence thereby. Alexander I, "the Fierce," united the qual- 
 ities of his father and mother. On his accession Turgot, prior 
 of Durham and father confessor of Queen Margaret, was elected 
 to the see of St. Andrews as one likely to carry out her plans, 
 and was consecrated in 11 09 A. D. He tried, but failed, to bend 
 Alexander to his will, and on his death a successor was sought 
 from Canterbury, in the hope of escaping the pretensions of 
 York through the rivalry of the two sees.^ Eadmer was sent, 
 who sought, but failed, to subordinate St. Andrews to Canter- 
 bury. As Alexander would not let Turgot go to Rome, so 
 
 'Norman Conq., IV, pp. 349, 357, note; Makower, Const. Hist., p. 108. 
 
 ^H. and S., Counc, II, Pt. I, pp. 155, 170. Canterbury claimed jurisdiction over 
 Britain through the bull of Gregory I to Augustine. York claimed jurisdiction over 
 Scotland " on account of the signature of Wilfrith at the council of Rome, and the short 
 episcopate of Trumwin over the Scots." (Early Kings, I, p. 17S.) 
 
NORMAN I NFL UENCE IN SCO TLAND 5 3 
 
 Eadmer should not go to Canterbury as bishop of St. Andrews. 
 He finally resigned, but after eighteen months wished to be 
 reinstated (1122). Rewrote to Alexander : 
 
 I entreat you not to believe that I wish to derogate in anyway from 
 the liberty or dignity of the Scottish kingdom ; since if you still per- 
 sist in retaining your opinion about your former demands in respect of 
 the King of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the sacer- 
 dotal Benediction (an opinion with which I would not then concur, 
 from entertaining ideas which, I have since learnt, were erroneous), 
 you shall find that I will no longer differ from your views, nor will I 
 let these questions separate me from God's service, and from your love 
 that in all things I may follow out your will. 
 
 Alexander refused to restore him, however, and appointed 
 Robert, Prior of Scone, to the see (1123). In the diocese of 
 Glasgow Earl David (Earl, 1107-24) appointed his tutor John 
 as bishop. He soon fled from his unruly flock, but returned 
 later consecrated by Paschal H. Thorstein, archbishop of 
 York, having triumphed over Canterbury for the time, summoned 
 John, and suspended him when he refused to acknowledge the 
 dependence of Glasgow on York. John's appeal to Rome was 
 not settled till 1174, when Alexander HI made Glasgow "spe- 
 cialem filiam nostram nullo mediante." ' 
 
 These conflicting claims gave rise to a great many complica- 
 tions. Political and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over certain dis- 
 tricts often rested in different persons. These relations were 
 constantly changing, and there was every opportunity for 
 asserting claims, which were without foundation, to temporal as 
 well as ecclesiastical supremacy. The chroniclers were monks, 
 who were likely to be more familiar with ecclesiastical than with 
 temporal jurisdiction, and to infer that the former carried the 
 latter with it. Such changes doubtless did arise in course of 
 time. It is necessary to remember the spirit and ultimate out- 
 come of the entire struggle in order to keep one's bearings, and 
 to form a correct estimate of the relations between the two 
 kingdoms. 
 
 ' Eadmer, Hist. Nov., Bk. 6 ; Early Kings, I, pp. 174, 181-2, note. 
 
Edgar, 
 1097-1107 
 
 54 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 During Edgar's reign over Scotland another strand was 
 
 added to the bonds that were knitting the kingdoms together. 
 
 Editha, the daughter of Malcolm and Margaret, 
 
 ' . became the wife of Henry I of England. With 
 1107 A.D. . . ■' ° . 
 
 this exception, and the defeat of an invasion on the 
 
 north, the reign of Edgar was uneventful and colorless. He 
 
 died in II07 A. D., bequeathing to his brother Alexander the 
 
 main part of the kingdom, but leaving Scottish Cumbria to 
 
 David, who was his favorite brother. The expression in the 
 
 chronicle, "Alexander his brother succeeded to the 
 
 ' . kingdom, as Kin? Henry ^ranted him," is a reminder 
 1107-1124 A.D. &•&./& 
 
 of the family, rather than of the feudal, relation 
 which existed between the two crowns, and seems to imply 
 Alexander's desire for the moral support which his brother-in- 
 law's confirmation would give, rather than Henry's desire to 
 assert a feudal claim to overlordship. The risings, which Alex- 
 ander had to put down with a stern hand, certainly give color to 
 this view.' Florence of Worcester and Simeon of Durham both 
 note Alexander's accession, but are absolutely silent regarding 
 any concession of rights by Henry I, or of homage by Alex- 
 ander. The later relations between Henry and the brothers of 
 his queen clearly show that he made no effort to limit their 
 independence, or to obtain homage except for fiefs which were 
 granted them in England. Alexander married Sybilla, a natural 
 daughter of King Henry, who seems, however, to have had 
 little to commend her.^ The chief interest of his reign lies in 
 his contest with, and triumph over, the English church, in so 
 far as that contest affected his rights as an independent king.3 
 That he apparently accomplished little else of general interest 
 should not be laid at his door. The kingdom had been disor- 
 ganized since the death of Malcolm HI. The reigns of Duncan, 
 Donald, and Edgar had been little better than an interregnum, 
 so far as the development of a national kingdom was concerned 
 
 'A.-S. Chron., Hen. Hunt., An. 1107; Early Kings, I, pp. 170 ff.; Hailes' Annals, 
 I. p. 56. 
 
 ^ Early Kings, I, p. 183, note. 3 See above. 
 
NORMAN I NFL UENCE IN SCO TLAND 5 5 
 
 The seeds planted by Alexander could not bear their fruit at 
 
 once. On his death in 1124 A. D. without heirs, his brother 
 
 David succeeded him, uniting again the entire 
 
 ' kingdom under one rule.' David was the first to 
 
 sustain the double office of Scottish king and 
 
 English baron. He had visited the English court, and was 
 
 thoroughly acquainted with all its ways.' While still earl, 
 
 he grants a charter, interesting as the first of many documents 
 
 of a similar nature, addressed "to Edward the reeve, and all his 
 
 successors, and all his men of his land and soke in London and 
 
 Totenham."3 
 
 David had married Matilda, daughter of Earl Waltheof 
 
 of Northumberland and widow of Simon de St. Liz. Of the 
 
 vast estates to which she was heiress Northumber- 
 
 aims land had been retained by the crown, since the 
 
 Northumberland r -r. , 1 nV 1 hvt 1 
 
 forfeiture of Robert de Mowbray. Northampton 
 
 had been conferred on St. Liz, as the honor of Huntingdon was 
 
 on David. It would seem, from the Chronicle, that David was 
 
 also earl of Northampton, but he was probably simply guardian 
 
 of the younger St. Liz, who is found in possession 
 
 on the death of David, in 1153.* David is the 
 Huntingdon 
 
 brother of Matilda, queen of England, the husband 
 
 of Waltheofs daughter Matilda, the uncle of Matilda, wife of 
 Stephen of Blois, and of Matilda, daughter of Henry I, the 
 Empress-Queen. It is not strange, therefore, to find the rela- 
 tions between the two kingdoms very friendly, with no mention 
 of feudal rights on either side. The Pipe Roll of Henry I makes 
 frequent mention of the corrody for the entertainment of the 
 king of Scotland in coming to the king's court in England and 
 returning from England to Scotland — in Nottingham and Der- 
 by shires, in Yorkshire, Northumberland, and Durham. s To 
 
 ' Sim. Dun., Hist. Reg., II, p. 275. 'Celtic Scot., I, p. 454. 
 
 3 Bain, Cal. Docts., I, No. 2; W. Malms., Gest. Reg., Bk. V, §400. 
 *A.-S.Chron., An. 11 24. On distinction between honor and earldom, c/. Early 
 Kings, II, p. 411, note; also I, pp. 187-8, note. 
 
 s Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 23, 24. 
 
56 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 Fulco, of Hertfordshire, is pardoned ten marks of silver " for 
 love of the K. of Scotland." The sheriffs of Cambridge, Hunt- 
 ingdon, Northampton, Bedford, and Lincoln (cerchetone wapen- 
 tac) shires render their account "in pardon by the K.'s writ ; to 
 the K, of Scotland " — pounds or shillings. So also with the 
 county of Rutland and the "Four Sheriffs" of London. The 
 sheriffs of London and Middlesex render account of " the city 
 aid;" of "the Dane-geld;" and for "a murder in the hundred 
 and half of Edelmeton (Edmonton ?) ; " all to the king of Scot- 
 land.' During a long and glorious reign, David's grace and 
 force of character, together with his consummate tact, were no 
 less conspicuous than his powerful connections and extensive 
 dominions. 
 
 Henry began his efforts to secure the succession while in 
 Normandy in 1115 A. D., by requiring of the chief men there 
 homage and oaths of fealty to his son William. The following 
 year he did the same in England, calling a great " Conventio 
 optimatum et baronum totius Angliae apud Searesberiam." But 
 the sinking of the White Ship, on her return from Normandy in 
 1 1 20, frustrated all his efforts and left him without a son. He, 
 therefore, sought to secure as his successor his daughter Matilda, 
 whose husband, the Emperor Henry V, had just died. Such 
 succession was an innovation, and David, now king 
 
 of Scotland, seems to have taken an active and 
 with Henry I . . 
 
 influential part in Henry's plans, and in forwarding 
 
 the interests of his niece.' He was in England during the year 
 
 1 126, and met in the following year with all the chief clergy 
 
 and laity of England in the Christmas gemot at Windsor, where 
 
 archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and thanes swore allegiance 
 
 to Matilda. She then passed over to Normandy, where she was 
 
 married to Geoffrey of Anjou (1127). David was the first to 
 
 swear allegiance to Matilda, but it was as an English baron and 
 
 not as king of Scotland. ^ Alexander had not been present at 
 
 •Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 15-20, 22, 25, 28. 
 
 *A.-S. Chron., An. 11 15, 1126; Fl. Wig., Sim. Dun., Hist. Reg., An. 11 16. 
 
 3W. Malmes., Hist. Nov., Bk. I, §§ 452, 460. 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 57 
 
 the earlier " Conventio," as would have been the case had he 
 
 been the liegeman of Henry. Mr. Robertson well says: "The 
 
 absence of the elder brother, who held no lands in England, 
 
 from the earlier council, and the presence of the younger, who 
 
 held the Honor of Huntingdon, at the later, distinctly mark that 
 
 the homage must have been performed for fiefs in England. 
 
 When there were no fiefs held, no homage was required."^ 
 
 Eight years later (1133) Henry died, and Stephen, who had 
 
 contended with Robert of Gloucester for precedence in swearing 
 
 allegiance to Matilda, usurped the crown. At the 
 and Stephen t-n • , ,11, • , 
 
 same time David crossed the border with an army, 
 
 and, seizing strongholds in Cumberland and Northumberland as 
 
 far as Durham (with the exception of Bamborough), received 
 
 hostages and oaths of fealty on behalf of his niece from the 
 
 barons of that region. Stephen soon advanced to the north, and 
 
 David fell back on Newcastle. The kings met soon after. David 
 
 refused to hold anything of Stephen, in violation of his oath to 
 
 Henry I, but permitted his son. Prince Henry, to do homage to 
 
 Stephen at York, and to receive, in addition to the honor of 
 
 Huntingdon, Doncaster and Carlisle, with all which pertained to 
 
 them. The strongholds which had been taken by David ^ were 
 
 given back, with the exception of Carlisle, and it was agreed, 
 
 "^5 some say who zvere prese?tt at this convention," that if Stephen 
 
 granted Northumberland to anyone, the claims of Prince Henry 
 
 to it should take precedence over all others, and receive just 
 
 consideration in the cjiria of the king. From this time the 
 
 kings of Scotland place this claim in the foreground, as part of 
 
 their settled policy. They are careful to perform homage and 
 
 service in due form for their English fiefs, lest by forfeiture they 
 
 should lose their right to this valuable claim. Prince Henry 
 
 accompanied Stephen to the south, but the preference shown 
 
 him there by the king roused the jealousy of Ranulph of 
 
 Chester and others, whose rude conduct caused the indignant 
 
 ' Early Kings, II, p. 403. 
 
 ^A.-S. Chron., An. 1 135-6; J. and R. Hex., An. 1 135-6. Among the castles 
 taken by David were Carlisle, Werk, Alnwick, Norham,- and Newcastle. 
 
5 8 ANGL 0-SCO TCH FE UDAL RE LA TIONS 
 
 David to recall his son. Nor would he allow him to return to 
 the English court, though he was often summoned. 
 
 There are several reasons which explain David's apparent 
 acquiescence in Stephen's usurpation. The English barons, 
 almost without exception, failed to rally around Matilda, and 
 David was not so unwise as to attempt to support her cause 
 alone. Stephen's wife was also David's niece, and he might well 
 be perplexed in trying to reconcile duty with inclination. For 
 the difference in character between the two Matildas seems to 
 have been wholly in favor of Stephen. Malmesbury assigns 
 David's action to his conciliatory character, his advancing years, 
 and a desire for ease and quiet. ^ But this is not consistent with 
 his later conduct. It seems probable, finally, that he was not 
 blind or deaf to self-interest, though he sets a shining and 
 exceptional example of fidelity to his feudal oath — a fidelity 
 which was soon to be put in strong contrast by the faithlessness 
 of Matilda's son, Henry II, to David's grandson, Malcolm IV. 
 
 A detailed account of the northern campaigns and of the 
 battle of the Standard, though very interesting, is not essential 
 to the present discussion.^ The results, however, are of great 
 importance. As the outcome of the first movement Prince 
 Henry does homage for Doncaster and Carlisle, and his claims 
 to Northumberland are promised consideration. In 1137 David 
 again entered Northumberland, while Stephen was in Normandy. 
 At the request of Thurstin, archbishop of York, a truce was 
 agreed to till Stephen should return to England. On his return 
 messengers were sent from the king of Scots, demanding that 
 Northumberland should be given to Prince Henry. This being 
 refused, the truce was broken off, the castle of Werk was 
 besieged, and finally forced to surrender; Northumberland was 
 devastated and the castle of Norham taken. David then 
 advanced into Yorkshire. The barons of this region had as yet 
 remained neutral, waiting to see which party would be vic- 
 
 ' Hist. Nov., Bk. I, § 462. 
 
 ^ See J. and R. Hex., Hen. Hunt., Athel. Abbot of Rievaulx ; cf. also Early 
 Kings, Vol. I. 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 59 
 
 torious. But now that their own safety and wealth were threat- 
 ened, they took up arms. Robert de Bruce and Bernard de 
 Balliol met David and urged him for old friendship's sake, and 
 for the common good, to cease his warfare, offering to Prince 
 Henry at the same time the earldom of Northumberland. But 
 David, perhaps knowing they could not carry out their agree- 
 ment, refused to yield to their entreaties, and they returned to 
 their allies — Robert having first renounced his allegiance to 
 David and the fief he held of him in Galloway, and Bernard the 
 fealty he had recently sworn to him. The battle of the Stand- 
 ard, at North Allerton, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, soon 
 followed. David's defeat was largely due to the unruly char- 
 acter of a part of his host. "The custom of 'Scottish service,' 
 which bound every man to attend 'the hosting' across the 
 frontier, swelled the ranks of the army with a body of men, fierce 
 and warlike indeed, and endued with that self-willed and reck- 
 less courage which has on more than one occasion been their 
 bane, but often indifferently armed, and as undisciplined as they 
 were unruly."' His plans, which were skillfully made from his 
 large experience in English affairs and in the methods of feudal 
 warfare, were rendered useless by the mutinous demand of the 
 wild men of Galloway and others, that they, though unprotected 
 against the mail-clad Norman chivalry and the terrible English 
 arrows, should lead the van in the charge on their hereditary 
 foes. Their repulse and the eventual defeat of the disorganized 
 Scottish forces followed as a matter of course. "^ David, how- 
 ever, soon gathered his scatterea troops and again marched 
 southward. But the advent of Alberic, the papal legate to Eng- 
 land, offered another opportunity for mediation, in which David's 
 niece, the wife of Stephen, joined. In the spring of 1 139, at 
 Durham, Northumberland was granted to Prince Henry in addi- 
 tion to his other fiefs, in the presence of the earls and barons of 
 England, many of whom, in accordance with the treaty, did 
 
 ' Early Kings, I, p. 208. By old custom every freeman must attend the hosting 
 once a year. 
 
 » J. and R. Hex., An. 1 137-8 ; Fl. Wig., II, p. in. 
 
6o ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 homage to him for their lands, saving only their fealty to 
 
 Stephen. Stephen was to retain Bamborough and Newcastle, 
 
 for which an equivalent was to be given Henry in the south. 
 
 The treaty, which had been made between Matilda and Prince 
 
 Henry, was confirmed by Stephen at Nottingham in 1139, and 
 
 their relations were now not only friendly, but intimate."' King 
 
 David, however, remained faithful to the empress- 
 
 ^^ ® queen, and rendered her material assistance after 
 
 Empress ^ , , , t ■ 1 1 , 1 
 
 M fid Stephen s surrender at Lmcoln and her subsequent 
 
 rise to power. But her proud and harsh manner 
 alienated her supporters, and David was forced to flee with her 
 in the rout at Winchester, retiring once more to his own king- 
 dom. 
 
 In 1 1 49 a new combination was formed. The son of 
 Matilda and Geoffrey, soon to be Henry H, came to Carlisle to 
 be knighted there by David in the presence of 
 Prince Henr}^ and Ranulph, earl of Chester. The 
 dispute between the prince and Ranulph over Carlisle and 
 Cumberland was now settled.^ Ranulph did homage to King 
 David and received in lieu of his claims on Carlisle the honor of 
 Lancaster, agreeing also that his son should take a wife from the 
 daughters of Prince Henry. Stephen, suspecting the true nature 
 of this meeting, came to York. It had been agreed that David, 
 Henry of Normandy, and Ranulph should meet at Lancaster, 
 uniting their forces in an attack on Stephen. David, faithful as 
 ever to his oath, advanced on Lancaster with the young Henry 
 But the faithless Ranulph failed to appear, the plan came to 
 nothing, and Henry returned to Normandy .3 Hoveden says : 
 
 Henry, son of the Empress Matilda, now a youth of sixteen years 
 of age, having been brought up at the court of David, king of Scots 
 his mother's uncle, was knighted by the same King David, at the 
 city of Carlisle, having first given his oath that if he should come 
 to be king of England, he would restore to him Newcastle and the 
 
 'J. and R. Hexham, An. 1 138-9. 
 
 ^Ibid, An. 1 140 ; Freeman, Wm. Rufus, II, p. 549. 
 
 3 J. Hexham, Hen. Hunt., An. 1149. 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 6 1 
 
 whole of Northumbria, and would allow him and his heirs to hold for- 
 ever in peace, without challenge of their rights, the whole of the land 
 which lies between the rivers Tweed and Tyne.' 
 
 William of Newburgh says the same in substance. Both 
 these men were English monks. As authorities they take first 
 rank. There seems no reason, therefore, to doubt these state- 
 ments. They both lived in the reign of Henry II. Hoveden 
 was a clerk in his court, and was sent north on a mission to Gal- 
 loway. They had every facility for knowing the facts, and no 
 reason for distorting them. The silence of other English 
 chroniclers on this point is easily explicable. Henry, therefore, 
 acknowledged David's claims in the north of England, and sol- 
 emnly promised to protect them, should he come to the throne. 
 
 David was now at the height of his power. He and his son 
 held a kingdom more closely bound together than ever before. 
 It extended to the Tyne and practically included 
 David's Power. Cumberland, Westmoreland, the honor of Hunting- 
 Death of His , AT .1 L 1 1 J T-> .. TT 
 
 „ don, Northumberland, and Doncaster. He was 
 
 Son ' ' 
 
 overlord in the honor of Lancaster. He made a 
 grant of Furness in Westmoreland, and decided claims "in hon- 
 orem de Sciptun et Crafna" far south of the Tees in York, with- 
 out consulting the wish or prerogative of the English king.^ 
 But the death of his only son, Prince Henry, in 1152, frustrated 
 his plans. Of an attractive face and figure, manly, forceful, and 
 winsome in character, beloved by English as well as Scots, 
 Henry would undoubtedly have carried on his father's work, and 
 have maintained, if he did not increase, the relative power of the 
 northern kingdom. The unity and prosperity of Scotland at this 
 period, as opposed to the impoverished and desolated condition 
 of England, make the latter not impossible. Of Henry St. 
 Bernard said: "A brave and noble soldier, he walked like his 
 father in the paths of justice and of truth. "3 The abbot of Rie- 
 
 ■ Newb. Hist. Ang., Hoveden, An. 1 148-9. Cf. Introds. to above, statements of 
 Hardy and Stubbs. 
 
 *J. of Hexham, An. 1151 ; Early Kings, I, p. 222. 
 3 Quoted in Early Kings, I, p. 225. 
 
6 2 ANGL 0-SCO TCH FE UDAL RE LA TIONS 
 
 vaulx, in more extravagant, but perhaps no less sincere language, 
 exalts the merits of one who was his personal friend. David 
 lost no time in securing the succession to Henry's sons, Malcolm 
 and William. The former was sent through all the parts of 
 Scotland to be acknowledged as the king's successor, while the 
 kinsf himself went with William to Northumberland to secure his 
 acceptance as overlord by the English barons.' Meanwhile 
 Matilda's son Henry arrived in England from Normandy, and 
 Stephen took the opportunity afforded by the death of David's 
 son to grant the honor of Huntingdon to the earl of North- 
 ampton, hoping thus to strengthen his own cause. ^ 
 ' Not long after, David also died. In opposition to 
 
 J jeo A., D. D ' r r 
 
 the sterner measures of his brother Alexander, he 
 made conciliation the keynote of his whole policy. Under his 
 able rule, and through his careful oversight of agriculture and of 
 industry in general, Scotland became the "granary of England" 
 during this troubled period. He encouraged the advent of 
 knights and nobles of foreign birth, using them as a balance 
 between his Gaelic and Norman followers. Mr. Freeman says 
 of David : " He was the creator of the more recent kingdom, the 
 strengthener of its ecclesiastical and feudal elements," And of 
 Northumberland and Cumberland : "The grant of these earldoms 
 to a Scottish king, or to a Scottish king's son, practically 
 amounted to cutting them off from the kingdom of England." 
 This strikes the keynote of the entire history. Scotland was 
 always, at least in spirit, an aggressive, independent kingdom, 
 pushing her borders southward into English territory, where she 
 was not without good claims to inheritance. Had David been 
 followed by a strong ruler, the Tyne and not the Tweed might 
 have continued for years to mark the southern limit to the over- 
 lordship of the Scottish king.3 
 
 Neither Freeman nor Lingard cites authority for saying that 
 
 'J. of Hexham, W. Newb., An. 1152. 
 
 = LyU. Hist., II, p. 243. 
 
 3 William of Newburgh (Bk. I, Cap. XXII) says: "Aquilonalis vero regio, quae in 
 potestatem David regis ScoUorum usque ad flumen Tesiam cesserat, per ejusdem regis 
 industriam in pace agebat." Cf. Early Kings, I, p. 227. 
 
NORMAN INFLUENCE IN SCOTLAND 63 
 
 David claimed Cumberland as having anciently belonged to the 
 heir apparent of the Scottish throne. The only claim made was 
 for Northumberland, and this, says Mr. Robertson, "was waived 
 at the time for the fiefs of Carlisle and Doncaster."' There is 
 absolutely no mention of Cumberland, nor any allusion to any 
 right of inheritance there. The grant of Doncaster might as 
 justly be taken to imply an ancient right in the south of York, 
 as the grant of Carlisle an ancient right in Cumberland. What 
 is known as Cumberland had been ceded to Malcolm II by 
 Edmund in 945 A. D. But it had been withdrawn on the death 
 of Malcolm, and from 1070 to 1092 Malcolm III had held it by 
 right of conquest. Then William Rufus invaded it and fortified 
 Carlisle. Henry I granted this district of Carlisle, as an earl- 
 dom, to Ranulph le Meschines, who gave it up in 1118 for the 
 earldom of Chester. It then remained in the hands of the crown 
 till granted to David. Before the death of Henry I, however, 
 it was divided into the shires of Carlisle and Westmoreland. 
 The modern county of Cumberland does not appear as such in 
 the Pipe Rolls till 11 77. Mr. Freeman says: "Cumbrian geog- 
 raphy is one of the most mysterious of subjects, and it may be 
 discreet to abstain from searching over narrowly into the exact 
 relations between the territory which was now granted to Henry 
 and the territory which had been in the old time granted to 
 Malcolm." The expression "discreet" is a decided concession 
 to the Scottish claims." 
 
 » Freeman, Norman Conq., V, pp. 256, 260-1 ; Lingard, Hist. Eng., II, p. 69 ; 
 Early Kings, I, p. 193, note. The whole subject is placed in a false light by Fordun's 
 effort to put Cumberland on the same basis as Huntingdon in relation to the two 
 crowns — an effort for which there is no historical basis. 
 
 2 Norman Conq., V, p. 261 ; Wm. Rufus, II, p. 545 ; Early Kings, I, p. 194, note. 
 The simple reason, says Mr. Freeman, why Cumberland and Westmoreland do 
 not appear in the Domesday survey, is that they formed no part of England under the 
 Conqueror. They were all border lands, and treated more as hostile territory than as 
 integral parts of England. So much of them as did belong to the kingdom was 
 included under Yorkshire. Even under Wm. Rufus there was no earldom of Cumber- 
 land. It was the district of Carlisle. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE REIGN OF THE FIRST PLANTAGENET. 
 
 The death of Stephen left Malcolm "the Maiden," a boy of 
 
 thirteen, face to face with his powerful neighbor, Henry H. 
 
 „ „ Malcolm's father had without doubt possessed 
 
 Henry II, 1154- ^ 
 
 1189 A. D. Northumberland, and the chronicles are quite 
 
 Malcolm IV, agreed that on Malcolm's accession to the throne 
 1153-1165 A. D. his brother William "the Lion" became earl of 
 Northumberland.' Henry's policy was to reduce or destroy the 
 power of the nobles, which had grown so rapidly during 
 Stephen's reign. He was ambitious, and utterly unscrupulous, 
 if necessary, in order to attain his ends. Forgetful of the oath 
 he had sworn, he waited only long enough to secure himself on 
 the throne and to bring some order out of the chaos that had 
 reigned, before he demanded from the young Malcolm all the 
 northern counties which his father and grandfather 
 The Northern ^^^ j^^j^ q^ ^^^ contracting parties Henry alone 
 
 survived. Matthew of Westminster says that Mal- 
 colm, having invaded England in a hostile manner and rashly 
 occupied what did not belong to him, was repelled by Henry 
 with force, to whom the king of Scotland then surrendered 
 Carlisle, the castle of Bamburgh, Newcastle on the river Tyne, 
 and the whole of the county of Laudon ; while Henry restored 
 to Malcolm the earldom of Huntingdon.^ There is no evidence 
 of such an invasion, however. It would have been most ill- 
 advised — for Malcolm had nothing to gain and everything to 
 lose. That he reluctantly yielded to Henry's demand, and sur- 
 rendered the counties, in the enjoyment of which the king had 
 
 ' Hoveden, An. 1153; J. of Hexham, Nic. Trivet., W. of Newb., An. 1152; Rad. 
 Die, An. 1 173. 
 = An. 1157. 
 
 64 
 
THE REIGN OF THE FIRST PLANTAGENET 65 
 
 solemnly sworn to assure him, is undoubted. At the same time 
 
 he advanced his claims on, and received investiture 
 
 . , for, the honor of Huntine^don, for which he did 
 
 mgdon ' . . 
 
 homage.^ The question now arises whether Z(?//«'^m 
 
 was included in his surrender. The earlier and better author- 
 ities, with one exception, are silent regarding it. Triveti 
 includes " civitatem Carlioli, villamque Novi-castri super 
 Tynam, castrumque Bamburgiae cum territorio adjacente," and 
 says Henry restored to Malcolm the earldom of Huntingdon. 
 William of Newburgh mentions only " Northumbriam, Cum- 
 briam, Westmeriam." Hoveden says Malcolm met the English 
 king at Chester "et homo suus devenit, eo modo quo avus 
 suus fuerat homo veteris regis Henrici, salvis omnibus digni- 
 tatibus suis" (An. w^l^."^ Roger of Wendover, however, adds 
 "totum comitatum Lodonensem," which Matthew of West- 
 minster calls the county of Laudon. They are supported in this 
 statement by Ralph of Diceto. He was born not later than 
 1 1 30, probably in France, where he also studied. But much of 
 his life was spent in England, and the amalgamating forces at 
 work there made him an Englishman. He became high dean 
 of St. Pauls in 1180. His work as a chronicler began late in 
 life. "In the roll of English historians of the twelfth century 
 no name stands higher" than his. 
 
 It was this high authority which Wendover copied in proof 
 of the fact that Lothian was surrendered to Henry. But Diceto, 
 it seems, was not an original authority. He drew his materials 
 from a still earlier writer. "The obligations of our author to 
 Robert de Monte," says Mr. Stubbs, "are unquestionable." 
 
 ' Walt. Heming., W. Newb., An. 1 156-7. Homage always preceded the conferring 
 of fiefs. Where its nature or extent was in dispute, it was often tendered in general 
 terms with a reservation by one or both of the parties — </. the case of Edward III 
 and Philip of France, as also that of Edward I and Alexander HI. A similar policy 
 was followed in the vague statement of boundaries in some of the early treaties of the 
 United States. Napoleon once remarked of the boundaries in the Louisiana cession 
 that if the stipulation " was not somewhat vague already, it would perhaps be politic 
 to make it so." (Winsor, Nar. and Crit. Hist. America, VII, p. 479 ; Early Kings, 
 II, p. 405 ff.; Kitchen, Hist. France, I, p. 405 ; II, pp. 15, 36.) 
 
 ' Early Kings, I, p. 353, note ; II, p. 407, note. 
 
66 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 The abbey of Mont-Saint-Michel was "one of the four great 
 centers to which pilgrims flocked from distant parts of Europe." 
 Its abbot, Robert, died in 1186. Though a foreigner, his work 
 is considered "essential for the due comprehension of the reign 
 of Henry the Second." He visited England a number of times 
 in the interests of abbey lands there. At Mont-Saint-Michel he 
 met the leading men of the time, and acquired a wide range of 
 information. His chronicle forms the basis for Ralph of Diceto 
 to 1 171, possibly as late as the year 1183.' Thus from the 
 scriptorium, or writing room, of Saint- Michel came the sources 
 of Diceto, who, in turn with Robert de Monte, supplied the 
 materials for the scriptorium of St. Albans. A clue is thus 
 afforded as to the origin of the story about the cession of 
 Lothian — a cession of which the best authorities are ignorant, 
 and which is incompatible with the later history. In 1153, the 
 date of King David's death, Robert says Malcolm succeeded to 
 the kingdom of Scotland, while his brother received "comitatum 
 Lodonensem." The English chronicles are equally definite in 
 saying that William was established as earl of Northumberland. 
 Again, in 1 157, Robert says Malcolm surrendered "comitatum 
 Lodonensem" and other lands to Henry, and the best English 
 sources are again agreed that he surrendered the three counties of 
 Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland. Robert docs 
 not mention Northumberland. Yet it certainly was transferred 
 at this time. It seems clear, therefore, that the "comitatum 
 Lodonensem" in which William was established as earl by his 
 father David, in 11 53, is the same as the "comitatum Lodon- 
 ensem" surrendered to Henry II four years later, and was 
 nothing else than the county of Northumberland. The entire 
 course of the history forbids the supposition that both Lothian 
 and Northumberland were included, at this period, under the 
 common name of either district alone. Diceto copied Robert 
 de Monte as he found him.^ In the thirteenth century these 
 
 ' Robt. De Torig. and Rad. de Diceto, Introds., Hewlett and Stubbs. Cf. Early 
 Kings, II, p. 427, on Diceto. The passage relating to the cession of Lothian is 
 regarded as an interpolation. 
 
 " The grossest errors were thus originated or perpetuated. Fl. Wig. (An. 974) says 
 
THE REIGN OF THE FIRST PLANTAGENET 67 
 
 chronicles were embodied in the work of the monks of St. 
 Albans, who now eagerly seized on anything which placed Scot- 
 land in a dependent relation to England. "Comitatum Lodon- 
 ensem" could mean nothing else to their minds than Lothian. 
 The legendary account of its cession in 975 was embellished 
 with the feudal details of a later age, and, linked with this 
 fabrication recession by Malcolm IV, was handed down for 
 Edward I to use in establishing his legal and historical claim to 
 overlordship in the kingdom of Scotland !' It is significant that 
 no writer has yet explained, or attempted to explain, how 
 Lothian, if it was given up to Henry by Malcolm IV, reappears 
 in possession of the Scottish crown. With the growth of the 
 Exchequer and other court records, such matters were carefully 
 noted. Yet there is nothing to indicate that Lothian was either 
 granted or held as a fief of the English crown. Everything 
 points to the conclusion that it was not given up by Malcolm, 
 and that it formed a part of the independent kingdom of Scot- 
 land. 
 
 The Pipe Rolls of Henry II first mention Malcolm IV in 
 1 1 57. Lincolnshire renders account "for the corrody of the K. 
 of Scotland, 72I. 19s. lod." In the same shire the sheriff 
 
 Eadgar had a fleet of 3,600 ships, 1,200 each on the east, north, and west coasts of 
 Britain. Matt. Paris, copying Fl. Wig., adds a fleet of 1,200 on the south, but retains 
 the total of 3,600 ! On the scriptorium see Hardy, Cat. Brit. Hist., Vol. HI, pp. x, xxxv ff. 
 ' He appealed to Diceto in 1292, and ralued his work so highly that he caused 
 "the insertion on its blank pages of the official documents touching the submission of 
 the competitors for the Scottish crown to his sovereign arbitration." (Stubbs, Introd. 
 Rad. de Die, II, p. Iviii.) The St. Albans chroniclers brand the cession of 975 as false 
 by the very language they employ and the usages they describe. For feudalism was 
 not full-blown in England in the middle of the tenth century, either in its institutions 
 or language. Yet they ascribe to the reign of Edgar the characteristic feudal features 
 of their own times. Mr. Robertson says, " The addition of Wendover with the nian- 
 siones, held to the days of the second Henry, was purposely framed to correspond 
 with the supposed cession of Lothian, which the same chronicler has added to the 
 fiefs surrendered by Malcolm IV to the English king in 1157; a cession which has 
 not only been overlooked by every contemporary authority, but was also totally ignored 
 by the English kings themselves, who showed an unaccountable negligence in exer- 
 cising the right, which they would unquestionably have acquired by such an act, of 
 summoning the baronage of the Lothians to perform the military service due to their 
 English overlord." (Rog. Wend., An. 975 ; Early Kings, II, p. 392.) 
 
68 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 accounts for murders ; "in the land of the K. of Scotland 2s. 
 4d." Yorkshire has a corrody of 123I. os. gd. for sixteen 
 days, and renders account of the Danegeld "in the land of the 
 K. of Scotland, 17I. 8s." In Nottingham and Derby shires, 
 "in discharge of the K.'s corrody at Pech (the Peak of Derby- 
 shire) by Nigel de Broc, lol. i6d. And at Nottingham and 
 Pech, 37I. I2s. 3d. by the king's writ. And paid for wine at 
 Pech, 72s., by the K.'s writ."' Perhaps it was here, in the 
 midst of hunting and other festivities, that Henry persuaded 
 Malcolm to yield to his demands. 
 
 This same year (11 57) finds Malcolm in possession in 
 Northamptonshire. The next year the sheriffs of Middlesex 
 render their accounts; "to the K. of Scotland 3s. 4d. ; " in 
 Northamptonshire, " 4I. 7s. gd. on his domains;" in Rutland, 
 9s. 6d.^ In Yorkshire, "William de Sumerville owes 20 marks 
 of silver; but he remains in the land of the K. of Scotland in 
 Lothian" (sed manet in terra regis Scotiae in Loeneis). Mr. 
 Burton thinks this refers to Leeds in Yorkshire. The fact that 
 Doncaster and the honor of Skipton had been controlled by 
 King David of Scotland might give color to such a view. But 
 the records do not at all sustain it. William owed for lands in 
 Yorkshire. By going into Lothian he entered Scotch territory, 
 and was no longer amenable to English jurisdiction, as he cer- 
 tainly would have been in Leeds and in Lothian, had Lothian 
 been ceded with the northern counties, or been held as an Eng- 
 lish fief. This is one of the points covered by the treaty of 
 Falaise — the mutual surrender, by either king, of fugitives from 
 justice. The same record is repeated exactly in 1159-60. Nor 
 is there any indication that William ever paid the 20 marks. 
 Clearer proof could not be desired that Lothian was not at this 
 time, as Mr. Freeman and others style it, an " English Earl- 
 dom." Again, in 1 163-4, accounts for Norfolk and Suffolk 
 state that " Richard the moneyer owes lol., but has fled to Scot- 
 land." And in 1165, in Buckingham and Bedford shires, 
 "Thomas the moneyer owes 2 marks, but he has fled into Scot- 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 42-6. ''Ibid., Nos. 48-9, 52-4. 
 
THE REIGN OF THE FIRST PLANTAGENET 69 
 
 land." In 1167 "Thomas the moneyer owes 2 marks. He has 
 
 fled into Scotland and is dead.'" 
 
 In 1 1 58, the year following the meeting at Chester, Malcolm 
 
 met Henry at Carlisle, expecting to be knighted, but for some 
 
 reason the ceremony was postponed. The trouble 
 
 The Meeting probably was over the distinction between liege and 
 at Carlisle 
 
 ' simple homage. The latter seems to have been the 
 
 usual form by which the kings of the north held 
 their English fiefs. The former was based on military service, 
 and Henry may now have required it of Malcolm. The young 
 king yielded, and accompanied Henry to the siege of Toulouse 
 — a siege " which was rendered abortive through the royal scru- 
 ples about attacking a town which contained the person of his 
 own feudal superior, the King of France."'' 
 
 Returning from Toulouse, Malcolm was knighted at Tours, 
 and went thence to his own kingdom. While he was at Perth, 
 a riot broke out, expressive of the native Scots' disapproval of 
 Malcolm's policy in going to Toulouse. The king broke up the 
 siege of the conspirators and led an army into Galloway, where 
 the disaffection was greatest. This district enjoyed a semi-inde- 
 pendence. It was related politically to Scotland, ecclesiastically 
 to England. It was now thoroughly subdued, and "brought 
 into direct feudal subjection to the Scottish crown." 3 
 
 It is about this time (1159) that the Pipe Rolls first make 
 
 mention of Malcolm's brother, William the Lion, He had 
 
 inherited Northumberland from his father, but it 
 
 William ^^^ y_^^^^ surrendered by Malcolm to King Henry. 
 
 Now, William de Vesci renders his account for 
 
 ' Burton, Hist. Scot., I, p, 444, note ; Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 54, 66, 68, 93, 
 99-iGO, 109. Cf. No, 333; Madox, Hist, of Excheq,, I, p. 3. "Loeneis" was 
 'terra regis Scotiae " — part of the " kingdotn of Scotland" just as "terra regis 
 Angliae " was the kingdom of England, 
 
 'Hoveden, An. 1158; Triveti, An, 1159; Hailes' Annals, I, p. 117, note; Early- 
 Kings, I, p. 354, note. Edward III held the duchy of Guyenne by liege service. 
 With the Scot kings, " The obligation of service was subsequently evaded by subin- 
 feoffing the fief, which imposed this duty on the Vavassor, or tenant of the Holder-in- 
 chief," 
 
 3Hoveden, An. 1159-60, Introd., p. xvi ; Early Kings, I, p. 357- 
 
70 At^GLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 Northumberland, " In pardons by the K.'s writ ; in Tindale, lol., 
 which the brother (William) of the K. of Scotland has." This 
 was conferred on William, says Mr. Bain, "possibly as a surro- 
 gate for the surrender of his elder brother's claims ; and which, 
 as a Liberty, was held by simple homage uninterruptedly by the 
 Scottish kings, till confiscated by Edward I on the deposition 
 of John de Balliol ; shown by its annual recurrence in the Pipe 
 Rolls, with one exception, when it would seem to have been 
 temporarily seized by Henry II after William the Lion's rebel- 
 lion and capture." ' 
 
 Some years later Malcolm again set out for England, but was 
 overtaken, while e7i ro2ite, with a serious illness. After his con- 
 valescence at Doncaster, Hoveden says "pax firma facta est 
 inter ilium et regem Angliae." The St. Albans chroniclers state 
 that he was present at Woodstock about this time to do hom- 
 age to the younger Henry, as David had done to Matilda (An. 
 1 163), but the best authorities are silent on this point. As it 
 was simply a repetition of homage, with a reservation of fealty 
 to the reigning king, it could have had no special significance." 
 Malcolm died in December, 1165 A. D., at the early age of 
 twenty-four, apparently in possession of fiefs in the shires of 
 Cambridge, Huntingdon, Northampton, Buckingham, and Bed- 
 ford. ^ The appellation of " Maiden " may have arisen on account 
 of a delicacy of constitution inherited from Queen Margaret, 
 but he seems never to have shown aught but a brave and sturdy 
 spirit, entirely in keeping with that of his race. 
 
 His brother William the Lion (i 165-121 5) at once succeeded 
 him in the kingdom of Scotland. The next year he either 
 accompanied or followed Henry to Normandy. No 
 IS ccession j^-jgj^i-iQj^ jg made of homage, but there seems to be 
 no doubt that William did homage for his English holdings, 
 hoping perhaps by his promptness in service to gain some enlarge- 
 ment of them in the north. There is no authority for the infer- 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 64, 133; Introd., p. xvii. 
 
 ^Palgrave, Eng. Com., II, p. cccxxxv, and Early Kings, I, p. 358, note. 
 
 3 Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 70, 71, 85, 86, 91, 93, 95. 
 
THE REIGN OF THE FIRST PLANTAGENET 7 1 
 
 ence of some that William must resort to the English court to 
 do homage for the kingdom of Scotland. He had already 
 entered into possession of it. But he must do homage for the 
 English fiefs his brother Malcolm had held, before he could 
 receive seizin of them. Moreover, Cospatric, earl of Northum- 
 berland, died at this very juncture, and it is quite in accord with 
 William's later efforts to conclude that his attendance on Henry 
 was, in truth, in the hopes of recovering this coveted district. 
 It is also worth remembering, as Mr. Eyton points out, that the 
 duchess of Bretagne was William's sister, and that her infant 
 daughter Constance was the object of Henry's most considerate 
 speculations. It is evident that William possessed Huntingdon 
 and subinfeoffed it to his brother David, who is called " Hun- 
 teduniensem comitem." The castle of Huntingdon was surren- 
 dered after William's capture in 1 1 74. But in 1 185, in a council 
 at London, Henry " reddidet Willelmo regi Scotiae comitatum 
 de Huntedona," though many others were offering large sums 
 for its possession. Hoveden also says that on the death of 
 Simon, earl of Huntingdon, the king restored (reddidet) that 
 county to William, who straightway gave (dedit) it to his brother 
 David. "What was giveti back must have been take?i away, and 
 William must have been in possession of the fief before his 
 capture." ' 
 
 In 1 167 William de Vesci renders account from Northum- 
 berland. "In lands granted to the brother^ of the K. of Scot- 
 land, lol. in Tindale Kiohher, the 'man' of the K. of 
 
 Scotland, owes i mark for failure in coming before the justices. 
 Turchil Cadiol owes 2 marks for same plea. Adam de Nun- 
 newic owes 40s. for same plea." Had Lothian been an English 
 earldom, the sub-tenants might have been summoned before the 
 justices and fined, as they were in Northumberland. The record 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I. No. 107; Itinerary of Hen. II, p. 92; Wm. Newb., Lib. 
 II, Cap. 31, 37 ; Ben. Pet., Rog. Hov., An. 1 166, 1 184-5; Early Kings, I, p. 362 ; 
 Hailes' Annals, I. p. 124, notes. 
 
 "This expression occurs from 11 67 to 1171, when it is changed to "the king of 
 Scotland." William probably continued to hold the fief after he became king, though 
 the form of the account was not changed till 1171. 
 
72 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 is repeated in 1168, and in 11 69 these "men of the K. of Scot- 
 land in Tindale account for 6 marks ; pardoned by the K.'s writ 
 to the K. of Scotland himself, 6 marks, and he is quit." Wil- 
 liam also has fiefs in Buckingham and Bedford shires, in Cam- 
 bridge and Huntingdon, in Northampton, Warwick, and Leicester 
 shires. Rutland reappears in 1169. Richard de Humez ren- 
 ders account of " los. 2d. for murders of Wrangedich hundred; 
 in pardons by the K.'s writ to the K. of Scotland, 5s. lod., and 
 he owes 4s. 4d. He also accounts for 26s. 6d. for the amerce- 
 ment of the wapentake of Roteland ; in pardon to the K. of 
 Scotland 26s. 6d." ' 
 
 But as long as the hereditary claims of his family in North- 
 umberland were not conceded, William was dissatisfied. No 
 open breach occurred, however, and in 11 70 he and his brother 
 David, earl of Huntingdon, were present at the coronation of 
 the younger Henry, where they took the oath of fealty to him, 
 saving their allegiance to his father.^ 
 
 The struggle with the church had now reached its climax in 
 the murder of Becket. Louis VH had also become hostile 
 again, regarding it as an insult that his daughter 
 pposi ion Margaret, who had married the younger Henry, had 
 not been crowned with him. The ceremony was, 
 therefore, repeated in 1 172, at Winchester. Soon after, at the 
 instigation of Louis, Henry demanded of his father either Eng- 
 land or Normandy as his portion. The king refused, and the 
 son fled across the channel to his father-in-law. A deep-laid 
 conspiracy was soon matured. Henry had alienated many. His 
 
 ' Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 108-9, iHj i 13-123, 125-128, 130. Though Lothian 
 and Northumberland were sometimes confused by the chroniclers, a sharp distinction 
 seems to have heen made in the king's Exchequer. That Lothian was not included 
 in Northumberland is clear from the fact that a debtor who escaped thither was beyond 
 the jurisdiction of the English king's treasury officials and justices, while in Tynedale 
 he was not. 
 
 'Fordun, Lib. VIII, Cap. 12, 13; Ben. Pet., Rog. Hov., An. 1170. Diceto says 
 William sought from Henry " quae in provincia Northanhimbrorum avo suo regi David 
 fuerant donata, tradita, cartis confirmata, quae etiam fuerant ab ipso tempore longo 
 possessa" — and that this was one of the causes which led to war. Wendover copies 
 Diceto, but characteristically omits the phrase "cartis confirmata." (An. 1173.) 
 
THE REIGN OF THE FIRST PLANTAGENET 73 
 
 barons were discontented. He had weakened their military and 
 judicial power by withdrawing the office of sheriff from their 
 control. He was jealous of all authority which did not emanate 
 from himself, and delighted to bring down the haughty pride of 
 his nobles. Bountiful to favorites, he was unceasingly vindictive 
 toward all who opposed his will. He was a strange combination 
 of genius and affability, of passion and base duplicity. He 
 reaped from his sons the harvest of which he had himself sown 
 the seed. The love of his wife, Eleanor of Poitou, had turned 
 to bitter hatred, and she now urged on her son, the young Henry, 
 in his course of rebellion. Richard and Geoffrey in Aquitaine 
 were among the disaffected. The promise of Northumberland 
 to William the Lion made him a ready partisan in the conspiracy, 
 while his brother David was to be confirmed in the honor of 
 Huntingdon and to receive "in augmentum .... totam Cante- 
 brigesiriam."' Henry sought reconciliation with Eleanor and 
 his sons through the mediation of Louis VH and the bishops of 
 Normandy. The prelates replied in Louis' behalf, 
 
 He said that he had already been too often the dupe of your arti- 
 fice and hypocrisy ; that you had repeatedly and on the slightest pre- 
 tenses, violated your most sacred engagements ; and that after the 
 experience which he had had of your duplicity, he had determined 
 never more to put faith in your promises. 
 
 By Easter, 1173, a plot which included the kings of Scotland 
 and France, the counts of Flanders and Boulogne, Richard, 
 Geoffrey, and the young King Henry, besides the earl of Lei- 
 cester and many of the barons in north, east, and middle Eng- 
 land, was well under way.^ 
 
 The king of Scotland was first in the field, crossing the 
 border in the late summer. Depredations had apparently been 
 begun some time earlier, judging from the story of the Pipe 
 Rolls. In Northumberland there is account of ;!{^20 "to retain 
 knights in the castle of Carlisle," for the damage caused by the 
 
 ' Hoveden, Ben. Pet., An. 1 172-3. " Concessit enim Willelmo regi Scotiae pro 
 homagio et servitio suo, totam Northumberlandam usque ad Tinam." 
 ^Lingard, Hist. Eng., II, p. 196; Ben. Pet., An. 11 73. 
 
74 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 Scots ; also ^20 each for the castle of Prudho and for New- 
 
 castle-on-Tyne ; all by the writs of Richard de Luci. The abbey 
 
 of Hyde in Hampshire reports "15I. of knights' 
 
 ^ ^ °^ •' ^ scutage for the army of Scotland." From Carlisle 
 Henry's -^ 
 
 Enemies Robert Traite " owes [is unable to pay] 27I. 6s. 
 
 6d. through the waste of the county from the 
 war." ' The apparent sympathy of the bishop of Durham with 
 the rebels gave William a free passage through his territory. 
 But on the approach of a force from the south under the king's 
 justiciar and constable, he retired into Lothian, whither he was 
 followed by the English forces. Diceto says a truce was asked 
 for by William, but Hoveden and Newburgh state that it was 
 sought by the English that they might return southward to 
 oppose the landing of the earl of Leicester. William, apparently 
 ignorant of the straits in which his foes were placed, granted a 
 truce till the feast of St. Hilary. It was then renewed by him 
 till Easter, 1 174, in consideration of 300 marks which he 
 received through the bishop of Durham — a proceeding which 
 shows on which side the desire for a truce lay. As soon as 
 Easter was past Earl David hastened south to command the 
 forces of the earl of Leicester, who had been taken prisoner. 
 King William also took the field again. He initiated a blockade 
 of Carlisle, and, withdrawing part of his army, successfully 
 invaded Northumberland, taking a number of castles. Return- 
 ing to Carlisle he received a promise of surrender if relief did 
 not come by Michaelmas. He then began the siege of Prudhoe 
 castle on the Tyne, but, hearing of the approach of the York- 
 shire barons, he raised the siege and began to withdraw to the 
 north. Reaching Alnwick he invested it, but sent away to 
 ravage the country the earls Duncan and Angus, and Richard de 
 Moreville, " fere cum toto exercitu suo," He himself remained 
 " cum privata familia sua," The Yorkshire barons reached New- 
 castle on the night of July 12, about four hundred in number. 
 They questioned whether to proceed. But news of William's 
 situation having reached them, they hastened on early the next 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., Nos, 129-31. 
 
THE REIGN OF THE FIRST PLANTAGENET 75 
 
 morning, A dense fog concealed them from their enemies, who 
 were ravaging the neighboring country, but they were in constant 
 danger, and the more faint-hearted urged an immediate return. 
 Bernard de Balliol, however, swore that he would not retreat, 
 and the advance continued. The lifting fog disclosed Alnwick 
 castle, with William and sixty of his knights tilting in a neigh- 
 boring meadow. At first he took the barons for his own men, 
 but, learning his mistake, he rode at them alone, in the most 
 rash and foolhardy way, apparently challenging them to knightly 
 combat. But the barons were seeking more important prizes 
 than those of the tourney ; the king's horse was 
 slain, and he himself taken prisoner. His followers 
 did not attempt flight, preferring a voluntary surrender to the 
 imputation of having deserted their culpable lord and king, 
 Wendover adds that the Scots who were slain were said to 
 be without numbering! ' 
 
 Henry, meanwhile, had learned of the plan for a naval attack 
 on England by his son and Philip, count of Flanders, and was 
 crossing the channel from Barfieur in a storm which kept the 
 hostile fleet at anchor in the harbor of Gravelines. On landing, 
 he journeyed swiftly to the shrine of the martyr Becket, doing 
 abject penance there for his sins. Passing on to London he was 
 detained there some days by a fever, brought on by exposure 
 and fatigue, but dispelled by the good news that William had 
 fallen into his hands. This event dissipated the forces of the 
 rebellion. David at once returned to Scotland, and within three 
 weeks England was quiet. The records of the time all breathe 
 the spirit of war. Northumberland renders account " in lands 
 granted in Tindale which the K.of Scotland had (habuit), 10 1." 
 The sheriff accounts for 46s, 8d. " of the issue of Aedgar Unni- 
 dering, who has gone into Scotland to the K.'s enemies." 
 " Robert de Stuteville [Yorkshire] renders no account this year 
 
 I Diceto, Hoveden, Ben. Pet., An. 1 173-4; Wm. Newb., Lib. II, Cap. 33. It is 
 noticeable that Hoveden speaks of Lothian as " terram regis Scotiae," while Newburgh 
 says of the Tweed, " quae regnutn Anglicum Scotticumque disterminat " — statements 
 which hardly agree with the theory that Malcolm IV ceded Lothian to Henry II with 
 the northern counties, and that it was an English earldom. 
 
7 6 ANGLO-SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 of the farms of the county, nor of the K.'s dues therein, as he 
 has not yet had the K.'s warrant for his expenses laid out dur- 
 ing the war, in the K.'s service." Adam, son of Robert Truite 
 [Carlisle], also renders no account, "as he has received nothing 
 this year by reason of the war, as he says." Southampton again 
 appears as fitting out the Esnecce " when she crossed the sea 
 with the Earl of Leicester and other prisoners." Henry crossed 
 over to Barfleur and bestowed his prisoners at Caen, August 8. 
 A day or two later they were taken to Falaise. Peace soon fol- 
 lowed with the king's sons and with France. At Louis' inter- 
 cession most of the prisoners were released, but toward the 
 king of Scotland Henry was inexorable. A surrender of the 
 independence of his kingdom was the price at which William 
 bought his freedom.^ 
 
 'Ben. Pet., Hoveden, Diceto, An. 1174; Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 132-5, 
 137-8- 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 INDEPENDENCE LOST AND REGAINED : OR. THE TREATY OF FALAISE 
 AND THE CHARTER OF RELEASE. 
 
 On September 30, 11 74, an agreement was reached between 
 Henry, his sons, and Louis VH. This was embodied in a writ- 
 ten manifesto, on October 30, at Falaise, where 
 Treaty of ^^^ ^^ ^^ family seems to have assembled, and where 
 
 the state prisoners were. About the first of Decem- 
 ber William came to terms with Henry. The instrument was 
 dated at Falaise, but the agreement was embodied in another 
 charter, with additional witnesses, at Valognes, December 8. 
 On the nth the king of Scotland obtained release, and set sail 
 for England.' This seems to be the true explanation of the 
 divergence in the various authorities regarding this treaty. 
 Hoveden and Benedict, of Peterborough, both give it. 
 
 Diceto has an abridged statement of it, which Mr. Robertson 
 conclusively shows to be by a later hand than his. It mentions only 
 two castles (Roxburgh and Berwick) to be surrendered by Wil- 
 liam, the writer being apparently ignorant " not only that Stirl- 
 ing, Jedburgh, and Edinburgh were also among the fortresses 
 stipulated to be made over by the Scots, but that the latter was 
 actually given up." The document is given in its fullest form in 
 the Foedera, which agrees in general with the Liber Niger, except 
 as to the number of witnesses. The Red Book of the Exchequer 
 differs radically from the above, both in substance and in the 
 names of witnesses. But in essentials they all agree in the fol- 
 lowing provisions :^ 
 
 ' Foedera, I, p. 37 ; Itinerary Hen. II, pp. 184 ff. 
 
 => Bain, Cal. Docts., I, No. 139; Hearne, Liber Niger, p. 36; Early Kings, I, 
 p. 374, note ; Norgate, Ang. Kings, II, p. 166, note ; also Hoveden, Benedictus, and 
 Diceto. Ad. an., I, p. 3Q. 
 
 77 
 
7 8 ANGLO -SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 William was to become the liegeman of Henr}- for Scotland 
 
 and for all his other lands.' He was to do fealtj- to to him as 
 
 his lieffe lord, and to his son Henry, " salva fide 
 The King . T ^ . . . ,, , . , 
 
 Dommi Regis patris sui, as his other " men were 
 
 wont to do. 
 
 All the bishops, abbots, and clergy of the land of the king 
 
 of Scots, and of his successors, were to do fealty to the king 
 
 , ^, , as their lieg^e lord at his pleasure, as his other 
 The Church ^ . 
 
 bishops are wont to do, and to Henry, his son, and 
 
 to their heirs. 
 
 William and David, his brother, with the barons and other 
 men of the king, also conceded to Henry that the Church of 
 Scotland should make such subjection to the Church of England 
 as it ought, and was wont, to make in the times of the kings of 
 England, his predecessors. 
 
 The bishops of St. Andrews and Dunkeld, with the abbot of 
 Dunfermline and the prior of Coldingham, specially agreed that 
 the Church of England should have that authority over the 
 Scottish church which by right it ought to have, and that they 
 would not go contrary to the right of the Church of England, 
 and in security thereof rendered liege fealty to King Henry and 
 his son.^ 
 
 The earls, barons, and other men of the land of the king of 
 
 Scots, at the pleasure of King Henry, were to do homage and 
 
 „, , ^ fidelity to him as their liege lord against all men, as 
 
 The Nobility •' o o > 
 
 his other "men" were wont to do, and to his son 
 
 and his heirs, salva fide, etc. Likewise the heirs of the king of 
 
 Scots and of his barons and men were to do homage and fealty to 
 
 the heirs of their lord the king, against all men. 
 
 William and his barons pledged their faith to compel those 
 
 of the barons and clergy who were absent when the treaty was 
 
 made to yield allegiance and fealty to Henry, and 
 
 to give such hostages as he should desire. 
 
 ' Tindale seems to have been temporarily forfeited. It reappears in II75. Some 
 time between 1165 and 1 182 William grants a charter in favor of the church of St. 
 Mary in Furneis, Westmoreland. (Bain, Cal. Docts., 1, Nos. 143,158, 165). 
 
 ^ Hailes' Annals, I, pp. 130-I. 
 
TREATY OF FALAISE AND CHARTER OF RELEASE 79 
 
 The king of Scots and his men agreed that they would receive 
 
 no fugitive by reason of felony from the land of their lord the 
 
 king", either in Scotland or in their other lands, unless 
 
 urren ero -^^ should be willing to come to trial in the court of 
 Fugitives 
 
 his lord the king, and to abide by the judgment of 
 
 the court. The}' were to take all such as speedily as possible, 
 and restore them to the king or his justiciars or bailiffs in Eng- 
 land. Similar provisions were to be enforced against fugitives 
 from Scotland, but they might, if they chose, stand trial in the 
 English curia. (This clearly marks the dependent position of 
 Scotland at this period, and the absence of this phenomenon at 
 all other times till Edward I as clearly marks the fact of an 
 independent kingdom.) 
 
 The new relations between the kings were not to affect the 
 holders of fiefs under either. They were to continue to hold as 
 they had held, and ought to hold. 
 
 „ ,,. As a guarantee for the faithful observance and 
 
 Holdings ° 
 
 execution of this convention and fine, William was 
 
 to deliver over to Henry the castles of Roxburgh, Berwick, 
 
 Jedburgh, Edinburgh, and Stirling, in which English garrisons 
 
 were to be maintained at the expense of the Scot- 
 Secunties ^ 
 
 tish king. 
 
 He was also to deliver up as hostages his brother David, four 
 earls, Richard de Moreville, the constable, besides barons and 
 knights. The king and his brother were to be released as soon 
 as the castles had been handed over, and the earls and barons as 
 soon thereafter as they furnished lawful sons, or their nearest 
 heirs, as hostages in their stead. 
 
 The bishops, earls, and barons also agreed that if William 
 should seek to withdraw the allegiance he had sworn to Henry 
 and his son, they would hold to the English kingas their liege lord, 
 against the king of the Scots and all enemies of their lord the 
 king, the bishops promising to lay the kingdom under an inter- 
 dict till William should return to his allegiance. 
 
 Thus was the subjection of the kingdom of Scotland com- 
 pleted. The " peace and final concord " to which William had 
 
8o ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 agreed as a prisoner in chains at Falaise, in the presence of 
 the English kings and their clergy and nobles, was now ratified 
 in the church of St. Peter, at York, by the bishops, 
 Scot ana a earls, barons, and knights of Scotland, who swore 
 fidelity to Henry, his son, and their heirs, against 
 all men, as their liege lords.' Henry availed him- 
 self of his opportunity to the utmost. Nor did he fail to exact 
 rigorously the conditions imposed, unless for his own reasons it 
 pleased him to remit them. To have taken the life of his cap- 
 tive would have been abhorrent to the moral sense of the times. 
 Confinement would only have raised up some other Scottish 
 leader. He acted only as William and the younger Henry would 
 have acted, had their conspiracy been successful. He gained a 
 forced, but distinct acknowledgment of his supremacy as over 
 lord in the kingdom of Scotland — an overlordship of which the 
 Chronicles give striking evidence. But, had the English kings 
 possessed such rights of supremacy previous to this time, Henry 
 would have gained nothing new from his captive, and the treaty 
 of Falaise would have been a farce. If, on the other hand, the 
 theory and claim of English overlordship be admitted, the 
 necessity of this document shows conclusively the hitherto 
 successful denial of and resistance to every such theory and 
 claim by the Scots. 
 
 The treaty remained in force for fifteen years, during which 
 William and his barons were often summoned by their feudal 
 superior. Scottish kings were not strangers at the court of the 
 kingdom in which they held fiefs. But the presence of the 
 barons and clergy was new, and shows the changed condition of 
 the northern kingdom. 
 
 The clergy were the first to experience the effects of the new 
 order. The Assizes of Clarendon were re-enacted at the Coun- 
 cil of Northampton, early in 1176. At the command of Henry, 
 the Scottish bishops, abbots, and priors came to make their 
 promised subjection to the English church. When it was 
 demanded of them by the king, they replied that their predeces- 
 
 ' Hoveden, Aug. 10, 1175. 
 
TREATY OF FALAISE AND CHARTER OF RELEASE 8i 
 
 sors had never owed any such subjection, neither ought they to 
 render it. Roger of York insisted on his claims, specially over 
 the bishops of Glasgow and Candida Casa, adducing as proofs 
 the papal bulls he held in his hand. Contention over the dis- 
 puted jurisdiction of Canterbury and York at once grew hot. 
 Jocelyn, bishop of Glasgow, declared his see was "the special 
 daughter of the Roman church,'" and was now exempt from all 
 subjection by archbishops or bishops, whatever its previous rela- 
 tion to York. Either at the instigation of the arch- 
 The Church bishop of Canterbury, who hoped thus to gain the 
 
 Escapes submission of the Scottish clergy to his see, or 
 
 Subjection , , , , • 
 
 because the kmg dreaded to arbitrate in a very 
 
 complicated dispute, Henry dismissed the clergy of the north, 
 "nulla subjectione facta Anglicanae ecclesia."'' 
 
 In 1 1 80 a new dispute arose, in which William took a lead- 
 ing part. The bishop of St. Andrews died, and the canons of the 
 church elected John Scot as his successor. But William had 
 elected his chaplain, Hugh, to the position and ordered him to be 
 consecrated by the bishops of the kingdom. John appealed to 
 Rome, and Alexander HI sent his subdeacon, Alexius, to learn 
 the merits of the case. He at length deposed Hugh and caused 
 John to be confirmed and consecrated. William apparently 
 acquiesced in this decision, but immediately after the consecra- 
 tion he banished John from the kingdom. During the struggle 
 Roger, archbishop of York, was appointed papal legate, with 
 power to lay the kingdom of Scotland under an interdict if Wil- 
 liam remained obdurate. The king would not yield. The sen- 
 tence of banishment was renewed against John and his uncle, 
 bishop of Aberdeen, who fled to Henry in Normandy. William 
 was excommunicated and his kingdom laid under an interdict. 
 Pressure was also brought to bear on Henry, who summoned 
 William to Normandy to answer the complaints of the bishops 
 
 'By bull of Alex. Ill, 1175; repeated by Lucius, 1182. (H. and S., Counc, II, Pt. 
 I, pp. 40, 47.) 
 
 ^'Hoveden, Ben. Pet., An. 1176. See Bain, I, No. 147, for the forged letter of 
 William to Alex. Ill, urging the claims of York. 
 
8 2 ANGLO -SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 (1181). It was then agreed that Matthew should be restored 
 to his see. John was to give up St. Andrews, but was to have 
 any other bishopric he chose, with the chancellorship, and forty 
 marks annually from St. Andrews, in addition to his other reve- 
 nues. The pope would not agree to this, and ordered the under- 
 clergy of St. Andrews to make submission to John as their supe- 
 rior, on pain of suspension. William at once expelled all who 
 obeyed, and interdict and excommunication were renewed. The 
 death of Alexander and Roger, a little later, opened the way to 
 more pleasant relations with the new vicar of St. Peter, Lucius 
 III.' 
 
 Henry jealously guarded against any papal interference in 
 Scotland, looking toward a re-establishment of the kingdom on 
 an independent basis. Nor would he permit Vivian, the legate 
 for Scotland, to go there till he gave oath that he would do 
 nothing against the wishes of the king. Vivian had been sent 
 for secretly by William and his barons to settle the question of 
 the dependence of the Scottish church on the English church. 
 It was not till 1188, just before Henry's death, that the bull of 
 Clement III set the matter at rest.' 
 
 William's capture in 1 174 was no sooner assured than the 
 
 unruly factions in his kingdom broke into open revolt. The chief 
 
 disturbance was in Galloway. This province, since 
 
 Disturbances ^bout 1 100, had been ruled by Fergus, a semi-inde- 
 
 in Scotland , ^^ -^ , 1 tvt 1 1 
 
 pendent prmce. He was conquered by Malcolm 
 
 IV in 1 160, and soon after retired to Holyrood Abbey, leaving 
 his title and lands to his sons Gilbert and Uchtred, who were 
 waiting for an opportunity to regain their former independent 
 position. They now returned with the Scottish army from the 
 invasion of England to their own land, destroyed the strong- 
 
 'Hoveden, Ben. Pet., An. 1 180-2. 
 
 "Hoveden, Ben. Pet.; H. and S., Counc, II, Pt. I, pp. 10,273. Roger of York was 
 legate for England till November, 1181. The bishop of Candida Casa, a see not 
 among those revived by David, but apparently established by Fergus of Galloway, 
 refused the summons of Vivian, and when excommunicated for not attending a coun- 
 cil of Scottish bishops received shelter from his metropolitan, Roger of York. The 
 question of disputed jurisdiction was not settled till the fourteenth century. 
 
TREATY OF FALAISE AND CHARTER OF RELEASE 83 
 
 holds by which their subjection had been secured, drove out the 
 men of the king of Scots, and killed the English and French 
 there. At the same time they sent envoys to Henry with offers 
 of their fealty. Gilbert then treacherously attacked his brother, 
 depriving him of lands and even of life, as a result of the cruel 
 blinding and mutilation which he inflicted. Thus, when Henry 
 sent his chaplain, Roger of Hoveden, from Normandy to Car- 
 lisle, to negotiate with the princes of Galloway, Gilbert was sole 
 ruler, eager to escape from William's overlordship and the 
 almost certain punishment for his crime. As an inducement for 
 Henry to receive him "in manu sua" he offered an annual 
 tribute of two thousand marks of silver, and of cattle and hogs 
 five hundred each. The envoys, however, having heard of Gil- 
 bert's cruelty, decided to refer the matter to the king, and he, 
 either for this cause, or more probably because William had 
 become his vassal for Galloway, refused to change Gilbert's 
 relations with the king of Scotland.' As soon as the ratification 
 of the treaty was completed at York, Henry gave William per- 
 mission to retire to Scotland and to prepare an expedition 
 against Gilbert, because of the withdrawal of his fealty and the 
 murder of his brother. The following autumn William met 
 Henry at Feckenham, bringing Gilbert in his train, who swore 
 fealty, as the other Scottish barons had done, and promised 
 him, out of the love he had for him, a thousand marks of silver. 
 On returning to Galloway he declared the death penalty against 
 any who should acknowledge he held his lands of the king of 
 Scots, and kept up an intermittent ravaging of his lands. He 
 rightly judged that Henry would not object to this thorn in the 
 side of his chief vassal.^ 
 
 In 1 181, while William was in attendance on Henry in Nor- 
 
 i" Rex Scotiae et David frater ejus devenerunt ibidem homines praedicti regis de 
 omnibus tenementis suis : et nominatim de Scotia et Galveia." (Ben. Pet., I, p. 95.) 
 The language of the treaty is "de Scotia et de omnibus aliis terris suis." Galloway is 
 not mentioned; nor does Lothian appear. Fergus had married an illegitimate daugh- 
 ter of Henry I. Hence Henry H spoke of Uchtred as " consanguineus suus." 
 
 = Hoveden, Pref., I, p. xvi, An. 1 174-6 ; Also Ben. Pet., ibid.; Bain., Cal. Docts., 
 I, Nos. 154, 192. Gilbert's first payment was in 11 79, "Sol. lis. by the hands of 
 
84 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 mandy for the settlement of the quarrel about John Scot, a fresh 
 revolt broke out in Scotland, under the lead of Donald Mac- 
 William, a pretender to the throne. Both kings returned to 
 England in August. But it was not till September, after the 
 council at Nottingham, that William and his barons received per- 
 mission to return to Scotland and put down the disturbance there. 
 Three years later he was preparing an expedition against Gilbert 
 and others who had wasted his lands, killed his men, "nee tamen 
 cum eo pacem facere volebant."^ But hearing of Henry's 
 return from Normandy, he disbanded his forces and came as 
 quickly as possible to him, with representatives of the Scottish 
 clergy and laity. For with Henry came Matilda, daughter of 
 Henry, duke of Saxony, whom William sought in marriage. 
 Since the forfeiture and exile of her father, she had been with 
 King Henry in England and Normandy. The king made no 
 objection to the union, but the refusal of the pope to sanction 
 the marriage, on the ground of consanguinity, is one of several 
 indications that Henry was really unwilling to strengthen his 
 vassal by such an alliance,^ 
 
 The Christmas feast of 1194 witnessed the presence of Wil- 
 liam, his earls and barons, at the English court. Again, in Lent, 
 they were summoned, with the bishops and abbots, to consider in 
 council a papal letter regarding the relief of Jerusalem. Here, 
 though many others offered large sums for it, Henry restored 
 the fief of Huntingdon to William (Earl Simon having recently 
 died), perhaps as an offset to his disappointment in not winning 
 Matilda. William at once subinfeoffed it to his brother 
 David.3 
 
 On the death of Gilbert of Galloway late in 1185, Roland, 
 
 Robert de Vallibus," of Cumberland, "and he owes 920I. 9s. . . . for having the 
 king's benevolence." Ten years later, at Henry's death, he still owes 838I. 12s. 8d., 
 and this sum was never paid. Robertson thinks there is some unexplained reason for 
 Hoveden's reserve about Galloway. (Early Kings, I, p. 381, note.) 
 
 'Hoveden, Ben. Pet., An. 1181, 1184. 
 
 ''Ben. Pet., An. 1 184; Itinerary Hen. II, p. 62. 
 
 3 Ben. Pet., An. 1185. Hoveden places this council in 1185, but the transfer of 
 Huntingdon in 1184. 
 
TREATY OF FALAISE AND CHARTER OF RELEASE 85 
 
 son of the murdered Uchtred, at once seized the territory and 
 thoroughly subdued it. Gilbert's son Duncan was still a hostage 
 at the English court. Henry seems at first to have passed over 
 Roland's independent assertion of his rights, being occupied 
 with a new marriage scheme for William the Lion. 
 Marriage of jj^^ king and David, with their chief men, were 
 
 ,, ^. summoned to the English court early in 1 186. 
 
 the Lion ° •' 
 
 Henry received them with great courtesy and affa- 
 bility in order to secure their goodwill and further his plans. 
 After some days of pleasant entertainment he proposed that 
 William should marry Ermengarde, daughter of Richard, vis- 
 count of Beaumont.' After consulting his barons, William at 
 length accepted the offer. Henry, first taking an oath from the 
 Scottish barons that they would serve him faithfully, then sent 
 them home again to prepare an expedition against Roland, and 
 to bring him to the English court. Roland refused to come, and 
 Henr}', therefore, concentrated his forces on Carlisle, sending 
 William and David to bring in the refractory usurper. But he 
 still refused to come till hostages were given and a safe conduct 
 granted. He then went with them and did homage to Henry 
 for his lands, as the other Scottish barons had done, agreeing to 
 submit the conflicting claims of Duncan to the decision of the 
 Curia Regis. He also gave hostages, and William and his barons 
 swore they would adhere to the English king if Roland proved 
 disloyal, while the bishop of Glasgow solemnly promised on the 
 sacred relics that he would excommunicate him if unfaithful. 
 Roland seems to have found a refuge at the Scottish court, after 
 the murder of his father, where he married one of William's 
 daughters. Duncan's claims were apparently never pressed, and 
 after the death of Henry they were given up in exchange for 
 the earldom of Carrick. Early in September (1186) William's 
 marriage was celebrated at Woodstock, the king giving up his 
 palace to the royal pair. The castle of the Maidens (Edin- 
 burgh) was restored to William as a part of Ermengarde's mar- 
 riage dower. After four days the bride was accompanied to 
 
 ' Richard's father married Constance, a daughter of Henry I. 
 
86 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 Scotland by Bishop Jocelyn and the earls and barons, William 
 going with Henry to Marlborough.' 
 
 Outwardly, William seems now to have almost regained the 
 position he occupied before his capture and the treaty of Falaise. 
 He has fiefs certainly in Northumberland and Hunt- 
 His Position ingdon. The castle of Edinburgh is again garri- 
 soned by Scots. Jedburgh and Stirling apparently 
 were never demanded by Henry. Only Roxburgh 
 and Berwick remain beyond his reach, and to these he turns with 
 longing eyes. There is no essential conflict between the narra- 
 tives of Hoveden and Benedict of his efforts to regain them. 
 According to the account of the former, Henr}^ sent the bishop 
 of Durham and others to collect the Saladin tithe from the king- 
 dom of Scotland. William met them on the border and refused 
 them entrance on such a mission, but offered to give instead to 
 his liege lord 5,000 marks of silver, on condition that the remain- 
 ing castles should be restored to him. The bishop was not 
 empowered to complete such a transaction, and returned empty- 
 handed to the king, who refused to accept the offer. 
 
 Benedict says that William had previously offered 4,000 
 marks for the castles, and that Henry had agreed to the 
 exchange, on condition that he should receive a tenth from 
 William's dominions. The latter "desiring to satisfy the king's 
 petitions," conceded the tenth which he sought, if he could per- 
 suade his men to agree to it. But when the messengers came to 
 collect it, they were met by the nobles and clergy and a large 
 body of men, who swore they would never pay the tithe, even 
 though both kings demanded it. Nor was it paid. It was the 
 last time that Henry H would attempt to interfere in the 
 kingdom of Scotland, for he was now fighting for his own life 
 and dominions. On the 4th of July, 1189, he was compelled to 
 yield. He placed himself wholly under the control and at the 
 will of Philip, king of France, renewed his homage to him as 
 overlord, and promised the payment of 20,000 marks. He also 
 delivered up certain castles as security, and his barons swore 
 'Early Kings, I, pp. 387, 390, note; Ben. Pet., Hoveden, An. 1186. 
 
TREATY OF FALAISE AND CHARTER OF RELEASE 87 
 
 that if he proved faithless, they would hold with Philip and 
 Earl Richard against him. Humiliated, and broken-hearted 
 over the treachery of his son, John, he died at Chinon, after an 
 eventful reign of more than thirty-four years.' 
 
 Though the northern kingdom seemed to have almost 
 recovered from the disaster of 11 74, that event had really 
 brought great changes. The king might recover the fiefs he 
 had lost, but he could not win back the independence of the 
 kingdom, with which his freedom had been so dearly bought. 
 For fifteen years king, clergy, and nobles had been subject to 
 the summons of the king of England. Their attendance at the 
 court of Henry became a common occurrence. William's vas- 
 sals were the vassals of his English overlord. Nor could he 
 wage war against them without the consent of that overlord. 
 These are new phenomena, which do not reappear till Edward I 
 again assumes the overlordship of Scotland. As they mark the 
 dependent kingdom, their absence indicates that the homage of 
 Scottish kings was for their English fiefs, and not for the 
 kingdom at large. 
 
 The accession of Henry's second son, Richard, brought a 
 welcome change to Scotland. David, earl of Huntingdon, who 
 S tl d I d ^^*^ already been his devoted supporter, partici- 
 pendent aeain P^*^*^ '^" ^^^ splendid coronation ceremonies, by 
 carrying one of the three golden swords kept in 
 the king's treasury. The absence of the king of Scotland with 
 his barons and clergy was prophetic of the restoration of the 
 ancient liberties of the northern kingdom. Richard was no 
 sooner crowned than he received homage and fealty from his 
 barons, and proceeded to put up for sale "everything he had, 
 castles, towns and estates." Sending " mandatis urgentibus " for 
 William, who was "invetera laborantem tristitia pro castellis," 
 he ordered Geoffrey, archbishop-elect of York, and the barons 
 and sheriff of Yorkshire to meet William at the Tweed,=' and 
 
 'Ben. Pet., Hoveden, An. 1 188-9. 
 »W. Newburgh, An. 1189; Ben. Pet., II p. 97. 
 
 This, again, indicates the boundary line between the two kingdoms. Sir Francis 
 Palgrave says the king of Scots " held Tyndale as a regality, using therein all the 
 
88 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 to conduct him with due honor to Canterbury. There the king 
 of Scots did homage to Richard " pro dignitatibus suis habendis 
 in Anglia, sicut Malcolmus frater ejus habuit." Richard then 
 restored to William the castles of Roxburgh and Berwick, and 
 released him and his heirs " ab ipso et regibus Angliae in per- 
 petuum de omnia ligajitia et subjectione de regno Scotiae." And 
 for this " quieta clamantia fidelitatis ct ligantiae de regno 
 Scotiae," confirmed by a charter and the restoration of his 
 castles, William gave lO.OOO marks sterling/ Benedict of 
 
 rights of a sovereign — rights which without doubt he had equally exercised when the 
 three lands of Cumbria, Northumbria and Westmere were placed beneath his authority. 
 This fact is evidenced by the liighly curious roll of his justices itinerant." (Cf. Bain, 
 Cal. Docts., II, No. i68.) "It will appear from this roll that the king of Scots [Alex- 
 ander III] exercised the powers of jurisdiction within this district exactly in the same 
 manner as he did in I.othian, equally a portion of the Northumbrian kingdom, and 
 held under the same allegiance. And had the northern counties continued in the 
 possession of the Scottish crown, they would, like the lands beyond the Tweed, have 
 had the good or ill fortune of being considered as integral portions of the Scottish 
 kingdom." (Docts. Scot., I, p. vii.) But this roll does not mention Lothian. It 
 applies only to Tynedale, and hence affords no evidence that Lothian was "equally 
 a portion of the Northumbrian kingdom, and held under the same allegiance." 
 Tynedale was held on the most generous and easy terms known to the feudal system. 
 Yet it regularly appears in the records of the English Exchequer as a fief held by the 
 Scottish crown. Had Lothian been held "under the same allegiance," or been aught 
 but an "integral portion of the Scottish kingdom," as it was "considered" to be, it 
 must inevitably have appeared also. When Henry III ordained " the sheriff of 
 Northumberland .... and the knights of the shire .... to proceea to the 
 marches between England and Scotland " to settle a dispute about them, he 
 certainly did not consider Lothian a part of Northumberland. Nor did Hugh de 
 Bolebec, who informed the king later that " he, with the knights of Northumberland, 
 met in person at ' Revedeneburne ' [on the Tweed] David de Lindesay, Justiciar of 
 Lothian (Laoudie), Patric, Earl of Dunbar, and many other knights sent by the K. of 
 Scotland." The two regions and their representatives are distinctly opposed. 
 
 'Mr, Bain, following Ridpath (Border Hist., p. 105, note), doubts this payment. 
 But the evidence seems clear. In 1 193-4 there is account from Westmoreland " for 
 the carriage of the monies wliich were sent by the K. of Scotland, lOos." In 1199, 
 from Yorkshire, " for the cost of carrying the treasure to London, which the K. of 
 Scotland gave (dedit) to K. Richard, 30s." That these payments were not part of 
 the aid contributed to Richard's ransom is evident from the next entry, under North- 
 umberland, same year, " For 2000 marks carried from Ravendene to York, which the 
 K. of Scotland sent to Richard, 40s." (Bain I, Nos. 221, 283-4.) Fordun (Bk. VIII) 
 says : " Hoc anno rex magnum tenuit consilium, ubi petito ab optimatibus auxilio, 
 promiserunt se daturos 10,000 marcas ; praeter burgenses regni qui 6000 marcarum 
 promiserunt." {Cf. Annals, § XXI.) 
 
TREATY OF FALAISE AND CHARTER OF RELEASE 89 
 
 Peterborough says, "homagium pro dignitatibus suis habendis 
 in Anglia, sicut reges Scottorum praedecessores sui habere sole- 
 bant temporibus regum Angliae." The release was " de om?ii 
 ligantia et subjectione de regno Scotiae." Even the St. Albans 
 chroniclers at last fall into line, and state that the homage was 
 " de jure suo in Anglia," with release from fealty " de regno 
 Scotiae." It seems impossible to honestly maintain that the 
 king of Scots was not released from all homage and allegiance 
 for his kingdom, or that he did homage to Richard for anything 
 beyond his fiefs in England. The charter itself is as follows : 
 
 Richard by the grace of God King of England, etc. Know that 
 we have restored to our dearest cousin William, by the same grace King 
 of Scotland, his castles of Rokeborc and Beraich, as his own by heredi- 
 tary right, to be by him and his heirs possessed forever. Moreover, we 
 have quitted {quietavimus) to him all the pactions which our good 
 father Henry King of England by new charters and by his capture 
 extorted. On such condition, that is to say, that he do to us wholly 
 and fully whatsoever Malcolm King of Scotland, his brother, did of 
 right to our ancestors and of right ought to do. And we do to him what- 
 ever our ancestors of right did to the saidMalcom and ought to do, to-wit, 
 in safe conduct in coming to the court and in staying in the court and 
 in returning from the court, and in procurations and in all liberties and 
 dignities and honors due to him of right, according as it shall be found 
 by four of our nobles chosen by King William himself, and by four of 
 his nobles chosen by us. But if any one of our men shall have unjustly 
 encroached on the marches of the kingdom of Scotland, after the said 
 King William was taken prisoner by our father, we will that they be 
 fully restored and brought back to the same state in which they were 
 before his capture. Moreover, concerning his lands which he may 
 have {Jiaberei) in England, whether in demesne or in fee {dominicis seu 
 feodis), to-wit, in the county of Huntedun and in all others, let him 
 and his heirs possess them forever in the same freedom and with such 
 custom as the aforesaid King Malcolm possessed or ought to have 
 possessed them ; unless the aforesaid King Malcolm or his heirs shall 
 afterwards have enfeoffed any portion thereof. Provided that if any 
 lands shall have been so enfeoffed afterwards, the services of those fiefs 
 belong to him and his heirs. And the land which our father gave to 
 the aforesaid King William, we will that he and his heirs perpetually 
 
90 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 possess in the same freedom in which he gave it to him. Also we have 
 restored to him the fealties of his vassals which our father had 
 received, and all the charters which our father had from him by means 
 of his capture. And if perchance any shall have been retained through 
 forgetfulness, or shall be found, we command that these be utterly 
 without force. But the oftmentioned William has become our liege 
 man for all the lands for which his ancestors were the liege men of our 
 ancestors, and has sworn fealty to us and our heirs. And that this 
 may be settled and fixed forever, we have confirmed it by this present 
 charter and our seal.' (Dec. 5 11 89.) 
 
 A question may be raised as to the wisdom of Richard's 
 
 policy. But if his position be considered, his action seems jus- 
 
 _. , , tified. His heart was wrapped up in the crusade. 
 
 Wisdom of vv f 
 
 Richard's Policy ^^ must have money. Moreover, it would have 
 been poor policy to leave a hostile vassal on his 
 northern borders during his absence — a vassal irritated by the 
 fate which had robbed his kingdom of its independence, and 
 only waiting for an opportunity to regain it. Nor was it in 
 accord with the policy of the Conqueror and other English kings, 
 who preferred rather to protect their northern borders by friendly 
 alliances than to extend their territory and jurisdiction beyond 
 the Tweed. 
 
 The peace which continued between the two kingdoms dur- 
 ing Richard's reign is the best justification of his policy. 
 
 A comparison of the treaties made by Henry and Richard 
 
 with William the Lion shows that Henry extorted some service 
 
 _, _, . -: or right from William that Malcolm IV had not 
 The Treaty of ^ 
 
 Falaise and the yielded, and that Richard restored the king of 
 Charter of Scots to the footing he occupied before his capture 
 
 Richard at Alnwick. What Henry gained by the treaty of 
 
 Compared Falaise was a distinct acknowledgment of his 
 
 overlordship in the kingdom of Scotland, with the consequent 
 homage and service not onl)'- of the king, who was also a land- 
 holder in England, but of all his barons and clergy. This is 
 
 ' Foedera, 1, p. 64 ; Hoveden, Ben. Pet., An. 1189; Nat. MSS. Scot., I, No, 
 XLVI. 
 
TREATY OF FALAISE AND CHARTER OF RELEASE 9 1 
 
 the important feature in this treaty — the «^7£' right which the 
 king of England acquired. If this be denied on the ground 
 that Henry possessed this right previously, the treaty of Falaise 
 is without significance. If it be afifirmed that it simply restates 
 and makes provision for the enforcement of an old right, the 
 argument only proves that the Scottish kings had hitherto not 
 yielded to the English claims and had maintained the independ- 
 ence of their kingdom. But however widely feudal claims 
 and just feudal rights often differed, there is no evidence that 
 Henry made any such claims, or regarded William as a rebel- 
 lious vassal, except in relation to his English fiefs — of which he 
 was temporarily deprived. He had joined as a chief conspirator 
 in a league against the lord of those fiefs, and in doing homage 
 for his kingdom he suffered the severest penalty which Henry 
 could inflict. From this position of irritating and hitherto 
 unknown dependence Richard fully released his cousin, who 
 became his liege man for his lands in England, just as Malcolm 
 had been the man of Richard's father — " eo modo quo avus suus 
 [David] fuerat homo veteris regis Henrici." ' As the depend- 
 ent kingdom was clearly marked by the creation of a vassal 
 relation between the Scottish nobles and the English king, so 
 a renewal of independence was marked by restoration of the 
 allegiance of William's vassals to himself. Henry had nothing 
 to gain but homage and service for the kingdom of Scotland, 
 and his son could give nothing else back. Any other conces- 
 sion would have had but a paltrv value in William's eyes. Even 
 his claims to the northern counties are allowed to drop out of 
 sight in the presence of this greater desire. These events, 
 therefore, indicate that the true kingdom of the Scots main- 
 tained its independence till the treaty of Falaise — an 
 independence which was restored by the charter of Richard. 
 
 In 1 190 William's brother David married Matilda, a sister 
 of Ranulph, earl of Chester, and Richard confirmed to him the 
 liberties of the honor of Huntingdon as his grandfather David 
 had enjoyed them. There is some evidence that soon after 
 
 ^ Hoveden, An. 1157. 
 
92 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 David went to the Holy Land under the banners of Richard. 
 He, or his brother the king, held lands also in Northumber- 
 land, Warwick, Leicester, and Cambridge. But 
 Efforts to Re- William, having regained the independence of his 
 gain the kingdom, was now eagerly urging his claims in the 
 
 north of Ens'land. He had remained loyal to the 
 Counties ° , ■' 
 
 king in his absence and captivity. He had con- 
 tributed 2000 marks toward his ransom.' Earl David had par- 
 ticipated in the siege of Nottingham — which John's partisans 
 refused to give up — and also in the council which followed its 
 surrender. Here the sheriffdoms of Yorkshire and Lincoln, 
 with the castles of York and Scarborough, had been put up for 
 sale. A second coronation was to occur at Easter, and William 
 thought it a favorable time to present his claims. The kings 
 met at Clipston, near the Sherwood forests. William asked to 
 have the provisions for his entertainment in coming to the Eng- 
 lish court fufilled, and also demanded that Northumberland, 
 Cumberland, Westmoreland, and the honor of Lancaster should 
 be restored to him " de jure praedecessorum suorum." Richard 
 promised to consult his barons in a council at Northampton. 
 They advised him that he ought not to make these concessions, 
 as the princes of France, who were nearly all hostile to him, 
 would attribute it to fear rather than love. As an offset to this, 
 however, he confirmed by a special charter the dignities and 
 honors promised to the king of Scotland.^ Hoveden, who gives 
 
 'Chron. Melrose, and Hailes' Annals, I, p. 148; Bain, Cal. Docts., Nos. 199, 202, 
 205, 214, 224. This sum may have been the feudal aid for ransoming the lord of his 
 fiefs, though from the later history it appears more like a gift to gain Richard's good 
 will in regard to the northern counties. Earl David was freed by the king of the 
 scutagefor his ransom. (Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 221, 237 ; Early Kings, I, p. 397 ; 
 Hoveden, An. 1194.) 
 
 = Letter regarding the fee given to the king of Scotland in his journey, and for 
 the liberations to him to be doubled and allocated during his stay in the K.'s court : 
 
 Richard K. of England has given and confirmed to William K. of Scotland 
 his friend and cousin and liegeman, and his heirs forever, all the liberties and rights 
 which his ancestors were wont to have coming to the English court, remaining there, 
 and returning therefrom ; namely, each day after crossing the marches of England on 
 the K.'s mandate, iocs, sterling, and as much on his return until he reaches his own 
 land; and on each day during his stay at court 30s. sterling; and 12 of the K.'s 
 
TREATY OF FALAISE AND CHARTER OF RELEASE 93 
 
 the substance of this charter in his own language, says that 
 whenever the king of Scots came to court on the summons of 
 the king of England, he was to be received "ad aquam de 
 Tuede " by the bishop of Durham and the sheriff of Northum- 
 berland, and brought in safety to the Tees, and so on to the 
 south. In returning also, he was to be conducted by the 
 respective bishops and sheriffs " donee pervenerit ad aquam de 
 Tuede." As the Tees marked the north boundary of York, so 
 the Tweed set the limit to Northumberland and the northern 
 extent of the kingdom of England. 
 
 In token of friendship, and as the representative of his 
 English fiefs, William participated in Richard's second coro- 
 nation at Winchester, carrying, as Earl David had formerly done, 
 one of the swords of state. Perhaps he still hoped to win a 
 larger part of his claims, for when Hugh, bishop of Durham, 
 gave up the county of Northumberland, William at once offered 
 15,000 marks for it and its appurtenances. The offer was a 
 tempting one to Richard, but he would not include the castles 
 and without the political advantages they would afford William 
 cared little for the pecuniary value of the fief. A few days later 
 another attempt was made, but, says Hoveden, "It was not a 
 
 domain wastels (dominis guastellis) ; and a like number of simnells of same ; and 
 12 sesterces of wine, viz., 4 of the K.'s domain wine, with which he is served, and 
 8 .... ; and 2 stones of wax, or 4 candles ; and 40 of the domain candles, with 
 which the K. of England is served ; and 80 candles of the kind served to the K.'s 
 house ; and 2 pounds of pepper ; and 4 pounds of cinnamon (cimini) ; and besides, 
 the attendance which his ancestors had coming to and returning from the court of 
 England, viz., that the Bishop of Durham, and the sheriff and barons of Northumber- 
 land, shall receive him on the marches and conduct him to the Tees ; and there the 
 Archbishop of York, and the sheriff and barons of that shire shall receive and conduct 
 him to the bishopric of Lincoln ; where the Bishop of Lincoln and sheriffs and 
 barons of the county shall receive and conduct him through their bailliaries ; and in 
 like manner the bishops and sheriffs of the provinces through which he shall pass to 
 Court. Wherefore the K. wills and firmly commands that K. William and his 
 heirs shall have the aforesaids forever, both in expenses and conducts, and in fugi- 
 tives who shall wish to defend themselves from felony at the English court, in peace ; 
 the bishops, sheriffs, and barons doing the said services, and keeping all other rights 
 and liberties, and each sheriff finding the foresaid expenses in his bailliary. 
 
 Witnesses.— April 17, 1194. 
 
 Bain, I, No. 226 ; Foedera, \, p. 87. 
 
94 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 part of the king's plan to deliver any castles to him ; neverthe- 
 less he gave him hope of having them in future, after his return 
 from Normandy." The next day William returned disappointed 
 to Scotland, and the kings never met again.' 
 
 The following year William fell ill at Clackmannan, and 
 assembled his barons to consider the question of the succession. 
 He wished to settle it on Otho, son of Henry, duke of Saxony, 
 and nephew of Richard, on condition that Otho should marry 
 his eldest daughter, Margaret. A strong party, headed by Earl 
 Patrick of Dunbar, opposed this, on the ground that it was not 
 the custom that a woman should possess the kingdom, so long 
 as a nephew or brother of her race survived who might possess 
 it. William's speedy recovery did not lead to a change of mind, 
 and the next year a conference on the subject was held at York 
 with Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury, justiciar of England, 
 and legate of the Apostolic See. Margaret was to have Lothian 
 as her dowry, while all Northumberland and the county of Car- 
 lisle were to be given to the royal pair by Richard. Lothian, 
 with its castles, was to be held by Richard, Northumberland and 
 Carlisle, with their castles, by William, Had Lothian been an 
 English fief, it would have been little to Richard's satisfaction 
 to gain the custody of his own earldom in exchange for all 
 Northumberland and the county of Carlisle, Lothian evidently 
 was not a part of Northumberland at this time, nor did it sustain 
 any feudal relation to England. Hopes of an heir led William 
 to delay the execution of this plan, and in 1 190 a son was born, 
 Alexander H, to whom, at the age of three years, the barons of 
 the realm swore fealty. Richard had died in 1199, and the 
 clouds of doubt and strife which hung over England and Nor- 
 mandy on the accession of John began to darken the horizon of 
 Scotland's future.^ 
 
 'Hoveden, An. 11 94. 
 
 ■Hoveden, An. 1195; Hailes' Annals, I, p, 149; Early Kings, I, p. 399. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE PERIOD OF THE GREAT CHARTER. 
 
 To interpret the events of this period aright, it is essential 
 to recall the amalgamating forces which were drawing England 
 Anglo-Scotch ^"^ Scotland into closer relations. The marriage 
 Relations ^^ Malcolm and Margaret was followed by that of 
 
 Henry and "good Queen Maud." Her brother 
 David, a welcome guest at Henry's court, married the widow of 
 a rich, powerful English earl, and gathered about him that band 
 of Norman nobility whose descendants were to claim the 
 Scottish crown. It was part of a common policy now to push 
 out the bounds of territory and dominion by the peaceful 
 methods of marriage and inheritance, rather than by the con- 
 quests of war. The kingdom of England was dotted over with 
 Scottish holdings. The Scottish descendants of Cospatric are 
 now found as far south as Wiltshire. Alexander II holds lands 
 in ten counties of England. Of the illegitimate daughters of 
 William the Lion, Isabella married Robert de Brus, and later 
 Robert de Ros ; Ada married Earl Patrick of Dunbar ; Margaret 
 was married to Eustace de Vesci, and Aufrida to William de Say. 
 Of his three daughters by Ermengarde, Margaret was married 
 to Hubert de Burgh, the actual ruler of England during the 
 minority of Henry III, Isabella to Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, 
 
 and the beautiful Marjory — who was sought by Henry himself 
 
 was eventually wedded to Gilbert, the mareschal, earl of Pem- 
 broke. William's brother, David, lived to old age, leaving 
 several children. His only surviving son, John "the Scot," 
 inherited the earldoms of Chester and Lincoln through his 
 mother, and the Huntingdon lands through his father. Of the 
 daughters, Dervorguil gave the family of Balliol its claim to the 
 Scottish crown, Ada married Henry de Hastings, and Isabella, 
 
 95 
 
96 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 the wife of Robert Bruce, became the mother of a noble line of 
 kings. These are only a few illustrations of the way in which 
 the two kingdoms were knit together by the bonds of family and 
 feudal ties.' Hence, when the child-king of Scotland marries 
 the little daughter of Henry HI, it is not strange to find the 
 father taking an active part in the regency, not as feudal lord of 
 Scotland, but on the ground of consanguinity, while his letters 
 under the royal seal disclaim any purpose to undermine the 
 liberties or independence of the kingdom of Scotland. It was 
 a favorite method of the times for a strong lord to grant a fief 
 to a weaker one, in the hope of eventually finding a pretext for 
 establishing a claim it was never intended to concede. And 
 undoubtedly a part of the English claims on Scotland arose in 
 this way. They came more largely, however, through the ming- 
 ling of family and national relations than through a set purpose 
 to unjustly extend the English power on the basis of the feudal 
 relation. 
 
 A certain class of historians takes special pleasure in putting 
 Scotland and Wales in the same category, as dependencies of 
 England. But such a theory is quite untenable. The true rela- 
 tion between the Scottish and English kings was that which 
 existed between the English kings and their French overlords. 
 There was, however, this marked difference. A greater unity 
 territorially, ethnically, and feudally existed at this period 
 between the northern and southern kingdoms of Britain than 
 between England and France — a unity which resulted in the 
 severance of England from her continental possessions, and 
 joined her with the independent kingdom of Scotland. The 
 independence of the kingdom was steadily guarded by the men of 
 Scotland as a precious treasure. It was acknowledged by the 
 kings of England, and, except during the reign of Henry II, was 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 5, 10, 12, 686. On genealogy cf. Hailes' Annals, 
 and Early Kings. Duncan, Earl of Fife, pays 500 marks for the custody of Roger de 
 Merlay's land and his son, in Northumberland, " and that the son may marry the said 
 earl's daughter." For a fine of ;i^200 Alexander II has the ward and marriage of 
 the heirs of David de Lindesi, with custody of their lands in eleven counties of Eng- 
 land. (Bain, I, Nos. 191, 822-3.) 
 
PERIOD OF THE GREAT CHARTER 97 
 
 never lost till the direct line of Scottish kings became extinct, 
 and their descendants, through the related Anglo-Norman stock, 
 submitted their claims to the great Edward. Even then the 
 true Scot spirit revealed itself. "According as they [the com- 
 petitors for the crown of Scotland] supported or withstood the 
 rights of their own prince [Edward of England] over the king- 
 dom which they claimed," says Mr. Freeman, "some of them 
 have won the name of Scottish traitors and others the name of 
 Scottish patriots." He asserts that from 924-1328 "the vassal- 
 age of Scotland was an essential part of the public law of the 
 isle of Britain;" and that "nothing is clearer than that this 
 homage (1072) was paid, not only for Cumberland or Lothian, 
 but for the true kingdom of the Celtic Picts and Scots." He 
 then constructs an ingenious theory according to which this 
 policy was carried out. The king of Scots held of the English 
 king by three forms of tenure. He held his true kingdom north 
 of the Forth and Clyde under a merely external supremacy ; 
 Scottish Cumbria as a territorial fief, and Lothian as an English 
 earldom. The first objection to this view is that it presupposes 
 a continuous feudal system in England from 924 to 1328 — a view 
 for which few advocates, if any, can be found. It would cer- 
 tainly be unjust to establish a true feudal claim on a non-feudal 
 precedent. A second objection is that the facts regarding Scot- 
 tish Cumbria and Lothian do not warrant such a theory. Nor, 
 third, do they warrant a merely external supremacy over the 
 kingdom north of the Forth and Clyde. For Richard released 
 William the Lion from all homage and allegiance for the king- 
 dom of Scotland. Such a supremacy, which brought with it 
 absolutely no rights or privileges, no tribute or service, no 
 power of interference unless gained in battle by the fate of arms, 
 is at best an exceedingly hazy thing. In reality, it did not exist. 
 Any such appearance is easily explicable through the peculiar 
 feudal and family ties which were formed. T\\& fact of such 
 supremacy is disproved by the best sources. The only basis for 
 such a conception lies in the mythical "commendation" of 924, 
 — truly a slender foundation on which to rear the massive feudal 
 
9 8 ANGL 0-SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 structure of later ages. From David to Alexander III Scottish 
 kings were, indeed, vassals of an English overlord. But the 
 relation was a purely personal one, and homage was rendered 
 only for English fiefs. It never embraced the kingdom of Scot- 
 land, except when extorted as the ransom of a captive king.* 
 
 The accession of John brought little joy to either England 
 or Scotland. He had many attractive personal graces, and con- 
 siderable gifts as a politician, diplomat, and war- 
 rior. But morally he was rotten to the core. "In 
 his inner soul John was the worst outcome of the Angevins. 
 He united into one mass of wickedness their insolence, their 
 selfishness, their unbridled lust, their cruelty and tyranny, their 
 shamelessness, their superstition, their cynical indifference to 
 honor or truth." ^ On the death of Richard, John at once sent 
 his representatives to England to receive oaths of fealty from 
 his subjects. In a meeting at Northampton they pledged their 
 word to David, the brother of the king of Scots, and many others 
 of the barons whose support was doubtful, that John would give 
 to each of them full justice if they would preserve their fealty to 
 him. King William sent messengers from the north, demand- 
 ing a restoration of his patrimony. But the English officials 
 would not permit them to cross over to Normandy, sending Earl 
 David instead to William, to urge him patiently to wait for 
 John's arrival in England. John also sent a message to William 
 by Eustace de Vesci, promising him full satisfaction of his 
 demands if he would meanwhile keep the peace. In May, 1199, 
 the king landed in England and was crowned at Westminster. 
 Roger, bishop of St. Andrews, was present at the coronation, 
 apparently to look out for the interests of the Scottish king, but 
 there is no mention of Earl David. Soon after, John gave a 
 hearing to William's messengers, but evaded giving an answer 
 to their demands for the northern counties, and again sought a 
 meeting with William, hoping he would come to him at Notting- 
 ham. The king of Scots refused to appear, and threatened war 
 
 'Freeman, Wm. Rufus, II, p. 126; Norman Conq., I, pp. 59, 124. 
 'Green, Hist. Eng., I, p. 229. 
 
PERIOD OF THE GREAT CHARTER 99 
 
 if his claims were not conceded. John was ready neither to 
 yield nor to fight, and evaded a final answer by placing the dis- 
 puted territory under the care of a powerful baron, while he has- 
 tened over sea. Seeing that his efforts for a settlement were in 
 vain, the king of the Scots collected forces to carry out his threat 
 of war. But doubt and fear oppressed him. His kingdom had 
 suffered much from the folly of his youth. Age and sickness 
 were breaking down his spirit. His heir was hardly out of the 
 cradle, and not yet established as his successor. Seeking for 
 guidance, he spent the night before the shrine of St. Margaret, 
 at Dunfermline. To his troubled mind, a divine admonition 
 seemed to warn him against attempting to secure his rights by 
 force. He accordingly disbanded his army.' 
 
 John meanwhile had plunged into war with Philip H. Nor- 
 mandy and Aquitaine had submitted to him, but Anjou declared 
 for Arthur. Philip supported the Angevins, but alienated them 
 by retaining the castles he took. This led to a truce between 
 the kings, during which John returned to England. Hoping to 
 meet the king of Scots, he came to York, but was again dis- 
 appointed, and returned to Normandy. In May he met Philip, 
 who restored to him Evreux and all the conquests he had made 
 in Normandy. John, however, became the "man" of Philip, and 
 conferred all he had just received on Philip's son Louis, as his 
 bride's marriage dower. Having thus been recognized by his 
 feudal lord as Richard's heir, he again crossed the channel with 
 his new wife, Isabella of Angouleme, and was recrowned with 
 her at Westminster. He now sent a distinguished delegation, 
 many of them related to the king of Scotland by marriage, "cum 
 litteris regiis patentibus de salvo conducto," to bring about the 
 long-deferred meeting. Earl David had been sent previously, 
 
 'Hoveden. An. 1199. The sensitiveness of the feudal relation between the two 
 kingdoms at this time is well illustrated by an insignificant event. A flood carried 
 away a bridge at Berwick-on-Tweed. The king of Scots ordered Earl Patrick " cus- 
 tos de Berwic," to rebuild it. But the bishop of Durham forbade him to sink a founda- 
 tion for it on the lands of Durham. The bishop at length yielded the point, but it 
 was "salva conventione" which had existed between the bishop's predecessor and the 
 king of Scotland. So easy was it to establish a feudal claim without any basis of right. 
 
 •^•ofC. 
 
lOO ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 It seems probable that William was unwilling to meet John until 
 the latter had confirmed Richard's charter of dignities and liber- 
 ties. Rumors of an alliance between the Scottish heir and a 
 French princess at last caused John to hastily dispatch an honor- 
 able escort to the north with the desired charter. William's 
 point was thus gained, and in November, 1200 A. D., the two 
 kings met at Lincoln for the first time, to discuss the points at 
 issue. The following day another conference was held on a 
 high hill outside the city, and William there did homage to John 
 in the sight of all the people.' It is noteworthy that there is no 
 mention of any oaths of fealty on the part of William's barons, 
 as under Henry II. The vague character of the homage, " de 
 jure suo," with the reservation by William "salvo jure suo," was 
 evidently part of an agreement with John that after homage had 
 been rendered the Scottish claims should receive consideration 
 and settlement. For the king of Scotland at once demands 
 "totam Northumbriam, Cumbriam, et Westmerilande, sicut jus et 
 haereditatem." The subject was discussed, but no settlement 
 was reached, and John asked time for consideration. It was 
 granted, and the king of Scotland returned home. The treacher- 
 ous John then asked for further delay and crossed over to Nor- 
 mandy. What the final outcome was is unknown, for with the 
 close of Hoveden's narrative all reference to the subject ceases. 
 The lack of a northern chronicler, as Mr. Robertson remarks, is 
 deeply felt. The monk of St. Albans who succeeds Hoveden 
 does not hesitate to omit "salvo jure suo" from the MS. he 
 copies, when it guards the independence of the northern king- 
 dom.^ 
 
 John's base conduct in securing Isabella as his wife roused 
 the barons of Poitou to take up arms. He appealed them for 
 
 » Hoveden, An. 1200 ; Early Kings, I, p. 417, note ; Bain, Cal. Docts., Nos. 299, 
 292, 371, 389, 396; Hailes' Annals, I, p. 151. William "devenit homo J. regis 
 Angliae de jure suo et juravit ei fidelitatem . . . . de vita et membris et terreno honore 
 suo, contra omnes homines et de pace servanda sibi et regno suo, salvo jure st(o." 
 
 *It is important to remember the feudal custom was homage first, then settlement 
 of fiefs. (Hoveden, An. 1201 ; Wendover, 1200; Early Kings, I, p. 41S; H, p. 
 414, and often, on Lingard's gross inaccuracies.) 
 
PERIOD OF THE GREAT CHARTER lOl 
 
 treason, but they refused to accept his wager of battle and turned 
 to Philip, who in 1202 summoned John to answer their complaints 
 before his peers. John refused to respond and was declared for- 
 feited of all lands which he held as Philip's vassal. His wicked- 
 ness and tyranny, the death of Arthur, and the growth of a 
 national spirit among the French, made Philip's conquest of 
 Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Touraine, and part of Poitou, an easy 
 matter. 
 
 The death of Hubert Walter, archbishop of Canterbury, in 
 1205, also involved John in conflict with the church, and in 1209 
 he was formally excommunicated by Innocent HI. During this 
 period the relations between the kings of England and Scotland, 
 though not hostile, were far from cordial, and William's devotion 
 to the see of Rome, after the interdict, was rewarded by a papal 
 bull, which confirmed him in "every liberty and immunity that 
 had at any time been conferred upon the king, church, or king- 
 dom of Scotland." But there had been no absolute break with 
 John. A letter of July 24, 1 205, illustrates the diplomatic negoti- 
 ations which were being carried on, some of which were kept 
 secret : 
 
 The King to the King of Scotland. Thanks him much for the 
 messengers whom he sent, and the good answer he gives regarding the 
 business between them, which he hopes, 'Deo Volente' may be per- 
 fected. Informs him that the messengers are retained for the present, 
 as he is to hold a council of his bishops and barons at the feast of the 
 Blessed Peter 'ad vincula,' on account of the death of H[ubert] Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury. He also awaits an answer from R[oger] con- 
 stable of Chester, and others whom he had sent to the Scottish king. 
 And after taking advice of the Council thereon, and getting mean- 
 while an answer from his said messengers, he will hasten to meet William, 
 as he shall hear from them, to finish the above business, or do better 
 as God shall teach him, as to the matters pending between them. 
 Assures William he is well pleased with the exception made in his letter 
 regarding the land of Tundale [Tynedale] to be retained by him, of 
 which no mention was made in the agreement discussed between them, 
 as he [William] was previously seized of it. Has done all in good faith.' 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, No. 368. 
 
I02 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 On November 30, of the same year, a safe-conduct was issued, 
 with the usual escort, for a meeting at York in the following 
 February. It grants William 
 
 . ... if by chance, 'quod absit,' he (John) withdraws by evil or other- 
 wise, a forty days' truce before returning to his land, so that in the 
 interim there may be no forfeiture by John or his men, to William, his 
 land or men ; sends him Earl David his brother, to remain in Scotland 
 till his return, as he asked of John by his messengers.' 
 
 This entry illustrates the scrupulous care necessary to guard 
 against John's duplicity, and also the fact that the possible for- 
 feiture of the English fiefs held by the king of Scotland and his 
 barons was a matter of the greatest moment. It was not the 
 fiefs only, important as they were, but also the possible right 
 of succession to the English crown which they carried with them, 
 that so often influenced the policy of the Scottish kings. They 
 preferred to make every concession, save the independence of 
 the kingdom, rather than imperil their possessions and claims by 
 an appeal to the sword. It was this policy which raised up 
 among their own subjects a hostile party, which threatened to 
 subvert the kingdom. 
 
 Another safe-conduct was issued " for coming to treat with " 
 John, in March, 1 206-7, "^"^^ ^he last of June, 1207, the sheriff 
 of York is allowed " lol. for the expenses of the K. of Scots, 
 for the first year, and 15I. in this year, when he (John) was last 
 at York." Robert fitz Roger is allowed 30I., "which he laid out 
 for the expenses of the K. of Scots, when he came to the K. at 
 York, by the K.'s precept." Again in October, 1207, the pro- 
 cess is repeated for a meeting "at Martinmas next " at York, 
 William "to stay there to speak with him [John] and to return 
 to his own country." Allowances for expenses are made, 
 as usual, from Yorkshire (15I.) and Northumberland (30I.). 
 How much light might be thrown on disputed points could 
 the tenor of these private meetings and compacts be known I 
 The above entries show the barrenness of the English chron- 
 icles — which record no meetings of the kings between 1200 
 
 'Bain., I, No. 368. 
 
 A 
 
PERIOD OF THE GREAT CHARTER 103 
 
 and 1209 — and confirm the accounts of the Scottish writ- 
 ers.^ 
 
 In the meantime England and Wales were suffering the pen- 
 alties of the interdict, which only served apparently to increase 
 John's tyranny and cruelty. His subjects " began seriously to 
 consider what prince there was in whose bosom they might find 
 a refuge." The sentence of excommunication hung over the 
 king's head, and began to be whispered through the streets. His 
 efforts to build a castle at Tweedmouth, threatening the grow- 
 ing interests of Berwick, had also aroused warm feeling in the 
 north. According to Fordun, the work, begun some years pre- 
 viously, had been leveled with the ground by the Scots, as often 
 as the English attempted its erection. A stormy meeting of the 
 kings in 1204 had been without definite results. Now, another 
 foreign alliance was set on foot, which probably contemplated 
 the union of the prince of Scotland with the heiress of Hainault 
 and Flanders — a project which would receive the hearty sup- 
 port of Philip. As lord of William's English fiefs, John had a 
 right to a voice in the marriage of his children, and the trans- 
 mission of those fiefs. ^ The fort at Tweedmouth had been 
 razed, too, and any foreign alliance was looked on with the 
 suspicion of disloyalty. For these reasons John prepared to 
 hasten north with a large army. The king of Scotland, posted 
 at Roxburgh, was summoned to meet him at Newcastle. His 
 illness, however, delayed negotiations, and his final answer, 
 prompted perhaps by the war party in Scotland, roused John's 
 wrath. The king of England had already expressed joy at 
 William's recovery, and 
 
 .... comes to meet him at .... to confer with him and settle matters 
 long discussed between them. 
 
 Now, he threatens war. But the interests which bound the 
 
 ' Fordun grows more reliable as he approaches his own era. On the errors of 
 Wendover cf. Early Kings, I, p. 423, note ; Bain, I Nos. 389, 396, 399, 401, 403, 410, 
 417, 422. 
 
 *This shows the personal feudal relation between the kings and their families 
 stretched to its fullest extent. 
 
I04 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 men of the two kingdoms to a peace policy prevailed, and 
 William met the king of England at Norham (Northampton — 
 Foedera) to treat for peace. Terms were agreed upon in August, 
 1209. William promised 15,000 marks, in four payments, "for 
 having the good will of his said lord the K. of England, 
 and fulfilling the conventions between them, confirmed on either 
 side by charters." For securing payment of which sums 
 
 .... et ad praedictos terminos reddenda, et pro eisdem terminis 
 fideliter tenendis, dedimus ei in tenentiam, obsides nostros quos habet, 
 et qui in praedictis Cartis nostris nominati sunt ; exceptis duabis filiabus 
 nostris quas ei liberavimus. Et cum praedictam pecuniam . . . . ei 
 persolverimus, ipse nobis hanc Cartam nostram reddet quietam. 
 
 The omission of the names of William's daughters from the 
 
 list of hostages in the Close Rolls, and the exception made 
 
 above, intimate that the chroniclers are in error in regarding 
 
 them as hostages. They were sent to England to be married, 
 
 and remained there after John's death, though the hostages were 
 
 restored. In 1211-12 the bishopric of Durham reports a writ of 
 
 4I. 6s. " for carriage of 7,000 marks of the K. of Scotland's fine 
 
 from Norham to Nottingham." The Foedera contains " Duae 
 
 Cedulae " of all the bulls, charters, and other muniments in the 
 
 king of Scotland's treasury at Edinburgh, inspected in 1282, on 
 
 the order of Alexander III, by three of his clerks. Among the 
 
 " Negotia tangentia Angliam " the following occurs: "Item, 
 
 Litera Reg. Johannis, ad recipiendum septem mil. et. D. Marc, 
 
 ad opus Reg. Angliae pro quodam fine, et de residuo remittendo." 
 
 This corroborates the testimony of the Exchequer records, 
 
 which make no mention of any further payment. Another 
 
 entry : " Item, Litera R. Johannis quod non possit Castrum 
 
 firmari super portum de Twedmuth," throws light on John's part 
 
 in the treaty, and shows that William maintained the stand he 
 
 had taken against the erection of an English fortress at Tweed- 
 
 jnouth.' 
 
 ' Fordun, Annals, § XXV ; Early Kings, I, pp. 418-20 ; II, p. 414 ; Mt. West, 
 Triveti, Hemingburgh, An. 1209 ; Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 450-93 ; Foedera, T, pp. 
 215-16. 
 
PERIOD OF THE GREAT CHARTER 105 
 
 Having also secured himself against the forfeiture of his 
 feifs and rights in England, he was now at liberty to turn against 
 those of his own subjects who got nothing out of the English 
 alliance, and for that reason, or on general principles, opposed 
 it.' John also had pressing demands calling him to the south. 
 In this 3^ear he received the homage of the free tenants of his 
 realm, and compelled the Welsh nobles to come to Woodstock to 
 perform the same duty. Had Scotland been a dependent kingdom, 
 her nobles would have received a similar summons as they did 
 under Henry H. The rebellious elements in both kingdoms 
 drew the kings into closer alliance, in order to secure the suc- 
 cession of their young sons. They met at Durham, and subse- 
 quently at Norham, the queen of Scotland also using her 
 influence to secure favorable terms. It seems probable that both 
 kings agreed, in case of the death of one, that the survivor 
 should support the rightful heir to the throne. William also 
 granted to John the marriage of his son Alexander, as his liege- 
 man,^ within six years from date, " so that it be without dis- 
 paragement," and both father and son promised to be faithful to 
 John's son Henry as their liege lord, and to maintain him in his 
 kingdom with all their power. Alexander was knighted soon 
 after by the English king, in London. This arrangement left 
 John free from any fears regarding a foreign alliance with Scot- 
 land, and William could devote his failing energies to putting 
 down the rebellious element in his own kingdom. 3 
 
 It may be asked why the English kings kept up an arrangement to the appar- 
 ent advantage of the king of Scots. It was (i) a convenient means of securing 
 peace on the border; (2) the inevitable outcome of the relations thus established. 
 Claims were originated which were sure of a marvelous development. (3) An effort 
 to realize the elusive dream of becoming overlord in the kingdom of Scotland, or of 
 uniting the two kingdoms by marriage. The effort for a legislative and commercial 
 union of two independent kingdoms finds its opportunity and begins to take form 
 under Edward I, but is foiled by the death of the Maid of Norway. 
 
 ^Alexander seems to have met John at Alnwick in 1210, where he did homage 
 "pro omnibus rectitudinibus." Payment of the balance of the 15,000 marks may 
 have been remitted here. (Early Kings, I, p. 424.) 
 
 3Mt. Paris, Hist. Aug., p. 119; Fordun Annals, § XXVI; Bain, Cal. Docts., I, 
 Nos. 501, 508, 518, 522; Wendover, An. 1212; Early Kings, I, pp. 424, 428. 
 
io6 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 Events in England were hastening the advent of Magna 
 Charta. According to Hemingburgh, the revolt of the barons 
 was precipitated in part by the lust of their king. In 121 2 he 
 mustered his forces to repress a fierce rising headed by Llewel- 
 lyn of Wales. While at Nottingham he received messages from 
 his natural daughter, Joanna, wife of Llewellyn, and from the 
 king of Scotland, that his life was not safe if he ventured into the 
 mountain fastnesses of Wales. He put more faith in these warn- 
 ings because, by his excommunication, his subjects had been 
 absolved from their allegiance to him. He, therefore, disbanded 
 his army, and returning to London demanded hostages from all his 
 suspected nobles. Robert fitz Walter and Eustace de Vesci were 
 so deeply implicated that they fled — the former to France, the 
 latter to his father-in-law, the king of Scotland. For De Vesci 
 had married his natural daughter, Margaret. John, attracted by 
 her beauty, had sought her out, only to be repulsed. His anger 
 was visited on De Vesci, who may have planned to wipe out the 
 insult by the death of the depraved king. Thus the conspiracy 
 arose, and it was, perhaps, through his daughter that William 
 got the information he laid before John. The flight of the lat- 
 ter's vassal to the north brought him again to the frontier, but 
 the illness of William prevented a meeting. John urged that 
 Alexander be sent in his father's stead. Though he offered 
 magnificent inducements, the majority of the Scottish council 
 feared his duplicity, and declared that Alexander, who might be 
 retained as security for De Vesci, should not leave the kingdom. 
 John was, therefore, compelled to return to the south without 
 accomplishing his object.^ 
 
 After a reign of almost fifty years, William the Lion passed 
 away amid the beautiful surroundings of Stirling castle (Decem- 
 ber 4, 1214). During his life he maintained the same gen- 
 eral relations with John as with Richard. The legal processes 
 of the day are suggested by pleas — in which Earl David 
 appears — of novel disseizin, concerning boundaries, etc., some 
 
 ' Heming. Chron., An. 1215 ; Wendover, An. 1212 ; Early Kings, I, pp. 430-1; 
 Fordun, Annals, § XXVII. 
 
PERIOD OF THE GREAT CHARTER 1 07 
 
 of which stand over sine die, "as the earl is in the K.'s service 
 
 beyond sea," or "has gone to Scotland by the K.'s precept," 
 
 and shall meanwhile "have peace from all impar- 
 
 General lances summonses and demands." The position of 
 
 the kincr of Scotland as tenant-in-chief of the lands 
 between John ° 
 
 and William subinfeoffed to his brother is clearly shown. A 
 
 certain Wido sought a warrandice from Earl David 
 "of the land of which he had a charter" from the earl's grand- 
 father. David's attorney 
 
 .... came and said that the Earl was not the heir of Earl David, his 
 grandfather. For the K. of Scotland holds that heritage, of whom the 
 Earl himself holds. The Earl has not taken the homage of Wido. 
 The court decides he is not bound to warrant. 
 
 But David also held lands directly of the king of England, 
 as illustrated by John's grant to him of the manor of Totham, 
 "to be held by two knights' service," and of "all Gumecester, 
 and 25 marks of land in Nasinton and Jarewelle for the service of 
 one knight, as in the charters of his brother Richard," It is this 
 double form of tenure which occasions, and at the same time 
 explains, the homages of the King of Scotland and of his sons 
 or men who hold lands in England, either under him or directly 
 of the English king. Such barons were placed in an unpleasant 
 predicament in the event of war, nor was it easy to avoid con- 
 flict in time of peace. A good illustration is the case of Ranulf 
 de Bonekil, a well-known border chief, who 
 .... on account of the service of his lord the K. of Scotland, could 
 
 not attend the recognizance of great assize He is not to be 
 
 put in default, or lose anything by absence, as the K. has guaranteed 
 him that day. The sheriff is also to accept his attorney to follow the 
 county and pleas, and do suit and service for his larid. The K. has 
 granted this, for the love & at the request of Alexander, son of the K. 
 of Scots.' 
 
 The court records afford many examples of this double 
 tenure, as well as many other interesting details — some of which 
 ought to be noted. In Northampton " Earl David owes 50 marks 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 269-71, 274, 290, 310, 542, 693. 
 
1 8 ANGLO -SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 for the ward of the land and the heir of Stephen de Cameis." 
 In Cambridge and Huntingdon he owes 1,000 marks "that Henry 
 his son' may have to wife Matilda de Calceto (Cauz) with her 
 land." As Henry failed to get the lady the fine was remitted, 
 and the rich heiress of Ralf de Cornhille was given him instead, 
 "with the land pertaining to her." 
 
 The expansion of commerce appears in a number of interest- 
 ing entries, showing the relations of the two kingdoms. Fre- 
 quent mention is made of scutage, sometimes due, often dis- 
 charged to Earl David. William de Breosa "gives ten bulls and 
 ten cows not to go to Scotland to attend the K. of Scotland to 
 the K." Aaron, a famous Jew of Lincoln, passes into history as 
 the creditor of the king of Scotland to the amount of 2,776!., 
 for which Earl David became surety.^ 
 
 One of the most striking illustrations of the complicated 
 nature of the feudal relation at this period is the case of Alan 
 and Thomas, of Galloway. This district was exceedingly restive 
 under Scottish overlordship. Malcolm IV repressed this spirit, 
 but after the capture of William the Lion the turbulence of the 
 lords of Galloway became more marked than ever. In accord- 
 ance with the terms made at Falaise they, with the other Scottish 
 barons, swore fealty to Henry II. Though lawfully still subject 
 to the king of Scots, they sought, and seem in one case to have 
 obtained, the right of direct dependence upon the crown of Eng- 
 land, even for their lands in Galloway. This was a distinct 
 infringement of William's rights, as set forth in the articles of 
 Falaise, but he seems to have acquiesced in the usurpation, 
 either because he did not feel strong enough to resent it by 
 force, or because it was arranged in some of the secret 
 treaties between himself and John. A charter of John's (July 
 8, 1212) 
 
 .... grants to Edgar son of Dovenald the reasonable gift made by 
 Henry the K.'s father, of his own land, and all the land which Ewarn 
 
 'Henry of Brechin, a natural son. (Bain, I, Nos. 281, 334, 350, 365.) 
 
 •Bain, I, Nos. 273, 558; 331, 363, 452, 599, 600 ; 282, 375, 433. 457, 484, 
 490. 
 
PERIOD OF THE GREAT CHARTER 1 09 
 
 his brother held in Straddune of the K. of Scotland, the day he died. 
 To be held in fee as in Henry's charter. 
 
 The same day the king received the homage of Edgar and 
 his son Fergus, and took "themselves, their men, their lands, 
 tenures, and possessions, into his protection ; and warrants them 
 as his own domains against all injuries." And under the same 
 date is an entry "for the expenses of Edgar de Gaweia (of Gal- 
 loway), who came to the K. with twenty horses and twenty men, 
 for four days." Mr. Bain says these charters "are remarkable 
 as evidence of the claim of superiority over Cumbria, for the 
 name of the land, 'Straddune,' indicates a site north of the Sol- 
 way." But the inference does not seem well taken. For, while 
 the land very possibly lay north of the Solway, there is every 
 evidence that the king of England was acting beyond his rights 
 in making grants there, availing himself of the conditions which 
 arose after the capture of the Scottish king and of the hostility 
 which the Galwegians felt to their natural and customary over- 
 lord. The charters are rather against the claim to superiority in 
 Scottish Cumbria than otherwise. John speaks of the reasonable 
 gift — an expression not met with elsewhere. He takes Edgar 
 and his son Fergus, "their men, their lands, tenures, and pos- 
 sessions, into his protection;'' he warrants them ''as his ozvn 
 domains, against all iiijuriesy These expressions, when viewed 
 in the light of Galloway's previous hostility to the kings of 
 Scotland and her punishment for the same, seem to indicate an 
 unjustifiable action on John's part and a fear of Scottish reprisals 
 on the part of his vassals. In any case, there is no evidence 
 that this condition existed till after the capture of the Scottish 
 king, nor was the usurpation based on any precedent claim of 
 superiority over this region. There is no doubt that Galloway, 
 as a whole, remained under the independent control of the kings 
 of Scotland, except during the later years of Henry H. The fact 
 that this grant of lands north of the Solway is the only instance 
 of its kind, invites the query whether after all "Straddune" was 
 not south of the Solway, among the English fiefs of the Scottish 
 king, or among the "debatable lands" on the western border, 
 
1 1 o ANGLO -SCO TCH FE UDAL RE LA TIONS 
 
 which continued to be a refuge for outlaws and criminals as late 
 as the union of the two kingdoms, in 1707.' 
 
 Thomas and Alan of Galloway held extensive fiefs in Eng- 
 land. From Worcestershire account is rendered against 
 Thomas of " 1000 marks for having the land which was Hugh 
 de Say's." From Warwickshire he makes return for "two 
 knights and four parts." He had large holdings in Ireland, 
 besides his earldom of Athol in Scotland. Alan occupied a still 
 more prominent place. He was the son of Roland, already 
 mentioned, who, though he did homage to Henry H with the 
 Scottish barons, remained a loyal vassal of William the Lion, 
 apparently marrying into the royal family. Alan succeeded his 
 father in the high ofifice of constable of Scotland. His wife was 
 the eldest daughter of Earl David and the earl of Chester's 
 sister. He was also related to King John, who conferred on 
 him large estates in Ireland. Through his mother, Helena, a 
 daughter of Richard de Moreville, he inherited English fiefs in 
 the shires of Northampton and Rutland. Hence it is not strange 
 to find him assisting John in his wars in Wales. There is no 
 evidence, however, that either he or Thomas were anything but 
 loyal vassals of William the Lion for their possessions in Scot- 
 land and Galloway.^ 
 
 ' Cf. Enc. Brit, on Cumberland ; Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Introd., p. xxxii, Nos. 523, 
 525-6. 
 
 ''Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 426, 500, 513, 519, 531, 550, 553, 560, 573, 580, 583-6. 
 July 20, 1212: The K. to his faithful cousin Alan de Galweia. "Requests him 
 for the great business regarding which he lately asked him, and as he loves him, to 
 send him 1000 of his best and most active Galwegians so as to be at Chester on Sun- 
 day next after the assumption of the Blessed Mary instant. And if he can send them 
 at his own cost, it will greatly please the K.; but if not, he is to send them to Carlisle, 
 where the K. will provide their pay; and Alan is to place over them a constable, who 
 knows how to keep peace in the K.'s army and harass his enemies." In August he 
 receives 300 marks "by way of gift," "to pay his squires who had come with him in 
 the K.'s service for the army of Wales." Had Galloway been a dependency of the 
 English crown, Alan would have been summoned as any other English baron. The 
 King, however, begs a favor of him, on the plea of kinship and his great need, and of 
 the favors Alan had received at his hands. He promises to pay the men if necessary, 
 and eventually does so. This rather contravenes the evidence for the claim of supe- 
 riority over Cumbria, and makes it necessary to explain the grant of Straddune on some 
 other basis. (Bain, I, Nos. 529, 533.) 
 
PERIOD OF THE GREAT CHARTER m 
 
 The apparently dry Exchequer Records afford an interesting 
 glimpse of the social life of the thirteenth century, in accounting 
 for the expenses of the Scottish princesses com- 
 mitted to John's care. Geoffrey fitz Piers "owes 
 ten palfreys and ten goshawks, that the K. of Scotland's daugh- 
 ters may not be committed to him in ward." He is pardoned the 
 palfreys, and only the goshawks may be demanded. Their jour- 
 ney from Bristol to Nottingham is accompanied by the convoy 
 of 48,000 marks from the Bristol treasury. 36I. i8s. 4d. are 
 expended "for the robes of the K. of Scotland's daughters and 
 their governesses" (magistrarum). At Windsor two seams 
 (summae) of fish, fifty pounds of almonds (amigdalarum) , and 
 one hundred pounds of figs (figis) are bought for their use. At 
 Nottingham they have robes of green, trimmed with rabbits' 
 fur, and russet hoods. There is also a russet rain-hood (capa 
 pluvialis) for the use of their master. Their father sends the 
 royal falconers with a gift of girfalcons to the king, and Adam 
 de la Mark receives 20s. by way of gift, for carrying a like present 
 from John to the king of Scotland. In May, 121 3, the princesses 
 are "at the house of the Temple, near Dover." The last of June 
 they are at Corfe, and the king commands the mayor and reeves 
 of Winchester to provide for the queen, his niece [Eleanor 
 of Brittany], and the two daughters of the king of Scotland, 
 "robes and hoods, and other necessary clothes." In July the 
 mayor is to send "in haste" robes of dark green, and for the 
 use of the three maids robes of bright green, a hood for rainy 
 weather, cloaks furred with lambskin, thin summer shoes (stiva- 
 lia), and a saddle with gilded reins for the king's niece. But 
 back of all this there lay a distinct political purpose. There is 
 little doubt that John intended, contrary to his agreements, to 
 retain the princesses in his charge, unmarried, in order that, 
 should anything befall the sole male heir of William the Lion, 
 he might marry his son Henry to one of William's daughters, and 
 thus place the crowns of England and Scotland upon the head 
 of his own heir.' 
 
 ' Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 463, 530, S44, 559, 562-4, 572, 579, 581; Early Kings, 
 I, p. 423, note. 
 
I I 2 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 The death of William the Lion left his son, Alexander II, a 
 boy of sixteen years, as king of Scotland at a very critical 
 
 period in the history of English liberties. As John 
 Alexander II, . , , , , 1111 , 1 • 1 
 
 remained obdurate, the poy^e had declared his depo- 
 1214-1249 ' r 1 r 
 
 sition, and transferred his crown to the king of 
 France. This agreed perfectly with the schemes of Philip 
 Augustus, and he at once gathered an army to enforce the papal 
 decree. John also summoned his barons to oppose Philip's land- 
 ing. But he knew how bitterly many of them hated him. He 
 had already been warned of the intrigues against his life. It 
 was apparently the revelation of this conspiracy at home which 
 now led him to suddenly yield all the papal demands. The 
 exiled clergy were recalled, before whom the king made abject 
 submission. Homage for England and Ireland, and an annual 
 tribute of 1,000 marks, stamped him as the vassal of the pope. 
 The statement that England "thrilled with a sense of shame" 
 is perhaps too strong. The chonicles only faintly suggest such 
 an idea. It is certain, however, that John went to the extreme 
 limit in his subjection to the papal see. Even the imperious 
 demands of Gregory VII had failed to win any such concession 
 from Henry IV. But as a political move the act was worthy of 
 the king's wily diplomacy. It rendered the preparations of his 
 enemies useless. It brought the censure of the pope upon the 
 barons who resisted the demand for service across the sea. It 
 added the hearty support of Rome to that of John's sister's son, 
 the Emperor Otto IV, and resulted in a joint attack on Philip. 
 But the defeat of the imperial forces at Bouvines' compelled 
 John to a truce without having regained anything north of the 
 Loire, and turned the tide of events in favor of English freedom. 
 
 In the struggle between the king and his barons. Earl David, 
 now an aged man, had not escaped the suspicion of John. A 
 curt dispatch of August 21, 121 2, commands him to immediately 
 deliver up the castle of Fotheringeia for the king's use. His 
 son is held as a hostage for his fidelity. In October, however, 
 he is again in the king's service, and in June, 12 13, has the ward 
 
 ' 1214 A. D. (Wendover, Ad, an.) 
 
PERIOD OF THE GREAT CHARTER 1 13 
 
 of a son of David de Lindescie, a hostage of the king. But in 
 July or August of the following year Peter, bishop of Winches- 
 ter writes that he 
 
 .... has much to discuss with him regarding the affairs of the K. 
 and his kingdom, and directs him, as he loves the K.'s honour, and 
 himself, and his hostages, and whatever he holds of the K., to put 
 aside all delay and hindrance, and come to the parts of London, where 
 he shall hear the writer is, .... to discuss said matters. 
 
 A little later the king commands the sheriffs of Cambridge 
 and Huntingdon shires 
 
 .... to give to his beloved and faithful Earl David, his third penny 
 in these counties, as he used to have. 
 
 And an order from Runnymede, June 21, 121 5, restores his 
 hostages and the castle of Foderingeya to him, as he "is to per- 
 form homage to the K."' 
 
 On the death of William the Lion, Alexander had been at 
 once crowned king of Scotland at Scone. Though he sympa- 
 thized with the English barons and had from them a promise of 
 the northern counties in return for his co-operation, he took no 
 active part, and in July, 121 5, sent messengers to John "regard- 
 ing his affairs at the English court." But after the king had 
 repudiated his oath to the barons at Runnymede, Alexander 
 crossed the border with his men and allied himself definitely 
 with the king's enemies. The northern counties were made 
 over to him as promised,^ and the barons of Northumberland and 
 Yorkshire, having first destroyed the means of subsistence, retired 
 with the Scottish forces across the border and tendered their 
 allegiance to the king of Scots. John set out for the north with 
 his Flemings and Brabanters, and ravaged the country as far as 
 Haddington, but was forced to retire for want of supplies. The 
 Scots retaliated by ravages in Cumberland.^ 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, No's. 534, 539, 541, 574, 601, 616, 622-3. 
 
 'The staff used by De Vesci in the ceremony was subsequently carried off by 
 Edward I. Cf. Early Kings, II, pp. 4-5, note. 
 
 3Fordun, Annals, §§ 29, 33, 34; Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., II, p. 641 ; Bain, I, No. 
 629; Foedera, I, p. 203. 
 
114 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 The reversal of the pope's attitude toward John and his bar- 
 ons in the contest for their liberties, and the insufferable inso- 
 lence and cruelty of the king, resulted in an appeal to France. 
 Philip's eldest son Louis had a quasi claim to the throne through 
 his wife, Blanche of Castile, who was a grand-daughter of Henry 
 II. To the papal opposition Philip replied that the king of 
 England had no right to transfer his kingdom to another without 
 the consent of his barons. The ambition of Blanche urged her 
 husband to action, and in May, I2i6, he landed on the island of 
 Thanet. Alexander again crossed the northern border, and 
 marched triumphantly throughout the length of England to 
 Dover, where he met Louis and did homage to him " de jure 
 suo, quod de rege Anglorum tenere debuit." John meanwhile, 
 wrathful but impotent, was planning to intercept and cut off the 
 Scottish forces on their return. But disaster overtook him while 
 crossing the Wash, and his death followed soon after. It is said 
 that his own camp was sacked by the very army he had schemed 
 to destroy." 
 
 'Fordun, Annals, § 35; Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., II, pp. 666-7. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER II. 
 
 The guardianship of John's nine-year-old son, who was 
 crowned in his father's stead, was at once assumed by William 
 Henry III ^^^ Marshall, earl of Pembroke, and Gualo, the 
 
 1216-1272' P^P^^ legate. Hubert de Burgh also remained 
 
 loyal, refusing to surrender the castle of Dover to 
 Louis. The national spirit was growing, and men hoped for 
 better things from Henry than they had received from John. 
 Hence, Louis' cause steadily lost ground, and peace soon fol- 
 lowed the battle of Lincoln (1217). Alexander's kingdom was 
 placed under an interdict because he allied himself with the 
 enemies of John, and refused to surrender the castle of Carlisle, 
 which he had taken, to Henry. But a milder policy prevailed 
 
 under Honorius III. In his first year he wrote a 
 Makes Peace ^^therly letter to Alexander, urging him to give up 
 
 the alliance with Louis, and to renew his fealty to 
 the king of England. He promised him the especial grace and 
 favor of the Apostolic See, " and moreover to aid him in recov- 
 ering Henry's favor, and also his own right." The treaty 
 between Henry and Louis admitted Alexander to its terms, on 
 condition of restoring the castle of Carlisle, and a reconciliation 
 was soon brought about. At the same time Alexander was 
 released from the interdict, though the craft of Gualo is said to 
 have withheld a like favor from the people and clergy of Scot- 
 land, until they had "slaked the thirst of his money bag with 
 draughts of money. "^ 
 
 Safe-conducts were issued in November, 1217, and the con- 
 stable of Chester was ordered to meet Alexander at Berwick, 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 664,668; Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., Ad. an ; Fordun 
 Annals, §§ 36, 37. 
 
 115 
 
1 1 6 ANGLO -SCO TCH FE UDAL RE LA TIONS 
 
 and escort him to Northampton, where he did homage, and was 
 put in full possession of his fiefs. On December 19 Henry 
 wrote to the sheriff of Lincoln, commanding him — as Alexander, 
 king of Scotland, "has come to his allegiance (ad fidem et ser- 
 vicium) and has done to the K. what he ought to do' — to give 
 the said K. seizin of his lands and tenements which Earl David 
 held of him (de eo) in his bailliary of the honour of Hunting- 
 don." (Similar writs were sent to the sheriffs of iiiiie counties — 
 Leicester, Cambridge and Huntingdon, Northampton, Rutland, 
 Bedford and Buckingham, Essex and Middlesex.) This letter 
 shows: (i) the extent oi the English fiefs held by the king of 
 Scotland ; (2) the fact that the earl of Huntingdon held that 
 honor and other lands of the king of Scotland as teiiafit-in-capite ; 
 (3) that these lands had been so held before the meeting at 
 Northampton. The homage done for them previously was now 
 repeated in token of peace and renewal of fealty.^ 
 
 Two years later Alexander's uncle, David, died. One son, 
 
 John "the Scot," survived him. The custody of the honor of 
 
 Huntingdon, till the heir should come of age, was 
 
 erranted to Alexander as te?tant-t?i-capite. About 
 Earl David ^ . ^ . 
 
 this time he set negotiations on foot to bring about 
 
 the marriage of himself and his sisters. The limit of six years 
 
 stipulated in the last agreement between his father and John 
 
 had already expired, and nothing had been done. 
 
 , Alexander referred the matter to Honorius, who, 
 
 Alexander 
 
 in 1 2 18, had confirmed in the strongest terms the 
 
 liberties and independence of church, kingdom, and king of 
 Scotland. Conferences were held at Norham between Alexan- 
 der, Pandulph, the papal legate, and Stephen de Segrave, chief 
 procurator for the king of England. An agreement was finally 
 reached and arrangements made for a meeting of the kings at 
 York in June, 1230. The earl of Warrenne conducted the royal 
 
 ' A general term used with reference to any expression of homage or fealty. Cf. 
 Bain, I, No. 743. The widow of Gerard de Furnevalle is commanded " to do to Alex., 
 K. of Scotland, what she ought, for the lands held of him in England." 
 
 * Bain, I, Nos. 673, 678-9, 684, 686. On Lingard's statements cf. Early 
 Kings, II, p. 8. 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER II 1 1 7 
 
 guest from Berwick bridge. There are the usual entries for the 
 corrody of the king. Henry promised to give Alexander his 
 eldest sister, Joanna, in marriage. If this could not be done,' he 
 should have the younger sister, Isabella, within fifteen days of 
 the ensuing feast of St. Michael. Margaret and Isabella, sisters 
 of the king of Scotland, were to be honorably married within a 
 year, withiji the realm of E?iglafid;'' or if not, they were to be 
 returned safely within a month after the said term, to their own 
 land. Alexander agreed to this arrangement, and documents 
 properly witnessed were exchanged on both sides. ^ 
 
 The following May the king of Scotland was escorted with 
 all the feudal honors and dignities of his forefathers from Ber- 
 wick to the Tees by the archbishop of York, the earls and barons 
 and sheriff of Northumberland, and the seneschal of the bishop 
 of Durham, who was the king's chancellor ; and from the Tees, 
 by the sheriff and barons of York, to the capital of the north, 
 where his marriage with Joanna was duly solemnized. At the 
 same time his sister Margaret was wedded to Hubert de Burgh, 
 the powerful justiciar and practical ruler of England.^ So long 
 as this man stood at the head of affairs, there was peace and 
 justice between the two kingdoms. He represented the national 
 spirit, and was intensely jealous of foreign control. After his 
 fall, in 1232, and the rise of his enemy, the Poitevin Peter des 
 Roches, bishop of Winchester, to the place of chief adviser to 
 the crown, the old system of encroachment on the liberties and 
 independence of Scotland was revived. 
 
 ' Hugh de Lusignan, count de la Marche, was to have married her, but preferred 
 the widowed Queen Isabella instead. He continued his custody of the daughter, how- 
 ever, hoping to profit thereby, and it was with difficulty that Henry secured possession 
 of her. 
 
 ' This clause marks the jealousy of a foreign alliance. 
 
 3 Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 730, 732, 734, 739, 740, 749, 755-6, 758, 761-2, 766; 
 Foedera, I, p. 227 ; Annal. Dunst., An. 1220 ; Fordun, Annals, §§ 31, 40. 
 
 ■♦ The marriage of Isabella to Roger le Bigod, son. and heir of Hugh, earl of Nor- 
 folk, did not take place till the summer of 1225. The third part of all Roger's lands 
 were given her in dower "according to the law and custom of England." The king 
 of Scotland has ward of the lands of Roger till he reaches his majority. (Mt. Paris, 
 Chron. Maj., An. I22I ; Bain , Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 803, 806, 808-9, 9o6, 909. 925. 939. 
 940, 1002-5. On the reasons for the fall of De Burgh see Early Kings, II, p. 24.) 
 
1 1 8 ANGLO-SCO TCH FEUDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 Meanwhile, however, Alexander was freely exercising his 
 
 rights as the independent sovereign of Scotland in putting down 
 
 a revolt in Argyle. In 1234 the death of Alan fitz 
 
 Troub e in Roland caused disturbances in Galloway, which 
 
 Galloway 1 i tu i 
 
 were also successfully repressed. Ihe sources fur- 
 nish fresh proof of an independent Scottish supremacy north of 
 the Solway. Both Alan and his father held English fiefs, but 
 they were first of all devoted to the interests of the king of 
 Scotland, nor did the double relation they sustained^ in any way 
 
 ' He left three daughters, but no son. The men of Galloway appealed to Alex- 
 ander to prevent its partition among the heiresses, and rallied around a natural son of 
 Alan. But they were defeated, and the daughters of Alan were confirmed and main- 
 tained in their rights by the Scottish king. About the same time Alexander strength- 
 ened his interests among the barons who headed the national party in England by 
 giving his youngest sister, Marjory, in marriage to Gilbert the Marshall, earl of Pem- 
 broke, the rites being honorably celebrated at Berwick. (Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., Ill, 
 pp. 364-5. Cf. Early Kings, II, p. 25 ; Annal. Dunstap., An. 1235.) 
 
 = The sheriff of Rutland is commanded "to take in the K.'s hand Alan de Gal- 
 weia's land in Wissendene, which the K. committed to Earl David till Alan did hom- 
 age to the K." "The justiciar of Ireland is commanded to allow Thomas de Gal- 
 weia, who has done homage to the K., to hold the lands given him by K. John in 
 Ireland in peace, according to his charters." In answer to a letter of Alan's regard- 
 ing the lands he held of the English crown Henry writes : " The king has ordered 
 that his lands in Ireland, given by K. John, shall now be restored, and letters to this 
 effect have been sent .... to the justiciar of Ireland. The K. farther informs him 
 that he and great part of his council are to meet A[lexander] K. of Scotland, and 
 great part of his council at York at that day {sic), to discuss matters relating to their 
 two kingdoms ; therefore he directs Alan to come there on the foresaid day, to do his 
 homage and fealty, and grant the charter of his faithful service, and the K. will will- 
 ingly do regarding Alan's English lands what he ought to do de jure.'' A writ of 
 June 16 orders the sheriff of Rutland to give Alan seizin of his land and its issues 
 from date of first writ, as he has done homage. (Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 718, 722, 
 955, 763-4.) These citations again show (i) that homage preceded the conferring of 
 fiefs. The process, therefore, had no validity till it was complete. Homage was con- 
 sequently often expressed vaguely, or with a reservation — "salvo jure suo," and some 
 English historians have claimed such homage by the kings of Scotland as being for 
 their kingdom. It might as properly be claimed that the homage of Alan was for his 
 lands in Galloway, though after the homage his English lands are expressly men- 
 tioned. They show (2) how intricate the relations between the kingdoms were becom- 
 ing ; how an unscrupulous king in an appeal to the pope, for example, might be 
 tempted to twist the homage of the constable of Scotland for lands in England and 
 Ireland so as to include lands in Scotland. It was only by the exercise of the most 
 scrupulous care, which becomes increasingly manifest, that the perversion of feudal 
 rights was prevented. 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER II "9 
 
 affect the independence of the land of their nativity. The atti- 
 tude of Alexander during these events is in striking contrast 
 with that of William the Lion under Henry II. 
 
 The fall of Hubert de Burgh and the death of Richard the 
 
 Marshall opened the way for a revival of the English claims to 
 
 supremacy in Scotland. The first act of hostility 
 
 Hostile Policy ^^der the reign of the new favorite, Peter des 
 
 toward Scot- j^Q^^es, was the ratification by the king of an 
 
 appeal which the archbishop of York 
 .... is about to make .... against A[lexander] K. of Sots having 
 himself crowned, in prejudice, both of the royal dignity and of the 
 liberty of the said archbishop and his church. 
 
 The provisions of the treaty of Falaise were adroitly set 
 forth as part of the later agreements between John and William, 
 and drew from Gregory IX a letter favorable to the English 
 cause. The true purpose and character of the transaction have 
 already been exposed ; the king's claim had as little basis of 
 right as did that resuscitated by the archbishop of York.' 
 Alexander's reply was a demand on the king for the satisfaction 
 of his claims in the north of England. He declares, says 
 Matthew of Paris, that he had charters, witnessed by many of 
 the bishops and chief clergy, and of the earls and barons, certi- 
 fying that King John had given him " terram Northamhumbriae " 
 with his daughter Joanna " in maritagium ; " that it was infamous 
 for a king to annul a pact thus made and witnessed. He added 
 that unless what approved itself as his evident right should be 
 granted peaceably, he would demand it with the sword. Many 
 of the English barons sided with Alexander, declaring his cause 
 just, and reminding Henry of the dangers which threatened him 
 in Wales and France. Both parties finally agreed to remain at 
 peace till an equitable settlement could be reached In the 
 interim John "the Scot," earl of Chester, Lincoln, and Hunting- 
 don, died. The king of Scotland received seizin of the honor 
 of Huntingdon, and other lands, which John had held of him as 
 
 iBain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 1154,1181,1265-6; cf. No. 1277 ; Early Kings, II, 
 pp. 30-1, 418, 420; Foedera (Record Ed.), I, Pt. I, pp. 214, 215, 233; Pt. II, p. 932. 
 
I20 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 tenaiit-m-capite — four manors being excepted, which the earl 
 held directly of the king of England.' 
 
 On the 13th of August, 1237, Henry wrote to the arch- 
 bishop of York that he was coming to treat of peace with Alex- 
 ander, but that he would not be able to go as far 
 Settlement of ^^ Durham, on account of the legate, whom he 
 
 the Northern • u j i. u ^ ^ 4-1 t m 
 
 _, . wished to be present at the conference. JNor 
 
 Claims ^ 
 
 indeed could Durham "hold such a multitude of 
 people, nor would they find victuals." The archbishop and 
 others were to meet the king of Scots as usual and conduct him 
 to York. Here, on September 25, an agreement was reached 
 between Henry, king of England, and Alexander, king of Scot- 
 land, "respecting all claims made by, or competent to, the 
 latter, up to Friday next before Michaelmas A. D. 1237." This 
 agreement, ratified in the most solemn manner by the barons 
 and clergy of England and Scotland, is as follows : 
 
 The K. of Scotland quitclaims to the K. of England, his hereditary 
 rights to the counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmore- 
 land, forever; also 15,000 marks of silver paid by his late father K. Wil- 
 liam to John K. of England, for certain conventions, not observed by 
 the latter ; also frees him of the agreements between the said K. John 
 and K. William, respecting the marriages to be made between the said 
 K. Henry or Richard his brother, and Margaret or Isabella, sisters of 
 the said Alexander ; and likewise of the agreements between the said 
 K. Henry and Alexander r.egarding the marriage to be contracted 
 between the said Henry, and Marjory sister of said Alexander. 
 Henry on the other hand grants to Alexander 200 librates of land 
 within Northumberland and Cumberland, if they can be found outside 
 vills, where castles are placed, or in other competent places adjacent 
 to these counties ; to be held by Alexander and his successors kings 
 of Scotland, for the yearly reddendo of a 'soar' [one year old] 
 hawk at Carlisle by the hands of the Constable for the time of the 
 castle, at the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary, for all 
 demands. The kings of Scotland to hold the lands with sok and sak, 
 thoU and theam, infangenethef, utfangenethef, hamsokne, grithbrech, 
 blothwyt, fyghtwyt, ferdwyt, hongwyt', leyrwyt', flemensefrith', murder 
 
 I Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., Ill, pp. 372, 394, 413 ; Bain, I, Nos. 1325-9, 1333. 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER II I 2 1 
 
 and larceny, forstall', within time and without, everywhere. He and his 
 heirs, and their men of said lands, are to be free of all scot, geld, aids 
 of sheriffs, and their servants, hidage, carucage, danegeld, horngeld, 
 hostings, wapentakes, scutages, lestages, stallages, shires, hundreds, 
 wards, warthpeny, averpeny, hundredespenny, borgalpeny, tething peny; 
 and of all works of castles, bridges, park enclosings, and all 'kareio, 
 summagio, navigio, building of palaces, etc. They shall have all ' wayf ' 
 animals found on their lands, unless the owner follows and proves his 
 property. All pleas hereafter arising, and wont to be held before the 
 Justices in banco, or before the K. himself on his Eyre, shall hereafter 
 be pled in the K. of Scotland's court within said lands, and be deter- 
 mined by his bailiffs, by the return of the K. of England's writ, deliv- 
 ered by his sheriffs to said bailiffs, if such pleas can be held and deter- 
 mined by the law of England. Pleas not determinable before the said 
 bailiffs, shall be held and determined before the K. of England's Justices 
 errant, at their first assize within the county where the lands lie, before 
 any other pleas are held, as shall be just, the Steward of the K. of Scot- 
 land being present and sitting as a Justice. The bailiffs or men of the 
 K. of Scotland, shall not go out of said counties where the lands lie for 
 any summons or plea. Should any of the land assigned be within a 
 forest, no forester of the K. of England shall enter to eat, or house 
 himself, or exact anything, except for attachments of pleas of the forest, 
 and by view of the K. of Scotland's bailiff if required. Pleas of the 
 Crown arising in the lands, shall be attached by the bailiffs and cor- 
 oners of the K. of England, in the presence (if desired) of fhe K. of 
 Scotland's bailiff, and shall be determined by the said Justices errant 
 and the foresaid steward, at the first assize as aforesaid. In other pleas, 
 justice shall be done, after trial, on any man of the said lands, by the 
 bailiffs of the K. of Scotland ; the said K. not having power to remit 
 any punishment according to law, nor to restore to the heirs of crim- 
 inals, land lost by felony, nor to remit amercements for forfeiture. 
 All other amercements and escheats of said lands, and all other issues 
 arising therefrom, shall remain to the K. of Scotland and his heirs ; 
 and should he or they be ever impleaded for the lands, the K. of 
 Engand shall warrant and defend them. The K. of Scotland is not to 
 appear, or answer for such suit to anyone, in an English court of law. 
 The Scottish K. makes his homage and fealty — de praedictis terris. 
 All writings on the above matters between the late or present Kings 
 of England and Scotland, to be severally restored ; but any clauses 
 
1 2 2 ANGLO-SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 in them not touching the same, but for the good of either kingdom, 
 are to be renewed ; and any charters found regarding the said counties 
 are to be restored to the K. of England.' 
 
 As a result of this convention, Henry directed his agents at 
 Bamburgh and Newcastle-on-Tyne to spend as little as possible 
 on fortifications, "as a firm peace has been entered upon . . . . , 
 so that now the king is not in fear of his castles as before." The 
 justiciar of Ireland is also to allow all the Scottish merchants 
 to come and trade in Ireland freely. A writ was soon issued 
 ordering certain men of England to meet the '' estimator es'' of 
 the king of Scots at Carlisle, "there to swear that they will 
 faithfully value the 200 librates of land to be assigned to A[lex- 
 ander] K. of Scots." But it was difficult to reach an agreement, 
 Henry naturally wishing to give as little as possible, and Alex- 
 ander insisting on a complete fulfilment of the treaty. There 
 are numerous entries on the subject. In November, 1240, Henry 
 instructs the "custos" of the bishopric of Durham, "out of the 
 issues of the same," to cause the king of Scotland to have 400I., 
 "in recompence of the arrears of land which the K. is bound 
 to assign, but has not yet assigned to him." On the 16 of 
 February, 1241, the king empowers the bishop of Durham to 
 assign Alexander lands in Cumberland, Westmoreland, and North- 
 umberland, to the amount of " 200I. librates of land." On the 
 20th Henry commands him, " if the K. of Scots is unwilling 
 to receive the 200I. librates of land to be assigned by the 
 bishop, to assign him lands or liberties to the additional amount 
 of 20 librates, unless by chance he is content with the less 
 amount. Gives the Bishop full powers." In April, 1242, the 
 
 ' The papal legate proposed to enter Scotland after the conclusion of the treaty. 
 Alexander replied that neither in his time nor in those of this antecessors had any 
 legate (for England) had such entrance, nor -would he tolerate it now. Odo, therefore, 
 returned to the south with Henry. In this connection Innocent IV decreed that 
 ecclesiastical causes arising within the kingdom of Scotland, " shall not be tried by 
 the Legates out of its bounds. But should the Roman See for any lawful reason ordain 
 that such should be tried out of Scotland, they are notio be tried in the city or diocese 
 of York, but only in Carlisle or Durham, as being nearer Scotland." (Mt. Paris, 
 Chron. Maj., Ill, p. 414 ; Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 1349, 1358, 1675; Foedera, I, 
 p. 376.) 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER II 1 23 
 
 claims which the Scottish kings had steadily maintained as their 
 right and inheritance were conceded and settled by a grant to 
 Alexander of " the manors of Langwadeby, Saleghild, Scottheby, 
 Scoureby, Carlanton, and sixty librates of land to be extended 
 and assigned to him in the K.'s manor of Penrith, with all their 
 liberties and free customs." A writ was also issued for payment 
 to Alexander "of 300I. for his arrears of 200 librates of land 
 which the king ought to have assigned to him."' 
 
 Soon after the conference at York, Alexander's, wife Joanna, 
 died, leaving him without heirs. Two years later he married 
 Marry de Coucy, daughter of a great French baron, and in 1241 
 Alexander III was born — the last direct male heir to the throne 
 of Scotland by the conjoined lines of MacAlpin and Cerdic.^ 
 
 In 1242 Henry was drawn into war with Louis IX of France, 
 through the influence of his Poitevin advisers. Before under- 
 taking it he tightened the bonds uniting himself and the king of 
 Scots, by making a complete settlement of the claims adjusted 
 at York, and by betrothing his daughter Margaret to the infant 
 heir of Alexander. The custody of the English marches was 
 also entrusted to the king of the Scots. During Henry's 
 absence, an event occurred which came near inter- 
 Walter Bisset j.,jp^jj^g ^j^g peaceful relations between the kingdoms 
 of England and Scotland. Walter Bisset, a powerful baron of 
 Norman descent, was banished from Scotland for an atrocious 
 murder. Repairing to Henry's court, he declared he was the 
 victim of a faction over which Alexander had no control, and 
 artfully insinuated that the latter had no right to deprive him of 
 his lands in Scotland without Henry's consent. He alleged also 
 that the king of Scotland, in violation of his fealty, had received 
 
 I Bain, Cal. Docts.. I, Nos. 1362-4, 1440, 1442, 1506, 1512, 1570-3. 1575-7, 1612. 
 "Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., Ill, pp. 479, 530; Fordun, An., §44; Bain, I, Nos. 
 1405-7 ; Early Kings, II, p. 33, note. Henry writes Alexander that "although the 
 business between him and the sister of the Queen of the K. {sic) [of England ?] 
 cannot attain the effect wished, yet he desires that so great a league may unite and 
 conjoin them, that in all their doings they may be mutually stronger." (Bain, I, 
 No. 1444.) Henry married Alienora, daughter of Raymond Berenger IV, count of 
 Provence, in January, 1236. {Cf. Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj.) 
 
1 2 4 ANGL 0-SCO TCH FE UDAL RE LA TIONS 
 
 in his land Geoffrey de Marisco, a fugitive from justice. 
 Alexander had given no ground for complaint, but his marriage 
 with Mary de Coucy, a French woman, and therefore supposedly 
 hostile to English interests, had occasioned a certain coolness of 
 feeling between the kings, which now culminated. Henry had 
 returned from Poitou in disgrace, and his weak nature was 
 peculiarly open to Bisset's insinuations. He secretly secured aid 
 from his wife's uncle, the count of Flanders. He also 
 commanded the Irish king, Dovenald, to join the justiciar of 
 Ireland — "who is shortly to set out for Scotland with the K.'s 
 Irish lieges" — ifi person, with such force as he could bring. 
 Similar writs were sent to twenty of the Irish chieftains. His 
 attitude to Ireland and Wales shows they occupied a position 
 radically different from that of Scotland — including both 
 Lothian and Galloway — the latter being clearly independent. 
 In the summer of 1244 Henry concentrated his entire 
 military force on Newcastle-on-Tyne. Alexander's father-in- 
 law, Engelram, had recently died, and the troops sent by his son 
 were intercepted by the English. But in his subjects the king 
 of Scotland found a bulwark of strength. A thousand knights 
 and about 100,000 infantry gathered about the king, prepared to 
 die for their country's just cause} Alexander had anticipated 
 Henry's attack by establishing himself in a fortified camp at 
 Ponteland, a little north of Newcastle, where he could observe 
 the movements of his antagonist. But the barons of England 
 who were so closely bound to both kingdoms, were little inclined 
 to war. They had a warm regard for the king of Scotland, and 
 his resolute bearing warned them of a dangerous and doubtful 
 conflict. They were indignant at sight of the contemptible 
 contingent from Flanders. The national spirit resented John's 
 policy of reliance on foreigners. An attitude of peace was the 
 normal condition of feeling toward Scotland at this time. 
 Negotiations were, therefore, easily set on foot. Paris describes 
 Alexander as "vir bonus, Justus, pius, dapsilis, ab omnibus tam 
 
 ' This from an English chronicler, Mt. Paris. He is the best representative of 
 the growing national spirit. 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER II 125 
 
 Anglis quam suis diligabatur, et merito." It is easy to infer on 
 which side justice lay. Henry's charges against Alexander were 
 that some of his nobles had built two castles in Galloway and 
 Lothian, to the prejudice of the English crown and the security 
 of English lieges on the borders ; that by sheltering Geoffrey de 
 Marisco and other fugitives, he had shown an intention of with- 
 drawing his homage and allying with France. The charters 
 which were mutually exchanged indicate that Henry received no 
 satisfaction except on the subject of the foreign alliance, which 
 was undoubtedly the real point at issue.' Alexander bound 
 himself and his heirs to keep the peace to his "liege lord," 
 Henry HI and his heirs; he would enter into no treaty of war 
 against the dominions of the English king, unless in requital of 
 injuries. The conventions lately entered into at York, as well 
 as those regarding the intended marriage between Alexander's 
 son and Henry's daughter, were confirmed. As one of the 
 disputed castles, the Hermitage, in Liddesdale, remained 
 standing, and no mention is made regarding the delivery of 
 fugutives, these points were apparently quietly dropped by 
 Henry's representativ^es as beyond his jurisdiction. Alexander's 
 rights having in turn been guaranteed against aggression, the 
 two armies retired from the frontier, the fortified camp at Pon- 
 teland was given up, and the kingdoms were again at peace. ^ 
 
 During Alexander's reign the records of the English court 
 
 portray afresh the anomalous condition of the king of Scots and 
 
 those of his nobles who held fiefs south of the 
 
 Tweed and Solwav — at once dependent and 
 
 p. independent. Where a conflict of service arose, the 
 
 Scottish vassals seem invariably to have been 
 
 excused from service for their English fiefs, that they might first 
 
 'A writ of April 20, 1244, commands the sheriffs of the northern counties "to 
 make close search if any one from beyond seas, knight, merchant or other stranger, 
 passes to Scotland, or any one from Scotland to parts beyond seas ; and to arrest any 
 such person bearing arms, or letters of a suspicious nature, and send him to the K." 
 (Bain, I, No. 1631.) 
 
 ^'Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., IV, pp. 200, 359, 361, 379; Bain, I, Nos. 1637, 1703, 
 1836, 1865, 1640-6, 1648, 1654-5, 1650 ; Early Kings, II, pp. 38, 40, 42; Foedera, I, 
 p. 429 ; II, p. 216. 
 
I 2 6 ANGL 0-SCO TCH FE UDAL RE LA TIONS 
 
 serve their king. If war arose between the kingdoms their 
 fiefs, forfeited by supporting their primary lord, the king of 
 Scotland, were usually restored on the return of peace. The 
 invasion of the fealty of subjects on either side is carefully 
 guarded against. Gifts of money are not to be wrongfully 
 construed. The king of England 
 
 .... declares that the aid of 2000 marks which A[lexander] K. of 
 Scotland has made at his instance against his transfretation this year> 
 proceeds entirely from that K.'s liberality ; and that this present, thus 
 freely made, is not to be hereafter drawn maliciously by any into a 
 precedent.' 
 
 There is a noticeable tendency on the part of border barons 
 to have their charters for possessions near the line confirmed by 
 both kings, especially in case of a transfer of property.^ 
 
 The K. (Henry) ratifies the lease (ballium) and grant made by 
 Robert de Muschans to Boidin de Argu of his manor of Chevelinge- 
 ham [Chillingham in Northumberland], to be held till the said Robert 
 shall cause Boydyn to have seizin of a carucate and a half of land, 
 three oxgangs and 6 acres of meadow, and a mill in Halsinton, con- 
 firmed by Robert to Boydyn by charter, in the said manor in 
 Scotland. 
 
 An interesting glimpse of the method of holding parliaments 
 at this early period is revealed in the order of the king of Eng- 
 land to let the nuns of Newcastle-on-Tyne have thirty quarters 
 of wheat "for the damages sustained by them in their crops 
 trodden down (conculcatis) by the Parliament lately held out- 
 side of said town." Seventeen parties in Northumberland are 
 similarly remunerated for losses to their crops on account of the 
 parliament between the kings of England and Scotland. 
 
 One of the most important features of this reign is the 
 development of " March law" — and an attempt to fix the line 
 between the two kingdoms. In 1222, at a meeting of duly 
 
 'The apparent ease with which Alexander obtained money, and the poverty of 
 Henry throughout his reign, are in striking contrast. 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 693, 818, 822, 970, 1041, 1241, 1295, 895, 909, 914, 
 1066, 1086, 1096, 1105, iioi, 1128, 1113, 832, 1676, 1699, 1749, 1765, 1776. 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER 11 127 
 
 appointed knights of Northumberland and Scotland, an attempt 
 was made to get "a true perambulation between the kingdoms, 
 viz., between Karham and Hawedene." The six English 
 knights, as jurors, "with one assent proceeded by the right and 
 ancient marches between the kingdoms," declaring on oath that 
 they were "from Tweed, by the rivulet of Revedenburne, 
 ascending toward the south as far as 'Tres Karras,' and from 
 thence in a straight line ascending as far as Hoperichelawe, 
 and from thence in a straight line to Witelawe." The Scotch 
 knights totally dissented from this view and threatened to pre- 
 vent such perambulation by force. Twenty-three years later the 
 matter again came up, the purpose being to make settlement of 
 "the lands in dispute between the Canons of Karham in Eng- 
 land, and Bernard de Haudene in Scotland."' The line formerly 
 declared to be the true one was agreed on in the presence of 
 several English justices, the justiciar of Lothian, the sheriff of 
 Roxburgh, and others representing both sides in the case. In 
 1248 a restatement of the March law was made. The king of 
 England, having heard from the envoys of the king of Scotland 
 "that the laws and customs of the Marches of the Kingdoms in 
 the time of their predecessors. Kings of England and Scotland, 
 hitherto used, were now less well observed," and that " injury 
 had been done to Nicholas de Sules against said laws," ordered 
 the sheriff of Northumberland "to cause the same to be inviola- 
 bly kept, and to give redress to said Nicholas if found due." 
 Certain knights of England and Scotland, having assembled 
 at the March on Tweed under the precepts of their respective 
 kings 
 
 .... for the purpose of correcting offences against said march laws 
 and customs, did duly correct, according to the ancient and approved 
 custom of the March, such matters as required redress. And it was 
 proponed on the part of the K. of Scotland that Nicholas de Soules 
 had been injured by being impleaded before the K. of England for 
 transgressions by his men of Scotland dwelling in Scotland, per- 
 petrated in England. The said knights, having carefully inquired 
 
 'Bain, No. 832. 
 
128 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 into the matter by the elder and more discreet persons on both sides 
 of the March, according to ancient march law and custom, say that 
 the said Nicholas has been injured by being so impleaded elsewhere 
 than at the march, although he holds land in England ; for no one 
 of either kingdom, although holding lands in both, is liable by March 
 law, to be impleaded anywhere but at the march, for any deed by 
 his men dwelling in England, done in Scotland; or for any deed 
 by his men dwelling in Scotland, done in England. 
 
 This statement makes it very clear that the same rules 
 applied with equal force to the subjects of both kingdoms; that 
 the holding of lands hi England was the sole ground for submitting 
 to the jurisdiction of English courts ; and that even U7ider such 
 circumstances the case in question must be tried at the March. It 
 well illustrates the proposition already set forth that the king- 
 dom of Scotland was independent, and that any appearances to 
 the contrary were occasioned by the peculiar relations which the 
 king of the north, and a considerable number of his subjects, 
 sustained to the lord of their English fiefs. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III. 
 
 Five days after the death of Alexander II his son was 
 
 crowned at Scone. There were some who opposed, on the 
 
 ground that the day was unlucky, and that the bov 
 Alexander III 
 
 'of eight years had not yet been knighted — an 
 
 honor, the conferring of which Alan Durward, the 
 justiciar of Scotland, coveted for himself. But Walter Comyn, 
 earl of Menteith, a man of foresight and power, and a loyal 
 friend of the deceased king, urged that delay was fatal, that 
 knighthood was not a prerequisite to kingship, and that the 
 interests of Scotland demanded an immediate coronation. His 
 arguments prevailed, and the consecration of the king ensued 
 upon the ancient Stone of Destiny. The coronation ceremonies 
 revealed the leaders of the two parties, whose strife and dissen- 
 sion made it possible for the king of England to intervene in 
 Scotland as "Principal Adviser" to the child husband of his 
 daughter. Walter Comyn, whose family was said to include at 
 that time " two earls and upwards of thirty knights," headed the 
 national or Scottish party. The southern barons, whose leaning 
 toward England is not to be wondered at, were led by Alan 
 Durward, the justiciar, Bruce, lord of Annandale, the steward, 
 and others. Menteith's promptness foiled Henry's purpose to 
 prevent the crowning of Alexander without his consent, while 
 the pope administered a merited rebuke for his efforts to have 
 the coronation set aside, and for seeking tithes of the ecclesias- 
 tical revenues of Scotland, in addition to those of England and 
 Ireland, for a crusade.' 
 
 'Fordun, §§47-8; Early Kings, II, pp. 53 ff.; Bain, I, Nos. 1798, 1806, 2014. 
 Innocent IV, to the king of England : " In reply to his request, that the K. of Scot- 
 land, since he is his liegeman and does homage to him, may not be anointed or 
 
 129 
 
1 3 o ANGL 0-SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 As the summer of 1251 began to wane, preparations were 
 made for the marriage of Alexander and Margaret, in accord- 
 ance with the agreements previously made. Every- 
 Alexander thing was on the most sumptuous scale. Writs 
 
 were issued for i;,ooo hens, i.SOO partridges, with 
 Henry's ^' , , , , , • 
 
 Daughter cranes, swans, peacocks, pheasants, hares, rabbits, 
 
 swine, and salmon, in proportion. Five hundred 
 bucks and does, well salted, were to be at York against the mar- 
 riage at Christmas, and 132 casks of wine. Rich presents of 
 jewels, gold, and silver, are daily recorded as in making; beauti- 
 ful robes in abundance, among others one for the king, of the 
 best violet samnite, "with three small leopards on the front, and 
 three others behind." A fair sword, and silver-gilt spurs, "with 
 silken ligaments, becomingly and ornately made," were to be 
 ready for the knighting of the heir to the throne of Scotland. 
 When this ceremony and the marriage rites had been performed, 
 Alexander rendered homage to Henry in the usual way, and 
 received investment of his fiefs in England. Matthew Paris 
 says the homage was "ratione tenementi, quod tenet de domino 
 rege Anglorum, de regno scilicet Angliae, Laudiano videlicet 
 at terris reliquis." When Henry urged homage for the kingdom 
 of Scotland as well, Alexander replied that he had come thither 
 at the request of the king on a peaceful and honorable mission, 
 viz., that they might be allied by marriage, and not to treat of 
 arduous matters of state — in which he would require the advice 
 of his council. Henry, perhaps ashamed of his attempt to take 
 advantage of a child, ceased to urge the matter. The Earl 
 Marshall was also forbidden to press his claims to the palfrey 
 of the king of Scotland.' 
 
 This narrative is specially significant because it comes from 
 a monk of St. Albans, whose chroniclers strenuously uphold the 
 
 crowned, without his consent, the K. is not to wonder if the Apostolic See, which is 
 unaccustomed to such demands, does not grant it, as greatly lessening the [Scottish] 
 K.'s dignity. The K. also is not to be disturbed at the Pope refusing to grant him the 
 tithe of ecclesiastical benefices in Scotland ; for it is altogether unheard of, that this 
 should be given to anyone in the kingdom of another." 
 
 ' Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., V, p. 266 ; Bain I, No. 181 5 ff. 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III 1 31 
 
 feudal supremacy of England in Scotland. It shows how one 
 attempt against the independence of the kingdom was frus- 
 trated. 
 
 Paris' statement that Lothian was among the fiefs for which 
 homage was rendered cannot be accepted. It seems to be an 
 echo from Wendover's fictitious account of the cession of this 
 district to Kenneth II by Edgar, in 975. It was claimed as 
 an English fief by some of the chroniclers, just as the Scots, 
 a few years after the capture of William the Lion, claimed that 
 his homage was for Lothian and not for the kingdom of Scot- 
 land. Both claims were equally false. Alexander III did not 
 do homage for the kingdom of Scotland, by Paris' own testimony. 
 This is the really important point. And if Lothian had been an 
 English earldom, as Palgrave and Freeman state, on exactly the 
 same footing as Tynedale, and homage had been done for it, as 
 Paris intimates, it must have been included, like Tynedale, in the 
 compotus of the lands of which Alexander received seizin, after 
 the homage at York. But it is not mentioned. Moreover, if 
 Malcolm IV surrendered Lothian with the northern counties to 
 Henry II, as the St. Albans chroniclers state, how does it now 
 appear as one of the English fiefs held by the Scottish king? 
 When was it restored to him ? In lieu of his surrender, Malcolm 
 received the honor of Huntingdon. And after the Barons' war 
 (12 1 7) Alexander II was seized only of this honor and the 
 lands connected with it in nine counties. But these were all 
 south of the Humber and could not have included Lothian. A 
 little later Alexander II received the grant in Cumberland in 
 commutation of all his claims on the northern counties. Lothian 
 is not included in the grant, nor among the counties claimed, for 
 which the grant was made. And yet, according to Paris, it is 
 among the English lands which Alexander II held, for which 
 Alexander III did homage and was given seizin. The utter 
 silence of the best sources regarding Lothian, and their explicit 
 testimony regarding all the English lands held by the king of 
 Scotland, expose the error of Paris and the falsity of the entire 
 conception of Lothian as an English earldom — in which, how- 
 
1 3 2 ANGLO -SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 ever, English justices have no place, from which the barons are 
 never summoned to do the service they render for their speci- 
 fied lands in Northumberland and elsewhere, and for which the 
 sheriffs make no account at the Exchequer, as they always do 
 for Tynedale and other English lands held by Scottish kings 
 or nobles. It was an integral part of the kingdom of Scotland."^ 
 
 The question of homage having been settled for the time, 
 the king promised to pay to Alexander, within four years, 
 5,000 marks of silver, as the " maritagium" of his daughter 
 Margaret; he would thus "be freed from said amount, as con- 
 tained in the writings between the K. and Alexander's father."^ 
 The bailiffs of the king of Scotland there present, at his own 
 instance, then spontaneously restored their bailiaries to him. 
 Fearing, however, that such an act done outside the kingdom of 
 Scotland might be wrongly construed, they required and received 
 from the king of England letters under his seal, that " no prej- 
 udice to the K. and kingdom of Scotland" should hereafter 
 arise because of their act. 
 
 For some years after Alexander's return to the north, Henry's 
 
 troubles in Gascony, and with his refractor}- nobles in England, 
 
 did not permit of interference in the kinordom of 
 Returns to '^ . ^ . 
 
 Scotland Scotland. He also wished to establish his son 
 
 Edmund as king of Sicily, with papal sanction, 
 Alexander IV, seeking an ally in the king of England against 
 the Emperor Frederic, had granted to Henry what Innocent 
 had stigmatized as "an unprecedented request" — a twentieth of 
 the revenues of the Church of Scotland. Henry declared, how- 
 ever, by writ, "that no prejudice shall hereafter arise to 
 A[lexander], K. of Scotland, or his heirs by reason of the grant 
 by the pope to the English K. of the twentieth of ecclesiastical 
 benefices in Scotland in aid of the Holy Land, for three years.' 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 1790, 1799, 1855, 1857. 
 
 * Henry was always embarrassed financially. He complains of being at "intoler- 
 able expense." A payment of 500 marks "drained" the Exchequer. In 1270 he still 
 owed 2,000 marks. (Bain, I, Nos. 1848, 1851, 2295, 2589. Cf. also Fordun, An., §50 ; 
 Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., An. 1252.) 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III 133 
 
 The attitude of the pope is well shown in letters to Rostannus, 
 his chaplain and envoy in England : 
 
 Desires him to enjoin the prelates and other dignified clergy of 
 Scotland to afford liberal aid to the Pope to defray his debts incurred 
 in the affairs of Sicily ; in which case his Holiness will remit the papal 
 twentieth granted to the K. of England in aid of the Holy Land. If 
 they do not, he is to collect the twentieth without delay. If he has to 
 take proceedings, he is to keep silence as to any privileges or indul- 
 gences to the Scottish Church, or the question of its independence. 
 
 And under the same date (1250), 
 
 Though the Pope has remitted to the prelates the twentieth of 
 ecclesiastical benefices in Scotland, granted to the K. of England, yet 
 the redemptions of vows of crusaders, uncertain bequests, and offerings 
 arising from whatever cause, in aid of the Holy Land, should be 
 collected for the said K.'s use. He accordingly commands his envoy 
 to collect the same, under the above reservations as to secrecy.' 
 
 Since the meeting at York, the Scottish national party, headed 
 by Walter Comyn, earl of Menteith, had been in control in Scot- 
 land. Alan Durward represented the faction of 
 g .. , nobles who, though holding fiefs in both kingdoms, 
 
 and primarily subjects of the king of Scotland, were 
 yet of southern blood, and favored Henry's interests. Yet both 
 parties, in their fiercest strife, resented any encroachment on 
 their rights, and Henry's interference in Scotland was tolerated 
 only on his repeated assurances, in writing, that he meditated no 
 harm against the liberties of the kingdom, seeking only the 
 interests of his son-in-law and daughter, till they should attain 
 their majority. 
 
 A variety of events, ending in a skilfully laid plot, gave the 
 English party possession of the young king and queen of Scot- 
 land, and the national party was defied to attack the castle of 
 Roxburgh while it contained their sovereign lord. Henry sum- 
 moned his barons and advanced towards the north. As he 
 approached the borders, he wrote: 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 1956, 1984-5, 2040, 2065-6 ; Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., 
 An. 1255. 
 
134 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 The K. understanding that some fear he proposes to weaken the 
 state of Scotland or its liberties, whereas he is under many bonds to 
 maintain the K. of Scotland's honor, and the liberties of his kingdom 
 unhurt, declares that nothing was done on the occasion of the marriage 
 of Alexander and his daughter Margaret at York, concerning the state 
 of his councillors and their bailliaries, calculated to injure his king- 
 dom or its liberties. As he is about to approach the Scottish borders 
 to see the said K. and his daughter, " according to the great desire of 
 his heart," he will neither do, nor permit others to do, anything prej- 
 udicial to said K. or his kingdom, but rather, as bound by the link 
 of paternal affection, give all his power and influence, if need be, to 
 preserve the same. 
 
 Safe-conducts were issued for the king and queen of Scotland 
 to meet their parents at Werk castle, on the border. But before 
 their departure was permitted, the distinguished delegation of 
 English nobles, who had come as their escort, was compelled 
 to 
 
 .... guarantee that neither the K. or Queen, or any of their fol- 
 lowers, shall tarry in England, save with consent of all the magnates of 
 Scotland, and that they will permit nothing to be done in prejudice of 
 the Scottish king or his kingdom or its liberties. 
 
 A similar document from the king of England confirmed the 
 pledge of the nobles. At the instance of his father-in-law and 
 "the council of his own magnates," as now constituted, the king 
 of Scotland removed the former regents from his council, and 
 made entirely new appointments. In the event of a foreign 
 invasion they were to be restored to favor. The provisions 
 agreed upon at this meeting were embodied in letters, which 
 were to remain in force till the king of Scotland attained his 
 majority, the king of England promising that on the expiration 
 of the term specified "no prejudice should arise to him or his 
 kingdom thereby." Thus the English party in Scotland reached 
 the height of its power. But it by no means voiced the national 
 sentiment, represented by Menteith and the bishops of St. 
 Andrews and Glasgow, who "incurred the vehement displeasure 
 of Henry for openly refusing to affix their seals to a document 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III 135 
 
 which they stigmatized as infamous." They were to triumph in 
 the end.' 
 
 The new regents initiated their reign by calling their prede- 
 cessors to account. As the defeated party absolutely refused to 
 acknowledge the authority of their rivals, the kingdom of Scot- 
 land was filled with strife ; Gamelin, bishop-elect of St. Andrews, 
 and chancellor under the first regents, especially suffered. 
 Though at length consecrated to his see, he gained little advan- 
 tage from it, being banished from the realm because he refused 
 to yield to the extortionate demands of the party in power. 
 The pope warmly espoused his cause, urging Henry to use his 
 influence to have these wrongs redressed. "He has heard with 
 grief that some of the K. of Scotland's 'so-called' councillors, 
 who might rather be called 'assentators,' have turned his tender 
 mind by crafty and evil advice, and that G[amelin], bishop of 
 St. Andrews, is spoiled of his goods, and driven in exile from 
 his church, to the no light injury and contempt of the Holy 
 Name, and his apostle." The appeal apparently brought no 
 immediate results, though it was in time to have an important 
 bearing on affairs in Scotland.'' 
 
 Meanwhile preparations were made for the entertainment of 
 the king and queen of Scotland, on a visit to their parents in 
 England. It was to be a purely social meeting. A safe-conduct 
 provided that neither the king nor his friends should " be spoken 
 to on any matters touching himself or his kingdom against his 
 will." The sheriff of York was to pay to Alexander, from the 
 issues of his county, " lOoL, for the lOOs. which he is wont to 
 draw daily from the K. for his expenses, so often as he comes to 
 England at the K.'s command." On Alexander's return to 
 Scotland, an unexpected opportunity presented itself to the 
 national party. The pope, mindful of the interests of his protege 
 Gamelin, directed the bishop of Dunblane and the abbots of 
 Melrose and Jedburgh to excommunicate the regents, if they 
 
 'Bam, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 1966, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1995,2002, 2004, 2012, 
 2013 ; Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., V, pp. 501, 504, 507, 556. Cf. Early Kings, II, pp. 
 63, 67, 73. 
 
 *Bain, I, No. 2037. 
 
136 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 persisted in keeping him out of his see of St. Andrews. The 
 
 national party could now justify themselves in rescuing their 
 
 sovereign from the hands of excommunicated traitors, which 
 
 they succeeded in doing on the night of October 28, 1257. 
 
 Efforts for a compromise had already been set on foot ; the 
 
 national party used their victory wisely, and after some bluster 
 
 on Henry's part, the strife of parties was appeased. A council 
 
 made up of four from either side, with the queen mother of 
 
 Scotland and her husband, was agreed on. It included among 
 
 others Gamelin, the Comyn earls of Menteith and Buchan, and 
 
 Alan Durward. It was really a victory for the Comyn party, for 
 
 they retained all the great offices of state in their hands, 
 
 including the justiciarship of Lothian. Henry gave his approval 
 
 to the new arrangements, promising his counsel and aid, if 
 
 required, so long as affairs should be conducted "according to 
 
 God and justice, the honour and advantage of the K. and Queen 
 
 of Scotland, and the old laws and customs of that realm." ' 
 
 In the fall of 1260 a number of causes called the king of 
 
 Scotland to the south. Westminster says he wished to look after 
 
 his interests in the county of Huntingdon, to 
 
 ^ demand payment of the balance of his wife's mar- 
 
 Margaret . , , , . -Ill 1 
 
 riage dower, and to claim certam lands between the 
 
 Tyne and Wentsbeck.'' The queen also wished to be with her 
 
 mother. Safe-conducts were granted in August by Henry and 
 
 Prince Edward, providing that the king and his councillors 
 
 should not be addressed on matters of state without his consent. 
 
 No disturbance was to be made by the king of England in the 
 
 state of the king of Scotland or his councillors and other 
 
 attendants while in England. Should he or his queen or any of 
 
 their retinue fall sick, their safe conduct was to remain in force 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Introd., p. xlii, Nos. 2053-6, 2062-3, 2083-4, 2090, 2103-4, 
 2114, 2121, 2125, 2128, 2131; Mt. Paris, Chron. Maj., V, p. 576; cf. Early Kings, II, 
 pp. 71-3; also Bam, I, Nos. 2133, 2139-40, 2155-7. The earl of Menteith was killed 
 by a fall from ahorse, in November, 1258. {Cf. Early Kings, II, p. 80, and Mt. Paris, 
 Chron. Maj., V, pp. 724, 739.) 
 
 *0n the border of Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Northumberland. (Early 
 Kings, II, p. 82, note ; Mt. West., II, p. 388.) 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III 137 
 
 one month after convalescence. Should the queen become 
 pregnant in England, neither she nor her child, if born there, 
 should be detained. Should either die, the other was to be 
 freely restored to Scotland. Should the king, the child's father, 
 die meanwhile, "or other unforeseen event occur to him," the 
 leading men in the Scottish national party were to receive the 
 child and take it to Scotland. Alexander returned to the north 
 after a time, granting the request of the king and queen of 
 England, that their daughter might remain with them for a 
 season. But so jealously did the Scots guard against any mis- 
 chance that they required fresh assurances from Henry, con- 
 firmed by his brother Richard, and the magnates of his realm, of 
 his honorable intentions. In February, Margaret gave birth to 
 a daughter, who received her own name, and eventually became 
 the wife of Eric, king of Norway.' 
 
 The attainment of his majority released Alexander from the 
 
 control of his regents, and left him free to carry out his father's 
 
 policy of annexing the western islands to his own 
 
 Alexander dominions. This he apparently attempted to accom- 
 
 Reaches His 
 
 Majority P^^^'^ ^^ peaceful negotiations with the king of 
 
 Norway, but the continued attacks of the western 
 lords of Scotland on the lords of the isles occasioned an expe- 
 dition under the leadership of the aged King Haco, and a brief 
 period of hostility between the subjects, if not between the kings, 
 of the two realms. Under Haco's son, Magnus, peaceful nego- 
 tiations were renewed, and speedily brought to a successful 
 issue — the ancient kingdom of the isles being transferred to the 
 king of Scotland for 4,000 marks sterling, and an annual subsidy 
 of 100 marks.^ 
 
 On the south also there was peace. A son had been born to 
 the king of Scotland, who received his father's name, and there 
 was rejoicing in the land. When peace was made between 
 Henry and his barons, he granted as hostages his son Edward 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 2198, 2205-8, 2229, 2248. 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 2320, 2336, 2351, 2355 ; Early Kings, II, pp. 83 ff.; 
 Fordun An., § 56. 
 
1 3 8 ANGL 0-SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 and the son of Richard of Cornwall, titular head of the Holy 
 Roman empire. Writing to Alexander in regard to procuring 
 their release, he admirably sets forth the true relations existing 
 between Scotland and England at this time. He 
 
 .... knows by his [Alexander's] frequent letters that he is concerned 
 for the tranquillity of this kingdom [England] and the liberation of 
 Edward, and feels the ties of blood and affinity between them, and 
 their need of mutual help, seeing the near contiguity of their lands. 
 Ernestly begs him to send some of his lieges duly empowered in the 
 above matters, lest the Prince's deliverance be delayed. Hopes his 
 magnates, and others of his land will be induced to aid those of 
 England, if another disturbance arises, and that he will urge those who 
 are not yet bound, to do so. 
 
 He also sends messengers to urge the same viva voce, 
 and commands his daughter, the queen, to use her influence with 
 the king and his magnates to the same end. It was not thus 
 Edward I addressed the vassal king of Scotland, John Balliol. 
 These letters depict an independent kingdom, bound to another 
 by ties of blood relationship and a complex feudal tenure. The 
 king himself holds lands in England. The queen receives the 
 commands of her father. Some of the magnates of the north 
 owe service for fiefs south of the border. They are urged to give 
 their aid in person in case of future disturbance, and the assistance 
 of others who are under no obligation for English fiefs is earnestly 
 solicited. But there is no intimation of a dependent kingdom 
 subject to the commands of an English overlord. The true nature 
 of the service rendered by Scottish barons appears in a grant by 
 Henry to John Comyn, " on account of the late disturbance in the 
 kingdom," of lands "in the counties beyond the Trent" to the 
 extent of 300 librates, which "he will make up to him before all 
 others." Pleasant relations continued during the remaining 
 years of Henry's reign, there being frequent interchange of 
 social intercourse between the royal families. At the same time, 
 Alexander quietly but firmly maintained his rights against all 
 encroachments.' 
 
 ' Bain, Cal. Docts., I, Nos. 2377-9, 2462-3, 2482-3, 2486, 2519, 2542. On the 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III 139 
 
 The news of Henry's death reached his son Edward, who had 
 
 gone on a crusade, at Capua, early in 1273. He tarried in Italy 
 
 to see the pope and get permission to levy a tenth 
 
 ccession ^^ ^j^^ incomes of the En2:lish clergy for three 
 
 Edward I ... 
 
 years ; at Paris, to do homage to his overlord, Philip 
 
 HI ; and in Gascony for upwards of a year. In 1274 he arrived 
 in England and was crowned, his sister Margaret and her hus- 
 band, the king of Scotland, being present to witness the cere- 
 mony. 175I. were granted to Alexander out of the first issues 
 of the bishopric of Durham, in lieu of the corrody of lOOs. daily 
 in "coming to Westminster at the K.'s mandate and thence to 
 his own country." Edward assured him that this visit should 
 not form a precedent injurious to himself or his kingdom. The 
 death of the beautiful and loved Margaret shortly after seems 
 to have wrought no change in the relations between her husband 
 and brother. Alexander continued to maintain both his public 
 and private rights. He asks that the bailiffs of Bristol shall 
 release certain Scottish sailors and their goods, arrested on sus- 
 picion of piracy. The request is granted. He promises to do 
 justice regarding the plunder of some merchants by sea-robbers, 
 who were said to have a refuge in Scotland, "according to the 
 laws and customs of his own realm." As to collecting an aid 
 for Edward within the liberty of Tynedale, he "cannot reply 
 thereto plainly without first consulting his magnates." In 1276 
 considerable correspondence occurs regarding Scottish encroach- 
 ments at Berwick-on-Tweed, which at this time was a prominent 
 center of commerce — "a second Alexandria." The bishop of 
 Durham, in a letter to the king, declares that 
 
 .... though the straight course of the Twede is the March between the 
 kingdoms, .... yet the justiciars and bailiffs of the K. of Scotland, 
 with a multitude of the men of Berwyk, have crossed the said river at 
 Twedemuthe, and hold courts and outlawries on land once covered by 
 the sea and waves, as if the same belonged to Scotland. 
 
 aUempt of Ottabone, the papal legate, to levy tithes on beneficiaries in Scotland for 
 the use of Henry in the crusades, cf. Early Kings, II, pp. 106 ff., and Bain, I, Nos. 
 2558-9, 2563-4, 2646; cf. also note at end of this chapter. 
 
1 40 ANGLO -SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 Some of the burgesses had also arrested in the bishop's 
 liberty, and imprisoned in Berwick, one of the bishop's men. 
 The king instructs the sheriff of Northumberland, if amends are 
 not made, to arrest Scots passing through or staying in his bail- 
 liary, till satisfaction is made. Alexander writes to Edward, 
 promising to "treat regarding the controversies on the March 
 according to the laws, usages, and customs hitherto in use." 
 The king of England then commands the bishop " that if the K. 
 of Scotland and his men keep on their own side of the river, he 
 is to endeavor to maintain the peace." Edward carefully scru- 
 tinized the rights and privileges conferred on the Scottish 
 king, and confirmed them rather grudgingly. He also pushed 
 his rights as feudal lord of Scottish nobles holding English fiefs 
 to their utmost limit. For example, Alexander Comyn, earl of 
 Buchan, was summoned for service in the Welsh wars. An 
 engagement in the service of the king of Scotland took preced- 
 ence, as usual, but his son Roger was sent in his stead. ^ 
 
 It is pleasant to catch, in passing, a glimpse of the home life 
 of the royal families. Mingled with affairs of state are refer- 
 ences to the health of the queen and "the children." Alex- 
 ander's second son, David, died at the age of ten. But Alex- 
 ander, the first-born, and his sister, the princess Margaret, write 
 to their big uncle — their " most hearty " and " very dear uncle " 
 — in terms of the warmest affection. Nor can it be doubted 
 that underneath all the statecraft and diplomacy of that era 
 there was a current of blood-relationship and love which had an 
 influence in the destinies of these neighboring kingdoms.^ 
 
 For some unexplained reason, the question of homage did 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., II, Nos. 17, 19, 33, 37, 44, 55, 59, 62-3, 82, 90, 104, in. Cf. 
 Nos. 144, 291; Introd., II, p. xi; Foedera, II, pp. 216, 845. That the earl's service 
 was for lands in England is evident from his own letters and those of Alexander to 
 Edward — -"auxilium quod vobis debet ratione terrarum quas de vobis tenet infra 
 regnum vestrum." The earl's wife was a daughter of Roger de Quency, through 
 whom she inherited large possessions in England. Bain, II, No. 241, shows that if 
 Alexander sent money to Edward, it was as a gift, and not as an aid from Tynedale. 
 (National MSS. Scot., No. LXIX ; Foedera, II, p. 205.) 
 
 =^Bain, II, Nos. 96, 121, 156-7, 164, 185, 204-5. 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III Mi 
 
 not come actively to the front for several years after Edward's 
 
 coronation. The delay was apparently owing to 
 
 Question of ^^^j^ ^^r agreement as to the form of homage and 
 
 Homage ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^.^^ .^ ^^^ rendered. In 1275 
 
 Alexander petitioned the king of England for the rights of his 
 predecessors in Huntingdon and Nottingham, and concerning 
 other rights. In 1277 the king of England "is not to be anx- 
 ous or moved" over a certain misunderstanding, nor to give 
 credence to any "sinister" reports, as he [Alexander] is "ever 
 ready, and has been, to preserve the K.'s liberties and rights 
 unsullied as his own, and as the K. has promised to do in regard 
 to the latter." Further correspondence ensued, and letters of 
 safe-conduct were granted by the king and his magnates, in 
 March. These were not satisfactory in the north, and the 
 envoys to the court of Edward — having shown them to the 
 king of Scotland and his council — fittingly replied in their 
 behalf to Edward. They state that the king of Scotland 
 
 earnestly desires to come to him and do his pleasure in reason. 
 But it would greatly satisfy the people of his realm if he had the usual 
 safe conduct of the English magnates, or at least the K.'s letter, that 
 the coming of the Scottish K. to England should not hereafter injure 
 him or his heirs. 
 
 They, therefore, beg that he will grant such letters, 
 .... in the form of the English Chancery, which they return under 
 the bishop's seal, by the bearer, to be sent back to them by him ; 
 granting therein, if it please him, that the K. of Scotland shall go 
 wherever he pleases in England, and that his escort may be the Arch- 
 bishops of Canterbury and York and the Earls of Gloucester, Warenne, 
 and Lincoln, whom he desires to have. 
 
 Accordingly, on the 5th of June, 1278, the king issued letters 
 patent declaring that the safe-conduct granted to the king of 
 Scotland to come to England " should not tend to the future 
 prejudice of that K. or his heirs." On the 12th the safe-conduct 
 was issued. It declared that if any of the king of Scotland's 
 retinue " trespass or incur forfeiture, it is not to be imputed to 
 their K. if he disavow it, nor is the safe conduct to be thereby 
 
142 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 injured." Another document of the same date makes provision 
 for Alexander's escort in the respective districts through which 
 he is to pass. On the 14th the form of safe -conduct was sent to 
 Warrenne, earl of Surrey, to be executed, sealed, and delivered 
 to the king of Scotland's clerk. From this point there is some 
 confusion as to the exact order of events. Edward had already 
 written to the bishop of Bath and Wells that, as Alexander had 
 indicated his readiness to do homage " absque conditione aliqua," 
 it would be received at London, in " the Quindene of St Michael" 
 (a fortnight after Michaelmas day). Alexander seems to have 
 come to England, being present with Edward in a parliament at 
 Gloucester near the close of June, just before that king crossed 
 over to France. The confusion among the English writers them- 
 selves is shown by Triveti, who says that, according to some, 
 homage had been already performed after the coronation in 
 1274, while others held that the ceremony occurred at the close 
 of the parliament of Gloucester. Both were wrong. If Alex- 
 ander was with the king in June, he returned to Scotland, for on 
 September 3 he wrote to Edward from Traquair (Trevequayr). 
 On the 15th Edward commands that the price of provisions 
 shall not be unduly raised during the visit of the king of Scot- 
 land to England. This, however, is not to be a precedent. On 
 the 29th, according to a memorandum in the Foedera, taken from 
 the Close Rolls (6 Edw. I, m. 5, dorso), homage and fealty were 
 rendered by Alexander to Edward at Westminster in these words: 
 " Ego, Alexander, Rex Scotiae, devenio ligeus homo Domini 
 Edwardi Regis Angliae contra omnes gentes." Edward received 
 this homage " salvo jure et clamio ejusdem Regis Angliae, et 
 haeredem suorum, de homagio praedicti Regis Scotiae, et haeredem 
 suorum, de Regno Scotiae, cum i?ide logui voluerint." The king of 
 Scotland then requested, and the king of England granted, that 
 the oath of fealty should be taken by Robert Bruce, earl of 
 Carrick, in the king's stead. This was done, and confirmed by 
 Alexander in these words : " Ego Alexander, Rex Scotiae, 
 portabo bonam fidem Domino Edwardo Regi Angliae, et haere- 
 dibus suis Regibus Angliae, de vita et membris, et terreno 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III 143 
 
 honore, et fideliter faciam servitia, debita de terris el tenemeTitis, 
 quae teneo de Rege Angliae supradicto." The phraseology of Alex- 
 ander's oath, which left the definition of the lands which he held 
 of Edward to his own interpretation, together with Edward's Wz'^, 
 show conclusively that homage or fealty was 7iot rendered for the 
 kingdom of Scotland. Other records show that it was distinctly 
 repudiated. That the account given in the memorandum is not 
 by a contemporary writer seems clear. Its unreliable nature is 
 apparent from its statement that this homage was performed in 
 a parliament at Westminster, on Michaelmas day — homage 
 which, according to Edward's own undoubted testimony, was 
 tendered and postponed till nearly three weeks later. The 
 account seems to be a confused version by a late writer, based 
 not on the facts, but on the letter of Edward to the bishop of 
 Bath and Wells. Edward's plans, as outlined in that letter, 
 apparently miscarried. For, in a letter of October 17, given 
 under his own hand — "teste me ipso apud Coberle " — he 
 declared "that Alexander, K. of Scotland, came before him at 
 Teukesbiri on Sunday last [the i6th], and offered to do him 
 homage; but, as the K. had not his council with him, he prorogued 
 the day for doing homage to London, declaring that such pro- 
 rogation should not redound to the said K. or his heirs' preju- 
 dice." The annals of Waverly state that the homage was ren- 
 dered in a great parliament at Westminster, in the middle of the 
 month of October, but say nothing as to its nature. According 
 to the Scottish account presented in the Register of Dunfermlyn, 
 and followed by Mr. Robertson, Alexander became Edward's 
 liegeman " for all the lands I hold of you in England, saving 
 my own kingdom." The bishop of Norwich added: "And 
 reserving to the king of England the right which he has to 
 homage for your kingdom." Alexander replied in a loud voice : 
 " To homage for my kingdom of Scotland none has right save 
 God alone, and of God only do I hold my kingdom." After 
 Bruce had sworn fealty, Alexander again added : " For the 
 lands I hold of you in England." This account is substantiated 
 by a papal bull of June 27, 1299. The Scottish church was 
 
144 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 independent of English control, being directly subject to the 
 see of Rome, like the English church. After the competitors 
 for the Scottish crown had submitted themselves to Edward's 
 overlordship, his interference with ecclesiastical affairs in the 
 north called forth a spirited remonstrance from Boniface VIII, 
 in which he cites a number of precedents, showing that Edward 
 had gone beyond his rights, not only in the ecclesiastical, but 
 in the temporal affairs of Scotland. After showing that the 
 kings of England had repeatedly guaranteed the liberty and 
 independence of the kingdom of Scotland, he continues : 
 
 Et cum etiam Rex ipse pro Tyndaliae, ac de Peynerrae terris, in 
 Regno Angliae positis, se ad tuam praesentiam personaliter contulisset, 
 tibi fidelitatem solitam impensurus ; idem in praestatione fidelitatis 
 hujusmodi, multis tunc praesentibus, vivae vocis oraculo publice 
 declaravit, quod pro terris eisdem sitis tantum in Anglia, non ut Rex 
 Scotiae, neque pro Scotiae Regno fidelitatem exhibebat eandem ; 
 quinimrao palam extitit protestatus, quod pro Regno ipso tibi fidelita- 
 tem praestare, seu facere aliquatenus non debebat, ut pote tibi penitus 
 non subjecto, tuque sic oblatam fidelitatem hujusmodi admisisti. 
 
 It was the last homage rendered by Scottish kings in the 
 direct line of MacAlpin.' 
 
 The pleasantest of relations between the kingdoms continued 
 
 during the reign of Alexander. Favors are cheerfully granted 
 
 to the young prince and princess of Scotland by their 
 
 e ai ure o ,jj^(,|g^ Edward, and any violation of Alexander's 
 
 the Royal Line . , ,, • ■ i •• 9 t 
 
 in Scotl d rights or liberties receive speedy justice. In I2bl 
 
 the princess Margaret, now in her twenty-first year, 
 was married to Eric, king of Norway. The next year her brother 
 married the daughter of Guy, count of Flanders. Within a year 
 both prince and princess were in their graves — the latter leaving 
 
 ' Bain, Cal. Docts., II, Introd., p. xi, Nos. 63, 93, 104, 107, 109, II2-16, 119-23, 
 125-6, 128 ; Foedera, II, pp. 109, 136, 824 ; Triveti, Annales, p. 299 ; Early Kings, 
 II, pp. 112, 424. 
 
 " In 1284 Edward requested from the pope, Martin IV, a grant of the tenths in 
 Scotland for the relief of the Holy Land. It was granted only in case the king of 
 Scotland consented, and on condition that Edward should personall)^ assume the cross, 
 and out of the money levied supply the wants of the Scotch crusaders. (Foedera, I, 
 p. 274.) 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III M5 
 
 an only child, Margaret, " the maiden of Norway." The prince 
 had been the idol of the nation, the joy of his father's heart. 
 His dying words — " Before tomorrow's sunrise the sun of Scot- 
 land will have set " — were echoed in " the boundless grief of the 
 whole people, the tears and groans of all the clergy, and the 
 endless sobs of the king and the magnates." A letter to Edward 
 from the widowed and childless king — the only son of an only 
 son — a letter full of the pathos of a great sorrow, is still pre- 
 served among the English archives. In it Alexander thanks 
 him for his sympathy, and reminds him 
 
 .... that, though death has carried off all of his blood in Scotland, 
 one yet remains, the child of his own dearest daughter, the K.'s niece, 
 the late queen of Norway, now under divine providence the heir 
 apparent of Scotland. Much good may yet be in store for them, and 
 death only can dissolve their league of amity. 
 
 Measures were at once taken by the bereaved king to secure 
 the succession, and in a parliament at Scone, Margaret, the 
 princess of Norway, was acknowledged by the nobles as their 
 sovereign, failing any heirs who might yet be born to the king 
 or to the wife of the deceased prince ; her dominions included 
 the isles, Man, Tyndale, and Penrith, in addition to the kingdom 
 of Scotland. The death of both Alexander's children led to his 
 marriage with Joleta, daughter of the count of Dreux, in 1285. 
 But the fate of Scotland and the last male of her kingly line was 
 at hand. The air was full of forebodings, and the darkest fears 
 of loyal Scotsmen were realized when the news came that the 
 king, attempting to go from Edinburgh castle to Kinghorn in 
 the early gloom of a wild March night, had been thrown by a 
 stumbling horse, and found by his attendants at the foot of the 
 cliffs, dead. The Lowland poet voiced the cry of many a heart 
 in Scotland when he wrote : 
 
 Chryst borne into Virgynyte 
 
 Succour Scotland, and remede, 
 
 That stad is in perplexyte.' 
 
 'Bain, Cal. Docts., II, Nos. 155-60, 197, 220-1, 224, 241, 247,248, 250,273; 
 Early Kings, II, pp. 114, 117 ; Fordun, An., §§ 63, 64 ; Foedera, II, p. 274. 
 
1 46 ANGLO-SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 The two Alexanders were long remembered as the kings of 
 peace. During their reigns the bonds uniting them with Eng- 
 land were constantly drawn closer. Yet it was the alliance of 
 younger and elder brothers, rather than of lord and vassal. 
 There will be few to dispute the judgment which Lord Hailes 
 has passed on Alexander III, and which, says Mr. Bain, the 
 documents of the period fully bear out : " His conduct toward 
 the neighboring kingdom was uniformly candid and wise. He 
 maintained that amity with England which interest as well as 
 relation to its sovereigns required ; yet he never submitted to 
 any concession which might injure the independency of the king- 
 dom and church of Scotland.'" 
 
 The heir to the throne was a child of tender years, residing in 
 Norway. By common consent a regency was appointed in Scot- 
 land, consisting of six members. But letters had already been 
 forwarded to Edward from the grave of the dead sovereign, by 
 the bishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow, and the magnates, ask- 
 ing his counsel and advice. He was nearest of kin to the lonely 
 child. Alexander had specially commended her to his protec- 
 tion, plainly intimating that through her might come about a 
 natural union between the two kingdoms. It would have been 
 strange indeed if Edward — though honestly seeking to deal 
 fairly with the little maid of Norway and the kingdom of his 
 late brother-in-law — had been blind to the political opportunity 
 which lay before him. The Scots also seem to have regarded a 
 union with England as the best resource open to them. Both 
 parties, therefore, sought to bring about the marriage of the 
 princess Margaret with the crown prince of England. Honorius 
 IV sanctioned the marriage on the ground that the king could 
 find no equal alliances for his children save within the forbidden 
 degrees. It was also urged that if Margaret married any other 
 prince, war would arise between Scotland and England, and 
 Edward be prevented from going on his promised crusade. Rep- 
 resentatives appointed October 3, 1289, by the guardians of the 
 
 ' Annals, Vol. I, p. 202. 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III 147 
 
 realm of Scotland, met with others from England and Norway, 
 at Salisbury — "salvis tamen, in omnibus et singulis, et per omnia 
 libertate et honore Regni Scotiae." They were to negotiate a 
 treaty for the conveyance of Margaret from Norway, either to 
 Scotland, or to the care of her uncle, Edward. But there is no 
 doubt both parties had in mind the subsequent marriage treatv 
 concluded at Brigham, on the north bank of the Tweed (July 
 18, 1290). The chief articles, proposed by the English to the 
 "nobiles viros, Comites, et Barones, totamque Communitatem 
 Regni Scotiae," and accepted in their behalf by the guardians of 
 the realm of Scotland, were : 
 
 1. That the rights, laws, liberties, and customs of Scotland should 
 remain forever entire and inviolable, throughout the whole realm and 
 its marches, saving always the right of the king of England, and of ah 
 others which, before the date of this treaty, belonged to him, or any of them, 
 in the marches, or elsewhere, or which ought to belong to him, or any of 
 them, in all time coming. 
 
 This, says Lord Hailes, was ^^the fatal salvo, so artfully 
 devised as to bear the semblance of impartiality, and to prevent 
 all suspicion of sinister views. Yet in it the foundations were 
 laid for England's claim of feudal sovereignity over Scotland." 
 
 2. Failing Margaret and Edward, or either of them, without issue, 
 the kingdom shall return to the nearest heirs, to whom it ought of 
 right to return, wholly, freely, absolutely, and without any subjection ; 
 so that hereby nothing shall either accrue or decrease to the king of 
 England, to his heirs, or to any one else. 
 
 The kingdom of Scotland shall remain separate and divided from 
 England, free in itself, and without subjection, according to the right 
 boundaries and marches, as heretofore. (Salvo as in Art. I.) 
 
 4. No native of Scotland shall, in any case, whether of covenant 
 made, or crime committed in Scotland, be compelled to answer out of 
 the kingdom, contrary to the laws and usages of Scotland, heretofore 
 of reason observed. 
 
 A final protestation was added to the treaty: "That the 
 premises shall be so understood, as that nothing may thereby 
 accrue to, or decrease from, the right of either kingdom, or of 
 
1 48 ANGLO -SCO TCH FE UDAL RE LA TLONS 
 
 the sovereigns thereof." The intent and purpose of this docu- 
 ment are perfectly clear. Had the child-queen lived, the liberties 
 of Scotland, so jealously watched over, might have survived 
 unharmed. These provisions were ratified by Edward at North- 
 ampton, August 28, 1290.' 
 
 Great preparations were made for bringing this "child of so 
 many hopes" to her kingdom and future home. But suddenly, 
 in the midst of them all, the prospect of a peaceful alliance was 
 overclouded by the rumor of the maiden's death at Orkney, 
 while en route to her realm. Trouble and despair settled on the 
 unhappy land of the north. The bishop of St. Andrews wrote 
 to the king of England, urging him to come to the march with- 
 out delay, to prevent bloodshed. No provision had been made 
 for the succession in case of Margaret's death. That possibility 
 must have been foreseen, and it seems as if the nobles had pur- 
 posely left it unprovided for, in order to further their own selfish 
 ends. Indeed, a bond had been entered into between Robert 
 Bruce and other nobles, as early as September, 1286, for mutual 
 defense and assistance, which looked to the establishment of 
 Bruce as king, "according to the ancient custom hitherto 
 approved and observed in the kingdom of Scotland." He was 
 but one of many who, through the failure of direct heirs to the 
 crown, waited for some turn of fate which might open to them 
 the path to royal honors. Thus it was that Scotland — torn by 
 rival factions and left to the mercy of a king, who, great as he 
 was, and just as he wished to be considered, could not resist the 
 temptation to extend his power beyond the limits of right and 
 justice — for the second time in her history passed under the 
 hand of an English overlord. But this was chiefly brought about 
 by the southern barons, many of them of Norman descent, hold- 
 ing lands in England, and sympathizing with their English over- 
 lord. The Scottish Commons, not yet risen to marked power, 
 steadily resisted any such concessions, and preserved untainted 
 that loyalty and devotion to the national cause which found a 
 
 'Foedera, II, pp. 431, 450, 482 ; Hailes' Annals, I, p. 208 ; Stevenson, Docts., I, 
 pp. 105, III, 162; Bain, II, Nos. 298, 392; Fordun, An., § 68. 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III 149 
 
 leader in the noble Bruce, and saw the dawn of a new day of 
 independence in the victory of Bannockburn.' 
 
 Note {cf. p. 139). — During the reign of Henry III, the Inspeximus 
 charter had its rise. It was nothing more than the royal acknowl- 
 edgment of having seen and confirmed some diploma granted by the 
 king, or his predecessors, without altering the nature of the original 
 grant. On attaining his majority, Henry announced that no charters, 
 either lay or ecclesiastical, would be regarded as of moment till they 
 had been renewed under the king's new seal.'' Among the charters 
 thus confirmed is one which bears on the question of Lothian. It is 
 an Inspeximus by Henry of a charter by King John, to the prior and 
 monks of Durham, of all the lands, tithes, churches, and tenures, 
 belonging to the Priory — some of which are found north of the Tweed. 
 It is not strange that the monks of Durham, holding lands on the bor- 
 ders, where they would suffer most from the ravages of war, should 
 seek confirmation of their charters at the hands of both kings, irre- 
 spective of the location of the holdings. Frequent instances occur.^ 
 The question at issue is. Did John, in this charter make new grants to 
 Durham, north of the Tweed, thereby evidencing his superiority over 
 that region ; or, did he merely confirm grants already made by the 
 kings of England and Scotland? Mr. Bain says this charter "is inter- 
 esting and valuable, as distinctly showing the superiority of the Eng- 
 lish kings over that district" [Lothian]. It begins: "Sciatis nos 
 concessisse et confirmasse in puram et perpetuam elemosinam. Domino 
 et Sancto Cuthberto," ....■• There follows a long list of lands in 
 England, and then : "The church of Norham, with its chapels, lands, 
 and waters; and the vill of Schoreswirth (Surwirth), beyond the river 
 of Tweed ; Coldingham, with its church and pertinents, viz., Halde- 
 cambehus, with the church, Lummesdenes, Reynton, and Grenewude, 
 and the two Rystones, Aldegrave, Swynewde, and the two Eystones, 
 with the mills and port, and Prendregeste, with the mill ; Ederham 
 and its church, with all its chapels ; and the two Swintones, with the 
 
 » Bain, Cal. Docts., II, No. 464 ; Nat. MSS. Scot., I, No. LXX ; Stevenson, Docts., 
 I, p. 22. 
 
 * Rotuli Chart., Introd., pp. iv ff. 
 
 3 Bain, Ca!. Docts., I, Nos. 2216, 2231, 2275-6. 
 
 ■t St. Cuthbert's was originally located at Lindesfarne, and its lands extended as 
 far north as the Forth. It was removed to Durham in 995. 
 
150 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 church ; the church of Berewick, with its pertinents ; Fyswik, with the 
 church; Paxtone ; Nessebyte, with the mill; the church of Edinham, 
 with the chapel of Stichehulle, and its pertinents; and, moreover, all 
 that they possess in Lothian (Lodoneyo), by will (voluntate) of the 
 monks of St. Cuthbert, to be disposed of as the charter of Edgar K. of 
 Scots attests. Besides these, all that the kings of England or 
 Scotland, or the bishops of Durham, have given or granted to them, 
 in perpetual alms."' The basis for this charter was laid in the days 
 of William Rufus. Under Malcolm III, two parties had developed 
 in Scotland, one purely Scottish in spirit, the other sympathizing 
 with the English alliance, made up chiefly of the foreigners who came 
 in with Queen Margaret, and of the Normans and Saxons dwelling in 
 the Lowlands. On the death of Malcolm, the Scottish party placed 
 his brother Donald Bain on the throne. Malcolm's son by Ingebiorg, 
 Duncan, a hostage at the English court, had continued to reside there 
 after his release. With the consent of William Rufus he now suc- 
 ceeded in driving Donald from the throne of Scotland, but was in turn 
 surprised, his followers killed, and he himself allowed to rule only on 
 condition of renouncing his alliance with the detested Saxons. He 
 was killed soon after and Donald was restored. Malcolm had left 
 three sons by Queen Margaret. With the consent of William, but 
 mainly through the efforts of Margaret's brother, Edgar Aetheling, 
 Donald was again driven from his throne, and Edgar, the eldest son 
 of Malcolm and Margaret, was established as king of Scotland. In the 
 group of charters which follows, the first is by Duncan, granting Tin- 
 ingham and other lands to St. Cuthbert. The expression "constans 
 hereditarie Rex Scotiae" is thought to throw doubt on the authen- 
 ticity of the charter. It certainly expresses the only principle on 
 which the Scots consented to permit him to rule over them."" (i) The 
 first of Edgar's charters (1097-1107), relating to lands north of the 
 Tweed, is one in which he styles himself "by the grace of God, King 
 of the Scots," and grants to St. Cuthbert's " Fiswic tam in terris quam 
 in aquis et cum omnibus sibi adiacentibus ; et nominatim illam terram 
 que iacet inter Horuerdene et Cnapedene .... liberam et quietam 
 
 I Bain, I, Tntrod., p. Ixiii, No. 1924; Rotuli Chart., I, p. 119. 
 
 'Nat. MSS. Scot., I, Introd., p. viii, p. 4; cf. Raine, North Durham, pp. 374-6. 
 " The lands granted were part of the endowment of the see of St. Andrew's, to which 
 they again reverted, probably when Duncan's usurpation of the Scottish throne came 
 to an end." (Had. and Stubbs, Counc, Vol. II, Pt. I, p. 165, note.) 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III 15^ 
 
 tenendam et habendam, et ad uoluntatem monachorum Sancti Cuth- 
 berti domini mei disponendam." Edgar was present at the dedication 
 of the church of St. Mary at Coldingham, and (2) granted in endow- 
 ment (1097-8) "the whole town of Swintun, with its marches as Liulf 
 held it," under the same tenure as above. Another charter (3) includes 
 Paxton to be held on the same conditions. The grant of Coldingham 
 to Durham includes the messuages of Aldcambus, Lummesdene, Reg- 
 nintun, Ristun, Swinewde, Farndun, Eitun, "The other Eitun," Prene- 
 gest, Cramesmuthe. These also are to be freely disposed of at the will 
 of the monks of Durham forever. (4) The original of the next char- 
 ter granted by Edgar has been lost, but "good and unsuspected 
 copies'" have been preserved. This is the well known charter in which 
 are the words " Edgarus filius Malcolmi Regis Scottorum totam terram 
 de Lodoneio et regnum Scotie dono domini mei Willelmi Anglorum Regis 
 etpaterna her editate possidetis, consilio praedicti domini Regis W. et fide- 
 Hum meorum. ..." Accompanying this is a charter of William 
 Rufus, in which he confirms the grant of Edgar to Durham. It begins 
 " Sciatis me concessisse Deo ... . terras in Lodoneio quas Edgarus 
 rex filius Malcolmi regis Scottorum . ... me concedente donauit," and 
 includes the messuage of Berwick, with those of Greidene, Leinhale, 
 Dylsterhale, Brycgham, Ederham, Cirnside, Hyltun, Blacedre, Cyne- 
 brihtham, Hotun, Reinintun, Paxtun, Fugeldene, Morthintun, Lam- 
 bertun, "the other Lambertun," Haedrintun, Fiscwic, Horeford, 
 Upseti'nton. Also the messuage of Coldingham with those of Aldcam- 
 bus, Lummesdene, Ristun, Suinestun, Farndun, Eitun, "the other 
 Eitun," Prenegest, Crammesmuthe, Haedentun. Another charter (5) 
 contains the words " Edgarus Dei gratia Rex Scottorum. . . . Sciatis 
 nos ex licentia Willelmi Regis Anglie superior is domini re gni Scotiae . . . ." 
 Even Palgrave admits it to be a forgery, possibly by Hardynge. Raine 
 considers (4) to be genuine and is supported by Cosmo Innes and 
 Bain. They point out the distinction which Edgar made between his 
 title to Lothian, which he held by gift {donum) of the English king, 
 and to the kingdom of Scotland, which he held independently as his 
 paterna hereditas.* Innes represents the consensus of expert authority 
 on this question when he says: "It is now held, without much differ- 
 « Cosmo Innes, Nat. MSS. Scot., Introd., I, p. viii. 
 
 'Haddan regards both (4) and (5) as forgeries, and says Raine's arguments "fail 
 to establish any distinction in favor of (4)." (H. and S., Counc, II, Pt. I, p. 166. 
 note.) 
 
15^ ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 ence of opinion, that Edgar may have wished to acknowledge, or was 
 not minded to dispute, some claim of property or superiority of Wil- 
 liam in these Berwickshire lands, and that the monks of Durham were 
 well pleased to hold them by the grants of both kings. Neither party 
 dreamt of giving or taking a right of superiority to the king of Eng- 
 land over the kingdom of Scotland. Sir Francis Palgrave, in his 
 Anglo-Saxon zeal, had worked himself up to be of a different opinion ; 
 hxiX pace tanti viri,\h^ question has been settled by more temperate 
 historians; and an Englishman who knew more of the evidence than 
 any man of his time has wound up his argument thus : 'That homage 
 was paid from time to time is certain, but it was for territories held of 
 the English crown and not for Scotland at large' (Raine's History of 
 North Durham, p. 377)."' 
 
 These charters of Edgar, issued in the spirit of his English mother 
 Margaret, were duly confirmed by his brothers, Alexander as king, and 
 David as earl, though as king David simply grants the lands in 
 Lothian, "to wit, Coldingham, Aldecambus, Lumesdene, Prenegest, 
 Eitun, the other Eitun, and Crammesmuth, Lambertun and the other 
 Lambertun, Paxtun, Fiswic, and Swinton."=' No mention is made of 
 the other lands granted by Edgar and confirmed by William Rufus. 
 
 The question does not reappear till the reign of John. He con- 
 firms to the church of Durham all the lands, etc., including those 
 granted by Edgar. Here is an appearance of English superiority north 
 of the Tweed which the sources elsewhere forbid us to entertain as a 
 permanent fact. An explanation of this contradiction may be found 
 (i) in the fact that these lands were "to be freely disposed of at the 
 will of the monks of Durham forever;" or (2) in some of the secret 
 agreements between John and William the Lion. But the simplest and 
 most natural explanation of the charter is found in the bonds which 
 were knitting north and south into one great family. Under these 
 conditions the exact line of demarcation between the two sovereign- 
 ties, and perfect equity in the exercise of kingly powers, might be 
 found wanting, without thereby implying any permanent change of 
 conditions. It is tolerably certain that William Rufus exercised some 
 sort of superiority in Lothian during the reign of Edgar. There is no 
 evidence that that superiority continued after David reunited the sover- 
 
 iNat. MSS. Scot., I, pp. 5, 6; Introd., p. ix ; Bain, I, Introd., p. Ixiii ; Palgrave, 
 Scot. Docts., I, p. ccxvi. 
 
 ^ Nat. MSS. Scot., I, pp. 7-8, 
 
THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER III 1 53 
 
 eignty of Scotland, north and south of the Forth, in his own person. 
 Palgrave's assertion that the king of Scots had the same jurisdiction in 
 Lothian as in Tynedale, and held it by the same allegiance, is not sus- 
 tained by the sources. This fact makes it necessary to explain John's 
 charter in some other way than on the ground of superiority over 
 Lothian. Even granting that Lothian was held on as free conditions 
 as a Palatine county of England, it should have reverted to the 
 escheator on the death of its holder. Tynedale as a regality does so in 
 every instance, Lothian never. Tynedale is included in the compotus 
 of lands in England of which Alexander III received seizin ; Lothian 
 is not. When Balliol swore fealty and rendered homage, late in 1292, 
 to Edward, "King of England and Superior Lord of the Kingdom of 
 Scotland," he received possession of his kingdom, and in January, 
 1293, had seizin of the Isle of Man without further homage. Nearly a 
 year elapsed before he regained his English fiefs. Lothian was not 
 among them, nor is it once mentioned. Two inquisitions (under writs 
 dated at Newcastle-on-Tyne, January i, 1292) at Carlisle and at Werk 
 in Tynedale, made by English jurors before the escheator citra Trent, 
 "find that the late Alexander K. of Scots held in capite of the K. of 
 England the manors of Penrith, Soureby, Langwathby, Salkild, Kar- 
 latton, Scotteby, delivering a year old goshawk annually at the castle 
 of Carlisle, .... and doing homage to the Kings of England. They 
 are worth 200I. yearly. John de Balliol is the next heir and is 30 
 years of age." The same finding is made regarding Tynedale, except 
 that the lands are held by the sole service of homage and are worth 
 108I. yearly.' The king commanded the escheator to put Balliol in 
 possession, provided that before or in the quinzaine of St. Michael next 
 he does homage. A distinct line was thus drawn between homage for 
 his kingdom and for his English lands. In October, 1293, he renders 
 homage, as his predecessors, the kings of Scotland, had done, not for 
 his kingdom, which included Lothian and the Isle of Man, but " de 
 omnibus terris et tenementis^' which he holds "/« capite in Anglia,^'' viz., 
 Tynedale, the above mentioned lands in Cumberland, and his purparty 
 of the honor of Huntingdon.' Had Lothian been aught but an inte- 
 gral portion of the kingdom of Scotland, it must have appeared in the 
 record of these transactions. Henry's Inspeximus charter, therefore, 
 
 'The annual entry in the Rolls for Tynedale — held by Scottish kings from Henry 
 II to Edward I — is lol. 
 
 "Bain, II, Nos. 664-5, 669, 679; Foedera, II, p. 616. 
 
154 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 was simply a confirmation of John's confirmation of Edgar's charter, 
 which had been first confirmed by William Rufus. If English superi- 
 ority over Lothian ever existed, it was of a temporary and exceptional 
 character, and did not form a part of the continuous feudal relations 
 between the kings of England and Scotland. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 SOURCES. 
 
 SCOTCH RECORD PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, preserved in her Majesty's Public 
 Record Office, London. Ed., Joseph Bain. Edinburgh. 
 
 SCHEDULE OF RECORDS EXAMINED, VOL. I (1881). 
 
 EXCHEQUER. 
 
 No. of Rolls 
 
 Pipe Rolls, 31 Henry I to 56 Henry III, 1 16 
 
 Chancellor's Rolls, 2 Henry II to Henry HI (65), 9 
 
 Originalia Rolls, il Henry II, 33 
 
 Memoranda Rolls, 9 Richard I to I John, ....... I 
 
 Memoranda Rolls, 10 John, .......... I 
 
 Memoranda Rolls (Q. R.), i to 57 Henry III, 45 
 
 Memoranda Rolls (L. T. R.), i to 56 Henry HI, 48 
 
 Wardrobe Accounts, 36-57 Henry III, ........ 35 
 
 " The Red Book " of Exchequer, 
 
 Liber " A," Chapter House, . . ........ 
 
 Issue Rolls (Pells), 25-47 Henry III, 12 
 
 Misae Roll, 14 John, I 
 
 CHANCERY. 
 
 Patent Rolls, 3 John to 57 Henry III, 90 
 
 Close Rolls, 6 John to 57 Henry HI, 94 
 
 Charter Rolls, I John to 56 Henry HI 66 
 
 Oblata, 1-9 John, 4 
 
 Misae, 11 John, I 
 
 Praestita, 7-12, 2 
 
 Fine Rolls, 6 John to 56 Henry HI, 69 
 
 Liberate Rolls, 2 John to 57 Henry HI, 47 
 
 French Rolls, 26 Henry HI, I 
 
 Chancery Files {te77ip. John and Henry III) 13 bundles 
 
 Inquisitions post mortem {temp. Henry III), ....... 
 
 Tower Miscellaneous Rolls, Scottish affairs. Portfolio No. 459, 
 
 Papal Bulls, Innocent IV 97, , 
 
 f -" \. 125 
 
 '..f 
 
 Papal Bulls, Alexander IV 28, 
 
 Royal Letters, ...... 
 
 Miscellaneous Portfolios, Nos. 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 41, 
 
 155 
 
156 
 
 ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 queen's bench. 
 
 Coram Rege Rolls, 6 Richard I to 57 Henry III 172 
 
 Assize Rolls, 40-53 Henry II, 8 
 
 COMMON PLEAS. 
 
 Feet of Fines, Richard I to Henry III, 81 
 
 DUCHY OF LANCASTER. 
 
 Charters, . 3 vols 
 
 Grants (in boxes) Box ("A,") 
 
 STATE PAPER OFFICE. 
 Privy seal, 3 bundles 
 
 VOL. II (1884). 
 EXCHEQUER. 
 
 Pipe Rolls, 1-35 Edward I, . . . . 
 Chancellor's Rolls, I -15 Edward I, 
 
 Originalia Rolls, I-2I, 
 
 Memoranda Rolls (Q. R.), 1-35 Edward I, 
 Memoranda Rolls (L. T. R.), 1-20, 
 Miscellanea (Q. R.), 1-35 Edward I. 
 Miscellanea (Q. R. Army), 1-35 Edward I, 
 Miscellanea (Q. R. Wardrobe), 1-35 Edward I, 
 Miscellanea Treasury of Receipt, 1-35 Edward I, 
 Liber "A," Chapter House, .... 
 Paper Documents, Chapter House, 7 Portfolios, 
 Scots Documents, Chapter House, 
 
 No. of Rolls, etc. 
 35 
 IS 
 19 
 31 
 17 
 
 v.y. 
 
 CHANCERY. 
 
 Patent Rolls, 1-35 Edward I, . 
 Close Rolls, 1-35 Edward I, 
 Charter Rolls, 2-35 Edward I, . 
 Fine Rolls, 1-28 Edward I, 
 Liberate Rolls, 1-35 Edward I, . 
 Chancery Files, 1-35 Edward I, . 
 Inquisitions post mortem, 1-35 Edward I, 
 Tower miscellaneous Rolls, Portfolio No. 459, 
 Papal Bulls (Alexander IV-Clement V), 
 Royal Letters, ..... 
 
 Miscellaneous Portfolios, Nos. II, 41, 475, 
 Parliamentary Petitions, 
 Writs of Privy Seal (Tower), 
 
 queen's BENCH. 
 
 Assize Rolls, Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, etc. 
 
 37 
 35 
 34 
 28 
 
 35 
 bundles 
 
 170 
 
 17 bundles 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 157 
 
 DUCHY OF LANCASTER. 
 
 Charters, ............ 3 vols. 
 
 Grants (in boxes) "A," "B," etc., 
 
 Documents Illustrative of the History of Scotland from the death of Alexander III to 
 
 the accession of Robert Bruce. Ed. Joseph Stevenson. 2 vols. 1870. 
 Facsimiles of the National MSS. of Scotland. Introd., Cosmo Innes. 3 vols. 
 
 PUBLICATIONS OF THE RECORD COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 Rotuli Chartarum, in Turri Londinensi Asservati. Ed., Thomas Duffus Hardy. 
 Vol. I. 1837. 
 
 Documents and Records illustrating the History of Scotland, and Transactions 
 between England and Scotland ; preserved in the treasury of her Majesty's 
 Exchequer. Ed. Francis Palgrave. Vol.1. 1837. 
 Ancient Laws and Institutes of England. Ed., Benjamin Thorpe. 2 vols. 1840. 
 
 SURTEES SOCIETY. 
 
 Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres. Ed., James Raine. London, 1839. 
 
 ENGLISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 
 
 . Codex Diplomaticus, Aevi Saxonici. Ed., Johannis M. Kemble. 6 vols. 1839. 
 Bedae Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum. Ed., Josephus Stevenson. 1838. 
 Florentii Wigorniensis Chronicon ex Chronicis. Ed., Benjamin Thorpe. 2 vols. 1848. 
 Historia Rerum Anglicarum Vk^illelmi de Newburgh. Ed., Hans Claude Hamilton. 
 
 1856. 
 Chronicon Walter! de Hemingburgh. Ed., Hans Claude Hamilton. 2 vols. 1848. 
 F. Nicholai Triveti Annales. Ed., Thomas Hog. 1845. 
 
 CHRONICLES AND MEMORIALS (ROLLS SERIES). 
 
 Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts relating to the History of Great Britain and 
 
 Ireland. Ed., Thomas Duffus Hardy. 3 vols. 1862-1871. 
 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Ed. and Trans., Benjamin Thorpe. 2 vols. 1861. 
 Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedict! Abbatis. Ed., William Stubbs. 2 vols. 1867. 
 Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Hovedene. Ed., WilHam Stubbs. 4 vols. 1868-187 1. 
 Memoriale Fratris Walteri de Coventria. Ed., William Stubbs. 2 vols. 1 872-1 873. 
 Radulfi de Diceto Opera Historica. Ed., William Stubbs. 2 vols. 1876. 
 Willelmi Monachi Malmesbiriensis de Regum Gestis Anglorum. Ed., William Stubbs. 
 
 2 vols. 1887-1889. 
 Henrici Archidiaconi Huntenduniensis Historia Anglorum. Ed., Thomas Arnold. 
 
 1879- 
 Historical Works of Symeon of Durham. Ed., Thomas Arnold. 2 vols. 1882-1885. 
 Eadmeri Historia Novorum in Anglia. Ed., Martin Rule. 1884. 
 Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I. Ed., Richard How- 
 
 lett. Vols. Ill and IV. 1 884-1 890. 
 Chronica Rogeri de Wendover. Ed., Henry Gay Hewlett. 3 vols. 1886-1889. 
 
1 5 8 ANGL 0-SCO TCH FE UDAL RELA TIONS 
 
 Matthaei Parisiensis, Chronica Majora. Ed., Henry Richards Luard. 7 vols. 1872- 
 
 1884. 
 
 Historia Anglorum. Ed., Frederic Madden. 3 vols. 1866-1869. 
 
 War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill. Ed., James Henthorn Todd. 1867. 
 
 Ricardi de Cirencestria Speculum Historiale. Ed., John E. B. Mayor. 1863-1869. 
 
 Brut y Tvvysogion. Ed., John Williams ab Ithel. i860. 
 
 Works of Giraldus Cambrensis. Ed., J. S. Brewer, James F. Dimock, and George F. 
 
 Warner. 8 vols. 1861-1891. 
 Capgrave's Chronicle of England. Ed., Francis Charles Hingeston. 1858. 
 Annales Monastici. Ed., Henry Richards Luard. Vols. I-HI. 1864-1866. 
 
 HISTORIANS OF SCOTLAND. 
 
 Johannis de Fordun Chronica Gentis Scotorum. Ed., William Forbes Skene. 1871. 
 Androw, of Wyntoun. Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland. Ed., David Laing. 3 vols. 
 1871. 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS. 
 
 Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae, etc. Thoma Rymer. 2d Ed., Vols. I and II. Lon- 
 don, 1727. 
 
 Syllabus in English of Rymer's Foedera. Ed., Thomas Duffus Hardy. 3 vols. 1869- 
 1885. 
 
 Liber Niger Scaccarii. Thomas Hearnii. 2 vols. London, 1774. 
 
 General Introduction to Domesday Book. Henry Ellis. 2 vols. 1833. 
 
 Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland. Ed., 
 after Spelman and Wilkins, by Haddan and Stubbs. 3 vols. Oxford, 1869. 
 
 Select Charters. Ed., William Stubbs. 7th Ed. Oxford., 1890. 
 
 Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores X. Ed., Roger Twysden. London, 1652. 
 
 Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy. Ordericus Vitalis. (Bohn Library.) 
 
 Flowers of History. Matthew of Westminster. (Bohn Library.) 
 
 Annals of the Caledonians, Picts and Scots. Ed., Joseph Ritson. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 
 1828. 
 
 AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Bacon, Francis : Life and Letters of. Ed., James Spedding. 7 vols. London, 1890. 
 Burton, John Hill : History of Scotland. 2d Ed., 8 vols. Edinburgh and London, 
 Eyton, Robert William : Court, Household, and Itinerary of Henry II. London, 
 
 1878. 
 Freeman, Edward A.: History of the Norman Conquest in England. Vols. I and II, 
 
 3d Ed.; Ill and IV, 2d Ed.; V, ist Ed. Oxford, 1877. 
 Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry I. 2 vols. Oxford, 
 
 1882. 
 Gardiner, Samuel R.: Student's History of England. New York, 1895. 
 Green, John Richard : Conquest of England. New York. 
 
 History of the English People. 4 vols. New York. 
 
 Guest, Edwin: Origines Celticae. 2 vols. London, 1883. 
 
 Hailes, (Dalyrimple, David): Annals of Scotland. 3 vols. Edinburgh, 1797. 
 
 Hume, David: History of England. 6 vols. New York, 1879. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY ^59 
 
 Innes, Thomas: Critical Essay on the Ancient Inhabitants of the Northern Parts of 
 
 Britain or Scotland. (Historians of Scotland Series.) 
 Lingard, John : History of England. 5th Ed. lo vol. London, 1849. 
 Lyttelton, George Lord: History of the Life of King Henry the Second and of the 
 
 Age in which he lived. 6 vols. London, 1769. 
 Madox, Thomas : History and Antiquities of the Exchequer of the Kings of England. 
 
 2 vols. London, 1769. r t- 1 j 
 
 Makower, Felix : Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England. 
 
 English translation. London, 1895. 
 Norgate, Kate : England under the Angevin Kings. 2 vols. London, 1887. 
 Palgrave, Francis : History of Normandy and of England. 4 vols. London, 1878. 
 
 Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth. 2 vols. London, 1832. 
 
 Pinkerton, John : Enquiry into the History of Scotland. 2 vols. 18 14. 
 Ridpath George : Border History of England and Scotland. Berwick, 1848. 
 Robertson, Edward William: History of Scotland under her Early Kings. 2 vols. 
 
 Edinburgh, 1862. 
 Robertson, William : History of Scotland. 15th Ed. 3 vols. London, 1797- 
 Round, John Horace : Feudal England. London, 1895. 
 Skene William Forbes : Celtic Scotland. 3 vols. Edinburgh, 1876. 
 Wakeman, Henry Offley, and Arthur Hassall, Eds.: Essays introductory to the 
 Study of the English Constitution. London, 1891. 
 SPECIAL ARTICLES. 
 Tennyson, Hallam : Translation of the Ode on Brunanburh. Contemporary Review, 
 
 November, 1879. 
 Freeman, Edward A.: Historical Essays. First Series. 4* Ed. London, 1886. 
 
vtV 
 
 ejK^r- 
 
 UDe 'Clntverstti? of Cbtcaao 
 
 FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 
 
 FEUDAL RELATIONS 
 
 BETWEEN THE 
 
 KINGS OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND 
 UNDER THE EARLY PLANTAGENETS 
 
 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTIES OF THE GRADUATE 
 
 SCHOOLS OF ARTS, LITERATURE, AND SCIENCE, IN CANDIDACY 
 
 FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES TRUMAN WYCKOFF 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 1897 
 

 LBFe '05 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 
 
 021 356 086 4