STRATHCLYDE AND GALLOWAY CHARTERS. 253 
assimilation from something of all, and as the terms in these 
charters shew from the latest, Norman French. 
In Huctred’s charter, Conveth is not mentioned and 
Chaan has come to be a general word for tax or impost. For 
it has not only to include Conveth, but is applied to the pay- 
cro.’’ In the change which Huctred shows he was 
‘ 
ment for * 
anticipating, it seems as if he expected the grant from the 
Scottish King of what in England would be called ' 
soc, and toll and team,’’ and its accompaniments, as granted 
‘ 
sac and 
to the greater barons, amounting to extensive rights of juris- 
diction and the profits of these; in which case he would not 
have to transfer these profits and pay the “‘ chaan del cro "’ to 
the Scottish King. 
This sets one thinking. In the charter of Gospatrik, 
which belonged to the region of the Strathclyde sub-kingdom, 
lying next to Galloway, the earl in possession was able to- 
grant these to a holder under him; this, Gospatrik would do 
as a scion of the Scottish house, and as ruler of what was. 
Cumbrian, the relics of the English side of Strathclyde. But 
Huctred’s charter, though granting rights and liberties even 
in salt pans and the chace and aeries and havens (i.e., tolls), as- 
if almost a sovereign, makes no mention of the administration 
dues, and it looks as though up to that point the lords of 
Galloway possessed these only in a restricted way and could 
not grant them out, and were expecting extension of their 
power. 
oe 
‘The expression ‘* chaan del cro et de defense, ioan ’’ is 
difficult. It seems at first to be in two languages, if not in 
three. ‘‘ Del ’’ coming in the first part suggests Norman 
French as one of these, but the ‘‘ de 
” 
might be confusion: 
A ° . Sie . . . 
with Latin. I have looked up Gaelic dictionaries in vain to 
ae 
find any word to answer to “‘ ioan,’’ and have come finally 
to the conclusion that, as in other cases of which I have now 
some proof, this charter must have been one of two copies, 
the.one written for the grantor’s custody and his heirs, the- 
other for the grantees, and that the word ioan is a scribal 
error in copying out. I have found pretty certain evidence 
that grantors could not always have made sure that the con- 
tents of their charters, which most of them could not read,. 
