Innes’s _Legal Antiquities_, p. 70; Ware’s _Antiquitates Hibernicæ_, p. 209; O’Curry, _Lectures on the Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish_, vol. iii. p. 495, note; _Ulster Archæol. Journal_, vol. iv. p. 241. Mr. Innes’s attempt to explain these terms will show how essential an acquaintance with the ancient Irish laws is to the interpretation of our ancient Scotch customs. Footnote 295: _Chart. of St. Andrews_, p. 277. Footnote 296: Faciendo forinsecum servitium tantum quod pertinet ad quinque davachas terræ, servitium vero pertinens ad sextam davacham de Blar dictis canonicis remisimus.—_Liber Ecclesie de Scon_, p. 42. Footnote 297: Aliquod servitium nisi forinsecum servitium Scoticanum domini regis.—_Chart. of Moray_, p. 470. Footnote 298: Faciendo forinsecum servitium in exercitu quod pertinet ad predictas terras.—_Chart. of Arb._, p. 74. Footnote 299: Stubbs’s _Select Charters_, pp. 284, 293. Footnote 300: This more detailed explanation seems necessary, as the term is often used loosely, as if the feu-farm holding was a mere tenancy. See the author’s edition of Fordun, vol. ii. p. 415, for a fuller discussion of this. Footnote 301: The seven earls appear, according to Fordun, at the coronation of King Alexander the Second, and in the same year he passes some laws, apparently with consent of these earls, regarding the land. In the first the expression is, ‘Rex cum communi consilio comitum suorum.’ In the second, ‘Rex et _principes_ ejus.’ By Fordun they are usually called _magnates et proceres_. Footnote 302: _Acts of Parliament_, vol. i. p. 377. Two popular errors have prevailed with regard to the true character and position of the thanes. By the oldest of these they were regarded as the governors of provinces, having over them an _abthane_ or chief governor. Fordun seems the inventor of this, and to it belongs his mythic character Macduff, thane of Fife; but it is inconsistent with the account he subsequently gives of the tenure of the crown lands, and although it has received the sanction of Mr. Hill Burton, it has been justly discarded by such historians as George Chalmers, Joseph Robertson, Cosmo Innes, and John Stuart. The later theory, that the thanes were something entirely different from the English thane, and were merely crown officers or stewards appointed to levy the crown dues, has unfortunately received the powerful sanction of these writers, but the author has never been able to accept the theory. It appears to him a partial and incomplete view, and inconsistent with the facts recorded regarding them. Sir John Skene states his position correctly when he says, ‘Thanus was ane freeholder holding his lands of the king.’—_De Verborum Sig._, sub voce. The reader is referred to the author’s edition of Fordun, vol. ii. p. 414, for a discussion on this point. Footnote 303: