The strictest regulations, however, would have been of little avail without securing the co-operation of the magnates of the land, whose right to hold a court with the privileges of “pit and gallows,” which in this reign carried with it jurisdiction in cases of theft and homicide, must have rendered such co-operation absolutely essential. Undue leniency towards offending relatives or dependants, and occasionally connivance in a _Creagh_ for a share of the spoil--for a gift might purchase immunity from the overlord as well as absolution from the priest--must have been of only too frequent occurrence in an age in which escape from the gallows was so likely an event, evidently through a fellow feeling with the criminal, that the very first law in the collection ascribed to David, whilst ensuring the actual offender against a second hanging for the same offence, visited the consequences of his escape upon the officiating party as a crime of more than ordinary magnitude. Hence, as it was incumbent upon every freeman to seek the protection of a lord, it was equally necessary that such protection should be restrained within just and proper limits; and for “selling a thief” for money, friendship, or any other consideration whatever, a mulct of a hundred cows was levied upon an earl, or upon any magnate enjoying the rights and privileges of an earl--a description probably embracing the greater barons, the officers of state, the higher clergy, and subsequently the lords of Galloway, Argyle, and the Isles. The fine was reduced to thirty-four cows in the case of personages of lesser dignity; whilst if a thief escaped from prison, the lord of the prison was bound to clear himself from all complicity by the oaths of three Thanes and twenty-seven “good men and true;” the triple oath, in other words, of three Thanedoms or Baronies. The complicity of “the Baronage” in offences of this description was, but too often, a fruitful source of disorder; and in the subsequent reigns, the practice of taking money for “remission of judgment” was punished by withdrawing from “the lord,” found guilty of such an abuse, all further right of “holding a court:” and if, in return for a gift or rent of any description, he granted his protection to a man accused of crime, who was proved by the verdict of “the good men of the country” to be neither liegeman nor native-man of his protector, he was condemned for so doing to be “at the king’s mercy.”[295] Laws and enactments, however, are of little avail unless the lawmaker has the power of enforcing them, and long after the rule of the House of Atholl had passed away, the Scottish magnates, though capable of exercising their “rights of regality” in a very summary manner, were only too apt to overlook, if not to connive at, the excesses of an useful follower; though a true idea of the state of Scotland under the later successors of David would scarcely be gathered from confounding it with the state