^{page 116 note 1} David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes), Annals of Scotland, ii (3rd edition, Edinburgh, 1819), pp. 320–22.

^{page 117 note 1} Androw of Wyntoun, The Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland, ed. David Laing [hereafter Chron. Wyntoun (Laing)], ii (Historians of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1872), pp. 506–7. One can contrast this specific and meaningful obituary with the much vaguer and less significant praise which Wyntoun, or his unidentified source, accords to Robert II (ibid., iii, p. 45).

^{page 117 note 2} Joannis de Fordun Scotichronicon cum Supplementis ac Continuatione Waited Boweri, ed. W. Goodall [hereafter Chron. Bower], ii (Edinburgh, 1759), p. 380.

^{page 117 note 3} Cf. [The] Exchequer] Rolls [of Scotland], ed. J. Stuart and G. Burnett, ii (Edinburgh, 1878), the references cited in the index under ‘Justice-ayre’ and ‘Justiciary’.

^{page 117 note 4} E.g. Registrum Monasterii S. Marie de Cambuskenneth, ed. W. Fraser (Edinburgh, Grampian Club, 1872), no. 54; and British Museum, Add. MS. 33245 (Register of Arbroath), fos. 51^v-52^r.

^{page 117 note 5} Cf. Chron. Wyntoun (Laing), ii, pp. 500–1; and Liber Pluscardensis, ed. F. J. H. Skene [hereafter Chron. Pluscarden], i (Historians of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1877), pp. 302–3. The story is of the murder of Roger Kirkpatrick by his guest James Lindsay at Carlaverock Castle. The criminal was brought before David II at Dumfries and at once executed. We are told that David assembled an ‘assize’ (the Scottish term for a jury) and this shows that the procedure was that of a justice ayre.

^{page 118 note 1} It is not possible to give references to the individual documents on which this paragraph and similar passages are based. The present writer hopes to publish an edition of the surviving acts of David II in the series Regesta Regum Scottorum. At present they have to be found in many scattered publications and manuscripts. A provisional list has been published in Handlist of the Acts of David II, ed. Bruce, Webster (Regesta Regum Scottorum, Edinburgh, 1962)Google Scholar (duplicated).

^{page 119 note 1} Chron. Pluscarden, i, p. 291.

^{page 119 note 2} E.g. Registrum Episcopates Moraviensis (Edinburgh, Bannatyne Club, 1837), no. 114 (an unwitnessed inspection of a grant to the hospital of Elgin, dated 4 April 1342. The confirmatory clauses are full of unusual formulae, which are uncharacteristic of the king's chapel); and Registrum Episcopatus Aberdonensis, i (Edinburgh, Spalding and Maitland Clubs, 1845), p. 69 (Letters patent issued under the privy seal instead of the great seal).

^{page 120 note 1} Cf. Johannis de Fordun Chronica Gentis Scotorum, ed. W. F. Skene [hereafter Chron. Fordun], i (Historians of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1871), pp. 365–66; Chron. Wyntoun (Laing), ii, pp. 466–70; Chron. Bower, ii, pp. 334—37; Chron. Pluscarden, i, pp. 290–91.

^{page 120 note 2} Cf. [The] A[cts of the] P[arliaments of] S[cotland], ed. T. Thomson and C. Innes, i (1844), p. 502. (All references to this work are to the red page numbers.)

^{page 120 note 3} Exch. Rolls, ii, p. 358.

^{page 121 note 1} Cf. R. K. Hannay, ‘The Early History of the Scottish Signet’, in The Society of Writers to His Majesty's Signet (Edinburgh, 1936), p. 13.

^{page 121 note 2} Ibid., pp. 6–8.

^{page 121 note 3} Exch. Rolls, i, p. 569.

^{page 121 note 4} Ibid., p. 546. These profits were normally received by the sheriff and could be large.

^{page 121 note 5} Ibid., p. 561.

^{page 121 note 6} A.P.S., i, p. 492.

^{page 121 note 7} The case of James Lindsay (supra, p. 117, n. 5) lets us see him doing this in the next year.

^{page 122 note 1} A.P.S., i, pp. 492–93. The text, which comes from a copy in the ‘Black Book’ in the Scottish Record Office, gives the date correctly as 4 March 1363 (i.e. 1364) but gives the regnal year wrongly as 33. This is perhaps the origin of the confusion over the date of this parliament (cf. infra, n. 2 and p. 124 n. 1.

^{page 122 note 2} Annals of Scotland, ii, p. 312: ‘Happily for David Bruce the secret of this conference was faithfully kept.’ Lord Hailes, however, was misled by one of his sources (Chron. Bower, ii, p. 366) which places the parliament of March 1364 a year too early. He therefore thought that the conference in November was an underhand attempt by David to pursue a scheme already rejected by parliament. Had he realized the correct order of events, which is now generally accepted, he would have seen that the London meetings were a natural preliminary for the approach to parliament.

^{page 122 note 3} Exch. Rolls, ii, p. 130. The two documents are both inspections of Coldingham charters, cf. J. Raine, The History and Antiquities of North Durham (London, 1852), appendix, nos. 85, 86.

^{page 123 note 1} Chron. Bower, ii, pp. 366–67; Chron. Pluscarden, i, pp. 305–6.

^{page 123 note 2} Annals of Scotland, ii, p. 322.

^{page 123 note 3} Balfour-Melville, E. W. M., ‘David II's Appeal to the Pope’, Scottish Historical Review, xli (1962), p. 86.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 4} Cf. ‘Papers Relating to the Captivity and Release of David II’, ed. E. W. M. Balfour-Melville, Miscellany of the Scottish History Society, ix (Edinburgh, 1958), p. 37. This part of the document printed clearly belongs to the early 1350's.

^{page 123 note 5} A.P.S., i, pp. 493–95. These texts do not come from the ‘Black Book’ but from Public Record Office, Exchequer Scottish Documents, 2/22 and 2/2.

^{page 124 note 1} Two chronicles, Chron. Bower, ii, p. 367, and Chron. Pluscarden, i, p. 306, suggest that the revolt was caused by the king's plans for a permanent peace with England; but both wrongly place the parliament in which these plans were rejected in 1363 and hence before the revolt. Their explanation of the revolt is a result of this mistake in chronology. I can find no evidence for the other explanation usually given, that the revolt was a protest against the heavy taxation caused by the king's ransom.

^{page 124 note 2} We may compare the policy of the Montfort dukes of Brittany in their dealings with the French crown at the same period.

^{page 125 note 1} A.P.S., i, pp. 503, 506–7. Cf. the remarks in Chron. Bower, ii, p. 380, about David's success in dealing with this disorder.

^{page 125 note 2} Cf. The Parliamentary Records of Scotland, ed. W. Robertson (1804), p. 115.

^{page 125 note 3} The entail is in R[egistrum] M[agni] S[igilli Regum Scotorum], i, ed. J.M. Thomson (Edinburgh, 1912), no. 354; Ross's complaint of 1371 is in Illustrations of the Topography and Antiquities of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff, ii (Aberdeen, Spalding Club, 1847), pp. 387–89.

^{page 125 note 4} Robert, I's grants to his supporters are discussed in Barrow, G. W. S., Robert Bruce (London, 1965), pp. 396–402.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 1} No evidence survives of a grant of the earldom of Strathearn; it had been vacant since the death of Maurice Murray in 1346 but the Steward is not styled ‘earl of Strathearn’ till David's return in 1357. It is likely that he gained control of the earldom during the king's absence; and that David recognized the position when he was released from captivity. The lands of the earldom of Atholl were acquired in 1342 as a result of an obscure ex-change with William Douglas of Liddesdale, cf. Registrum Honoris de Morton, (Edinburgh, Bannatyne Club, 1853), nos. 61, 63;R.M.S., i, appendix 2, no. 1124.

^{page 126 note 2} R.M.S., i, appendix 1, no. 123.

^{page 126 note 3} Ibid., appendix 2, no. 1222.

^{page 127 note 1} References to the grants may be found in B. Webster, Handlist of the Acts of David II. Erskine's rise began in the period of the captivity, when he received grants from most of the prominent nobles (op. cit., nos. 105–7), and continued after the king's return (ibid., nos. 219, 227). Grants to Preston are listed ibid., nos. 140–42; to Herries, ibid., no. 194.

^{page 127 note 2} Like Haliburton, he does not receive any grants at this period, but is becoming increasingly prominent as a witness.

^{page 127 note 3} Scalachronica [by Sir Thomas Gray of Hewn, Knight], ed. J. Stevenson (Edinburgh, Maitland Club, 1836), pp. 202–3.

^{page 128 note 1} Scalachronica, p. 196.

^{page 128 note 2} Chron. Pluscarden, i, pp. 304–5; payments for the expenses of his imprisonment and funeral are to be found in Exch. Rolls, ii, pp. 115, 167–68.

^{page 128 note 3} Scalachronica, p. 202; Chron. Pluscarden, i, p. 304. Some arrangement over the revenues of the earldom is implied in Scalachronica and in the payment to the earl of Mar recorded in Exch. Rolls, ii, p. 164. It is said to be made ‘ex conuencione facta inter ipsum et dominum nostrum regem super terris comitatus de Marr’.

^{page 128 note 4} Scalachronica, loc. cit., says that Mar had been oppressing the people in the neighbourhood; also that there was a quarrel with one of David's courtiers. There is no evidence on which we can judge.

^{page 128 note 5} R.M.S., i, no. 124; a grant of a rent to the Friars Preachers of Aberdeen for the souls of himself and ‘Margarete de Logy dilecte nostre’. Normally, only the king's wife would be so mentioned.

^{page 129 note 1} All the accounts state that the marriage followed the suppression of the revolt. Chron. Wyntoun (Laing), ii, p. 506, Chron. Pluscarden, i, p. 307, and Chron. Bower, ii, p. 379, all give the place of the marriage as Inchmurdach in Fife; and this seems to be confirmed by payments recorded in Exch. Rolls, ii, pp. 173, 175. Inchmurdach, now lost, was the bishop of St Andrews' country house near Kenly Green in the parish of St Andrews and St Leonard, where King David had spent his infancy. (I owe this information to Professor G. W. S. Barrow.) The text of the Steward's submission on 14 May is given in Chron. Bower, ii. pp. 369–70. According to Chron. Pluscarden, i, p. 307, all the barons renewed their oaths of fealty on this occasion ' 14 January' (ibid.) is probably a mistake for '14 May'.

^{page 129 note 2} Chron. Bower, ii, pp. 379–80;Chron. Pluscarden, i, p. 307; Exch. Rolls, ii, pp. 309, 347.