Chapter XIII: William the Lion--1165–1214 (5)

[263] Malcolm was born in 1141, William in 1142, and David in 1143. Fordun, in l. 5, c. 43, places David before William, but in l. 6, c. 1, David is rightly called the younger son. Wynton has been wrongly accused by Lord Hailes of countenancing this mistake, for he says nothing of the kind. “Sownys thre on hyr he had, Malcolme, Wyllame, and Dawy,” are his words; and though he subsequently calls William “the yhowngare brodyr,” it is only with reference to Malcolm. bk. 7, c. 6, l. 144–5, 353–65.

[264] _J. Hex._ 1153. _Jorval, quoted in Lytt. Hist._, vol. ii. p. 243.

[265] _Fordun_, 1. 5, c. 55, sec. 9. From c. 45 to c. 60 he is quoting Ailred, the friend and contemporary of David and his son Henry, and the principal authority to whom I am indebted for most of the features of the private character of the king.

[266] _Act. Parl. Scot. As. Dav._, 24, 30. _Fordun_, as above.

[267] _Fordun_, as above. _Malm. Gest. Reg._, l. 4, sec. 400. _As. Dav._, 26–29. Strictly speaking most of the agricultural laws are in the assize of William, and the statutes of Alexander the Second; but many of the laws of these kings are to be regarded as simply the enforcement of principles of policy laid down by David and his brother Alexander.

[268] There is an allusion to the University, and the Rector of the Schools of Abernethy, in the Confirmation Charter of Admore. _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. 116.

[269] _Vide_ also _Appendix R_.

[270] _Act. Parl. Scot Assiz. Will._ 3, 4, 16. The northern limits of Scottish Argyle were identical with those of the subsequent Sheriffdom or modern county. Argyle in Moravia, or northern Argyle, was afterwards in the Sheriffdom of Inverness and earldom of Ross. The lands of Dingwall and Fern-Croskry in “the county of Sutherland,” were made over to the Earl of Ross by Robert Bruce in 1308. (_Acta, etc._, p. 117). The name of _Dingwall_ tells of the Norsemen, and Ross is frequently claimed for the Jarls of Orkney in the Sagas. In fact, the kings of Scotland at a certain period seem to have favoured their pretensions in this quarter as a counterpoise to the power of the Moray family.

[271] In Stat. Alex. II. 2, _Gavel_, or _Cavel_, is the word used for “holding,” and _Loth and Cavil_, Share and Holding, occur in the Burgh Laws. All the authorities for what is here advanced will be found in _Appendices D, E, F, and N_. The tenure of the West Saxon “Ceorl upon Gafol-land,” seems to have been very similar, if not identical, with that of the Celtic Gavel.

[272] The Irish _Adbhar_ probably answered to the Welsh _Aelodeu_, or all the members of a family within the fourth degree.

[273] In 1275–6 Alexander II., and subsequently, in 1372, Robert II. confirmed a grant by which Niel, Earl of Carrick, had conferred upon Roland de Carrick, “ut ipse et heredes sui sint capud tocius progenie sue, tam in calumpniis quam aliis articulis et negotiis ad _Kenkynoll_ pertinere valentibus,” with the office of Bailliary (Seneschalship) of the Earldom of Carrick, and “_the leading of the men thereof_,” under the earl and his heirs (_Robertson’s Index_, 134. 6). The earldom went to Niel’s grandson, Robert Bruce. So MacDougal of Dunolly, the male heir of the _de Ergadia_ family, was hereditary Bailie of Lorn. “The MacDuff” seems also to have been the next of kin to the Earl of Fife for the time being. The office of Tanist must have become obsolete when the heir was declared by the Probi homines of the Visnet instead of by the Kin. A royal grant, very similar to that of the Earl of Carrick, was in one celebrated case the cause of a feud lasting for centuries. As the _Toshach_ seems originally to have been the second personage in the clan, so the _Senior_ often appears to have monopolized the ecclesiastical preferment. The kings of the MacAlpin race were Cowarbs of St. Andrews; of the Atholl family, Cowarbs of Dunkeld; the Earls of Ross were descended from “Mac-in-Sagart”--the priest’s son--and it is highly probable that the older chiefs of Clan Chattan and representatives of Gillie-Chattan-More were also “Cowarbs of St. Chattan.” When the clan, after the breaking up of the confederacy of Donald Balloch, made its peace with the king, the headship was, for some unknown reason, conferred, not on the _Senior_, but the _Toshach_, and accordingly a constant state of hostility existed between the Captain of Clan Chattan by royal grant--“the Mac-in-_Toshach_”--and the claimant of the chieftainship by right of blood--“the Mac-in-_Pherson_,” filius personæ, or son of the Cowarb. The Macphersons are neither mentioned amongst the “Landislordis and Bailies,” nor “the Roll of Clans” appended to “the General Band;” but only amongst “the brokin men of the surname of Macinpherson.” (_Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 35, _et seq._) Nothing but the tenacity with which the “old Clan Chattan” clung to their “chiefe” (_do._, p. 207) could have prevented a family, representing, probably, the ancient line of MacHeth, from sinking to the condition of _Og-tiernach_ under a junior branch.

[274] _Grand Coutumier_, c. 30. _Vide Appendix D._

[275] _Act. Parl. Scot. As. Wil._ 9.

[276] _Lib. de Beneficiis._

[277] _Appendix D._

[278] _Chron. Lanercost._ 1268.

[279] _Stat. Alex. II._ 1. It shows how stationary--or rather retrograde--was the condition of Scotland in consequence of the disastrous English wars, and the weakness of the sovereign authority at a later period, that in the reign of James I., two hundred years after Alexander endeavoured to settle the agricultural population, a statute was passed to prohibit the lords spiritual and temporal from removing from their lands “colonos et husbandos pro anno futuro,” unless they required the land “ad usos suos proprios.”--_Act. Jac. I._, 1429; _Act. Par. Scot._ vol. 2, p. 17.

[280] _Reg. Morav._ No. 76. _Assize Wil._ 28.

[281] Reg. St. And. quoted by Pinkerton, _Inquiry_, _Appendix_ 7, pt. 2 s. 3. Such were the Irish Charters in the Book of Kells (_Miscell._, I A S, vol. 1, No. x., p. 127), the Welsh in the Book of Llandaff, and the Memoranda in the _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. 113, _et seq._

[282] _Assize Dav._ 26–28. For examples of _Manred_, _Vide Col. de Reb. Alb._, _passim_. The word is often written _Man-rent_, but the tie had nothing to do with _Rent_ or any species of tenure. The _red_ is simply a termination, as in gossip-_red_, gemein-_red_, equivalent to the modern _ry_ in such words as infant_ry_, caval_ry_.

[283] _Ini_, 36·50. _Edg. II._ 5. _C.S._ 18. The _Vicarius_ seems to have been the original deputy of the Frank Graphio, and the _Gingra_, or junior, of the king’s Ealdorman, _Alf._ 38. Both were replaced by the royal _Vicecomes_ and _Gerefa_; amongst the Franks probably when the _Comes_ became a hereditary noble instead of an official.

[284] _Stat. Alex. II._ 5. _Reg. Dunf._, No. 79. Amongst the privileges of the Earls of Fife was numbered the _Lex Clan Macduff_, by which “when ony man-slayer being within the ninth degree of kin and bluid to Macduffe, sumtime Earle of Fife, came to that croce (the cross of Macduff ‘above the Newburgh beside Lundoris’), and gave nine kye and ane colpindach, he was free of the slauchter committed be him.” It saved the life of Hugh de Arbuthnot as late as 1421 (_Innes’s Sketches of early Scottish History_, p. 215, _note_ 1). It was probably a relic of the old “right” once belonging to every _Mormaor_ or _Oirrigh_, of retaining all his kindred in his _mund_; for amongst the rights of the Welsh _Brenhin_ were all causes appertaining to the crown, king, or _royal family_. Another right belonging to the Welsh king was the patronage of all the abbeys, which, though not retained by the Earls of Fife, was certainly vested in those of Strathearn.

[285] _Assize Wil._ 3, 4. _Reg. Dunf._, Nos. 13, 23, 43, 45, 56. I have rendered _Probi homines_ by Proprietary. _Probus_ has passed into the French language as _Preux_; probus homo, as _Preud-homme_. They are continually found in the Frank laws and capitularies as _Meliores pagenses_, the class furnishing the _Scabini_, the _Mediocres_ of some of the other early laws. In _burghs_ they were the class from which echevins, bailies, and aldermen were chosen. They represented the leading members of all that part of the _communitas_ which was not comprised in the clergy, greater barons, and royal officials, answering very much to the class from which in modern times--whether _in burgh_ or _upland_--the grand jury, magistrates, and members of Parliament are supposed to be chosen. Amongst the old Saxons the _Scepenbar_ man--he who was qualified to be chosen for a _Scabinus_--was required to be “probus, prudens, indigena, ingenuus, et quatuor avis natus, liber et opulentus;” in other words, the qualifications for a _Probus homo_ were supposed to be birth, property, and character. In the old Scottish laws the _probus homo_ is always rendered “good man”--and the _gude-man_ is still the equivalent of “the master” in a certain class--the _probus homo et fidelis_, “the good man and true,” being a man of a class superior to the simple _fidelis_ or “_leal man_.” The _good_ equally appears in his equivalents amongst the Welsh,--the _Gwr dha_ “bonus homo;” and amongst the Spaniards--the _Hidalgo_, “fijos d’algo,” or “filius boni hominis.” Amongst the Northmen he appears seemingly as the _Danneman_, and amongst the Irish Gael as the _Saoi_. The Scabinus derived his name from the same source as the _Scop_; both were _Makers_--to use the old English word answering exactly to ποιητης--and in times when an unwritten code was preserved in the memory by such verses as “the father to the bough, the son to the plough;” by a sort of _memoria technica_ like the Welsh Triads; or by a quaint system of question and answer, as is traceable amongst the Irish; the qualifications to constitute a good “law maker” may have often produced a good “maker” of poetry.

[286] 14 _Edwd. III._, _Stat._ 1, c. 7. In Scotland the same tendency to act by deputy is observable as on the Continent, and the Lord Justice _Clerk_ and Lord _Clerk_ Registrar--the deputies of the Justiciary and Registrar--appear in the place of their principals, just as in the case of the sheriff-depute.

[287] _Assize Dav._ 18. _Will._ 6.

[288] _Assize Dav._ 14, 15. I have adopted the reading of the Ayr MS.; xx.^{ix}. instead of xxix., as 180 cows--nine times twenty--were paid as _manbote_ for homicide throughout _Scotia_. According to the other reading, the fine for homicide “in the king’s gryth” would have been less than elsewhere. _Vide Act. Parl. Scot._, vol. 1, p. 3.

[289] _Assize Will._ 13. This was known as _Berthynsak_. Cases of this description and _Blodwite_--petty thefts and assaults--long continued to be tried in the lesser courts.

[290] _Assize Dav._ 33. _Wil._ 11. _Leg. Wil. Conq._ 1, 28. For the Hundred, _vide Appendix F_.

[291] _Thorpe’s Ancient Laws, Ed._ 1. _Ath._ I. 10, 12, 24, v. 10. _Edm. C._ 5. _Edg. Sup._, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10. _C. S._, 24, and Gloss in voc _Team_. By the laws of Edward and Athelstan none were to buy or sell except “in Port,” and before the Port-Reeve; but after the institution of the Hundred, purchases and sales might be made, in conformity with the legal forms, in the _upland_ as well as _in burgh_. The regulations about warranty first appear in the laws of Kent, the king’s _Wic-gerefa_ of Lunden-_wic_ being the personage in authority, the king’s hall in the _wic_, the place of trial. _H. and E._ 16.

[292] _Wootton Welsh Laws_, l. 2, c. 4; l. 5, c. 5, s. 79, 80. _Leg. Wil. Conq._, 1, 21. _Lex. Sal. Tit._ 49. _Assize Wil._ 5. The Frank _Hamallus_ was the “super quem res primitus agnita fuerit, vel intertiata,” the “third hand,” apparently, of the Welsh bargain. From the Conqueror’s laws it would appear that the Norman _Hemold-borh_ was not identical with the _Getyma_, but he was a character of a similar description. As late as the seventeenth century, the _Borch Hamel_ was well known in the Scottish Highlands, and no cattle was bought without “sufficient caution of burgh and hamer.” _Innes’ Sketches, etc._, p. 382, _note_ 1.

[293] _Assize Wil._, 3, 4, 5, 16. _Lex. Sal. Tit._ 49. _Leg. Hen. I._ xli. The Welsh gave, for finding witnesses, three days within the Commot, nine if in the neighbouring Commot, and a fortnight beyond that distance or across an estuary.--_Wootton_, l. 2, c. 10.

[294] _Assize Wil._ 18.

[295] _Assize Dav._, 1, 13, 16. _Wil._ 20. _Slat, Alex. II._ 4. The _three Thanedoms_ are evidently the same as the _three Baronies_, so continually met with in later laws. Both are evidently counterparts of the “three _tuns_” amongst the Anglo-Danish confederacy of Mercia, and the “three _Dorfern_” amongst the Saxons, with whom it was lawful, “if a theft be committed _hand-habend_, or a robbery in which the offender is taken, to choose a Go-graf” from at least _three villages_ (_Dorfern_), “and they shall form a court and judge the case, provided the judge who has the office in fee (belehenten Richter) cannot be had.” _Leg. Eth. III._ 15, and _Sach. Spieg._, l. 1, c. 55, quoted in _note d_. The fine of 34 _cows_ is called in William’s laws (14), the thief’s _wergild_. By a law of Chlovis whoever saved a man from the gallows paid his wergild.

[296] _Eth. I._ 1. _Wil. Conq._, I. 11. _Leg. Hen._, I. lxvi., 8–10. _Lex. Sax. Tit._ 2. As the penalties of this period, when not capital, were invariably fines, it is probable that the expression “a pound oath,” or “swearing for so many hydes,” meant that the compurgator, like the modern bail, was to be up to a certain point “a man of substance.”

[297] _Lib. de Ben._ 98.

[298] _Assize Wil._ 15. This was not the result of “Celtic barbarism;” for two centuries after the reign of William the Frisons still claimed their right to “blood for blood.” _Leg. Fris. Tit._ 2, n. 5, (Canc.) _Vide_ also _Appendix E_.

[299] _Lex. Sax. Tit._ 2.

[300] According to the laws of Athelstan, iv. 7, the simple ordeal of water was to take a stone out of boiling water as deep as the wrist; the triple ordeal deepened the water to the elbow. The ordeal of iron was to walk nine feet over hot iron; sometimes to carry it, probably the same distance. In all cases the hand or foot was bound up and inspected three days afterwards. If it had healed, the man was pronounced innocent. The ordeal of cold water was the _dyke-pot_, to which poor wretches accused of witchcraft were too often subjected.

[301] _Velleius Paterculus_, l. 2, c. 118 (quoted by Blackstone).

[302] _Assize Wil._ 7. _Ath._ v. 8. I. 11.

[303] A passage in the laws of Childeric ad an. 550, somewhat unintelligible indeed, seems to point to this, where, in reference to the “duodecim juratores,” it is said, “Propterea non est sacramentum in Francis, quando illi legem composuerunt, non erant Christiani.” _Pertz. Leg._, vol. 2, p. 6, c. 4. The only meaning I can make out of it is, “For this cause there is no oath amongst the Franks--no provision for compurgation in their code--when they made their laws they were not Christians.” The passage has rather a colloquial form, like the Welsh Triads or the Irish laws, so often framed in question and answer; pointing to an age in which the law was not written but committed to memory.

[304] On such occasions, by Welsh law, if an _Alltud_ joined in the combat to make up the necessary number of combatants, and escaped with life, he ranked as a _full-born_ member of the kindred for whom he had entered the lists. In the battle on the North Inch of Perth thirty men appeared on each side, armed with bows, axes, swords, and daggers, but without defensive armour. The number resembles the triple oath of “three Thanes and twenty-seven leil men,” by which the lord of the prison from which a thief escaped was bound to clear himself; the equipment was probably that required in the old “Scottish service.” It is generally supposed that the contest was for the chieftainship of the Clan Chattan, but it seems very doubtful that this was the case. The oldest account of the battle, which took place on 28th September 1396, is contained in a memorandum in the _Reg. Morav._ p. 382, which says that thirty of the _Clan Hay_ fought thirty of the _Clan Qwhwle_ “quia firma pax non poterat intra duas parentelas.” Four years previously, in the second year of Robert III., the latter clan had figured as the _Clan Qwhevil_ under _Slurach_ and his brothers, in the raid upon Angus, celebrated by _Wynton_, bk. ix., c. 14. _Act. Parl. Scot._, V. 1, p. 217. They were the victors, and the Clan Hay disappears for ever; but the _Clan Chewill_ figures in a Roll of Clans of the sixteenth century as a distinct family from the Clan Chattan and Macphersons. _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 39.

[305] _Heimsk. St. Olaf. Saga_, c. 76, 80.

[306] _Capit. Carl. Mag. Pertz. Leg._, vol. 1, p. 121.

[307] _Arch. Adm. de Rheims_, vol. 1, p. 35. The seven assessors of the Graphio seem to have been originally known as _Rachimburgii_, who, according to _Edict. Chilp._ 7 (_Pertz. Leg._, vol. 2, p. 10), were to be “Antrustiones boni credentes.” They were afterwards known more generally as _Scabini_, and numbered twelve in the Carlovingian era. _Cap. Leg. Sal. Add. ad an._ 819, 1, 2, (_Do._ vol. 1, p. 227). _Vide_ also _Ap. Form. Marc. Canc._ vol. 2, p. 247, _note_ 3. The number of compurgators appears to have been occasionally _seven_ as well as twelve (_Cap. Add. Leg. Rip. ad an._ 803, s. 10. _Canc._ vol. 2, p. 320), and a similar number is also sometimes assigned to the mystic “Peers of Charlemagne,” a body which perhaps may have owed its creation to some confused idea in later times that the Graphio and his assessors were but the reflection of “nostrum placitum generale.” The _Sagibaro_ seems to have been of a lower class than the _Rachimburg_ or _Scabinus_, for the latter was necessarily an Antrustion or nobleman, the former if _ingenuus_ was raised to this rank by his office, and might be a _Lœt_ (V. Wergilds). As any cause decided by the three _Sagibarones_ could not be reopened before the Graphio, it is evident that they sat in the lesser Courts. _Lex. Sal._ 56.

[308] _Canc_, vol. 1, p. 236. _Magn. Chart._ II., s. 39, 52. No freeman was to be dispossessed of his freehold, liberties, or customs, “nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terræ.” The former still continues to be the privilege of the “Majores Barones,” or House of Lords, the latter belongs to the “Minores Barones,” or the rest of “the Community.” Had not the old “judicium per pares” been superseded in the case of “the Community” by the “Jugement del Pais,” the _Pares_ would now be counted by millions!

[309] _Leg. Ath._, iv. 6. _Eth._, iii. 3, 13. The _Folk-mote_ was probably the meeting of the whole people in early times, but after a king’s Ealdorman presided at it, it was surely only a meeting of the _Folk_ under his special jurisdiction. It is last alluded to in the laws of Athelstan, being replaced probably by the biennial _Shire-gemote_ provided by Edgar’s laws, in which the Bishop and the Ealdorman were the leading personages (_Edg._ ii., 5. C.S. 18). These _Moots_ had nothing whatever to do with the government of the kingdom, which was vested in the king and his _Witan_,--his Court or Privy Council, not his Parliament; for the voice of “the Community” was unheard in the _Witanagemote_. Self-government up to a certain point is traceable in the institutions of this period, but not beyond it. The Londoners might choose their Tything-men and manage their own affairs, but the right to do so was laid down in “the ordinance which the Bishops and _Reeves_ belonging to London ordained;” the Reeves being appointed by the Crown, and Bishops, Reeves, and Ealdormen being answerable for holding the _Frith_ “as _I and my Witan have commanded_” (_Ath._ v. 11). It is in vain to attempt to trace the germs of the English parliamentary system in the Anglo-Saxon Witan. Our modern Parliament was gradually developed out of the right, acknowledged by “Norman feudalism,” of the whole community of freeholders to gather round the sovereign. The _Majores Barones_ still exercise the right, once belonging to the whole community, of assembling in person; the lesser barons, and the rest of the community, whether _in burgh_ or _upland_, assemble by their representatives, chosen originally by “the Reeve;” but from the reign of Henry IV. (who appears to have finally carried out the intentions of his grandfather, after a lapse of thirty years), by all freemen of a certain standing. The government of a king and his Witan--his Court or Privy Council--could only have been developed in course of time into, either a powerful but irresponsible despotism, or a feeble monarchy torn by the dissensions of a few powerful magnates contending for the real power. Such was the phase it assumed in England, unless the history of that period is gravely in error.

[310] _Wootton_, l. 4. _Triad_ 85.

[311] Malcolm IV., according to John of Hexham, was chosen in an assembly of this description, or rather, as amongst the Germans in the days of Tacitus, the assembly ratified the choice of their Seniors. “Tollens igitur _omnis populus terræ_ Malcholmum ... apud Scotiam, _sicut consuetudo illius nationis_ ... constituerat regem pro David avo suo.” _J. Hex._ 1154.

[312] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. 117. This meeting must have taken place early in the reign of David, as the signature of Earl Constantine is soon replaced in the charters of the period by that of Earl Gillemichael.

[313] _Stat. Alex._, II., 2–3. _Assize Will._ 26. _Vide_ also _Will._ 22.

[314] _Assize David_, 4–8, 12, 24, 25, 35. If the law about Mortancestrie and Novel Disseisin is correctly ascribed to David, it would be not a little remarkable, for the change was only introduced into the English law by Henry the Second, according to the highest testimony, Glanville (l. 1, c. 11–21, _quoted by Blackstone_). Such changes generally travelled northwards, and will be found in England before they took root in Scotland. Thus the attempt of James I. to establish a representative system amongst the lesser freeholders in Scotland is surely traceable to his residence in England, where a similar system was actually established by Henry IV. The regulation ascribed to David, however, is not identical with “the Grand Assize,” which was constituted by appointing four knights in every sheriffdom, who were to choose twelve others. By the Scottish law such questions were to be decided by the ordinary “Assize of the good country of twelve men.” By Welsh law all questions relating to succession to property were to be decided by the _Henduriad Gwlad_--the senior _Gwrdha_, or good men of the country--the judge pronouncing according to their decision, which was known as _Dedfryd Gwlad_, or the verdict of the country (_Wootton_, l. 2, c. 10). Whether this regulation was original, or derived from the principle introduced by Henry II., I cannot say.

[315] Amongst the _Fragmenta_, _Act. Parl. Scot._, vol. 1, p. 383, s. 29, is one which lays down the rules for the judicial combat, adding that in cases of _Disseisin_ it was optional for the parties to choose the Wager of battle or the Verdict of the good country, either course to be decisive. It is difficult to determine whether this must be regarded as a fragment of Galloway law, or as one of those retrogressions which were incidental to the state of Scottish society after the English wars. The _Quon. Attach._, 35, 36, however, allude to the _Breve de Disseisin et de Mortancestrie_ as the only familiar legal process, which would appear to place the fragment in question amongst the Galloway laws.

[316] As the founders of the Norman kingdoms southward of the Alps were ignorant of the hereditary feud; as no charters are traceable in the Norman duchy until many years after the Conquest; and as the charters by which the Anglo-Normans held their English possessions were unquestionably framed upon the Anglo-Saxon model; it would appear as if such documents, familiar to the Anglo-Saxons, were comparatively unknown to, or unused by, their conquerors. In the thirteenth century, when Earl Warenne was called upon to produce the title by which he held his lands, he laid his sword upon the table; nor can the few remaining holders of lands, which their ancestors possessed at the date of Domesday, show any other title than that of the great Earl. Yet are we generally told that the Normans oppressed the Anglo-Saxons by the introduction of novel feudal tenures. _Sac_ and _Soc_, _Tol_ and _Team_, _Infangthief_ and _Outfangthief_, were scarcely brought from Normandy.

[317] The charters will be found in the Introduction to “Robertson’s Index.” The witnesses, all of whom have Saxon or Danish names, are sometimes supposed to represent the Scottish Court; and the total absence of all Gaelic names is assumed as a proof of the total exclusion of the native race from the court and councils of their sovereign. But this total absence is in itself suspicious. Where are the Gaelic Earls who were invariably the first to attest the great charters of Alexander and David? In the Foundation Charter of Dunfermlyn, David confirms the grants of his father Malcolm, his mother Margaret, and of his brothers Duncan, Edgar, Ethelred, and Alexander; all of which must have been made according to “ancient custom,” or the charters, would have been forthcoming in the Dunfermlyn Registry; and as the sole known charters of Duncan and Edgar are connected with Durham, whilst their grants made beyond the Forth were not confirmed by any written document, it would appear as if these Durham charters had been written and witnessed _at Durham_, and that no argument can be drawn from the names of the attesting witnesses about the composition of the Scottish Court. The title of “Basileus Scottorum,” applied to Edgar, will never be found in any Scottish charter, but it occurs frequently in Anglo-Saxon documents. It was the policy of the Scottish kings of that period to keep up a connection with Durham; and it must be always recollected that there was less difference between the Angles separated by the Tweed, than between the Angles and Anglo-Danes separated by the Tees. The chosen standard of David--the Dragon of Wessex--speaks volumes of the pretensions which the sons of Margaret were very ready to keep alive amongst a population, which was not included in the Domesday survey.

[318] _Assize Will._ 8.

[319] _Stat Alex. II._ 8, 15. The two classes were “Miles vel filius militis, vel aliquis libere tenens in feodo militari, vel aliquis alius terram suam aliquo modo tenens per cartam in feodo, per liberum servitium, vel per fie de hauberk, vel eorum filii;” and “Firmarii de rusticis nati, vel qui in vili prosapia fuerint sive rustici, vel aliqui alii qui liberum tenementum non habent, nec libertatem prosapiæ.”

[320] _Quon Attach._ 18. _Act. Parl. Scot._, p. 91–92. So when it was proved to the satisfaction of a similar jury that Crane, his son Sweyn, and his grandson Simon, had held, uninterruptedly, the office of _Janitor_ of Montrose Castle, with the lands attached to it (originally a grant of William to Crane), the five daughters of Simon--the fourth in descent--were pronounced heiresses _in fee_.--_Ib._, p. 90. The invariable _three descents_ appear to have conferred hereditary right.

[321] A Thane of Haddington is the sole instance that I am aware of in the Lothians; and yet the Scottish Thane is often derived from a Saxon original! For “Scottish Service,” _Vide_ ch. viii. p. 208, _note_. As _Scotus_ as much meant a _Gael_ as _Flandrensis_ meant a Fleming, or _Galweiensis_ a native of Galloway, the great Border clan of _Scott_ must have been settlers from beyond the Forth.

[322] _Mat. Par. ad an._ 1251, p. 554.

[323] _Appendix D._

[324] _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 35, No. viii.

[325] I allude to names like Mac Caillin More, Vich Alaister More, Mac Connuil Dhuy, and others distinct from surnames. In _Appendix R_ I have given my reasons at greater length for doubting the theory which assumes that the first holder of a charter was always a foreign settler, and that every territorial name--every name with a _de_--necessarily implies a foreign descent. De Ergadia, de Insulis, de Carrick, de Galloway, de Strathbogie, de Atholia, de Abernethy, de Ogilvy, and many others, attest the contrary.

[326] _Asser. in Mon. Hist. Brit._, vol. 1, p. 474, 492, 493. Also _Appendix F_. Defence seems everywhere to have been the original bond of union in burghs--defence against the Moors, for instance, in Spain; but where the Goth and the Roman had dwelt, in a certain sense, on an equality long before they amalgamated, an intramural population, with Roman traditions and Roman law, must have existed many a year before it was recognised as a separate “Estate” in return for defending towns against the infidel. In the great German Burghs the _Traders_ were originally a separate class from the _Burghers_, and the distinction is still traceable in those regulations of the Scottish burghs which denied admittance to the Guild privileges to all who worked at certain trades with their own hands. What was the previous condition of the Traders--what their state before their town became a _Burh_ with privileged defenders, amongst whom they were gradually enrolled? At the best, it must have resembled that of other _Fiscalini_, and few “full-born” Teutons could have entered willingly into such communities until they went as free and privileged defenders of a _Burh_, rather than as members of a class which they looked upon as inferior and unprivileged. Their arms and their free rights they carried with them--the one was identical with the other in the olden time--becoming free members of a civic, as they had previously been of a rural association, and following such civic occupations as were not considered derogatory to the dignity of a Freeman. Germanic law long ignored written documents, and the customs of the Burgh were mostly in accordance with that older allodial system which the progress of Roman innovation stamped as _Roturier_. Men possessed property in land long before it was secured by written documents, and many a burgh had been in the enjoyment of rights and privileges by unwritten law long before it was thought necessary to obtain the sanction of a feudal charter, which must no more be regarded as necessarily creating a new burgh, than as necessarily introducing a foreign settler into Scotland, and eradicating a native proprietor. In both cases the charter was often only confirmatory of pre-existing rights. But it would be erroneous to imagine that the Teutonic Burghs ever existed as independent associations against “the tyranny of the noble class.” Some notice of such a state of society, had it existed, would surely be traceable in the regulations of the Carlovingian era. It was this very class, lay or ecclesiastical, who joined with the sovereign in building _Burghs_ for defence, or introducing free burghers into towns which had hitherto been unfree and comparatively defenceless. The spirit of antagonism arose with the increasing power of the greater burghs. In England the _Burgh_ arose out of the necessities of the Danish invasion; and if a Teutonic element existed previously amongst the resident intramural population, it was scarcely on the footing of Burgh-_Thegns_. There is no word in the Anglo-Saxon language expressive of a free and trading community associated within walls. The _Burh_ was originally the place of strength, and the inhabitants of _Bebba’s Burh_ were surely not traders. _Wic_ is a very vague word, and _Ceaster_ unquestionably of Roman origin. The latter is the word most often found in the translation of Beda--as in London-_Ceaster_, and _Eofer-wic-ceaster_--and as the _Wealh_ remained at the basis of the population in the rural districts, a similar element probably supplied the bulk of the inhabitants of the _Ceaster_ before its conversion into a _Burh_ introduced the Teutonic _Burh-Thegn_.

[327] _Leg. Burg_ 70, 71. The _Hanse_ was simply that kindred association, known as the _Hant-Gemahl_, without which no Teuton seems in early times to have been entitled to “free right.” (_Appendix F._) The Northerns carried with them into the _Burh_ their old customs, this association amongst the number. A _Hanse_ seems strictly to have been an association of _four_; there were _four_ classes of towns in the great Hanseatic League, of which Hamburg, Bremen, Lubeck, and Cologne were “the Four Burghs.” When Roxburgh and Berwick fell into the hands of the English, Lanark and Linlithgow were added to complete the necessary number of _four_ Scottish Burghs. The _Northern_ Burgh seems to have been simply the reproduction of the rural system within the walls, the Burgh-Thanes, or probi homines, of London, who chose their _Tything-men_ and _Hynden-men_--representing the _Tuns_-men of the country districts--who also chose their _Head-borough_ and Hundred’s Ealdor. Neither originally chose their _Gerefa_. I cannot look upon the Northern Burgh as simply a repetition of the Roman city, or the Roman city, with its Roman customs, enfranchised, and its citizens, living by Roman law, converted into burghers. The _Hanse_ was scarcely Roman, but it was a necessary ingredient in the _free right_ of every “full-born” Teuton. “Bare is back without brother behind it,” says the old northern proverb. The _Echevin_ was a thoroughly Teutonic personage, the Scabinus, or _Scepen_, of the rural district; and wherever such features are traceable “in-burgh,” I must look upon the original burghers, not as a trading class enfranchised, but rather as a class of free Teutons introduced _above_ the traders for defence--carrying arms for the defence of the country being the mark of freedom--and introducing with them the free _allodial_ customs of the rural districts. The Anglo-Saxon Burgher, and the member of the great Hanseatic Burghs of northern Germany, were thoroughly Teutonic personages, owing little, if anything, directly to Rome and her municipal institutions, in early times, I should imagine.

[328] _Leg. Burg_, 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 15, 17, 98, 101, 106, 107, 110, 112. Such seems to have been the real meaning of this provision--it eliminated the servile element from amongst the burgherhood. A native-man might run away from his district, but how could he take with him the property to purchase a burgage-tenement? _Stock_ was his property, and it is difficult to conceive how he could carry the stock with him, or sell it, unknown to his lord, with all the machinery of witnesses and warrenter required for sales and purchases. But it is easy to imagine how the settlement of native-men in the towns may have been encouraged by their lords as a source of private profit. The whole trading class was once probably on such a footing, and the greater the wealth acquired by the trader, the more would he have paid for permission to remain away from his district--for he was not necessarily a _slave_ in the modern acceptation of the word, but “inborn” to a certain district, from which he could not separate himself without his lord’s permission. He who settled in a town, and prospered in his unfree condition, if he aspired to become a free burgher, must, in all ordinary cases, have bought his freedom from his lord--as in the case of Renald _prepositus_ of Berwick in 1247--and after enjoying his tenement for a year and a day no further claim could be raised against him. _Vide Scotland in the Middle Ages_, p. 142. It was admission to the Guild in a Free burgh that conferred the same privileges in England. _Vide Glanville_, l. 5. c. 5.

[329] _Leg. Burg._, 3, 8, 9, 20, 47, 54, 59, 60, 67, 75, 81, 86, 94, 103. _Scotland in the Middle Ages_, p. 159–162. The full forfeiture in Burgh amounted to 8 shillings, or one-quarter of the ordinary fine of 8 cows--the half _leod-gild_--levied in the country districts. Washing the feet, in the olden time, implied an intention of stopping and accepting hospitality; and the _Dustyfoot_ got his name from passing onwards. The follower of the Celtic lord was sometimes known as the _Gillie-wetfoot_, from wearing no shoes or stockings, a practice to which the Scottish peasantry long clung--an incidental testimony of the prevalence of the native element amongst that class.

[330] _Leg. Burg._ 58. _Assize Dav._ 3.

[331] _Leg. Burg._ 3, 33, 46, 55, 102. _Mag. Chart._ ii. 29. _Act. Parl. Scot._, vol. 1, p. 87, 88.

[332] _Leg. Burg._ 99. This is clearly shown by Mr. Innes in his “_Scotland in the Middle Ages_,” p. 154.

[333] _Leg. Burg._ 13. _Appendix F._

[334] _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 24. He is quite borne out by the Chartularies. Malmesbury gives a description of Ireland in the reign of Henry the First, which, with a due allowance for the prejudices of the historian, was probably not inapplicable at one time to Scotland. “Ita pro penuria imo pro inscientia cultorum, jejunum omnium bonorum solum, agrestem et squalidam multitudinem Hibernensium _extra urbes_ producit; Angli vero et Franci, cultiore genere vitæ, _urbes nundinarum commercio inhabitant_.”--_Gest. Reg._, l. 5, sec. 409.

[335] Counts and judges (Scabini) were to name the law they would live by, and judge accordingly--“Comites et judices confiteantur qua lege vivere debent, et secundum ipsam judicent,” _Pertz. Leg._, vol. 1, Capit. p. 101, sec. 48. So the Romans were to choose the law they would live by--_Do. Hlot. Const. Rom., ad an_ 824, p. 239–40. Hundred Court and Tithing Court, Scabinus and Sagibaro, all the machinery of the free Salic law, gradually disappeared, until the government of the people, whose very name was once synonymous with freedom, was expressed in the words “l’etat c’est moi.” It must always be recollected that our Third Estate differs in a most important particular from the _Tiers Etat_, or Bourgeoisie, of the Continent. It includes the _Minores Barones_, the representatives of the _Meliores pagenses_ or _Probi homines_; to whose keeping the free institutions of our ancestors were committed long before the existence of a Burgherhood.

[336] _Fordun_, l. 4, c. 43. _Appendix E._ _Welsh Gwerth._

[337] _Leg. Ini_, 23. The Wealh-gerefa occurs in the Saxon Chronicle, and had no reference to _Wales_. The meaning of Seneschal and Mareschal has been generally sought in the Teutonic dialects; but perhaps they are to be numbered amongst those composite words so often met with. _March_ is certainly more Celtic than Teutonic; and _Sen_ is very like the Celtic word for _Senior_. _Steel-bow_, that mysterious appellation for _ferreum perus_, is another instance in which the first part is Teutonic, the last the Celtic _Bo_, or _cattle_.

[338] _Const. Hloth. ad an_ 823. _Pertz Leg._ vol. 1. p. 232.

[339] _Cod. Dip. Sax._ No. 813. Osgar, “regiæ procurator aulæ,” is styled in 855 and 872, Osgar Stallr. The office was held previously by Osgod Clapa, a great Dane, who was outlawed in 1046 (_Sax. Chron._) It may have been introduced by Canute; but the district, over which the Constable subsequently held jurisdiction, is first alluded to in the laws of Athelstan.

[340] Ad Scotos _in Christum credentes_, ordinatur a Papa Cælestino Palladius, et primus episcopus mittitur. Such are the words of Prosper of Aquitaine in his Chronicle, _ad an._ 431. Not only were there _believers_ amongst the Irish at this time, but _heretics_, according to Jerome. The Pelagian heresy was sometimes called _Pultis Scottorum_. _Vide_ the authorities, etc., quoted by O’Connor in _Rer. Hib. Scrip. Vet._, vol. i. p. lxxi.

[341] The date 432 is usually assigned to the arrival of St. Patrick in Ireland. There is nothing by which the real accuracy of this date can be tested, and it wears a very suspicious appearance, as if it had been originally fixed upon to favour the usual story of Patrick’s ordination by Pope Celestine, who died in that year. One of the earliest traditions about the Irish Saint--that contained in Nennius--couples “Bishop Germanus,” with Pope Celestine, and “Victor the Angel of God,” as the originators of Patrick’s mission, adding, that Germanus sent “Bishop Severus” with Patrick. _Severus_ was the companion of Germanus in his second expedition into Britain. In the old poem ascribed to Fiech (given by O’Connor as above, p. xc.) Patrick is said to have remained in southern Gaul and studied the Canons with _Germanus_. The fable of the Angel Victor is evidently founded on the following passage in the _Confession of Patrick_:--“Et ibi scilicet vidi in visu, nocte, _virum_ venientem quasi de Hiberione, _cui nomen Victoricius_, cum epistolis innumerabilibus, et dedit mihi unam ex illis, et legi principium epistolæ continentem Vox Hiberionacum.” The saint’s dream of the arrival of the human Victoricius from Ireland with a letter, bearing the prayers of the Irish to convert them, was magnified in after times into the miraculous appearance of the angel Victor from heaven.

[342] Prosper, _Chron._ 431. He affirms that Pope Celestine deputed Germanus at the instance of Palladius (_Chron._ 429). Constantius of Lyons, in his life of Germanus, never alludes to the Pope, but attributes the mission of Germanus and Lupus to a Council of Gallican Bishops, assembled on account of the representations of the British Church. Beda, who must have had both accounts before him (for he quotes from both authorities), has literally transcribed the narrative of Constantius; and as he must have had some reason for this preference, I do not feel inclined to dissent from the venerable historian. Some clue may perhaps be afforded to the reasons for such opposite versions of the same story, by the remark of the Benedictine compiler of _L’Art de verifier les Dates, etc._, “Ce pape (Zozimus) l’année précédente (_i.e._, 417) avait accordé le Vicariat du Saint Siege dans les Gaules à Patrocle, Evêque d’Arles; _c’était une nouveauté pour les Gaules, ou elle excita de grandes contestations_.” Prosper may have chosen to give a colouring to the proceeding which the Gallican Bishops would have been unwilling, at that time, to admit.

[343] The scene of the labours of Palladius has been transferred to Scotland, a change of which Prosper appears to have been profoundly ignorant.

[344] “Ingenuus fui secundum carnem, Decorione patre nascor,” are the words in his epistle to Coroticus. According to the _Confession_, Patrick was about sixteen years old when he was carried off to Ireland, whither he returned to preach Christianity about thirty years afterwards. It is curious to contrast the numerous miracles ascribed to his early youth and childhood by Jocelyn and others with the ingenuous admission in the _Confession_, of the temporary errors of his youthful days, and of his carelessness and _unbelief_ from infancy until his captivity. The _Confession_ and _Epistle to Coroticus_ will be found in _Rer. Hib. Scrip. Vet._, vol. i. p. cvii.

[345] _Vit. St. Cudb._, cap. 16.

[346] It is difficult to conceive how the sister of the _Pannonian_ Martin could have been the wife of the _British_ Calphurnius; and the story probably arose from the _spiritual_ relationship of St. Martin to the Apostle of Ireland. Ninian, the converter of the southern Picts, is also sometimes called a nephew of Martin. The dedication of the churches of Canterbury, Whithern, and Hereford, with the Irish Abbey at Cologne, to St. Martin, together with “the Gospel of St. Martin,” long preserved at Derry, and supposed to have been brought from Tours by St. Patrick, attest the veneration in which the name of the founder of monachism in Gaul was held throughout Britain and Ireland in early times.

[347] _Mabillon, Hist. Bened._, l. x. c. 17. In the Rule of St. Columba, the first injunction is, “Be alone in a separate place near a chief city.”--_Colton’s Visitation, I. A. S., Appendix D._

[348] The Bishops of the Gaelic Church were ordained in the usual manner. Thus Finan, when he ordained Cedd, called in two other bishops to assist in performing the ceremony--_Beda, Hist. Eccl._, l. iii., c. 22. But many probably were chorepiscopi, at whose ordination it was only requisite for one bishop to officiate. It was this order, long suppressed and forgotten in the Roman Church, that scandalized Lanfranc, Anselm, and others, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. That the leading bishops of the Gaelic Church at this time were regularly ordained, may be inferred from the fact that there is no allusion to any _re-ordination_ of bishops at the time when the Churches of Scotland and Ireland were remodelled. Perhaps “the dignity of Noble Bishop” (Uasal Escop., _Vide A. F. M._, 1106), may allude to the superior or episcopal order, as opposed to the inferior or chorepiscopal. The want of a fixed diocese must have contributed to impress the Irish bishops with that character for wandering which was so much complained of in the ninth century. Bishops without a diocese, however, were not confined to the Irish Church, as at a much later period, Olaf the Saint had his “Hird-Bishop,” whose peculiar duties must have attached him to the royal household. The necessity of episcopal ordination for the priesthood is implied in the story related of Columba by Adamnan, in his life of that saint. Upon hearing that Findchan, a priest, had “laid his hands” on the head of Aodh Dubh, to complete the ordination which the bishop had refused to proceed with, Columba exclaimed, “Illa manus dextra quam Findchanus, _contra fas et jus ecclesiasticum_, super caput filii perdicionis imposuit, mox computrescit.” Much information about the early Irish Church is contained in Dr. Reeves’ _Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Down_, etc., _Appendix A_. The custom of Iona, in the seventh century, as described by Beda, seems to have resembled the ancient custom of the Church of Alexandria, by which, “not the bishops, but twelve presbyters were the electors, nominators, and (according to Eutychius) consecrators.--(_Stanley’s East. Church_, p. 266, note 2.) These twelve presbyters are very like the twelve Culdees who formed, as it were, _the Staff_ of every Gaelic monastery.

[349] As tithes were unknown, as _a fixed payment_, in Gaul for some time after the mission of St. Patrick, it is not surprising that the Scots and Irish were ignorant of them in the twelfth century. It was the custom of Aidan and his followers to build churches “per loca” (_Bed. Ecc. Hist._, l. 3, c. 3), which appear to have been dependant on the monastery of the district. Thus, on the foundation of the regular diocese of Aberdeen, the monastery of Mortlach, with five churches and their lands, was made over to the new see. _Reg. Aberd._, vol. 1, p. 5, 6. From the same Registry, p. lxxvii., it appears that the _Cuairt_ was eventually compounded for by the payment of _Procurationes_.

[350] Mr. Petrie (_Tara_, p. 172) enumerates four _Cains_--1. Cain Patraic, not to kill the clergy. 2. Cain Daire Chailleach (the nun), not to kill cows. 3. Cain Adomnan, not to kill women. 4. Cain Domnaig, or Sunday law. The _Riar Patraic_ (Patrick’s demand) is explained by Tighernach (_ad an._ 986), to mean _Cuairt eitir Cill ⁊ Tuaith_, “the Right of Visitation over Church and State” (or over Clergy and Laity). Dr. Reeves’ preface to “_Primate Colston’s Visitation_,” _IAS._, contains very full information on the subject of the early Irish Visitations. Inmesach is said to have introduced the custom in 721 (_Tigh._), a few years after the Northern Irish, Pictish, and Scottish Churches had relinquished their early Cycle and Tonsure. The Cuairt was probably unknown to Patrick or Columba.

[351] Thus Lorcan O’Tuathal preferred the abbacy to the bishopric of Glendalough, though it may be questioned whether the choice of the Saint was as purely disinterested as is sometimes asserted. “In hac autem ecclesiâ et Episcopatus erat et Abbatia; sed Abbatia quoad temporales divitias longé erat Episcopatu opulentior.”--_Ware Antiq._, vol. 1, p. 312, 372.

[352] The first allusion to a Herenach occurs in _Tigh._ 605, _An. Ult._ 604, _A.F.M._ 601, but the office is not again met with before the close of the eighth century. _Vide_ Mr. O’Donovan’s _Note O_ to _A.F.M._, 1179; though the description of the Herenach there quoted from Sir John Davies--paying a yearly rent to the Bishop, a fine upon the marriage of his daughter, and a subsidy to every Bishop on his first entry into the diocese; in other words, holding in fee-farm, with _merchet_, and relief, or payment for a renewal of his lease--applies rather to his character after the English settlement had reduced _Cowarbs_ and _Herenachs_ to a very different footing from their position in early times. The name of _Aircinneach_, meaning _Princeps_, “Head of the Kin,” or _Overlord_ (_Reeves, Adamn. N._ p. 364, note M), points to a high position. In a charter of the time of Otho I., dated in 952, a Count Hohold founds a convent, of which his sister is to be the first abbess, that dignity being always to be filled by a member of his race as long as it exists. He appoints himself _Advocatus Monasterii_, stipulating that the office should also be hereditary in his family (_Ducange in voc. Advocatus_). In Gaelic phraseology, then, the family of Hohold were hereditary _Cowarbs_ and _Herenachs_ of the monastery founded by their ancestor. The _Advocatus_ first made his appearance in the church about the beginning of the fifth century--“post consulatum Stilliconis” (_Lind. Gloss. in Advocatus_), and the “tertia pars bannorum et tertius denarius” were amongst his privileges. From “Colton’s Visitation” it is evident that the old _Termon_, or Church lands, were divided into three portions, two belonging to the rector and his vicar, and the remaining _third_ to the Herenach under the Bishop, to whom also belonged the “blood-fines,” or _Eric_, _the overlord’s prerogative_. From a charter quoted by Harris, c. 35, p. 233, it would appear that in the _Anglo-Irish_ period, the _Rector_ was often identical with the _Cowarb_, so that the two-thirds belonging to the Rector and Vicar represented the Abbot’s portion of the Termon lands; and as in the _Gaelic_ period the Bishop had no claim on the temporalities of the Church, it seems probable that the Herenach was originally the _lay-lord_ of the Termon lands, holding them of the Abbot by the usual tenure of retaining _a third_ of the fines and profits--tertia pars _bannorum_, et tertius denarius. After the Cowarbs became very generally laymen, they retained their portion of the Termon lands in their own hands, under the superintendence of their own stewards and deputies, and the office of Herenach, declining in importance, probably fell into the hands of less exalted members of the family. When the Gaelic Church system was superseded, the Herenach lands--Church lands held by a layman--appear to have been confiscated to supply an income for the Bishop, the former holders losing all their former claims upon “the thirds,” and retaining only that small portion of the land which was their actual _duchas_, or freehold; whilst as the families of the greater Cowarbs were generally very powerful, they were often, probably, allowed to retain the _patronage to the Rectory_ in their family, provided it was presented to an ecclesiastic.

[353] _Vide_ the _Catalogus Sanctorum Hiberniæ_ (attributed to Tirechan), in O’Connor’s _Annotationes ad Sæculum_ VI. _Rer. Hib. Script. Vet._, vol. 2, p. 162. In the British monasteries the monks devoted themselves to manual labour, as at Bangor (_Bed. Hist. Eccl._, l. 2, c. 2); but the Irish monks were generally of the _contemplative_ order, as at Louth, the monastery of Mochta, the disciple of Patrick (_Tigh._ 534).In this they strictly followed the rule of St. Martin, in whose monastery at Tours contemplation was the business of the senior monks, whilst the younger brethren were employed in writing. _Vide Sulp. Sev. Vit. St. Martin_, c. 7. The contemplative life long continued to be the characteristic of the Gaelic monks. The Gallican Liturgy (Cursus Gallicanus) appears to have been in general use both in the British and Gaelic Churches; and according to an old MS. quoted by Usher, _Prim._ p. 185, it was introduced by Germanus and Lupus. The diversity of Rules remained to astonish the Papal Legate in the twelfth century, who mentions a singular fact that shows how deeply wedded the Irish monks must have been to their peculiar Rule. “Quid enim magis indecens aut schismaticum dici poterit, quam doctissimum unius ordinis in alterius Ecclesia idiotam et laicum fieri” (_Usher’s Sylloge_, p. 77); by which the Bishop of Limerick seems to imply that the ordination of one order of monks was not acknowledged by another. This tendency to cling to a particular Rule was probably amongst the causes which led to the predominance over the Bishop of the Abbot, whose special duty was to preserve strictly the Rule of the Founder. There is no trace of any such narrow prejudice in favour of “the Rule,” as that to which Bishop Gillebert alludes, to be found in the early Gaelic Church.