A HISTORY OF CUMBERLAND 
of the Scotic ruler, Bueth or Boet, held its own against the Norman 
intruder, both while Ranulf was in possession of Carlisle and also when 
Henry I. took over possession of it on Ranulf’s succession to the earldom 
of Chester. We have it on the best authority that the first Norman 
foothold in Gillesland was obtained many years later, when Henry II. 
granted to Hubert de Vallibus ‘all the land which Gille son of Boet held 
on the day in which he was living and dead, of whomsoever he may have 
held it? Besides William Meschin had the grant of the barony of 
Coupland from Henry I. at a date, as we believe, which would make him 
a contemporary in possession with his brother Ranulf. If any truth be 
attached to Camden’s assertion, William’s title could only have existed on 
parchment. Perhaps he was glad to resign all his claim, if he ever had 
any, in consideration of the richer and quieter fief on the south-western 
coast. Gille son of Boet was the last Scotic chieftain to hold sway in 
England against the power of the Norman. It is one of the most 
singular eccentricities of territorial conquest that a small corner of 
ancient Cumbria could be held without title or grant for more than half 
a century after it had been absorbed into the English kingdom. The 
position of Ranulf Meschin could not have been very secure when he 
permitted this state of things to continue. From his generosity to the 
great abbey of St. Mary’s, York, we may fairly conclude that he was in 
effective possession of the rest of his jurisdiction. He founded the 
priory of Wetheral on the northern side of the valley of the Eden as a 
cell of that monastery, and his grants in the neighbourhood of Appleby 
to the same house furnish evidence that he had control of the land of 
Carlisle at its utmost limit. 
Before we consider the policy of the Crown in the settlement of the 
district after Ranulf’s removal to Chester in or about 1120, the nature of 
the fief held by him merits some inquiry. There has been a consensus 
of opinion that the new territory was raised to the dignity of an earldom 
while Ranulf held it. Freeman at first volunteered the statement that 
1 ¢ Totam terram quam Gilltus filius Boet tenuit die qua fuit vivus et mortuus, de quocunque illam 
tenuisset’ (Chancery, Carte Antique, DD, No. 7). This charter, which is dated at Newcastle-upon-T'yne, 
has been often printed with some inaccuracies from Dugdale’s transcript. The king was in Carlisle on 
Jane 24, 1158 (Benedict Abbas, ii. p. cxxxi., ed. Stubbs), when the sheriff paid 11/. 3s. to Hubert de 
Vallibus as a corrody in preparation for his coming (Pipe Rolls, 4 Hen. II. pp. 119, 175, ed. Hunter). 
He went into Northumberland and fortified the castle of Werc on his way to Newcastle (Hoveden, i. 216, 
ed. Stubbs). ‘The Pipe Rolls witness that it was in this year, soon after he got possession of Cumberland, 
that the grant of Gillesland was'-made. ‘The story told by Camden’s editors, and often repeated on 
Camden’s authority, that Gille son of Boet was treacherously slain by Robert de Vallibus ‘at a meeting 
for an arbitration of all differences,’ in atonement for which he founded the priory of Lanercost, must 
be rejected as an entire fable. ‘That Hubert had some difficulty in keeping possession of Gillesland there 
appears to be little doubt. When he died in 1164-5, a new grant in the exact terms of the original, recog- 
nising the former ownership of Gille son of Boet, was made by Henry II. to Robert de Vallibus, Hubert’s 
son (Carte Antique, DD, No. 20), which grant was confirmed by Richard I. immediately after his 
accession (ibid. No. 21). From the repetition of the grant and the continuous allusion to the tenure of 
Gille son of Boet, one may infer that the new owner wished his title to be made secure against all possi- 
bility of dispute. In both of the grants to Robert de Vallibus the original owner is called ‘Gillius 
filius Boet,’ but in the grant to Hubert de Vallibus we have ‘Gilltus filius Boet,’? no doubt by an error 
in the enrolment. In Scottish record, Gille son of Boet occurs often enough. Other nominal discrep- 
ancies appear on comparison of the three charters. 
306 
