NOTES.

NOTE A, p. 86.

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 2.6, 845. There cannot be the least question, that the homage usually paid by the kings of Scotland was not for their crown, but for some other territory. The only question remains, what that territory was. It was not always for the earldom of Huntingdon, nor the honor of Penryth; because we find it Sometimes done at a time when these possessions were not in the hands of the kings of Scotland. It is probable that the homage was performed in general terms, without any particular specification of territory; and this inaccuracy had proceeded either from some dispute between the two kings about the territory and some opposite claims, which were compromised by the general homage, or from the simplicity of the age, which employed few words in every transaction. To prove this, we need but look into the letter of King Richard, where he resigns the homage of Scotland, reserving the usual homage. His words are, Sæpedictus W. Rex ligius homo noster deveniat de omnibus terris de quibus antecessores sui antecessorum nostrorum ligii homines fuerunt, et nobis atque hæredibus nostris fidelitatem jurarunt." Rymer, vol. i. p. 65. These general terms were probably copied from the usual form of the homage itself.

66

It is no proof that the kings of Scotland possessed no lands or baronies in England, because we cannot find them in the imperfect histories and records of that age. For instance, it clearly appears from another passage of this very letter of Richard, that the Scottish king held lands both in the county of Huntingdon and elsewhere in England; though the earldom of Huntingdon itself was then in the person of his brother David; and we know at present of no other baronies which William held. It cannot be expected that we should now be able to specify all his fees which he either possessed or claimed in England; when it is probable that the two monarchs themselves and their ministers would at that very time have differed in the list: the Scottish king might possess some to which his right was disputed; he might claim others which he did not possess; and neither of tho two kings was willing to resign his pretensions by a particular enumeration.

A late author of great industry and learning, but full of prejudices, and of no penetration, Mr. Carte, has taken advantage of the undefined terms of the Scotch homage, and has pretended that it was done for Lothian and Galloway; that is, all the territories of the country

now called Scotland, lying south of the Clyde and Forth. But to refute this pretension at once, we need only consider, that if these territories were held in fee of the English kings, there would, by the nature of the feudal law as established in England, have been continual appeals from them to the courts of the lord paramount; contrary to all the histories and records of that age. We find that, as soon as Edward really established his superiority, appeals immediately commenced from all parts of Scotland: and that king, in his writ to the king's bench, considers them as a necessary consequence of the feudal tenure. Such large territories also would have supplied a considerable part of the English armies, which never could have escaped all the historians. Not to mention that there is not any instance of a Scotch prisoner of war being tried as a rebel, in the frequent hostilities between the kingdoms, where the Scottish armies were chiefly filled from the southern counties.

Mr. Carte's notion with regard to Galloway, which comprehends, in the language of that age, or rather in that of the preceding, most of the south-west counties of Scotland; his notion, I say, rests on so slight a foundation, that it scarcely merits being refuted. He will have it, (and merely because he will have it,) that the Cumberland, yielded by King Edmund to Malcolm I., meant not only the county in England of that name, but all the territory northwards to the Clyde. But the case of Lothian deserves some more consideration.

It is certain that, in very ancient language, Scotland means only the country north of the Friths of Clyde and Forth. I shall not make a parade of literature to prove it; because I do not find that this point is disputed by the Scots themselves. The southern country was divided into Galloway and Lothian; and the latter comprehended all the south-east counties. This territory was certainly a part of the ancient kingdom of Northumberland, and was entirely peopled by Saxons, who afterwards received a great mixture of Danes among them. It appears from all the English histories, that the whole kingdom of Northumberland paid very little obedience to the AngloSaxon monarchs, who governed after the dissolution of the heptarchy; and the northern and remote parts of it seem to have fallen into a kind of anarchy, sometimes pillaged by the Danes, sometimes joining them in their ravages upon other parts of England. The kings of Scotland, lying nearer them, took at last possession of the country, which had scarcely any government; and we are told by Matthew of Westminster, (p. 193,) that King Edgar made a grant of the territory to Kenneth III.; that is, he resigned claims which he could not make effectual, without bestowing on them more trouble and expense than they were worth: for these are the only grants of provinces made by kings; and so ambitious and active a prince as Edgar would never have made presents of any other kind. Though Matthew of Westminster's authority may appear small with regard to so remote a transaction, yet we may admit it in this case, because Ordericus Vitalis, a good authority, tells us, (p. 701,) that Malcolm acknowledged to William Rufus, that the Conqueror had confirmed to him the former grant of Lothian. But it follows not, because Edgar made this species of grant to Kenneth, that therefore he exacted homage for that territory. Homage, and all the rites of the feudal law, were very little known among the Saxons; and we may also suppose, that the

claim of Edgar was so antiquated and weak, that, in resigning it, he made no very valuable concession, and Kenneth might well refuse to hold, by so precarious a tenure, a territory which he at present held by the sword. In short, no author says he did homage for it.

The only color indeed of authority for Mr. Carte's notion is, that Matthew Paris, who wrote in the reign of Henry III., before Edward's claim of superiority was heard of, says that Alexander III. did homage to Henry III. "pro Laudiano et aliis terris." See p. 555. This word seems naturally to be interpreted Lothian. But, in the first place, Matthew Paris's testimony, though considerable, will not outweigh that of all the other historians, who say that the Scotch homage was always done for lands in England. Secondly, if the Scotch homage was done in general terms, (as has been already proved,) it is no wonder that historians should differ in their account of the object of it, since it is probable the parties themselves were not fully agreed. Thirdly, there is reason to think that Laudianum in Matthew Paris does not mean the Lothians, now in Scotland. There appears to have been a territory which anciently bore that or a similar name in the north of England. For (1.) the Saxon Chronicle (p. 197) says, that Malcolm Kenmure met William Rufus in Lodene, in England. (2.) It is agreed by all historians, that Henry II. only reconquered from Scotland the northern counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland. See Newbriggs, p. 383. Wykes, p. 30. Hemingford, p. 492. Yet the same country is called by other historians Loidis, comitatus Lodonensis, or some such name. See M. Paris, p. 68. M. West. p. 247. Annal. Waverl. p. 159, and Diceto, p. 531. (3.) This last-mentioned author, when he speaks of Lothian in Scotland, calls it Loheneis, (p. 574,) though he had called the English territory Loidis.

I thought this long note necessary in order to correct Mr. Carte's mistake, an author whose diligence and industry has given light to many passages of the more ancient English history.

NOTE B,
P. 86.

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 543. It is remarkable that the English chancellor spoke to the Scotch parliament in the French tongue. This was also the language commonly made use of by all parties on that occasion. Ibid. passim. Some of the most considerable among the Scotch, as well as almost all the English barons, were of French origin: they valued themselves upon it; and pretended to despise the language and manners of the island. It is difficult to account for the settlement of so many French families in Scotland; the Bruces, Baliols, St. Clairs, Montgomeries, Somervilles, Gordons, Frasers, Cummins, Colvilles, Umfrevilles, Mowbrays, Hays, Maules, who were not supDorted there, as in England, by the power of the sword. But the superiority of the smallest civility and knowledge over total ignoance and barbarism, is prodigious.

NOTE C, p. 91.

See Rymer, vol. ii. p. 533, where Edward writes to the king's bench to receive appeals from Scotland. He knew the practice to be new H

VOL. II.

44

and unusual; yet he establishes it as an infallible consequence of his superiority. We learn also from the same collection, (p. 603,) that immediately upon receiving the homage, he changed the style of his address to the Scotch king, whom he now calls "dilecto et fideli," instead of "fratri dilecto et fideli," the appellation which he had always before used to him. See p. 109, 124, 168, 280, 1064. This is a certain proof that he himself was not deceived, as was scarcely indeed possible, but that he was conscious of his usurpation. Yet he solemnly swore afterwards to the justice of his pretensions, when he defended them before Pope Boniface.

NOTE D, p. 104.

Throughout the reign of Edward I., the assent of the commons is not once expressed in any of the enacting clauses; nor in the reigns ensuing, till the 9 Edward III., nor in any of the enacting clauses of 16 Richard II. Nay, even so low as Henry VI., from the beginning till the eighth of his reign, the assent of the commons is not once expressed in any enacting clause. See preface to Ruffhead's edit. of the Statutes, p. 7. If it should be asserted, that the commons had really given their assent to these statutes, though they are not expressly mentioned, this very omission, proceeding, if you will, from carelessness, is a proof how little they were respected. The commons were so little accustomed to transact public business, that they had no speaker till after the parliament 6 Edward III. See Prynne's preface to Cotton's Abridg. not till the first of Richard II. in the opinion of most antiquaries. The commons were very unwilling to meddle in any state affairs, and commonly either referred themselves to the lords, or desired a select committee of that house to assist them, as appears from Cotton. 5 Edw. III. n. 5; 15 Edw. III n. 17; 21 Edw. III. n. 5; 47 Edw. III. n. 5; 50 Edw. III. n. 10; 57 Edw. III. n. 18; 1 Rich. II. n. 12; 2 Rich. II. n. 12; 5 Rich. II. n 14; 2 parl. 6 Rich. II. n. 14; parl. 2, 6 Rich. II. n. 8, etc.

NOTE E, p. 105.

It was very agreeable to the maxims of all the feudal governments, that every order of the state should give their consent to the acts which more immediately concerned them; and as the notion of a political system was not then so well understood, the other orders of the state were often not consulted on these occasions. In this reign, even the merchants, though no public body, granted the king impositions on merchandise, because the first payments came out of their pockets. They did the same in the reign of Edward III.; but the commons had then observed that the people paid these duties, though the merchants advanced them; and they therefore remonstrated against this practice. Cotton's Abridg. p. 39. The taxes imposed by the knights on the counties were always lighter than those which the burgesses laid on the boroughs; a presumption, that in voting those taxes the knights and burgesses did not form the same house. See Chancellor West's Inquiry into the Manner of creating Peers, p. 8. But there are so many proofs, that those two orders of representa

tives were long separate, that it is needless to insist on them. Mr. Carte, who had carefully consulted the rolls of parliament, affirms, that they never appear to have been united till the sixteenth of Edward III. See Hist. vol. ii. p. 451. But it is certain that this union was not even then final: in 1372, the burgesses acted by themselves, and voted a tax after the knights were dismissed. See Tyrrel, Hist. vol. iii. p. 734, from Rot. Claus. 46 Edward III. n. 9. In 1376, they were the knights alone who passed a vote for the removal of Alice Pierce from the king's person, if we may credit Walsingham, p. 189. There is an instance of a like kind in the reign of Richard II. Cotton, p. 193. The different taxes voted by those two branches of the lower house, naturally kept them separate; but as their petitions had mostly the same object, namely, the redress of grievances, and the suppcrt of law and justice both against the crown and the barons, this cause as naturally united them, and was the reason why they at last joined in one house for the despatch of business. The barons had few petitions. Their privileges were of more ancient date. Grievances seldom affected them: they were themselves the chief oppressors. In 1333, the knights by themselves concurred with the bishops and barons in advising the king to stay his journey into Ireland. Here was a petition which regarded a matter of state, and was supposed to be above the capacity of the burgesses. The knights, therefore, acted apart in this petition. See Cotton, Abridg. p. 13. Chief baron Gilbert thinks, that the reason why taxes always began with the commons or burgesses was, that they were limited by the instructions of their boroughs. See Hist. of the Exchequer, p. 37.

NOTE F, p. 105.

The chief argument from ancient authority, tor tne opinion that the representatives of boroughs preceded the forty-ninth of Henry III., is the famous petition of the borough of St. Albans, first taken notice of by Selden, and then by Petyt, Brady, Tyrrel, and others. In this petition, presented to the parliament in the reign of Edward II., the town of St. Albans asserts, that though they held "in capite" of the crown, and owed only, for all other service, their attendance in parliament, yet the sheriff had omitted them in his writs; whereas, both in the reign of the king's father, and all his predecessors, they had always sent members. Now, say the defenders of this opinion, if the commencement of the house of commons were in Henry III.'s reign, this expression could not have been used. But Madox, in his History of the Exchequer, (p. 522, 523, 524,) has endeavored, and with great reason, to destroy the authority of this petition for the purpose alleged. He asserts, first, that there was no such tenure in England as that of holding by attendance in parliament, instead of all other service. Secondly, that the borough of St. Albans never held of the crown at all, but was always demesne land of the abbot. It is no wonder, therefore, that a petition which advances two falsehoods, should contain one historical mistake, which indeed amounts only to an inaccurate and exaggerated expression; no strange matter in ignorant burgesses of that age. Accordingly, St. Albans continued still to belong to the abbot. It never held of the crown, till after the