Earl Gilbert in his own grant of the Abthen (No. x1.) makes no reference to any superiority of the Bishop of Dunkeld. He grants it to Inchaffray just as he grants other lands of his own. Yet it seems plain that what he granted in fact was only such possession and right as he had in the Abthen, and that in the strictness of law he held of the Bishop of Dunkeld. Examples are frequent of abbey-lands of the old Celtic Church passing into lay hands. But the instance before us shows that we need not assume that these alienations of church property were effected by plunder and violence. Here, at all events, a nominal superiority remained with the Bishop of Dunkeld.

THE FOUNDING OF THE HOUSE OF AUSTIN CANONS

What has been already said may, I hope, lead the reader to be not unwilling to accept the conception of the whole transaction, concerned with the establishment of the priory of Canons Regular of St. Augustine, which has gradually formed itself in the mind of the writer. The devout Earl Gilbert, unlike that staunch Scottish nationalist, his father, Earl Ferteth, had yielded to the prevailing Anglo-Norman influence, and determined to do at Inchaffray what had been done elsewhere. It was just at this time another great noble, Gilchrist, Earl of Mar, was forcing the Keledei of Monymusk to adopt the rule of the Canons of St. Austin. At earlier dates Austin Canons had been substituted for Keledei, or were now in process of absorbing them, at Lochleven, St. Andrews, and elsewhere. I conjecture that one of the old community, 'Malise hermit and presbyter,' had favoured the proposals for change made by Earl Gilbert, and was chosen by him as first prior, while the rest of the brethren under 'J. hermit,' who disliked the change, and anticipated being ousted from their home and possessions, had sought to defend themselves by obtaining a confirmation from the Apostolic See. This con

firmation we have in the first bull of Innocent III. (No.

When explanations were made at Rome, but not till after some considerable delay, the Pope approves of Earl Gilbert's new foundation, and the bull of confirmation was granted on June 30, 1203. After this we hear no more of hermits at Inchaffray; and the brethren give place to 'canons,"2

Immediately after the foundation of the house of Austin Canons, the earl anticipated the possibility of his earlier charters to the brethren being produced in opposition to the rights of the canons,' and dealt with such possible opposition by declaring such charters annulled (No. xvII.).

"SECOND TITHES OF FOOD USED IN THE EARL'S COURT

The grant to Inchaffray, by the founder of the priory, of second tithes, viz. the tithe of his cains, in wheat, meal, malt, cheese, flesh, fowl, and the fish which came to his kitchen, has elsewhere in Scottish record3 parallels more or less close. King Alexander 1. granted to Scone half of the hides 'pertaining to his kitchen,' all the skins of rams and lambs, half of the tallow and fat, and a tithe of the king's loaves wherever he might be

1 Dr. Reeves (British Culdees, p. 142) thinks it probable that Malise, the first prior, was the Malise, 'parson of Dunblane,' who witnesses a charter of the bishop about the year 1190. But Reeves had not before him the correct text of the Great Charter, which reads 'presbyter' not 'persona.' There is no ground for supposing that Malise was at once a hermit and a parish clergyman.

2 The confirmations by Bishop Richard 1. (No. XXIII.) and Bishop Hugh (No. XLIX.), as merely reciting the language of the early charter of Bishop John 1. (No. VII.), are no real exception to the view that charters using the word 'brethren are before, and charters using the word 'canons' are after, Earl Gilbert's foundation of A.D. 1200. King William's confirmation (No. XVIII.) avoids both words and uses the term viri religiosi, equally applicable to the 'brethren and the 'canons.'

An excellent example from English record is cited by Selden (History of Tithes, p. 320). Maude de Mandeville, Countess of Essex, grants to the nuns of Clerkenwell totam decimam totius victus nostri et familiæ nostræ ubicunque fuerimus de panibus et potibus, et carnibus, et etiam de piscibus.' This charter Selden assigns to about A.D. 1216.

north of Lammermuir.1 The grants of Malcolm iv. to Kelso from his kitchen are of a similar kind.2 Duncan, Earl of Fife, granted to the nuns of North Berwick the whole tithe of his house, of grain, meal, malt, cheese, and butter, the tithe of his larder, and the tithe of his kitchen in flesh and fish. And other examples could be cited.*

3

The question has perhaps presented itself to readers of these early charters-How could it have been secured that these grants from the larder and the kitchen were duly rendered to the grantees? The volume before us gives the answer so far as the house of the Earl of Strathern was concerned. We are presented with the curious picture of an official (minister) of the Abbey of Inchaffray living in the household of the earl, boarded at the earl's cost, and treated as well as one of his own servants. His duty was to haunt the larder and the kitchen, and to demand and receive the tithes on behalf of the monastery.5

It is obvious that an arrangement of this kind could scarcely avoid breeding friction in the houses of the kings and nobles. And we have evidence in the case of other religious houses that second tithes' of the kind described were soon commuted for grants of land or of money. In the present case we find Earl Robert, who succeeded in 1223, confirming to the Abbey of Inchaffray decimas omnimodas in domo nostra' (No. LI.). But at a later date there were complaints about inadequate payments of the earl's tithes of cains and of the

1 Liber de Scon, No. 1.

2 Liber de Calchou, pp. v, vi.

3 Carte Monialium de Northberwic, p. 5. * See the foundation charter of Holyrood and King David's confirmation of Dunfermline (Reg. de Dunfermelyn, No. 1); Earl David's Great Charter of the Abbey of Lindores (Chartulary of the Abbey of Lindores, p. 4), etc. The frequent scarcity of food and the occasional threatenings of famine during the mediæval period (and this is true of England as well as of Scotland) made grants of this kind to religious houses of no small importance.

5 See No. XVI. One might conjecture that 'R. decimarius' (No. LV.) may have been this official, but it would be hazardous to assert more than that this is possible.

food used in his house. And in one of Earl Malise's charters (No. LXXVI.) we find indications of the process of commutation into a money payment.

PAPAL BULLS AGAINST ALIENATIONS

Papal bulls against alienations, and for the recovery of church property in danger of alienation through long leases, are found from time to time in our monastic records. But they are not very frequent. From this, however, it must not be inferred that they were not frequently granted. They were not the kind of documents that would help to establish legal rights to property. They were general in their language, and having served their purpose, they would not be of much use if preserved in a Register.1

The fine series of original bulls against alienations preserved in Lord Kinnoull's collection is exceptionally full. There are two bulls of Innocent IV. (dated 1248 and 1252), and bulls of Alexander iv. (1256), Clement iv. (1266), Gregory x. (1274), and Clement v. (1307). To these there has to be added a bull of John XXII. (1317) from a transcript in the Library of the Society of Scottish Antiquaries.2

The drift of all such bulls is the same, there must be no injurious alienation of the property of the Church. Long leases and bargains seriously injurious to the Church, though reduced to writing in public instruments, and fortified by the solemnities of oaths, and by the renunciation of appeals to law, nay, even when supported by letters of confirmation from the Apostolic See in communi forma obtentis, should be revoked by authority of the Pope.3

1 The Register of Inchaffray does not contain transcripts of the bulls here noticed.

2 Nos. LXXVIII., LXXXII., LXXXIV., XCIV., CIV., CXX., CXXII.

3 The common law of the Church on alienations will be found in the Decretals of Gregory IX., lib. iii. tit. xiii. Scottish ecclesiastical statutes (of the thirteenth century) on the subject will be found in Statuta Ecclesie Scoticane, vol. ii. pp. 15, 16.

ay be observed that the formulary of style used in the Chancery was in some cases more appropriate to monastic ions on the Continent than to those in Scotland. The will not infer that the Abbey of Inchaffray possessed ards,' because they are mentioned by Clement IV. CIV.), and by Clement v. (No. cxx.) as forming part of perty. It is in a similar way we must explain the ards' of the Priory of St. Andrews which are named its possessions in a confirmation of property by nt iv.1

poor monastery, like that of Inchaffray, surrounded by ful neighbours, would be obviously exposed to peculiar ations to meet some pressing need by arrangements as to ands which in the long-run might prove highly detri1 to the interests of the house. The abbot and convent haffray admit that they as well as their predecessors had grants which proved to be in enormem ipsius manasterii m. But the danger was real even for the greater religious

EARLY NOTICES OF PARISHES AND OF THE CATHEDRAL
ESTABLISHMENT OF DUNBLANE

e monastery itself and most of its appropriated churches in the diocese of Dunblane, the charters of the present e from time to time throw some valuable side-lights on san history.

e obscurity surrounding the origin of the parochial m in Scotland is so great that we should be grateful that, though it be but in one case, we can approximately fix