Page:The Complete Peerage Ed 2 Vol 1.djvu/193

 ANGUS COMPLETE PEERAGE 143 monarchs, modelling their Kingdom in accordance with Saxon institutions, while the object of David was to introduce the feudal system of Norman England into Scotland, and adapt her institutions to feudal forms." (') " David's object on his accession to the throne (i 124) was to feudalise the whole Kingdom, by importing feudal forms and holdings into it, and to place the leading dignitaries of the Kingdom in the position of crown vassals, as well as to introduce a Norman Baronage. The relation of these old Celtic Earls, or Mormaers, towards the districts with which their names were connected was not a purely territorial one. It was more a relation towards the tribes who peopled it, than towards the land. David's desire, certainly, would be to place them, whenever opportunity offered, in the position of holding the land they were officially connected with, as an Earldom of the Crown in Chief in the same manner as the Barons held their Baronies. " (") " The process of feudalizing the Earldoms began under David I, and was carried on by his successors, Malcolm the Maiden, and William [1153-1214]. In the course of the twelfth century, ('') the seven Earls were gradually passing from the position of Comixes of the Sovereign to that of Feudal Lords, holding the lands, with which their position had been judicial, as an Earldom of the Crown ; the creation of six additional Earls, namely Menteith, Garioch, Lennox, Ross, Carrick. and Caithness, formed part of the feudalizing scheme ; and though the Earls continued down to 1 2 14 to be spoken of as seven in number, the Earldoms enumer- ated were not always the same Till feudalized, the Earldoms of Scotland were distinctly «o«-territorial, and the Earls oftener designated by their names than their titles. The ancient Earldoms, when converted into C) See note " b " on previous page. (") Skene's Celtic Scotland. (') " After 1 2 14, " said Lord Mansfield in his speech in the Sutherland case, " I think it clear that territorial peerages [S.] must have gone, because lands then became saleable. " This, however, is merely an obiter dictum (and not a very happy one) of his Lordship, and, in a legal point of view, these dicta, whether of Lord Mansfield, or of other Law Lords, "are acknowledged to have none of the force of a decision of the House of Lords sitting as a Court of Appeal ; and [in this case] being founded on very imperfect knowledge of the facts about which they would generalize, they are of still less value historically. . . . History tells us that Scottish Earldoms only began to be territorial half a century before the time when Lord Mansfield supposed that they ceased to be so. Documentary evidence further tells that of the multitudes of extant and recorded charters of Earldom, original and by progress, from the earliest date to 1578, only five can be named (Carrick, 1318; Wigton, 1341 ; Glencairn, 1488; Moray, 1501 ; and Mar, 1562), in which the dignity of Earl is directly mentioned, and in four out of these five there is an obvious reason for its specification. In 1578 the practice began to vary, and from that date to 1 600, half the charters of Earldom (they were ten in all) did, and half did not, specify the dignity, yet in each and every case the grantee was recognised as Earl, and the line of heirs specified in their charters, original or by progress, enjoyed the dignity, as well as the lands. " See p. 226, ^c, of a very exhaustive treatise on the " Jurisdiction in Scottish Peerages, " in the Journal of Jurisprudence, isfc, vol. xxvii, pp. 225-244; May 1883.