Scotland under her early kings, Volume 1 (of 2) : $b a history of the kingdom to the close of the thirteenth centuryRobertson, Eben William
History
Scotland under her early kings, Volume 1 (of 2) : $b a history of the kingdom to the close of the thirteenth century
Robertson, Eben William
Scotland -- History -- To 1603
of the property, was well scourged, and lost an ear, the presence of
two “liel men” being required to carry out the punishment. None were
to be hanged for less than the value of two sheep, each reckoned
at sixteen pence, or an _ore_.[289] The usual form of robbery,
however, was “cattle-lifting,” or the _Creagh_, a relic of that
lawless state of society in which the property of all who were not
connected by the ties of blood, or of intimate alliance, was looked
upon as the lawful spoil of the strongest. The _Creagh_ was on
land what the _Sumorlida_ was by sea; lawful warfare when carried
on under the royal authority, but robbery and piracy if wanting the
sanction of the sovereign power; which, as “the confederacy” was
gradually bound in the firmer bonds of “the kingdom,” was invariably
directed against the Cateran and the Viking, the last relics of that
barbarous independence which claimed the right of private warfare.
The rules laid down in the early Frank and Anglo-Saxon laws for
tracing the perpetrators of a robbery, leave little room for doubt
that, with the Frank and the Saxon, as with the Gael, there was a
time when “lost property” was but another word for stolen cattle.
It was to check the increase of “cattle-lifting,” against which the
ordinary night watches--the _stretward_ or road-guard of the
Conqueror’s laws--were thoroughly inefficient, that the early Frank
kings instituted the Canton, or Hundred, laying the responsibility of
the theft upon the district in which it occurred: and as such robberies
were generally carried out at night, the watch-dog was considered by
David an animal of sufficient importance to justify the enactment of
a special law, and whoever killed him was bound to watch his master’s
house for a year and a day, being answerable during that period for
any losses that might be incurred. It was probably to check this
tendency to night robbery that a law, very much resembling the Norman
regulation of the _Couvre-feu_--which may have been introduced
for a similar reason--was either passed, or confirmed, in the reign of
William, forbidding all but men in authority, or responsible persons,
from leaving their homes after nightfall, except to fetch a priest to
a sick man, to go to the mill, or to do the bidding of their lord; he
who was abroad after dark on an errand of this description being bound
to declare openly the reason of his absence from home. But the measures
of David were not confined to the protection of the watch-dog, and
he laid down rules for the course to be pursued in cases of robbery,
assimilating his regulations to the usages elsewhere in force.[290]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account