Chapter XIII: William the Lion--1165–1214 (6)

[354] The arguments of Laisren, Abbot of Lethglin, at the Synod held at that place, are said to have induced the Southern Churches to abandon the Cycle and Tonsure of their predecessors about 629–30. _Usher Primord._ p. 936. This Laisren has been erroneously confounded with Laistranus, one of the abbots addressed by Pope John about 640. _Bed. Eccl. Hist._, l. 2, c. 19. Compare _Bed. Hist. Eccl._, l. 3, c. 26, l. 5, c. 15, 23. Saint Fintan was the opponent of Laisren, and tradition has ascribed to him a singular method of upholding his opinions. He offered three alternatives to Laisren--1. To throw two copies of the old and the new systems into a fire, to test which would remain unburnt. 2. To shut up two monks in a burning house, and submit them to the same ordeal! 3. Or to raise a monk from the dead and abide by his decision. Laisren declined the trial through fear of Fintan’s superior sanctity; and, at any rate, the two monks must have felt relieved by his humility. Cummian, however, appears to have been totally ignorant that any such alternatives were offered to Laisren during the Synod of Lethglin; for he represents the arguments of the principal opponent of the new system (whom he hesitates not to stigmatise as _a whited wall_) to have been based upon an appeal to the traditions and practice of their forefathers. _Usher Brit. Eccl. Antiq._, c. 17, p. 485; and _Sylloge_, p. 33.

[355] In his epistle to Bishop Egbert of York.

[356] The _Cowarb_ was supposed to be the successor of the earliest abbot, or _ecclesiastical_ founder of the monastery; but in process of time he appears rather to have been the representative of the _lay_ founder, or, in other words, of the prince or chieftain who granted the Termon lands to the monastery. Thus most of the Cowarbs of St. Patrick (or Abbots of Armagh) can be traced to one of the various families of Oirgialla, of which race was Daire, who originally granted to St. Patrick the land for founding the monastery (_A.F.M._, 457); though in the ninth century the Hy Nial made several attempts to obtain the appointment for their own nominees. The whole monastery gradually became filled with “Founder’s kin,” and each leading family appears to have possessed _the patronage_ of the monastery of the district. Nor was this custom confined to the Gaelic Church, for it existed in Wales, Bretagne, Auvergne (_vide_ Goodall’s Preface to Keith), and in many parts of England, where the sons of priests were accustomed to inherit their father’s churches. _Vide Ead. Hist. Nov._, l. 3, p. 67. Instances still exist of the union of ecclesiastical and temporal power; for the Vladika of Montenegro is invariably the bishop, as well as the prince, of his wild country.

[357] The word _Culdee_ signifies nothing more than clergyman, and it was the general name for the clergy amongst the Gael. The Culdees can be traced in Ireland, just the same as in Scotland, and they were replaced by regular canons in the same manner. The Oratories and Culdees of Armagh are mentioned _A.F.M._ 919, _An. Ult._ 920. The Oratories were probably the seven churches, or chapels, which appear to have belonged to all the larger Gaelic monasteries, and the Culdees were the officiating ministers. The Prior and Culdees of Armagh retained many of their privileges down to the Reformation. Culdees were the ministers of York Cathedral, from the date of Oswald’s foundation until after the Conquest; and they probably inherited their privileges from the time of Bishop Aiden. _Vide Ware’s Antiquities (Harris)_, vol. 1, p. 236. The old canons of Durham were exactly in the same position as the Irish or Scottish Culdees. They were the descendants of the bearers of St. Cuthbert’s body during the early Danish wars, inheriting their canonries by right of blood, and claiming to elect the bishop from their own body. In short, the see was in the hands of certain privileged families until the Anglo-Saxon Church beyond the Humber was remodelled after the Conquest. _Vide Hist. Dun. (Twysden)_, l. 2, c. 6; l. 3, c. 6, 18. It is worthy of notice that _a Hospital_ is generally to be found where Culdees can be traced to have existed, and this hospital is generally dedicated to St. Leonard.

[358] The power of the monastery depended very much on that of the chieftain of the district, and varied accordingly. Thus, in early times, Clonmacnois appears to have claimed the tribute of Connaught, though the primacy was eventually transferred to Tuam. Like St. Andrews in Scotland, Armagh had become far the most powerful abbey in Ireland in the twelfth century.

[359] _Ailred (Twysden)_, p. 348. David found three or four, and left nine sees.

[360] Gregory and Cormac, the Bishops of Moray and Dunkeld, attested the Foundation Charter of Scone. At that time St Andrews was vacant.

[361] _Myln, Vit. Dunk. Ep._, pp. 5–10. _Reg. Aberd._, vol. i. p. 76, _note_; vol. ii. p. 58. _Reg. Morav._, Nos. 46, 47, 48. _Keith, Pref._ p. 10. According to _Fordun_, l. viii. ch. 73, Earl Gilbert gave a third of his earldom to Inch Affray, a third to the bishopric of Dunblane, and only retained a third for himself and his heirs; and the same earl is often described as the _Founder_ of the see. In a strict sense this is doubtful, for Dunblane was undoubtedly amongst the _nine_ Sees existing, according to Ailred, at David’s death; and the poverty of the bishopric five years after Gilbert’s death, in 1223, hardly agrees with the supposed donation of a third of his earldom. Inch Affray was the Foundation of Gilbert, upon which he lavished the tithes of his _Can_, his rents, his fines, and his offerings. Yet that the bishopric was endowed by the earls is a certainty, because in 1442 James II. declared, that the temporalities of the bishopric, hitherto held of the Earl of Strathearn, were henceforth to be held of the Crown. When the Pope granted to the Bishop a fourth of the tithes of the whole diocese for the support of himself, a Dean, and Canons, the Bishop seems to have abandoned “all right of pension out of the lands or churches of the Earl of Menteith,” who was permitted to found a house for Regular Canons at Inch Mahomoc, making over the church of Kippen to found a Canonry in Dunblane Cathedral, and the church of Callander for the Bishop himself. This arrangement wears very much the appearance of a compromise; as if, at the revival of the see, David had assigned the earldoms of Strathearn and Menteith to the bishop as his diocese, neither of the earls, in the first instance, resigning the church-lands in their possession, until the Earl of Menteith waived all claim to the _patronage of the See_, in return for the permission to found the _family_ Priory of Inch Mahomoc; whilst the bishop waived all further claim upon the earldom of Menteith, in return for the churches of Kippen and Callander. The diocese was thenceforth confined, in point of fact, to the earldom of Strathearn, in which all its temporalities were situated; and in return for the patronage of the see, no longer disputed by the Earls of Menteith, the successors of Gilbert would have no longer had any reluctance to carry out his intentions.--_Vide Innes’ Sketches, etc._; _Inch Affray_, pp. 204 to 219. In earlier times each earl would have placed his bishop in the family establishments of Inch Affray and Inch Mahomoc.

[362] The Seven Churches, for instance, at Clonmacnois and Glendalough, in Ireland. According to Beda, _Hist. Eccl._, l. 2, cap. 2; the Welsh monastery of Bangor was divided into _seven_ portions, each containing three hundred monks, under a prior (præpositus). This arrangement may have had some connection with the peculiarity of Seven Churches. Seven British bishops are said to have attended the conference at Augustine’s Oak, and seven bishops are said to have preached the Faith in Gaul.--(_Hist. Eccl. Franc._, l. 1, cap. 28).

[363] This description is taken from the “History of St. Rule,” etc. (_Pinkerton’s Dissertation_, vol. 2, Ap. No. 7, sec. 3, and _Jamieson’s Culdees, Appendix_ No. 7), written by a contemporary of the kings Alexander and David. Like most tradition it is a singular mixture of truth and error. The _Hungus filius Ferlon_, and his son _Howonan_, contemporaries of Constantine the Great, are evidently Angus Mac Fergus, who reigned from 820 to 834, and his son Eoganan, who was killed in 839. The “Devotion to St. Andrew”--(_Pinkerton_, No. 12)--exemplifies the growth of error in such traditions, for it represents the saint bidding Angus dedicate to the Church _the tithes_ of his possessions.

[364] Such were the Abbots of Dunkeld, ancestors of the royal line of Atholl, and those of Abernethy, ancestors of the family of that name. From the name of the first Earl of Ross, Ferquhard Mac-in-Sagart (the son of the priest), he was probably of a clerical family of this description. The lay Abbots of Brechin witness many charters. The Abbacy of St. Andrews was vested in the king.

[365] This difference between the Irish and Scottish Churches may probably be traced to the time when Nechtan drove the monks of Iona out of his dominions, and transferred the superiority to Abernethy. It was adopted, most likely, from the Anglo-Saxons, amongst whom I cannot trace the _advocatus_ any more than the _Herenach_ amongst the Scottish Gael. The character may have existed amongst both people, but I am not aware of any _name_ for it; nor has any word like _Vogt_ penetrated into either English or Scottish, as it has into the Germanic and Scandinavian languages.

[366] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. 186. _Vide_ also p. 48, and other papal confirmations.

[367] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, pp. 43–188. The little Abbey of St. Servans belonged to the bishop, as the brotherhood had, on its first establishment, made over their possessions to the bishop, according to the usual Gaelic custom, in return for food and clothing.--_Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. 113.

[368] _Reg. Aberd._, vol. 2, p. 264.

[369] _Vide Goodall’s Preface to Keith’s Catalogue of Bishops._ When David revived the See of Brechin, he merely granted to the Bishop and Culdees the right of holding a Sunday market in their _Vill_ of Brechin. The Church-lands, originally “given to the Lord” by Kenneth II., were probably in the possession of the _Cowarbs_, long represented by the lay Abbots of Brechin. Leod is the first known member of the family, attesting charters of David, as “Abbas de Brechin,” amongst the laity; and the form of _Abbe_ so often appears after the names of the family, that it has been taken for a surname; though, as the same individuals appear with _Abbas_ or _Abbatis_ appended to their names, it is evidently only a contraction. Morgund appears to have been the last direct heir-male--(_Reg. de Brech. Pref._, p.v., and No. 1. _Reg. Vet. Arbr._, No. 1, 70, 72, 73, 74--1, 2, 3). About the opening of the thirteenth century, other clerks appear in the Chapter; and as the charters quoted by Goodall mention “the Prior, Culdees, and _others_ of the Chapter of Brechin,” it is possible that these “_others_” were the Canons, who now began to share the privileges of the Culdees. The latter disappear towards the close of the reign of Alexander II., and their place is supplied by the ordinary “Dean and Chapter.” Morgund died in the same reign, and the property appears to have passed to Henry, an illegitimate offshoot from the royal family, who transmitted the name of _de Brechin_ to his descendants. In a charter, about the year 1267, his son, William de Brechin, couples with the name of his father Henry that of his _mother_ Juliana. In 1232 Alexander granted certain lands to Gillandrys Mac Leod, to be held by the service of one knight, “saving the rights of the clergy of Brechin, and the annual rent of 10 _solidi_, due from a portion to the Abbot of Brechin,” together with other lands, to be held _per forinsecum servitium_, “infra dictum servitium unius militis.” From all this, I think, it is allowable to suppose, that on the death of Morgund the king bestowed Juliana, the heiress of the last Abbot, on his kinsman Henry, with the proviso that the Culdees should be suppressed, or converted into the Chapter, at the same time erecting the lands of Gillandrys, the heir-male, hitherto held of the Abbot and Clergy, into a barony, held by charter of the Crown.--_Reg. de Brech._, Nos. 2, 3; _Innes’ Sketches_, etc., p. 156.

[370] _Reg. Prior. St. And._ p. 318.

[371] _Vide_ Charters in _Reg. Prior. St. And._, from p. 362 to p. 376. _Reg. Aberd._, vol. 2, p. 264.

[372] _Reg. Morav._, No. 260. _Vide_ also _Hailes’ Annals_, vol. 3, _Appendix_ No. 4. The passage is curious, “Clerici vero uxorati ejusdem regni qui clericalem deferentes tonsuram clericati gaudere solent privilegio, et cum bonis suis sub ecclesiastice protectionis manere presidio ab antiquo, solite immunitatis beneficiis exuuntur et sub nova rediguntur onera servitutis.” As the date of this singular document is 31st May 1251, it must have been issued against Durward and his party, who at that time were in power.

[373] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. xxxv, No. 16, xxxvii, No. 30, 32. _Denmylne Charters_, No. 19, 39. Amongst the Culdees who were converted into the Provost and Chapter of St. Mary’s was William Wishart, afterwards Bishop of St. Andrews. If _Robert_ Wishart, afterwards Bishop of Glasgow, was also a Culdee--a clericus uxoratus--it may explain the passage in which Hemingburgh throws an aspersion on his morals, “filios etiam episcopi nepotum nomine nuncupatos.” _Vide Innes’ Sketches_, p. 50, note 4.

[374] The Culdees were excluded from participating in the election of William Wishart in 1272 (_Fordun_, l. 6, c. 43). Every papal confirmation, however, in the _Reg. Prior. St. And._ proves that the right of electing the bishop was confined to the Canons Regular of the Priory, the Culdees apparently having first been deprived of their right in the days of Turgot (_Twysden, Preface_, p. vi.) The expressions of Fordun can, therefore, only be explained on the supposition that they had recovered their original privileges for a short time about this period.

[375] _Fordun_, l. 6, c. 44. _Palgrave’s Documents, etc._, cxlvii. cxlix.

[376] _Reg. Prior. St. And._, p. xxxi.

[377] _Chron. St. Crucis_, 1153. Boece attributes the rising of Somarled to a famine and pestilence, which the Chronicle places in the following year--the result rather than the cause of the invasion.

[378] _Chron. Man_, p. 8, 9. _An. F. M._, 1106. _An. Inisfal_, 1094. The chronology, though very defective up to this point, is easily rectified. As Olave Godfreyson died in 1152, after a reign of forty years, he must have succeeded in 1112. Lagman, who was king at the time of Magnus Barefoot’s expedition, reigned seven years, which, added to the six years of Sigurd’s rule in the Orkneys, places his death thirteen years after that of his father, which occurred in 1095--or in 1108. The remaining four years are accounted for by Donald’s regency, and the interval before the arrival of Ingemund.

[379] _Chron. Man_, p. 12, 13. The character of Olave is described in a passage redolent of the spirit of the age:--“Dedit ecclesiis insularum terras et libertates, et erat circa cultum divinum devotus et fervidus, tam Deo quam hominibus acceptabilis, propter quod isti domestico vitio Regum indulgebant.” The privileges of Furness Abbey were confirmed by a Bull of Pope Celestine, quoted in _Camd. Brit._, p. 1450. Wimund is one of the bishops called into existence by Stubbs, to be consecrated with the apocryphal Michael of Glasgow, by Archbishop Thomas of York, who died in 1114--(_Twysden_, p. 1713). It is scarcely necessary to point out the discrepancy of this date with the real period of Wimund’s adventures, as detailed by the contemporary Newbridge. Wendover calls Wimund the first Bishop of Man, and he is probably right in a certain sense; for the bishopric seems to have been revived or remodelled, as in the cases of Glasgow and Galloway, when Olave solicited a colony of monks from Furness; and as the Irish Northmen looked upon their bishops as members of the Anglo-Norman rather than of the Irish Church, Olave would naturally turn to the Archbishop of York to consecrate the first bishop of his newly-created diocese, which soon afterwards became dependant upon the Archbishop of Drontheim.

[380] _Chron. Man_, p. 13–15.

[381] _Chron. Man_, p. 15, 10.

[382] _An. F. M._, 1142, 1146, 1160, 1167, 1170, 1171.

[383] _Chron. Man_, p. 16, 17.

[384] _Chron. St. Crucis_ and _Chron. Mel._, 1156.

[385] _Chron. St. Crucis_, 1157. _Reg. Dunf._, No. 40.

[386] _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 4. Hoveden, a confidential servant of the English king, distinctly states that Henry made oath at Carlisle that if he ever ascended the throne of England, he would make over to David and his heirs Newcastle and Northumberland, and allow the kings of Scotland to possess without reserve all the lands between Tyne and Tweed (_ad an._ 1148–49). Diceto, who had no object in favouring the Scottish claims, says as decidedly that Northumberland had not only been long in the possession of David, but that it had been granted and confirmed to him by charter (_ad an._ 1173). Newbridge is more guarded, remarking that Malcolm might have brought forward the oath which Henry _is said_ to have sworn--_ut dicitur_--to David. John of Hexham does not allude to the agreement, for it was probably kept secret, and could hardly have transpired when he closed his history four years later; but he incidentally confirms its existence when he states that the Earl of Chester waived his claim upon Carlisle in favour of David, receiving the Honor of Lancaster in exchange, for which he performed homage to the Scottish king. At this time, then, Carlisle must have been the acknowledged property of David, and the homage of Ranulph in connection with the Honor of Lancaster, the subsequent claim raised by William in 1196 upon the same fief, and the grant of Furness to Wimund, look very much as if Lancashire, or its northern frontier, was also in the hands of David. His authority, however, extended far beyond the Tyne, and the possession of the castles of Carlisle, Bamborough, and Newcastle, goes far to prove that whilst he held all beyond that river in the name of the Empress Queen, he had stipulated that the earldom, which he looked upon as the rightful inheritance of his wife, should be permanently made over to himself and his heirs. Small facts are sometimes significant, and as most of the important meetings between the English and Scottish kings were held near their mutual frontiers, it is worth noticing that though Henry subsequently met Malcolm at _Carlisle_, the cession of the northern counties was made--_at Chester_. The possession of the northern counties was a matter of grave importance to both kings, for had they been held hereditarily by the Scottish princes, they would from their local position have undoubtedly become gradually incorporated with the Scottish kingdom. It was naturally the policy of the English kings to throw every obstacle in the way of such a contingency, and in estimating Henry’s conduct on this occasion, it would be the safest course for those who seek to palliate it, to ground their defence on the plea of “expediency.”

[387] _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 4. _Hoveden_ 1157. _Wendover_ 1157. Matthew of Westminster, far better informed than any contemporary authority, fabricates an invasion of England in order that Henry may be introduced as “vigorously repulsing” the Scots. This recalls the practice of some of the earlier chroniclers, who invariably raise a rebellion of the Scots at the commencement of every fresh reign, that they may easily and effectually crush the revolt with the same weapon that raised it--the pen. To the fiefs surrendered by Malcolm according to the contemporary authorities, Wendover adds “the whole county of Lothian,” a passage appearing also in Diceto; but I have given my reasons in _Appendix L_, pt. 2, for regarding it as an interpolation upon the “Imagines Historiarum,” and of no authority in either case. The meaning of a reservation in Malcolm’s homage, “salvis dignitatibus suis,” has occasioned some controversy, and has sometimes been considered equivalent to a reservation of the independence of his kingdom. I should be more inclined to regard the saving clause as applicable to all those points which, at the time of William’s homage to Richard at Canterbury, were left for the decision of four barons of each kingdom, and subsequently confirmed by a charter from the English king. Compare _Appendix L_, pt. 2.

[388] _Hoveden_ and _Chron. Mel._ 1158–59. The question was probably about the nature of the homage rendered for Huntingdon, whether _liege_ or _simple_. Liege _homage_, which was the tenure by which the English kings held their duchy of Guyenne--as Edward the Third admitted after some demur (_Fœd._ vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 765, 797, 813)--carried with it the obligation of liege _service_. The service of Malcolm, and subsequently of William, in the armies of Henry, established the fact that they held Huntingdon by _liege homage_; and the obligation of service was subsequently evaded by sub-infeoffing the fief, which imposed this duty upon the _Vavassor_, or tenant of the Holder in Chief.

[389] _Hoveden_ 1160. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 7, l. 199 to 216. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 6. The Earls of Fife and Strathearn seem to have been amongst the most influential of the old Gaelic Mormaors, the former always staunch supporters of the reigning family, of which, perhaps, like the Earls of Atholl, they were a branch--for both these earldoms, connected with the monasteries of Dunkeld and St. Andrews, were originally “in the crown;” whilst the latter, who were “Palatines,” exercising the privileges of a Regality within their earldom, and with the patronage at one time of the Bishopric of Dunblane--apparently, like the Ealdormen of Northumbria, “mediatized princes”--will be generally found at this period at the head of the discontented, rather than the disaffected, Scots. Ferquhard never seems to have suffered for his share in this conspiracy. He was either too powerful, or, more probably, not personally disaffected towards the reigning family, but discontented at their innovations. As the earldom of Ross, of which a certain Malcolm was in possession at one period of this reign (_Reg. Dunf._ No. 43), was granted as part of the dowry of the princess Ada on her marriage with Florence, Count of Holland, in 1162 (_Doc. etc. Illust. Hist. Scot._, iv. sec. 5, p. 20), it must have been at that date in the crown; and if through forfeiture, the forfeited earl may have been one of the “Mayster Men.” Mr. Skene adds the Earl of Orkney and the Boy of Egremont on the authority of Wynton and the Orkneyinga Saga, but I can find no mention of either. The Saga only says that all the Scots wished to have for their king William _Odlingr_--the _Atheling_--son of William Fitz Duncan, alluding most probably to the repeated attempts, in the succeeding reign, of Donald MacWilliam, generally known as “Mac William,” and sometimes called “William” in _Ben. Ab._ Six years before the conspiracy of Perth, the Boy of Egremont was old enough to witness a charter of Bolton Priory, as son and heir of his mother, Cecilia de Rumeli (_Dugd. Mon._, vol. 6, p. 203), and as he died in his childhood--he was the hero of the well-known tale of the _Strides_--he was probably dead before 1160. In the conspiracy of Perth, Mr. Skene sees an attempt of the “Seven Earls” to assert their privileges and choose the son of William Fitz Duncan in the place of Malcolm. These earls and their privileges are as profound a mystery as the conspiracy itself. _Vide Appendix S._

[390] _Chron. St. Crucis_ 1160. The names of Fergus and his son, Uchtred, occur amongst the witnesses to the grant of Perdeyc on the 7th July 1136. _Reg. Glasg._, No. 3, 7. The different relation in which Galloway stood to Scotland in the reigns of David and his successor, is clearly ascertained through its bishopric. Candida Casa was not amongst the sees revived by David, owing its reestablishment apparently to Fergus, Christian, the first bishop of the new see, being consecrated in 1154, when the ceremony was performed by the Archbishop of Rouen at Bermondsey (_Chron. St. Crucis_ 1154). He was claimed as a suffragan of York after the captivity of William, and when excommunicated in 1177 by Cardinal Vivian, legate for _Scotland_, Ireland, and the Isles, for not attending a council of Scottish bishops, was sheltered by his metropolitan, at that time legate for _England_; and his successors remained suffragans of York until the fourteenth century. It may be gathered, therefore, that at the date of the revival of the see, Galloway was up to a certain point an independent principality, the Scottish claims to superiority dating from the conquest of Malcolm, the English from the captivity of William--for Gill-aldan, consecrated with other _myths_ by Archbishop Thorstein, is an apocryphal creation of Stubbs (_Twysden_, p. 1720). The bishopric, which was probably commensurate with the boundaries of the principality, comprised the modern shires of Wigton and Kirkcudbright westward of the Ure, and was bounded by the deaneries of Nith and Carrick, both in the diocese of Glasgow; the former the original seat of the Randolph family, whose first known ancestor was Dungal of Stranith; the latter erected into a separate earldom for Duncan, the grandson of Fergus, on resigning all claim upon his father Gilbert’s share in the province of Galloway.

[391] _Hoveden_ 1163.

[392] _Wendover_ 1163. This is another passage found in the “Imagines,” but not in the “Capitula,” of Diceto. (_Vide Appendix L_, pt. 2). According to Diceto, the clergy swore fealty to the younger Henry in 1162, and according to the _Annales Cambriæ_, Rhys of South Wales was in England with Henry in 1164, after the expedition in which Henry reached Pencadair, which is usually placed in 1162. It is singular that Newbridge, the principal authority for the Welsh wars, should not have alluded to the homage at Woodstock. Sir Francis Palgrave, in his “Proofs and Illustrations,” seems to lay some stress on the omission of the saving clause, “salvis dignitatibus,” in the homage said to have been rendered by Malcolm to the younger Henry on this occasion. It was simply a repetition of his original homage, not a fresh act; and as he was in the enjoyment of his “dignities” at this time, where was the necessity of the saving clause?

[393] _Hoveden_, 1164, p. 283. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 7, l. 307. _Chron. Mel._ 1164. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 6. The Innes Charter was granted at Christmas “post concordiam Regis et Sumerledi” (_Reg. Morav._ p. 453). Amongst the witnesses was William, Bishop of Moray and papal legate, an office which he held from 1159 till his death in 1162. Between these dates Somerled and Malcolm must have come to terms. Fordun calls the son who was killed with his father Gillecolum. He is nowhere else mentioned, and none of the ancestry of the great western clans traced to him.

[394] _Chron. Mel._ 1165. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 29. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 9, l. 321, etc. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 6, etc. Lord Hailes has ruthlessly destroyed the fable which was founded upon the king’s _soubriquet_ of “the Maiden.” _Annals_, vol. 1, p. 123.

[395] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 6, is the earliest authority who alludes to the supposed transplantation of the Moraymen. Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_, vol. 2, p. 167) seems to think that the Moraymen took advantage of the conspiracy of Perth to rise under Kenneth Mac Heth, and that Malcolm, after a violent struggle, crushed their rebellion; but I cannot find any notice of such occurrences in the historians of this period. Malcolm’s struggle was in Galloway, and the greater part of Moray, with the exception of the more inaccessible Highland districts, was by this time in the iron grasp of the great feudal proprietors established in the forfeited earldom by David. Kenneth Mac Heth was the companion of Donald Bane, the son of Donald Mac William, when he rose against Alexander the Second in 1215, _fifty-five years_ after the conspiracy of Perth. It is possible that he may have shared in the earlier risings, but it is hardly probable.

[396] _Hoveden_, 1166, p. 289. _Chron. Mel._ 1166. “Ob negotia Domini sui,” says the latter authority; in other words, he performed _service_ for Huntingdon. There is no actual allusion to the grant of this fief to William, but it is evident that he possessed it and sub-infeoffed it to his brother David. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 37, speaks of _Earl David_ holding the castle of Huntingdon at the time of William’s capture; and in c. 31 he calls the same prince Earl of Huntingdon. Hoveden and Abbot Benedict, under the year 1184, mention that Henry _gave back_ (reddidit) the fief to William, who granted it (dedit) to his brother. What was _given back_ must have been previously _taken away_; and William must have been in possession of the fief before his capture. According to _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 12, 13, he was refused Northumberland; and this refusal _Diceto, ad an._ 1173, places amongst the causes of the subsequent war.

[397] The Bishop of Hereford, an austere priest, who imagined himself fully qualified for the primacy, remarked with a sneer, in allusion to some of Becket’s antecedents, that the king had wrought a miracle when he converted a man-at-arms into an Archbishop.

[398] _Ep. St. T. Cant._, l. 1, 44; l. 2, 32, quoted by Lord Lyttleton, _Hist. Hen. II._, vol. 4, p. 218–20. In 1166 William was at Mont St. Michael (_Chron. Robt. de Monte ad an._), and there came with him the Bishop of Man and thirty-one other islands, all of which, adds the chronicler, the king of the Isles holds of the king of Norway by paying ten marks of gold to every new king. No other payment is made during the life of that king, or until the appointment of a successor.

[399] _Ben. Ab._ and _Hoveden_ 1170.

[400] _Hoveden_ 1173, p. 305. According to Diceto, William demanded Northumberland from the elder Henry, and on being refused, led his army into England. But the account of Hoveden is more likely to be correct. Wendover copied Diceto word for word, with the characteristic omission of the Dean of St. Paul’s words “quæ fuerant regi David, donata, tradita, cartis confirmata.”

[401] _Diceto_ 1173.

[402] _Hoveden_ 1173, p. 307. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 30. _Diceto_ 1173. The latter makes William beg for a truce from the triumphant English nobles; but both the other writers maintain that the proposal first came from the English leaders, on hearing of the arrival of the Earl of Leicester. “Timuerunt valde,” writes Hoveden; “Cum eum (William) callida nostrorum dissimulatione laterent adhuc quæ nuntiabantur,” are the words of Newbridge. In the same chapter that historian speaks of _Tweed_ dividing the kingdoms of England and Scotland--a clear proof that _Lothian_ had not been _restored_ to Henry seventeen years previously.

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

[404] _Hoveden_, 1174, p. 307.

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

[406] _Hoveden_ 1174, p. 307. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 31, 32.

[407] _Ben. Ab._ 1174. _Hoveden_ 1174, p. 308. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 32.

[408] I have here followed the account of Abbot Benedict, which appears to have been copied into the chronicle of Croyland Abbey. Compare it with _Doc. etc. Illust. Hist. Scot._, No. xxiv., p. 79, Benedict expressly says that William dispatched the two Earls and de Moreville from Alnwick “fere cum toto exercitu ... et ibi remansit cum privata familia sua.”

[409] “Nam predicti Duces, cum audissent quod Rex Scotiæ ... _misisset exercitum suum ab eo_, cum festinacione secuti sunt.” Such are the words of Benedict, which prove that the enterprise of the English leaders was entirely based upon their _knowledge_ of the dispersion of the Scottish army, and their hope of surprising the king whilst he was only surrounded “privata familia sua.” This view of the case must enhance our opinion of their judgment, though somewhat at the expense of the miracle. Robert d’Estoteville, Bernard de Balliol, Ranulph de Glanville, and William de Vesci, were the principal barons in favour of the enterprise.

[410] Some idea might be formed of the rate of progression of a knight in full armour, were it not for the ambiguity of the expression of Newbridge, “ante horam quintam viginti quatuor millia passuum transmearent”--“before five o’clock;” or “under five hours,” as some translate it. But this forced march was looked upon as an almost incredible performance; and if our forefathers required supernatural assistance (tanquam _propellente vi aliqua_ properantes) to accomplish five miles an hour, their ordinary movements must have been leisurely indeed.

[411] _Ben. Ab._ 1174. _Hoveden_ 1174, p. 308. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 33. The veracious Wendover represents the capture of William as the result of a battle, in which such multitudes of the Scots were slain that it was impossible to number their dead!

[412] _Ben. Ab._ 1174. _Hoveden_ 1174, p. 308. _Newbridge_, l. 3, c. 35. _Diceto_ and _Chron. Gerv._ 1174. (_Twysden_, p. 577, 1427.) Facts have been a little strained to represent William’s capture as a miracle. All contemporary accounts agree that Henry sailed from Barfleur on Monday the 8th July, landing the same evening at Southampton, and hurrying to Canterbury without delay, where they make him do penance immediately on his arrival, dating it on Friday the 12th, and bring him to London on the Saturday, without accounting for the intermediate days. A journey from Southampton to Canterbury would scarcely require three days’ and nights’ hard riding. Lord Hailes, according to Dr. Lingard, “contradicts the king, and says that one of these events occurred on a Thursday, and the other on a Saturday.” Lingard himself makes Henry spend two days on the passage--a way of accounting for the intermediate days which seems not to have occurred to the earlier authorities--land on the 10th, ride all night, reach Canterbury and do penance on the 11th, and proceed to London on the 12th (_Hist. Engl._, vol. 2, c. 5); and as William was captured on Saturday the 13th, his own account, singularly enough, bears out the assertion of Lord Hailes, “that Henry was scourged on a Thursday and William made prisoner on a Saturday!” It was quite in accordance with the spirit of the age to regard the capture of William as the reward of Henry’s penance, and it can scarcely be questioned that such was the case in England; whilst the foundation of Arbroath, dedicated to Thomas of Canterbury, seems to attest William’s concurrence in this feeling. The age was ready to accept a miracle and it was framed accordingly.

[413] _Hoveden_ 1174, p. 308. _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 34, 37. Diceto improves upon the miracle of William’s capture by adding that on the _very same day_ the Count of Flanders and the younger Henry dismissed the fleet which they had assembled at Gravelines. To make the story still better, Wendover raises a tempest and sinks most of the vessels. As the allies left Gravelines on account of a message from Louis, who had _received intelligence of William’s capture_ (_Hoveden_), the knowledge of an event in France, on the very day on which it happened in Northumberland, would, in those days, have been undeniably miraculous.

[414] _Newbridge_, l. 2, c. 38.

[415] _Fœdera_, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 30. Though _five_ castles are mentioned in this convention, only _three_ appear to have been given up--Roxburgh, Berwick, and Edinburgh. The latter was given back as the dowry of Ermengarde, and the two others were restored by Richard. As Stirling and Jedburgh are never alluded to, it is to be presumed that, for some cause, they were not claimed by Henry; indeed Newbridge, l. 2, c. 38, writes that only the three other castles were made over to the English king; and Wynton follows him, bk. 7, c. 8, l. 159. The treaty in the Fœdera is dated at Falaise; but a passage in Diceto (to which no allusion is made in the Capitula) states that the Convention took place near Valognes in the Cotentin; and in the version of the treaty given in the same passage, the castles of Roxburgh and Berwick only are mentioned. These were the two castles restored after the death of Henry, and the writer must have been ignorant not only that Stirling, Jedburgh, and Edinburgh, were also amongst the fortresses stipulated to be made over by the Scots, but that the latter was actually given up. This is another proof, I think, that the passages in Diceto, to which no allusion is made in the Capitula, are by another hand. _Vide Diceto_ 1174, p. 584, and _Appendix L_, pt. 2.

[416] _Ben. Ab._ 1175.

[417] In 1123–24 Alexander, just before his death, appointed Robert of Scone to the bishopric of St. Andrews, and he appears to have deputed John of Glasgow to maintain the liberties of the Scottish Church at the court of Rome. In 1124–25 John of Crema, the papal legate, was empowered to settle the points in dispute, subject to the final approval of the pope; and in 1128 Archbishop Thorstein consecrated Robert “Sine professione et obbediente pro Dei amore et Regis Scotiæ ... salva querela Eboracensis Ecclesiæ et justitia Ecclesiæ Sancti Andreæ.” _Sim. Dun de Gestis_, 1124, 1125. _Ang. Sac._, vol. 2, p. 237, quoted in _Hailes’ Annals_, vol. 1, p. 76. It is curious to contrast the account of Simeon with that of Stubbs (_Twysden_, p. 1719). According to the chronicler who wrote two centuries and a half after the events which he describes, Thorstein grounded his claims upon the assertion that _the king of Scotland was the liegeman of the king of England_; whilst the contemporary Simeon confines the dispute strictly to _ecclesiastical_ points; though the ill success of the English advocates provoked him into writing “Scotti dicebant _stulta garrulitate_, etc.!”

[418] The letter of the pope to Henry is preserved in _Diceto, ad an._ 1154, p. 529.

[419] _Chron. St. Crucis_, 1159, 1162. _Chron. Mel._ 1161.

[420] _Extr. ex Chron. Scot._, p. 75. _Chron. Mel._ 1164. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 15. _Vide_ also _Hailes’ Annals_, vol. 1, p. 120.

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

[422] _Hoveden_ 1176, p. 314, gives the fullest account of these occurrences.

[423] _Ben. Ab._ 1176. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 8, l. 185 to 258.

[424] _Reg. Glasg._, No. 38.

[425] _Hoveden_ 1188, p. 371. This privilege was confirmed by many subsequent bulls.

[426] The best account of these transactions is given by _Abbot Benedict_, 1174. He says that Henry made the first overtures through Hoveden. Hoveden himself is very reserved on the subject, makes no allusion to his own mission, and declares that the Galwegian princes solicited the intervention of Henry. Looking at the result of the mission, I think it very probable that there were some reasons for the reserve of Hoveden, and I am inclined to adopt the version of Benedict.

[427] _Ben. Ab._ 1175. This is another incidental proof of the complete feudal independence of the _kingdom_ of Scotland at all other times; for no rebellion could have been put down without the permission of the English overlord, by whose court the rebels would have been tried; and Malcolm IV. would have had no more right to conquer and annex Galloway to his kingdom, than the Earl Palatine of Chester to conquer and annex Wales to his earldom.

[428] _Ben. Ab._ 1176. The policy of Gilbert in driving out all “foreigners”--all who had not a “right of blood” to hold land in Galloway--was simply a repetition of the course adopted under Donald Bane and Duncan II. Galloway, in short, was a century behind _Scotia_.

[429] “On the Sunday which happens in the middle of Lent, the pope was wont to bear in his hand a rose of gold, enamelled red, and perfumed; this he bestowed as a mark of grace.... By the _rose_ Christ was figured, by the _gold_, his kingly office; by the _red colour_, his passion; and by the _perfume_, his resurrection. This is no impertinent Protestant gloss,” adds Lord Hailes, “it is the interpretation given by Alexander III., when he sent the mystical present to Lewis VII., king of France.” _Hailes’ Annals_, vol. 1, p. 140, note.

[430] The whole account of these transactions will be found--at far greater length than is accorded to matters of far greater importance--in _Hoveden_, 1180, p. 341–342; 1181, p. 350–351; 1182, p. 351–352; 1183, p. 354; 1186, p. 360–361; 1188, p. 368–369–370. I need hardly add that it will scarcely repay the perusal. The death of Hugh, of malaria, at Rome in 1188, may have been the real cause of the conclusion of the dispute. It was on the occasion of this visit of William to Normandy that Diceto has recorded his astonishment at the unwonted spectacle of a meeting between four kings passing over without a quarrel, “pacificos convenisse, pacificos recessisse!”

[431] Donald filius Willelmi filii Duncani, qui sæpius calumniatus fuerat Regnum Scotiæ, et multitotiens furtivas invasiones in regnum illud fecerat, per mandatum quorundam potentium virorum de Regno Scotiæ, cum copiosa multitudine armata applicuit in Scotia. _Ben. Ab._ 1181.

[432] _Ben. Ab._ 1181. _Chron. Mel._ 1179. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 28. The first is supposed to have been Redcastle; the second was in the neighbourhood of Cromarty, commanding the entrance of the Firth, and securing that part of the province which was the seat of the bishopric of _Rosmarkinch_.

[433] _Ben. Ab._ 1184. Strictly speaking, Matilda was no longer duchess of Saxony, as her husband, Henry the Lion, had been forfeited five years previously by the Emperor Frederic, who gave his duchy of Saxony to Bernard of Anhalt, son of Albert the Bear, first Margrave of Brandenburg. But Bernard never made good his claims over the Saxons on the Weser, the tenants of the _Allodial_ lands to which Henry had succeeded in right of his mother Gertrude, heiress of the Saxon Emperor Lothaire.

[434] _Ben. Ab._ 1185. _Hoveden_ 1184, p. 355.

[435] _Ben. Ab._ 1185.

[436] _Ben. Ab._ 1185. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 39. There is no actual mention made of the residence of Roland at the Scottish court; but his marriage with the daughter of one of William’s firmest adherents, and the favour subsequently shown to him by the king, afford very fair evidence that he was closely connected with Scotland; so that during his exile he most probably resided in the country from which he drew a great part of the army with which he re-established himself in Galloway.

[437] _Ben. Ab._ 1185. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 39. _Chron. Mel._ 1185. From the latest of Mr. Innes’ interesting contributions to Scottish history it may be gathered that this Gillecolm was probably a certain Gillecolm Mariscall, who “rendered up the king’s castle of HERYN feloniously, and afterwards wickedly and traitorously went over to his mortal enemies, and stood with them against the king, to do him hurt to his power.”--_Sketches of Early Scottish History_, p. 208.

[438] _Ben. Ab._ 1186.

[439] _Ben. Ab._ 1186. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 40. _Chron. Mel._ 1186.

[440] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 40, 50.

[441] _Ben. Ab._ 1186. _Chron. Mel._ 1186.

[442] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 28, 43.

[443] “Et multa incommoda faciebat sæpe Willelmo Regi Scotiæ _per consensum et concilium_ Comitum et Baronum Regni Scotiæ,” are the words of _Ben. Ab._

[444] Ad cujus nutum omnium pendebat sententia, _Ben. Ab._ Roland was not yet Constable of Scotland, so that he was not acting in an official capacity. He succeeded to the hereditary dignity of his wife’s family on the death of his brother-in-law, William de Moreville in 1196. (_Chron. Mel._)

[445] _Ben. Ab._ 1187. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 28. _Chron. Mel._ 1187. I have followed the account of Benedict, which is very full and interesting. The whole of Galloway was made over to Roland immediately after the death of Henry; and as William made this grant at the expense of creating the earldom of Carrick for Duncan, it may well be inferred that the donation of the whole principality to Roland was a reward for his invaluable services. At this period of Scottish history the historian has much cause to regret the loss of “the Roll, in eleven parts, of recognitions and old charters, of the time of William and his son Alexander, and of those to whom the said kings formerly gave their peace, and of those who _stood with Mac William_.”--(_Robertson’s Index_, p. xvi.)

[446] Et propter mala quæ fecerat neque luctus neque clamor, sed nec ullus dolor de morte ejus factus est--_Ben. Ab._ The words of the historian display the indifference with which many at that time looked upon the success or ill fortune of either party.

[447] _Ben. Ab._ 1188. _Hoveden_ 1188, p. 366. Such, I think, is the purport of what may be gathered from the accounts of these two authorities, who at first sight appear to contradict each other. Hoveden appears to have confined his account to the actual meeting between William and the bishop of Durham; whilst the narrative of Benedict refers rather to the preceding negotiations.

[448] _Fœd._, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 48. William does not appear to have been implicated. He had probably suffered enough already.

[449] _Hoveden_ 1189, p. 374–77.

[450] _Ben. Ab._ 1189. _Hoveden_ 1189, p. 377. _Fœd._, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 50.

[451] _Chron. Mel._ 1193. _Hoveden_ 1190, p. 387; 1194, p. 418. The 2000 marks were, probably, the usual feudal aid towards ransoming the superior of his fiefs in England.

[452] _Hoveden_ 1194, p. 419. _Fœdera_, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 62.

[453] _Hoveden_ 1194, p. 420.

[454] _Hoveden_ 1195, p. 430. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 56, alludes to the occurrences at Clackmannan, but he confounds the princess Margaret with one of William’s illegitimate daughters of the same name who was married to Eustace de Vesci. Margaret afterwards married Hubert de Burgh, and Otho subsequently became emperor as Otho IV. His nephew Otho was the first duke of Brunswick and Luneburg.

[455] _Hoveden_ 1196, p. 432.

[456] _Heimsk._ vol. 3, _Saga_ xi., c. 12; _Saga_ xii., c. 2. _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 239.

[457] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 18. It would be difficult to say _who_ canonized Magnus. Pope Alexander III. placed canonization “inter majores causas.” Before his time any metropolitan might make a saint.

[458] The lands of Dingwall and Ferncrosky in _Sutherland_ were granted in 1308 to the earl of Ross. _Act Parl. Scot._, vol. 1, p. 117.

[459] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 19. _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 250, 254.

[460] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 20, 21. She must have been an ancient lady, for Ronald the Second died before Thorfin!

[461] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 21, 22, 24, 25. _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 254–55.

[462] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 21, 22, 24, 25. A mark for every plough-gang is said to have been the amount of the contribution.

[463] _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 256–57.

[464] He is called Bishop John. The only Bishop John at that time was the Bishop of Glasgow.

[465] So, in 1308, during the minority of the Earls of Fife, Menteith, Mar, Buchan, and Caithness, the “Communitates Comitatum” represented the earldoms. _Act. Parl. Scot._, vol. 1, p. 99. In fact, in a certain state of society, when the power of the crown, though acknowledged, was comparatively feeble, the community had still practically a voice in the appointment of their _Senior_, and the heir could not hold his ground without, on the one hand, their consent, and on the other, the confirmation, of the crown. Such was the case at this period in the north and west of Scotland; and a similar state of affairs is more or less traceable in Saxon Northumbria, and apparently in the Danelage, before the Conquest.

[466] _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, 257–89. The dates of these occurrences are easily ascertained. Harald Mac Madach died in 1206 (_Chron. Mel._) For twenty years he ruled the Orkneys in conjunction with Ronald, whom he survived for forty-eight years. He was five years of age when he received the title of earl; and as he reached the Orkneys in the year after the expedition of Bishop John, Ronald must have held the earldom at that time for three years. (_Vide Flatey Book in Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 354.) Harald was therefore born in 1133, and succeeded to his share in the earldom in 1138. Ronald must have ruled from 1135 to 1158.

[467] _Heimsk. Saga_ xiv. c. 17. _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 264–65.

[468] _Heimsk. Saga_ xiv. c. 20. _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 267. Marks “in gold” _i.e._ paid according to the value of gold, on account of the depreciation of the silver currency.

[469] _Wilson’s Archæology, etc., of Scotland_, p. 429. _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 32.

[470] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 33.

[471] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 36.

[472] _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._ p. 261.

[473] _Torf. Orc._, l. 1, c. 34 to 37. Sweyne eventually lost his life in an attempt to restore Asgal Mac Ragnal to Dublin, on which occasion his desperate courage earned the respect of his opponents, the English invaders. _A. F. M._ 1171, where he is called Eoan, or John. A comparison of the coasts of Norway and Denmark with the western coasts of Scotland will at once point out the reason of that similarity which long existed between the respective inhabitants in their manners of life. Local circumstances have far more influence in forming the character of primitive, or semi-barbarous nations, than any fancied peculiarity of race. Like the coasts of Norway and the isles of Scotland, the eastern shores of the Adriatic and the Archipelago seem to have been formed by nature for the haunts of pirates.

[474] _Hoveden_ 1196, p. 436. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 59. According to Torfæus (_Orc._, l. i., c. 38), Harald’s first wife, Afreca, was dead before his second marriage with “the Earl of Moray’s daughter,” by whom he had his sons, Thorfin, David, and John.

[475] _Chron. Mel._ 1197. _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 59. This battle must have occurred in 1196, for as Thorfin was given up as a hostage for his father at the close of that year, he could not have fought against the royal forces in the following year.

[476] _Hoveden_ 1196, p. 436.

[477] “Quod si tradidissem eos vobis non evaderent manus vestras,” means, I suppose, a discreet insinuation that the king intended to consign “his enemies” either to immediate execution or to a hopeless captivity. When he said that Thorfin was his only heir, either the earl was deceiving the king, or his sons, John, David, and Henry, were by the second marriage. The port of Lochloy was a spot not far from Nairn, now covered by the sea.

[478] _Hoveden_ 1196, p. 436.

[479] _Hoveden_ 1196, p. 346. He calls the king of Man, Reginald, son of _Somarled_. Reginald, the son of _Godfrey_, was at that time king of Man; and the son of Somarled was hardly more than a _subordinate_ king of the Sudreys, as he had been defeated in a contest for superiority by his brother Angus in 1192 (_Chron. Man_). An account of some of these transactions is also contained in the Flatey Book (_Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 351–54), but it is confused. For instance, after beginning with the death of Harald the younger, the book makes the elder Harald yield Caithness to _Harald the younger_ after the expedition of William to Eystein’s Dal. The account of this expedition must therefore have been misplaced; and it probably ought to be referred to the time of William’s _first invasion_ of Caithness. Some idea may be formed of the formidable power of these northern magnates from the fact that Harald collected 6000 men to oppose William; whose army when he invaded England in 1174, only appears to have numbered 8000.

[480] “His tongue was cut out, and a knife stuck into his eyes. The bishop invoked the Virgin Saint Trodlheima during his torments. Then he went up a hill, and a woman brought him to the place where St. Trodlheima rests. There the bishop got recovery both of his speech and sight”--_Flatey Book_. Ignorant of the merits of the Virgin Saint, Fordun only says, “Usus linguæ et alterius occulorum _in aliquo_ sibi remansit.” A certain Dr. John Stackbolle profited by a similar miracle in Ireland, he having recovered his sight and speech before the altar of our Lady of Novan, after his tongue had been cut out, and his eyes torn out, by order of Sir Thomas Bathe. (_Statute of Kilkenny_, p. 25, note U; in _Tracts relating to Ireland, I.A.S._, vol. 2.)

[481] _Fordun_, l. 8, c. 59–62. _Flatey Book_, _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 351–54.

[482] _Chron. Mel._ 1198, 1201, 1205.

[483] _Hoveden_ 1199, p. 450–51.

[484] _Hoveden_ 1199, p. 451.

[485] _Hoveden_ 1199, p. 453.