Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
[c]W. Wyrcester, p. 5. Parliament. Hist. vol. ii. p. 332.
[[R]
at the end of the volume.
[f]Rymer, vol. xi. p. 647, 649, 650.
[h]Fragm. Ed. IV. ad. fin. Sprotti.
[i]Hall, fol. 204. Fabrian, fol. 218. Habington, p. 442. Hollingshed, p. 674.
[l]The king offered by proclamation a reward of 1000 pounds, or 100 pounds a year in
land, to any that would seize them. Whence we may learn that land was at that time sold for about ten years purchase. See Rymer, vol. xi. p. 654.
[m]Comines, liv. 3. cap. 4. Hall, fol. 205.
[o]Comines, liv. 3. chap. 5. Hall, fol. 207. Hollingshed, p. 675.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
386
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/789
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 2
[p]Comines, liv. 3. chap. 4. Hall, fol. 207.
[r]Comines, liv. 3. chap. 5. Hall, fol. 208.
[u]Comines, liv. 3. chap. 5. Hall, fol. 208.
[x]Hall, fol. 210. Stowe, p. 422.
[z]Hall, fol. 210. Stowe, p. 423. Holingshed, p. 677. Grafton, p. 690.
[b]Grafton, p. 692. Polyd. Virg. p. 522.
[i]Grafton, p. 700. Comines, liv. 3. chap. 7. Leland’s collect. vol. ii. p. 505.
[n]Leland’s Collect. vol. ii. p. 505.
[o]Hall, fol. 219. Habington, p. 451. Grafton, p. 706. Polyd. Virg. p. 528.
[p]Hall, fol. 221. Habington, p. 453. Hollingshed, p. 688. Polyd. Virg. p. 530.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
387
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/789
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 2
[q]Comines, Hall, fol. 223. Grafton. p. 703.
[r]Habington, p. 454. Polyd. Virg. p. 531.
[s]Hollingshed, p. 689, 690, 691. Hist. Croyl. cont. p. 554.
[u]Rymer, vol. xi. p. 806, 807, 808, &c.
[w]Cotton, p. 696, 700. Hist. Croyl. cont. p. 558.
[x]Hall, fol. 226. Habington, p. 461. Grafton, p. 719. Fabian, fol. 221.
[y]Comines, liv. 4. chap. 5. This author says, (chap. II.) that the king artfully brought
over some of the richest of his subjects, who, he knew, would be soon tired of the war, and would promote all proposals of peace, which, he foresaw, would be soon necessary.
[a]Comines, liv. 4. chap. 5. Hall, fol. 227.
[f]Comines, liv. 4. chap. 9. Hall, fol. 233.
[g]Comines, liv. 4. chap. 10. Habington, p. 469.
[k]Polyd. Virg. Hall, fol. 240. Hollingshed, p. 703. Habington, p. 474. Grafton, p.
742.
[m]Ibid. 241. Hist. Croyl. cont. p. 559.
[n]Habington, p. 475. Hollingshed, p. 703. Sir Thomas More in Kennet, p. 498.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
388
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/789
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 2
[s]Stowe, p. 430. Hist. Croyl. cont. p. 562.
[t]Hall, fol. 239. Holingshed, p. 703. Grafton, p. 741. Polyd. Virg. p. 537. Sir Thomas
More in Kennet, p. 497.
[x]This nobleman first introduced the noble art of printing into England. Caxton was
recommended by him to the patronage of Edward IV. See Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors.
[y]Hist. Croyl. cont. p. 564, 565.
[a]Hist. Croyl. cont. p. 564, 565.
[[S]
at the end of the volume.
[k]Hist. Croyl. cont. p. 567. Comines. Sir Thom. More, p. 482.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
389
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/789
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 2
[o]Dugdale’s Baron. vol. i. p. 168, 169.
[Rule all England under the Hog.Alluding to the names of Ratcliffe and Catesby; and
to Richard’s arms, which were a boar.
[[T]
at the end of the volume.
[t]There appear early symptoms of the jealousy, entertained by the barons against the
progress of the arts, as destructive of their licentious power. A law was enacted, 7
Henry IV. chap. 17. prohibiting any one who did not possess twenty shillings a year in land from binding his sons apprentices to any trade. They found already that the cities began to drain the country of the labourers and husbandmen; and did not foresee how much the encrease of commerce would encrease the value of their estates. See farther, Cotton, p. 179. The kings, to encourage the boroughs, granted them this privilege, that any villain, who had lived a twelvemonth in any corporation and had been of the guild, should be thenceforth regarded as free.
[[A]
at the end of the volume.
[[B]
at the end of the volume.
[*]See note
[C]
at the end of the volume.
[[D]
at the end of the volume.
[[E]
at the end of the volume.
[[F]
at the end of the volume.
[[G]
at the end of the volume.
[[H]
at the end of the volume.
[[I]
at the end of the volume.
[[J]
at the end of the volume.
[[K]
at the end of the volume.
[*]See note
[L]
at the end of the volume.
[*]See note
[M]
at the end of the volume.
[*]See note
[N]
at the end of the volume.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
390
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/789
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 2
[[O]
at the end of the volume.
[[P]
at the end of the volume.
[[Q]
at the end of the volume.
[[R]
at the end of the volume.
[[S]
at the end of the volume.
[[T]
at the end of the volume.
[[A]]Rymer, vol. ii. p. 216, 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 honour 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, Saepedictus W. Rex ligius homo noster deveniat de omnibus terris de quibus antecessors sui antecessorum nostrorum ligii homines fuerunt, et nobis atque haeredibus nostris fidelitatem jurarunt. Rymer, vol. i. p. 65. These general terms were probably copied from the usual form of the homage itself.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 Scotish king might possess some to which his right was disputed; he might claim others, which he did not possess: And neither of the 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 PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
391
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/789
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 2
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 Anglo-Saxon 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 expence 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. Tho’ 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 colour 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 superority was heard of, says that Alexander III. did homage to Henry III.