[Notes 1-6 from Manx Soc Vol 12 - see Index]

NOTES.

The original Chronicle from which the foregoing is stated to be a copy, is supposed to be that in the Rolls Office prefixed to the old copies of the Statute Book. The Chronicle in the Rolls Office has been continued by successive Clerks of the Rolls until the Revestment in 1765. I have given the Chronicle in the complete form in which it is in the Rolls. Office. In Mr. Moore’s copy of the author’s work, the Chronicle is not transcribed beyond § 3, but in my own copy it is continued to § 20.

§ 1.

"Mannan-Mac-Lear whom they believe the father, founder, and legislator of their country, and place him at the beginning of the fifth century; they pretend he was a son of a King of Ulster, and brother to Fergus the Second, who restored the kingdom of Scotland, A.D. 422. As it is probable the Prince, by the rule laid down had his share or proportion in lands, so, the tradition says, he exacted no tax or subsidy from his people, but only a quantity of rushes, which were brought him on Midsummer Day. This easy service, it is probable, made him greatly beloved, and almost adored for his wisdom, (for the subjects will always believe the prince wise that makes them rich,) and because they could express it in no better, reported him a magician, a craft not uncommon in legislators, (as Zoroaster and Numa,) to make the people believe they act by some superior or supernatural power, that so their dictates may be received as oracles among the ignorant and vulgar. And what seems to complete their happiness so, towards the latter end of his reign St. Patrick landed here, in his second voyage for Ireland, and was greatly opposed by one Melinus, a famous magician, (says Jocelinus in Vita Patricii,) who, in imitation of Simon Magus, attempting to fly in the air, was mortally bruised by a fall, but, upon his repentance and conversion, immediately restored to his health. Such wonders religion can do, or so much have the writers of ecclesiastical history deceived us. Whether Mannan and Melinus were the same we are not informed, nor what became of him; but the Manks tradition says that St. Patrick, proceeding on his voyage, left Germanus Bishop, and Jocelinus concurs with him in these words—Ad regendum et erudiendium populum in fide Christi. This Germanus was Canon of the Lateran, a prudent and holy man, one of the first assistants of St. Patrick in the conversion of Ireland, who by his wisdom, conduct, and virtuous example, absolutely settled the Christian religion, whether by the death, conversion, or voluntary abdication of Mannan~Mac-Lear~~1, is uncertain, for methinks expulsion sounds too harsh. These were the saints of a later date who expelled the natives to enjoy their lands, and by rapine and murder made room for what they call religion. How long this pious person filled the chair we know not; that he died before St. Patrick is evident. The Church celebrates his memory among the blessed, and the cathedral in Peel Castle is dedicated to him." (Sacheverell 24.) "Mannan Mac Bar, a Pagan and Necromancer, who by raising of storms and mists, is said to secure himself in that Government. from foreign invasion; or rather by the natural situation of the place, subject to storms and mists; who took of the people no other acknowledgment for their land, but the bearing of rushes to certain places called Warefield, and Mame, on Midsummer even." (Chaloner 9.) " This Island has had many masters. They have an old tradition, and it has got a place in the records, that one Mananan MacLer, a Necromancer, was the first Proprietor, and that for a long time he kept the Island under mists, that no stranger could find it, till St. Patrick broke his charms. But a late Irish Antiquary gives a particular account of this Mananan, namely, That his true name was Orbsenius, the son of Alladius, a Prince of Ireland, that he was a famous merchant, and from his trading betwixt Ireland and the Isle of Man, had the name of Mananan, and Mac-Ler, that is, the Son of the Sea, from his great skill in navigation, and that he was at last slain at Moycullin, in the County of Galway in Ireland. And it is not improbable that the story of his keeping the Island under a mist might arise from this, that he was the only person in those days that had a commerce with them." (Bishop Wilson’s History 479.) In Gibson’s Camden’s Britannia 392, in which this account given by Bishop Wilson is copied, is the following note referring to the Irish Antiquary, "Flaharti p. 172." "It is, I think, much more probable that the great Magician and Legislator, owed identity with Mainus, the son of Magnus I. King of Scotland. Mainus ascended the Scottish throne B.C. 290, fifteen years after the death of his father, his uncle Feritharas having in the interim, wielded the sceptre. He had, it is probable, after the custom of that age, received his education in the Isle of Man. The traditionary character ascribed to Manna-nan Beg agrees in many respects with that recorded of King Mainus."

(1 Train 40.)

Probably the old custom, which is still continued, of strewing with green rushes the pathway from St. John’s Chapel to the Tynwald Hill, when Tynwald Courts are held there, has been derived from the alleged customary service in the days of Mananan Mac Ler.

§2.

Instead of the rule of the Bishops as asserted in the Chronicle, Train supplies a list of Manx Kings of a Welch line, the last of whom was conquered about AID. 888 by Harold Harfagr, who placed in the Island a Viceroy, Ketin, who established an independent dynasty which continued until about A.D. 920, when Orrye conquered Man. (Train 58, &c.) Cumming, in the appendix to his Story of Castle Rushen, agrees in the main with Train. I attempt not to reconcile the Chronicle with the historians, nor the historians with each other, as to the government of the Island in these ancient times, neither do I venture to express an opinion as to the authenticity of any one account more than another, See note on § 1 as to the Bishop left in the Island by St. Patrick.

§ 3.

In this account I cannot but think that the Chronicle is at fault. It is hardly open to me, or to any lawyer, to question the existence of King Orry, (the first of the name,) since this King was declared by the Deemsters and Keys in 1422 to have existed. "-Also we give for Law that there were never 24 Keys in certainty, since they were first that were called Taxiaxi, those were 24 free holders, viz., 8 in the out Isles, and 16 in your Land of Man, and that ‘"was in King Orrye’s Days." (Mills’ Statutes 17.) But between Orry (the first) and Reginald, the various historians frame a list of about twenty-four Kings at least, all of whom were not of the race of Orry. They are not agreed as to the names, though all appear to make up about twelve of the race of Orry, the last of whom was Fingall. Lists of the names are given in Sacheverell 27 &c., 1 Train 74, Cumming’s Castle Rushen App. With respect to some of the names, Sacheverell says :—" I doubt the whole number are no better than the invention of their monks to amuse the people, especially since they have omitted almost the only real King that deserved that honour: his name was Macon or Macutus, who lived about the middle of the tenth century." (Sacheverell 28.) This King in some writers is called Hacon.

The date of Orry’s arrival is supposed to be about A.D. 920. In the Chronicle he is alleged to have been a son of the King of Denmark. Sacheverell describes him as being the son of the King of Denmark and Norway. (Sacheverell 27.) Train, though he presumes Orry to have been a Scandinavian, disputes his having been a son of a King of Denmark and Norway. (1 Train 64.)

Fingall, the last of the race of Orry, appears to have been dispossessed of his kingdom about A.D. 1077 by Goddard Crovan, son of Harold the Black of Iceland, of whose race Mary referred to in the Chronicle was the last. The following is a list of the Kings of this race. The historians are not agreed as to the dates at which the first four of these kings began to reign. The variations in the dates are given in 1 Train 103.

I give those taken from the Norse Sagas and Irish Annals, but without meaning to imply that I consider such dates more authentic than the others. (See Sacheverell 32 &c., Cumming’s Castle Rushen, App.)

From this list are excluded the names of various persons who by conquest or otherwise for limited periods, acquired the rule of Man and the Isles. Amongst those omitted is Magnus, King of Norway, who is alleged to have possessed himself of the Isles during the reign of Goddard Crovan.

The kings of this race were considered as holding their sovereignty from the Kings of Norway, to whom they were expected to do homage.

About the year 1205 the usurper Reginald, the fifth of this race, agreed to do homage to King John of England for the Isle of Man and the out Isles, for which by charter of that king, Reginald was to receive a knight’s fee of two tuns of wine and 120 quarters of corn yearly in Ireland. (Sacheverell 45, 1 Train 112.) Dr. Twiss in his report to the Convocation of Canterbury in 1853, on the claim of the Bishop of Cape Town to sit in Convocation, thus refers on the authority of Prynne 4 Inst.p201 to this transaction :—" The Isle of Man had become a possession of the Crown of England by voluntary surrender to King John in the sixth year of the reign of that King, who granted it by letters patent to Reginald Lord of Man, to be held by him of the Crown of England by liege homage." (Warren’s Synodalia 315.) This surrender to King John was of equal validity, or rather invalidity, with Reginald’s surrender of his dominions to Pope Honorius in 1219. A copy of the surrender and a translation are given in Seacome’s History of the House of Stanley 201. The following is the translation. (See also 2 Oliver’s Monunenta 53, and West’s Antiquities of Furness, App. No. 12):—

Reginald, King of the Isle of Man, constitutes himself a Vassal of the See of Rome and of his Island makes the offered Grant at London, 22nd of September, 1219.

To the most Holy Father and Lord Honorius, by the Grace of God, Supreme Pontiff, Reginald, King of the Isles, kisseth his feet and sendeth Greeting. Be it known to your holy Paternity, that we, as being partakers of the benefits derived from those things that are done in the Roman Church, according to the admonition and exhortation of the beloved Father in God, Peter, Lord Bishop of Norwich, Elect Chamberlain and Apostolick Legate, have given and offered in the name of the Church of Rome, and yours, and of your Catholic Successors, our Island of Man, which belongs to us by right of inheritance, and for which we are not bound to do service to any; and hence forwards we and our heirs for ever will hold the said Island as a grant from the Church of Rome, and will do homage and fealty to it; and as a recognition of dominion, in the name of a tribute, we and our heirs for ever will pay annually to the Church of Rome twelve marks sterling, in England, at the Abbey of Fumes, of the Cistercian Order, upon the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed. Mary. And if there should not be any person there on the behalf of you or your successors, the said twelve marks shall be deposited by us and our heirs with the Abbot and Convent in the name of the Church of Rome. This Grant and Oblation the said Lord Legate accepts according to your will and pleasure; and after acceptance so made by him, he the said Lord Legate gave to me and my heirs the said Island to be possessed and held in Fee for ever, in the name of the Church of Rome; and thereupon invested me therewith by a ring of gold, &c.

Done at London, in the Rouse of the Knights Templars, the 22nd of September, Anno 1219; and that no doubt may remain concerning the premises, We have caused this Instrument to be made and sealed with our seal.

In the same year King Henry III. granted to Reginald letters of safe conduct to come to England to do him homage. (Sacheverell 45.) Sacheverell (46) with reference to Reginald remarks, "If it be lawful to compare so small a Prince with an English Monarch, there never was a nearer resemblance than in the fortunes of these two; both had obtained their government by injustice to the lawful heirs; both lost it by their ill-treatment of their people; both of mischievous designing tempers, and both lived to feel the dreadful effects on their own heads; only in this they differ, John had offended the clergy, Reginald his people; John had some years before made the most infamous submission to the Pope that ever was heard of in story,. Reginald to complete the similitude must do the like, either because it was the fashion, or that he could hope for no assistance without it. Into such mean compliances men’s interests betray them, when justified by a blind devotion or a bad example."

Harald II. in 1250 applied to King Henry III. for letters of safe-conduct to enable him to go into England, ‘which letters were granted. (See letters and translation 2 Oliver’s Monumenta 83.) In Calvin’s case, in the Court of King’s Bench, in 1608, (reported in the 7th part of Coke’s Reports; 4 Coke’s Reports by Fraser 36,) the letters to Harald are thus referred to. (By this case it was decided that a man born in Scotland, after the accession of King James the First to the English throne, and during his reign, might hold lands in England)

"But leave we Normandy and Anjou, and speak we of the little, but yet ancient and absolute kingdom of the Isle of Mann as it appeareth by diverse ancient and authentic records, as taking one for many. Artold [Harald], King of Man, sued to King H. 3 to come into England to confer with him, and to perform certain things which were due to King H. 3. Thereupon King H. 3. Decemb. ann. regn. sui 34 at Winchester, by his letters patent gave licence to Artold, King of’ Man, as followeth :—Rea, omnibus salute;,,. Sciatis, quod licentians dedimus, 4c. Artoldo Regi de Man veaieado ad nos in Angl ad loquend’ nobise et adfaciend’ nobis quodfacere debet; et ideovobis mandamus quod ei Regi in venien~o ad nos in .Angl’, vel ibi morando, eel inde redeundo nullum faciat, autfieri permittatis damnum, injur’, molestians, aut gravamen, eel etiam hominib’ suis quos secum dsecet et si aliqssid eis forisfact’ fuerit. id eis sine dilat’ faciat’ emendani, In cujus 4~c, duratser’ usque abfest’ S. Micis. Wherein two things are to be observed. 1. That seeing that Artold, King of Man, sued for a licence in this case to the King, it proveth him an absolute king; for that a Monarch or absolute Prince cannot come into England without leave of the King, but any subject, being in league, may come into this realm without licence. 2. That the King in his licence doth style him by the name of a King. It was resolved in 11 H. 8 that where an office was found after the decease of Thomas, Earl of Derby, and that he died seized, &c., of the Isle of Man, that the said office was utterly void, for that the Isle of Man, Normandy, Gascoin, &c., were out of the power of the Chancery, and governed by several laws ; and yet none will doubt but those that are born within that Isle are capable and inheritable of lands within the realm of England." (See Notes on § 16 and § 20, and Appendix No. 2 to these Notes, post.)

Ibid. 45.—" If postnati [person& born in Scotland after its union with England under one king,] or Irishmen, men of the Isles of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, &c., have lands within England, and dwell here, they shall be subject to all services and public charges within this realm, as any Englishman shall be. So as to services and charges, the postnati and Englishmen are all in one predicament." One objection made against the claim to hold lands in England was, " Whether one born within the kingdom of’ Scotland or no, is not triable in England, for that it is a thing done out of this realm, and no jury can be returned for the trial of any such issue ;" and it was answered by the Court, "That the like objection might be made against Irishmen, Gascoins, Normans, men of the Isles of Man, Guernsey, and Jersey, of Berwick, &c., all which appear by the rule of our books to be natural-born subjects; and yet no jury can come out of any of those countries and places, for the trial of their births there."

The chronicle is manifestly in error in describing Reginald, the eighth of this race, as being the last thereof, he having been succeeded by his brother Magnus, who if not de jure was de facto king. Magnus by charter granted to Richard, Bishop of Man, and his successors, baronial and ecclesiastical rights and privileges. (See Notes on title "Abbot," post.) "This little kingdom, deprived of the protection of Norway, could not support itself much longer, for Magnus dying anno 1265, in his Castle of Rushen was buried in the Abbey Church he had lately caused to be dedicated, and left no child behind him. He was the ninth and last of the race of Goddard Crownan, who for 200 years had enjoyed the name of kings, but were in truth little better than Lieutenants to the Crown of Norway; ‘and their inheritance became an insensible addition to the kingdom of Scotland." (Sacheverell 53.)

According to Train (Vol. i, p. 132,) Magnus, in 1264, despairing of assistance from Norway, and being unable to resist the power of Alexander III., King of Scotland, met that King at Dumfries and did homage to him there,—Alexander granting him a charter by which he was to hold the Island from the Crown of Scotland. But in 1266, by a treaty signed at Perth, Magnus, King of Norway, ceded the Island and the Hebrides to Alexander, (1 Train 139, 155,) who in 1270 sent an army which disembarked at Raynaldway, (now Derbyhaven,) and reduced the Island to obedience to his rule. Until his death in 1285, and until 1290 the Island was governed by Thanes or Governors appointed by King Alexander. (Sacheverell 55; 1 Train 140.)

In 1290 the Inhabitants of the Island placed themselves under the protection of Edward I., King of England, by a document, a copy of which taken from Rynaer is given in the Notes to Sacheverell 152. The following is Mr. Cumming’s translation of the document. (See also 2 Oliver’s Monumenta 110) :— A Letter of the Men of the Isle of Man, who place themselves under the protection of the King, in the 18th Year of Edward I., 1290. To all the Sons of Holy Mother Church, who shall see or hear these present letters, all the men inhabiting the Isle of Man, send greeting. Whereas the Most Noble Prince the Illustrious Lord King of England, has taken into his own hands, for protection and defence, the aforesaid Island, which has lately been left desolate and oppressed with many miseries, from lack of defence and protection. And ‘whereas we desire to place ourselves under his rule and government, and to obey his injunctions, and to answer in all things to him as our Lord, We henceforth engage ourselves under a penalty of two thousand pounds of silver, which, if it shall happen that we in any manner rebel against his rule, or become delinquents, or injure or maliciously afflict any of his subjects, we promise and absolutely protest we will fully pay. And to the observance of the aforesaid premises, we wish to bind ourselves, and grant all our possessions, wherever they may be found, together with our bodies in such penalties as he may please, to be taken and held, all secular remedies of law, and the rights of nations being set aside, and by no means availing us. In testimony whereof we have affixed to these presents our common Seal. Given at the Abbey of Rushen, in the aforesaid Isle, in the Year 1290.

Edward I. committed the care of the Island to Walter de Huntercombe, who in 1292, by order of his master, (who styled himself King and Lord Superior of Scotland,) surrendered the Island to John Baliol, King of Scotland. The following is Mr. Cumming’s translation of the order of Edward I., as given in his Notes on Sacheverell 155 :—

Jan. 5, Anno 1292.

Concerning the restoring the Isle of Man to John, King of Scotland, The King and Lord Superior of the Kingdom of Scotland, to his beloved and faithful Walter Huntercombe, Governor of Man, greeting. Whereas, of our special grace, we have restored to our beloved and faithful John Baud, King of Scotland, such seizure of the Isle of Man with its appurtenances, as Alexander, the last King of Scotland, his predecessor, and whose heir he himself is, had of that Island on the day he died; saving our rights, and those of any other, and saving to us and our heirs, the revenues, wards, heritages, reliefs, escheats, fines, amercements, arrears of farms and rents, which, were due at the time when we had seizure of the same land; and saving to us and our heirs any recognitions, decrees, and attachments of our bailiffs and magistrates at the time aforesaid; together with cognizance of the charge laid against Duncan Malcolm, and of the Judgments delivered upon the same; and in like manner that all the Judgments delivered in the aforesaid time of our seizure, by our bailiffs and magistrates, in the same land, be held, executed and demanded. We enjoin you more especially that you cause to be made over to the said King, seizure of the aforesaid land, with its appurtenances, in form aforesaid, saving our rights and those of any other,-.—Witness the King at Newcastle. upon Tyne, the 5th day of January.

When Mary, as stated in the Chronicle, fled to Edward I. at Perth, he was there in the capacity of arbitrator of the differences between the factions of Bruce and Balliol. Mary made her claim to the Island and offered to do homage for it to Edward, but she was answered that she must claim it of the King of Scotland who then held it. (Sacheverell 57, and notes to same 156.)

It is very questionable whether the right to the Crown of Man, did or could descend to Mary as alleged in the Chronicle,—if it did, it descended to her on the death of Reginald her father, and Magnus who succeeded him was not King de jure. Sacheverell (51) states; "Though we do not find in the whole Norwegian line any pretence to a female succession, yet this gave ground for a plea near 400 years after, upon which sentence was pronounced in favour of the heirs general of Ferdinand Earl of Derby, against his brother Earl William, but it was afterwards settled by Parliament in favour of the males, for during the race of Goddard Crownan three qualifications seemed requisite for the descent of the Government,—a male succession, the consent of the people, and the approbation of the King of Norway,who was then acknowledged for Sovereign; and where either of these was wanting, it generally proved fatal to the prince and people." Whatever may have been the plea of Earl William in support of his right to the succession, the decision was given in favour of the heirs general,—the three daughters of Earl Ferdinand,—on the ground that the grant of the Isle by the letters patent to Sir John Stanley, was governed by the Common Law of Eng. land. (Coke’s Institutes, Part 4.) But see Notes on § 5, as to claims of Aufrica, daughter of Olive II.

§ 4.

The Chronicle here refers back to the conquest by Alexander III. in 1270, (see Notes on § 3), and it was against the act of Alexander in seizing the Island that Mary must have complained; Alexander being dead in 1292.

§ 5.

The Chronicle here evidently confuses the facts relative to the pedigree of the claimant John Waldebyst or Waldeboef, who made his claim in the right of Mary, his grandmother, (not his wife), daughter of Reginald II., and wife, first of the Earl of Straherne, (see § 3,) and secondly of John de Waldeboef. The correct state of the case appears from the following extract from Rotuli Parliamentorum, translated by Mr. Cumming in his notes to Sacheverell 165. (Sec also 2 Oliver’s Monumenta, 135.)

A.D. 1304, 33 En. I.—’On the petition of John de Waldeboef, seeking the land of Man, with the Islands adjacent, as the true heir to them, in that Reginald, formerly King of the said land of Man, had died seized of the same, from whom this right descended to a certain Mary, daughter of the same, who was the wife of John de Waldeboef, which said Mary at another time prosecuted her right before the King of England, and the answer to her-then was, that she should prosecute her claim before the King of Scotland, in that the said land was at that time held by the said King of Scotland, which Mary died in the prosecution of her right; from which said Mary the right descended to a certain William, son and heir of the said Mary. and from this William the right descended to John de Waldeboef, son and heir of the aforesaid William, who now petitions, &c.

Answer.—It is thus answered,—Let it be prosecuted before the Justices of the King’s Bench, and let it be heard, and -let justice be done; and let the said petition be sent to the said Justices, under the King’s Great Seal.

The reason of the answer given would appear to be, that the King of England claimed to be Superior of the King of Scotland, and therefore that the suit being in fact against the King of Scotland, it was cognizable in the English Courts.

But during the interval between the claim of Mary in 1292, and that of her grandson in 1304, another claimant to the Manx throne had arisen in the person of Affrica or Aufrica, commonly called Aufrica de Connaught, daughter of King Olave the Black, and sister of Magnus, the last king of the line of Goddard Crovan. If the crown could descend to a female, the claim of Mary was the preferable one, she being the daughter of Reginald II., whereas Aufrica could have no right except on failure of the issue of her three brothers Harald, Reginald, and Magnus. Aufrica also applied to King Edward I. against John Baliol, King of Scotland, to have her claim allowed, and a writ commanding the appearance of the Scottish king in England was issued. The following is Mr. Cumming’s translation of the writ in his notes on Sacheverell 164. (See also 2 Oliver’s Monumenta 127.)

Rolls of Scotland, 21 ED. I., 1293.—The King of Scotland is cited to appear in the Court of the King of England, on the suit of Aufrica, the heiress of Magnus, formerly King of Man. The King and Lord Superior of Scotland, to his beloved and faithful John, by the same grace, the illustrious King of Scotland, greeting. Aufrica, the kinswoman and heiress, as she asserts, of Magnus, formerly King of Man, we have heard, setting forth that when she had come herself into your presence, asserting that the land of Man is her right and inheritance, and had asked of you instantly and oftentimes that you would take care to listen to her, as respects her right, and upon her petition which she made concerning the aforesaid land, that you would render to her right and full justice, offering to give proof of her aforesaid rights in due form, according to the law and custom of those parts, you unjustly denied to render to her those things aforesaid, contrary to justice. Wherefore the aforesaid Aufrica, through defect of law, or denial of justice on your part, has appealed to us, as Lord Superior of the King of Scotland himself, seeking and supplicating that by us should be exhibited the justice wanting on your part to her, according to what, by reason of the royal superiority of government which we have in the same kingdom, she perceives pertains to us. But since a hearing is not to be denied to those seeking their rights, and we are debtors to all in the administration of justice, we call upon you to appear before us within fifteen days after Michaelmas, wherever we may then be in England, to answer to the aforesaid Aufrica, upon the premises, and to do avid promise whatever shall be just, which same day we have appointed to Aufrica to do and promise before us in like manner, in those things which justice shall direct. In testimony whereof, witness the King at Westminster, the 15th day of June.

It does not appear that either suit of Aufrica or Mary was prosecuted in England, or that the jurisdiction of the English king as claimed by him, was submitted to. Aufrica in 1305 made over her right in the Island to Sir Simon de Montacute, who is alleged to have been her husband. (1 Train 145, Cumming’s Notes on Sacheverell 169.) A copy of the grant from Dodsworth’s Collections is given in Sacheverell 58. (See also 2 Oliver’s Monumenta 137.)

§6.

There is considerable difficulty in reconciling the historians as to the events of this period, and also the connexion of Sir William Montague or Montacute, mentioned in § 8, with the Island. Mr. Cumming, in his notes to Sacheverell 155, has very ably attempted the reconciliation, and in the notes on this and on sections 7 and 8, I will briefly give what I suppose to be Mr. Cumming’s and also my own conclusions.

We find the King of Scotland in possession in 1304, when John de Waldeboef petitioned the Parliament for redress. (See notes on § 5.)

In 1305 Aufrica de Connaught made over her right to her husband Sir Simon de Montacute, but it does not appear that possession as well as the right was transferred. (See notes on § 5.)

Between 1305 and 1307, Sir William Montacute, son of Sir Simon and of Aufrica his wife, conquered the Island from the Scots, and mortgaged it to Anthony Beck, Bishop of Durham and Patriarch of Jerusalem, who in 1307 was in possession.

In 1307 a scire facias was issued to Anthony Beck by King Edward I. to shew cause why the King should not resume the Island into his own hands, (see the writ in Cumming’s notes on Sacheverell 157, and 2 Oliver’s Monumenta 139,) and the King would appear to have obtained possession; for.

In 1307 King Edward II. (who succeeded his father Edward I. in that year,) made two successive grants of the Island to (1) Pierce Gaveston (or Percy de Gaveston) as mentioned in the chronicle, and (2) to Gilbert de Mac Gascall. It is very probable that these persons were but Lieutenants to the King. In my copy of the Chronicle is the following note :—" This Pierce Gaveston was seized by the Barons, and executed without any form of law in Black Mill, near Warwick, by the Earl of Warwick."

In 1308 Edward II. granted the Island to Henry de Bello Monte or Henry Beaumont. The following is Mr. Cumming’s translation of the grant in his notes on Sacheverell 164. (The grant is given in Challoner 13; see also 2 Oliver’s Monumenta 141.)

The King to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting. Know ye, that, for the good service which our beloved and faithful cousin, Henry Beaumont, hath hitherto rendered to us, we have given and granted to the said Henry for the term of his life, for ourselves and our heirs, freely, quietly, well, safely, and in peace, to have and possess all our land of Man, together with the entire lordship and regal justice, as well as with knight’s fees, the advowson of churches and religions houses, the liberties, free customs, escheats and all other things pertaining to the aforesaid land, or seeming to pertain, in whatever manner, by the service which the lords of the aforesaid land were accustomed thence to render to the Kings of Scotland. In testimony whereof, witness the King at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the first day of May, 1308. By the King himself.

In 1310 Edward II. revoked the grant and resumed possession, (see translation of the order for the resumption in Cumming’s notes to Sacheverell 166, and 2 Oliver’s Monumenta 143,) and committed the custody of the Island to Gilbert de Mac Gascall.

In 1310 Edward II. granted the Island for life to Anthony Beck, who died in 1310 or 1311.