[238] John and Rich. Hexham 1136. Ranulph was the son and heir of Ranulph le Meschines, who obtained a grant of Cumberland, probably about the time when Rufus restored Carlisle. John of Hexham, under 1150, says, “Remisit indignationem quæ Karleol sub patrimoniali jure reposcere consueverat.”
[239] John and Rich. Hexham 1137. Malm. Hist. Nov., l. 1, sec. 17.
[240] The Germans of Richard of Hexham were probably mercenaries from the Low Countries, whose services were then, and long afterwards, at the disposal of the highest bidder. They were generally known as Reiters; and these free companies probably supplied many of the Flandrenses and Flamingi of the Scottish charters.
[241] “In curiâ contra patrium morem captus,” are the words of Ailred, p. 343. Eustace appears to have been in the actual performance of the services by which he held the fief; and in strict feudal justice he ought not to have been deprived of the fief until he had failed to render such service.
[242] The speech which Ailred has attributed to Walter Espec is valuable on account of many historical allusions which it contains; but it is not to be supposed that on such an occasion the speaker would stop to weigh his words, especially as it was his object to raise the courage of his own men by depreciating the Scots. Strict historical accuracy is hardly to be expected at such a time, even if we are to regard such speeches as real, and not the composition of the chronicler himself.
[243] The continuator of Florence of Worcester relates this fact.
[244] Lavernani. The district known as the Lennox, or Levenach, was called so from the river Leven, and from the lake which was originally named Loch Leven, and afterwards (from its principal mountain) Loch Lomond. Lavernani is evidently a clerical error for Levenani; as Linenath in the Fœdera is a mistake for Levenach.
[245] The meeting between the king and the two barons took place immediately before the battle, according to Ailred. John of Hexham writes that they met on the Tees, which David crossed a few hours before the commencement of the engagement.
[246] Such appears to be the meaning of Ailred’s description of the English position. The monkish chroniclers are seldom very clear in their accounts of battles. The species of standard used in this battle was well known in the Italian wars.
[247] Compare John and Rich. Hexham 1138. Ail. de bel. Stand. Flor. Vigorn. Contin. 1138. Hen. Hunt., l. 8, p. 222. In the description of the battle I have principally followed Ailred. A comparison between the Priors of Hexham and the Continuator of Florence, will show the difference between the chronicler who lived in the neighbourhood of the scenes he describes, and he who, a tenant of a distant monastery, probably relied upon hearsay evidence. The battle of Northallerton was naturally a disagreeable subject for the Scottish chroniclers. Wynton, with characteristic honesty, says “the Scottis ware discomfyt and mony ... in depe lowchys drownyd was.” Fordun, Major, and Buchanan, divide the battle into two, perhaps from some confusion with the fight at Clitheroe. At the battle of Northallerton the English are routed; but in the following year the Scots, through despising their enemy, who are in great numbers, receive a check at the Standard. Boece, with a soul above such half-measures, stoutly claims a victory, ransoming the English leader, the Duke of Gloucester, at an enormous sum! Ford., l. 5, c. 42. Maj., l. 3, c. 11. Buch. l. 7. Boece, bk. 12, c. 17.