An Outline of the Relations between England and Scotland (500-1707) | Page 4

that the influences which have been at work in the former for a
century and a half have been in operation in the latter for more than
eight hundred years.

What then were the influences which, between 1066 and 1300,
produced in the Scottish Lowlands some of the results that, between
1746 and 1800, were achieved in the Scottish Highlands? That they
included an infusion of English blood we have no wish to deny.
Anglo-Saxons, in considerable numbers, penetrated northwards, and by
the end of the thirteenth century the Lowlanders were a much less pure
race than, except in the Lothians, they had been in the days of Malcolm
Canmore. Our contention is, that we have no evidence for the assertion
that this Saxon admixture amounted to a racial change, and that,
ethnically, the men of Fife and of Forfar were still Scots, not English.
Such an infusion of English blood as our argument allows will not
explain the adoption of the English tongue, or of English habits of life;
we must look elsewhere for the full explanation. The English victory
was, as we shall try to show, a victory not of blood but of civilization,
and three main causes helped to bring it about. The marriage of
Malcolm Canmore introduced two new influences into Scotland--an
English Court and an English Church, and contemporaneously with the
changes consequent upon these new institutions came the spread of
English commerce, carrying with it the English tongue along the coast,
and bringing an infusion of English blood into the towns.[9] In the
reign of David I, the son of Malcolm Canmore and St. Margaret, these
purely Saxon influences were succeeded by the Anglo-Norman
tendencies of the king's favourites. Grants of land[10] to English and
Norman courtiers account for the occurrence of English and Norman
family and place-names. The men who lived in immediate dependence
upon a lord, giving him their services and receiving his protection,
owing him their homage and living under his sole jurisdiction, took the
name of the lord whose men they were.
A more important question arises with regard to the system of land
tenure, and the change from clan ownership to feudal possession. How
was the tribal system suppressed? An outline of the process by which
Scotland became a feudalized country will be found in the Appendix,
where we shall also have an opportunity of referring, for purposes of
comparison, to the methods by which clan-feeling was destroyed after
the last Jacobite insurrection. Here, it must suffice to give a brief
summary of the case there presented. It is important to bear in mind

that the tribes of 1066 were not the clans of 1746. The clan system in
the Highlands underwent considerable development between the days
of Malcolm Canmore and those of the Stuarts. Too much stress must
not be laid upon the unwillingness of the people to give up tribal
ownership, for it is clear from our early records that the rights of
joint-occupancy were confined to the immediate kin of the head of the
clan. "The limit of the immediate kindred", says Mr. E.W.
Robertson,[11] "extended to the third generation, all who were fourth in
descent from a Senior passing from amongst the joint-proprietary, and
receiving, apparently, a final allotment; which seems to have been
separated permanently from the remainder of the joint-property by
certain ceremonies usual on such occasions." To such holders of
individual property the charter offered by David I gave additional
security of tenure. We know from the documents entitled "Quoniam
attachiamenta", printed in the first volume of the Acts of the Parliament
of Scotland, that the tribal system included large numbers of bondmen,
to whom the change to feudalism meant little or nothing. But even
when all due allowance has been made for this, the difficulty is not
completely solved. There must have been some owners of clan property
whom the changes affected in an adverse way, and we should expect to
hear of them. We do hear of them, for the reigns of the successors of
Malcolm Canmore are largely occupied with revolts in Galloway and in
Morayshire. The most notable of these was the rebellion of MacHeth,
Mormaor of Moray, about 1134. On its suppression, David I
confiscated the earldom of Moray, and granted it, by charters, to his
own favourites, and especially to the Anglo-Normans, from Yorkshire
and Northumberland, whom he had invited to aid him in dealing with
the reactionary forces of Moray; but such grants of land in no way
dispossessed the lesser tenants, who simply held of new lords and by
new titles. Fordun, who wrote two centuries later, ascribes to David's
successor, Malcolm IV, an invasion of Moray, and says that the king
scattered the inhabitants throughout the rest of Scotland, and replaced
them by "his own