granted in Scotland to the Church, it was granted in frankalmoign (in liberam elemosinam); and when granted by sub-infeudation, the military service due from the land was ordinarily undertaken by the immediate superior who made the grant. It is not implied, of course, that the vassals of the Church were exempt from the obligations of joining in a general levy to resist foreign invasion; but it was no small advantage to be freed from the necessity of supplying the attendance of armed men to the ordinary 'hostings' of the kings. It was a heavy burden on the English monasteries to supply their annual quota to the army, which varied with the extents of their lands. Thus, to cite a few examples, Abingdon had to furnish thirty knights (that is, thirty heavy-armed horsemen) for a forty days' service in the year; Glastonbury, forty (at one time sixty); St. Edmundsbury, forty; Hyde, twenty; Coventry, ten; St. Albans, six; Evesham, five; Peterborough, sixty. The lands of the cathedrals were similarly burdened. Bath furnished twenty knights; London, twenty; Salisbury, thirty-two; Canterbury, sixty; Winchester, sixty; Lincoln, sixty; Worcester, fifty; Norwich and Ely, forty each.1 The rare exceptions to the general immunity of the religious houses of Scotland only help to emphasise the contrast. Thus the monks of Melrose held land at Halsingtun, in the Merse, of William de Alwentun for the twentieth part of the service of one knight, quando commune servicium exigetur per totum regnum Scocie.? This indeed was scarcely more than a ' recognition,' or acknowledgment of dependence; and it is not to be wondered at that the grant is said to be in liberam et puram elemosinam. From our Chartulary it will be seen that Earl David held his Scottish possessions of his brother, 1 See Round's Feudal England, pp. 249, 251. 2 Lib. S. Marie de Melros, i. p. 294. 'The twentieth part of the service of one knight' points to some form of scutage, or commutation of military service for a money-payment. the king, for the service of ten knights.' But when Earl David made grants from these possessions to Lindores the sole reddendo consists of 'devout prayers.' Other benefactors are equally liberal, while in some cases military service due from the lands granted is expressly undertaken, so that the monastery of Lindores might be exempt. Thus the burden of hosting (onus exercitus) due from the lands of Eglesmagril was undertaken by Gilbert, Earl of Strathern, and this undertaking was confirmed by his son, Earl Robert.2 Again, when Robert de Brus, Lord of Annandale, gives Williamstown in exchange for second tithes, for which he was liable to the monastery, he frees that land ab exercitu, that is, he undertakes the military service due therefrom. And in the confirmation of the exchange granted by Alexander 111., he implies by the words 'salvo servicio meo,' that the military service should be fulfilled. A similar exchange was made by Henry de Hastinges; and he adds with respect to the lands of Flandres, ab omnibus auxilio, exercitibus, et aliis omnimodis forinsecis serviciis adquietabimus. Here also the king's confirmation contains the words, salvo servicio nostro.' 5 The land was conveyed; the monks were exempted from the military service due from the land, which service, though still to be rendered to the king, was to be rendered by the superior, Henry de Hastinges. A charter (No. LV.) of William of Brechin, grandson of Earl David, is witnessed by David de Lochore, Michael de Munchur, and others, designated by the grantor as 'my knights. It has been suggested, with what seems reasonable probability, that this form of expression was used of those 1 No. I. 3 Nos. CXVI., CXVII. 2 Nos. XLII., XLIII., XLIV. 4 No. CXVIII. 6 It would be out of place to enter on the discussion of the question disputed by feudalists as to the sense of servitium forinsecum. There is no doubt that it applies to service outside those due to the immediate superior in cases of subinfeudation, and ordinarily to service due to the king. Some would confine its application to expeditio, or the foreign military service of the king. who discharged the military service due from their lord's land. In another of our charters (No. LXXXVI.), Constantine de Mortemer is described as 'Earl David, knight'; and Gilbert, Earl of Strathern, styles Roger de Luuethot, my knight' (No. xxvI.); expressions which are, presumably, to be interpreted in the same manner. THE PAPAL BULLS 3 The bulls transcribed in our Chartulary are fifteen in number-one of Celestine II., two of Innocent III., one of Honorius III., three of Gregory Ix.,2 and eight of Innocent iv. Only one of these is, in the language of diplomatics, a ‘great bull' (No. XCIV.). It is dated with all the formalities, and is fortified by the subscriptions of the Pope and of fourteen members of the College of Cardinals. In the style of the Pontifical Chancery, the 'great bulls' were commonly designated Privilegia; and the Lindores scribe in his rubric entitles No. XCIV. as 'Magnum privilegium Innocencii Tercij,' but it would be hazardous to assume that he used the word 'privilegium in a technical sense, for the 'little bull,' No. XCIII., appears also as 'Magnum privilegium' in the rubric. With the exception of the great bull of Innocent ш. (No. XCIV.) none of the bulls recorded in the Chartulary are noticed by Mr. Bliss in the Calendar of Papal Registers, and, presumably, are not recorded in the extant Papal Regesta. Our Chartulary therefore affords material for supplying some of the deficiencies in the early archives of the Vatican. The great bull was printed by Baluze in 1682 in his Epistolae Innocentii Papae III., but without the subscriptions, and with the formulae indicated only by the opening words; and (from the 1 Lib. S. Marie de Melros, preface, p. xi, note. 2 One of these is recited in a sentence of judges delegate, No. L. 3 The 'little bulls' are dated simply with the days of the month in the year of our pontificate.' 4 See Giry's Manuel de Diplomatique, p. 688. text of Baluze) it was printed by Mr. Turnbull in his Liber Sancte Marie de Lundoris. All the other bulls are (so far as the editor is aware) now printed for the first time. THE PRIVILEGES GRANTED BY THE POPES TO THE The papal privileges to Lindores follow the usual lines. 1. The earliest charter connected with Lindores 2 shows that from the outset the monastery of Kelso, from which the first monks of Lindores appear to have been drawn, did not claim any jurisdiction over this daughter house. From the outset it was not a 'cell' of Kelso, but a wholly independent establishment. Celestine III. conferred on the monks the right to choose their own abbot on the death of the first abbot, Guido, and of each of his successors. So far as the evidence, as yet available, throws light on the subject, the direct appointment or 'provision,' as it was called, by the Pope to the office of abbot does not appear in the case of Lindores till the beginning of the sixteenth century, when (12th June 1502) Henry Orme was 'provided' by Alexander vi. Again, on Henry's resignation, John Philips was provided' (21st July 1523) by Pope Adrian v1.3 But it is not improbable that, had we the evidence, it would be found that the system of direct appointment by the Pope commenced, as in the case of several other Scottish monasteries, much earlier. Theiner's Monumenta 4 supplies an example of Clement vi. setting aside an election made by the monks of Dunfermline, and providing' a nominee of his own as early as 1351. Dr. Brady's extracts from account-books and Consistorial Acts of the Roman Curia, preserved in the libraries of Rome, Florence, Bologna, Ravenna, 1 P. 39. There are few variants in the readings, and those of importance will be found noticed below, p. 265. 2 Appendix I. 3 W. M. Brady's Episcopal Succession, i. 197. 4 No. 597. and Paris,1 are not continuous or complete, and do not commence till the year 1400; but they are sufficient to show that the system of 'provision' by the Popes was largely prevalent in the case of the monasteries, as well as in the case of the bishoprics, in the fifteenth century. Thus we find 'provisions' to Newbottle in 1422, to Deer in 1423, to Paisley in 1423, to Holyrood in 1424, to Iona in 1426, to Dunfermline in 1427, to Inchaffray in 1429, to Kinloss in 1431, to Arbroath in 1449, to Inchcolm in 1450. Other illustrations could be added, but these will suffice for our purpose. It is reasonable to conclude that the gradual processes by which the appointments to the headships of the religious houses passed in practice from the chapters of the monasteries to the Pope followed the same lines which mark the transfer to the Pope of the appointment to bishoprics from the capitular bodies of the cathedrals. In the earlier period the chapters elected, and the Pope, as a rule, confirmed. At a later time, the Pope claimed to reserve the appointments to his own 'provision'; but ordinarily gave effect to the wishes of the chapters as manifested by de facto elections. Lastly, appointments both to monasteries and bishoprics came to all intents and purposes to be mere nominations from Rome. 2. Among the other privileges conferred on Lindores, in common with many other religious houses, was the exemption from paying tithes on the crops of fallow-lands (novalia)3 which they had brought into cultivation either by the actual labour of the monks themselves or at their charges. Other lands would, as in other cases, pay tithes to the church of the parish in which they were situated. This exemption was a strong incentive to the advance of agriculture and the reclaiming of waste lands. 1 The Episcopal Succession, etc. (Rome, 1876), i. 124-210. 2 The Popes, when they claimed to have reserved' provisions to themselves, used to declare elections made by chapters to be de jure null and void. 3 Pp. 104, 109. |