CHAP. 1.
Of the Occasion of writing this Book, and the Asserters of this Homage.

ABOVE two Years ago, I undertook a Treatise of the Manner of Fees; not that I conceiv'd my self capa­ble of giving any new Light, or adding any fresh Lustre to the Feudal Law, after the Endeavours of so many Learned Men on that Subject; but because, as is ma­nifest to all Men, the Laws of our Country do flow from thence, as from their Foun­tain, and have a Dependance on the Rules and Maxims thereof. But the Mind of Man being naturally desirous of farther Know­ledg, I began likewise to enquire into the Laws of our Neighbours, to see if there [Page 2] might not be also some Assinity betwixt theirs and the Feudal Law: for I perceived that our Law agreed with that of England, and that the Customs of both Nations di [...] in most things agree with the Feudal Law; tho the English will not own so much, [...] that they use no other Laws than thei [...] own, viz. their Municipal Law. Yet I was dis­couraged from pursuing my Design, because I had but little Knowledg in that sort of Law my self, and knew not of any Man who could assist me. However, I did not aban­don the Enterprize, as hoping to meet with that in Books, which was not to be met with elsewhere.

Having therefore taken care to provide my self with some Books, and enquired di­ligently of my Friends if they had any such by them; I was advis'd, by a certain Person, that Rap [...]ael Holinshed, a late English [...], had writ much concerning the Laws and Customs of the English; which I was a little surpriz'd at, because I had frequently made use of that Author, and never took notice of any such thing in him▪ but upon his [...]hew­ing me the Place in his second Book of the Description of Brit [...]in, Chap. 8, and 9. I re­solv'd on reading of the same, to peruse all that he had writ upon the Subject, to try if I could learn any thi [...]g further; and un­expectedly I met with [...], Lib. 1. Cap. 22▪ [Page 3] where he pretends to sh [...]w, how the Supe­riority of the whole Isand is [...] in the Kings of England▪ And having [...] it over ca [...]efully, I found my Chole [...] begin to rise, and that it heppe [...]d to me exactly as Hol [...] ­shed had fo [...]etold for there is nothing, says he, which will vex a Scotsman more, or that he takes worse, than to tell him, that Scot­land is a Fee-Liege of England, and that the King of Scots owes Homage to the King of England as his Liege Lord on that account: and in truth, Holi [...]shed was so fan in the Right; for what can be more odious to generous Spirits, or which way can you en­rage them more, than to brand them un­justifly with a Badg of Servitud [...] [...]

But I was yet more in [...]ens'd, [...] worse, that none of our Count [...]y- [...] had answered that Calumny, as if they seem'd to own the Truth of it by their Silence. But measuring others by my self, I am apt to im­pute it to the Negligence of our Country­men, who though Holinshed hath been pub­lished this sixteen Years, yet satisfying themselves with the Texture of the History, and the Continuation thereof unto our own Time; they look'd over those things which he premises, as being only ornamental, and no way belonging to them. And although we find it very often in the Body of Holin­s [...]ed's History, that the King of Scotland [Page 4] had paid Homage to the King of England; I should for my own part have slighted it, as a thing that could have no weight amongst the Learned, because it was the Testimony of an Enemy in praise of his own Country, according to the Distich against Poggius;

But it happened far otherwise, for Joannes Bodinus, Lib. 1. Cap. 1. de Republica, falls into that same Error by reading the English Histories, and writes, that the Kings of Scots did [...] acknowledg the Kings of Eng­land [...] Liege-Lord; but they have now forborn doing so for about three hundred Years. And Bernard Gerard a Modern French Historian, in Philippo 1. Lib. 7. as­serts, that Scotland is a Fee-Liege of England, although the Scots do at this time deny it; and both those Authors are very Learned Men, though unacquainted with our Affairs. And therefore lest by this Silence of ours, the Error should spread further, I resolved to obviate the growing Distemper, by some healthful Antidote, and to examine all the particulars of this Controversy with the ut­most Diligence. Holinshed might indeed be born with, if contenting himself with his [Page 5] Argument, he had abstain'd from ill Lan­guage; but in his Satyrical Invective, be­sides what he says of our Poverty and Want, he upbraids us continually with Sluggish­ness and Persidy, which by his leave, are Crimes that may as justly be charg'd upon others. But seeing he has perhaps some rea­son to charge us with Poverty, ‘Leniter ex merito quicquid patiare ferendum est;’ we can patiently bear what we deser­vedly suffer; for we may want Riches without being criminal or justly reproach'd for our Poverty, and others may enjoy them without any great Credit: So that I may say with Tacitus, I know not whether the Gods have withheld Riches from us out of Love or Anger; seeing it's possible as Horace says,

That Men of greater worth than Kings or Courtiers may live in mean Cottages. But no Man can own himself Vicious, without being content at the same Time to be rec­koned Infamous; and notwithstanding all this, our Condition is such, that our Pover­ty is no way burdensome to us, nor have we any occasion to beg greater Riches from our Neighbours. And as for our Cowardice and Persidy, we shall treat of them after­wards.

[Page 6]The [...] which induce me to a [...] of this kind, are, First, the Duty which I owe to my most gracious Soveraign, from whose Majesty and Authority Holinshed would not [...] little detract by this Invective: for [...] be no Majesty where there is not a Soveraign Command; neither does he retain the Rights of Soveraignty, who acknowledges another to be superiour to himself, or is obliged when call'd on, to an­swer at his Court. The next Motive is Love to my Country, which by the Homage, as thus [...], seems to be rendred [...] the Name of a Kingdom, and is in a [...] depriv'd of its Soveraignty▪ and therefore it is my design to vindicate the same from all imputation of Vasialage, lest that [...] Calumny should obtain Credi [...], and lead Posterity into a Mistake, but chief­ly, lest others by a foolish Credulity should swallow down the Assertions of every Au­thor as undoubted Truths. For why is it not as lawful for me to clear my Country from this odious Calumny, as for H [...]linshed by his insolent way of Writing, to load it with Infamy? and I hope that our Neighbours will pardon me, and not take this Work amiss, at least such of them who are of an equal Temper, because I have not entred the Lists without Provocation; nor can they be just­ly offended, if by solid and true Reasons, I [Page 7] deprive them of this little point of Honour: for according to the common Saying, ‘Turpi [...]s ejicitur quam non admittitur Hospes▪’ It's more disgrace for a Landlord to be thrown out, than not admitted; so it will be more for their Credit, if I make it ap­pear, that they never enjoyed this fictitious Superiority, than that they were beat out of it 300 Years ago. For as to the real Glory of the English Nation, who have fill'd E [...]rope with the Fame of their Great Actions, I am neither desirous nor capable of drawing a Vail over it. by this small Treatise.

To prove this Homage, the common sort of English Historians put all their Wit and Art on the Tenterhooks, especially Geffrey of Monmouth, William of Maimsbury, Henry of Huntington, Matthew Paris, Matthew of Westminster, Roger Hovedon, Florence of Worcester, and Thomas Walsingham, all Monks: But they content themselves with the bare Assertion of this Homage's having been paid, and touch it but briefly in the Course of their History. But others carry it further, and laying aside all Modesty, affirm, that this Homage was paid for Scotland; though those are indeed but few, nor do they assert that it was ever done above once or twice. But they who professedly handled [Page 8] this Question, were two Kings, both of them of great Fame and Repute, Edward [...]. and Henry VIII. the former when sharply re­proved by Pope Boniface VIII. for haras­sing the Scots with an unjust War, on Ac­count of that Superiority over them which he had feigned to himself by an Erroneous Opinion, did for his own Vindication al­ledg many Reasons, some of which were feign'd, and others of them made nothing to his purpose of proving that Superiority which he claim'd over Scotland. But Henry VIII. seeking for an occasion of War against King Iames V. of Scotland, did at last pre­tend this for one, that he would recover by Force of Arms, the Right of Superiority that the Kings of England had over Scotland, but which his Ancestors had neglected; though we all know that there was another cause of that War, which is also own'd in the be­ginning of his Declaration: For Iames V. having promised to meet his Uncle at York, that they might consult together about the Conjunction of the Kingdoms, and what might be for their mutual Advantage; he was at last compelled to break the Appoint­ment, by the Authority of the Pope and Pa­pists, who then made no small Figure in the Kingdom, and were afraid lest that Con­ference should have issued in a Reformation. Henry VIII. being a Magnanimous Prince, [Page 9] provoked by this Aff [...]ont, and unwilling to bear it, thought the Breach of the Appoint­ment not to be a sufficient [...]ause of War, and therefore founded it upon the Pretext of regaining the former Superiority, which gave rise to that called the nine Years War, famous for Mutual Overthrows, but where­in the Scots did indeed suffer most. Both those two Potent Kings above-mentioned, the one in his Apology to the Pope, and the other in his Declaration of War, do most tenaciously assert this Homage to be due from the King of Scots, to the Kings of England, but with more Confidence than Reason; and after them it is asserted by Iohn Leland, who was supposed to have been the Author of that Declaration. And Holinshed musters all their Arguments together, but thinking them either insufficient of themselves, or at least having a Mind to show the Good­ness of his own Parts, and the Force of his Pen; he adds many things of his own Head, wrests many things which he finds in other Authors, feigns abundance as if they were made before-hand, and ascribes many things to other Authors which they never so much as once thought of. But,

[Page 10] So Holinshed being afraid to venture himself in the Lists, substitutes one Nicholus Ad [...]ms a Petti [...]ogger in his Place, whose Arguments he pretends only to repeat, without adding any thing of his own. But Holinshed ought to have remembred that he is no less a Cheat who makes use of Counterfeit Writings, than he who writes them himself; nor is he an honester Man who puts off false Money, than he that coins it. For my own part, in refuting of Holinshed, whom I chuse to answer instead of all the rest, because he hath collected all their Arguments together, I shall only say by way of Preface, that I will bring nothing to strengthen our Plea from any Scots Author, but what I design to prove, I take from English Monuments and Histories, except when the plain Truth of the History is industriously perverted by this Man; and in that Case I am sometimes forc'd to bring things from our own Writers, to give Light to the Point of History: And as I doubt not to make this Author's Malice and Ignorance appear to the View of the World, neither do I refuse any Man for a Judg▪ who is not altogether void of Judg­ment himself.

CHAP. II.
The Definition and Form of Homage.

THE State of the Question is this, Whether the Kingdom of Scotland be a Fee-Liege of the Kingdom of England, and whether the King of Scotland owes, or ever did pay Homage to the King of England upon that Account. The Affirmative is stifly maintain'd by all the English. The Scots not contenting themselves with the bare Ne­gative, though that be sufficient in Law, without any thing else, so long as the Plain­tiffs don't prove their Point, have both their own Arguments, the likelihood of things past, and also the Presumption of Law on their side, seeing they have been in Pos­session of their Liberty now for three Ages, even by the Confession of the English them­selves; and therefore except the Plaintiffs do clearly make good their Plea, they must of necessity yield the Cause. But that we may not proceed in unknown Paths, we must enquire what this Homage is, whence it had its Rise, what is its Form, and when it came first in Use.

This Homage then is a Profession of Fealty, which the Vassal is obliged to make unto his Lord [Page 12] by Oath, upon the Account of some Benefit re­ceived. If we examine the Terms of this Definition, it will appear that Homage and Fealty are not the same: For Fealty is owing during Life, but Homage is only perform'd once; Neither is there any Author, who mentions the Swearing of Fealty oftener than once, during the Life of the Lord or Vassal. It is said also in the Definition [ which the Vassal is obliged to make unto his Lord] be­cause there is a certain Neighbourly Fealty, when Men are bound to one another by Mu­tual Oath and Covenant; but this is not the Fealty here mentioned, that being only such whereby the Vassal is obliged to defend the Person, Fame, Dignity, and Fortune of his Lord, and to procure and promote his Ad­vantage as much as he can. Nor is this a simple Obligation, but there is a Cause an­nex'd, viz. on the Account of a Benefit receiv'd; so that tho there should happen an Obli­gation to Fealty by an Oath, except the Vas­sal receive a Benefit from the Lord upon that Account, it is not called Homage, For those things, as I said, are Relatives, and the one cannot be understood without the o­ther, I mean a Fee, or Benefit and Homage: for neither can there be a Fee without Fe­alty and the Profession of it, nor Homage without an Antecedent Benefit. I said a Profession of Fealty by Oath, because a simple [Page 13] Promise was not sufficient, and therefore the Interposition of an Oath was necessary, for without that, it is not call'd Homage, although the [...]Obligation of Fealty be per­manent. There was a double Form of Oath us'd formerly in Fees, and I shall by and by exhibit that which is in Practice now.

The Etymology of this Word is easy; for Hominium or Homagium, is the Action or Profession of a Man: and the Doing of Ho­mage is no other than a Man's Professing him­self to be his Lord's Man, and Promising to perfor [...] his Military Service faithfully when re­quired, and sometimes also when he is not requi­red; for it is Fidelity alone which is per­form'd and required in those Feudal Actions.

I know that most Learned Men are of a different Opinion, and distinguish Homage from Fealty thus; that the former is trans­acted with more Veneration than the latter, that so they may make the Oath of Homage distinct from that of Fealty; and thus they require two Oaths, whereas there is only one needful in Law. But by their leave I make bold to say, it is not so; for there was only one Oath, the Form of which was two­fold in Law, and we don't read that any Man did ever in that Case take two Oaths. I confess indeed, that among different Nati­ons this Oath was differently administred, in some with more, and in others with less [Page 14] Veneration, but so as it was always perfor­med with Reverence. For Rollo D. of Nor­mandy, when he received Neustria from Charles the Grosse in Fee, being [...] never requir'd by any Christian Prince but the Pope, except that the King of Bohemia, when he was first created by the Emperor, did him Homage by prostrating himself at his Feet Albert. Crants. Lib. 7. Vandaliae, Cap. 31.. In others, Bodinus says, that this is observed in performing Homage, that if any Prince who is not a Subject be obliged to do Homage▪ and performs it with his Hands stretch'd out in the Posture of a Sup­plicant, and put betwixt those of his Lord, he swears Fealty to him in these Words, IN being present become Liege-man to Prince R. on Account of such a Fee which I hold of him, and for that Cause I promise Fealty, to him a­gainst All Men. But if he be a Vassal and Subject, then he is obliged to lay aside his [Page 15] [...]rms, his Hat, his Cloak, Spurs and Gloves, and upon his bended Knees put his Hands in [...]orm of a Supplicant, betwixt those of the Prince o [...] his Proxy, and swear Fealty in the [...]ame Words: So far [...] But in pay­ing Homage to Lords, who are below [...]he Dignity of Princes, there is less Veneration [...]s'd, so that it's sufficient if one stand in [...] [...]everend Posture however, and desire In­ [...]vestitute, or the Renovation of it with all Humility, a [...] we express it. Amongst [...]he Spaniards, the Kissing of the Hand alone was reckon'd enough for Homage, according to Roderick of Toled [...] Lib. 5. Cap. 25. de Rebus Hispaniae.. So that the [...]orm thereof depends on the different Way and Customs of each Nation. Fealty then is that Obligation by which the V [...]ssal is bound to his Lord, and Homage is the Swearing of that Ob­ligation. Nor is this overthrown by what is writ concerning the Controversy betwixt the Emperor Frederick [...]. and Pope Adrian IV. For when the Emperor requir'd that the Bishops should swear Fealty to him as was meet, which was nothing else but doing him Homage, the Pope opposed it, as ap­pears by his Letter to Frederick [...]devi­cus, Lib. 2., in which that wretched Pope pleads, that his Ecclesi­asticks should be exempted from doing Homage to the Emperor: What becomes, says he to the Emperor, of the Fealty which you have promised and sworn to St. Peter [Page 16] and Us? how can you observe it when you require Homage from those who are Gods, and are call'd the Sons of the most High, (meaning his Bishops) when you demand Fealty of them, and enclose their Sacred Hands betwixt yours? These things, I say, make nothing a­gainst my Opinion of Homage, seeing it's ap­parent from thence, that Fealty may be per­form'd without Homage; and in that very Controversy which was finished by a Treaty, it was agreed, that the Order of Bishops should be exempted from Homage, but not from Fealty▪ which was no otherwise than to promise Fealty in apt words without swear­ing it; and from that Time to this very Day, Bishops were accustomed both to pro­mise and perform Fealty to their Princes, but not obliged to swear it, as in our Time they swear only to the Pope as their Lord: but at what time Fee or Homage began to come in use, I shall explain in the first Propositi­on following.

CHAP. III.
At what time Homage began to be known in the World.

TO return to my purpose, and that the whole Matter may be set in a due Light, I shall premise four or five general Propositions, that by considering them and the Arguments brought in this Answer, the Truth of the whole Question may appear even to the most unlearned, and afterwards I shall take Holinshed's Arguments and Proofs to task.

Then let this be laid down as the first Ge­neral Proposition and Rule, That before Charlemain's Time, or the Year of Christ 800, the Name of Fee-Liege, Homage or Supe­riority were unknown to the World; and Peter Rebuff a most acute Lawyer, in his Declaration of Fees, says, that the very Name of Fee or Feu was unknown, until the Books concerning the use of Fees were publish'd, which happened in 1170. But his Opinion does not at all please me, for although the Name did not come to us before the publishing of those Books, I am of the Mind, that it was of an older Date, first, amongst the Lombards, and then in France: [Page 18] for Charles the Great after he had put an end to his many great and important Wars, grow­ing Old, began to distribute the Countries which he had conquered amongst his deserv­ing Souldiers; to one a Country, to ano­ther a Town, to a Third a Farm, reserving to himself a Claim of Fealty; and they were to maintain the Charge of the War by their Product, and to take care that the Product might be sufficient for that end, and thus it came on by Degrees: but the Names of Clients, Vassals, and those of an inferior Or­der as Vavasors and Vavasins, were scarcely heard of in this Age; nor before those Times, that is to say, about the Year 900, is there any Writer who mentions the Names either of Fee, Vassal or Homage Bern. Gerard. in Charle­main.. Neither was Charles the Great the first who founded Hereditary Fees, nor were they [...] ­steem'd or look'd upon as an inheritance be­fore Hugh Capet's Time, who that he might oblige the Nobility of the Kingdom which he had usurp'd, and assure himself of them for Time to come, made those Temporary Benefits which Charles and his Successors had granted only for a Time, or at most for Life, hereditary to his own Followers, and then Homage began to come in use, and at that time the Names and Foundations of Lords, Vassals, and of Fee it self, which Charlemain had laid, were confirm'd; and this Charle­main [Page 19] died A. C. 813. and Hugh Capet began his Reign Anno 944.

In Spain the Name of Homage and Superi­ority, began to take place about this very Time; for Sancius, Son to Ranimirus, re­ceived both Homage and Tribute from Gon­disalvus, who reign'd beyond the River Do­rium. Nor is there any Spanish Writer who makes mention of Homage before this Time.

As to what concerns Britain, it was late [...] before this Feudal Law and those Names came hither, and that only from France and along with the Conqueror, as I am apt to conjecture; yet our Authors alledg that Homage was first mention'd in Athelstan's Reign: But the Antient English Laws be­fore his Time, which were printed at Lon­don by Iohn Day, in 1568. under the Title of [...] make no mention of Superi­ority; and if the English have any thing which they can produce for themselves, or in Confirmation of their Opinion, I de­sire them to name me any one Writer, who before that time makes the least mention of Fee or Homage. I take no notice, as I told them, of the mention of Fealty, since that may be neighbourly, and us'd amongst Friends and Confederates, neither indeed will they find it mentioned in that sense; and if the Names of Fee and Homage were not known to the World till that Time, with what [Page 20] Countenance can the English Writers, and chiefly Holinshed, affirm, that Brutus divided the Island of Britain, which was so call'd from himself, amongst his three Sons, Lo­crinus, Camber and Albanactus, but reserv'd the Superiority of the whole to his first born Locrinus, seeing the Names of Superiority, Fee, or Homage, were not publickly used for 900 Years or more after Christ, nor for any thing I know read in any Author before that Time? Brutus was before Charlemain almost 2000 Years, and therefore to ascribe that to Brutus, which had not a Being in Na­ture till almost 2000 Years after him, is perfectly to impose upon Mankind. If in Iustinian's Time, which was about the Year 500, there had been any mention of Homage, Superiority or Fee, it would never have been omitted by the famous Lawyers of that Age. As for that fictitious History of Brutus, it is exposed to ridicule and hissing by our Bucha­nan; and that I may speak softly for fear of offending those that hear me, it is esteem'd a Milesian Fable by Polydore Virgil, a most Learned English Historian, and therefore he calls it a new History lately dropt down from the Clouds, and unknown to all the Antients till Geffrey of Monmouth's Time, of whom afterwards.

CHAP. IV.
At what Time Kings began to reign over that part of Britain which was a Roman Pro­vince.

THE second Proposition is this, That before the departure of Aetius the Roman Legat from the Province of Britain, which happened in the Time of Arcadius and Honorius, there was no King over all that part of Britain which was a Roman Pro­vince; nay, I affirm, that even after his de­parture there was no certain nor stable Form of a Kingdom in the same, until the Con­junction of the Saxon Heptarchy, which fell out about 835, in the Time of King Egbert; and what Reasons I have for this Assertion, I shall by and by declare.

Iulius Caesar (whom Tacitus deservedly calls a very great Author) was the first who entred Britain; and as a Person who loved Glory, and that he might not be any way wanting to himself on that Head, he testifies that he had search'd diligently into the Anti­quity of the Nation which he had con­quered, but could never find by what or how great People it was inhabited, nor learn their manner of War, or by what Customs [Page 22] they liv'd Lib. 4. of his Com­mentaries.: and afterwards he asserts, that the innermost Parts of the Island were inha­bited by those who call themselves Natives by Tradition, but the Maritime Places were Possessed by those who had come over from Belgium, either to make War or get Boo­ty Lib. 5. of his [...].. So that if either Cassibelan or Cassiv [...]lan, or any other had at that Time govern'd all Britain, as is feign'd by those Trifle [...]s, Caesar would never have omitted it, because it had been more for his Fame and Glory to have fought with the Monarch of all Britain, than with the petty Princes of one Town or Province, or at least he would have some where made mention of this Monarch of all Britain. But Caesar speaks of four Kings in Kent it self, which is but a Corner of Eng­land; and besides those he mentions King Imanuentius, and Mandubratius, and that al­most every City had its own King, of whom most part sent Ambassadors to him for Peace before he came over, than which there can be nothing more contradictory to Britain's being then one entire Kingdom. And Caesar himself makes no mention of Cass [...]belan, ex­cept in his second Expedition, neither does he then dignify him with the Title of King: He does also take notice of his having made continual War with other Cities before his Arrival, and describes his Boundaries. Nay, [...]ede an Englishman (and the only antient [Page 23] Writer that they have) does not call Cassibe­lan a King, but General of the Army, and says, that he only commanded over one City which was taken by Caesar. However it appears from both Histories, that he was a prudent Person, and entrusted with the Management of the War against the Romans by the other Cities and petty Princes. Ta­citus in the Life of Iulius Agricola, who also was his Father-in-Law, and went to and again through the Heart of Britain for eight Years Time together with his Forces, and could not possibly be ignorant of the Truth, does yet more plainly make for us. Of old, says he, before the Arrival of the Dictator, the Bri­tains were govern'd by Kings, but now they are broken into Factions and Parties by their Princes; nor is there any thing of more advan­tage to us against those most valiant Nations, than that they don't consult together: for the Union of two or three Cities to withstand the common Danger is very Rare, so that while they fight singly, all of them are conquered. But if any one King had been set over them all, he might both have obliged them to hold pub­lick Meetings to withstand the common Danger, and have prevented the fighting of single Cities by themselves. And a little af­ter he adds, When the Britains bewail their Servit [...]de, they complain that formerly they had each of them their particular Kings, but that [Page 24] now they have two impos'd over them, viz. the LE­GAT who preys on their Lives, and the PROCTOR or Questor who seizes their Estates. These things sufficiently prove, there was not any one Man who at that time commanded over all Britain, but that their condition was the same with their neighbouring Country of Ireland, which Tacitus affirms to have been then also govern'd by many little Princes, as it was by five Kings when it submitted to the English. If in Kent alone there were four Kings, how many must we allow to all Bri­tain? for both the Silures and the Brigantes had their own Kings, as appears from Taci­tus; and Claudius Caesar triumph'd over Ge­thus King of Orkney. In France there were as many Kings as Provinces, as is manifest from Caesar; and that it was the like in Spain appears from Livy. V [...]piscus gives an ac­count of nine Kings in Germany, who con­ven'd to meet Probus Caesar Fl. Vo­pisc. in vi­ta Probi.. In Illyrium there were five, and in Greece there were seventy Kings who combin'd in the War a­gainst Troy Dictys Cretensis. Whence it is so much the more to be wondered at, what this Man means to assert so rashly, that the Britains had a form of Government different from other Nations, and that one Man reigned over the whole. What is writ concerning Lucius King of the Brittons or Britains, that he was the first who embraced the Christian [Page 25] Religion, I am of Opinion, that he was not a Britain, or at least not King of all Bri­tain, and that that Epistle of Pope [...] to Lucius is a Counterfeit; for none of the Roman Pontiss, either at that Time or for some Ages after, before the Emperor Phocas who reign'd in 602, did ever arro­gate the Name of Pope to themselves; and the very Name Lucius is a Roman, not a British Name. It's certain that none of the Antients except Bede, make any mention of this Lucius, and neither does his Com­putation agree with the true Chronology; for that Epistle of Eleutherius, printed at London, bears date in the Year of Christ 169, at which Time Eleutherius was not Bishop or Pontif of Rome: but according to Bede, those things were transacted be­twixt Lucius and Eleutherius in the Year 156, and so there is the Difference of thirteen Years betwixt the Calculations. To which may be added, that Eleutherius in his Epistle takes notice, that Lucius and the Nobles of Britain desired that he would transmit the Roman Laws to them, that they might make use of them; but this is not very probable that any Nation would have born with the change of their Antient Laws: and moreover, when that Letter was writ, Britain was a Roman Province, and from the Time that it became such, which was [Page 26] 140 Years before, had already received the Roman Laws: for the Romans imposed their own Laws upon their Provinces, and abolish'd their former Institutions. I shall only bring one Example from Caesar. Lib. 7. where Critognatus aggravating the severity of the Roman Government, says, if those things which are done in remote Nations be not known, look but into the neigh­bouring Country of Gallia, which being reduced to a Province, their Laws and Customs are chang'd, they are subjected to Roman Officers, and oppress'd with perpe­tual Servitude. But let us consider what Eleutherius answers, he says, that it was al­ways in his Power to reject the Roman and Imperial Laws: Now if this could be born with in him who was a Roman Subject, and also a Christian Bishop, let others judg; certainly his calling Lucius God's Vicege­rent in his own Kingdom, does not agree well with the Roman Authority, of which be ought to have been very tenacious. There are some places of Scripture mentioned in that Epistle, which are not very well accom­modated to the Matter in Hand; and in fine, the whole Letter savours nothing of the Learning of that Age. These are the Things which occasion my doubts of the Truth of that Epistle; neither is Bede a sufficient Witness for things done 600 Years be­fore [Page 27] his Time. Yet it may be that the Ro­mans then suffered some petty Princes to enjoy the Royal Name, as Tacitus writes concerning King Cogidunus, who he affirms was left King by the Romans, not to govern, but that according to the antient and long received Custom of the Romans, they might have Instruments of Servitude, and amongst those Kings as well as others. Moreover, in what part of Britain this Lu­cius did reign, or how far his Command ex­tended, Writers don't say, nor does it ap­pear more that he was King of Britain, than that he was King of Scotland, which was then part of Britain: and therefore it's plain that the Romans had petty Princes in this Island, who might serve them as Instruments of Servitude; but there was no Man in­trusted with the Government of the whole Island, or that had Authority to assemble the People.

Tacitus says, that Caratacus and Galganus were Generals who excell'd in Nobility and Power, yet does not give them the Name of Kings, except that in one place he calls Caratacus King of the Silures, but not King of Britain, as Cartismandua reign'd over the Brigantes; but from both of them it's apparent enough that the Brigantes, Silu­res and Iugani had each of them their own Kings.

[Page 28]But that this whole Matter may be the more easily understood; let us examine what was the Roman way of governing a Province, and at what time Britain became a Roman Province. As to their way of Government, it is certain, that when the Romans had subdued a Country, they us'd to exauctorate the former Magistrates, re­duce the Country into the Form of a Pro­vince, and substitute new Roman Magi­gistrates, viz. a Pr [...]etor and Questor, the one to administer Justice to those of the Province, and command the Army, and the other to gather in the Tribute; so that there was no Province which did not pay Tribute to the Romans, and obey their Magistrates, except that some Cities, for their former Services to them, were exemp­ted from Taxes and Tributes, and left in the Enjoyment of their Antient Laws: And so it was as to Kings, whose Realms they us'd to leave free on that same Account, and then they were called the Roman Asso­ciates: for as Caesar testifies elsewhere, Fa­bius overcame the Arverni and Rhuteni; but the Romans pardon'd them, and did not re­duce them into the Form of a Province. But when either a Country or Kingdom was reduc'd into a Province, first they took away their Kings, that they might have no General to head a Rebellion, then they ap­pointed [Page 29] a Praetor or Praeses, who had the sole Command; his Badges were six Fasces, or Bundles of Rods, with Axes; and Lictors, or Serjeants went before him: The Praetor summon'd Courts and Conventions, decided private Causes, or delegated others to do it; he commanded the Army which was as­sign'd him for Defence of the Province, rais'd new Troops, casheer'd others, and had the Administration of all things relating to Peace and War. The Questor was over the Tribute, Imposts and Customs, whe­ther of Money or Provisions, and kept the Publick Accounts, as I formerly observed from Tacitus: Neither was there any thing more unusual in a Province than a King, nor a greater sign of Rebellion, than for those of a Province to set a King over them­selves, as we shall afterwards show in Caran­tius. Nor could those of a Province obey a Roman Legat and a King at the same time, for the Power of the one did wholly abolish the Power of the other; for of what use could a King be without Power or Command, Army, Jurisdiction, Tribute, Customs, or Authority over the Provinci­als? Nor is it likely that the King would obey the Legat, who was at that time his Superior, or that the Legat would obey the King. Those who would inform themselves further concerning the Antient Law of [Page 30] Provinces, may read Charles Sigoni [...]s, who hath published a particular Treatise on that Subject, and they will find that I have ad­vanc'd nothing but Truth.

It remains that I show at what time Bri­tain was reduc'd into a Roman Province. Some ascribe it to Caesar the Dictator, as the first who subdued Britain by Arms, made it Tributary to the Romans, and demanded Hostages: Yet seeing he did not enter into the furthermost Parts of the Island, but re­turn'd again to France, he seems rather to have pointed out than subdued Britain for his Successors. Tacitus says, That Legions and Auxiliaries were brought over by Cla [...] ­dius, and that then the People were subdued, their Kings made Captives; and the first Consulat establish'd in the Person of A. Pla [...] ­tius, 140 Years before the Reign of this Lucius. So that it seems altogether mon­strous to imagine, that the Britains enjoy­ed their own Laws and Kings in the Time of Eleutherius; and Tacitus sets down the Number of the other Governours of Bri­tain to his own Time, that is to say, till Domitian's Reign. Certainly Claudius did so please himself with this Conquest, that he led the British Kings in Triumph, and took care to have his Son saluted by the Name of Britanni [...]ns. I have perhaps been too prolix upon those Things, but I was [Page 31] willing to undeceive our Neighbours as to their Opinion, that Britain, though reduc'd to the Form of a Province, enjoy'd its own Laws and Kings, who were, according to this vain Conceit, endowed with Soveraign Authority; and therefore I conclude it to be highly improbable, that during the Time of the Romans in this Island, any one King had the Government of the Provin­cial Britains. Gildas, whose Credit is most esteem'd by Polydore Virgil, and Bede, the one a Britain, and the other an Englishman, are very full in their Evidence for this Matter; for Gildas affirms, that the British Govern­ment was administred by their own Coun­trymen before the coming of the Romans, but makes no mention of any Kings. Next, he says, that the Island was govern'd by the Romans, whom he calls Transmarine Kings; and blaming the Cowardice of the Britains, he says, that the Romans brought Laws into the Island, and subdued the unwarlike and perfidious Nation, not so much by Arms and Engines, as they did others, but by meer Threatnings and Menaces of Punishment; and he describes their Cowardliness so gra­phically, that he says, the Romans at their go­ing away, set some of the Natives over them, who to use his own Words, were to make the Whip cleave to their Backs, and the Yoke to their Necks, that so they might chastise [Page 32] the deceitful Nation; not so much by Mili­tary Force, as by Rods. Bede acknow­ledges that Britain was unknown and inac­cessible to the Romans before Caius Caesar's Time: so that neither while the Roman Empire stood, nor before Caesar, was there any King over all Britain, or any who go­vern'd that part of it, which was not subject to the Scots and Picts. Bede writes, that the Romans reign'd in Britain 470 Years, from the Time that Iulius Caesar entred the Island; but that any other reign'd in their Province during that Time, there's no pro­bable Reason to be alledged for it. But when the Roman Power declin'd, and that the Britains were not able of themselves to withstand the Invasions of the Scots and Picts, they begg'd Assistance from the Ro­mans, with lamentable Complaints, but in vain. So that being rejected, they chose, in a tumultuary manner, one of the Antient British Blood named Vortigern, whom they called Captain, or King, for I find him un­der both those Titles; and after him Aureli­us Ambrosius, who was the only One of the Roman Stock left in Britain. Vortigern perceiving that he had not Strength enough of his own to oppose his Enemies, per­swaded the Britains, who were then at a Consult about their Common Safety, to hire Saxon Auxiliaries, which issued in their [Page 33] Destruction; for when the Saxons, who came at first only with three Ships, observ'd the Fruitfulness of the Island, and the cow­ardly Temper of the Inhabitants, a greater Number followed in 35 Ships, turn'd their Arms against the Britains, and divided all Britain into seven, some say nine King­doms, amongst themselves; From that Time, which was in the Year of Christ 456, or ac­cording to others, 459, that Hengist arriv'd in Britain, until King Egbert's Reign, un­der whom the seven Kingdoms were United, It's certain, that there was no King who reign'd over all Britain; for what's writ of King Constantine, and the Auxiliaries which came from Britany in France, are meer Fables: Nor does Bede and Gildas, the Historians of those Times, make any mention of them. But to what End is all this Discourse, may some say? Or what relation have those things to the Homage which was owing, and perform'd by the Kings of Scots? I answer, very much; for if there was not at that Time one King over that Part of Britain, which was a Roman Province, but either none at all, or more than one, it must neces­sarily make out what we affirm, viz. that there was no Homage due, during that tract of Time, from the King of Scots, seeing there was no other to whom it could be due, nor no Fealty sworn, when there was none [Page 34] to whom it could be sworn; for to suppose that it was perform'd to all of them toge­ther, is absurd. But if any Body object, that by this Proposition I derogate from the Credit of the whole English History, I would pray him to suspend his Judgment, until he hath also perus'd the following Pro­position, and compar'd it with that which went before.

CHAP. V.
That the English have no certain History before the Conquest, except those things which are related by the Roman Writers, and Gildas or Bede.

THIS is the third Proposition; That most of what we find in the English History before the Conquest is vain and trifling, and almost all of it uncertain, ex­cept what is writ by the Roman Historians, and Gildas or Bede; and especially what is said concerning Brutus, C [...]ssibelan and Ar­thur, is wholly vain and deserves no Credit. For the Original of Britain, and the first Transactions of the Inhabitants, lies buried in a greater obscurity than that of the Cim­merian Darkness. Caesar testifies, that there were no Monuments, nor Memorials of An­tiquity [Page 35] in that part of Britain which he saw, though it was the chief Part then, as it is still, both for the Number and Wealth of the Inhabitants. But amongst those who inhabited the Inland Parts, and were nothing so cultivate, it was far less to be expected: so that when he enquired at them, concerning the Original of their Nation, and the first Inhabitants of the Island; he tells us, that he could learn nothing of cer­tainty Lib. 4. and 5.. But Tacitus In vit [...] Agricol [...] (whose Father-in-Law Agricola entred into the innermost Parts of Britain, search'd it thorowly for eight Years Time, and from whom nothing could be hid, because of his Authority) is more express for us; and says, that as to what sort of People did first possess Britain, the Inhabitants, like other Barbarians, could give but very little Account. Who then can bear with Geffrey of Monmouth, a most impertinent Trifler, as the English them­selves call him; who forms such a distinct Story concerning Brutus his Grand-father, Great-grand-fathers, Son's Mother and Off­spring, and in a word, his whole Pedigree, and describes their Names, Affairs, Life and Death, though above twenty Ages before himself, as accurately as if he had been their Fellow-Citizen, or writ his History in their own Time; though he did not begin the same until the Year 1150, or thereabouts? [Page 36] And whereas Caesar testifies, that there were no Memorials of things past kept in Britain; and that the Antiquity of that Nation was altogether unknown: Yet Geffrey Lib. 4. c. 1. relates, that when Caesar came to the opposite Shore of the Morini, saw the Island, ask'd who the Inhabitants were, and understood the Name of the Kingdom and People, by Her­cules, says he, they the Britains, and we Romans, are of the same Original. For Aeneas after the Destruction of Troy, was our Founder; and Brutus begotten by Silvi­us, Son to Ascanius, and Grandson to Aeneas, was theirs; but certainly they know no­thing of Warfare: and abundance more which deserves rather to be entertain'd with Laughter and Scorn than confuted, seeing they do so plainly contradict Caesar's own words. I submit it then to the Judgment of the Candid Reader, what Evidence either the Britains or English can produce for those things. It is certain that there can be no preservation of the Memory of things past, nor continuation of the remembrance of things present, without the help of Letters, seeing the Memory of Man is terminated by the space of one Age. But it is evident from T [...]itus, that there was no use of Letters in Britain before Caesar; for he relates that in the Time of his Father-in-Law Iulius Agri­cola, who was Domit [...]an's Legat in Britain, [Page 37] the British Youth began to be instructed in Roman Letters, (as the Americans are now by the Assistance of the Spaniards) that they excell'd in the same, and that Agricola used to prefer their Wits to those of the Gauls, because they studied Eloquence: and therefore before that time, viz. the Year of Christ 83, when Domitian began to reign, it's apparent enough, that there were no Letters nor Memorials of things past in Bri­tain. But some may object, that although the Romans wrote nothing concerning Bri­tish Affairs, yet there were many British Writers, who it's probable would not have left themselves destitute of some Monuments or Memorials of their own Affairs: I an­swer, how could they continue their Histo­ry, or by what Characters did they write it; for the Latin Letters had not then reach'd them, and they were ignorant of the Greek for many Ages after. But Gildas shall an­swer this Question for me, who is the eldest of all the British Writers, was born in 498, three Years before Arthur if there was any such Person; and wrote about 540, af­ter the Ruin and Dissolution of the British Kingdom: and when he bewails the Sub­version of his Country by the Saxons, he testifies, that there were no Monuments of the British Writers left, or if there were any, that they were either burnt by the E­nemy, [Page 38] or dispers'd and lost by the Exile of his Countrymen, so that there were none of them to be seen in his Time: Here he plainly distinguishes betwixt these two, either that the British Historians left no Monuments behind them, which is most likely, or that they were destroyed by the Fury of the E­nemy. Whence then can those numerous Victories, and illustrious Actions of the Britains be instructed, when all Authors do unanimously call them a cowardly and per­fidious Nation? I believe that it happened to them as it did to the Holy Relicks, for about 1000 Years after Christ's Passion, all the Parts of the Cross on which he suffered, as also the Column, and other Relicks now in Esteem, were found in places far distant from one another; and if any Body ask how they could come thither, they forth­with have recourse to Miracles, by which they confirm the Matter. Polydore Virgil, a Modern Writer, testifies the same Thing, as having with extraordinary Care, search'd into all the Writings of the Antient Bri­tains, and for that end unlock'd all the Ca­binets and Records of Monasteries, and that by Henry the 8th's Command, which no Man did ever neglect with Impunity. This Au­thor then speaking of the History of the Britains, affirms, that the whole is full of Obscurity, and that he had no leader whom [Page 39] he could follow. But Geffrey of Monmouth, and our Holinshed reckon up Fathers and Grand-fathers, and not only deduce the whole Series from the Egg with the double Yolk, the celebrated Trojan War, but from a much older Period, viz. from Gog and Magog, and old Father Dis, lest they should come short of the Gauls; and in fine bring it down from the Time of the Gigantick Duels which they would fix as the Poll-Star of the British History. So much concerning Gildas. We shall touch on Geffrey of Mon­mouth afterwards, when we come to his Ar­thur. After Gildas comes Bede, who brings down his History as far as 734, almost to the Reign of Ceol Wulphus King of the West Saxons: His Credit I shall every where pre­serve entire, to let it be seen that I deal fairly with Holinshed; From his Death, or rather from the End of his History, which falls about 734, to the Time of Henry I, who began his Reign in 1110, I maintain that the English have no certain History nor Writer, except the Fragment of Ethelverd who flourished about 1090, be reckon'd an History; for I don't acknowledg the Fragment of Ingulphus, who preceded E­thelverd twenty Years, as an History; and Asserius Menevensis wrote only concerning the Transactions of his own King Alfred. But lest I should seem to have affirm'd any [Page 40] thing rashly, I shall bring English Historians to witness this Matter. William of Malms­bury Lib. 1. Fol. 23. says, that all the Memorials of Trans­actions from the Death of Bede, to his own Time, which was in the Reign of Henry I [...] about 1142, were utterly lost; nor was there any who followed that study, or endea­voured to pursue the Thread of the Histo­ry; and one slothful Man being always succeeded by another more slothful, the de­sire of Learning was for a long Time abated in this Island, so that he had no other way to inform himself concerning the Transacti­ons of those Times, but by the discourses of antient Men. And the Author of the Prologue to Malmsbury's first Book, does in­genuously confess, that the History of 225 Years after Bede's Death is intirely wanting: so that even by his Evidence, there is no­thing of certainty to be found in the British History from 734, which was the Year of Bede's Death, to the Year 957, but all things were founded upon the Rumours of antient Men, and it may be old Wives Fa­bles, which being collected together into one Book, and put in a Latin Dress, made up as it were the shadow of a History, from whence Holinshed does nevertheless bring most certain Arguments to establish his ficti­tious Homage. Florence of Worcester agrees in most things with Malmsbury, for they [Page 41] were Contemporary. He says, That after Bede's Death the English History ceas'd, but that for his own part he had left things to Posterity, either as he found them in the Text of the English Chronicles, or as he had them from the Relations of Men wor­thy of Credit, or heard and saw them him­self. As to what concerns the Text of the English Chronicles, he mentions them that he may deceive his Reader with the greater Facility; for if there was any Chronicle of those Times, seeing Florence liv'd about the Year 1148, they must still remain in the Archives, which hitherto no English Au­thor did ever alledg, or hath been able to demonstrate; for that Chronicle, as is ob­serv'd by the Prologue, did only set down the Number of Years: And as to those things which he wrote either from the Rela­tions of Persons worthy of Credit, or what he heard himself as certain Truths, neither those things which are related by credible Persons, nor such as one may think of un­doubted Verity, are sufficient to biass any Man to the Prejudice or Injury of those against whom they are related, except he produce his Authors, that so there may be room for our Objections against them, as is usual against the most legal Witnesses; and that we have enough of rational Grounds for Objections, no Man of Candor who [Page 42] reads these things can so much as doubt. The Scope of the whole is this, that it may be manifest to all Men, that there is no per­fect nor Authentick English History, and that there is no Authority nor certain Proof to be had from thence, as to matters of Moment, before Henry the second's Time, when Au­thors began to commit publick Transactions to Writing, except what is to be found in Gildas, Bede, and Ethelverd above mentioned. But to come to the matter in Hand, if the English can produce me one approved Writer, even of their own Countrymen, who compos'd a History from the Time of Bede to that of Henry the second, I shall willing­ly give Ground, and yield this Proposition. They who would be further inform'd, as to the uncertainty of the English History, may read the Prologue to Malmsbury's first Book, concerning the Lives of the English Bishops, with the Prologue to Walsingham's History, and they will be obliged to confess, that I have neither asserted any thing of my own, nor relied upon the Authority of any Scots­man: and therefore if there is nothing of this fictitious Homage to be found in Caesar or Tacitus, nor in Gildas and Bede who came after them, and that the rest of the History is wanting, and that there is no other Au­thor but Bede, who writes of the English Saxons and their Affairs, it must necessarily [Page 43] follow, that whatever things were writ con­cerning this Homage before the Conquest, may safely be denied without hazarding our Eternal Salvation; for we must not be rash in believing Authors, who neither saw what they write themselves, nor can bring any approved Historians to vouch what they say; as for Example, Matthew of Westmin­ster, and Florence of Worcester, do both write of things before our Saviour's Birth: but if they neither produce Witness, Au­thor nor Surety for their Fidelity, I don't see why we ought to believe them: Nor is the bare Credit of an Historian sufficient for those things which were before his own Time, if he did not read them in other Hi­storians, but had them only from the Re­lations of credible Persons; for in that Case the Reader must judg what is to be believ'd, and what not.

It's a general and grievous Complaint a­mongst the English, that hitherto they have no Historian of Worth, of which they al­ledg this to be the Cause, that there is no Reward propos'd, answerable to the Toil and Fatigue The Pro­logue to Thomas Walsing­ham.: But in my Opinion they are much mistaken, and assign that as the Cause, which is none at all; for there is no Place where Vertue and Learning is more bountifully rewarded than in England, and consequently no Nation which abounds [Page 44] more with Learned Men. But they have such Historians as they covet and desire, viz. such as pursue Fables instead of Truth; for they cannot endure to have their Histories purg'd of such: Hence it comes to pass, that no Learned Man attempts it, because he sees that he must either offend the People, or lose his Preferment and Dignity, if he o­mit any of Geffrey's Fables, but those are not the Laws of History: For he who is engag'd in such a Work, ought to observe two things; first, That he write nothing that is false, and next that he omit no part of the Truth. Polydore Virgil endeavoured to rid his History of those Milesian Tales, and old Wives Fables, but he durst not o­penly detract from them, though he does manifestly distinguish his History from that new one of the Babler Geffrey of Monmouth; yet we see he is in no Esteem amongst the English, though he be their only Historian, who has writ with any Judgment: yet in many places he deals unfairly with us, which he does tacitly acknowledg himself, when he says, that he only repeats what others have writ, but abstains prudently from making any Judgment of his own.

CHAP. VI.
That all the Witnesses brought for the Proof of this Homage are suspected.

THE fourth Proposition is concerning the Nature of the Evidence, which Holinshed makes use of in his virulent In­vective, and of those which are also brought by other English Historians. That sort of Evidence is chargeable with three Faults; First, That it is Monkish; Secondly, That it is Domestick; And in the third Place, that it is the Testimony of one Enemy a­gainst another, as the Times then were. As for the Testimony of Monks it is justly re­jected; for Monks being as it were dead to the World, and consecrated to Christ alone, they have no legal Right of giving Evidence: for the business of Monks is not to teach, but to mourn, and they are commanded to abstain from all secular Affairs; neither can they exercise the Office of a Clergyman or Scrivener, confirm the publick Faith, or draw up any publick Act to which Credit may be given; but on the contrary, the Title in the Canon Law does expresly enjoin them not to concern themselves with secu­lar Affairs: They cannot be Judges in Tem­poral [Page 46] Concerns, nor so much as Witnesses seeing they are accounted as dead, and the Voice of Monks is reckoned ghastly. And therefore I say, that if they ought to lead a mournful and folitary Life in their Mo­nasteries, and to abstain altogether from se­cular Affairs, certainly it's very seldom, if ever, that we ought to trust them in publick Affairs, seeing they are not competent Judg­es concerning them. For it is not very pro­bable that either the Secrets of Princes, or things belonging to the State, were ever communicated or imparted to them any o­therwise than by common Report, seeing they keep at the greatest distance imaginable from all manner of Action, and do often­times embrace things doubtful as certain, and Fictions for matter of Fact: and there­fore this feigned Homage must of necessity fall to the Ground, for which there's no better Evidence than that of a Monk; for it will not be admitted as a good Conclusion, that because a Monk says so, therefore it is true. This is certainly the common Opi­nion of all the Learned, that Monks are not to be received as Evidence, especially in great Matters, and such as have no relation to the Monastical State and way of Living, which they themselves did not see, but only had them by the Relations of such as they thought credible Persons. It may be they [Page 47] took notice of Victories and the times of War, but they were altogether uncertain as to the Conditions of Peace, Circumstances and Causes of Things, Agreements betwixt Princes, and what was done in Publick and Private amongst Foreign Nations.

But Holinshed will object, that this is not the Testimony of one Monk, but of all of them that ever conveyed to us the History of things past. I answer, that this I can deny if an equal Interpretation be allowed me, but however I will grant it; Yet this must be confessed, that almost all of those who wrote the English History till within this hundred Years were Monks, and followed whatever they found in former Histories or Manuscripts, lest they should derogate from the Honour of their Country; so that they made it a matter of Religion to vary, in the least from them. As for Example, let Florence of Worcester be supposed the first who wrote of this Homage and Fealty; for I believe he is the very first whom our Neighbours can produce: William of Malms­bury and Henry of Huntington, who were al­most Contemporaries, followed him, as did also Roger Hoveden, Matthew of Paris, Tho­mas Walsingham and Matthew of Westminster, the first leading his followers into an Er­ror, as we see among Cattel, that if one break over the Ditch the rest follow; and [Page 48] conceive that they may lawfully do so when they have the Credit of their Predecessors to support them. To this may be added, that they discourse of things which not only happened before they were born them­selves, but at a much greater distance of Time, when mean while they have nothing to make good their Point. For what is it which others then, and they now, may not forge concerning things which were done many Ages before; if, as we say in Court, they produce no other cause of Knowledg but Hearsay and deceitful Fame, which grows as it runs, and of a Flie becomes an Elephant? Moreover, in those Writings of the Monks, there appears a mighty Igno­rance of our Affairs: and seeing they don't so much as know the Names of our Kings, they can far less be acquainted with their Actions. In the Catalogue of the Kings of Scotland, there's neither Iresius nor Rinaldus to be found: but those Monks write that both of them perform'd Homage to the King of England. That there were then any Kings of Cumberland, Gallowdy, Man, and the Western Islands, was not so much as heard of; yet these good Monks, that they might advance the Glory of their own Nation, were not afraid to leave it to Posterity, that all those Kings or Roytolets, together with Edgar the petty King of Scot­land [Page 49] submitted their Necks to the Collar of [...] K▪ of England, and were tied to his [...] to wa [...]t him over the River; but the [...]orance of Monks is become a Proverb: [...]nd [...] for my own part, I don't think that they understood the name of a Liege-Fee, or what was meant by the Homage which they talk of, seeing that is understood by few but those who have some knowledg of the Law, or Judicial Proceedings. Nor were the Monks free from Perturbations of Mind, and their Passions of Love toward their own Coun­try, and Hatred against their Enemies; and being shut up in Cloysters; they are so much the more obnoxious to their Passions and Aff [...]ctions, from which Historians ought to be freer than others. Nor was there any Or­der of Men who did more hunt after Court-Applause by Flattery and Assentation, than they; as knowing that it was a sure Way of obtaining the Favour of their Princes. Nei­ther must this be past over, that it is no new thing among English Historians to have Fictions for Matters of Fact, supposititious Stories instead of Realities; and some­times true Histories corrupted either by adding or diminishing, as they thought it conducible to the Honour of their Nation. Polidore Virgil is a famous Witness of the former, as to the Counterfeit History of [Page 50] Gildas and others, and the Author of the Prologue to Matthew of Westminster, is Evi­dence for the latter, in those Words; ‘You must not wonder, says he, though you perceive most Authors to be so much in­jur'd as to have their Writings adulterated by the Fraud of Posterity, seeing some Men are come to that height of Impu­dence, that by adding and diminishing, they make any Author, how pious so­ever, to patronize the most execrable Vil­lanies, according as they have a mind to it.’ How easy then was it to insert in those Mon­kish Writings, when they take notice that the K. of Scots did sometimes pay Homage to the K. of England, as the latter did to the K. of France; that the said Homage was paid for the Kingdom of Scotland, as we shall af­terwards explain more at large? Nay, the Truth of the Monastick Writings is in many places questioned by Holinshed himself in his History. We must also consider the Time when those Historians wrote, which was in the Heat of the War, when the Nations were eagerly fighting about this very Ho­mage, viz. in the Reign of Henry the Se­cond. About whose Time liv'd Florence of Worcester, Malmsbury, Huntington and Hovedon; and Thomas Walsingham, and Mat­thew of Westminster, wrote in the very Heat [Page 51] of that bloody War betwixt Edward I, II, and III. and our Kings about this Homage. In which Quarrel, there fell 300000 Men: And who was it that did not at that Time endeavour to maintain the Cause of his P [...]i [...]ce and Country with his utmost Zeal, and labour to make the Equity of the same appear unto all Men; and patroniz'd it not only by Word and Writing, but by Arms? What strange things did the Monks feign a­gainst Henry II. on account of their St. Tho­mas of Canterbury, who was in my Opinion the most villanous of Men? And that they might advance the Reputation of him, and his Ecclesiastical Order, they speak diminu­tively both of the Cause and Power of their own Kings. These things prevail with me, as perhaps they may do with the Learned World, not to be over-credulous in believing what­ever the Monks assert; but that their Testi­monies, which are suspicious enough of themselves, ought to be exactly weigh'd with the Credit of History, and the Probability of the Matters of Fact; as I shall take care to compare them together when they occur, that the impartial Reader may according to his own Candor, judg what is most like to be true. For it is in every Body's Mouth,

[Page 52]Which may be Englished,

We have more to say why we suspect the Evidence of the Monks, when we come to their particular Testimonies.

We object against their Probation in the second place, that it's domestick; and how little Cre [...] is to be given to that sort of E­vidence, the Customs of every Nations, the Law it self, and daily Experience, does suf­ficiently demonstrate. This one thing I affirm, that there's no Nation in Europe which ad­mits of domestick Evidence where either the Wealth or Dignity of the Lord is concerned; it being certain that such kind of Witnesses are every where rejected, except the Matter be done within the Walls of his own House, and so as it cannot be prov'd otherwise, or that they are produc'd against the Lord him­self: and therefore though the Testimony of those Monks might perhaps be taken against their own Prior or Fellow-Monks, as to things done within the Walls of their own Monastry; yet they are not to be admitted as to the Secrets of State, Peace, War, Judg­ment [Page 53] of Courts, or Conditions of Peace, and things of greatest moment. What the Civil Law says concerning domestick Evidence, or the Authority thereof▪ appears plainly by the R [...]script of Valerian and Galien; Whose Words are these, The Credit of Domestick E­vidence is also rejected by the Civil Law. And in saying so, those Emperors seem to follow that Answer of Paul, the Tenor whereof is this: Those Witnesses which the Plaintiff brought from home, I would not so much as examine. But the Emperors Dioclesian and Maximiam are yet more plain: We ought to make use of those Witnesses, say they, for maintaining the Truth, who chuse to give Evidence for Truth without either Fear or Favour. And therefore those who give Evidence ought not to de­pend neither on the Power nor Favour of those for whom they give it: For who will affirm, that the Monks had not the Favour of their Princes in view, or were afraid of their Power, when they writ those things? Law­yers say, that such Men are not reckoned proper Evidence, who can be commanded to be Witnesses; and therefore Subjects in the Cause of their King and Country, an enfran­chis'd Servant in the Cause of his Patron, and a Servant in the Cause of his Master, are not to be admitted as Evidence. The Reason given by the Doctors is, because they swear [Page 54] whatever they are commanded, and suppress the Truth for fear of their Masters. But in our Controversy there are none who give Evidence against us but English-men, sub­ject to the K. of England's Power; whom he could compel to give their Testimony, and dictate how they should depone: Moreo­ver, they are such as give Evidence for their Country and its Dignity, and are consequent­ly Witnesses in their own Cause; for that such things as are writ for the Safety and Honour of a Nation, pertain to every one of the Country, no wise Man will deny. And so I absolve this Proposition, having confirm'd it by the Custom of all Nations, the Precepts of all Laws, and Reason it self. And therefore the Domestick Testimony of the English for the Proof of this feigned Ho­mage, is not sufficient to prejudg a third Person, but ought to be exploded when­ever it occurs, as being justly suspected in all its parts. All the Doctors of the Law maintain, that a Domestick Testimony ought to be rejected. But I shall demonstrate af­terwards that we have no great reason to be afraid of the Testimony of those Monks; but on the contrary, that they will make very much for our Cause, if we be but allow­ed to put a favourable Interpretation upon their words.

[Page 55]The third Fault is yet far more grievous; for we are not only press'd with the Dome­stick Testimony of the English, but because the Evidence of an Enemy against an Ene­my, as Times then were, is received as au­thentick, and believed more firmly than the Oracles of Sibylla or Delphos. Law, and daily Practice, do both admonish that Ha­tred and Enmity ought to be far from a Witness; for there's none of the Affections more violent, or which do sooner incline to Wickedness, than Hatred, when it seizes upon the Mind of an impotent Man; and therefore capital Enmity does exclude a Witness from giving his Evidence in Law. And moreover; We not only forbid the Testimony of one Enemy to be received a­gainst another in Law, but do the like if they be but newly reconcil'd; and refuse also the Testimony of such as dwell with an Enemy. But when those things were writby the English, there were not only Capital Enmi­ties in the Case, (I call them Capital, when two Nations fight with incensed Minds to decide which shall be Sovereign, and have the Command of the other) but Mortal En­mity, and a Hatred exceeding that of Thye­stes, when the one Nation conspired to the Destruction of the other, and bent their whole Strength, Actions and Purposes, to [Page 56] that End; that the Enemies being utterly ex­terminated and rooted out, the Survivors might enjoy their Place; and how often the English have attempted that against us, will appear from what follows: Then whether or not any Testimony can be admitted from those who not only raged against us by Word and Writ, but committed the most atrocious Cruelties upon us by Violence and Arms, without standing upon what was lawful or unlawful, let those judg who are any way conversant in Affairs: For my own part, I am not afraid of the Censure of any Man who is able to make a just Judg­ment of things.

There are three things by which all Infe­riour Matters are governed amongst us, viz, Law, Custom, and Reason; and certainly nei­ther the Laws nor Customs of Nations, nor Reason it self, will allow such sort of Testi­monies: For the Law restrains Capital Ene­mies from giving Evidence against one ano­ther. Neither is there any more Credit to be given to an English-man against a Scots-man, than to a Scots-man against an English-man, or to a French-man against an English-man, than to an English-man against a French-man: For what is there which the English and French don't forge against one another? The Carthaginians and Romans do mutually [Page 57] [...] of England and Scotland, manage their Af­fairs? For no English-man is condemned either for Theft, Robbery, or Fire, except the Matter of Fact be proven by English Witnesses: Neither can a Scots-man be ad­judg'd to make restitution, except the Eng­lish produce Scots Witnesses against him. And how much more equally did Hannibal the Carthaginian proceed, when Dasius and Blas [...]us did mutually accuse one another of betraying Salapia to the Romans? for he re­jected both their Testimonies, because, says he, they were mutually influenced thereunto by Hatred and Emulation. And Edward I. when Cumin accus'd Bruce of aspiring to the [Page 58] Crown of Scotland, rejected the Accusati­on as proceeding from one Rival against another. Shall such then be admitted to give Evidence against one another? Or will any honest Man give Credit to their Testimony? But the equal Judg will su­spend his Opinion as to both Parties, un­til he weigh [...] the Beginning, Progress and Event of things. Those three Faults, or Objections, [...]r [...] every one of them suffici­ent of themselves to invalidate an Evidence; but if they concur in one Man, there's no Body so unjust as to suffer him to give in his Evidence, or that will give any Credit to him in Judgment, especially when he is not upon Oath.

CHAP. VII.
This Homage is not consistent with the Feudal Law.

OUR fifth Proposition to prove the Negative as to this Homage, is taken from the Nature of a Feu or Fee; for by the Feudal Law, it is not possible that Scotland can be a Feu of England, or that ever the King of Scotland could be a Vassal thereof, or the King of England his Superior: For a Fee comes from the Lord, and is wholly owing to his Liberali­ty and Bounty, who settles some part of his Patrimony upon his Vassal or Faithful Servant, (for so are Vassals called in the Feudal Law) that he may be Faithful, pur­sue the same Interest, have the same Friends and Enemies with his Lord, and serve him honestly in War, as becomes a Souldier. Therefore a Fee is the most strict and obli­gatory Bond of Humane Society, by which the Lord is obliged for ever to the Vassal, as well as the Vassal to the Lord, that the one shall defend the other's Life, good Name and Estate, to the utmost of his Power, [Page 60] against all Men, by whatever Kindred, Al­liance, or Obligation conjoin'd, (Parents only excepted) yea, even against their own Children, which they are either to put out of their Family, or reconcile them to their Lord. And the like is to be perform'd by the Lord, in respect of his Vassal, if injur'd by any of his Lord's Children; for either the Lord must reconcile them to his Vassal, or exclude them from himself and his Family. If e [...]her of them wage War, the other is ob­li [...]d to assist him with his Forces, Arms, Horses and in a Word, to the utmost of his Power, even though he be not call'd; he is also to withstand his Enemies, never to enter into a League with them, and the one is to have the same Friends and Ene­mies with the other. If any Difference hap­pen betwixt the Lord and Vassal, it is not to be decided by Arms, but referr'd to Judgment; yet the Feudal Law will more readily allow Arms to the Vassal, if his Lord deny him Justice, seeing the Fault is rather presum'd to be in the Lord. Neither has the Vassal any other way to force his Lord to make Compensation for his Damage. So the Vassal must not discover his Lord's Secrets; he is obliged to defend the Ca­stles committed to his Care in his Lord's Name, and for his Use; to hazard his own [Page 61] Life for his Lord's in Battel▪ and if the Vas­sal for [...] his Lord in the Time of Fight, he is deprived of his Fee. The Vassal is ob­liged to attend at his Lord's Court, when ever a publick One is summoned, whether he be called or not, and there to assist with his Counsel, and the like out of Court, as often as he shall be call'd upon, when his Lord is to con [...]ult about things of Moment. He is also to receive the Invest [...]ture of his [...] from his Lord, nor ought he to enter upon his [...]ee without it; and in fine, he is obliged to maintain a sincere and inviolable Fidelity towards his Lord; and when he swears the same, he performs Homage.

The Lord, though he be no less obliged to be faithful to his Vassal, than the Vassal is to him, yet he is not bound to swear, this Respect being due to the Lord, that he is to be believed without giving his Oath: but in other things, this Trust is managed with equal Faith and Benevolence on both Sides; so that the Lord is no less bound to the Vas­sal in all the things above-mentioned, than the Vassal is to the Lord, and the Obligati­on is reciprocal. But if any of those things be found, as to the Case of Scotland; If the like Offices were performed, either by the English to the King of Scots, or by the Scots to the King of England; if the Kingdom [Page 62] of Scotland was ever part of the Patrimo­ny, or under the Protection of that which is now called the Kingdom of England, ex­cept it were a long Time before the English Monarchy had a Being, as Englishmen them­selves confess, so that the King of Scots could neither hold his Kingdom as part of the King of England's Patrimony, nor by his Bounty: If there were not always more than Capital Enmities betwixt the two Na­tions; and if there were not the most cruel Actions that could be, War, Slaughters, De­vastations, Burnings, bloody Battels, and more than Vatinian Hatred betwixt the two Kingdoms: If the King of England did not always stir up Enemies against the Scots, as we shall make it evident afterwards, when we come to speak of the Picts, and Edward Baliol; and on the other Hand, if the King of Scots did not assist the King of France with all his Might against the King of England, both by sending Auxiliaries in­to France, infesting them at Home, and pro­voking them to fight, and always preferred the French King's Interest to the King of England's, even in the greatest of his own Difficulties and Dangers, (which was neither the part of a Vassal to his Lord, nor of a Lord to his Vassal:) If ever the King of Scots appear'd at the King of England's [Page 63] Court or Parliament, either to give Advice, or receive Judgment: If ever any King of Scots was invested by the King of England, or desired the Renovation of the Investiture; or if the Consent of the King of England was ever expected, or desired at the Inau­guration of our Kings: we shall not deny, but that the Kingdom of Scotland owes the Fealty of a Client and Homage to the King of England, and that the King of Scots shall be accounted his Liege Vassal and Client, and bound to all Services as such. But see­ing there were always those Grudges and Hatreds betwixt the Nations that we read of, and that almost without any intermission, for above 1000 Years; What Man who is capable of making an equal Judgment, will give it as his Opinion, that the King of Scots owes the Fealty of a Client to the King of England, or that he is his Liege Sub­ject?

Those who describe Britain, and the Customs of both Nations, do unanimously affirm, That there was seldom any Peace be­twixt them, the one attempting to enlarge their Dominions, and the other to keep their own; and I have often heard it said pro­verbially in France, That such things will come to pass when there's Peace betwixt the Eng­lish and Scots: Which was as much as to [Page 64] say, that such a thing will never happen, or not till the Greek [...]. Though by the Blessing of God, since we are all agreed in the Light of the Gospel, there hath been a [...] and entire Peace for this forty year [...] and upwards, which never happen'd before, since the first Original of the two Nations; and that it may be continued for all Time coming, every one of us ought earnestly [...] him who is the Author of Peace, and alone able to effect it.

These t [...]ngs being premised, it will be manif [...]st from the Nature of a Fee, to any Man who is not already prejudg'd, or sworn to the Sentiments of another in either of the Nations, that the King of Scots owes no Homage to the King of England: For except they prove the Affirmative, the Ne­gative is [...]vident of it self, as having the Presumption of the Law on its Side; for by the Testimony of the English them­selves, we have been in possession of our Liberty for these three Ages last past, and acknowledged no Superior.

Now I come to the Confutation of the particular Proofs, brought by Holinshed, or as he says, by Nicholas Adams, a Pettifogger, who, in my Opinion, has but very little Skill in the Law; and seeing all those Proof [...] which are brought against us, consist in Ex­amples, [Page 65] which rather demonstrate what was done, than what ought to be done, I shall divide them into three Classes or Ranks: The first shall be of those which are belie­ved to have been done in the Time of the Kings of the Britains, or Brittons; the se­cond of those, which hapned in the Time of the English Saxons; and the third of those, which Holinshed, who is very prodigal of his Faith and Credit, writes to have hap­pened since the Conquest. Yet so as we must always take the five general Proposi­tions before mentioned along with us, that we may not seem to recede from them in the least; but I shall endeavour to wipe off those things which he hath, by the height of Fraud and Calumny, writ against us, and endeavoured to fix on us by his vain and petulant Pen, after having examin'd the Particulars duly and exactly.

CHAP. VIII.
That neither Brutus, Ebrancus, Clotenus, Mulmutius or Dunwallo, knew any thing of this Superiority, or exacted it.

HOlinshed's first Argument is deduc'd from that Commentitious Division of Britain amongst Brutus his three Sons, Locrinus the eldest, Camber the second, and Albanactus the youngest: for the English do stiffly assert, that to Locrinus he gave Loegria or Britain, viz. that part of it which was a Roman Province, or possess'd by the Angles, with the Superiority of the whole Island; to Camber, Cambria or Wales; and to Albanactus as the youngest, the least valuable share, viz. Albania, that is, the whole Country benorth Humber. And all this we shall grant, that we may not be troublesome, and so we shall suppose that to have been, which never was, although there cannot be any thing said or imagined, that is more vain than this Brutus and his Fable, as Buchanan bath evinc'd. But Al­banactus being kill'd, which happened very speedily after, as they say, Albania, which was his Portion, accrued to Locrinus, and not [Page 67] to Camber, by the Right of Primogeniture; and this we shall not deny, though it helps but very little to prove the Conclusion which Holinshed undertook. But this Right of Primogeniture is still observed amongst the Scots, says he, so that when the young­est of three Brethren dies, the eldest suc­ceeds as Heir of his whole Estate, and the Second is past by. And therefore seeing the Scots observed the same Laws and Customs with the Britains, it necessarily follows, that they were their Subjects; and this is the Form of his first Argument. Ho­mer's Nestor is commended by all Men, be­cause that in marshalling his Army, he posted his stoutest Souldiers in the Front and Reer, and plac'd the most faint-hearted in the Middle, that they might be compell'd to fight, by the Magnanimity of the former, and the Valour of the latter. I thought that Holinshed would have taken the same Method, and plac'd his strongest Reasons in the Front, which it would not have been easy for our Country-men to rencounter. But let's see what this first Argument is: It is true, that in England, when the Youngest of three Brethren dies, the Eldest succeeds to his Estate by right of Promogeniture, and the Second is passed by: but there is no­thing more false than to say, that the same [Page 68] Custom is observed amongst the Scots; for if the Question about Albanactus his Suc­cessor, had been decided according to our Customs, or in our Courts, Camber would have succeeded to his whole Estate, and not the least Share of it would have come to Locrinus: Then what are we to expect from this Man in the Conclusion, when he does so manifestly stumble at the Threshold? And what if we should grant him this, that Locrinus should have succeeded to Alba­nactus, that is, to the Government of all Britain according to our Law? How will he thence prove, that the Scots are subject to the English? Will it necessarily follow, that because they observe the same Laws, Rites and Customs, that they are their Subjects? It had been better argued accord­ing to the Laws of Disputation, that they were the same People, or that the one drew their Original from the other; and yet if he had done so, it had not been according to the Rules of Logick neither; for those who worship the same God, and observe the same Laws, Customs and sacred Rites, are not always to be look'd on as the same People, and much less that one of them must needs therefore be subject to another. For the second Table of the Mosaick Law, the Law of Nations, the Civil Law, this our Feudal [Page 69] Law, and also the Right of Primogeni­ture, are common amongst many Nations, which yet are distinct from one another in their Empire. Kingdoms and Jurisdicti­ons, and are not united by any common Ti [...]

Tacitus, speaking of the Laws of Succes­sion amongst the Germans, says, that they lest their Horses to such of their Children as were most fierce and expert in War: but who will thence infer, that the Germans were subject to the Britains, because they observ'd the same Right of Primogeniture? How much more judiciously does Tacitus leave it at an uncertainty, whether the Ara­vis [...]i in Pannonia, descended from the Ger­man Osi, or whether the Osi were a Colony of the Aravisci that came into Germany; when yet, says he, they use the same Lan­guage, Customs and Institutions? Or be­cause the Grecian Laws, afterwards known by the Name of the twelve Tables, were brought from Athens and the other Towns of Greece, and embrac'd by the Romans; will it thence follow, that the Romans paid Homage to the Greeks, or acknowledg'd them as their Liege Lords? It often hap­pens in Kingdoms, that whenever the Pro­fit of King and People perswades them to it, or that there are any Hopes of Advan­tage [Page 70] from it, that the Customs observ'd in one Nation, are transferr'd to another, al­though they be distinct in Empire and Ju­risdiction: and thus many of the Laws of the Danes and Brittons, are still in force in England, and yet that Kingdom is subject to neither of them; and there came as it were a great Inundation of French or Norman Laws with the Conqueror from France into England, insomuch, that the English at present are govern'd by no other Law: but they will not allow that it follows thence, that England is either a Liege Fee of France or Normandy. Whence it appears, that what this bad Historian, worse Lawyer, and yet worse Logicician infers, that one Na­tion is subject to another, because of their agreement in Laws, or rather in one par­ticular Law, is altogether void of Reason; and by that same Argument, he may as well prove the English to be subject to the Scots, as the Scots to the English: for a commu­nion of Laws, and much less an agreement in one Law, does not subject one Nation to another, nor indeed unite them. Other­wise by as many Laws and Customs as we disagree fr [...]m the English, we are as many ways disjoin'd; for no Body is ignorant, that in some things our Law differs from that of England: and therefore Adams or Ho­linshed [Page 71] infers very weakly, that one Nation is subject to another, because of the Iden­tity or Communion of one Law or Custom. Moreover, Holinshed and others make Alba­nactus the Youngest of Locrinus his Sons; whereas Edward the First, in his Letter to Pope Boniface VIII. calls him his Second; so that to reconcile those when neither of them is to be credited, were the part of a Man who has a Mind to mispend his spare Time. This is also of the same Nature that Holinshed derives the Prerogative of this Primogeniture from Brutus, but Edward I. from the Customs of the Trojans, whom if Holinshed had followed, he had consulted the Common Tranquillity much better, seeing by the common Institutions of both Nati­ons, be might have argued, that they had One and the same Original, and were the same People.

The only thing I wonder at is, how this Superiority came to be continued to these Times: for if Locrinus had the Superiority of Albany, and succeeded to Albanactus deceased, it necessarily follows, that the Liege Fee was extinguish'd with Albanactus, and that Albany return'd to the Superior Lord, per consolidationem utilis Dominii cum directo, as is usual in Vassalages, where the Lord of the dominant Estate succeeds to the [Page 72] Lord of the Subordinate, or as the Creditor succeeds to the Debtor, and per contra; and so this Superiority evanish'd in its Infancy, being stifled with Albanactus, who did not long out-live his Father: Nor was it ever for any thing that I know, reviv'd again. And if we would examine this Fable of Bru­tus in every particular, which is the very Foundation of this Plea, it would vanish into Smoak; and so all this Proof, with the Au­thor of it, must be buried in darkness. He who would be further inform'd as to this Fable, may read our Buc [...]anan, who exposes it as a Subject of Laughter to all Mankind. Perhaps I have been more prolix than was needful in refuting this Argument; but be­cause those kind of Arguments are so often repeated by Holinshed, I resolved to answer them to the full if there were more of them.

His second Argument is brought from Ebrancus, who was King of the Brittons, as he dreams, and fortified the Castles of Du [...] ­barton and Edinburgh, the two strongest in Scotland. Therefore, argues he, those Coun­tries were then under the Command of the Brittons; and to use Holinshed's Words, ‘ Ebrancus was then seized of them, so that the Scots held them by the Bounty of the King of the Brittons.’ We will grant that those Castles were built by Ebrancus, though [Page 73] they [...]e rather fortified by Nature than Art: And [...], or Alcluith, is a Town in South-Britain on the River Don, both according to Matthew of Westminster and Bede Lib. [...] 1. Angl. Hist. cap. 12. himself, in the Slaughter of Hengist. But if we insist on the Confutation of all the Follies of Holinshed, and this petty Lawyer, it would require a Twelve-month to peruse it. If any Body argue, that the King of Scots, who is now possessed of those Castles, owes Ho­mage to the King of the Brittons because he built them; by that same way of Arguing, the English Saxons owe Homage to the Brit­tons; and the Normans, who are now in possession, owe Homage to the English Sax­ons, because the English did by force of Arms seize the Lands, Towns, Castles, and in fine the Countries of the Brittons, as the Normans threw the English out of their Pos­sessions; and yet the English Saxon never acknowledged the King of the Brittons, nor did the Norman ever acknowledg the King of the English as his Superiour or Liege-Lord: Or, because the Israelites built Towns and Castles for Pharaoh, did he serve them and owe them Homage, or were the Israe­lites then seiz'd of Egypt. But in those Cases he who is strongest by Arms, has the best Title in Law, though neither that nor the other Argument touch the Scots, there be­ing [Page 74] none of them at that Time in Britain. Nor is there any mention of the Word ( Sa­sinaru [...]) Seizings, for almost 2000 Years after in any Writer; and therefore that Objection is rejected as trifling, and unworthy of an Answer.

The third Argument speaks of Clotenius; who is affirmed to be mentioned by the Wri­ters of both Kingdoms, as having reign'd over all Britain; and what is meant by that, we shall see by and by. But no Scots-man did ever mention this Clotenius: Nay, Holinshed himself does not say that he reign'd over all Britain, but only over the Mountainous Country of Cornwal, from whence he had a very long Way to go and command in Scot­land, either by Land or Sea. Nay, in this Clotenius Holinshed does not obscurely call the whole Fable of Brutus in question, and says that his Off-spring fail'd in Clotenius, but that too much Self [...]love drew him aside, that he might have occasion of insulting over us more freely. But if Clotenius did reign over all Britain, as our Author will have it, then there was no Part of it which held of him in Service or Fee, whether he consider the Parts as Homogeneous or Heterogeneous: for as Lawyers speak, A Man's own Estate cannot hold of him in Fee or Service; for Service or Vassalage is required from another's, [Page 75] and not his own. But what does this con­cern the Scots, who were not then in Bri­tain? Or what relation has it to the Homage of the Scots, which he undertook to prove? So that this Instance of Clotenius is so foreign to the Purpose, that it neither maintains Ho­linshed's Opinion, nor refutes ours; for tho' we should grant all that he says concerning it to be true, it will not be of the least Advan­tage to his Conclusion.

But the Scots, says Holinshed, received the Law concerning Duels from Mulmutius Dunwallo the King of the Brittons, who was the first that made it, and they do still retain it: Therefore, says he, the Scots were then his Subjects, because they received that same Law. That the Law concerning Duels was first instituted by Mulmutius, none of the Antients did ever affirm; nor do I know from whom he has it. If he hath it from none of the Antients, what does he bring to enforce our Belief? To play the fool on the Credit of a Great Author, is almost the part of a wise Man, says the Comical Poet; but to rave without any Authority, is plainty the part of a mad Man. This Argument also coin­cides, and has altogether an Affinity with the first: But to say, because the Scots embraced the same Law, that therefore they were Sub­jects, is a perfect Paralogism, as I said be­fore. [Page 76] He might with better Reason argue, that we are now subject▪ to the English, be­cause we make use of the same Language, the same Translation of the Bible, and delight in the Bow as they do; and therefore I shall not insist upon the Confutation of him, having said more than enough to this Way of Ar­guing: For if all Nations, as this Man infers, who embraced the Custom of Duels, obey­ed the King of the Britains, or did him Ho­mage, then Palestine must have belong'd to the Britains; in which Goliah and David fought a Duel long before Dunwallo's Time. And in like manner, Asia Minor, and the whole Kingdom of Troy, for their Diomedes fought a Co [...]bate with Aeneas, as did Paris with Menelaus, and Hector with Ajax and Achilles. Italy must also have belong'd to the Britains, because of the Duel betwixt Pallas and Turn [...]s, and a little after betwixt Turn [...]s and Aeneas; all of which happen'd long before Brut [...] was born. And in the Time of the Romans, Titus Manlius fought a Duel with Geminius Metius, Papyrius Cur­sor with Gallus, and Torq [...]atus with another of that Name: And hence it will follow, that Greece was under the British Empire, because of the Duel betwixt Neoptolemus and Eumenes; and the same must be said as to Spain, in which G [...]rbi [...] and Orsoua fought a [Page 77] a Duel for the Principality of the Town call'd Ibes, Africanus being Judg. I may al­ledg the same as to Den [...]ark, France, and Germany, in which there are still many Laws concerning Duels; and especially in the Laws of the Lombards, amongst whom all Probations were made by Duels.

Britain would indeed have been mightily obliged to her Holinshed, if he could ha [...] brought all the Countries where Duels were us'd under her Subjection; for there was never any who extended the Confines of the British Empire so far. But no wise Man would have ascrib'd the first Institution of Duels to the Britains, seeing it was common to all the Northern Nations: For Saxo Grammaticus writes that Frotho K. of Den­mark made a Law that all Controversies should be decided by the Sword. But I pass over Holinshed's Trifles, who ascribes the Original of Primogeniture and Duelling to his Brittons, tho they be both mentioned in the Holy Scriptures long before Brutus his Time. Now what I pray do these three Ar­guments signify for Proof of the Homage?

CHAP. IX.
Of Fergus I. King of Scots, Coilus King of the Brittons, and other British Kings till Cesar's Time.

HE hath composed such an History of Coilus and Fergus, as he never recei­ved from any English or Britton Author. Nor can he name me one of his own Country­men, who hath mentioned this Fergus or Coilus. If he confess that he had it from our Historians, as he must needs do, why does he not relate it faithfully as he had it? Or how comes he to pervert the Relation of his Author? But it's easy to conjecture why he did so, or at least he may be pardoned to de­rive the Original of our Nation from a Night-robber, as he feigns him to be, seeing he is not ashamed to draw the Pedigree of his own from Brutus a Parricide. And suppose that Fergus had done such a thing, I don't see why he should be upbraided with it; for the very Attempting of such an Enterprize, hath consecrated the Name of Quintus Mu­tius to Eternity, altho' it had no effect. The History does also take notice, that the Scots [Page 79] forc'd the Camp of the Brittons, and put their Army to flight: But Holinshed, such is his Modesty, suppresses that. Our Country­men did not come from S [...]ythia, as this un­learned Author conceives, but from Ireland, as is manifest from Claudian and Bede; nay, and it may be inferr'd from this following Verse of Glaudian's, that all Ireland was cal­led Scotland:

And again; ‘Scotorum Cumulos flevit Glacialis Ierne.’ For why should Ireland lament, except it were for the Slaughter of its own Inhabi­tants? But Claudian hints, and that not ob­scurely, that the Scots had assembled all the Strength of Ireland to invade Britain, which was then governed by Stilico. I have Scots Authors, who wrote about 812, and men­tion that when the Danes invaded Ireland, and determin'd to settle there, that they were overcome in Battel by the Scots. And in the Life of Charles the Great, writ by an uncertain Author, but one who liv'd at that [Page 80] Time, Ex frag­mentis an­tiquissimis Historia­rum quae circa An­num Do­mini 850. conscriptae sunt, & ty­pis excusae apud Clau­diū Chap­pelet Lute­tiae I 588. this following Passage is found: ‘At that Time a Norman Fleet having en­tred Ireland, an Island of Scots, an inn [...] ­merable Multitude of Normans fell in Bat­tel against them, and the rest made a shameful Retreat,’ Whence it is manifest, that that Island was not only inhabited by our Country-men, but that the Government was also in the hand of the Scots. Or if we should be descended from the Scythians, whose name Reiner [...]s Reinecci [...]s, a Person well versed in all Antiquity, says we do still retain, I don't see why we should be re­proach'd with it, seeing the noblest Nations in Europe derive their Orignal from them; and Charles the Fifth reckon'd it one of the things wherein he had reason to glory, that he was descended from the Gothes and S [...]y­thians. But at present the Question is not concerning the Original of our Nation, but about the Homage.

Nor is what he subjoins, any more to the Question in hand, viz. that Coilus the Se­cond expell'd the Scots out of Britain; whereas our Historians attribute this to Si­c [...]lius; and hereby the Homage is plainly sub­verted: for Lords don't use to drive out their Vassals; and the Scots chose rather to be Exi [...]es, than serve such malicious Masters, [Page 81] or acknowledg the King of the Brittons as their Lord. The Story is thus, though Bede runs it over very briefly; ‘Our Country­men being divided into Factions, and ha­ [...]ing fought it so eagerly with two mo­d [...]ll'd A [...]mies, that there were scarcely 800 le [...]t alive on both sides: the King of the Bri [...]tons; who watch'd for an Opportu­ [...]y, and was desirous to exterminate that Nation, which he had formerly attempted [...]o subdue by force of Arms, but in vain, p [...]r [...]eiving their Strength now to be bro­k [...], expell'd them the Island.’ But [...] as to the Manner of their Re­turn▪ though it had been the part of a good Historian either to have mentioned both, or said nothing of either.

What he writes of Sicilins, that he never de [...]i [...]ted from infesting the Scots; and that [...] Re [...]da, Thereus, Fin [...]a­ [...], Iosina and Durstus, Kings of Scotland who [...]cceeded immediately one after ano­ther, with a continual Wa [...], until they sub­ [...]ed themselves to him as his Subjects, and acknowledged him for their Superior: We must enquire wh [...]ther it be true or not. The History or Names of those Kings he finds [...] no British Author▪ so that he has th [...]m only f [...]o [...] us: and if either he, or any other English-man can produce an Author [Page 82] for this notorious Falshood, we will either give him an Answer, or yield the Cause: For the Babler Geffrey of Monmouth, of whom we shall speak anon, leaves him here without defence; nor is there any mention of those Kings to be found in him. Nay, Holinshed in his whole History, is perpetual­ly silent as to this Sicil [...]us his Victories over the Scots, or their Surrender of themselves unto him. But perhaps he thought that he was obliged to use more Modesty in an Hi­story, than in a Declamation; where he could blab out whatever came in his Head. However, it's a Sign of a dishonest Mind ei­ther to speak things that we don't know, or to suppress those which we do, if either Dan­ger or Dishonour may thereby accrue to another. Therefore whatever Holinshed has in this Matter, he excerpted it from our Hi­storians; but how little Candor he hath us'd towards us, was never plainer than here. Our Historians relate, that after the Return of Re [...]therus from the Isles, Affairs not be­ing thorowly settled, that the King of the Brittons fatigu'd them with War as he had always done: but this honest Author adds of his own, until they made a Surrender of themselves; which was not to be found in any Historian of what note soever. The Reigns of those six Kings before-mentioned [Page 83] makes up 118 Years; and therefore I would desire Holinshed to resolve me this one Que­stion, How this Sicilius could vex all those six Kings with War, seeing he only reigned [...] ▪ Years, as he himself confesses? But he had laid aside all Shame in this his Invective. It is not to be passed over, that he owns those Kings to have been chosen by our Country­men: Whence it's evident, that we had Kings many Ages before the Arrival of the English Saxons in Britain; and that the In­auguration of our Kings did never depend upon the Pleasure of the Brittons or Eng­lish: Nor was ever their Con [...]ent expected at the Election; which is a certain Argu­ment that they were never subject to the Brittons, as we shall see afterwards. Here Holinshed pleases himself with a facetious Rhetorical Flourish, when he writes that Sicilius gave his Daughter Agasia to Durstus King of Scots; hoping, says he, that the connate Rudeness (not to say Deceit and Perfidy) of the Nation might be corrected and mollified by the Disposition of the Maternal Line: But let Foreigners be enquir'd at concerning the Rudeness, De­ceit and Perfidy of either Nation; for no great heed is to be taken to what an English­man says of a Scots-man, or what a Scots­man says of an English-man, seeing there [Page 84] have been Actions betwixt them much fier­cer than Words. The Faithfulness of the Scots is proven by the French Annals. But Holinshed ought to remember what the Bri­tish and English Writers have left upon Re­cord concerning the Faithfulness of the Brit­tons; for all of them agree, that it was us'd as a Proverb, ‘Nec Britones Bello fortes nec Pace fideles:’ i. e. That the Brittons were neither couragi­ous in War, nor faithful in time of Peace. This Proverb is found in Polydore, Bede, Newbridg, Malmsbury, and other English Historians; who all of 'em say, that it was common amongst the Vulgar: and in many places both in Gildas and Bede, they are called the perfidious Nation of the Brittons; as if Perfidy were their proper Epithet. So that a Depravation of their Native Simpli­city and Manners, was rather to be expect­ed from this Match, than a Reformation. I have already touch'd the Cowardly Temper of that Nation from Gildas, and shall treat of it further when I come to speak of the Saxons. Then let Holinshed go and extol the Faithfulness, Vertue, and Fortitude of his Brittons to the Skies, or above them if he pleases; and let him talk of their subdu­ing [Page 85] France, Italy, and a great Part of Ger­many, and that Rome it self was conquered and burnt by Brennus, if you please to be­lieve him; while all the antient Writers do not only dissent from him, but gain-stand and contradict him. Those things I say of the antient Brittons; for as to what con­cerns the Remainders of that Nation, there's no People, now that they have chang'd their Soil, who are more couragious and hardy than the Welch, since they were born and bred in a barren and mountainous Coun­try.

CHAP. X.
What Condition the Scots were in, and what Society they had with the Brittons after the Arrival of Julius Caesar, and the Romans in Britain.

HOlinshed, or the Pettifogger Adams, writes that our K. Ederus sent Auxi­liary Forces to Cassibelanus, and that he serv'd him in his War against Iulius Caesar: And herein he is not altogether destitute of Authority; for Geffrey of Monmouth, of whose Credibility we shall afterwards dis­course, writes that Cradious King of Albany [Page 86] serv'd as a Subject under [...]assibelanus in his Wars against Iulius Caesar. But whether this Cradious was our Ederus or not, let others see to it; he's not to be found in the Cata­logue of our Kings. But to return to Cassi­belanus; Certainly we are but sorrily re­warded if we must be accounted to have been subject to him, because we sent him Auxiliary Forces: For on the other hand, if the English had sent Auxiliaries to us, they would have alledged that they had done so as Masters; but there is nothing here of Homage, or Liege-Dominion over us. Must Germany be said to have been subject to England, because the Emperor Maximi­lian serv'd in the English Camp for Pay a­gainst the French? Or, because the Queen of England sent Assistance to the Spaniard at the Siege of St. Quintin in Picardy, must She therefore be accounted to have been subject to the Spaniard? No English-man would endure Holinshed to reason thus; neither does he act with Judgment or Justice, who by a reproachful Interpretation would con­vert the Good-will of his Friend into a Ne­cessity of Obedience, or an Obligation of spontaneous Submission: for by that way of Arguing, we shall conclude the Lord to be inferiour to the Servant, if he assist him in Adversity, or extend his Munificence and [Page 87] Liberality towards him. We will grant that our Forces serv'd in that War, but what Consequence will that be to infer thence, that Ederus was Servant or Subject to Cassi­belanus or paid him Homage? It was neces­sary that one should command the rest in the War, and that they should obey and serve him; for the word serve is us'd by good Authors, to denote only Obedience; and thus Iugurtha serv'd Africanus the Younger in the Numatin War, in the Name of the King of Numidia, yet the Kingdom of Numidia was free and independant, and their King not call'd a Servant, but an As­sociate of the Romans. But this whole sto­ry of Cassibelan, that part of it excepted which is found in Caesar's Commentaries, con­tains nothing but Fables and Trifles, and was either forg'd by Geffrey of Monmouth, or illustrated by his Comments.

Holinshed says, that Caesar writes in his own Commentaries, and that it is attested by the Scotish Historians, that he subdued the whole Island, and entred into Caledo­nia; both of which are false, as will appear to any who read those Histories: for Caesar went no further than he himself writes, and it is not likely that he would detract from his own Fame; and that Edifice at Carron was not built by Iulius Caesar, but by Iulius [Page 88] Agricola some Years after him: Neither does Boethius say, that Caesar entred Caledonia, but asserts only, that it was reported so by some of the Vulgar. But Holinshed plays with the History in this Point, which I nei­ther admire, nor regard; nor will he ever be able to prove from this Commentitious History of Cassibelan, that Scotland was a Liege Fee of Britain, or that the King of Scots ow'd Homage to the King of the Brit­tons.

I pass over Mor [...]i [...]s, Coilus and Lucius, see­ing there is no mention of any War which they had against the Scots, nor yet of this Homage in their Reigns, at which I wonder that he should not at least have forg'd some­thing in their Reigns, as well as others▪ But lest he should seem to have done no­thing here, he savs, that King Lucius chang'd the three Archflamins, which were insti­tuted by King Belinus into three Archbi­shops, whereof he places one at London, another at York, to whom he subjects the Scots, and the third at Caerleon; and all those things he alledges, that he may clear the Way for rendring the Scots Bishops sub­ject to the Archbishop of York: and as he will have the Scots to be subject to the English in Temporals; so he would infer, that the Scotish Clergy acknowledged the [Page 89] English Archbishops as their Lords in Spi­rituals. But if we may believe Malmsbury an English Chronologer, there was no Arch­bishoprick in the Kingdom of the Brittons. His words, lest I should be thought to in­jure him, are, But whether there was any Archiepiscopal See in the Time of the Brittons, I do very much doubt; for my Knowledg faul­ters, because Antiquity hath swallow'd up the Memorials of those Times: and here he spoke ingenuously, if he had done so in other things In prol. Lib. I. de Geftis An­glorum Pontisi­cum.. Neither does Gildas make any mention of the Bishops, or Archflamins of the Brittons, but only of the Priests. As to what concerns the Archflamins, there is no mention of them to be found in approved Authors, except we should reckon Geffrey of Monmouth, who is the greatest Liar of all Men, one of that number, for which they shall have my free leave. For accord­ing to the Institutions of Numa, and the Antient Romans, there could be no Arch­flamins; and if there had been any such, they must of necessity have been set over other Flamins, which is manifestly as re­pugnant to Truth, as that the Scots Bi­shops are subject to the Archbishop of York. The severals Gods of the Gentiles had their own Flamins, and thus we read of Flamen [Page 90] Dialis and Flamen Quirinalis in Cicero, Lib. 2. de Legi­bus. over whom the great Pontif had the su­pream Authority, and not the Arch-flamin; but the Illiterate Geffrey of Monmouth and those who follow'd him, did never under­stand what a Flamin was: neither has it any appearance of likelihood, that the Brit­tons would have compos'd a Name of Greek and Latin words, as being ignorant of both the Tongues.

As to what concerns the Subjection of the Scots Bishops to the Archbishop of York, Holinshed can never evince from any appro­ved Author, Englishman or others, that there was any Archbishop of York at that Time, or for some Ages after; and if it were not that I hate to engage in an useless Controversy, I will undertake to prove from English Authors, that we had Bishops in Scotland, before they had any in Britain, and that Palladius the first Scots Bishop, preach'd the Gospel to us, before Austin preach'd to the English. What credit those things deserve which were writ before Gil­das or Bede, they themselves shall bear Wit­ness; for Bede does plainly own, that the English received the first Rudiments of Piety from the Scots; and Malmsbury, who hath writ three Books of the Actions of the English [Page 91] Prelates, says, That he was almost destitute of all kind of help, that he grop'd his Way through the dark Paths of Ignorance, nor had he any pre­vious Light of History to direct his Path; and yet this Author of ours according to his u­sual Folly, relates them all in order and ex­actly: In pro­hem. Lib. 1. de Ge­stis Pon [...]i [...]. Angl. But whether or not the Scots Bi­shops were subject to the Archbishop of York, we shall see afterwards, though their Que­stion makes but little to our present pur­pose, which is to treat of Fee and Homage, and temporal Things, and not of Ecclesia­stical Affairs, which depended on the Will and Pleasure of the Pope.

As to what Severus, Augustus, Maximia­nus and other Roman Generals did, or at­tempted against us, it does not at all belong to the Brittons, who must certainly have very little Merit or Glory of their own, when they rake together the Praises due to other Men on all sides, and apply them to themselves. But Ethelverd, than whom the English have scarcely a more antient Histo­rian, says, That when Claudius and the Ro­mans invaded Britain, and subjected their Kings, the Scots and Picts did stoutly gain­stand them; though Holinshed will have them to be subdued, and expell'd at that Time. But if they were ejected or drove into Ex­ile, who is there that will not ascribe it to [Page 92] the height of their Courage, and that de­servedly? For they would rather be Exiles, than submit dishonourably to the Roman Yo [...]k, as the rest of the Britains did, who if they had been inspir'd with the same Cou­rage, they had never been subject to the Roman Servitude.

But that Severus design'd to drive the Scots out of the Island, for their Perfidi­ousness and Rebellion, as Holinshed pretends to write from Boathius, we won't acknow­ledge; for they cannot be accus'd of Perfi­diousness, who did never owe nor pro­mise Fidelity; and let Holinshed say, if he can, in what Author or Book he ever read, that the Scots swore Fealty, either to the Roman Legate or Emperor, that so he may make good his charge of Perfidiousness: for this is truly asserted by all Writers, that the Scots held that part of Britain which now they enjoy, not by any Paction or Cove­nant with the Romans, but by Force of Arms.

But Holinshed will have it that they re­belled. Now those are called Rebels who being subdued, or having surrendred them­selves, don't continue firm in that Allegi­ance which they have sworn to the Prince or Republick that overcame them; but take up Arms against those to whose Dominion [Page 93] they submitted, which cannot in any man­ner be said of the Scots; nor is that true which Holinshed alledges from Bo [...]thius, that he confesses this to have been done because of the Rebellion of the Scots against the Romans; and if they were Rebels, then he in [...]ers, that they were Subjects. But there's no such thing to be found in Boethius, nei [...]her would it thence follow that they were Subjects to the Britains, but to the Ro [...]ans. I will not retort upon him what he ascribes undeservedly to our Boethius, That a [...] o [...]ght to have a good Memory: for whatever Holinshed writes as to the Scots, b [...]ing almost conquer'd and expell'd the I [...]land and that 30000 of their Men were Slain, in the following Chapter, he says, That the Emperor Severus Lib. 1. Descript. Britan. Cap. 23. lost 50000 Men in that same Expedition; and when he could not defend himself and his Bri [...]ns from the most out [...]agious Enemy, he built that Stone Wall from the East to the West side of the Island, that the Britains who obey'd him and the Roman Gari [...]ons might be the more [...]afe within their own Barrier [...]. How those things agree together, when the one Chapter fol­lows the other immediately, [...] any capable Man judge.

What he w [...]ites as to the granting of [...] to the [...] and Pic [...]' [...] [Page 94] by the Kings of the Brittons, it's altogether frivolous; for we know how small a part of Scotland Caithness is, and so barren that it could not be sufficient for three Nations to inhabit: for besides that he writes those things without any Authority, there's no­thing so ridiculous which this Man does not look upon as an Oracle, so that it does but afford him an occasion of venting his Spite against the Scots. But I cannot perceive how from all those famous Actions of the Ro­mans against us, Holinshed can make it ap­pear, that the Scots were subject to the Bri­tains, or paid them Homage.

From Carausius, Holinshed concludes no­thing which makes for the question in Hand; but I wonder he did not also feign that he subjected the Scots, for without doubt if either his Memory could have suggested it, or that his froward and arrogant Mind could have feign'd or adulterated any thing, he would never have omitted it. But what I said before, appears evidently in Carausius or C [...]rantius, that the Romans could never endure a King in their Province in Bri­tain.

For an eighth Argument, we are press'd with Actions of Maximinus or Maximianus, whom Holinshed (contrary to the Cur­rent of all Writers, who say, he was born [Page 95] at Smyrnium in Pannonia) will have him to be a Britton, and that he drove the Scots out of the Island for their Rebellion, ha­ving slain their King E [...]geni [...]s. We may perhaps yield that they were driven out of the Island, because they were not accustomed to Servitude; but that it was for Rebellion, we constantly deny, there being no other Authority for it but Holinshed's, for they never swore Fealty to the Romans, nor were they overcome and drove out of the Island by the Romans alone, but by the Conspiracy of four most powerful Nations, the Romans, Brittons, Picts and German Auxiliaries, who combin'd together for the destruction of one Nation, and that no very great One: but this hapned by the cunning of the Romans, I confess, under a Pretext of dividing the Kingdom of Scotland among their Neigh­bours; but when they were ejected, and that the Romans design'd the same Thing against the Picts, the latter perceiving the Craft of this Leonine Confederacy, con­demn'd themselves for their impious War against their antient Neighbours the Scots, and renewing the former League with them, afforded them an opportunity of returning to their Country, under the Conduct of Ferg [...]s the second. But what says all this to the Soveraignty of the Brittons over the Scots, or the supposititious Homage?

[Page 96] Holinshed says, That when Fergus re­turn'd to Britain, he durst not enter upon the Continent, but took the Regalia upon him in Argile; the foolish Man being igno­rant of our Affairs, takes Argile to be an Island, and not part of the Continent. But after his r [...]turn, says he, he was kill'd, and his Army defeated by Maximian the Roman Legat; nor do we deny that, for we don't take upon [...] to maintain, that the Scots were never overcome nor defeated, but that they never obeyed any Prince but their own, nor yet perform'd Homage to any o­ther; and in fine, that they did never own a Foreigner as their Lord or Superior, but that those Scots who were so often beat, so frequently overcome, and at last expell'd the Island by the Romans, have hitherto maintain'd and do still maintain their Royal Dignity without Diminution; whereas the Brittons who were both richer, more nu­merous, and as Holinshed will have it, better Warriors than we, were put under an igno­minious Servitude by the Romans.

CHAP. XI.
Of the departure of the Romans out of Britain, and how the whole was subjected to the Scots and Picts.

BUT when the Romans left the Island, then it quickly appear'd which of the Nations were the best Warriors; for the Britains being almost totally cut off by the Scots and Picts, submitted to their Yoke, and left them all the Country beyond Hum­ber, which we call on this side Humber, to inhabit, because the Scots and Picts were not numerous enough to people their far­ther Provinces, which the Brittons did then hold, and gratefully accept from the Bounty of the Scots and Picts, paying Tribute to the Con­querors, giving Hostages, submitting to them in every thing Divine and Humane, and abju­ring the Protection of the Romans. Here are all the true Marks of a Surrender, and so the Britains yielded themselves to the Scots and Picts, nor is there any room left for a Subterfuge. Holinshed and the common Herd of English Historians, give this as the Cause of that Calamity, that above 100000 Brittons were carried away by [Page 98] Maximianus, as he return'd into Gallia Ar­morica; and most of them augment the Number, but none that I know of does as­certain them, and this number is also made up by Women, Children and Servants. But it appears, that a greater number of Scots fell in the Field almost at the same Time, under their Kings Eugenius and Fergus, while they endeavour'd in vain to recover their Country; then were carried over by Maximianus into Britannia Armorica, of which a great part did also return Home af­ter he was slain. Holinshed passes over this History very cursorily, when he asserts, That all Britain was not subdued by the Scots and Picts, but only some Provinces, and that the principal part of the Island was never touch'd by them; and here he accuses our Boethius of a Lie, because he says, that all Britain was surrendred, where­as the Scots did only seize the Country be­north Humber. Nor is it probable, says he, That the Scots being but a poor and broken Nation, and having lost their King with the stoutest of their Souldiery, could in the fourth Year after their return from Exile, subject all Britain to their own Command; for if that had been true, the Scots would rather have chosen it for their Habitation, than to have liv'd amidst Frost and Snow at [Page 99] Home. All this he alledges, to lessen the Credit of Boethius's History, which detracts from the Fame and Dignity of the Britains, tho the same thing be contain'd in all the Wri­ters of that Age, Paulus Diaconus, Gildas, Bede, Marianus Scotus, and all the Writers of British Affairs, Geffrey of Monmouth, Malms­bury, Westminster, and all who ever wrote of those Times, write clearly concerning this Affair, and assert, that all Britain was subjected to the Scots and Picts; and as to what he says, of the improbability that the Scots who were so lately defeated and scat­tered, should in so little a Time recover so much Strength and Courage, let him re­cal to mind how many Armies of Scots were defeated by Edward I. and yet they never laid down their Arms, until in two pitch'd Battels by the Humber, or at York, which is situated on the Banks of that River, they put Edward II. to flight at that Time, the most potent King of Britain, Ireland, Wales, and a great part of France. Nor is it without Ground, that Lucan says, Po­verty is fruitful in Men: So that if Holinshed had considered these things, he would have ceased from Wondring. Therefore Britain was truly surrendred to the Scots and Picts, and the Surrender accepted; and the Bri­tains after they had in vain sought for the [Page 100] Assistance of Aetius the Roman Legat by Tears and lamentable Complaints, submit­ted to the Yoke, not willingly I confess, but being thereunto compell'd by Force of Arms. And thus they continued for thirty Years, and since that Time our Country­men have always pretended a Right to Northumberland, Westmoreland and Cumber­land, which was the occasion of many Wars, as we shall hear afterwards; but the Bri­tains growing weary of the continued and grievous Servitude, they sent for Assi­stance from Britannia Armorica, whence Holinshed writes, that Constantine came with an Army, who kill'd Dongardus King of Scotland in Battel, and recover'd Scot­land. This is the third King of Scotland, who in a small interval of Time fell as fighting gallantly in the Field, that being look'd upon as honourable and familiar to our Kings: for it is brave and honourable, says the Lyric Poet, to die for ones Country; and others of our Kings have followed their Examples, which Holinshed objects as a Disgrace to them: But he will find no­thing amongst his Britains which relishes so much of true Nobility; nay nor amongst the English are there many Kings to be found who died in Battel, unless it was during the Heptarchy, while they rag'd mutually against one another.

[Page 101]But that we may return to the Armori [...]i, or People of Little Britany; Holinshed says, that Constantine of that Country recovered Scotland, and was made King of all Britain: But how could he recover that which he never lost, especially seeing Dongardus fell a Conqueror, which the Britains had felt to their no small damage, except he had been followed by a cowardly Successor? Holin­shed will have this Constantine to be descen­ded from Brutus in a direct Line, and to have been Son to the King of the Lesser Bri­tany. But Matthew of Westminster writes, that he died without having done any thing of note, and left Children behind him, Au­relius, Ambrosius and Vter; under whose Conduct he says that the Britains fought with the Scots, and obtained a Victory: What Manner of Victory it was, in what Place obtain'd, or who were the Generals, there's not one word; but it must needs have been a very small Victory which did neither advance the Britains, nor depress their Enemies. Would any Body offer such Fooleries as real Matters of Fact? But the Truth is, that the Scots were neither ex­pell'd by those of Little Britany, Constantine, Aurelius nor Vter; but held the Soveraignty of the Island until the Saxons, being hired by the Britains, dispossessed them of that [Page 102] Part of Britain which was a Roman Pro­vince: And that Aurelius Ambrosius did not come into Britain before Hengist, appears by Hengist's Oration to Vortigern; which is exhibited by Matthew of Westminster. But to set this whole Matter concerning the Auxiliaries from Little Britany, in its true Light; whatever Holinshed and Geffrey of Monmouth may fabulously assert, when the Britains were repulsed by the Romans, and did unwillingly fall off from them, they consulted about chusing a General against the Scots and Picts, and pitch'd upon Vorti­gern; who finding himself unable to sustain so great a Burden, whatever Holinshed may say, perswaded them to hire the Saxons to undertake the War for them: which had been altogether needless if Scotland had been subjected and recovered before; for none use to desire Assistance, who are able of them­selves to maintain War.

Whereas Holinshed alledges, that Vortigern gave Galloway, Annandale, and the Mers, which were Scotish Provinces, to be inha­bited by the Saxons; it's according to his usual Manner, and against the Credit of all Historians, who have left it on Record that Ke [...]t, the most fertile Province of England, was granted to them. And as the English Writers themselves testify, when the Saxons [Page 103] understood the Fruitfulness of the Island, and the cowardly Temper of the Inhabi­tants, and that Kent was not sufficient for the Souldiers that arrived daily, that Hen­gist obtain'd the Countries which lay upon the Humber from Vortigern, that his People might fix there and prevent the Entrance of the Enemies into Britain. Neither were the Saxons so very dull as to chuse such Coun­tries as were not fertile for their own Habi­tation, and to leave the most large and fruitful Countries of Britain; but they did gradually aim at the Soveraignty of the whole Island, as the Event did quickly ve­rify.

But this is not to be pass'd over, that though all Historians agree that those Coun­tries were given to the Saxons, yet they make no mention of any Homage or Superi­ority, or that the Britains reserv'd any Claim of Fealty over those Countries to them­selves: A most certain Argument that there was not any Name or Memory of Homage then, or for some Ages after in Britain; and therefore whatever mention there is of Ho­mage or Fealty perform'd by the Scots du­ring the Time of the British Monarchy, if there were ever any such, it is vain and fri­volous, and to be reckoned amongst the Milesian Fables, or as we may say, old Wives [Page 104] Tales. The English possessed Kent, the Is [...]e of Wight, and the Eastern Parts of Britain, by the Bounty of the Britains; but neither did they own them as their Lords upon that account, nor pay them any Homage, there being no such thing then in being. And Po­lidore Virgil does not only suppress all that is said concerning those Auxiliaries from Little Britany; but also says, that Vortigern being chosen King by the Britains, who were then consulting how to [...]esist the Scots, gave them this Advice to bring in the Saxons. Maria­nus Scotus has nothing of those Auxiliaries from Britany; which this Man advances as the most certain Truth: Neither is there any mention of them found in Mal [...]sbury, Huntington, Ethelverd, Florence of Worcester, nor Gild [...]s, whom I prefer to all Men on this head; and yet he neither takes any no­tice of them nor of Vortigern, though he was born at that Time, so that nothing could be hid from him. Nor does Bede, who liv'd af­ter him, and wrote a true and brief History of those Times, though he takes notice of Vortigern, say any thing of those Auxiliary Britains; nor of that Constantine whom this Jugler avers to have slain the King of Scots in Battel. Ethelverd does not call Vortigern King, but says that he was esteemed as such by all Men: And none of those Authors [Page 105] take any notice that the Scots were either beat, or divested of the Empire of Britain by any other than the Saxons: But that by the Advice of Vortigern, whom they chose King in a tumultuary Manner, upon the Depar­ture of the Romans from the Island, they a­greed to hire the Saxon Auxiliaries that they might bear the Burden of the War: And all of them testify that the Saxons after their Ar­rival in the Island, under the Conduct of their Captains Hengist and Horsa, were never defeated nor dispossessed; but having sent for their Fellow-Souldiers from Germany, they quickly drove the Britains into Wales; and first founded one Kingdom, then a Se­cond, and at last a Heptarchy, or Seven Kingdoms. And therefore what this Bab­ler dreams of Vortigern's having subdued Scotland by the Help of the Saxons, and de­prived them of the Islands, which were the common Refuge of the Nation, are so vain, that they are not worthy of a Confutation; for he hath feigned all those things himself, without the least Authority or Evidence: and if it be not so, let any Body who espou­ses his Quarrel name but one Author, and we shall yield. Bede, the only Writer of those Times, has not one word of those things: but this Author thought that he might law­fully forge, feign, and invent what he pleas'd, [Page 106] so he did but tear the Scots with his In­vectives. But how could Vortigern, who was inferiour to the Scots in War, and ob­tain'd the Kingdom by gross Wickedness, as Historians write, for which he was hateful to his own Subjects, bring the Scots under his Yoke? For Vortigern after he had call'd in the Saxons, was first deserted by all his own Subjects, and then dethron'd, his Son Vortimer being set up in his Stead, according to their own Historians. Gildas and Bede do both mention Aurelius Ambrosius, who succeeded Vortigern, and fatigu'd the Saxons by War; but they call him a Roman, and the only surviving Person of the Roman Blood, and own that he obtain'd the Mo­narchy of Britain, that Part of it I mean that was a Roman Province: which is an Evidence how unwillingly the Britains fell off from the Romans. Malmsbury and Henry of Huntington say the same; and Paulus Di­aconus writes, that this Aurelius Ambrosius as­sum'd the Purple; that is, took upon him the Imperial Dignity in Britain. But this Man being resolv'd to make War with the Truth, would rather follow Geffrey of Mon­mouth in his History, than those Authors of approved Credit and Reputation. What he hath writ concerning Vter's having subdued and recovered the Kingdom of Scotland, is [Page 107] of the like nature; for if his History be true, the Saxons never gave him so much time to breathe as to think of invading Scotland; and being, in fine, deluded by them, and harass'd with War during his whole Reign, if he had any, he was neither honoured by his own Subjects, nor taken notice of by the Saxons. Whereas he says, that the Scots entred into a Bond of Friendship, and join'd in War with the Saxons, he is foully mi­staken, to say no worse; for Palladius, ac­cording to Bede, obtain'd from the Scots, who had receiv'd many Injuries from the Britains, and were therefore thinking upon Revenge, that they should nevertheless join in Arms with them, because the Saxons were at that Time bitter Enemies to the Christian Religion; and Polidore follows B [...]de in this. Here we may observe the Virulence of this Man against the Scots: For whereas Bede hath left it behind him in Writing, that the Saxons entred into a League with the Picts, and join'd their Arms to subdue the Bri­tains; this Juggler turn'd it upon the Scots, as if they by joining with the Saxons, had made War upon the Britains; when on the contrary, as Polidore ingenuously confesses, Constantine the King of Scots being invited by the Saxons, refus'd to join them, and sent Assistance to the Britains; which was the [Page 108] only thing, as he says, that supported the British State for some time at least, and kept it from immediate Ruin. So that there is nothing farther from Truth, than to say that V [...]r [...]igern or Vter did reduce the Scots by War: For besides that those things are spo­ken without any Authority, Evidence or Probability, Vortigern being worsted in the War, call'd in the Saxons: and it is very unlikely that the Britains should invade the Scots after the Arrival of the Saxons, when they were not able to defend themselves from that Cruel Enemy, but by the Assist­ance of the S [...]ots Auxiliaries. But this is the Thanks we have for our Kindness to the most ungrateful of Men, that we must be ac­cus'd as having made War upon them, when we sustain'd them by our Arms for some time, and kept them from present Ruin.

CHAP. XII.
Concerning Arthur; whether he subdued Scot­land, or required Homage from the King of Scots.

LET us now come to Arthur; who, as he says, did not only subdue the Scots, but according to our own Historians redu­ced all Scotland, and the Isles as far as Caith­ness; but he names no Body, as fearing to be cat [...]'d in a manifest Untruth. There are not so many Scots Historians, that we need to be ignorant what any of them says; but none of them did ever convey such mon­strous Lies to Posterity. There are some, who being led into an Error by the English, do write many great and magnificent things concerning Arthur: But that he subdued Scotland, demanded Homage or Fealty from the Scots, or set his Kinsman Angusianus, who was his own Sword-bearer, over them, there is neither any English-man nor Scots­man, except Geffrey of Monmouth alone, who hath committed it to writing. But that Man must needs be more than ordinarily im­pudent, who hath once leap'd over the Bounds of Modesty. But there are many [Page 110] things which move me either to think that there was no Arthur, or that at least he was not King of Britain: For, as the English and Scotish Historians assert, Hengist came into England with his Saxons in 449. They and the Britains fought at Bansdown in 498, a­bout 49 Years after Hengist's Arrival. And Gildas says, that he was born in that Year. Monmouth, Westminster, and those who fol­low them, say that Arthur began to reign in 516, being then but fifteen Years of Age; and that he was advanc'd to the Throne, though unlawfully begot, because of the great Opinion which Men had conceiv'd of his Vertue: therefore we easily collect that Arthur was born in 501, three Years after Gildas. And Polidore does plainly say, that this Arthur died in the very flower of his Youth; being afraid of the Indignation of the Vul­gar, if he had writ nothing of him. From those things it is evident, that Gildas was three Years older than Arthur, and his Con­temporary: But this Gildas, a very great Lover of Truth, when he deplores the Ar­rival of the Saxons, and the Destruction and Cowardice of his own Country-men the Britains, he has not one word of his Con­temporary Arthur, whose subject he was, viz. a Britain born under a Britain; and speaks not so much as one word of him in [Page 111] Jest or Earnest. Which so great a Man would never have been guilty of, if any such Personage as Arthur, famous for so many Great Actions, had liv'd in his Time; who did so often put the Saxons to Hight, and drive them out of Britain. Neither does he ever write, that the Saxons yielded to the Britains after their Arrival; but that having enjoyed the Government in Britain with Hengist, they divided the Kingdom amongst themselves in his Life-time, and made it their Country. Polidore has so great an Esteem of this Gildas, that he says there was no­thing which he abhorr'd more than Lies, and that there was nothing more familiar to him than Truth. Bede, than whom there is not a more true and uncorrupted Writer, and who at that Time was not only the grea­test Ornament of Learning in Britain, but in all Europe, has nothing of this Arthur, though he liv'd but 160 Years after him, (for he flourish'd Ann. Dom. 700.) and com­prizes in an accurate History, all the Fights, Battels and Skirmishes betwixt the Brittons and Saxons. Neither is he mentioned by Florence of Worcester, nor Ethelverd, the most antient Historian of those Times next to Bede. Newbriggs, in the Preface to his History, says in express Terms, that `where­as they do not make the least mention of [Page 112] Arthur and Merlin, and though all those things concerning them are feigned by Counterfeits, yet that Man (meaning Gef­frey of Monmouth) hath publish'd them to entertain Mens Curiosity. Malmsbury does indeed make mention of him, yet not as a King, but as one of A [...]relius Ambrosius's Cap­tains; as does also Henry of Huntington: But as for the Roman Historians, they never so much as take notice of him; nor is he to be heard of in Paulus Diaconus, Procopius, Agathias or Iornandes, who wrote the Histo­ry of those Times, nor in any French Histo­rian. Nay Cooper, an English Writer, does ingenuously confess, that the Actions said to be done by Arthur, agree with none of the Historians of those Times, although by them he is rendred famous for his Exploits, as having subdued all France and Italy; so that those Historians could not have pass [...]d him.

Arthur is also feigned to have routed the Emperor Tiberius, and the Auxiliary Forces brought him by Epistrophius King of Greece, Mustensare King of Aphrica, Alifantina King of Spain, Hirtacius King of the Parthians, Bocchus King of the Medes, Sertorius King of Lybia, Teucer King of Phrygia, Ser [...]es King of Iturea, Pandrosus King of Egypt, Micypsa King of Babylon, and the Dukes (as if there had been any then of that Title) [Page 113] of Bithynia, Phrygia, Syria, Beoti [...] and Cret [...]. Whereas indeed Tiberius did not un­dertake the Empire, and that only of the East, until 40 Years after Arthur's Death; for Tiberius began to reign Ann. 576, and A [...]g [...]sianus King of Scotland, whom Holin­shed will have to be Arthur's Sword-bearer, died before Arthur was born. As to those fifteen Kings and Dukes, this I affirm, that those Provinces had then no Kings nor Dukes, of which there were at that Time none in the World, but were subject to the Roman Empire. And at that Time, when Arthur is said to have reign'd, Iustinian was Emperor, the Goths possess'd Italy, Chilperic govern'd in France, and other magnanimous Kings, who would never have suffered Ar­thur to enter their Kingdoms with an Army: Therefore whatever is writ concerning Ar­thur, is both fabulous, and justly so repu­ted. And Holinshed himself confesses them to be fabulous, though he be otherwise a wonderful Artist at scraping together what­ever may advance the Praise of his Britains. But let him if he can produce any Historian of that Time, English or other, who wrote any thing concerning Arthur. The sole Au­thor of all this Fable of Arthur, is Geffrey of Monmouth; concerning whom, I shall in a few words exhibit the Judgment of the [Page 114] Learned, yea, even of English-men them­selves, without adding any thing of my own. P [...]lidone, although he was a Native of Vrbin, yet I name him amongst the English Wri­ters, both because he liv'd in England, and wrote an History thereof to please K. Henry the Eighth. His own Words, lest I should seem to impose upon any Body, are these: Lib. I. of his History. B [...]t on the contrary, says he, there sta [...]ted up [...] certain Writer of our Age; who that he might a [...] o [...]e for those Crimes of the `Brittons, I mean their Cowardice and Per [...]idionsness, scrapes t [...]gether ab [...]ndance of ridiculous▪ Fictions con­cerning them; and with an impudent Vanity, extols their Valou [...] abov [...] [...]hat of the Romans on Macedonians. This is Geffrey of Monmouth; who is also sirnamed Arthur, because h [...] spread a Latin Vail over the Fictions of the Brittons concerning Arthur, which he hath augmented himself, and given them the name of True History. And the anonymous Con­tinuator of Bede's History, who begins his British Affairs with the Scotish War, has these Words:— All before this, says he, which that Man (meaning Geffrey of Mon­mouth) [...]ath taken [...]ar [...] to write concerning Ar­thur, and his An [...]estors before Vo [...]tigern, were partly feigned by himself, and partly by others: Whereupon h [...] calls him the fabulous Geffrey; and says he arrived to su [...]h a height of [Page 115] Lying, that to use his own Words, he hath made the Finger of his Arthur thicker than Alexander the Great's Back. William of Ne [...]bridge does not content himself meerly to reproach Geffrey, but spends two entire Pages in confuting him and his Writings. Geffrey is indeed a wonderful Artist at Hi­story; who out of his own Head continued the Story of 1700 Years, so as to lead our Writers and all Posterity into a very great Error: and although they know themselves to be impos'd upon, yet they will not be re­claim'd from their Mistake; they are so very ambitious of Glory, were it even but from Fables. For who is not pleas'd with the [...]able of Brutus, the supposititious Author of the British Nation, and his Arrival in Britain, whose Father, Grandfather, and Great Grandfather, together with his Wife and Off-spring, he names as if he had liv'd with them? And with [...]he same Assurance he utters what he says of Brennus; whom he will have to be a Britton, if the Gods be so pleas'd, (as Lloyd will have his Cambri to be called Ci [...]bri) and to have overcome the Gauls, Germans and Romans; and at last, to have set Rome it self on fire. His third Fable concerning C [...]ssibelan [...]s is plainly a­gainst Caesar's Authority, who, as I said, is reckon'd the Chief of Writers. His fourth [Page 116] are the Duels betwixt his Arthur and the Giants, for which Geffrey, as has been said already, did merit the Sirname of Arthur▪ His fifth are the Prophecies of Merlin, which are so full of Ambiguities, Turnings and Windings, that the Oracles of Delphos are not to be compar'd to them: and besides those five pleasant Fables, Geffrey has nothing in him worth reading. But some will say, that he professes himself to be only a Tran­slator: it's true indeed, but it's only that he may cheat us with more safety and secre­sy, for he has not been able to name any of those Authors whom he pretends to have translated: And Gildas does expresly testify, that all the Monuments of the Brit­ton [...], were lost, and none of them to be found in his Time. Shall this Man then, who could forge the History of so many Years out of his own Brain, be brought in Evidence against us, or must we believe it because he writes so, for Holinshed has it no where else, that the Scots following the Treachery of their Ancestors, did besiege Houell King of little Britany? Let Arthur then, with his Hi­storian Geff [...]ey, go and keep Company with the Night-Owls. It's certain, that there was never any settled Form of Government in the British Republick, neither in Vortigern's Time, who first brought in the Saxons; [Page 117] nor after him was there any establish'd King­dom, until the Time of Aureli [...]s Ambrosius, who was of Roman extract, and at length chosen King or General (for I find him named both ways) in a tumultuary man­ner by the Britains, who began, though too late, to repent the bringing in of the Saxons, and depriv'd Vortigern of the Go­vernment. Aurelius made War upon the Saxons for some time with various success; and that he might strengthen himself on all sides, he gave his two Sisters in Marriage, Anna to Lothus King of the Picts, and Ada to Conranus General of the Scots Army, who was to succeed his Brother in the King­dom, and by their Assistance he did for some time bear up the ruinous State of the Bri­tains. After his Death, when the King­dom fell by Law upon Lothus his Posteri­ty, and that the Britains set up one Con­stantine in his place, Modredus, Lothus his Son, pursuing his right by Arms, had a ter­rible and fatal Battel with the Britains, wherein he died, though Conqueror: Hence follow'd irreconcileable Feuds betwixt the Picts and Britains, and that League be­twixt the Saxons and Picts for the Destructi­on of the Britains, who though they were for some time assisted by the Scots, (for Palladius obtain'd from Constantine King of [Page 118] the Scots, that he should not desert the Bri­tains, though he had receiv'd many Inju­ries from them, nor join with the Saxons, tho they promis'd great things, because they were Enemies to the Christian Religion) yet they were at last subdued and forc'd into Wales; and not only lost the Royal Dig­nity, (if ever they had any) but were constrain'd to abandon the most fruitful Provinces of their Country to the Enemy, which they might perhaps have enjoy'd to this Day if they had sincerely cultivated their Friendship with the Scots and Picts. Let this suffice as the first Example to our Neighbours, that they don't, from an Ex­cess of Ambition, endeavour to invert the true Succession of the Crown, and prefer some of their own Country-men right or wrong. For Modredus was Heir of the British Monarchy, if they had any such, and his Posterity as far as Hungus King of Picts carried the same Right; and Hungus dying without Issue, the Succession of the British and Pictish Crowns devolv'd upon Alpin King of Scots, who was his Nephew by F [...]rgus his Sister; and so it descended by a continued Series, to the most Serene Prince Iames VI. King of Scots: and al­though he should not succeed to that Right by Hungus, yet as being descended from [Page 119] Ada the youngest of Aurelius his Sisters, who was married to Conranus, he has the sole and undoubted Right to the British Empire.

Some may wonder perhaps that I should reject A [...]thu [...], and all that is said concerning him so rashly, when there are so many pro­bable Monuments of him both in England and Scotland, so many places denominated from him, as Arthur's Seat near Edinburgh, Arthur's round Table, Arthur's Vault not far from Sterlin, and the Inscription on his Sepulcher at Glastenbury in England, ‘Hi [...] jacet Arth [...]rus, Rex quo [...]dam, Rexque futur [...]s.’

Which may be English'd thus;

Which form a very strong Argument, that there hath been some one called Arthur. What answer to return I know not, but this I am sure of, that what I have inserted is not mine, but taken from the most polite of the English Historians themselves. Nor can I guess at any other Cause, why we are impos'd upon with this commentitious Arthur, [Page 120] than the depravation of Man's Na­ture since the Fall, which chuses Vanity ra­ther than Truth. For we perceive what sort of things are writ by Homer, concern­ing Polyphemus, Antiph [...]s, and the rest of his Cyclops, or Lestrigones, and the like, and yet they are in Honour and Esteem by all Men: But as Ovid says of Vlysses, ‘Adde quod illius pars maxima ficta laborum est.’ And there's nothing more frequently read, than the Ethiopian History of Heliodorus, Leucian's Ass, or Apuleius's Golden Ass: so the French have their Hugh of Burdea [...]x; and the Britains being acted by the like Folly, did feign themselves this Arthur, that they might not come short of their Neigh­bours, and him they give out to be a Demi-God, and Prince of Ghosts, that he might appear the more august unto Men; whence it came to pass, that if there were any Country or Place which struck Men with Horror, that they imagin'd to be inhabited by Arthur. If any Man bring another Rea­son, I shall acquiesce; but this is certain, that if there had been any Arthur, either in the Time of Iustin or Iustinian, some­thing of his Memory would have been trans­mitted to us. But to return to our pur­pose.

[Page 121]In the Book intituled [...] printed at London by Iohn Day in 1568, Arthur's Victories are related, and the Provinces which he subjected to Britain are enumera­ted, viz. all Scantia, which is now call'd Norway, Snechorda, Hibernia, Gutlandia, Dacia, Semelandia, Winlandia, Curlandia, Roe, Femelandia, Wirelandia, Flandria, Cherrela, Lappa, Islandia, Greenlandia, and the Islands of the Eastern Ocean, as far as Russia, and many other Islands beyond Scan­dia. There are some of those Countries, viz. Island and Greenland, which are known to Sailers, the Soveraignty of which no Body envies Arthur, they are so very disa­greeable to Mankind. Nor did we ever see any Men from those parts, either emi­nent for their Actions, instructed in Learn­ing, or indeed scarce Christians, the Coun­try being full of Apparitions, Ghosts, Hob­goblins and Fairies: and therefore 'tis not without reason, that I am brought to think him the Prince of the Ghosts, and feign'd on purpose to frighten Children into their good Behaviour, or to terrify the Minds of weak Men. As for the other Countries, Snechorda, Gutlandia, Semelandia, Winlandia, Wirelandia, and Cherrela, which are no where to be met with, and whose Names were never heard of, they are fittest for Arthur; that [Page 122] this new and fictitious King should reign and govern in these new and fictitious-Ter­ritories, according to his own Will and Plea­sure; so that he be but kept out of Bri­tain, and not made use of as a Bugbear to frighten timorous Men.

CHAP. XIII.
Of Malgo and other Kings of the British Line, and whether they could pretend to any Homage.

HOlinshed subjoins that Malgo or [...] succeded Arthur, and passes o­ver [...], Connan [...]s and Vortiporius, be­cause he [...]ound nothing in them which could whet his Teeth against the Scots. As to Malgo, he says, That he gave Lothian, a part of Scotland, to Ethelfred the English Saxon. How to answer this Man according to his Merit, I know not, except by ap­plying to him what Leland says undeserved­ly of our Boethi [...]s; for Lothian at that time was not a Scotish Province, but belonged to the Picts. Nor would what he designs follow thence if it had; for granting that Malgo had given some part of Scotland to Ethelfred for a place of Habitation, it [Page 123] can­not be concluded from thence, that the King of Scots paid Homage to Malgo, nay, the contrary is to be inferred from the Feu­dal Law, viz. that if Malgo had had any Superiority over Scotland, he lost it by this very Act, in making the Condition of his Vassal worse than it was, without his Con­sent, and taking away part of his Fee; for according to the Feudal Law, as the Vas­sal cannot encroach upon his Lord's Patri­mony, so neither can the Lord hurt his Vassal, or diminish any thing of his Fee without his Consent. But what do I argue thus with this Holinshed, who according to his own Confession is altogether ignorant of the Law? But the impartial Reader may thence judg whether those things be pro­bable.

Malgo reign'd only five Years, in which time being defeated by Ethelfred with a great Discomsiture, he was scarcely able to defend his own Wales. He was moreover a Person so hateful to God and Man, for the unheard-of sorts of Lusts which he brought into Britain, that there is not the least Shadow of Probability, that ever he thought of seizing or distributing other Mens Provinces. And at last I set Holinshed here against himself, in whose Hi­story there is no such thing to be found, [Page 124] especially when none of the Saxon Kings did more grievously afflict the Britains than Ethelfred. He writes, that Cadvan [...]s suc­ceeded Malgo, and passes over an Interreg­num of twenty four Years, and Careticus, who defended the Scots his Subjects from the Violence and Injuries of Ethelfred, but re­penting him straight-way of what he had done, because of the Rebellion of the Scots, he says, that he granted all Scotland to E­thelfred; which nevertheless Cadwallo King of the Britains recovered, and kill'd Ethel­fred, and in this Expedition, he says, that all the Saxon Kings served Cadwallo. But all who have ever writ of British Affairs, do testify, that never any one Man did so much afflict the Brittons as this Ethelfred, who drove them into their own Wales, and cut off from them all hopes of return: That all the Saxon Kings serv'd the British Kings in the War, is ridiculous, for the Saxons never ceas'd, until the Britains were ex­pell'd, and they themselves possess'd of their Country; nor was there any Cessation from War, for Cadwanus and Cadwallo esteem'd it enough, says Polydore, to bear up a­gainst the imminent Ruin of their Coun­try; and if it had been either in Cadwanus or Cadwallo's Power to fix their Residence in Scotland, how bad soever it may be, [Page 125] they would never have preferred Wales be­fore it. But as to the matter of Homage, here is a perpetual Silence.

When Cadwallader the last King of the Britains, who went over into little Britany, because of a raging Famine and Pestilence at Home, had gathered together an Army to recover his Country, he was said to be admonish'd by an Apparition of a more venerable Shape than any thing Humane, that he should not attempt in vain what Fate had forbid him, for his Country should fall into the Enemies Hands, and be reco­vered a long Time after by his Posterity, as Polydore, Holinshed, and the rest of the Common Historians have it, which may be much better accommodated to King Iames VI. than to Henry VII. for neither does it appear, that Owen Teudor was descended from the Race of the Welch Kings, nor is there any one who can deduce his Pedi­gree from them: But Walter the first of the Family of the Stewards, which now reigns, is descended from them. But whether that Oracle did regard the said Walter, or Henry the seventh, it's certain that it hits in the most Serene Prince Iames the sixth, who is the undoubted Heir of both, by both Lines.

[Page 126]So much concerning the British Kings and their seigned Homage, which nevertheless, as I observed before, was not known in Britain before the Conquest, or at least before the Year 900; therefore whatever is said or writ concerning the Homage before that Time, is so inconsiderable, that it does not de­serve a Confutation, or if they have any Author of this Homage, by whom they can defend themselves, let them name one be­fore the Conquest, who made any mention of Vassal, direct or profitable Lordship, Ho­mage, Fealty, Fee Liege, or Fee it self, and we shall yield the Cause. As to what con­cerns the Brittons after the arrival of Iulius Caesar, (for before his Time we have no­thing to say) it is certain that they were always under the Roman Yoak; and when they went away, all the Histories of that Time do testify that they became tributary, and gave Hostages to the Scots and Picts for thirty Years together: Nor is there any English Author who hath not express'd that very thing. And that they might shake off their Yoke, they invited the Saxons in­to the Island, by whom they were far more grievously oppressed, expell'd their Coun­try, and driven into Wales, which at last they could not retain neither; but falling under the Power of the English, the Brit­tons [Page 127] lost all Royal Name and Dignity in the Island for ever.

We must also consider in this Cause, as a Thing which gives very great Light to the Question, what it is that an [...]ient Authors un­derstand by the Name of Britain; for when­ever Holinshed reads, that any of his ficti­tious Kings did reign over all Britain, forth­with he supposes, that they did at the same time command over Scotland, seeing that is a part of Britain: but as George Bucha [...] hath observed, it is certain that the antient Writers did by the Name of Britain, understand only that part which was inhabited by the Britains, and inclos'd within Severns's Wall as a Roman Province. I shall add some single Instances, instead of many, out of Gildas, Bede, an anonymous Author, and Geffrey himself, besides those which are cited by Buchanan.

Gildas when he writes of the Destruction and Conquest of Britain, understands it only of the Conquest and Destruction of his own Country; for Scotland was neither conquer'd nor destroyed, there having ne­ver been any Man yet, who could truly boast that he had conquer'd Scotland. Gef­frey writes, That Cadwallo King of Britain, chas'd the Saxons beyond the Wall, which was built betwixt Britain and Scotland. Bede's [Page 128] words are, Neither was there any of the Kings of Scots who durst enter Britain to infest the Saxons, after that fatal Battel of Aidan the King of Scots with Ethelfred: but it is cer­tain that King Aidan and his Scots, did se­curely inhabit that part of the Island which is called Scotland, both then and afterwards. And a little after, the same Bede says, There's a Place near the Wall Northward, by which Wall the Romans encompass'd Britain from Sea to Sea: Therefore Britain was then cal­led an Island as inclosed with a Wall. I pass by many other Instances, lest I should be tedious to the Reader; but it appears from what has been said, that when we find it mentioned concerning any one, that they reign'd over Britain, there's nothing un­derstood of Scotland, whatever Holinshed may aver, who deals unfairly in many things: for when in his History he affirms, That the Scots did not arrive in the Island be­fore the Reigns of Honori [...]s and Arcadi [...]s; and that he has the History of all the pre­ceding Scots Kings from us, there being no Englishman, for what I know, that writes concerning our Affairs, ( Bede it's true, makes mention of Reutherus, but he confesses that it was not his design to write the Scots History) yet nevertheless Holin­shed perverts the whole. If it be writ that [Page 129] the Brittons made War upon any of our Kings, then straightway Holinshed asserts that they were beaten, conquered, implor'd Mer­cy, and perform'd Fealty and Homage: If they would not submit, then they were ex­pell'd by the Brittons; and that because of the innate Treachery of the Nation, and their continual Rebellion: But if they did any thing that was gallant, he either adulterates the same, or passes it over in silence; such is Holinshed's Candor towards us in his History, and such his Fidelity in relating Matters of Fact.

Neither is this to be omitted, that if the Kings of the Brittons had any direct Lord­ship or Superiority over Scotland, it certain­ly fell with their Monarchy, according to the Maxims of the Feudal Law: For it is a most certain Rule in that Law, that by the Destruction of the thing from which a Fee is held, if so be it happen without the Vassal's Concurrence, as by Fire, Earthquake, O­pening of the Earth, Inundation, or be seiz'd by an Enemy, or otherways, the Fee and Lordship ceases, and becomes extinct. But that the Monarchy of the Brittons, to which this Homage was due (according to Holin­shed) is destroy'd, and their Country over­run by an Inundation of Enemies, is cer­tain; [Page 130] and therefore this supposititious Right of Superiority is also by the Rules of the Feud [...]l Law extinguished with the Monar­chy of the Brittons, to which it was due and appertain'd. But let us suppose that it is not ceas'd, then it must needs devolve upon the Posterity of Brut [...]s, and not upon their most bitter Enemies, who depriv'd them of their Country, Life and Liberty: And if it be so, the King of Scots is the only Survivor of Bru­tus's Line I think fit to admonish the Reader of this one thing; That all those Matters if they do any way refer to the Question in hand, are alledged by Holinshed, without any Author, probable Reason, or Likelihood: And indeed this is a very strange thing, that he should be so ungrateful to his Authors as not to think them worthy to be named: And it's also wonderful that any Men, emi­nent for Experience and Learning, of which there is no small Number in England, should listen or give Credit to any of those Impo­stures; for that which is not founded upon any certain Authority, deserves no Credit amongst honest Men. But I suppose he was afraid to name his Author, lest the Matter should not have succeeded according to his Desire; and in that case, if the quoted Au­thor should have denied him his Patronage, [Page 131] he would have been catch'd at a Disadvan­tage, and le [...]t to enter the Lists alone with­out Arms.

CHAP. XIV.
Of the Saxon Monarchy and its Duration, and whether ever Scotland belonged to the King of England.

HAving gone through the Time of the British Monarchy to see if there were any Footsteps or Token of this Homage to be found, the first Army of Instances which were rashly led up by Holinshed, consulting their own Safety, betook themselves to their Heels, and run over to the Enemy. Now it remains for us to attack the second Army of Instances, which he brings from the Time of the Saxon Monarchy, to try whether any thing can be found in them to confirm this Com [...]entitious Homage. This Saxon Monar­chy began about the Year 450, and lasted about 600 Years, till the Time of the Con­quest. In all which time, that there was no Homage, no Benefit for which it was due, no Superiority, or direct or profitable Dominion, [Page 132] Dominium directum vel utile, I have made manifest in the first Proposition. In Confir­mation whereof I add this, that if the an­tient English Laws before the Conquest, printed at London under the Title of [...], be seriously perus'd, it will appear that there is no mention of Fee, without which there can be no Homage: For as to Athel­stan, who by our Writers is said to be the first that received Homage from Malcolm, or as they say Constantine King of Scots, for the Principality of Cumberland and Westmoreland, he liv'd only one Age before the Conque­ror; and I suppose that our Authors did ra­ther follow the Custom of the Age when they wrote, than of that wherein those things were transacted. But of Athelstan we shall say more afterward. The Writer of that Time, and the Transactions which hapned therein, is Bede, who died Ann. Dom. 733. and that by his Death, the History of that Time was lost, is testified by Malmsbury, Florence of Worcester, and him who wrote the Prologue to the first Book of Malmsbury's History. But whether it was Malmsbury himself or another, he confesses ingenuously that the History of 223 Years was lost; which if they be added to the Years of Bede's Death, reach to 956. Betwixt which, and the Time of Bede's Death, it is certain from [Page 133] the Testimony of the English Writers them­selves, that all their History was lost: and that therefore no Credit is to be given to those who assert whatever comes uppermost, or alledg any other things than what Bede transmitted to Posterity. But those who would have themselves to be believ'd as to the Transactions of those two Ages and a half did not live till Henry the Second's Time, which was about 1170; that is al­most 400 Years after those things were trans­acted concerning which they write. The ol­dest is Ethelverd, who liv'd in 1090; and whether it be fit to believe those Men con­cerning things which happened so long be­fore they themselves were born, especially when they have no Authority but the Re­lation of Men whom they esteem'd worthy of Credit, I submit to the Judgment of those who are any way vers'd in History.

But here some may object, that they had Chronicles whence they might excerpt those things. It's true, that the Chronicles did use indeed to take notice of the Year and Reign when such a thing happened; but omit Causes, Reasons, Circumstances, and other things which are of most note in History: Or if they have any unsuspected Chronolo­ger who attests this Homage, let them pro­duce him, and we shall grant then the Victo­ry [Page 134] But whence they had those things which they wrote, and what they understand by Chronicles, I shall dispatch in a few words; and from one History, which was much e­steem'd by them, according to the Custom of those Times, we may make a Conjecture of the rest, that all Men may perceive how f [...]i­volous their Reasons, and how vain those Monuments are which they use, or rather a­buse in a Matter of so great Weight, to weigh down the Truth which we have on our side. I have in my Custody a History of those Times in Manuscript, so stuff'd with Fables, Miracles and Monsters, that it must needs raise the Contempt of any Reader. The Author is uncertain, but it is certainly a Relict and Monument of some English Mo­nastry. It's wonderful to read what great and strange things he writes concerning Ed­ward and A [...]helstan; all which are ascrib'd to the Prayers and Merits of St. Iohn of B [...] ­verly, and the Invocation of St. Guthbert. He says, that ‘being invoked by Athelstan, they put the Scots to flight; and that Athelstan at his return, endowed both their Chur­ches with innumerable Gifts and rich Farms.’ Nor have they any other C [...]ronicle or Au­thor, (as shall be afterwards made appear in Edward [...]) but one of those who wrote the Lives of the Saints; and why I should be­lieve [Page 135] them rather than those things which are writ in the Golden Legend, Lives of the Fathers, or such kind of Writings, I know not For what could the well-fed and idle Monks do better, when they had a mind to shake off their Sloth [...] and Drousiness, than to seign something which they thought worthy to be remembred? Therefore one set him­self about the History, or rather Romance, of St. Cuthbert: Another about that of St. Iohn of Beverly: A third about that of St. Bridget, or some other tutelary Saint to whom their Church was dedicated; which they set off with all manner of Counterfeit Fables and Ornaments that could be invented. To this was added a Cart-load of Miracles; with­out which the Saintship of him, in whose Name their Church was consecrated, was in hazard to be called in question: and there­fore it behoved them to feign, that by their Influence either the Danes were drove back to their Ships, or that the Scots were routed and broken, or had made a Surrender of themselves. Nor did they think that they sinn'd in so doing, for they call'd it only an Officious Lie; and the more notable the Fiction was, they were held worthy of the higher Dignity, and look'd upon as Persons of more than an ordinary size of Piety. Then they were admir'd by the ignorant Friars, [Page 136] and reverenc'd by following Writers. At last, when the Government of a Monastry became vacant, such an Author alone was reckoned worthy to succeed; which he a­scribed to the propitious Name of his tute­lary Saint. When I was at Paris, I saw in St. Genevieve's Church at the High-Altar, her Atchievements finely painted; and amongst other things, it was feigned that by her Prayers she had beat off the English from the Siege of Paris, routed them, chas'd 'em, and chastis'd them with innumerable Cala­mities: though no English-man did ever ei­ther hear or see that Paris was besieged by the English; and Genevieve her self was dead many Years before the Reign of the English, for she died at Paris about 80 Years old, ann. 513. as is witnessed by Mat­thew of Westminster. But those Writings ha­ving once pleased the Ears and Minds of the common People, were esteem'd as true; so that if any Man durst but mutter against them, he was forthwith look'd upon as an Heretick and Enemy to Piety. Nor is Bede himself, though a most Learned Man, free from this Crime of believing Lying Miracles; for there are so many of them inserted in his Hi­story, that they derogate from the Credit of what is true. If no Fable of a Saint oc­curr'd, then they describ'd Arthur's Atchieve­ments; [Page 137] as Geffrey of Monmouth, who wrote five Books of things that were never trans­acted; or they forg'd some new Gildas, that the New History of England might have something of Probability: and so those Writings of the Monks coming to be ad­mir'd, were desired by others that they might be copied; by which Means they were fill'd with Mistakes, partly by Negli­gence of Transcribers, and partly out of a De­sign to advance their own Religion, and ho­nour their Country, or out of favour to this or the other Man, who had done them a Kindness, or enrich'd their Churches. From the Text of those Legends, or Chronicles▪ as the Vulgar us'd to call them, Malmsbury and Florence collected their Histories; and omitted nothing that was fabulous or con­ducive to promote either the Dignity of their own Country, or the Ecclesiastical State; and if they say otherwise, let them produce any one Author or Chronicle which is not made up of things transacted at least 200 Years before he was born who writes it: And how is it possible that he who did not live till so many Years after, should be able to give an Account of Transactions, with the Causes, Occasions, Events and Circumstan­ces at such an Interval of Time?

[Page 138]But there are two Evidences, chiefly by whose Testimony more than all the rest, the Equity of our Cause is mightily prejudg'd, viz [...] Matthew of Paris, and Matthew of Westminster, both Monks: but how much Credit is to be given to their History, shall be made appear, not from any Scots Au­thor, for I would not have a Scotsman cre­dited in this Case; but from a Learned Eng­lish Author, whose Name I know not, viz. he who wrote the Preface to the Life of Alfred and W [...]lsingham's History. For first, he says, that they abound with Monkish Fictions, and old Wives Fables▪ and then he adds, that Matthew of [...]estminster and Matthew of Paris, are so full of Fables and monstrous Stories, that no Body does now believe them; yet he thinks fit that they should be publish'd, that we may see with what Clouds of Darkness we were encom­passed in the Time of Popery: for what danger can there be, says he, in repeating those Fables and Dreams? Certainly if any Man be drunk and bewitch'd with Monk­ish Dotages and Fables, they will both be­lieve them and the Author: And a little after he says, But for my part, as often as I fall upon those Monkish Fables and old VVives Tattle, I am mightily pleas'd with them; and yet these are the Writers by whose Autho­rity [Page 139] we are run down: So much says he in his Preface. For as it appears by the Re­seript of Valentinian and Valens, all Monks were accounted irreconcileable Enemies to Truth, and such as were accustomed to em­brace the Shadow for the Substance. Quidam Ignaviae Sectatores. C. de Cu­rionibus. And those Writers liv'd in a Time when nothing was more hateful to the English than the Name of a Scotsman; and therefore they thought it their Glory to forge whatever they could against the Scots, seeing they might not only do it without fear of Punish­ment, but did also either reap actually or at least conceive Hopes of having great Profit by it: And they did afterwards ar­rive at that height of Impudence, that either by adding to, or diminishing from Authors, they did most wickedly make them patro­ [...]ze the most absurd things, as is noted by Henry Savil (in his Preface to Westmin­ster) a Man truly Learned, and who hath l [...]ely published the antient English Histo­rians. And seeing from a Principle of Po­ [...] Superstition, there was nothing which the Monks would not forge, which could either enrich the Ecclesiastical Order, or advance the Pope above all Kings, and make him Soveraign of the Universe; and seeing also, as is said by the Learned in the Law, de sim [...]li in simile facilis est Transitus, [Page 140] Why should we not think that they would turn every thing that occur'd into a Pane­gyrick of their own Prince, so they could but render him Soveraign of the whole Island?

Iuvenal is certainly in the right, when he says in his third Satyr,

And in that same manner, those Court-Dogs do continually fawn upon their Masters, that they may procure some Morsels to stay their ravenous Stomachs. But here the English will object, that if we refuse this sort of Evidence, what is it that will satisfy us, or what Proofs do we require in a matter of this Importance, to make the Truth of that Homage manifest? I answer, that as I have no regard to the Testimony of im­pudent Monks, so I maintain, that the Af­firmative is only to be proved by authen­tick Charters and Monuments (kept in the Archives) under the Hand-writing of both Kings, and no otherwise: Nor is the As­sertion of one sufficient without the ex­changing of Indentures, or attested Bre­viates, as we call them in the Feudal Law; [Page 141] for that is not sufficient for one of them to salute another, by the Name of his Lord or Coheir in a Missive Letter, this not be­ing enough to make either the one Lord, nor the other Heir; nor if there be some such assertory Letters, as Paulus de Castro speaks In sum­mario. is that sufficient: for says the Em­peror Philip, Domestick Instruments, private Testimonies or Annotations, are not good e­nough Proof, if they be not supported with o­ther Circumstances Instru­menta, ibi­dem.. Now what can be writ or said more weighty against the Te­stimonies of those Monks, or their Nota­tions of Times which they call Chronicles? Bodinus Lib. 1. de Repub. testifies, that all those Homages which were performed either by the King of England, Dukes of Britany, Burgundy, &c. to the Kings of France, are still extant in the Archives. Then let Holinshed Show me any one such if he can; or if we must believe Witnesses, I wish he could tell me of any Pandulphus, who was sent as his Master's Ambassador or Proctor, in whose Presence the King pull'd the Crown from off his own Head, and delivered it into the Hands of the Ambassador, who after he had kept it in his Custody for fix Days together The Form of Homage which John King of England perform'd to the Pope., did in his Master's Name set it upon the King's Head again, as his fiduci­ary Client, imposing a Tribute of 1000 Marks [Page 142] Sterling upon him at the same Time, and taking his O [...]th, not only to perform faithful Vassalage and perpetual Service, but also that n [...]i­ther the King nor any of his Posterity, should ever pretend to that Crown any other­wise, than by the Bounty and Good-will of his Liege Lord, and this under his own Hand, the Great Seal of the Kingdom, and those of sixteen Earls, besides others that were present.

If they can show us that ever any such thing was perform'd by the King of Soots, or received by the King of England, they shall readily obtain our Affirmative to this Question. But they are also to take no­tice, that Charters alone are not sufficient to confirm this; for though they should agree, that the one shall be Lord, and the other Vassal, yet except there be an inter­vening Benefit, there cannot be any Ho­mage; for Homage is always accompanied with Benefit, as the Sun is with a Shadow; or as we say in Relatives, the one without the other is inconsistent, as I have observed before. They who have the least know­ledge of the Feudal Law, must confess those things to be true; for if there be no Benefit granted me, how can I owe Service, or with what Confidence can the Lord demand Military Service or Homage, from him who [Page 143] is not obliged to him by any manner of Bounty? for when the Bounty [...]eases, the Homage does also cease. But that Scotland was the Benefit or Gift of England, or the English Kings, there's no Man as I conceive will be so Impudent as to assert; for if so, who gave it? Who receiv'd the Investiture? Where are the Monuments or Indentures? When did we receive this Benefit? In what Century or Olympiad? Long before the Name of Bugland was known, we had many Kings in Scotland; nay some of them pos­sess'd Britain it self. As to what concerns the Kingdom of the Picts, it cannot be called their Benefit, for that we acquir'd by our own proper Valour against their Will, they having taken Arms in defence of the Picts; so that Scotland cannot be call'd a Benefit of England, by any Man who hath not bid defiance to Truth. But they will say that there's another way of acquiring Fealty and Homage, viz. by Force of Arms; for it may so happen, that a King who is routed and conquered, may surren­der himself up as a Vassal to the Conque­ror, and hold the Kingdom in Fee of him which was Free before, and perform Ho­mage to him upon that account. To which I answer, that this is contrary to the Nature of a Fee, for a Benefit ought [Page 144] not to be acquir'd by Force and Violence, but by Liberality and Munificence, and a Benefit ( Beneficium) is the Genus of the Thing defin'd in a Fee ( Genus de [...]initi est in Feudo). But of this Instance there is no Example: For in all Europe there's no Ho­mage (at least in Clientelary Kingdoms) which was acquir'd by Arms. Indeed the Emperor Henry V. or as some will have it Frederick I. The King­dom of Bo­hemia was at first in­stituted, that it might be a Fee of the Empire. created a King of Bohemia out of his own Patrimony, who did thereup­on perform Homage to him about the Year of God, ... but this did proceed meerly from wicked Ambition; for the Emperor perceiving that there were divers Kings in Europe, who would scarcely yield to him in Point of Dignity, that he might be reveng'd upon them in some measure, and show, that he could do that which o­thers could not; he would create a King, but one that should be his Vassal, for which he had no Precedent, neither can any Man, in so far as he is King, have another King under him; that of Martial is known,

And it is a Maxim in Law, Par in parem non habet Imperium, i.e. Equals have no Command [Page 145] over one another; but the King of Bohemia had his whole Kingdom out of the Patri­mony of the Empire, and upon that ac­count perform'd Homage.

The Anti-pope Anaclet the second, in I­mitation of the Emperor's Ambition, and that he might also have Kings for his Vas­sals, created the Duke of Apulia King of Naples, and impower'd him to make use of the Regalia, as a Fiduciary Client of the Patrimony of St. Peter, as they call it, to which as they alledg all Italy belong'd by the Donation of Constantine. The King­doms of Na­ples and Sicily founded at first, that they might hold in Vas­salage of the See of Rome. Therefore the Kingdom of Naples holds in Fee of the See of Rome, and pays 50000 Ducats year­ly by way of Covenant. And in like manner Manfred was invested King of Si­cily, because he had taken it by Force of Arms from the Saracens; and because this noble Island being taken from the Saracens had no Soveraignty, the Pope adjudg'd it to the Patrimony of St. Peter, but so as Manfred should be King under the Vassa­lage of the Roman Pontif, out of whose Patrimony he would have it to be thought, that the said Benefit was granted. Now those Kings receiv'd their Kingdoms, from the Bounty of the Emperors and Popes; and so those Kingdoms were originally founded, that they should hold in Vassalage, [Page 146] and perform Homage upon that Account: But here was nothing effected by Force nor Arms, and they are the only Kings who hold in Vassalage in Europe; except some have a Mind to say, that the Kings of Eng­land and their Successors were made Vas­sals to the See of Rome, not by Benefit, but by the Papal Arms, that is to say, by Curses and Excommunications, the Ordi­nance of the Vatican. The King of Den­mark indeed acknowledges the Emperor as his Lord for Ditmarsh, and upon that ac­count pays him Homage and receives his Investiture, but for Denmark he owes neither Fealty nor Homage to any Man. And the Kings of England swore Fealty and Homage to the French King, so long as they enjoyed Anjou, Poictou, Aquitain, and the rest of the Provinces beyond Sea; but those being taken away, the Homage ceased, for the Benefit ceasing as the Cause of the Homage, the Homage it self must of necessity cease also. Neither is it usual for Conquerors to leave the Royal Title to the Conquered Kingdom: Britany was call'd a Kingdom formerly, but after it was subdued by the French, they laid the Name of Kingdom aside. When the Welch were brought under by the English Power, they were forbid to chuse any more Kings; and [Page 147] it was the like as to Ireland, which was go­vern'd by five Kings when conquered by the English; who were all of them con­strain'd to quit that Royal Title, and for the most par [...] assum'd that of Earls; so that fourfold Division of the Kingdom of France amongst the Sons of Charlemaign, when­ever any of them return'd to the antient Patrimony, their Title of Kingdom became antiquated: and indeed in my Judgment, there's no such thing to be found in all Europe, that one King should have another for his Vassal, although the same be not unusual to Emperors and Popes, who arro­gate to themselves a Superior Power.

I know that the Kingdom of Castile did sometimes pay Homage to the King of Leon, and Portugal did the same to Castile; but Castile was originally no more than a Pro­vince, or County of the Kingdom of Leon, and Portugal a part of Castile. Nor did their Princes at first assume Royal Dignity to themselves, lest they should be forsaken by their first Patrons; but when they be­gan to reign in good earnest, and that their Royal Title was confirmed, the Homage did also cease as is witnessed by Roderick Sancius.

But lest we should seem to be altogether contentious, we will grant, though they [Page 148] can never force us to it neither by Argu­ment nor Example, that a King may be compelled by Arms to acknowledg another as his Lord, and receive the Investiture of his Kingdom from him, as a Beneficiary. Let us go through the whole Time of the Saxon Monarchy, which stood for about 600 Years, as I have already said, and see if any thing occurs which bears a Shadow of Probability, that ever the King of Scots was so brought under by the King of Eng­land, as either to make a Surrender of him­self unto him, or receive a new Investi­ture of his Kingdom from him: and in order hereunto, we shall begin with Hen­gist.

CHAP. XV.
A true Delineation and Description of the Eng­lish Saxon Monarchy.

THE first Monarchy of the English Saxons in Britain, was founded by Hengist himself, and preserv'd with a great deal of Difficulty; so that from him we were in no Danger; he being engaged in War with the Britains during his whole Life, and falling in the same at last. He was succeeded by his Son Esca or Osca; and Auxiliary Forces arriving daily from Ger­many, when once they were inform'd of the Nobleness of the Island, they continued the War with the Britains; and having driven them into Wales, divided the Province a­mongst themselves into seven Kingdoms, the Countries being shar'd according to e­very one's Merits; so that all the Time of this Heptarchy, they had a Domestick E­nemy to contend with, and the Point in controversy was not, which of them should Govern, but which of them should Live: For the Britains, though they had the justest Cause of War that could be, yet being in­feriour to the Saxons in Valour and Strength, [Page 150] and forc'd to retire into the Mountains and [...] Places; they did con [...]ually in­fest the Territories of the English Saxons with their Inroads, whereas they were se­cure themselves by the natural Strength of their Country, and did also possess the Counties which lay next to them, and when­ever a fair Opportunity offer'd, they did not decline Fighting, Anger and Grief for the loss of their Country inspiring them with Courage, while Fortune and their own Valour favour'd the Saxons: So that du­ring this whole six hundred Years, one War begat another, without any mention of Peace, both Nations fighting eagerly; nor in all this time could the Bri [...]ains be subdued, no, not in the Conqueror's Reign Rufus his Son having kill'd their King Rhe [...]us, who was the last they had, did in some measure oblige them to surrender; and since that time there have been no Kings in Wales, or the Antient Gambriu, yet they were not entirely subdued till the Time of Edward the first: It may be indeed that a Truce happened sometimes by mutual Con­sent, but they never laid down their Arms, the one striving to regain their antient Country, and the others to retain it.

The Britains being thus repuls'd, though not conquered, a far more insupportable [Page 151] Mischief fell out amongst the Saxons them­selves, viz. Civil Wars which were bloody to that degree, that the Conqueror seldom gave any Quarter to the Conquered, but did rage against one another with mutual Butcheries: And thus these following Princes and their Armies were slaughtered, viz. Ethelfred by Redval, Oswald by Penda, and Penda by Oswy, Brother to Oswald, in re­venge of his Brother's Death. I could name many others, but it not being my design to write the Story of the Heptarchy, I shall only add, that thus they exercised their Fu­ry upon one another by mutual Discomfi­tures, until the rest of the Heptarchy's be­ing suppressed, the whole Province submit­ted to the Government of Egbert, about the Year 800: He was the first who would have Britain called England, by the Name of his own People; and the Britains in the mean time keeping up their Arms, was the prin­cipal Cause of this uniting among the Sax­ons, for being too weak for the Britains apart, the Saxon Commonalty did the more readily agree to submit themselves to the Government of One; that so with their united Forces, they might the more easily repel the Britains: then seeing for that whole space of four hundred Years, they had an irreconcileable Enemy at Home, [Page 152] and destroyed one another with mutual Slaughters, who can believe that they did ever so much as dream of invading or sub­duing Scotland; they had Wars and Trou­ble enough at Home, but no Cause of Ha­tred against the Scots. Ethelfred's Victory over Aidan, which is related by Bede, makes nothing against this Proposition, for it was Aidan who provok'd the Saxons, and had already settled himself in Northumberland, that he might assist the Britains against them as became a true Christian, though he had very just Causes of being offended with the Britains; yet by the Influence of the Bishops, he was not only withheld from taking Arms against them, but chose rather seeing they profess'd the Christian Religi­on to join with them against the Saxons, the Common Enemies of Christianity; and therefore it could never so much as once en­ter into Ethelfred's Mind to subdue Scotland. But we shall give an answer in a little Time to those things which are objected by Ho­linshed. It is therefore manifest, that du­ring those four hundred Years, the Saxons made no Hostile Attempt on the Scots, nor never entred Scotland, or if they did, were not permitted to make any long stay there. But besides the Incursions of the Britains, and their own Domestick Broils, and mutual [Page 153] Slaughters which ended in Egbert, the English were attaqu'd with a new and more grievous Judgment than all the former; for the Danes upon the same Motives that the Saxons entred Britain under Hengist, did first infest the Coasts with Piracy, and con­ceiving hopes of enjoying the whole Pro­vince, by observing the feeble Resistance of the Saxons, who having gradually laid aside their antient Fierceness, were grown more Humane, they were encouraged to land upon the Continent of Britain with great Forces, and coming off Conquerors in some Battels, were lifted up with the Hopes of enjoying the whole Kingdom. Alfred oppos'd them stoutly, and being oft-times beaten and oft-times victorious, he did happily however preserve the Government; and if we may believe our Writers, being assisted with the Scots Auxiliaries, he overcame the Danes in a great Battel. But however that is, he entertain'd a fair and sincere Friendship with the Scots; for England had embrac'd the Christian Religion about an Age or two before, and therefore the Scots were easily perswaded to join with them against the Danes, who were bitter Enemies to Chri­stianity. All the time of this Alfred, the Scots enjoyed Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmoreland peaceably, as they had [Page 154] done from the Reign of Gregory, who had taken them from the Britains and English; although the English Annals affirm, that they were freely granted to us by their King, as a Reward of our joining in Arms with them against the Danes.

Athelsta [...] succeeding his excellent Father, and being free from the trouble of the Da­nish Arms, he could not bear with his Fa­ther's great Bounty towards the Scots, but demanded the Restitution of those Coun­tries from Constantine, threatning to take them by force of Arms, except the King of Scotland restored them willingly. Constan­tine's nearest Kinsman, Malcolm, being al­ready declared Prince of Cumberland, as a certain Sign of his Succession to the Crown, according to the then Custom of the Scots, gave a resolute Answer to Athelstan's Let­ters; so that they betook themselves to Arms on both sides. In the mean time a new Army of Danes landed in Northum­berland; and having notice of this Discord, they pour'd Oil into the Flames, allur'd the Scots to abandon the English, and join Arms with them: The unwary Youth did easily agree to it, as taking it heinously that those who had been so often relieved by his Father's Arms, in their greatest straits, should now take away the Reward of his [Page 155] Labour, and therefore he flies into England with Forces, and joins Camps with the Danes: assoon as ever an Opportunity offered, he att [...]qu'd the English with great Fierceness, but his Valour was overcome by their Po­licy; for Athelstan had ordered his Men to retire gradually, and counterfeit a Flight, which the Scots taking to be real, broke their Ranks, and pursued them until such [...] as new Troops came out from the Prince where they had lain in Ambush, and the rest returning to order of Battel, did first put the Scots, who were eagerly fight­ing, to the Rout, and then the Danes; by which Stratag [...]m the Conqueror did after­wards overcome Harold. Malcolm, the most of his chief Nobility, and the stoutest of the Youth being stain, return'd wounded into Scotland, no Man pursuing him; nor is there any thing more false, than what is asserted by the Common sort of the Eng­lish Historians, that Constantine was at this Battel in Person. But when the Danes up­on News of this Fight came in with Auxili­ary Troops from all parts, their Army in­creased so mightily, that Athelstan perceiv'd he was in hazard of losing all, if the Scots should but join them with never so small a Force, and therefore conceiving it to be easier to please the Scots, because they were [Page 156] Christians, he first sent Ambassadors to re­new the Friendship with them. The King of Scots perceiving the multitudes of Danes which arriv'd daily; and fearing that af­ter they had destroyed the English, his turn should be next, he gave consent without much Reluctancy: The conditions were, that Westmoreland and Cumberland should be granted to Malcolm, as a perpetual and Hereditary Fee; Vpon which account he was to receive the Investiture of those Countries from Achelstan, and to do him Homage as his Lord; and this is the first Homage that we read of to have been perform'd in Britain: which yet those ignorant Monks call a Sur­render and not a Homage, because they did never understand neither the One, nor the Other: For the Names of Homage and Fee, which had their first Rise amongst the Lum­bards and French, might have crep't into England before that time, though the Feu­dal Law had not as yet taken Root there. As to Northumberland, because the Danes did then possess it by Force, there was no mention of it in the Agreement; though the Scots did remonstrate, that unless it were also restor'd, there could be no firm nor lasting Friendship; but Athelstan excus'd himself by the Pretext abovemention'd. From his time, to the Conquest, there past [Page 157] 130 Years, during which the Scots main­tain'd an Inviolable Friendship with Edward, Athelstan and the English; so as they drew the Arms of the Danes upon themselves, and hazarded their own Safety for that of England. The Danes having laboured a long time in vain to break this League, pro­mising to give Northumberland also to the Scots, did at last attaque them with many Armies, and were often Victorious; but being at length overcome by Malcolm the second in three most desperate and bloody Battels, they were forc'd to return into Denmark, and to oblige themselves by Oath, never to return to Scotland in an Hostile manner. Nor was England ever delivered from intolerable Misery and Slavery, until the Strength of the Danes was first broke by the Scots; whose Victories procured some Rest, and a breathing Time to the English. Let all the Monastical Writers be turn'd over and over again, to see whe­ther they fix the least Infraction of this League with Athelstan upon the Scots; nor did the English indeed break it, so long as they were under any fear of the Danes, so that with united Force they did gal­lantly bear up against the Power and Vio­lence of the Danes and Normans, which did then strike a Terror into all the King­doms [Page 158] of Europe, as we shall by and by make it appear from the Antientest Monuments of England: This is the truth of the mat­ter of Fact, and disagrees very little in any thing from the Monastical Writers, if they be rightly understood, but only that they are very faulty in their representations of the Form and Causes of Transactions, as shall be made manifest anon. We shall now come to those particulars, which are objected a­gainst us by Holinshed, from the English Saxon Kings, but so as to discuss those things which are matter of Fact, before we come to the Question of Right, as Lawyers speak.

CHAP. XVI.
Whether Cadvan, Ethelfred, Oswald, Oswin or Osbright, did demand this Homage.

THE first that occurs, is Ethelfred King of Northumberland, who according to Holinshed's Tittle-tattle, received Lothian and many other Countries in Scotland from Cadwallo, who invested him with the same by force of Arms; and that Cadwallo re­penting of it afterwards, because of Ethel­fred's Rebellion, took Scotland again, and became (resais [...]tus) reseiz'd of it. Here I don't know whether to admire the Man's Ignorance or Vanity most; for at that time there was no such thing as Seisin (saisina) in use; and if Cadwallo was the Lord Pa­ramount, where was the need of a Reseisin? For a Fee Liege is always in the Possession of the Lord: Nor is there any necessity of a new S [...]isin, if it be laid open to the Lord in the Recovery. And Lothian was not then a Scotish Province, but belong'd to the Picts, whose Kingdom was then entire: with how much more Truth does Bede (who f [...]ourish'd not long after) relate Ethelfred's History, whose very words I shall exhibit, [Page 160] that all Men may see how unfaithful Ho­linshed hath been, in writing his History. This Ethelfred, says he, King of Northum­berland, afflicted the Britains more, made greater Devastations in their Country, and took more Land from them than all the other Saxon Kings. He fought with Aidan (whom he calls Eden) King of Scots, such a terrible Battel, that though Aidan was defeated, and fled beyond the Wall; yet Ethelfred lost his Brother Theobald, and the Army which he commanded: But the King of Scots durst never after that hazard a­nother Battel against the English, while Ethelfred liv'd. And he adds afterwards, that Ethelfred made a terrible Slaughter of the faithless Britains; and yet Holinshed has the Impudence to charge us with Per [...]i­diousness, and to assert, that Ethelfred sub­dued all Scotland, (such is the Veracity and Nature of the Man) whereas Bede takes notice, that he never entred Scotland, but contented himself to exercise his Arms against the Britains; nor does Gildas make mention of any such thing: So that I won­der at this Man's boldness, who without any Author, nay, against the Authority of the greatest Writer in those times, dare so rashly advance such a manifest Untruth, as that the Scots were subdued by Ethelfred: [Page 161] Or let him cite me any other Historian, if he can, who is to be compared with Bede for Faithfulness or the Preheminence of that Time: Holinshed in his History indeed, where he does somewhat consult his Credit, passes by all those things. It is not so much as true, that Ethelfred was slain by Cadva­nus, but by Redval the King of the East Saxons. But that all the Saxon Kings were subject unto, or did serve Cadvanus or Cadwallo, is monstrous to assert: And I wonder Holinshed, (for to you henceforth shall my Speech be directed) that your Country-men the English Saxons don't break your Face, for such a notorious Fiction. For it is certain that the Britains were at that time depriv'd both of their Coun­try and Soveraignty by the Saxons, with whom they did never entertain any Friend­ship.

Oswald and Oswin you jumble together; the one you say, overcame and subdued the Scots at Cadwallo's Command, and the o­ther according to you, did not only sub­due them afresh, but kept them under sub­jection for twenty eight Years, both of which are false; and though it were other­wise, neither of them is sufficient to prove the Homage: For that Oswald and Oswin, after their Father Ethelfred was slain, and [Page 162] his Kingdom of Northumberland seiz'd, did fly into Scotland, you your self bear Wit­ness, as do also our Annals, and all those that write of Oswald and Oswin. Nor is it credible that they would have chosen Scot­land for a Place of Retreat, if so many Of­fences had past, and such an inveterate [...]n­mity had continued betwixt Aidan King of Scots, and Ethelfred their Father. Or Ai­dan's Goodness must needs be commended by all Men, who not only entertain'd the Sons of his most Capital Enemy, and vouchsafed them his Protection, against the Murderer of their Father; but did also in­struct them in true Piety, and the Christi­an Religion, which the Saxons had not at that time receiv'd, and gave them likewise the best of other Breeding; and being re­stored to the Kingdom of Northumberland by his means, they converted their Subjects to the Christian Religion, by the help of the Scots Bishops. Nor were there ever any Princes who had a greater Veneration for the Scotish Name, or observed a more inviolable Friendship with them; as being mindful of the Kindnesses which they had received in Scotland: Neither do you your self in your History, nor Bede before you, make any mention, that ever Oswald made War upon the Scots. That which led you [Page 163] into the Error of asserting that Oswin sub­dued Scotland, I suppose to be this of Bede, who says, that Osuin did for the most part subdue the Nations of the Scots and Picts, (who inhabit the North of Britain) and render them Tributary; but of this af­terward (says he) Cap. 5▪ Lib. 2.. But having spoke then occasionally of Oswin, as he was writing the History of Edilbert King of Kent, he refers the true Account of the Matter to that Place, where he was to treat of Os­win's History, and his words there are, That the same Oswin after Penda was slain, go­vern'd the Kingdom of the Mercians, and the rest of the Southern Provinces; and did also subject most of the Pictish Nation to the King of England Lib. 3. Cap. 24. Let those two places be compar'd together, the one where­in Bede treating on another Subject, says, That the Scots and Picts were for the most part subdued; and the other wherein he only mentions the Picts; and any Body may easily perceive, that the latter is the Explication of the former. But that he subdued the Scots, or made them submit to his Government, Polydore makes no men­tion, nor do you your self, Holinshed, in your History. It's certain that Oswin liv'd in a very good understanding with the Scots. But the Picts having broke their League with [Page 164] the Scots, and being left to themselves, were grievously harass'd by the Northumberland Saxons: yet nevertheless, they held the King­dom still, and did afterwards cut off Egfrid King of Northumberland and his Army. Polidore, Lib. 4. But he has nothing concerning the Tribute of the Scots, nor the Homage, nor any thing whence that Homage can be inferr'd. Altho our Historians do disagree from Holinshed, as to the Truth of the History: As to the League betwixt Charles the King of France and Achaius, which hath cost us so much Blood, we shall speak anon.

We acknowledg that K. Alpin was de­feated, taken, and beheaded by Brudaeus King of the Picts; and that his Head was fastned to a Pole over the Gates of Camelo­dunum: But though you should declare it upon Oath, that that inhumane and unwor­thy Act was done by the Command of the King of Northumberland, I will not believe you; although I own that the Picts received Assistance in that War from his Auxiliary Troops. Indeed to betray his Vassal to his Enemy, to desert him in a just War, and to assist his Enemy with Auxiliary Forces to oppress his Vassal; and last of all, to take Order that his Head should be publickly fastned to a Pole, was not the part of a Liege­Lord. Those things do plainly argue that [Page 165] there was no such Band of Society or Friend­ship at that time, betwixt the Scots and the English, as is requir'd betwixt Lord and Vas­sal; but if there were, the King of England deserved to be depriv'd of his Superiority for ever, because of his Cruelty against his Vassal. Nor can you bewray the inveterate Rancour of your Heart against the Scots, more than you have done in writing this; which yet makes nothing towards proving the Homage. But the Story is known: For whereas the Right of Succession to the King­dom of the Picts, after the Decease of their K. Hungus without Children, did by Law fall upon his Uncle Alpin King of Scots, there did flow hence more than capital Enmities betwixt the two Kingdoms; who fought a­gainst one another with such virulent and embittered Minds, that there was almost no Quarter given on either side. Alpin came off Conqueror in the first Battel; but being afterwards defeated and taken, they cut off his Head: but, according to your wonted Candor towards us, you wilfully pass over what was the Issue of this Affair to the Picts, (for such a prodigious Piece of Wickedness, and their Violation of the Laws of War); who being overcome in two or three Bat­tels by Kennethus, Alpin's Son, and the Re­venger of his Father's Death, not withstand­ing [Page 166] the Assistance which they receiv'd from the English, they were totally destroy'd; and their City of Camelodunum, where the Head of that noble Prince was publickly affix'd to a Pole, (the most prodigious and heinous Breach of the Law of Nations from the Be­ginning of the World to that Day) was raz'd from the very Foundations; so that there is not the least Vestige thereof now to be seen: And thus that most wo [...]ul Disgrace was expiated and revenged, by one which was yet more woful. Nor were the Remain­ders of the Pictish Nation, which was once so famous among the Brittons and Romans, and who cut off Egfred King of Northum­berland with all his Forces, so much as ever taken notice of afterwards in any place of the Earth; and their Kingdom devolved upon the true Heir. Let this be the second Warning to you, O People of England, to preserve the Laws of Succession, instituted by God himself, inviolable; and set always be­fore your Eyes, the Destruction of the Bri­tish Nation, and the Cause thereof.

You write that Osbright and Ella, with an Army of Britains and Saxons, did invade Scotland, put the Scots to flight, and de­spoil'd them of the Countries by South Forth, because they chose a King of themselves. We confess all but the Cause of the War, for [Page 167] which you have no Author. But the Case was thus: The Remainders of the Picts, that they might raise up Enemies against the Scots on all hands, transferr'd all their Right to the Kingdom of the Picts upon the Britains and Northumbrians, whose Kings being join'd with the Remains of the Picts, defea­ted the Scots, who were much weakned by their many former Battels with the Picts. But if our Historians may be believed, Mr. Holin­shed, from whom alone you have this Histo­ry, there being no English Author who men­tions it, although this Victory was so great that perhaps there was never a greater; it was not so much owing to our Enemies Va­lour, as to our own Negligence: For the Scots having come off victorious, and be­lieving that they had nothing more to do, lay down upon the Grass, made merry in the Enemies Camp, and betook themselves to rest; and the English, &c. who were watching for an Opportunity, having notice of their Security by some Traitors, surprized them asleep and without Arms, and cut them almost totally off: However, though they became victorious in this Manner, yet they never demanded Homage; but satisfy­ing themselves with the Countries on the South of Forth, abstain'd from doing us any farther Injury. But you have nothing nei­ther [Page 168] here nor in your History, concerning Homage, Tribute or Subjection Mr. Holin­shed. We will grant you that the Scots were routed, and left many of their Countries to be inhabited by the Saxons and Britains; but deny that they retired into the Islands, as you will have it, seeing they had many Coun­tries, and the far better part of Scotland still remaining. It's not our Purpose to maintain that the Scots were never subject to an a­verse Fortune in War; and therefore con­fess, that both then and before, they were often overcome, put to flight, and driven out of some Part of the Kingdom, viz. the Countries by South Forth: But the same routed and dispersed Scots, having re-assum'd their Courage upon the Increase of the Youth, did again make head against the Con­querors; and the Fortune of War changing, did not only rout and chase, but drive them beyond Humber; as shall be made appear anon, when we come to speak of Gregory. But this good Historian does so often take notice of the Scots being beat, routed, sub­dued, reduc'd, and expell'd the Island, and that with so much Precipitancy, that he as­cribes one and the same Act to two Kings, that so we may seem to have been twice de­feated; but never says one word how we recovered our Country, and forc'd the Eng­lish [Page 169] to quit it. Whereas, according to the Laws of History, he ought to have recorded the one as well as the other, or have pass'd them both over in silence: It being altoge­ther intolerable in an Historian to comme­morate the famous Atchievements of his Country-men, and never to take notice of their Overthrows and Defeats. But Holinshed makes no mention of the total Extirpation of the Picts, though assisted by the English; such is his Candor towards Scots-men. Nor can I but take notice of what he assigns as the Cause of this War, that the Scots had chosen themselves a King without the Con­sent of the Britains and Saxons. Where, I pray, and in what Author did you read this? Or who ever writ that the Right of Chusing our Kings belong'd to the Saxons and Britains? When did this begin, and who was the first that was chosen? For our Kings are not so much as elected by our selves, and far less by our Enemies, but come to the Crown by Succession. Or if the Consent of the Britains and Saxons were to be requir'd in this Affair, you might have been pleas'd to acquaint us whether this Respect was due to them both conjunctly or separately; or if separately, to which. But it is not worth the while to confute this Man's Folly. This whole Story of Osbright and Ella he has [Page 170] from our Historians, there being no English Author who makes mention of Osbright's Victory; but he perverts the whole Matter, according to his usual Method.

As to Hungar and Hubba, I do not regard them: It's true, they overcame the Scots, though you have nothing of their Victory, nothing of that Superiority nor Homage, in your History. Neither do I see, though it had been perform'd to them, why it should be due to you: But the Danes perceiving it dangerous to try the Fortune of War with a fierce and hardy Nation, and liking England better, because there they hop'd to find less Resistance, and a larger Reward of their Trouble, they left Scotland, and turn'd their Arms against the English. To enquire into the Issue of that War, makes nothing to the Question in hand; but only that you ad­vance that Constantine King of Scots, who was chosen to that Dignity by Osbright, being slain by Hungar and Hubba, that Ethelwolph to revenge his Death, took Arms against them, and slew them both: But here are as many Mistakes as Words; for it was never so much as once heard of, that any of our Kings did reign by the Authority of the Kings of England. And as for Constantine, he succeeded as lawful Son to his Father Cann [...]thus. Nor were Hungar and Hubba [Page 171] slain by Ethelwolph, but by Alured; and why Ethelwolph should revenge the Injury done to Osbright I don't see, he being nothing a­kin to him; especially seeing Ethelwolph was King of the West-Saxons, and Osbright King of the Northumbrians.

CHAP. XVII.
Concerning Ethelwolph, Alured and Edward, Kings of England.

THat Ethelwolph, or Edulph, was the first of the English Kings who subjected the Kingdom to the Church of Rome, and rendred the same tributary thereunto by the Impost of Peter Pence, is asserted by you Mr. Holinshed; and according to your won­ted Veracity, you will have the Scots also to pay the same: Whence you infer, and that also in a reproachful Manner, (which is so familiar to you) that the Scots were subject to England. But there is not so much even as one English Historian who takes notice of this Peter Pence's being paid by the Scots; or if you have any, pray produce them: Nec pigeat Dominum monstrare tabernae, as Iuvenal says: Don't think much to name your Man. You might as well have [...]eigned that [Page 172] we paid Tribute to Caesar, for it was never neither written, painted, feigned nor heard, that the Scots paid Peter-Pence: sed solatio est miserorum habere pares, It's some Comfort to have Fellows in Adversity; the English not being able to deny, that they hold their Kingdom in Vassalage of the See of Rome, they would have us to be Partners with them in the same Servitude. Nor is it true that Ethelwolph was the first, who made the Kingdom of England tributary to the Pope; for Offas King of the Mercians, and also Inas did it before him: but no Body can thence infer, that we paid Homage, either to the English, or the Roman Chair.

Of the same Nature is that which you subjoin as to Alured, who ordain'd, that no Excommunicated Person should be ad­mitted to the Property of any Fee in Eng­land: and seeing the same Custom is still observed in Scotland, thence you infer that the Scots were Subjects of England, but by the same sort of Argument that you made use of formerly. But pray Mr. Ho­linshed, was this the Statute of your Alured, or of the Church of Rome, which obtain'd in all that part of the Christian World, that submitted to the Church of Rome, as all Britain did at that Time? And therefore to infer from the Communion of Ecclesia­stical [Page 173] Discipline, that we were your Sub­jects, is an ill way of arguing; for by that same Argument, you may conclude, that the whole Western part of the World were your Subjects: but to this way of arguing, I have answered twice or thrice already. You write that the same Alured did install Gregory King of Scots, and compel him to break the League with France, which are both your own Fictions, having neither Author nor Evidence for it, no, not so much as an Englishman; or if you have any who hath recorded it, that Gregory was install'd King by Alured, and forced by him to dissolve the League with France, name them. But which way could he com­pel him, who never attaqu'd him by Force of Arms? For Gregory as the true Heir of the Crown, and Son to Dongal, succeed­ed his Kinsman Ethus, and was most fortu­nate in War; for having conquer'd the Danes, and ejected them totally out of the Kingdom of Scotland, he applied himself to recover the Countries besouth Forth, which were then possess'd by the Danes, who had dispossess'd the English that took them formerly from the Scots, and cut off Constantine King of the Britains with his whole Army, because he would not part with Annandale, Galloway, and the rest of [Page 174] the Scotish Countries which he had ac­quir'd in Conjunction with Osbright: And Gregory afterwards seizing Cumberland and Westmoreland, did also drive both the Eng­lish and Danes out of Northumberland; and as he was about to besiege York▪ Alured finding himself not able to bear up both a­gainst the Scots and Danes, reconcil'd him­self to Gregory King of Scots▪ and gifted him with all Northumberland, that he might join with him in his War against the Danes, at that time Enemies to the Christian Re­ligion, and all the Inhabitants of Britain: this Covenant intervening▪ that Northum­berland, Cumberland and Westmoreland, should be for ever subject to the Scots; and there­fore both Gregory and his Brother Donald, after his Death, did assist Alured with their Arms. But this is a new way of arguing, Gregory and Donald did assist the English with Auxiliary Forces against the Danes; therefore the Scots were at that time subject to the English: This is a very sorry Re­quital for so great a Favour. From that time forward the Scots could never be withheld from laying Claim to those three Countries, either by Law or Arms; and the English also reclaiming them, this did continually administer Cause of Quarrel and Discord betwixt the two Nations, as we [Page 175] shall hear by and by. This Gregory did also subdue Ireland, which makes it so much the less probable, that he who conquer'd so many Nations and People, should be compell'd by Alured to dissolve his League with France: But what's all this to the Ho­mage in Controversy?

You do also assert, that Edward Son to Alured, did overthrow Constantine King of Scots, and force him to pay Homage, be­cause he conspir'd against him with the Danes. Edward indeed being grieved that so many large Countries were cut off from England, and given to the Scots by his Fa­ther, would needs redemand them contra­ry to the Publick Faith and Covenant; and it may be that the King of Scots was forc'd to join with the Danes. But to prove that he receiv'd his Kingdom from Edward, and ac­knowledg'd him for his Lord, you bring [...] Witnesses, viz. Marianus our Country­man, Ho [...]eden and Malmsbury; and Henry the eighth in his Declaration of War be­fore mention'd, does the same: As for you Mr. Holinshed, I confess I do not wonder, for you have so accustomed your self to Falsehood, that it's very probable Truth may run away from you, as afraid of you: but I wonder who could suggest such things concerning Marianus, to that Noble Prince, [Page 176] who was so famous for his Valour and At­chievements, except it be Iohn Leland, who dedicated his Book on this Subject to that King. But as to Marianus Scotus, there is not the least mention of those two Kings, Constantine and Edward, nor yet of Ho­mage to be found in him, though he car­ried his History down to the Year 1083. As to Hoveden and Malmsbury, whatever they say, alter mihi Phryx alter Thrax erit, a [...]t olitor agens Mercede Caballum; they are both Enemies, and wrote for Hire: but to be more plain with you, there's no such thing to be found in Hoveden, no more than there was in Marian: So that here you are forsaken by two of your Evidence, and the third is in hazard of betaking him­self to his Heels; for though Malmsbury writes, that he defeated and brought un­der Subjection all the English, Northum­brians, Scots and Britains, whom we now call Welch, yet it is so plainly contradicto­ry to the Truth of History, that Polydore hath temper'd it thus, by saying, That he obtain'd the Soveraignty of all the People in the Island except the Scots. Florence of Worcester, who is more antient than either Hoveden or Malmsbury, says, That the King of Scots, and Reginald King of the Danes, did chuse this Edward the Elder for their [Page 177] Father and Lord, and entred into a League with him: But what is all this to Homage, Fealty, or Subjection, if such things were either written or spoken to him up­on the account of Duty or Merit? If any one salute another by the Name of Pa­tron, Father or Lord, shall we therefore say, that he pays him Homage? Polydore writes, that Edward made War upon Con­stantine, because he did continually make Inroads upon the English Borders; that this War was carried on with great slaugh­ter on both sides: but the Scots having the greatest Loss, laid down their Arms willingly; and having obtain'd a Peace with the English, proceeded no further. But neither Malmsbury nor Huntington say any thing of the Homage done to Edward, but are wholly silent as to that Point.

CHAP. XVIII.
Concerning Athelstan, who was the first that receiv'd Homage from the King of Scots for Cumberland and Westmoreland.

IN Athelstan you seem not only to con­quer, but triumph, and assert that what the Scots do so stifly deny as to Homage per­form'd to him, after Constantine was defea­ted, is own'd by our own Writers; and to this you add a base and contumelious Re­proach, that the Scots being corrupted by Danish Money, did violate their Faith to the English. And that your Honesty may the better appear to all Men, you affix that upon Constantine as a Blemish, which Malms­bury attributes to Athelstan himself, viz. that under the Notion of a Stage-Player, or Je­ster, he entred and view'd the Camp of Ava­lassus the Dane, and then return'd to his own Army; though the Spanish Writers mention this as a very great Commendation in Alphonsus the Catholick, who did the like in the Moors Camp: And what you affirm of the Scots having been brib'd by the Danes to break their League with the English, is all of a piece. Histories do indeed make [Page 179] mention, that the Danes did at that Time subdue a great part of Europe by Force of Arms: But no Man, except he who has a Forehead of Brass, and is arriv'd at the height of Impudence, will assert that they abounded so much in Money as to bribe Kings and Nations with it. But to return to the Matter it self: You say, Mr. Holinshed▪ that we occasioned the breaking of the League; and our Writers impute it to Athelstan, who being unmindful of former Kindnesses, and troubled that his Father and Fore-fathers had granted the Provinces of Northumber­land, Cumberland and Westmoreland to the Scots, demanded them back again, threat­ning War unless they were willingly resto­red. Malcolm, who was Prince of Cumber­land, and declared Heir to the King of Scot­land, took this fierce Declaration yet more fiercely; but being overcome by a Strata­gem of Athelstan, he quitted those Countries. But Peace being afterwards renewed, West­moreland and Cumberland were restored a [...] Liege- [...]ees; for which the Prince of Scot­land was always to do Homage. But Nor­thumberland was exempted, as being then in the hands of the Danes. Let us see then how far our Writers and the English agree in their Relations of this Affair. We own that the League was broke (but by your Fault); [Page 180] and that Malcolm was routed, and the great­est part of his Army slain: But in what fol­lows we disagree. Our Historians say, that Malcolm, a young rash Prince, was General of our Army; and that Constantine, upon the bad News of its Defeat, forsook the Throne, and turn'd Monk. But all the Eng­lish Authors that I have read, say that Con­stantine was present in Person, and routed. Neither do they agree as to this neither; some say that he was only put to flight, o­thers say he was slain, and a third sort will have it that he surrendred his Crown to the English: so natural it is for those who do once step aside from the Truth, the further they go on, the further to go astray: Nay, they do not so much as agree in the Place of Battel. Malmsbury says they fought at Brunefurd in England; some will have it that they fought in Scotland, whereas Athel­stan never saw that Country: And others give out that they fought at the Mouth of Humber; whither they pretend that Avalas­sus, and Constantine his Father-in-Law, ar­riv'd with a Navy. Which how like to be true that is, every Body knows; for the Scots were never Masters of such a Fleet as they could entrust an Army with, nor had they any need of it, seeing they could invade England by Land at what part they pleas'd: [Page 181] But as to any Homage perform'd at that Time, there's not so much as one word in any Historian. Polidore, who is the only Man that hath writ the History of England with Judgment, (but following the English Annals) says, that Constantine swore Feal [...]y to Athelstan; but whether it were for Scot­land, or those beneficiary Provinces, he says not. And Henry the 8th, in that Declara­tion of his before-mentioned, says that Ho­mage was done, but never asserts it for the Kingdom of Scotland until he come to Ed­ward I. Malmsbury writes that Constantine was forc'd to quit his Kingdom; but was af­terwards restored, that he might reig [...] under Athelstan. Henry of Huntington Lib. 5. brings the Latin of a certain English Song made for the Joy of that successful War, which may probably deserve Credit: Therein it is said, that there was never such a Multitude of E­nemies, viz. Scots and Danes, routed; but has not one word neither of the Homage, nor of Constantine's surrendring himself to the English. Hoveden writes, that Constan­tine was defeated; and that afterwards ha­ving given his Oath, he entred into a firm League with Athelstan, and gave his Son for an Hostage; whereas Constantine had no Son, for Malcolm his next Kinsman succeed­ed him in the Kingdom: And then he says [Page 182] that he was slain, which Polydore calls a ma­nifest Untruth. But of Homage he makes no mention. He asserts that Ethelfred sub­dued the Scots and the Picts; having for­got that the Scots had totally destroyed the Picts above an hundred Years before. M [...]t­them of Westminster asserts that Constantine was overcome, and drove back to his Navy; but that Peace being renewed, he only gave his Son for an Hostage, and return'd home: Which is repeated by Florence of Worcester in the same Words. The Continuator of Bede passes by all those things, as being in­volv'd in Darkness; but never one of them says that Homage was perform'd, much less for the Kingdom of Scotland: Nor do any of them so much as make use of the word Homage. Polydore indeed affecting the La­tin too much, affirms that Constantine swore Fealty, or Subjection, to Athelstan; (Iuras­se in Verba Athelstani) but this is an homony­mous Phrase that may be diversly taken. For [...]. S [...]ipio, call'd afterwards Africanus, compell'd Q. Cecilius Metellus, and others of the Roman Nobility, who consulted toge­ther to desert Italy after the Battel of Cannae (Iurare in sua Verba) to swear Subjection to him; but it is not likely that he receiv'd Homage from them. Iurare in Verba, is by good Authors taken for a firm Assent; as [Page 183] Iurare in Leges, signifies one's obliging of himself by Oath to observe the Laws: And so Horace, by ‘Nullius addict us jurare in verba Magistri,’ means to give Assent to no Man's Opinion: and whereas they may say, Polydore did pro­bably use the Words jurasse in Verba to sig­nify Homage, it's certain he affirms that this Homage was constantly denied, and sharply controverted by our Writers; but that it did not belong to him to act the Part of a Judg in this Affair, but only to write what the most antient Annals say, without giving Offence to either of the People. Nor have you one English Historian, Mr. Holin­shed, whom you can produce for the Truth of this Proposition, viz. that Homage was de­manded from Constantine: and tho some may have left it in writing, that Homage was per­form'd; and tho we should yield this freely, and grant that to have been which never was, yet there is none so void of Modesty as to assert, that Homage was perform'd for Scotland; for neither does the Nature of the Benefit it self, nor the Circumstances there­of, allow that it could ever have been done for Scotland, which was never part of the English Patrimony; and Homage can never [Page 184] be perform'd without a Benefit: And there­fore I know not what to say as to those Eng­lish Writers, seeing they don't agree amongst themselves neither, as to the Place, Gene­rals, Event, nor Effects of that Battel: So that it is manifest, as I took notice before, that they have no English Writer of that Time whose Authority they can produce for the third Proposition; but that the whole Hi­story of 223 Years is perish'd, and that there­fore they have nothing of Certainty concer­ning Athelstan's Reign, which fell within that Period, but what is collected from Old­wives Fables, or at best, from the Relation of credible Persons, as they own themselves. As to what concerns the Surrender, ( Dedi­tionem) or entire subjecting of our selves, which they upbraid us with here and else­where so often, I do believe that those Monks did never understand what a Surren­der, or Giving themselves up to an Enemy ( dedere se hostibus) meant; and that they never read [...]ivy on the Surrender of the Collatin People ( de deditione populi Collati­ni). But they might however, have learn'd from their own Polydore Lib. 5. Hist., concerning the Surrender of the Kingdom of Northumber­land to K. Egbert: for in the first the Colla­tin People lost their Liberty; and in the lat­ter, the Northumbrians lost the Honour of [Page 185] the Kingly Title. Except some have a mind to excuse Holinshed, and those Monks, that they took the word ( Deditionis) in a more favourable Sense, viz. as it signifies ( devin­cire & addicere) to oblige and addict one's self; as dedere aures, to listen attentively in Cicero; and dedere se Laboribus, to give one's self up to Labour; and as a Son is said ( de­dere se Patri) to give himself wholly up to his Father's Conduct, in Terence. Yea, in that noble Fight betwixt Edmund and Canu­tus, Canutus yielded himself and his King­dom of Denmark to be at Edmund's Dispo­sal, that he might use it as he thought fit. How often did Henry II. and Richard, put themselves and their Kingdoms in the Will or Courtesy ( Voluntate) to use their own Words, of their Lord the French King, tho [...] he was not so? If this Word be made use of by them now and then in that Signification, it may be tolerated; but if they do thence infer any Servitude or Homage, they do ma­nifestly accuse themselves of Ignorance and Falshood, who adventure to assert a thing of such moment without Authority or Evi­dence. The Romans, at least those who were in the greater Camp, did also surren­der or yield themselves up after the Battel of Cannae; and both the Consuls, T. Veturius Calvi [...]us, and Sp. Posthumius Albinus, sur­rendred [Page 186] themselves at the Furcae Ca [...]dinae, when the whole Army pass'd under the Yoke: But the People of Rome did neither acknowledg the Carthaginians their Lords in the one, nor the Samnits in the other: Though after all, the English have no Au­thor who make any mention of the Surren­der of the King or Kingdom of Scotland. But to return to our Purpose: The Truth of this Story of Athelstan is to be sought for from our Historians; who make no mention of Constantine's having been in Person at the Battel, or of his having been kill'd or taken; but that upon receiving the ill News of the unsuccessful Battel, he put on the Monks Habit. The hot-headed Youth Malcolm, who was declared Prince of Scotland, being improvident, did totally lose his Army, and miss'd narrowly himself at that Time, as I said before. And here Mr. Holinshed, you insult over us in a wonderful manner; and assert that the Scots sold their Faith, and treacherous Souls to the Danes; and that they did never observe a Peace with the English religiously nor faithfully: when at the same time, the Rise and Occasion of this Persidiousness, was in Athelstan himself. But if you had as large a Field of Declaiming a­gainst us, as the Britains have indeed of De­claiming against your English Saxons, Mr. [Page 187] Holinshed, with what big swelling Words would you dart Thunder and Lightning, and make the World ring ( permisceres Gr [...]ciam Vniversam), as Cicero says of Pericles, with the reproachful Names of Perjur'd Wret­ches, Covenant-breakers, who had viola­ted their Pledged Faith, the Laws of War, and overturn'd all Laws Divine and Hu­mane, polluted their Hands with the Mur­der of their Hosts, and defrauded their Cli­ents? Would you abate us one word of this? I am sure not. But,

He does not do well in my Judgment, who takes no notice of the Beam in his own Eye, and finds fault with the Mote in his Neigh­bour's.

But because the principal Hinge of this Controversy turns upon Athelstan, and that our Neighbouring Nation have nothing fur­ther to object against us during the Saxon Monarchy; these things are to be more ful­ly discuss'd, that all Men may understand whether the King of Scots paid Homage for the Kingdom of Scotland, or those Benefici­ary Countries.

We will freely grant then, which they shall never be able to evince by any necessary or concluding Argument (as we use to speak) from their own Historians, that the King of Scots did then pay Homage to Athelstan. So that the Point in controversy must now be, Whether the same was perform'd for the Kingdom of Scotland, which until that Time was free, or for those Provinces which he receiv'd from Athelstan, or had enjoyed in England before?

If they say for the Kingdom of Scotland; it is not any way probable that the Scots, who were always most tenacious of their Liberty, as appears by what hath already past and is to follow, and who did constant­ly prefer the same to their Lives, should so [Page 189] easily renounce, or abdicate that Liberty, and enslave themselves of their own accord under the Servitude of the English, a new Kingdom and Nation: for Egbert, who was no more than Athelstan's Grand-father, was the first who gave it the Name of England. The King of Scots was not reduc'd to such Straits as to be obliged to part with his King­dom, if he did not pay Homage for it: Nei­ther is it likely that Athelstan, who was press'd upon by the Danes, and thought no­thing more advantageous to him than the Friendship of the Scots during those Dan­gers, would redeem it by Conditions so un­equal, and which tended to the everlasting Reproach of the Nation; for he knew that if such hard Terms were imposed, the Scots would not be easily kept within the Bounds of Duty: Whereas in truth, they continued very constant in the League made with Athel­stan. Nor did they ever withdraw their Friendship from the English, or disturb them, during the Danish War; which in those truoblesome Times, it had been easy for them to do, and to have put in for a Share of the Booty with the Danes. For seeing the Danes alone, without the Assistance of the Scots, did at that Time conquer England, they cannot deny but the Accession of the Scots would have been of some moment. [Page 190] And Holinshed confesses, that the King of Scots did serve in this War against the Danes with ten thousand Men, which it is not like he would have done without some Be­nefit; so that of necessity that Homage must have been perform'd for those Coun­tries in England, which he did then hold in Fee of the English King, viz. for West­moreland, Cumberland, and Northumberland, which were added to the Scotish Kingdom, by the Bounty of King Edward, for their faithful Service in the Danish War.

If you deny this Mr. Holinshed, I will produce Holinshed as a Witness against you, whose words are these: In the time of Ed­ward and his Son Athelstan, the Scots en­joyed part of Cumberland, and the North of England; and by and by, that Edmund Bro­ther to Athelstan, did assign all Cumberland to the Scots, for their Assistance against the Danes. And Mal [...]sbury says, That the Pro­vince called Cumberland, was given to Mal­colm King of Scots, under an Oath of Feal­ty. And Henry of Huntington writes, That King Edmund committed all Cumberland to Malcolm King of Scotland, because he could not subdus the People of the Country, on this Condition, that he should defend the Northern Countries of England by Sea and Land, from the Incu [...]sions of Foreigner [...] ▪ And (in like [Page 191] manner) Edred his Brother and Successor, by granting Northumberland to the Scots, which was reduc'd under his own Domini­on, received Homage from the Scots, though the Word Granting (conce [...]endo) be left out by the Printer's Neglect, and the Sense is not perfect without it. Don't you see here Mr. Holinshed, and Cumberland was as­sign'd to the Scots, and an Oath of Fealty thereupon demanded? But that Cumber­land, Northumberland, Westmoreland, were at that time in the Power of the Scots, is not obscurely hinted by Ca [...]den a Learned and modest Man, and the most Judicious of all the English Antiquaries: He says, That York reviv'd again and flourished with Riches, though it had been often destin'd to destruction by the Scots. But how could the Scots design that City to destruciton, or enter so far into the Country, if they had not been possess'd of the adjacent Coun­tries? And he does also take notice of the Stone-Cross, commonly called Re-cross or King's-Cross in Richmond-shire, in the Con­fines of England and Scotland, and which was set up as a Boundary to both King­doms. Though he does indeed confess, that this was the Boundary, yet he will have it, that it was fix'd in order to sepa­rate the Lands given by the several Kings to [Page 192] St. Cuthbert, as Tutelary Saint, from the In­cursions of the Scots, which has no shadow of Truth. But the most express and clear Testimony is, what he says in the Original of the Scots: But says he, When the Scots came to join the Picts in Britain, al­though they did continually infest our Coun­try-men (meaning the Britains) with War, yet the Scotish Monarchy did not grow up of a sudden, but they lurk'd a long time in that Place where they arriv'd, until they did totally exterminate the Picts; and that the Kingdom of Northumberland fell by its intestine Broils, and the Incursions of the Danes. Then, says he, all the Nor­thern part of Britain went under the Name of the Scots, as did also that hithermost part of the Country betwixt the River Tweed and Edinburgh Firth. But Cambden does not hit the Truth in all this, for be­fore the Picts were routed out, the Scots and they together did inhabit all that part of Britain benorth Humber, and had also the Soveraignty over the Rest, having impos'd a Tribute upon it, and receiv'd Hostages for it. There are also many o­ther places in Cambden, which testify, that Cumberland and Westmoreland were then in the Hands of the Scots: So that this second thing is confess'd by both Parties, that those [Page 193] [...] were then possess'd by the Scots; and the Histories of both Kingdoms testify the [...]ame; and that the Scots held them from the Time of the said Malcolm, [...] Robert Bruce, which was four hundred Years, is certain from the Histories, as we shall make it appear more a [...] large in the following Chapter▪ whence I infer, that the Scots did at that [...] possess some English Pro­vinces; and therefore it does necessarily follow, that they held them either with or without the King of England's good Will o [...] as the Effect of his Liberality. That the Scots held them against the King of Eng­land's good Will is not very likely, nor is there any English-man who would confess [...] though true; for seeing the Inhabitants of those Countries were originally English, they were not kept in subjection by the Scots without difficulty, their inclinations being always towards the English▪ which rendred our Possession of those Countries very uneasy; and the like happened in [...], as is witnessed by [...] for though either the whole, or at least the greatest part of it were due to the King of England by Hereditary Right; yet the French having a greater Propension towards their own Native Prince, did always admini­ster both Opportunity and Assistance to de­prive [Page 194] the English of those Provinces; and therefore to say that the King of Scots pos­sessed those Provinces, which were inhabi­ted by the English, against the King of Eng­land's Mind, is both very improbable, and against the Truth of History. And if we possess'd them with his good Will, it must of necessity have been the Effect of his Be­nevolence, and by Consequence that we held them in Fee, seeing a Fee is nothing else but the gratuitous Bounty of the Lord in favour of the Vassal, for which he is to perform Fealty or Homage; for as I said before, where there is a Benefit, there is Ho­mage, but where there is no Benefit, nei­ther can there be any Homage: and there­fore it necessarily follows from those things, that the King of Scots did owe that Ho­mage for Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Northumberland, the Beneficiary Countries, and if he perform'd it, what Wonder!

And seeing there were not two Homages perform'd, (for none of the Monastical Wri­ters do mention two) and that it appears there was only One, let us enquire further, (though it be plain enough from what is already past) whether it was for Scotland, or for Cumberland, and the other Provinces. In all Paiments, Lawyers will have the Paiment to be interpreted according to the [Page 195] meaning of the Debitor, and that the Pai­ment was made for that which the Debitor said it was: But our Country-men when that Debt was paid, did plainly express, that they paid the said Homage for those Countries. The English confess the Pai­ment, but suppress the Cause for which it was made, that they may be at Liberty to wrest it as they please. Yea, Henry VIII. though he makes mention of this Homage very often, yet he never affirms, that it was for Scotland, except in the time of John Baliol and James the first, of whom in the following Chapter: and therefore the Ex­pression and Interpretation of the Debitor, and not of the Creditor, is to be receiv'd in this Homage. Again, according to Law, if Paiment be made without Addition of what Debt it is for, the Paiment is under­stood rather for that which is uncontro­verted, than for that which is; and if there be two Debts, the one Certain, and the o­ther Dubious, the Paiment is presum'd to be for that which is certain, and not for that which is doubtful. But no Body is ignorant that it is controverted, whether this Homage be due for Scotland, for though the English do pertinaciously assert it, we do as constantly deny it: that it was due for Cumberland, Northumberland and West­moreland, [Page 196] is confess'd by both Parties, so th [...]t this Debt is out of all Controversy▪ and therefore Reason perswades, and Law pre [...]umes, that the Pa [...]ment was made for those Countries, when evey thing is to have its due, as Lawyers speak: for matters of Fact that are dubious, are always to be interpreted in the best and kindest Sen [...]e for the Agent, and according to the Rea­son of the subject Matter; so that that is to be presum'd to be the Sense of the thing done, or [...]o be done, which is the most apt; for that is the greatest of all Fallacies, [...]o transfer what is said concerning one thing to another, whether it be Person or Thing▪ but the incurable Itch of Scribling corrupts all things.

However we labour in a plain Ca [...]e, for both Matthew of Westminster, William of M [...]lmsb [...]y and Roger Hoveden, do plainly confess, that Cumberland was given to the King of Scots, to be held of the King of England, that he might assist him; so that this Homage cannot be accommodated to Scotland, but only to Cumberland and the Neighbouring Provinces: Nor is it true that King Constantine perform'd Homage, but only Malcolm, who was made Prince of Cumberland on that Condition. But Mal­colm could not perform Homage for the [Page 197] Kingdom of Scotland, which was then free, and of which Constantine was Soveraign: For he only ought to perform it, who is Po [...]essor of the Kingdom, and not the Heir Apparent as we call him. For Cumberland, Malcolm both could, and ought to have done it, seeing he held it in Fee of At [...]el­stan. Then what Perverseness is this, to attribute to one thing, what is only pro­per to another, with the greatest Disadvan­tage and Absurdity in History that can be, where there is not the least Shadow of Pro­bability?

Whilst Holinshed seeks for Arguments, on every Hand, as to Athelstan, that he may [...]onfirm this his imaginary Superiority, he b [...]ings for Proof a Miracle taken out of the Life of St. John of Beverly; whence it may be readily conjectured, that whatever we have mentioned above, as recorded by the Monks, came from the Work-houses of St. C [...]bert, St. James, or some other Tutelary Saint. But this ridiculous Miracle is as follows: Athelstan being at Dumbar, and doubting, as well he might, whether or not the Superiority over Scotland was rightfully due to him; he pray'd to God, not though the Merits of Jesus Christ, but those of St. Joh [...] of Beverly, that he would discover the Truth to him by some Miracle; and ha­ving [Page 198] forthwith drawn his Sword, He struck a huge ill shapen Stone, of which there are a­bundance, in that Place, and made a great Cleft in it; and, says the Manuscript which I have in my Custody, the Stone cut as easily as if it had been Butter or Bees-Wax.

Now let the stubborn Scots go and elude this Superiority, confirmed by so great a Miracle, if they can, the Memory whereof, says Holinshed, is still to be found in the Stone at Dumbar; though some of the pro­fane Scots cannot hear of this Miracle with­out Laughter, and say, That the Author de­sign'd only to express the Fable of Actius Na­vius the Augur: Yet this is writ and receiv'd as a Truth by most of the English, and hath occasion'd many, and particularly my self, to wander among those Rocks, to see if there were any Stone with such a Cut in it to be found. There are things added no less ridiculous, concerning Athelstan's Knife, which was deposited on the Altar of St. Iohn of Beverly, at the Time of that Expediti­on into Scotland, which he redeem'd again with great Largesses and Endowments, when he return'd victorious.

But the History is plain in it self, that Athelstan having overcome the Prince of Scots, took from him the Provinces of Cum­berland, Nort [...]umberland and Westmoreland; [Page 199] but not being able to maintain a War a­gainst the Danes and Scots both, and con­ceiving that the Scots would be more easily reconcil'd than the Danes, who aim'd at the Soveraignty of the whole Island, he renewed his Friendship with the Scots, and gave them Cumberland and Westmoreland to hold of him, and so he who was design'd Suc­cessor to the Crown of Scotland, was call'd Pri [...]ce of Cumberland, whom the unlearned English Writers call King of Cumberland: but Athelstan could not restore Northumber­land at that time, because it was possess'd by the Danes. And thus our Historians a­gree on the Matter with the English Writers, but only that the English enlarge too much on this Victory, and vary from us in Cir­cumstances: but however, this is apparent from the History of both Nations, that the Scots did faithful and gallant Service to the English in the Danish War, and that their Society and Friendship continued without interruption, till the time of the Conquest, as we shall make it appear by and by, from the very Laws of England.

Albert Kran [...]zius says, in his History of Norway, but falsely, that this A [...]helstan was a Cowardly Prince, and transacted with the King of Norway to deliver him his King­dom after Death, on Condition that he [Page 200] would divert the Arms of the Danes from him, adding that he did only reign in a pre [...]arious manner, and had nothing but the Vsus [...] (usu Fructum) of the Kingdom left him, and that also on this Condition, that he should [...]end Auxiliary Troops whither­soever the King of Norway should com­mand him. But here our Neighbours will object that we must not credit Foreign Writers in every thing, because they allow thems [...]lve [...] a great Latitude in things that concern th [...] Dignity and Glory of their own Country: For what Man is there, say they who will not laugh at those Stories of [...]ward [...] who says, that Frotho King of Denmark subdu [...]d Br [...]tain, kill'd their King, and defeated the S [...]ots, long before Caesar's Time? Then if our Neighbours look upon themselves as injur'd, if without Judgment we resign our Faith to Saxo Gramma [...]icu [...], Kran [...]zi [...] and other Histori­ans of De [...]mark and Norway, in what they write [...]on [...]erning Su [...]n [...], C [...]nute, &c. in their Conquest of England, because both of them are too much addi [...]ed to the Honour of their Country: Is it not the same Case, when the English would have us religiously to believe, what their Historians have writ again [...]t us with so much▪ B [...]ncour? for we are tau [...]ht by nat [...]ral Reason, to give the [Page 201] [...] to others that we have from them, and tha [...] we should do the same our selves that we think equal in others. But however that is, we shall find more hainous thin [...] alledged agai [...]st E [...]hel [...]re [...] in the most approved English Histories, than what Con­stantin [...] is charged with by those Monks: For th [...]y devoted their Hea [...]ts, Tongues, and P [...]ns to amplify their own Liberty, and [...] their Coun [...]r [...]. For Ethel [...]red King of [...] obtain'd the Kingdom precariously from Sueno King of Denmark, as Sa [...]o [...] testifies; and Pol [...]d [...]re from him, who thinks that more likely than that Ethel­ [...]d was thrown out of the Kingdom, see­ing he died in England. And to reign pre­ca [...]iously, is much meaner than to swear Fealty to any one; seeing to reign precari­ously is no other than to enjoy another's Kingdom on such Terms, and so long as the Soveraign thereof shall think meet, and to remove from the same at his Pleasure.

But some may perhaps say, that if we re­ject this kind of Probation brought from M [...]nastical Writers, what sort of Proof will w [...] admit of as valid in a M [...]tter of this Im­p [...]r [...]ance? I answer; That certainly any [...]ual Judg when he perceives that the Eng­lish affir [...] ▪ and the Scots deny this Homage, will according to Law and Equity, deter­mine [Page 202] in favour of the Scots, because they are in possession of their Liberty: for we are not to believe English Monks, who were at a great distance from the Place of Action, ignorant of the Causes and Circumstances of things, and built upon meer Rumours, in a Matter of so great moment. But if any Man can produce Deeds for this, writ by either Party, or Charters, and antient Monuments, corroborated by their Seals, as in the Case of K. Iohn formerly mentioned, then they have something to which they may give Credit: But though they should produce the Testimonies, or Depositions of an hun­dred English Monks for the Dignity of their Prince, their Country, or Themselves, espe­cially so many Years after the things were transacted, the English themselves would not, as I suppo [...]e, require my Belief in a Matter so absurd. But there are many other Rea­sons why I can neither believe the Monks my self, nor think that they deserve Credit from others. First, because our Laws do expresly forbid Credit to be given to such Testimo­nies as may be begg'd; but only to Witnesses who are upon Oath, as to the Truth of what they say: For Monks, as I have often said, being Strangers to the Affairs, and Publick Counsels of the Kingdom, and who never were present at those Transactions them­selves, [Page 203] a [...]e by no means to be admitted as Evidence in a Publick Controversy, especi­ally Matter of Fact which hapned some Ages before they were born: for if they were brought to swear in Court, and the Judg should enquire at them if they knew the Parties against whom they are led as Evi­dence, they will say no. If they be ask'd, as to the Matter it self, how they came to the knowledg of those things which they swear, what Cause, or, if not the true Cause, what probable Cause at least can they bring, viz. whether they saw those things, and were present at the Transactions, they will an­swer, no. If they be ask'd, how they come to know it then, they will answer with Malmsbury and Florence, that they had it from credible Men. If the Judg urge them further, and ask whether those credible Men saw those things themselves, they will also say, no; as they must of necessity do con­cerning things transacted so many Years ago. And if the Judg enquire further, how they know that those Men deserved so much Cre­dit; they will answer, that they know it on­ly by Hearsay. But Witnesses who swear only by Hearsay, and can give no probable Reason, as we use to speak, for their Depo­sition, don't deserve Credit in any Court. If they be interrogated concerning things [Page 204] done in their own Time, whether or not they know that the Scots surrendred o [...] yielded themselves up? They will answer, we know they d [...]d. If they be ask'd, what a Surrend [...]r ( deditio) is, and whether they saw the Scots surrender, and the English re­ceive their Towns, Lands, Waters, Images and all Utensils, Humane and Divine, (all which are required in a Surrender, nor can it be done without an express Stipulation, as is witness'd by Livy in the Surrender of Col­latia, and the Collatin People) They will hesitate immediately, and tell you, that they don't mean any other Surrender, but that the King of Scots did put himself in the Power of the King of England, as they call it. If it be enquired, whether they know that Hostages w [...]re gi [...]en, that Tribute was im­pos'd, and that their Arms were taken away? They will answer, that they know not that neither; and yet those are the Tokens of Subjection: But so is not any one's saying off [...]ciously, that he would put himself in ano­ther's Reverence, and do whatever he com­manded? as was lately mentioned in the Case of Canute.

Again; If that Monk (whoever he be that wrote of this commentitious Homage) were interrogated, whether he saw that Ho­mage perform'd and receiv'd? He will an­swer, [Page 205] no; for he was not at that Time with­out the Pr [...]cincts of his C [...]oyster. If he [...] ask'd, whence he had it then? he will tell you, from credible Men who were present at the Transactions: But if he ask'd again, whether those who pretended to be pre [...]ent [...] the Homage perform'd? He will answer, they saw it. If he be interrogated, whether that Homage was perform'd for Scotland, or the Beneficiary Provinces? He will tell you, he knows not that; but o [...]ly that he who related it, saw the King of Scots [...]wear Fea [...] ­ [...]y with his Hands put betwixt those of the King of England; but whether it were for Sc [...]tland or Cumberland, &c. he is altogether [...]certain. If Malmsbury, Ho [...]den, and the [...] of the English Historians, who have so inconsiderately committed it to writing, were examined concerning the Homage per­form'd to Athelstan; they will answer, that the King of Scots did make a Surrender of himself: For that he surrendred to Edward 1. they have read in that Legend of St. Iohn of Beverly, which is repea [...]ed once a Month in the Church; or in that of St. Cutbert, or some other tutelary Saint. Or they will an­ [...]wer with Polydore, that they remember it is so writ, but are not Judges whether it be true or false.

[Page 206]Whereas if they would speak the Truth, they should say that they have nothing for it but idle Reports; and they would not have committed things of that Importance to Writing upon such slender Proofs, if they had not been resolv'd to purchase the Fa­vour of the Court, or the Applause of the Vulgar, and to write for the Honour of their Country at any rate: And shall those Testimonies, or such as those, prejudg the Equity of our Cause? How ill the Scots take it to be branded with a Note of Servitude, you your self bear them witness Mr. Holin­shed; and their being twice driven out of Britain, because they would neither subject themselves to the Britains nor the Romans, does sufficiently instruct it; and the most terrible Wars which they maintain'd against Edward I, II, and III. upon this very account, are sufficient to perswade any Man that reads them of the Truth of it. For though the Scots were overcome by Edward I. in three or four fatal Battels, yet they could never be brought to acknowledg this commentiti­ous Homage, neither by Flattery nor Threats, nay nor even by the Destruction of their People and Country: but having recovered their Strength, they never desisted from fighting until they compell'd Edward III. [Page 207] who was call'd the English Ac [...]illes, and a­bove twice as powerful as Athelstan, to con­tain himself within his own Bounds, and ab­jure that Homage which his Grandfather had extorted from Baliol. The Scots were also overcome by Osbright and Ella, and by the Danes, in two very great Battels, where­in they lost two Kings; yet they never aban­don'd the Cause, yielded up themselves, nor perform'd Homage: Nay in this present Age, we have been defeated in two bloody Battels; in one of which we lost a most va­liant King, whose Heir was scarcely one year old; and in the other, the Flower of our Nobility: yet neither did we make a Sur­render of our selves, nor was Homage de­manded of us. Is it so then Mr. Holinshed, that we cannot be beat, but you will have us to surrender upon it immediately? For as often as the Rabble of English Historians find it mentioned that the Scots were defea­ted, then straight they will have them to be subdu'd, reduc'd, ask Mercy, and yield up the Kingdom; but as to the Victories of the Scots, or how they delivered or recovered their Country, there's always a profound Silence. Or is it credible, that if the Scots had been so defeated as to be out of all hopes of restoring their Monarchy, that A­thelstan [Page 208] having that Kingdom in his power, which he and his Ancestors had so greed [...]y coveted, would have left them the Name of a King? if it be so, it's without a Precede [...]t. For when Ireland was conquered, their Kings were commanded to lay aside the Royal Title, as I have mentioned before, and so became [...]iduciary Earls: And the like did happen before that in Wales; which being once conquered, was depriv'd of the Royal Title: and when Northumberland was sur­rendred, it lost the Name of Kingdom. Then let Malmsbury say whatever comes uppermost, and alledg that Constantine was forc'd to resign his Crown, to which he was afterwards restor'd by Athelstan; who, ac­cording to him, said that it was more glori­ous to make Kings than to be one; he will never be able to perswade any Man that the King of England would have left a King in Scotland, if it had been in his Power to hin­der it, or suppress the Royal Title. But Mal [...]sbury, H [...]veden, and others, have left it so in Writing, say the English, nor can any probable Cause be assign'd why they should lie. If any Body will compare the Time when those Writers liv'd, with the Matters then transacted, it will appear that all of them wrote their Histories at that Time when [Page 209] this Homage was most fiercely disputed be­ [...]wixt the two Kings: And seeing those Monks could not defend the Cause of their [...]ountry by the Sword, it needs not seem [...]trange to any Man that they should favour [...]t what they could with their Tongue and [...]en: And this Victory was also obtain'd in England, when Scotland at the same time was [...]ot so much as touch'd. [...]hat the Legend of St. Iohn of Beverly asserts, that Athelstan [...]ntred Scotland as far as Dunbar to fight [...] ­stantine, is utterly false; for this Battel was upon the Humber in England, and Athelstan wa [...] then endeavouring to drive the War from home, but not making it upon others: and therefore it is not credible, that when the Kingdom of Scotland was not so much as touch'd, that the Scots should despond so far as to subject themselves to a needless Surren­der. Hoveden says, that Athelstan wasted [...] as far as Feodor and [...]altermor; whereas there are no such Places to be found in Sco [...]land, it being probable that they were swallowed up by some Earthquake with those two Farms of Oddam and Roddam, which you, Mr. Holins [...]ed, will have to be in Annandale, though we Scots-men never heard of them. But the greatest Hin­drance we meet with in this Confutation [Page 210] is, that the Years wherein those things were said to have been done, are not set down▪ which if they had, it would have been easy to refute those Vanities by comparing Times together; but our Neighbours, a [...] they take no notice neither of Time no [...] Place, so without Authority or Evidence, they do constantly reproach us with this Commentitio [...]s Homage. And that they may be sure to brand us on every sid [...], they will have it that the Scots were con­quered twice; first by Athelstan, and after­wards by his Brother Edmund. Which Polydore does however assert to be false, and that it is only the Victory of Athel­stan repeated, and ascrib'd to Edmund. So that the English Historians set no Bounds to their Ra [...]cor and Malice against the Scots; and therefore they must pardon me if I tell them plainly, that I do not believe them; for they deserve no more Credit than they would give to the Writings of our Monks concerning a Question which might prejudg the Kingdom of England. I have been larger than was meet upon this Affair, because our Neighbours have no other English Saxon King whom they can object to us, nor no other Victory over us but that which he obtain'd. But what [Page 211] they can infer thence, I see not; for Athel­stan could not be the true King of England. So much as to the Question of Fact, Whe­ther Homage was perform'd for Scotland or [...]ot? The Question of Right remains, Whether Constantine or Malcolm could en­slave the Kingdom, which they received free from their Ancestors, to another King; or render it up to hold in Vassalage, and oblige their People to serve another Prince? But we will remit this Question to another Pla [...], because it is sufficient to overthrow [...]ll [...]hat our Enemies have hitherto ad­vanc'd. And now I return to those things which they object against us in parti­cular.

CHAP. XIX.
Concerning Edmund, Eldred and Edgar, English Saxon Kings, and whether they pretended any right to the Superiority of Scotland.

You subjoin, Mr. Holinshed, that In­dulphus King of Scots, with ten thou­sand Men serv'd under Edmund Brother and Successor to Athelstan, and did Homage to him; and here you do manifestly play the Sophister, as you have done all a­long. Indulphus being only Heir apparent to the Kingdom, and designed Prince of Cumberland, did assist the King of England wuth Forces, as he ought. But being de­clared King of Scotland, he never saw Ed­mund: Nor is there any mention of this Homage in Malmsbury, Huntington, Hove­don, Westminster, Florence, Polydore, Stow, nor in your own History, Mr. Holinshed, nor any other English Writer that I know of. We will grant you, that he brought ten thousand Scots Auxiliaries to Edmund, who would never have hazarded himself against the Danes without them, but by their As­sistance he did happily overcome them: [Page 213] Nay, which is more, when Indulphus was importun'd by the Danes, not to disturb them in their Wars against the English, he refus'd, and drew the Arms of the Danes from the English upon himself; and having fought and conquered them in a terrible bloody Battel, he pursued a flying Brigade unwa­rily, and (as our Country-men have often smarted for their too great Forwardness and Heat) he was kill'd by a Body of the Danes, which had never been broke. And for these good Services we must be reckon'd to have serv'd you as Vassals: whereas indeed the English Kings who were sensible of our Assistance, that they might repay the Kind­ness, did permit the Scots to enjoy those Northern Countries of Cumberland, West­moreland and Northumberland, in Memory of the Kindness received: but that they did Homage for Scotland, there is not so much as one of your own Monks who hath left it in Writing.

You and the Author of Henry VIII's De­claration of War, Mr. Holinshed, do both assert, that Edred or Edred received Homage from Irisius King of Scots; but that I may answer both of you, there's no such Person as Irisius to be found in the Catalogue of the Scotish Kings: so that any Man may deservedly re­ject this fictitious Homage with the fictitious [Page 214] King; nor does any Man besides your self and this Forger, make mention of this Ho­mage: but that I may also deprive you of your own Evidence, there's not only no mention of this Homage in Malmsbury, and the rest of the English Writers, nay, nor even in your own History, Mr. Holinshed, which certainly you would never have pass'd over, if you could have found any Author for it, such is your Candor towards us. This is wonderful Ignorance in those Monks, that when they give Evidence a­gainst our Kings, they don't so much as know their Names; for most of them, espe­cially Edward I. and Henry VIII. as we shall see afterwards, write, that Irisius and Rei­naldus were Kings of Scotland, and per­form'd Homage to the Kings of England: but if all the Catalogues of our Kings, and all the publick Monuments be examin'd, there are none to be found either by the Name of Irisius or Reinaldus. Indeed they shall be at liberty for us to feign what they please concerning Irisius and Reinaldus, so as they don't call them Kings of Scots, or if they will have them to be such, that they would say at what time, and how many Years they reigned; where and to whom this Homage was perform'd, and what Au­thor they can produce for it. And as to [Page 215] what you say, that the Homage was per­form'd by the Barons of Scotland, it pro­claims your ignorance of the Feudal Law; for the Barons, as the greater Vassals, do [...] only to their own immediate Lord, and he swears for them to the Liege Lord.

But you say, that Edgar Brother to A­thelstan, did reign over all Britain. What the Latins and your Writers understand by the Name of Britain, hath been said else­where: But you assert, that he received Homage from Kennethus, for the Kingdom of Scotland, and appointed Malcolm to be Prince thereof. You have indeed lost all sense of Difference betwixt Truth and False­hood, but do still retain that betwixt Love and Hatred: For Malcolm was born Heir of Scotland, and declared Prince of Cum­berland. You add, that Edgar did restore Lothian to Kennethus, which Osbright had taken away from him. But it appears both by your own Writings, and ours, as I have said before, that the Kings of Scotland had not only recovered those Provinces by force of Arms Iong before this Kennethus, but were also gifted with many Countries by the English, for their faithful and gal­lant Service against the common Enemy the Danes.

[Page 216]It remains that we speak something of the Homage. It is very probable, nor do we deny it, that Malcolm Prince of Cum­berland did perform Homage for his Prin­cipality: but Kennethus who was then King of Scotland, never saw the King of Eng­land; or tell us we pray you, Mr. Holin­shed, in what Year, and at what Place had those Kings their Interview, or what Au­thor have you for it. Polidore writes, that Edgar did keep the Scots within Bounds; and that uncertain Author, who continued Bede's History, says only, that Kennadus K. of Scots, and Malcolm King of Cumberland, did bind themselves to Edgar by a perpetual Oath (perpetuo Sacramento.) Many times those who are not Subjects are thus obliged; for Princes do usually ratify the Leagues and Covenants betwixt themselves, with an Oath, (Sacramento:) but as to the Homage, there is no mention thereof in him, nor a­ny other English Writer, although he calls Edgar the Honour and Delight of England. As to the Lodgings or House at Westminster, in which the Kings of Scotland us'd to per­form this Homage: It is credible that the King of England did not only furnish him Lodgings there, but also bear the Expences of his Journey, and that according to A­greement. For seeing the King of Scots did [Page 217] not think himself obliged in Law, to per­form Homage any where, without the Bounds of his own Fee, or if without his Fee, that his Lord ought at least to bear his Charges: It was agreed upon betwixt both Kings, who did then live in the strictest Bonds of Amity, that assoon as the King of Scots should come over his own Borders, he should be received by the Peers of Eng­land, with one Bishop, and one Count, and conducted to the King, at the publick Charge: which we confess was first agreed on by Edgar, as we shall afterwards explain it in Richard I; and as it is prescrib'd by the Feudal Law. And thus the King of Eng­land being summoned by the French King, was obliged to go. As for the Ius Custodi­arum, which we call Wards, and that you attribute to the Institution of Edgar, and in [...]er thence, that we were then his Subjects, because we did afterwards embrace that Law; the form of your Argument is both disagreeable to the Rules of Disputation, and it consists of a false Proposition. For the Law concerning Wards, which you ascribe to Edgar, is by our Writers ascribed to Mal­colm the second, who reign'd at the same time: to which of them then do you say, shall we give Credit? To ours certainly. there being none of your Writers that I [Page 218] know of, who mention this, or any other of Edgar's Laws, but our Malcolm's Law [...] are still extant. But to omit the Testimo­nies of English and Scots, William Terrem a Norman, who it's suppos'd would not de­tract any thing from the Off-spring of his own Country, does attribute the same to us. Neither is this true, that the said Law is only observed amongst the English, for you had it from the French, and especially the Nor­mans, who retain it to this very Day. And if we take a true Estimate of the whole Affair, neither the French nor English, ye [...] nor the S [...]ots, were the first who did insti­tute this Custom; for all Wards, (Custodi [...]) and Weirds of Marriage, (Heredum Marita­tiones) came from the Feudal Law: for it is equal and just, that when the Vassal is un­capable by reason of Non-age, of giving that Service and Advice which he owes to his Lord, that until such time as he is ca­pable, the Lord receive the Fruits of his Fee, that he may be able to provide for his own Service, and in the mean time take care that his Vassal's Heir, who is also to be his own Vassal in time, don't marry into a Family which is at Enmity with his Own, and be by that Means withdrawn from his Love to his Lord: Nor does it any more follow, that the Scots were subject to the [Page 219] Englis [...] u [...]on this account, because they fol­lowed their Example for their own con­ven [...]cy, as all Governments use to do, than that they are subject to them now, beca [...]e they have lately followed their ex­ample in laying an Impost upon Goods im­po [...]ted, especially Wine. But the truth is, Mr. Holinshed, you indulge your self too much in a Liberty of forging what you plea [...]e.

What you assert as to the Homage per­form'd to your Edgar at Chester, by Ken­nudus King of Scotland, Malcolm King of Cumberland, Murco King of Man and the Isles, Duniwallus King of South Wales, Sifort and Howel Kings of the rest of Wales, Iames King of Galloway and Iucullus King of Westmoreland, who were all of them as it were condemned to row Edgar's Galley, while he sat on the Stern, is wholly ridi­culous. Believe ye as the Lyrick Poet says, Isti fubulae fore Librum persimilem cujus velut aegri somnia vanae finguntur species. For though those things be excerpted from that Anonymous Author of the Continuation of the English History and others; yet how little Credit either you or they deserve will easily appear: Where did you find those call'd Kings of Cumberland, Galloway, Man, or of our Isles? Who dignified them with [Page 220] those Titles? When and from whom did they receive the Royal Name? Cumberland was at that time a Province, not very large, and appointed for the Eldest Son of Scot­land, under the Name of a Principality; but no Man did ever hear or write that it was call'd a Kingdom, except some silly Monks, who receive every little Whisper and Rumor as Oracles. Nor is this King­dom numbred amongst those seven or eight which were founded by the Saxons; and besides these and the Scotish Kingdom, there were no other than in Britain. I know that Malmsbury calls them Reguli, Petty Kings, whereas indeed they were only the Princes of Scotland, but always design'd by a Royal Title, in the Writings of those ig­norant and unexperienced Monks; and as during Edgar's Reign, there was no other King of Cumberland than he who was de­sign'd Successor to the Crown of Scotland, so Galloway is but a small part of the King­dom of Scotland, and that not very fruit­ful: so that to imagine any King to have reigned there at that time is wholly ridi­culous, there not being at this Day above four or five in it, who are honoured with so much as the Title of Barons. As to what number of Kings did inhabit Westmoreland, South Wales and North Wales, I don't con­cern [Page 221] my self; but this I know, that not one of them was ever saluted by the Name of King, or left on Record to Posterity under that Title. I take no notice of your rec­koning the King of Scots amongst so many other Petty Kings, whereas that tends as much to your own disgrace as ours, seeing you were never able to subdue that Prince, how inconsiderable soever he was, by force of Arms. But we will grant you that those little Petty Sub-Kings were in a manner tied to Chains, and expos'd to contempt, or ra­ther, as you will have it, led in triumph by Edgar. Must those things which are done by Princes, either for their Pleasure, or to try their Strength or Skill in Rowing, be drawn into Consequence? All the Kings of England, as well before as since the Con­quest, and as they do at this very Day, were accustomed to celebrate the Feast of our Lord's Nativity with great Banquets, and splendid Entertainment, and to invite their Neighbouring Princes out of kind­ness, and amongst the rest, all the Princes of Wales, how many soever; and the King of Scots who was also a Vassal to the King of England, could not honestly refuse, but upon what Conditions we have said alrea­dy, and shall explain anon in Richard. This Solemnity us'd to be continued to Epiphany, [Page 222] till after which they did not use to dismiss their Guests, and on the Eve before they chose a King according to Custom whose Commands all the rest were to obey du­ring the Solemnity. The Lot fell upon Edgar, so that he commanded the rest, and they must of necessity obey; but shall we draw an Argumen [...] from this ludicrous Fe­stival? Certainly both the Assertion and Proof of this Homage was very much af­fected, which was built upon no other Foundation. What if this most Potent Prince of yours had submitted himself to some such pitiful Fellow as you use, for Diversion's sake, to create King upon such an Occasion, and had given him the right Hand, allowed him the Regalia, and wait­ed on him by Land or Water for a day or two; would you therefore infer, that he was subject to this pitiful Fellow? Neither do you set down the Year that this Homage was perform'd in: But how much more wisely did Canute King of Denmark and England behave himself, that when he was saluted the most Potent Monarch on Earth by his Flatterers, as he walk'd upon the Shore of the Sea, he put off his Robe, and sitting down on a Chair within the Sea-mark, forbad the approaching Wave to touch his Feet, but being wet by the same, [Page 223] he is said to have turn'd him to his Parasites, and spoke thus, Lo, he whom you salute as [...] most Mighty, cannot so much as command one single Wave; therefore let all Power be as [...]rib'd to the great God, as it ought to be. But to return to your Edgar, that Saying of his concerning so many Kings his Subjects, was wholly barbarous, and an Evidence of a Mind too much elevated, even above a humane Lot, for which the English were deservedly punish'd not long after, being forc'd to redeem themselves, their Wives and Children, and Liberties twice or thrice from the Danes, and were at last despoil'd of the Kingdom, and all their Military Glory, first by the Danes, and then by the Normans.

You will also have it, that Edgar pro­vok'd Kennadus King of Scots to a Duel, viz. in England, whither he had invited him to a Feast: and if he declin'd this Duel in England, what wonder, especially with his Host, lest he should violate the Laws of Hospitality, which we read in the second P [...]nick War to have been refus'd by T. Quintius Crispin [...]s to Campa [...]s his Host. Though it is evident that Kennadus, whom we call Kenneth [...]s or rather Canutus, was very valiant in War, and none of our Historians do so much as make mention of his having ever been in England.

[Page 224]You say that Edward Son to this Edgar, made War upon Cannethus King of Scots, for poisoning Prince Malcolm, whom you call King. That Kennethus poisoned Mal­colm his Nephew, and him who should have been his Successor in the Kingdom, you have from our Historians: but that Edward made War upon him on that account, is your own Forgery; for neither does any English Historian, nor any of ours whom it did most concern, say any thing of it. Your own Polidore, that uncertain Author, William New­briggs, Westminster, Malmsbury, Hoveden, nor no other of your Writers have any thing concerning it; nor do you your self mention it in your History, where you are a little more modest: so that you have nothing of Kennethus's being subdued by War, nor having perform'd Homage; but here according to your depth of Judgment, you think it as easy to subdue the Scots as to write it. I don't marvel that you who write so many Wonders, should relate that Kennethus King of Scots poison'd Malcolm King of Scotland: I pray you, Mr. Holin­shed, were there two Kings, one of Scots and another of Scotland? but I plainly per­ceive that you have declared War against Truth; all what you say of Kennethus's ha­ving promised to receive any one that Ed­ [...]ard [Page 225] should offer as his Successor to the Crown of Scotland, is of the same Piece, [...]nd that he [...]et one Malcolm (for so you [...]ame him by way of Contempt) over them. Whereas this Malcolm was the true Succes­ [...]or of the Crown, and Kennethus his own [...]irst born, to whom the Monarchy fell of Right: for as I have said, our Kings are born and not impos'd, nor subjected to a­ [...]other's Pleasure; nay, the Father himself cannot invert the Law of Succession, so [...]hat Kennethus promised what he could not perform, if what you say be true. We don't deny that Malcolm perform'd Homage for Cumberland, (for it was held in Fee of Eng­land) but for Scotland he neither ought nor could perform it, seeing there was another [...]hen in Possession of the Crown, viz. Ken­ [...]ethus his Father, who was obliged to per­form this Homage if any such had been due.

CHAP. XX.
Concerning Ethelred, Edmund [...]ronside, Canu­tus and Edward Kings of England, and whe­ther ever they pretended any Right to Scotland.

YOU will have it that Ethelred Brother to Edward, design'd to make War upon this Malcolm, because of his conspi­ring against him with Sueno King of Den­mark: but Malcolm having submitted him­self, and begg'd Pardon in a very humble manner, Ethelred had compassion on him, and received him into his Protection, and that afterwards he recovered his Kingdom by the gallant and faithful Service of Mal­colm and his Forces, out of the Hands of Sueno, and reign'd over all Britain thirty eight Years: But you had done better, and perhaps more faithfully, if you had always excepted Scotland. One token of Cando [...] however you have throughout your History, that you confess the Danes were expell'd out of England by the Assistance of Mal­colm, who ow'd the same for Cumberland and Westmoreland; but as to his Submission, there are none of your Writers who make any mention, nor do you your self in your [Page 227] History wherein you are something more modest. It may be when he cleared hims [...]lf from the Conspiracy with the Danes, which yet is not mentioned by any Author, you wrest it to a Submission and Subjection as you do every thing else; neither is your Infe­rence of his having paid Homage, because of this Subjection, just: but according to our Historians, this Malcolm was very For­tunate and most Victorious, none of our Kings having given the Danes more Defeats, and turn'd the Arms of the Danes and Norwegians from the English upon him­self; and having broke their Strength in four or five great Battels, did at last drive them wholly out of Scotland, and obliged them to an Agreement upon Oath never to return to Scotland in an Hostile manner; a Condescension which they did never grant to any of the Kings of England, who for the most part purchas'd Peace for them­selves and their Subjects with Money, as being unequal to the Danes in Arms, which is own'd by Polidore and all others that e­ver wrote the History of England. But say they, there is in that Place where the last Battel was fought betwixt the Scots and the Danes, a Chappel erected in Honour of St. Olaus the Patron of the Norwegians. What that Chappel is may yet be seen, (for [Page 228] it is still extant); certainly no Man can look upon it as a Monument either of Victory or Submission, it being only erected for the In­terment of some of the Norwegian Noble [...] who were Christians: And we may just [...]y glory in this, that for 200 Years together we sustain'd the most violent Impressions of the Danes and Norwegians, and forc'd them to abandon their Design, though we were at­tack'd by many of their Generals and Armies, there being but a narrow Sea betwixt us. Whereas you, though attack'd by a smaller number of their Forces, did at last yield, and submitted to their Yoke for 27 or 28 Years: Nor were you able to deliver your selves from this intolerable Servitude by any other Method, than that of a barbarous Conspira­cy to murder them all in one night.

You say next, that Edmund, Son to Et [...]el­red, being compelled thereunto by his Mo­ther Emma, divided the Kingdom with Ca­nute; and yielded him the Countries be­north Humber, with the Superiority of Scot­land; which Malcolm resisted according to the usual Form, but at last perform'd Ho­mage for the Kingdom of Scotland, which Canute held of K. Edmund as long as he liv'd; and compell'd Malcolm to dedicate the Church, lately mentioned, to Olaus the Pa­tron of the Norwegians: and so you make [Page 229] two superiour Lords of Scotland, and create a double Superiority. For according to you the King of Scots held Scotland of Canutus, and he of Edmund; so that there is no end of Lying when once a Man breaks over the Boundaries of Modesty. It is no Marvel Mr. Holinshed, that you are so ill seen in our Hi­story, you are so very ignorant of your own. For what Author did ever write, that Canu­tus and Edmund were reconcil'd by Emma? Nay, is it not the height of Folly to commit those things to Writing, that can be proven to be false from other Writers? For Canutus and Edmund, when they had fought together in a Duel till they were both weary, did re­concile themselves without Emma's Privity. Nor did Emma marry Canutus until Edmund was dead: Neither was she Mother, but on­ly Step-mother to Edmund; so very igno­rant are you in your own Mistory. But that Canutus was invested with the Superiority of Scotland, no Man besides your self did e­ver write; nor do I believe that it was ever read before, that Malcolm did then swear Feal­ty to him: No truly; and I am afraid that you do rather want Honesty than Know­ledg; and that you did not write those things by Mistake, but because you had a Mind to deceive others, or did at least be­lieve that none of our Country-men would [Page 230] ever read those things; and therefore you thought your self at liberty to blab and prate what you pleas'd. That little Church dedicated to Olaus, might perhaps have been some Argument if the Norwegians should require Homage, though that would not be sufficient neither; but how it can be an Ar­gument of the English Homage, I don't see, If it had been a Trophy of any English Victory erected at the Appointment of E­thelfred or Edmund, it had never been con­secrated to St. Olaus, the tutelary Saint of the Norwegians; but to St. George, the Guardian of England, seeing there were at that time most cruel and bloody Wars be­twixt the English and the Norwegians. But all this, Mr. Holinshed, you have from our History, which you do miserably pervert. And if it were as you say, with what Confi­dence can the English redemand this Supe­riority of Scotland from Canute's Successors, the Kings of Denmark? for neither can the King of England own himself to be Canutus his Heir, nor seek that again which he hath gifted to another.

And because we are fallen upon Canutus, whom Holinshed, both in this little Treatise, and in his History, entitles King of England, Denmark, Norway, Scotland, and Sweden; and says that he demanded Homage from [Page 231] Malcolm, who only resisted him for fashion's sake: It remains to be enquired, whether those things agree with the Truth of the Hi­story. And first, Mr. Holinshed, you alledg in your History that Canute went into Scotland, and did not only overcome King Malcolm in that one Expedition, but also two other Scotish Kings, Macbeth and Ieohmar, with­out much Trouble, and forc'd them to pro­fess themselves his Subjects.

That there were three Kings of Scotland at that time when Canute undertook the Ex­pedition, is not very probable; their Names not being in the Catalogue of our Kings, nor never so much as heard of by us. Matthew of Westminster does advisedly forbear Names; and I should have look'd upon it as a Ty­pographical Error, had I not found the very same Names in Huntington, and also in Cara­docus, a Welch Historian, who was certainly led into that Mistake by the English Monks. And they do all of them take notice, that this was done after the Return of Canute from Rome, but say nothing of the Causes of this War, which they call only Rebellion; neither do they make any mention of the Year, with what Forces, under what Gene­rals, or in what Place the Battels were fought. Must we then believe such unlearned and ignorant Monks, who did not know the [Page 232] Names of the Kings that perform'd the Ho­mage, and against whom they gave their E­vidence, and who confess they knew not the Cause of the Transaction? But that Fig­ment will not be able to stand before the more weighty Evidence of greater Men, nay even of Canute himself: For Polydore says that he went to Rome in the Year 1030. that on his Return, he took Arms against Richard Duke of Normandy for having divorced his Sis [...]er Histritha, and died in Normandy soon after his Landing. This Author does not only pass over all his Expedition into Scot­land, as a thing that never had a being, but also asserts that immediately af [...]er his Return from Rome, he made War upon Richard D. of Normandy, and died in the Expedition, But those good Historians ascribe that Time after his Return, to his subduing of Scotland; which they give out he did without much trouble. Florence of Worcester, Hoveden, the Continuator of Bede, Ethelverd nor Ingulpb, have nothing of this Expedition of Canute against the Scots; and would never certainly have omitted a thing so considerable, if it had been true. [...]ut what farther Inference can be drawn from those things, supposing them to be true, as they are notoriously false, but only that Homage was perform'd; which perhaps we may grant them, as being [Page 233] equal that he who was Vassal for Cumber­land and Westmoreland, should perform the same to his Lord and King.

But they say that Canute was a King of four Kingdoms, viz. Denmark, England, Scotland and Norway: I oppose Canute him­self to those empty Triflers, most of his Letters are still extant in Mal [...]sbury and Flo­rence as well as in Ingulph and others, where­in he stiles himself only King of Denmark, England, Norway, and a great part of Swe­den; and certainly if he had been King of Scotland, he would never have pass'd that over in silence, when he takes notice of his being King of Norway and a great part of Sweden: Were we unworthy to be na­med amongst his Conquests? don't we read that Gethus King of Orkney afforded Sub­ject of Triumph to Claudius? I cannot then imagine any other reason why he should not have taken notice of us amongst his Titles; and therefore it must of necessity follow, that either Canute or Holinshed, with his Malmsbury and Huntington, have forgot themselves; it is not usual with Kings to omit any of their Titles, nor would he have pass'd over Scotland, who set down a great part of Sweden. Canute on his return from Rome, which was not long before his Death, writ to the Archbishops of England, and [Page 234] others of both Orders, Ecclesiasticks as well as Laicks. And it is to be seen in Florence abovementioned, when he divided his King­doms amongst his Children a little before his Death, that he calls himself King of Eng­land, Denmark, Norway and a great part of Sweden, but there's no mention of Scot­land, neither in Florence nor Krantzius: and this Letter is to be found both in Flo­rence and Ingulph. So in the Preface to his Laws which he gave to the English, he writes himself King of England, Denmark and Norway, but is still silent as to Scotland: And in many of his Donatives to Church­es, he caus'd the Inscription only to be, King of Denmark, England, Norway; but if Holinshed have a Mind to excuse him­self, as having set down Scotia for Suecia, by the Mistake of the Clerk, it is both a probable and pardonable Error. Krantzi [...]s the Danish Historian, takes notice indeed, that Canute govern'd five Kingdoms, but has not one word of Scotland: and where­as Holinshed writes, that Scotland was sub­dued without much to do, he acts therein like himself, though it is not so easy to subdue Scotland, as to write so. But if I should rehearse all his Calumnies and Com­ments, my Book would swell to a greater Bulk than his History: But that I may stop [Page 235] the Mouths of those ignorant Monks, (to say no worse of them) who do write so often that the Scots rebell'd, were routed, conquer'd and subdued, I shall exhibite here one Testimony of King Edward, who succeeded Canute, which will overturn all those Calumnies. For when it was debated in the publick Meeting of the States or Par­liament, Who ought to be accounted as Deni­zons of England, and enjoy the same Privi­leges with them: Those of Britany in France were nam'd, first, because they were originally from England, Edward added the Welch next, because King Inas married a Wife out of Wales, and at that time there was a gene­ral Intermarriage betwixt the Welch and the English. The Scots were mentioned in the third Place, who almost all of them, especially the Nobility, had married with the English, and so at that time two became one Flesh throughout all Britain, by which they became one Nation, and one People through the whole Island. All those abovementioned (says he) did ever stand stoutly as one Man, for the common Vtili­ty of the Crown and Kingdom against the Danes and Norwegians, fought it most vali­antly and unanimously against the Common Enemy, and bore the Burden of most fierce Wars in the Kingdom. This I have tran­scribed verbatim, lest any one should ac­cuse [Page 236] me of adding somewhat of my own. This Law of Edward, William the Conque­ror con [...]irm'd in the publick Meeting of the States In Ar­chaiono­miâ., as they are translated from the Saxon Tongue by William Lambard, in the Edition printed at London by Iohn Day in 1568, and indeed there are many things in this Law worth the taking notice of. The first thing to be weighed, is the Title which is concerning those who may and ought of Right to cohabit and remain in the Kingdom of Britain. Secondly, It is expresly provided, that the Scots may and ought of Right to cohabit and remain in the Kingdom of Britain or England, that is, be accounted Denizons, and enjoy the Pri­vileges of the Kingdom. There's a two-fold Reason given in the Text, why they ought to be reckon'd amongst the Denizons of England; First, Because the Nobility of Scotland, and almost all the People in general had married with the English, as many of the English had married with the Scots; and there­fore the Scots being descended of English Blood, they were of Right to be accounted as English. The second Reason is, because all the People beforementioned did ever stand stoutly as one Man, for the common Vtility of the Crown and Kingdom against the Danes and Norwe­gians, and fought it most valiantly and unani­mously [Page 237] against the common Enemy, and bore the Burden of most fierce Wars in the King­dom. The doubling of the Adverb Semper de­serves to be taken notice of, and that they [...]ag'd most fierce Wars together, for the profit of the Kingdom of England. Moreover, the Time when they became one People, and did unanimously sustain the Impression of the Common Enemies, is dated from the Reign of Inas King of the English or West Sax­ons, who came to the Crown in 689, and continued till his time. This one Testimo­ny of King Edward I oppose to those of all the English Historians, who write, that the King of Scots did so often rebel, and conspire against the English, with the Danes and Norvegians, was so often conquered, surrendred, and forc'd to become a Sup­plicant: for this Edward was elder than any Historian now extant in England, nor have they any Historian from the Death of Bede to this Edward before the Conquest; who was a prudent Man, and a very sub­stantial Evidence of the things that were done before. Moreover, this Law was approv'd by all the States of England, who it's reasonable to suppose understood more of the Transactions which happened be­fore their time, than any Monk of the next two following Ages; and therefore by the [Page 238] Testimonies of King Edward, that of all the States of England, and the Conqueror himself: the Scots during the time of the Saxon Monarchy, were their fellow Soul­diers and faithful Companions, had the same Friends and Enemies in common, and fought manfully for their Safety against the Danes and Norwegians, and did thereby deserve to enjoy the same Privileges with the English. These things I have insisted upon to refute their Calumnies, who alledg, that the King of Scots ought to be excluded from the Suc­cession to the Crown of England, as a Fo­reigner.

You say that Edward, younger Brother to this Edmund, did deprive Malcolm King of Scots of his Life and Kingdom, and made his Son Malcolm King of Cumberland and Northumberland. That any of the Malcolms were ever slain by the English, was never so much as heard of among us; and I should suppose that this Trifler means Mack­beth, but that he himself takes notice that Mackbeth was slain afterward, being afraid belike that he should omit any thing, and therefore would be sure to write the same thing twice. This Mackbeth was slain in Battel by Malcolm Prince of Cumberland, and true Heir to the Crown of Scotland, but driven thence by the Tyranny of Mack­beth. [Page 239] We confess that in his Army, there was not only a great part of the Scotish Nobility but most of the Northumbrians under their Earl Sivard, Malcolm's Uncle, who join'd his Nephew with his Forces, as the Obligation of Kindred requir'd he should, and afterwards that same Sivard did appear in Battel against the Conqueror up­on Malcolm's account, as we shall see anon. But otherwise there's no mention of Edward in our Historians, except that those Auxi­liaries are suppos'd to have been sent to Malcolm, rather by his Connivance than Consent.

The Law concerning the Marriage of an Heir, or Ward of Marriage, ( Maritatione haeredis) comes from the Feudal Law, and was in use both amongst the Normans and us, before the English had any thing of it. But this is to be observed, that Cumberland and Northumberland were possess'd by the Scots, not under the Title of a Kingdom but of a Principality. But our Author is so much mistaken, and so very ignorant in History, that he makes three Contempo­rary Malcolm's, one slain by Edward, ano­ther who was Prince of Cumberland and substituted in his room by Edward, and the third Malcolm Son to Duncan, who being driven from the Throne by Malcolm fled [Page 240] into England for his Life. Nor is that Mal­colm Son to Duncan any other than that same Malcolm Son to the King of Cumberland, who if he did Homage to the King of Eng­land, for his Possessions which he held in England, what wonder, or where is there any thing strange in it? but that he did Ho­mage for the Kingdom of Scotland, or was delivered to Edward by the Nobility of Scotland upon the Account of Wardship, is foolish to assert: For having fled from Scot­land because of Mackbeth's Tyranny, he lurk'd for some time in England, as Henry the 2d did afterwards with David King of Scotland: but that Edward gave him `Mar­garet to Wife is still more absurd, for this Marriage was not consummated till after Edward's Death, which was some Years af­ter, and during the Conqueror's Reign; for Malcolm having entertain'd Edgar Athe­ling the true Heir to the Crown of England with Margaret his Sister who had fled from thence, being taken with Margaret's Beauty and Disposition, he married her, whence there did arise an occasion of War betwixt him and the Conqueror. Don't you see, Mr. Holinshed, how you are catch'd every way in this Fiction, and encumbred on all Hands, and that you don't distinguish those Times aright? This Malcolm whom you [Page 241] call Son to the King of Cumberland and Nor­ [...]humberland, was true Heir to the Crown of Scotland, and Son to Duncan, declared Prince of Cumberland, while his Father was alive and ow'd Homage upon that account, and therefore it's no wonder that he per­form'd the same.

Writers say, that Sivard march'd into Scotland to assist Malcolm, and it may be that it was by Edward's Command, which was no more than what became a lover of Equity, to join his Forces with those of Malcolm, who was his Vassal for Cumber­land and Northumberland, and was then pur­suing his Right to the Crown of Scotland by Force of Arms; and in that Battel Mack­beth who seiz'd upon the Crown by Vio­lence, was kill'd by Macduff Earl of Fife.

There was a bloody Battel betwixt Per [...]y Earl of Northumberland, and Henry the 4th; the Earl was assisted by a great number of Scots, under the Command of Dougl [...]s. And if Henry had fall'n in that Battel, as he was likely to have done, we could not have said that he was kill'd by Douglas or the Scots: Nor for the same reason can we say, that Mackbeth was slain by Sivard, but by Malcolm the General of the whole Army, at that time Prince of Cumberland, and in a little while after King of Scotland.

CHAP. XXI.
That there's no probable nor likely Reason to be adduced, that Homage was perform'd for Scotland during the Time of the English Saxon Monarchy.

HAving thus run through the Reigns of all the Saxon Kings, some Generals are to be added for the satisfaction of the Learned, by which it will appear to any Man, though never so short-sighted, that the English Saxons never had nor could so much as pretend to any Right of Superio­rity over Scotland.

In the first Place we must enquire con­cerning the Right to this Homage, whether the Saxons obtain'd it before their Arrival in Britain, or acquir'd it after: That they had it before, no wise Man will alledg, there having been no Communion neither in Vas­salage nor Superiority betwixt those Na­tions. If they say that they acquir'd it after­wards, either they had it from the Britains, or purchas'd it by their own Valour. That they had it from the Britains is very impro­bable; for according to the Feudal Law, this Superiority cannot be transferred from [Page 243] [...] Lord to another, except the Lord quit [...] Right with Consent of the Vassal. But [...]ere's no mention of the Britains having [...]uitted their Right in any Author: nor is [...] probable that they who were oppressed [...] so many, and such remarkable Injuries [...] the Saxons, would give up their Right [...] them, or gratify them in any thing. But [...]ome Englishman may perhaps answer, that [...]e succeeded the Britains to whom this [...]omage was due, and do now possess their [...]ingdom, and therefore the Homage which [...]as due to them before, is now of Right due [...]o us. The barbarous Emperor of the Turks, [...] use of the same sort of Argument; [...]or whereas he now possesses Constantinople, which was once the Seat of the Roman Em­pire, he thinks the Christian Princes high­ly unjust, in not acknowledging him as their Liege Lord, receiving the Investitu [...]e of their Kingdoms from him, and paying him Homage, being deceived by a corrupt Opinion, that the rest of the Princes of the World ought to acknowledg the Roman Emperor for their Soveraign. The English pretend the same, and make use of the like deceitful Argument, that the Britains being driven out, their Kingdom is transferred to them; and upon that Account they claim the Right of Homage from the Scots: Tho [Page 244] with the Englishmens leave, I make bold to say, that the great Turk's Argument is much the Stronger and more Honest: for he seiz'd the Capital of the Christian Empire; and sometimes there is, as there is said to be, a Right in Arms: But in the Seizure of the King­dom of the Britains, there were many o­ther things that did concur, which I should rather were objected by the Britains, than our Country-men. Therefore if they nei­ther acquir'd this Right by the Concession of the Britains, nor by a lawful Succession in their Room; it follows of Course, that they must have acquir'd it since their Ar­rival in Britain: and though it be mani­festly repugnant to the Nature of a King­dom and Royal Majesty to acknowledg a Liege Lord, yet if there be any such thing amongst Kings, as an acknowledgment of a Superior, as wicked Ambition introduces new forms every Day; it has only Place in such Kingdoms as are lately constituted and erected into the Form of Kingdoms on the Condition, that they should acknowledg a Superior, such as are the Kingdoms of Bo­hemia, Naples and Sicily. The first of which was honoured with the Title of Kingdom by Henry the 5th, though others say, that it was by Frederick Barbarossa or Aenobarba, meerly from a Caesar-like Ambition, as I [Page 245] said before; and the two latter, viz. Na­ples and Sicily were adorn'd with the Titles of Royalty by Pope Anaclet the second, who was equally Ambitious, and unwilling to yield in any thing to the Imperial Dignity, but would rival them in Power. But those Kingdoms were erected at first on this Con­dition, that they should be Feudatory, and were honoured with that Title on purpose, that they should acknowledg a Superior; but this could not have Place in Antient Kingdoms which were originally Indepen­dant: for no Man in his right Wits, who was originally Free, will easily condescend to be rendred subject to the Power of a­nother, seeing upon any Offence against his Liege Lord, he is immediately depriv'd of his Fee; but that the Scotish Monarchy is older than that of the English Saxons, is not denied by Holinshed himself, who writes, that so many Scotish Kings were subdued by Sicilius King of the Britains, and the Sax­ons did also wrest the Soveraignty of all Britain from the Kings of Scotland, so that they must of necessity have been before the Saxons, or as we have already demonstra­ted, elder also than the British Monarchy; for we have plainly prov'd, that the Bri­tains had no Kings before the Irruptions of the Scots, but were subject to a Roman Le­gat. [Page 246] If then the Scots were independant from the very first Constitution of their Kingdom, How could it be that they should enslave themselves to the Will of another, and acknowledg Foreign Lords? They must either have done this of their own Accord or by Force; as to their having done it spontaneously, Holinshed himself will bear them witness how ill they take it, and that they cannot bear it with Patience to have this Homage mentioned to them at this ve­ry Day; and we shall make it appear fur­ther anon, when we come to speak of Henry the third, and Edward the first, Kings of England. But when we were invited there­unto by their Bounty ( Beneficio), we did willingly acknowledg the King of England as our Superior; and in truth according to the Feudal Law, there's no better way of constituting or confirming a Fee than Bounty ( Beneficium): Neither were ever the Kings of Scotland Beneficiaries to those of England for the Kingdom of Scotland, nor does any Body write that they were; for seeing we do far exceed the English in Antiquity, it cannot be suppos'd that we obtain'd that as their Bounty, which we enjoyed long be­fore their Monarchy, and are still in Pos­session of to this very Day. If they say that we swore Fealty for Cumberland, Westmore­land [Page 247] and Northumberland, which are great Countries, then they say something that has a Semblance of Truth: for as long as we were permitted to enjoy that Bounty, we acknowledged the King of England as our Liege-Lord, and did him faithful and gal­lant Service in all his Expeditions against the Danes, as Holinshed and Edward himself, the last of the Saxon Kings, have left in writing; and I do very much doubt that they would ever have been able to shake off the Danish Yoke, without the Assistance of the Scotish Arms: But when they redemanded the Bounty, which they had granted us freely be­fore, and do now retain it by Violence, by what Law can they require Homage and Fealty upon that account, seeing they have recall'd the Benefit for which it was per­form'd?

The second Part remains still, which is, that being conquered by their Arms, we were forc'd to acknowledg the King of Eng­land as our Superiour. It is true indeed, that Nations overcome by War, do some­times acknowledg the conqueror for their Liege-Lord: but this I do constantly main­tain, that no Nation subdued by War, ha­ving yet their own King left, do so much fall under the Power of the Conqueror, as to acknowledg him and their own King for [Page 248] Liege-Lord at the same time. If otherwise, I wish they would produce an Example that ever a King overcome by War, and left in his own Country with all his Rights and Privileges, swore F [...]al [...]y and Homage to the Conqueror: For the Kings of Countries conquered by War, u [...]'d to be suppress'd to­gether with the Royal Title, and not left to renew the War upon every occasion. Did the English when they subdued Ireland, leave the Irish their Kings, of whom they had at that time five or six? No surely, but that all occasion of Rebellion might be cut off, they abolish'd the Name of Kings, and esta­blish'd Fiduciary Earls. But of a King o­vercome in War, and left in his own Coun­try as a Fiduciary, no Man hath ever hith [...]r­to read or heard.

It remains now that we enquire into the Matter of Fact, whether or not it be likely that the King of Scots, being overcome by the Saxon Arms, was compelld to swear Fealty to the King of England, and acknow­ledg him as his Liege-Lord. Certainly from their Arrival with Hengist, to the time of the Conquest, they had war with the Britains for 400 Years; and the Britains being wast­ed with many Overthrows, did very much consume the Strength of the Saxons. Nor did the Britains lay aside the Royal Dignity [Page 249] until William Rufus, the Conqueror's Son, overcame them in 1193, and kill'd their King Rhaesus: Therefore it is probable, that they neither thought of subduing Scotland, nor were in a Capacity to do it during that Time.

While the British Monarchy was still in being, the Saxons rag'd against one another with mutual Slaughters, until the rest of the Saxon Kings being conquered, the King of the West Saxons obtain'd the Soveraignty of all England except Wales, which hapned a­bout the Year 833; and therefore it is not likely that they were intent upon the swal­lowing up of other Kingdoms during that time. And before that, the Danes did exer­cise Piracy upon the Maritime Counties; and being invited by the Fruitfulness of the Island, and other things, and following the same Methods that the Saxons had done be­fore them, they conceived hopes of seizing the Kingdom: and therefore the English, though they did willingly unite in one King­dom, they did also desire the Conjunction of the Scots, that they might be the more able to resist the Common Enemy. The Scots did readily consent, and especially for these two Reasons: First, because the English had a little before that embrac'd the Christian Religion, to which the Danes were capital [Page 250] Enemies, as I said before: And, Secondly, because they had experienc'd the Valour of the Danes when they slew Constantine the King of Scots and his Army; and perceiving that they should be liable to the same dan­ger if the Danes should rout the English, and seize the Kingdom, they did willingly associate their Arms with the English: And [...]lured himself being assisted by the Scots Auxiliaries, did break the Strength of the Danes, (Who had already seized a great part of England) and entertain'd a sacred and in­violable Friendship with the Scots, having left them those Northern Provinces of Cum­berland, Westmoreland, and Northumberland, as a Reward of their Social Arms against the Danes: And his Successor Edward did the same. As for those Victories which they boast of having obtain'd; that was indeed a great one which Osbright and Ella, being conjoin'd with the Britains, did gain over the Scots, and I know not if ever they had a greater afterward: and though by that Victory the Scots lost all the countries be-South the Forth, yet the English themselves did never pretend that they demanded Homage or Fealty from them. Nay, that Holinshed's Temper may be known to all Men, he has not this Story of Osbright and Ella from any English Writer; but hath excerpted it from [Page 251] ours, that he might scrape together on every side whatever could be injurious to our Fame; so as having thrown off all Modesty, he may affirm that the Scots made a Surren­der of themselves, and performed Homage, though the same was never mentioned nei­ther by any of ours, nor the English Histo­rians.

And therefore Holinshed himself is Author of this Forgery, amongst many others. From his time till that of Edward the Martyr, or Athelstan, there was no War betwixt the English and Scots; and it's certain, that du­ring that Time they obtain'd no Victory o­ver us: for the English Historians would ne­ver have pass'd it over, seeing they take no­tice of things far less considerable and stuff their Writings with meer Trifles and Old­wives Fables: And the English Saxons ra­ging against one another with mutual But­cheries all that time, and being quickly after attack'd by the Danes, it's very improbable that they did ever so much as think of inva­ding Scotland, or demanding Homage from the Scots; and a [...]ter that the Heptarchy was united into one Kingdom, and that the Sax­ons were overwhelmed with the Danish War, they associated with the Scots, and delivered them the Northern Counties of Cumberland, Westmoreland and Northumber­land, [Page 252] as aforesaid. But Athelstan having ob­tain'd some Respite from the Danish War, and not being able to bear so great a Dimi­nution of his Kingdom, repenting him of his Gift, he sought back those Countries, forc'd the offended Scots to associate with the Danes for maintaining their own Right, and revenge themselves for Edward's Violation of his Faith. However, the Scots were de­feated, Malcolm being their General, though the English do falsly assert that it was Con­stantine. But after that Peace was renewed, and Cumberland and Westmoreland delivered as a Benefit to the Prince of Scots; it is plain from the Histories, that the English did never obtain any great Victory over the Scots till Edward the Firsts time.

As to what concerns the English Histori­ans of those Times, except it be Bede and Gildas, whose Testimonies I have faithfully cited already, we have none who take any notice of this Homage; all the rest being la­ter by many Ages, as I noted before; and confess themselves, that they have no Historian whom they can follow. But this is the common Fault of all Historians to be la­vish in the Praises of their own Country, and allow themselves a Liberty of [...]eigning any thing to cry down their Enemies: For who is there that reads the Polish Histories, and [Page 253] does not meet with Stories of their having conquered and subdued Denmark, Germany and Bohemia, a great many times; and extolling the Valour of the Poles to the Skies, nay above them? And in like man­ner [...] Grammaticus and Krantzius write in their Histories of Denmark, Germany and Sweden. Though they have that indeed whereof they may deservedly glory; but however, they mix true things with false, so that the Truth it self comes often to be cal­led in question. And so the English relate their Victories over the Scots, as Cowards, Rebel [...], Covenant-breakers, and not so much as worthy to be conquered: But of the Vi­ctories gain'd over them by the Scots, which must of necessity have been some, otherwise they had never been able to have held their Kingdom, how inconsiderable soever it is, there's a profound Silence. Upon which ac­count, I am the more favourable to Ieffrey of Monmouth; for I perceive his Fault to be common to all Historians; and therefore honest Men do seldom give Credit to the Hi­storians of one Nation who write against another, especially with which they are at Enmity. But Holinshed, with his Leland and Adams, fill'd us with Expectations of valid Proofs from the authentick and unsu­spected [Page 254] Annals of both Kingdoms; at least Holinshed did promise it in their Name, but ‘Quid dignum tanto tulit [...]ic promissor [...] ▪’ Hath his Performance been answerable to his Promise? Did he ever bring one Scots-man as a Witness except Marian [...], and not him neither without a Falsification? for he a­scribes that to Marianus, which is no where to be found in him: But what Credit the Testimonies of Monks deserve, who were not present at the Transactions themselves, but us'd to entertain vulgar Fame and com­mon Reports for Truth, especially seeing the English are generally more addicted to their own Praise than is just, I leave to the Judg­ment of the Reader; Holinshed himself being also suspicious of the Veracity of the Monks in more places than one.

The Question of Right, which I referred to the End of this Chapter, doth still remain: Whether or not this Constantine or Malcolm could render the Kingdom subject, or oblige it to pay Homage to another, seeing they had re­ceiv'd it free from their Ancestors? For it is certain that no Man can alienate the Rights of Majesty deriv'd from his Fore-fathers, or make himsel [...] feudatory to another Prince; [Page 255] and that neither Constantine nor Malcol [...], nor any of those who succeeded them, could invest another with the Rights of the King­dom, which came free to their hands, or sub­ject the same to hold in Fee of another. For Kings being appointed by God to represent his Image upon the Earth, they can have no other Superior besides himself; and that the Kingdom of Scotland was free and indepen­dent before the Reigns of Constantine and Malcolm our Adversaries themselves cannot deny. And in this Question all true hearted English-men will agree with me, they being no less concern'd in this Case than we; for their Kings have often yielded themselves up to the power of others. Offa, King of the Mercians, or South-Saxons, having made a Journey to Ro [...]e, did render his People tri­butary to St. Peter's Chair; which was re­newed by Ethelwolph, who did reign almost over all England: And so under King Ethel­fred, the English were made tributary to the Danes, and forc'd to redeem their Liberty with Money. But Iohn King of England did so [...]ar subject his Kingdom to the Pope, that his Successors were not to receive the Inve­stiture thereof from any other but the Pope; and therefore seeing this sort of Subjection doth also militate against their own Liberty, they will not take it ill if I expatiate a little [Page 256] in this field. What Philip King of France thought as to this Question, I shall subjoin in Holinshed's own words: John could not sub­ject the Kingdom to the Pope without the Con­sent of the Peers; and therefore he forfeited the Crown by his own Fault, because the Kingdom of England never did nor never shall appertain to the Patrimony of St. Peter: For tho' King John was a lawful King, neither he nor any o­ther King could alienate the Kingdom without consent of the `Peers, who are oblig'd to the de­fence of him and his Royal Prerogative as much as in them lies. And if the Pope (continues he) intends to defend this Error, it will be a dangerous Example to all the Kingdoms of the World. Those things being said, the Peers of France who were present, did unanimously pro­test that they would persist in the defence of this until death; that no Prince nor King could a [...] his own Pleasure alienate the Kingdom, or ren­der it tributary to any other King or Prince, so as the Peers may be compell'd to do Homage to any foreign Prince. For he loses the Rights of Majesty, and cannot be any more call'd a King, who is subject to the Power and Com­mand of another, seeing he was formerly in­feriour to God only; and he does manifestly abdicate, and deserves no more the Title of a King, who ought to preserve the People com­mitted to his Charge, and all their Privileges [Page 257] [...]olable, [...]f he subject them to the Power [...]f [...]other: And of Right a King can neither [...] nor e [...]ancipate his Kingdom to ano­ [...]her; when besides the Lands, there are also [...] free People in it of whom there can be no Commerce, and whom he cannot enslave without their own Consent. Such as desire to [...]e further inform'd as to this Question, may [...]ead Hottoman's Treatise of famous Questions, where this is professedly treated of, Q [...]est. 1. and we shall add more afterwards. Nay Ho­ [...]s [...]ed himself following Polydore, denies that this Liege Homage perform'd by K. Iohn to the Pope, did any way prejudg his Succes­ [...]o [...]s the Kings of England; but only himself; who swore it, and committed the Offence; although there was a publick Indenture sign­ed obliging to this Homage, and confirm'd not only by the Hand and Seal of K. Iohn, but those of 16 Earls. I wonder that those who are so sharp-sighted as to discern an Ho­ [...]age in every publick Transaction of ours, by which they will have Posterity to be bound and oblig'd, should deny the Kingdom of England to be a Fee, though the Name of Liege-Homage be expresly mentioned, a Tri­bute of 1000 Marks positively agreed on, and an express Proviso made that none should succeed to the Crown of England without In­vestiture obtain'd from the Pope; and yet [Page 258] they will not have it that this Act of K. Iohn's did any ways affect his Heirs and Succes­sors: And therefore I think that the Nega­tive of this Proposition is very clear, viz. that during the Time of the Saxon Monarchy, there was no Homage perform'd by Constan­tine nor no other King, for Scoland. For Cumberland, Northumberland and Westmore­land, it might be that he who held them in Fee, did Homage to his Lord; and that the King of Scots might profess himself to be Liege-man to the King of England upon that account, as many of the Kings of England since the Conquest were not ashamed to profess themselves to the French King; which we shall hear anon.

So much as to the Time that preceded the Conquest; during which it is most certain that neither Britains nor Saxons had, or could pretend to have, any Right over this King­dom, how inconsiderable soever: And there­fore this second Army of Instances have a­bandon'd their Camp, deserted their Gene­ral, and run over to the Enemy.

CHAP. XXII.
Of William the Conqueror, and whether he pre­tended any other Right to the Kingdom of England, than that of Conquest?

THat we may now leave those more re­mote Transactions, which are ren­dred doubtful because of their Antiquity, [...]nd come to those which bear the Character of being truer and more certain, we [...]hall descend to the Kings of the Norman Race. As to this third Classis of the British Kings, and whether they could pretend to [...]ny Superiority over Scotland, the Field of Controversy is more difficult and narrow; [...]nd that which hath made it so, was the in­ [...]umane Cruelty of Edward I. against us: Who being inflam'd with an eager Desire of [...]xtirpating the whole Nation, and having [...]avaged all the open Countries of the King­dom with his Army, he carried away the Royal Crown, the Honours of the King­dom, all the publick Monuments, Charters, [...]nd Privileges, that he might abolish as much [...]s in him lay all Memory of Antiquity; in­somuch that he plundered the Registers, and destroyed the Monastries, and other publick [Page 260] Places where they were kept; and took them with him into England, upon the vain hopes which he had conceiv'd first of pos­sessing the Superiority which he had falsly [...]igned to himself, and then of seizing the Property of the whole Kingdom by an Ex­clusion of all the Heirs of the Crown: and therefore our Task here is so much the more difficult; whereas we have nothing to say on the Question, but what we must be ob­lig'd to bring from English Monuments [...] Records, and the Evidence of the Witnesses produced against us: And yet from those we shall make it plainly appear, if I be not mightily mistaken, that the Kingdom of Scot­land was always free, and did never acknow­ledg any Superiour Lord, (which is more than the English can say for themselves▪) But if our Kings receiv'd any thing from theirs under the Notion of a Benefit, or Bounty, (Beneficii) it's not to be recokon'd strange that they should have perform'd Ho­mage for that, seeing the Benefit cannot be retain'd without the Homage, the one going always along with the other. But if the Lord either by Injustice, or due Course of Law, recal his Bounty, it were very uncivil in him when he takes that away, still to require Ser­vice or Homage.

[Page 261]But before we come to those things which are objected against us by Holinshed in par­ticular, we must enquire in general, that if there was any Homage due from Scotland to the King of England, to whom it ought to accrue after the Conquest, whether to the true Heirs of their former Lord, or to those who succeeded him by Force and Arms; for the English themselves will not say, that Force and Arms do either give or take away another Man's Right, in as much as they do still entitle themselves Kings of France, though they were thrown out thence by Force of Arms. The same is to be said as to the King of France, who does to this day call himself King of Navarre, as believing the same to pertain to him by Hereditary Right. Then seeing Right can­not be purchas'd by Force and Arms, nor Prescription be pleaded against him who can­not act, but that by Laws both Humane and Divine, every one's Right ought to remain entire to him; we must find out who it is that succeeded to that Right by Law.

There are some who feign, that William the Conqueror was nam'd by Edward the Con­fessor for his Successor, and that he left the Kingdom to him by his Will; and Holin­shed who is asham'd of nothing, how unrea­sonable soever, will have it, that he succeed­ed [Page 262] as next of Kin: but how or by what means that can be, and how agreeable it is to the Laws of God and Man, I shall show in a few words. And first, that it may be known who this Edward was, and by what Right he succeeded to the Kingdom, the Line of Succession must be repeated from Egilfred or Ethelfred the undoubted King of England. Ethelfred then had two Sons, Ed­mund the Eldest call'd Ironside, (because of his great Strength) by Ethelgin his Wife, and Edward the Confessor by Emma Sister to Ri­chard the second, Duke of Normandy. Ed­mund succeeded his Father, and had a Son, who because of his Banishment was named Edward the Exile; for Canute succeeding Edmund (justly or unjustly I shall not say) lest he should incur any Damage from the Children of an excellent Father, whose Me­mory was precious to the English, he pro­scrib'd Edward who was therefore sirnamed the Exile. This Edward retiring to the Court of Henry the Emperor, found so much Favour there, that he obtain'd for Wife Agatha Sister to the King of Hungary, and Niece to the said Emperor, by whom he had Edgar commonly called Etheling, and Margaret afterwards Queen of Scots. Ca­nute and his Son Hardicanute Kings of Eng­land, being dead, Edward, who was Bro­ther [Page 263] to Edmund, only by the Father's Side, whether it was by the Craft of his Mother Emma, or by Election, as the English will have it, usurp'd the Crown, by the As­sistance of the Normans; against the Laws of England, seeing he was not of the full Blood; but living a long time without Chil­dren, and having no hopes of Issue, he sent into Germany to recal Edward, Son to his Brother Edmund, from his Exile, that he might appoint him to be Heir of the Crown, in a Convention of the Nobility. Edward obeyed, and return'd into England, but died that same Year. King Edward griev'd at it, as it was but just, and recom­mended his Son Edgar to the Nobles, as Heir of the Crown; and for that Cause would have him called Etheling, which is as much as Infant of the Kingdom, according to the Custom of Spain. But let the Eng­lish say and write what they please con­cerning this Edward, and rank him amongst the Gods if they will admit him, to me he seems not to have been a good Man, who took the Kingdom that was his Nephew's to himself, neither could he be call'd the true King of England; and therefore it's very unlike that he would appoint the Norman Heir to the Crown by his Will: for besides that it is most certain, and according to the [Page 264] Opinion of all Lawyers, That Kingdoms cannot be disposed of by Will; it is as certain, that the Father cannot prefer the Second to the First-Born, or invert the Law of Suc­cession in his Kingdom. Neither is this a­greeable to Equity, of which this King is given out by his Countrymen to have been a strict Observer: For it is not probable that either living or dying he would be of the Mind to transfer the Crown into ano­ther Family when he had a just Heir, and the Dreams which he is said by Holinshed himself to have had before his Death, de­clare, that he had never conceived any such Design. His last words are to be found in Cambde [...], by which it plainly appears, that he appointed no Man Heir to the Crown of England by his Will: So that the true Successor to that Kingdom, after the Death of this Edward the Confessor, was Edgar E­theling; and this Homage was due to him and his Heirs, and he dying without Chil­dren, the Right of Succession devolv'd on the Heirs of Margaret, that is, the Kings of Scotland: And the Superiority, if there was any such, is consolidate and confounded with the Property, as Lawyers speak. For Malmsbury and Matthew of Paris, do ingenuously con­fess, That the whole Nobility of the Kingdom of England went to the Scots, and the Suc­cession [Page 265] of the Crown devolv'd upon the Sons of Margaret after the Conquest; but the English Nobles, because this Edgar was not fit to govern, suffered Edward to en­joy the Crown of his Forefathers: But while they reject the true Heir, they are forc'd to acknowledg a Foreigner for their Soveraign, by whom being dispoil'd of their Riches and Estates, they were forc'd to undergo a miserable Servitude. But what Holinshed asserts, that the Right of Succes­sion to the Crown of England, f [...]ll to the Norman by Kindred, is so silly, that it needs no Refutation: He says, that the Conque­ror was of the third, and Edward of the second Degree of Consanguinity by Emma Mother to Edward, and great Aunt to the Conqueror. But pray, Mr. Holinshed, is it customary with you in Hereditary King­doms, for the next of the Mother's Line to succeed? Certainly in the Feudal Law, the Mother's Line is not regarded, except in Fees which descend from the Mother and the Mother's Kindred, which obtains to this Day in all the Kingdoms of Europe, that are govern'd by Customs and Laws: But let us grant that an Heritage may de­scend to the next of the Mother's Line, William was a Bastard, and acknowledges himself to be such in that Charter which he [Page 266] grants to Alan Count of Britany, which is to be seen in Cambden's Richmond. But in Law a Bastard can neither succeed nor have any Successor.

Let this be the third Warning to our Neighbours, not to violate the Right of Suc­cession; First in Modred, the second in Bru­de [...]s King of the Picts, who being assisted by your Forces, turn'd Alpin out of the Succession to the Pictish Crown; but the Destruction of the British Nation followed the one, and that of the Picts followed the other: the first being drove out of their Country, retir'd into Wales, and the latter being totally rooted out, have left none to keep up their Name; both of them paying dearly for rejecting the true Heir and Suc­cessor, but all that they suffered under the Romans, by the Invasions of the Scots and Picts, or at last by the Saxons, was but Chil­drens play to what they suffer'd under the Conqueror; for neither God nor Man (to make use of the Phrase) were secure from his Injuries, for he drove the English out of all Benefices, and gave them to his Nor­mans; he melted down the Plate of the Churches, he sold the Noblemens Estates to those that bid most, he forc'd all the English to swear Fealty and Homage, and laid grie­vous Imposts upon private Mens Estates, [Page 267] and claim'd every thing as his own by the Right of Conquest; he did moreover, abo­lish the Laws and Institutions of the Coun­try, chang'd the antient Arms and Bearing, and put the Norman Arms in their Stead; and insulted over the English as unworthy to enjoy any Estates: so that it was ac­counted the height of Reproach to be call'd an Englishman, says Cradock and Matthew Paris; nay, he would have had the very Name of England obliterated, says Poli­dore, and the Country to be called Great Normandy. And therefore I advise you again and again, not to be guilty any more of rejecting the true Heir of the Crown. And,

CHAP. XXIII.
Of the Conqueror and his Sons Ru [...]us and Hen­ry Kings of England, and whether Homage was perform'd to them for Scotland.

NOW I return to the Conqueror, and whether he acquir'd any new Right to the Kingdom of Scotland; for that he succeeded to the old Right, or that the same was devolv'd upon him, can neither be maintain'd by any probable Argument, no [...] is it agreeable to Law or Equity, that he should derive any Right from those whom he subverted, and did so grievously vex. One thing however I think fit to advise the Reader, that there's no publick Writing, Charter or Monument produc'd against us for the Conqueror's Right, but only Do­mestick Testimony, and that also of an E­nemy; and how much Credit that deserves hath been explain'd already, and is refer­red to the Judgment of the Impartial Rea­der: nor if all the Monkish Writers be du­ly and orderly examin'd, will it be found that there was any Homage perform'd for Scotland.

[Page 269]The Conqueror, says Holinshed, having subdued England, thought he had done no­thing unless he also subdued Scotland, and did therefore invade the same, and forc'd M [...]colm to surrender himself. This was not the true Cause of that War; but when the English who could not bear the subver­sion of their Country, and the Norman's Government patiently, fled to the King of Scots, they were all most kindly and cour­teously receiv'd by Malcolm, who was mind­ful of the Assistance they had given him to recover his Kingdom, and enrich'd them with Lands and Fees; so that it is not with­out cause the English write, that the whole Nobility of England went over to the Scots West­minster and Matth. Paris. The Conqueror being enrag'd at thi [...] ▪ and imagining that it might come to pass that the English drawing to an Head there, would sometime or other recover their Country, in order to prevent that, he made War upon Scotland, and having receiv'd several Defeats in the Persons of his Gene­rals, he only came himself to the Borders; but Malcolm meeting him with a well ap­pointed Army, and both sides waiting for the Signal of Battel, a Peace was at last concluded in the Confines of both King­doms, by the Mediation of the Bishops; and seeing the Terms of the same were hard­er [Page 270] upon the Conqueror than the King of Scots, it may easily be inferred from thence, that the Scots were then superior in Arms: for the Conqueror demanding three things; First, That all the English Exiles should be given up; Secondly, That the King of Scots should receive no English Exiles af­terwards; Thirdly, That the King of Scots should acknowledg him for King of Eng­land, and do him Homage as usual for Cum­berland, Northumberland and Westmoreland; Malcolm agreed only to the last, as know­ing that it did not belong to him to deter­mine who had the Right to the Crown of England; but the two first he did constant­ly refuse, saying, that he would never be wanting to any Englishman who sought Sanctuary under him, and on the other Hand, did urge, that the English Exiles whom the Conqueror had dispoil'd, should be restor'd to their Estates, and have a full Pardon for all that was past. This, though much against the Conqueror's Interest, he granted however, against his Will, per­ceiving that he must otherwise have come to a Battel; for the King of Scots had at that time a most formidable Army, not on­ly compos'd of his own Subjects, but Eng­lish Exiles: The gallant Sivard Earl of Nor­thumberland had join'd his Nephew Mal­colm [Page 271] out of Hatred to the Conqueror; so that he was forced nolens volens, to restore the English Exiles: most of them however chose rather to stay with Malcolm, and gave Name and Rise to many great Families which are still in great Honour with us; and therefore I wonder so much the more, what induces the English to write, that the King of Scots yielded himself to the King of England. Nay Matthew Paris mentions a double Surrender, though others do only take notice of one, and will have it that Malcolm became the Conqueror's Liege Man (to use their own words) which imports nothing more but that he did him Homage, and the same is to be understood, when Polidore says, that Malcolm swore Fealty to the Conqueror, (in verba Conquestoris ju­r [...]sse) and therefore according to the Judg­ment of all the English Writers, Malcolm did only perform that Homage which he ow'd; but that it was perform'd for Scotland, no Body writes but this Holinshed, and the counterfeit Nicholas Adams. Let them then turn over all the Writings of the Monks till they sweat and pant, and let them unlock all the Cabinets, they shall never find that Malcolm perform'd Homage for Scotland, which is the Point in Hand; for we do not deny that Homage was perform'd as long as [Page 272] we held those Northern Provinces, but af­ter they were taken away, there was neither any due nor performed. In matters of Mo­ney, Judgment is never given except upon clear E [...]dence, and how much less ought it to be given in a Controversy which con­cerns the Liberty not of one Man, but of a whole Kingdom, and that the most Anti­ent in Europe. And in Law, as often as the same Discourse will admit of two Interpre­tations, that only is to be receiv'd which is most agreeable to the thing transacted, and makes for Liberty: Therefore what Holin­shed or the Pettifogger Adams say, that Ho­mage was perform'd, to the Conqueror for the Kingdom of Scotland, is altogether false. But this is their ordinary way, that whenever they find it mentioned that Homage was perform'd to alledg, that it was for Scotland; but if our Historians may be believed, there was not so much as any Homage done at that time: for the Conqueror having attempted War upon Scotland unsuccessfuly, and find­ing when present in Person, that the Issue of a War against the Scots might be dangerous, he renewed the Peace, and restoring all the English whom he had banish'd, returned Home: nor can the English themselves as­sert, that he reap'd any other Advantage from that War, though at the same time it [Page 273] [...] to be observ'd, that we undertook the [...]me upon the account of the English, as we [...]ad formerly sustain'd the Attacks of the [...]anes for their Safety and Government.

Rufus, the Conqueror's Son, having con­ [...]eiv'd, as well as his Father, that Scotland might be subdued without much to do, did also prepare for an Expedition against it; [...]ut with no better Success than his Father: And yet you, Mr. Holinshed, will have it that [...]e receiv'd Homage from the King of Scots for Scotland; but in what Place, Time or Year, you do not say, for fear of being catch'd in a manifest Lie: for there's no mention of this Homage in William of New­briggs, though he came nearest those Times of all the English Writers; nay, nor by Polydore himself in the Life of Rufus. I will subjoin his own Words: ‘Writers vary as to that Expedition which Rufus undertook against the Scots: Some say that Malcolm, when he heard that Rufus was coming to make War upon him, sought Peace of his own accord, and obtain'd it: Others, that Rufus prepar'd great Forces by Sea and Land to subdue the Scots, (for so they al­ways speak in their Expeditions;) but his Fleet being cast away in a Storm, and his Land-Forces having suffered much, he re­tir'd; and that Robert of Normandy made [Page 274] Peace with Malcoln King of Scots, who waited for the Coming of the English with a very strong Army near his own Borders; and by Agreement, restored some [...] to the King of Scots, which he had enjoyed in England during the Reign of [...] the First.’ So that you may perceive her [...], Mr. Holinshed, if you can per [...]eive any thing, that most of the Writers do wholly omit all mention of this Homage, and that the [...] possess'd the North-parts of England which were next unto Scotland, both during the Reigns of Rufus and his Father Willi [...]; though I will not deny that they held them upon Fealty, as you did Normandy of the French King at the same time. But what if it can be proven, even from your own Wri­ters, that Rufus receiv'd more Damage than Advantage by that Expedition, and was the first that desired Peace; which he could not ob [...]ain, but upon yielding up most of those Pl [...]ces which his Father had seiz'd? Will not this subvert all that you forge concerning Malcolm, [...]iz. that he yielded himself? Let's see then what's the common Opinion of the English Historians upon this Head.

H [...]eden agreeing in every [...]hing with Po­lydore, says, that when the two Kings stood in Battel array, Robert Duke of Normandy, who accompanied his Brother Rufus to the Sco­tish [Page 275] Wars, perceiving Edgar Etheling in Mal­colm's Army, and having been familiar with him in times past, call'd upon him, and was the first that mentioned a Peace; and by their means the two Kings were reconcil'd on these Conditions, That M [...]lcolm should do the same Offices to Rufus which he had perform'd to his Father, and that Rufus should restore to Malcolm the twelve Towns which William had withheld from him, and pay him moreover ten Marks of Gold per annum. Florence has the same thing, and adds, that at their second Meeting, which was without Arms, Rufus demanded of Mal­col [...] to come to a Trial at Law in his Courts; but Malcolm flatly refused, although he was his Liege-man, which does not at all agree with the Homage then alledg'd to be per­form'd. Malmsbury has not any thing of the Homage; but only makes mention of a Peace, procured by Robert Duke of Nor­mandy; So that if Robert, who was Brother to Rufus, was the first who mentioned a Peace, that Rufus was oblig'd to yield up 12 Towns, and to pay 10 Marks of Gold year­ly, as has been already mentioned. What is asserted by the Monks Malmsbury and Ho­veden, that Malcolm being terrified with the Appearance of War, did profess himself Ru­fus's Liege-man, must needs be false: For he [Page 276] who first makes mention of Peace, is more desirous of Peace than War; and he that quits with his Possessions to obtain Peace, is certainly inferiour in Arms. But our Neigh­bours act according to their usual Custom, in upbraiding us constantly with Cowardliness, or something that is dishonourable. That Malcolm became Rufus's Liege-man, we don't deny; but upon what account he became so, remains to be proved: but that it was for Scotland, Mr. Holinshed, you have no Author to avouch.

There remain still two Calumnies with which our Malcolm is undeservedly charged by most of the English Historians; one of them his inhumane Cruelty towards Nor­thumberland when he ravag'd the same, and the other that he and his eldest Son were slain in plain Battel: And tho' those things don't much concern the Question of Ho­mage, which is the Subject of the present Dispute, yet it is not to be pass'd over, that all Men may see how unfaithfully our Neigh­bours deal with us as to the Point of History. For the first Calumny; there was not a more merciful, pious nor magnanimous Prince than Malcolm; & there's an Instance of his Clemen­cy and Magnanimity recorded by Polydore and Matthew Paris: but while the common Rabble of English Historians search on all [Page 277] sides how they may reproach us, they are not ashamed to charge us with the horrible and barbarous Cruelties of the Danes; nay, what their more antient Writers say of the Cruelty of the Danes, they fasten Word for Word upon our Malcolm. It may be indeed, as Hoveden relates it, that when Cospatrick (to whom the Conqueror gave the Earldom of Northumberland that he might infest Mal­colm with War) harass'd Cumberland, which did then belong to Malcolm, with Fire and Sword, and besides other Cruelties burnt down St. Peter's Church in Cumberland; it may be, I say, that Malcolm, being enraged at their violating the most sacred Places, might command his Subjects to give no Quarter, and leave the Souldiers to their Liberty; otherwise it is very improbable, that this most religious and pious Prince would have done such things as they charge him with. Nor are they content to throw those Aspersions upon Malcolm, but also upon his Son David, the most religious Prince that ever was heard of, in the very same words. Neither is there any more Truth in the se­cond Calumny, that Malcolm and his Son were defeated and kill'd in Battel: It's a known Story. For William the Conqueror being very lavish of his Faith, as the English themselves do testify, detain'd some Garisons [Page 278] in Northumberland: Malcolm having ex­pected Restitution a long time, but in vain, besieg'd Alnwick; and the Garison being de­stitute of all Relief, offered to surrender, Ro­bert Moubray, Governor of the same, coming out on Horseback with two Iron Keys on the Point of his Spear, presented'em to the King, as if he design'd to surrender: the King came out of his Tent to receive them, and Mon­bray putting Spurs to his Horse, ruu the Spear into the King's Eye; and leaving him half dead, was carried off by his swift Horse, on the Confidence of whose Heels he undertook this memorable Enterprize. Edward, eldest Son to Malcolm, pursuing him, fell into an Ambush which was laid to favour Moubray's escape, and was also slain. Here's no Victo­ry, nor no Armies which could fight: The Scots Army carried on the Siege, and the little Garison which resisted them offered to surrender; or let them tell us if they can, who in that Army were slain besides the two Princes, or how many Colours were taken. It is also plain, that from this Fact of Robert Moubray's, does the most noble Family of the Piercies derive their Name and Original.

You will also have it, that Donald was e­lected King of Scots by Rufus, who did after­wards dethrone him, and substitute Duncan in his room, and that both of them did Ho­mage [Page 279] to Rufus But you cannot produce one antient Writer Mr. Holins [...]ed, who says that ever the English were allowed the Choice of one of our Kings. We own, with Poly­dore, that Duncan dethron'd his Competitor by the Assistance of Rufus, under whom he did carry Arms for some time: For it was then customary with the English, when we were broken into Factions, to assist one of the Parties, that they might either destroy both, or when it fell out that there was War betwixt the two Kingdoms, they might al­ways have a Faction amongst us: And this was followed by our Country-men; who when Parties were at variance, it was usual for the weaker Side to have recourse to the English for Assistance. Mal [...]bury, Hoveden, and Huntington, do all of them take notice that Duncan was made King of Scotland by the Assistance of Rufus; and Westminster and Polydore do also make mention of the Homage: but there was no need of it; for neither of them are numbred amongst the Kings of Scotland; and the Stories of Donald and Duncan are very well known to us, viz. that they were no lawful Heirs to the Crown, but Tyrants and Invaders; and therefore they were both of them justly depriv'd of the Kingdom, and kill'd in the space of two Years. But Holinshed won't take notice of [Page 280] this, that Duncan was not admitted to the Throne until he took an Oath that he would entertain no English nor Norman Souldiers, as is witnessed by Polydore in his 2d Book; than which there can be nothing said more contradictory to the Laws of Homage, or Feudal Fealty, (if the Souldiers of his Lord, and fellow Vassal, be not admitted into the Fiduciary Kingdom:) And that same Au­thor acquaints us, that all the English and Normans which Duncan brought with him, were driven out of Scotland by Force. This was certainly a great piece of Stubborness in a Vassal, and a piece of Ingratitude, for which he deserv'd to have his Fee taken away. But the Matter speaks of it self, viz. that the King of England could not then pre­ [...]end to any Superiority over Scotland, when his Subjects were not so much as allowed to dwell there.

You write, that the most renowned Prince Henry I. receiv'd Homage from Edgar and his Brother Alexander; although there be no mention of this Homage neither in Polydore, Newbriggs, Stow, Mal [...]sbury, Westminster, nor any other Author that I know of. However, we will grant this, though not for the King­dom of Scotland, but only for the Fiduciary Countries of Cumberland, Westmoreland and Northumberland: For that most excellent [Page 281] Prince knowing the Norman Government to be weak, and establish'd by no Law in England, and that the Succession to both Kingdoms was due to Margaret Queen of Scots, and her Children, he obtain'd Ma [...]d, the Daughter of Malcolm and Margaret, for Wife, that he might from her at least derive some Right to himself and Successors. This Maud was afterwards called the Good; nor is there any Queen of England whose Memo­ry is recommended to Posterity by so many Praises and Encomiums as hers. This I take notice of, that our Neighbours may perceive that most of our Country-folks are natural­ly of an ingenuous Disposition; and that Vertue and Education are in much esteem with us, though they account us the most barbarous and vile People in the World. Henry then lived in a most friendly Manner with the Scots; nor did he ever demand Homage from that Prince, whose Sister he married; or if he did, it was only on ac­count of the Lands which the King of Scots held in England. Nay, when he recom­mended his Daughter Maud to the Nobili­ty, he made no Scruple to assert her to be the true Heiress of the Crown, as being de­scended of Margaret Queen of Scots, and the true Saxon Blood.

[Page 282]But Maud, Daughter to Henry, received Homage from her Uncle David. We will grant you this, though it be not true; but Ma [...]d is not reckoned amongst the Kings of England. You add, that she gave to her Un­cle K. David for Wife, the Daughter of Earl Woldeo [...]is, Heiress of Huntington and Nor­thumberland; and therefore because David was the first who did Homage for Hunting­ton you in [...]er as a necessary Consequence, that his Predecessors perform'd the same for the Kingdom of Scotland; and that now you have left no place of Subterfuge for our Country-men, who hold that the Homage was perform'd for Huntington before they obtain'd the Possession of it. As to the Hei­ress of Huntington, we own it; but that he had a Right to Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmoreland, before that time, I have proved sufficiently from your own Writers, and even from your self Mr. Holinshed: So that this necessary Conclusion of yours comes to nothing; for though K. David was the first that perform'd Homage for the County of Huntington, it's certain that many of his Ancestors perform'd the same for Cumberland, Northumberland and Westmoreland, which they held of the English; for the Law al­lows that a Vassal may hold several Fees of one and the same Lord.

[Page 283]You object, that David refused Homage to Stephen, because he had perform'd it to Maud before: But that was not for Scotland; for neither could he perform, nor she receive that, but for other Countries which the King of Scots held of the English. Nor have you any other Evidence but your own for this Homage: Polydore, Newbriggs, Malmsbury, and the rest, have nothing of this Homage per­form'd to Stephen; nor if they had, would it any way help our Neighbours Cause, as I said before. For we will grant that Homage was perform'd to Maud, as the lawful Heiress of her Father Henry I. but Polydore says only, that K. David held Cumberland in the time of K. Stephen, but refus'd to swear Fealty to him for the same. However, he sent his Son Henry as was meet, who was gifted with the County of Huntington by Stephen. This Henry, David's eldest Son and Prince of Scotland, is also cal­led Earl of Northumberland by that anony­mous Writer, and most others, left any Body should be ignorant that Northumberland was at that time subject to the Scots.

CHAP. XXIV.
Of Henry II. and by what Methods he would have settled that Homage upon himself and his Heirs, and of the true Form of this Ho­mage.

HEnry II. received Homage from Mal­colm Prince of Scotland, according to you Mr. Holinshed, for the Kingdom of Scot­land; and that he was present with the King of England in the War against the King of France, you take as an unanswerable Argu­ment, that our League with France was dis­solv'd by Osbright, and never renewed again. If you had writ simply, without any Additi­on, that Malcolm had perform'd Homage, it might have been born with; for seeing Mal­colm enjoyed four large Provinces in Eng­land, viz. Cumberland, Northumberland, West­moreland and Huntington, which he did then hold of the English in Fee, what wonder if he perform'd Homage for them? And there­fore I beseech the candid Reader that he would forbear giving Judgment for a little while, because the Hinge of the Controversy turns wholly upon this Henry II. and Ed­ward I. and if I be not mistaken, the Truth [Page 285] of the Question will easily appear from the English Annals themselves. We will there­fore divide the Reign of this Henry II. into two Periods, viz. into that before his taking William King of Scotland Prisoner, and that after. As to the first you write, Mr. Holin­shed, that Malcolm King of Scots perform'd Homage for the Kingdom of Scotland: But in truth, this smells of excessive Boldness and Impudence, to commit those things to wri­ting, which may be refuted out of other Writers; and indeed we do all of us owe Thanks to your Hoveden, and to Savil, who lately took care to have him printed, be­cause they have lighted a Torch to guide us in this Controversy; whereas we should have otherwise been in the Dark.

Hoveden then, Mr. Holinshed, does plainly give you and all other English Writers, if there be any who agree with you, the Lie In prim. Hen. II. His Words are these; ‘That same Year Malcolm King of Scots met the King of England at Chester, and did him Ho [...]age in the same Manner as his Grand-father perform'd it to old K. Henry II. with a Sal­vo as to all his own Dignities.’ This is the true Form of the Homage which was always paid to the Kings of England by those of Scotland; in which their own Dignities are manifestly excepted. Now the King of Scots [Page 286] had no other Dignities but Scotland, which was preserv'd safe and entire in this Homage. Neither was this only true as to Malcolm, says Hoveden, but also as to his Grand-father and Predecessors; and therefore if any Man enquire after the Form of Homage paid by Constantine to Athelstan, it necessarily follows that the same was perform'd with a Salvo to the Royal Dignity: And so the Homage was perform'd to the Conqueror and Henry I. with a Salvo to the Royal Authority, as will ap­pear more plainly afterwards in our William and your Richard, that you may perceive I deal fairly with you: So that the first part of your Assertion evanishes; and you are certainly a very hair-brain'd Fellow, and one who lies at catch for other Mens Fame, see­ing you are not asham'd to assert what you cannot prove. That Malcolm accompanied Henry into France, we don't deny; but that he took Arms against the King of France, is false: Nor could Malcolm avoid the Suspici­on of his Subjects notwithstanding; for when he returned Home, the Scots being highly enraged because they thought that he had carried Arms against the King of France his Ally, they besieged him until such time as he clear'd himself of that Crime; and ac­quainted them, that having gone to London to perform Homage, he was compell'd by [Page 287] Force to accompany the King of England in­to [...]; and so he [...] the [...] of Scotland. You see then that your Argument from the Breach of the French League, falls to the ground. But this you [...] pass'd over in Silence, that when our K. [...] conferred the Honour of Knight­hood upon Henry, that the said Henry did swear solemnly and in express Terms, that he would never redemand Cumberland, [...], Westmoreland nor Huntington, which David did then possess in England. My Author is [...]; and from hence we may easily gather not only that this great Prince was guilty of violating his solemn Oath, but that the King of Scots did at that time enjoy large Dominions in England; for which he ow'd Homage, and not for the Kingdom of Scotland, as you do wilfully dream, Mr. Holin [...]ed. What you write of Henry the Second's having adjudg'd the four Dominions above mentioned, to the Crown of England, because of Malcolm's Rebellion, was never as [...]erted by any but your self; or if otherwise, tell us when, by what Methods, or in what Place did this Rebellion happen: But so it is ordered by Nature, that when a Man delights in an Error, he falls into an in­finite number of others for the defence of that; and to render the first Lie probable, [Page 288] he is not afraid to make two or three more: And thus one Error, like a teeming Sow, brings forth abundance of others. As to the Sentence of Adjudication I think nothing strange; for how many times were Norman­dy, Aquitain, and the rest of the English Pro­vinces, which they hold in Fee, adjudg'd to the Crown of France by the Senate of Paris? and yet they were never restored until the English were drove thence by force of Arms. It's certain that the English themselves con­fess that K. Henry did at that time violate his Oath; and when the same was told him to his Face by William King of Scots, he had no­thing to say in excuse of himself, but that he could not bear with such a Diminution of his Kingdom: An excellent Way indeed of eluding his Oath. Now if any of our Kings had been guilty of such a Crime, how strangely would you have insulted over us as Perfidious, Perjur'd, and Enemies to Man­kind, and whatever else your paultry Cho­ler could have suggested; as you are not a­sham'd to treat us on much slighter Occasi­ons? And in truth, if we go through all the Kings of England one by one, to the time of Henry VII. there's not one of them whom we shall not find guilty of breaking their Oaths, even you your self being Witness in your History Mr. Holinshed; but you cannot [Page 289] perceive the Bunch on your own Back. That we may return to the Sentence of [...], it might perhaps be easily put in Execution in Hu [...]tington, which is a Mid­land Country, and far remote from the Bor­ders of Scotland; but as for Cumberland, Northumberland and Westmoreland, which William of Newbrigs owns to have been pos­sessed then by the King of Scots, as his pro­per Right, the Execution was not so easy because they were bordering Countries: and although the English Inhabitants did favour the King of England, they were not reduced under the Dominion of England for an hundred Years after that; for the King of Scots withheld them by Force, as the [...] did Normandy, Anjou, Poic [...]ou, Aqui­ [...] &c. which were frequently adjudg'd to the Crown of France. Any Man who has a Mind to see what your Writers have left on Record concerning this Matter, may easily perceive it at one view; for when the King of Scots demanded the Restitution of those Countries by his Ambassadors, but in vain, Po [...]dore says, he sought to right himself by his Arms: and we shall prove from that same Polidore, and the rest of your Histori­ans, that Huntington remain'd in the Posses­sion of the Scots until the time of Edward the first, who took it from Iohn Baliol; so [Page 290] that while you rage against us, you quite forget what you ought to say. Nay, West­minster takes notice of the Exchange betwixt King William and King Henry II. in 1157; for he says, that the King of Scots restored Carlisle and Bamburgh Castle, with the County of La [...]don, and that Henry restored the County of Huntington to him: and yet Mr. Holinshed, you are not ashamed, so you can but reproach us on every side, to say. that this County was never restored; for you are so prodigal of your Faith, that you believed those things would never be read by any of our Countrymen. Yea, Matthew Paris writes, that after William was set at Liberty, viz. in 1185, the Earl of Hunting­ton being dead without Issue, that Henry the second gave that County with its Appurte­nances to William King of Scots; so little do your Writers agree amongst themselves, and you, Mr. Holinshed, dissent from all of them. So much for Malcom's Homage.

You will have it that William King of Scots did Homage for his Kingdom, but Po­lidore and most of the rest do only make mention of the Homage without any Ad­dition, and some do say that it was for the Kingdom of Scotland. That I may recon­cile your Writers amongst themselves, we will divide the Reign of this William, as we [Page 291] did formerly that of your Henry, into two Periods, viz. that before his being made Pri­soner by the English, and that after. The Form of Homage that he perform'd whilst [...] [...]reeman, is threefold, as may be seen in [...] and Matthew Paris; the first thus, William did Homage to King Richard, in the [...] manner as his Brother Malcolm perform'd [...] and how that was, we have said already, [...] with a Salvo to all his own Dignities: The second thus, That William paid Homage to John his King with a Proviso, to secure his [...] Right: The third is thus, as mentioned by Matthew Paris, That Willam did Homage [...] the King of England for his Privileges in England. All which Forms center in one, viz. That this Homage was perform'd with a Salvo [...] Royal Dignity, and only in Right of those Lands which the King of Scots held in Eng­land; so that it's certain from your own [...], that there was no Homage per­form'd by King William for the Kingdom of [...] while he was at Liberty: and how [...] Fealty does extend which has a Sal­vo [...] or Ordine suo, is shewed by Mat­thew Paris, In Hen. II. in the Oath of Fealty which Richard Prior of Dover took, when he was [...] Archbishop of Canterbury, viz. he [...] Fealty to the King with a Salvo for those of his Order, i.e. with a Proviso for the [Page 292] Ecclesiastical Liberty. But the Truth o [...] the Matter of Fact as to this Homage, is to be found in Polidore thus: When William, say the English Historians, had sworn Fealty to Henry for the Counties of Huntington Cumberland and Westmoreland, he hop'd by this Obsequiousness, to have also [...] ob­tain'd the County of Northumberland; [...] finding that the King of England invented causes of Delay, he return'd Home very angry, with a Design to recover his Right by Arms, (which are always just and neces­sary, when Right cannot be obtain'd with­out them) and when William had tried [...] to recover his Due by Intreaties and all fair Means from Henry, who was a hand and covetous Prince, he ravaged all Northumberland; and having sent out his [...] to plunder the Country, as he was re­turning Home by way of Alnwick accom­panied only with sixty Horse, he fell into an Ambush, (for our Princes were always more gallant than cautious or provident) and being taken, was treated in a barbarous inhumane Manner, carried to Henry with his Feet tied under the Horse's Belly, and kept in very harsh Custody for ten whole Years, though Matthew Paris writes, that he was defeated in a pitch'd Battel In Hen. II. and that so great a Multitude of those Scots Pis­mires [Page 293] were slain, as cannot be numbred; just as in another Place, he says, that we wage Wa [...] like Women! In Stephan. But neither could the bearness of Blood, nor the Merits of [...] his Grandfather, who expos'd himself so often to defend Henry's Dignity, prevail any thing in favour of William. And here you say, Mr. Holinshed, that he was oblig'd to part with Huntington, Cumberland and Nor­thumberland, for his Ransom; from which it is apparent, that he was not only then in Possession of Huntington, but also of Cum­berland and Northumberland, which you af­firm to have been taken from him a little before; for he recovered Northumberland from Henry the Son, as is witness'd by Hove­den: Therefore it is certain that the King of Scots did always owe Homage for Gum­berland and Northumberland, which over­turns all your former Arguments.

But you think this an invincible Argu­ment to prove your vain Babling, viz. that King William offered a Cloak, a Saddle and lance, at the High Altar in York-Minster, in Token of Homage. But pray, Mr. Ho­linshed, could not he offer those things with­out professing himself a Subject to the King of England, or what reference has that Ob­lation to the Fealty or Superiority of Scot­land? But every corrupt Judg, says Horace, [Page 294] is a bad enquirer into the Truth. Lewis King of France offer'd at the Tomb of Tho­mus the Martyr, (as he is call'd by Hoveden) a very large and valuable Golden Cup, and gave for the use of the Monks who serv'd there, 100 Vessels of Wine for ever, to be received at Poysy in France every Year at the sole Charge of the King of France, with an immunity from all Taxes, for whatever was bought for the use of the said Monks in France; must Lewis therefore be said to have paid Homage to the King of England because of this Oblation? So much for the time which preceded William's being made Prisoner. You add amongst other Condi­tions of his Ransom, Mr. Holinshed, that William promised that he and his Successors should hold the Kingdom of Scotland in Fee of the King of England for ever. I shall not deny the matter of Fact, which is at­tested by so many English Historians, the Tenour of the Charter or Indenture being also exhibited by Hoveden, Matthew Paris and others, whereby William in express Terms, without any Circumlocution or ge­neral Clause, confesses, that he acknowledg­es the King of England his Liege Lord for the Kingdom of Scotland; but I must say, that it was not only contrary to all Law, but Humanity it self, to require of a Man who [Page 295] was not his own Master, but a Captive, and at that time a Subject of England, an ac­knowledgment of Superiority over Scotland. Let the Law of Nations plead for us, for all Kingdoms agree in this, that there lies a Claim of Restitution against all Actions ex­torted by Violence and Force: or let us have the Benefit of the English Law at least, according to the Answer of William Brivier, one of King Henry the 3d's Counsellors, to the Archbishop of Canterbury; and the Ba­rons when they demanded a Confirmation of their Liberties by the King, viz. That the Liberties which they sought, ought not to be observ'd in Law, because they were extorted by Violence. Matthew Paris in Hen. III. And therefore the Scots who serv'd under Charles the seventh then Dauphin of France, were altogether in the right in their Answer to King Iames I. (whom Henry V. of England had taken at Sea, contrary to the Faith of a Truce, and carried with him to France, that he might command the Scots to quit the French Service) viz. That they did not acknowledg him for King, so long as he was in the Power of their Ene­mies; and therefore would not obey his Commands seeing they were not his Subjects. For other wise he being at that time a Subject of England, they did reasonably infer, that they must also become such if they [Page 296] acknow­ledg'd him for their Liege Lord. Certainly he who is in the Power of an Enemy, or detain'd Captive, may easily be compell'd to do any thing; but the Laws allow him this relief, that being once at Liberty, he is not oblig'd to perform what he promis'd a­gainst his Will, and therefore whatever was done, said or promis'd by King William then in the Power of his Enemies, detain'd so many Years in strict Custody, and having no Hopes of redeeming himself otherwise, is accounted [...] and void in Law; and seeing Princes [...] but seldom go to Law with one another, there's no need of a Declara­tory (to use the Law-Phrase) to make this void in Law. What if Richard King of England, when he was detain'd Captive by Leopold D [...]ke of Austria, subjected the Crown of England so as to hold in Homage of the [...] Duke; must that Homage be therefore accounted Legal, and the King­dom of England subject to Austria? But that the English may be sensible what In­conveniences they run themselves into by this Argument' the same Hoveden writes, that this very Richard who was for his Mag­nani [...]ty call'd coeur de Lion, i. e. Lion's Heart, when he was sold by Leopold to the Emperor Henry, and saw no other way of delivering himself from his Captivity, he did [Page 297] divest himself of the Crown of England, de­liver it to the Emperor as Universal Mo­narch, and invested him with his Hat, and the Emperor did straightway, as was agreed on or commun'd before hand in the Presence of the Peers of Germany and England, restore him the foresaid Kingdom of England, to be held of him the said Emperor, on an Annual Tribute of 5000 l. Sterlin, and thereupon he invested Richard with a double Crown of Gold; but the said Emperor did afterwards on his Death-bed quit Claim the said Ri­chard and his Heirs of those and all other Agreements.

Let those two Princes William and Ri­chard, and their Actions while Captives be compar'd, and we shall find that one Egg is not more like another, for both of them in their Captivity subjected their Kingdoms to the Power of another: but it's perhaps more dishonourable on Richard's part, who promis'd to pay 5000 l. Sterlin annually as a Tribute; and both of them being at Li­berty, obtain'd a Remission of this Homage which was extorted by Violence, either from the Lords themselves, or their Heirs. In Richard's Case there was the Emperor's Investiture, in William's none: therefore the English must either be very partial in their own Case, or acknowledg the same thing [Page 298] against themselves, which they object against us, viz. That the King of England did sometime pay Homage to the Emperor for the Kingdom of England, as I made it ap­pear before in the Comparison betwixt our Constantine and Ethelred King of England, Constantine having only made a Surrender, (if it be true what the English say concern­ing him) but it is certain that Ethelred did reign precariously under Sueno; so that they can find nothing in our William, but what they may find in their own Richard: For as to Henry II. the Subject of the present Dis­pute, no Body did ever esteem him a good Man, for the few Vertues that he had were exceeded, or at least equall'd by his Vices; and being unmindful of the Oath which he had sworn to our David his Uncle, never to redemand Cumberland, Northumberland and Westmoreland, he sought by all manner of ways, that is, by Force and Fraud, to seize them as the King of France did the English Fees which they held beyond-Sea; for that's a Fault natural to most Kings, that they en­deavour to enlarge their Dominions right or wrong. But this did not pass unpunish'd in Henry, for on his Death-Bed he curs'd himself and his Childen, and the Day of his Birth; nor could he ever be prevail'd on by the Bishops to absolve his Children from [Page 299] that Curse, though they did inculcate how much he hazarded his Salvation thereby, But his Son Richard made an intire Restitu­tion to King William, renounced those Con­fessions that had been extorted from him, and declared the Kingdom of Scotland free from Homage for all time coming, having ex­pressly testify'd, that the Homage which was perform'd by his Brother Malcolm and his Predecessors, were only for the Dignities or Privileges which they held in England: and Richard did mightily exceed his Father in Vertue; for Hoveden says, that he did very much enlarge his Father's good Deeds, and diminish'd his evil Ones; those whom his Father disinherited, he restored to their Anti­ent Rights, whom his Father banish'd he re­call'd, whom his Father imprison'd he let go free, and those on whom his Father did in­flict several Punishments unjustly, the Son did cherish and refresh. Let us also hear Hoveden's words concerning the renouncing of this Homage, for he liv'd very near those times In the first Part of the Annals of Richard I.. William King of Scots came to Canterbury to the King of England in De­cember, and did Homage for the Dignities which he was to enjoy in England, (mark those words for his Dignities in England) as Mal­colm his Brother had enjoy'd them, and King Richard restor'd to him the Castles of Rox­burgh [Page 300] and Berwick free from all Claims by himself and the Kings of England for ever, and did at the same time quit claim the King­dom of Scotland from all Allegiance and Sub­jection to the Crown of England: and for this Restitution of his Castles, and quit claiming the Kingdom of Scotland from all Fealty and Allegiance; and in consideration of King Ri­chard's Charter to be had thereupon, William King of Scots gave him 10000 Marks, and then Richard made him a Charter in this Form, the Tenor of which I thought fit to insert, because Hoveden is not in every Body's Hand, and that the Truth of this whole Contro­versy will appear from the same.

‘ Richard, by the Grace of God King of England, Duke of Normandy and A­quitain, and Count of Anjou. To all Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Earls and Barons, Judges and Sheriffs, and to all his Servants and faithful Subjects of Eng­land, Greeting. Be it known, that we have restored unto our most dear Kinsman William, by the same Grace King of Scots, his Castles of Roxburgh and Berwick, as his own Hereditary Right, and to be pos­sessed by him and his Heirs for ever. We do moreover quit him from all Agree­ments and Covenants, which our Father [Page 301] of happy Memory, Henry King of Eng­land extorted from him by new Charters and his imprisonment, so as he perform intirely and fully to us whatever Malcolm King of Scots his Brother did, or of Right was obliged to do to our Predecessors; and we shall do unto him whatever our Predecessors did, or of Right were ob­liged to do to the said Malcalm, viz. as to his safe Conduct, coming to, return­ing from, or staying in our Court, and in all Procurations, Liberties, Dignities, and Honours of Right due unto him, as shall be agreed on by four of our Peers chosen by the said King William, and four of his Peers chosen by us: and if any of our Sub­jects have incroach'd upon the Borders or Marches of the Kingdom of Scotland, since the Imprisonment of the said King William, without Judgment, it is our Will, that they be intirely restored, and reduc'd to that same State they were in before his Imprisonment. Moreover, as to the Lands which he ought to hold in England, whether in Demain or Fee, viz. in the County of Huntington, and any where else, that he and his Heirs for ever do enjoy them in as full and ample man­ner as Malcolm possessed, or ought to have possessed them▪ except that the said Mal­colm [Page 302] or his Heirs did afterwards let out a­ny part in Fee; and if so, that the Ser­vices of those Fees shall belong to him and his Heirs; and if our Father gave any thing to the foresaid William king of Scotland, it is our Will that the same be ratified and established. We have also restored unto him the Allegiances ( Lige­antias,) Homages and Charters which our Lord and Father extorted from him by his Captivity; and if any other happen to be found or retain'd through forgetfulness, we command, that they shall be of no Force nor Effect. But he becomes our Liege Man for all those Lands for which his Predecessors became the Liege Men of our Predecessors, and hath sworn Fealty to us and our Heirs. Witness these Pre­sents.’

Matthew Paris subjoins these following Words to the same sense, ‘ William King of Scots did Homage to Richard King of England for his Privileges in England, and Richard restored unto him the Castles of Roxburgh and Berwick, and in conside­ration of the Restitution of those Castles, the quit claiming of the Kingdom of Scot­land from Homage, and the Confirmati­on of his Charter, the said King of Scots gave to the King of England 10000 Marks in Money.’

[Page 303]Now do not those two Forms of Homage, the one for his Dignities, and the other for his Privileges in England, make it evident to all Men, that the Fealty which the King of Scots swore to the King of England, was only for the Dignities and Privileges which he held in England. But you say, Mr. Holin­shed, that those Monuments are still in the Custody of the English: For my part I don't believe it; for though your Faith be a Pro­stitute, or that at least you do assert this up­on another Man's Credit, yet I look upon those Peers of England, and K. Richard, who says he restored them, to be hor [...]est and good Men. So that I give you your choice, whe­ther you had rather that you your self should be accused of Falshood, or your Country­men of Perjury: for if you have them not when you say you have them, you are guilty of writing a Falshood; but if you really have them, you charge your Country-men with Perjury; when both here, and in the Peace which was agreed on betwixt Edward III. and David Bruce, the King and Peers of England declared upon Oath, that all those Monuments which contain'd any Subjection of Scotland, were faithfully resto­red; as you your self do also write: And Richard himself confesses that he had re­turn'd that Charter or Indenture, which K. William had made during his Captivity, [Page 304] to hold the Crown of Scotland in Fee of the Crown of England; and if any other Monu­ments be retain'd through Forgetfulness they are to be esteem'd void and null Don't you see Mr. Holinshed, what Snares you have brought your self into? As to what concerns those four Castles, they were delivered as Pledges▪ so that on paiment of the Money they were restored. But you say, that the Scots will never be able to prove that the Money was paid. It cannot indeed be easily proved at such an Interval of time, yet the Presctintion of so many Ages takes away all Right of Demand; and the Restitution of the four Castles which were laid in pledg, give ground to presume that the Debt was paid. The Testimony of Robert Mountain which you adduce, is to: no purpose. By these it's as clear as the Sun shine, that there were two Homages perform'd by William; one for the Kingdom of Scotland, which was extorted by Force from him while he was a Prisoner, and is therefore called a New Charter, because there was no such Charter for Homage for the Kingdom of Scotland before that: And I pray you, Mr. Holinshed, what need was there of a New Charter of Homage for Scotland, if there had been any old one? Or what need was there to pro­vide for that afresh, which you say was suf­ficiently provided for from the first Original [Page 305] of England? And as to those Lands which he had in England, whether in Demain or in Fee, viz. in the County of Huntington, (which according to you, was lately taken from him, and never restored) K. Richard says in plain terms, that ‘K. William and his Heirs shall for ever possess them in as am­ple manner as Malcolm did or ought to have possess'd them; and if his Father granted any thing to K. William, he ratifi­ed and confirm'd the same: And declares, that he restores all those Allegiances and Charters which Henry extorted from him during his Captivity.’ So that there cannot be a more express Renunciation in Law, than the Restitution of the Obligation by the Creditor to the Debtor; and if it should fall out that any others hapned to be found, or were retain'd through Forgetfulness, the King declares them void and null; reserving however, the Homage of those Lands for which William's Ancestors were Liege-men to his Ancestors.

For the better understanding of the Clause in this Charter, which is conceived in those Words; As to his safe Conduct, coming to, returning from, or staying in our Court: We must know that it relates to a Controversy betwixt the King of England and King of Scotland, as Prince of Cumberland, Northum­land and Westmoreland, concerning the Pre­rogative [Page 306] of the King of England's Court; and whether the King of Scots, because he was his Vasial, ought to appear in the same. The King of Scots denied that he ought to appear in Person at that Court which was held without the Limits of his Fee. The King of England insisted on it, that he ought to appear where-ever he held his Court. The Controversy was decided by the Feudal Law thus; That the Vassal is not obliged to appear in the Court of his Lord, with­out the Bounds of his Fee, but at his Lord's Charge; and therefore it was transacted, that as often as the King of Scots should be call'd to the King of England's Court, it should be at the King of England's Expence; and that the King of Scots should be receiv'd on the Borders of England by the Nobility of England, viz. one Bishop, one Earl, some Lords and some Knights; who should also attend him back again to his own Borders at the King of England's Charges, who was to allow the King of Scots 5 l. Sterlin per diem for his own Expence. That would seem but a small sum now, though it was then very great, as will appear, if we examine the old Accounts of the English Exchequer. Those things I have touch'd before, and should not insist any further on the Decisi­on of this Controversy, but that Holinshed's Sawciness is to be quell'd; and that I am [Page 307] forc'd to it by the violent Extortion of that same Homage from us by Edward I. seeing nothing can be said in more plain and ex­cess Terms than this Charter of Richard's: and indeed it's a Wonder, considering how they strain'd their Wits to the utmost to [...]ften this Calumny of Homage upon us, that ever they should have printed Hoveden, or Ma [...]ew of Paris, who do so expresly and plainly affirm, that this Homage for Scot­land was violently extorted from K. William [...] Henry III. and afterwards remitted by Richard, and that the Homage was only per­form'd for our Possessions in England. They should have at least curtail'd something which, as I have already hinted, is very fami­ [...]ar to them, that such an evident Solution of this Controversy might not have been [...] in their own Historians: and now, [...] the Dormice in the Fable, they are cast [...] their own Judgment. But to the rest of [...] Objections.

As to the petty Kings of Galloway, who as you will have it, perform'd Homage to [...] if there were nothing else in your whole [...]ork to accuse you of Folly and Falshood, his alone is sufficient to make you be hiss'd out of all good Mens Company; for every [...] knows that Galloway is none of the [...] nor largest Counties in Scotland. Yet [Page 308] you have first dignified the same with the Title of a Kingdom, and now with that of [...] Principality, that so your Country-men may reap the more Glory from a Trifle. If the Princes of Galloway perform'd Homage to any other than their immediate Lord, they committed a very great Absurdity; for Ho­mage is only due to the immediate Lord although he acknowledg another for his Su­periour. This then is altogether [...] concerning Galloway, which is a Country no [...] far from the Borders; for being Rebels to their own Prince, they fled to the King o [...] England, and offer'd or perform'd Homage that by his Assistance they might be able [...] sustain the Shock of their own King's Indig­nation: For the King of England was never wanting in his Design, right or wrong, [...] lay Claim to any part of Scotland, how little soever, as belonging to him. But the Inha­bitants of Galloway having pacified their own Prince, did quickly return to their Duty But what's all this to the Superiority over the Kingdom of Scotland? Is it not plain that you endeavour to attain that by foolish Arguments, which you can never do by solid Reason? Cooper, another of your Historians says that this Henry II. did much enlarge the Bounds of his Kingdom; having added Scotland, and all the Islands thereunto. Which [Page 309] [...] i [...] has no shadow of Truth, (for he never [...] Scotland) so it is not taken notice of by any other than this unlearned Man; but every one may see, that our Neighbours Hi­storians are but too much addicted to praise their own Country-men.

CHAP. XXV.
That the Scotish Clergy are subject to no English Arch-bishop in Spirituals.

HOlinshed adds, That during the Reign of this Henry II. Pope Alexander granted the Jurisdiction over all the Scots Bishops, to the Arch-bishop of York; which he reckons a concluding Argument, that the Scots were also subject to the English in Tem­porals. This place does require it, nor does there occur a greater Conveniency for it af­terwards, to discuss this Question, which is so often hit in our Teeth by Holinshed and Polidore, viz. that the Arch bishop of York originally had, and continues to have the Right of Jurisdiction and Superiority over all the Bishops of Scotland; that by this Trick they may cunningly open and pave the Way to the whole Superiority, though it is not the same in Temporals as in Spiri­tuals. [Page 310] For Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Dig­nities depended on the Pleasure of the Pope; but Temporals are determin'd ac­cording to Law and Equity, and the Bonds of Humane Society: And therefore let's in the first place, examine the Form of this Conclusion. We except against it as being founded upon no Reason nor Rule of Dis­putation; for it's a perfect Nonsequitur, that because the Scots Bishops are subject to the Arch-bishop of York in Ecclesiastical Affairs, therefore the King of Scots ought to be sub­ject to the King of England in Temporals: For by the same Argument, because the whole Christian World is, or at least was subject to the Pope in Spirituals, therefore they must also be subject in Temporals; and thus all Kings ought to receive their Investi­ture from the Pope only. So all Diocesans acknowledg their Bishops, Barons and other Vassals acknowledg the Rectors of the Churches and their Vicars, their Superiours in Spirituals; yet they don't therefore ac­knowledg them their Lords in Temporals. What Benefit of yours is there here? What Exploit, what Valour, what Martial Glory, is there in this, that you would thence inser a Superiority over the Kingdom? It is no­thing but a meer Paralogism; if because the Scots Bishops received their Consecration [Page 311] from the Arch-bishop of York, therefore Scotland is subject to England. Who would think that the English should argue thus, amongst whom Philosophy is diligently cul­tivated in all its parts, but that their Passion perverts their Judgment: For he was in the right, who said ‘Impedit i [...] a [...] possit cernere verum.’

We shall say no more of the Form of this first Argument; but let's examine the Truth of this Proposition, Whether the Scots Bi­shops did in antient Times own the Arch-bishop of York as their Superiour; and whe­ther it was not in the Reign of this Henry II. that it was first ambitiously obtain'd by the Pope's Charter, and stifled in the very be­ginning? But to repeat this Matter from the Original, the Proof of the Proposition is brought from the Institution of three Arch-flamins and Twenty eight Flamins, by Beli [...]s King of Britain, Brother to that Brennus who is said to have burnt Rome, and were afterwards converted into three Arch-bishops and Twenty eight Bishops, by Lucius the first Christian King of Britain. But for my own part, I look upon all this Institution of Belinus, and the Expedition of his Brother Brennus into Italy, when he is [Page 312] said to have taken, plunder'd, and burnt Rome, and that [...] Inundation of the Welch into Italy, to be errant Fables, feigned by idle Men who had no other way to spend their time. Nor is there any Reason to be more favourable to the Story of Ioseph of Arimathea's coming to preach in Britain Or if our Neighbours think otherwise, let them, or any others who patronize those Fables, tell me whence they had those things, what Writer or Author conveyed them down to Posterity, and where they found it writ, painted, or suggested, and I shall wil­lingly yield. For my own part, there's no­thing of which I am more desirous than that Britain's Glory should be consecrated to e­verlasting Fame; but I am not well pleased to have Fables obtruded upon us instead of Truth.

To return to our Bishops: The Pope, says Holinshed, who was then believed to have a Jurisdiction over all Bishops, did by his Bull ordain, that all Scots Bishops, should receive their Con [...]cration from the Arch­bishop of York as their Superiour, and that according to the antient Laws and Statutes. But, Mr. Holinshed, if it was only believ'd that the Pope did so preside, that he could invert the Dignities of the Church, and make one which was free before a Servant and Hand­maid, [Page 313] he did certainly put a Trick upon you, when he was only supposed to have that Power which he had not; and there­fore that Bull is null and void, you your self being witness: Nor is it founded upon any shadow of Reason. But what if he had had that Power which he was believed to have, is there any Body so ignorant of the Canon-Law as not to know that the Pope does ne­ver tie up his own Hands; and that he shuts his Boso [...] against none, but what he hath establish'd by one Bull he can revoke by another, especially if he can say that he hath done it from his certain Knowledg; and that what he granted to day to the Arch-bishop of York contrary to Law, that he could not afterwards revoke it according to Law? For it is certain, that when the Scots complained grievously of this Bull, the Pope being there­ [...]to induc'd by good Motives, did grant as much power to the Scots Arch-bishops as to the English, as shall be declared anon. But you assert, Mr. Holinshed, that this Privilege granted to the Arch-bishop of York, was ac­cording to the Laws and Antient Statutes. Then I pray you, Sir, if you have any Law or Statute by which the Sco [...]s Bishops are subjected to the Arch-bishop of York; if there be any Pragmatical Sanction, or if you have any Ordinance or Decree either of [Page 314] Oecumenical or Provincial Council, why don't you produce, or at least quote them? Say under what Consul, [...] or Pope this Privilege was granted, if you would have us to believe you: but you have car­ried your self in this Affair with so much Ca­lumny and Frowardness, that you are not to be believed even though you were up­on Oath? However, that this whole Con­troversy concerning the English and Scots Bishops may be discuss'd from its Original, I will make it appear, that the Scots did not only lay the Foundation of the Archbishop­rick of York, but of Christianity it self in England.

Then to pass over that most silly Fable of the three Archflamins, and the twenty eight Flamins; it's plain that there was no Bishop in Britain before Palladius, who is by the English themselves called the Bishop of the Scots; or if either the Brittons or English have any, let them name them, and at what Time they flourish'd: but as for Palladius he liv'd about the Time of the Saxon Con­quest, and by his perswasion Constantine King of Scots, did for some time maintain and bear up the Cause of the Britains a­gainst the Saxons. That there was no Bishop in Britain in the time of the Romans, after whom the Scots, then the Saxons made an [Page 315] Irruption upon the Britains, I prove from Mal [...]bury, In Prozm. lib. I. de rebus gest. Angl. Pon­tif. whose words are as follow: Which were the Archiepiscopal Sees in the Time of the Britains is very uncertain, because An­tiquity hath destroyed the Memory of them. A little after he says, That he was destitute of all Assistance in this History of the Bishops, and did only grope out his way through thick Dark­ness, having no previous Light of History to direct his Path. Gildas takes notice of Priests and Prefects of Churches in Britain, but mentions no Bishops. According to Bede, Augustine Disciple to Gregory the Great was the first Bishop in England, and received the Archbishop's Pall from the said Gregory, and yet he was not Archbishop of any particular Place; but because the House in which he dwelt, was given him by Edel­bert King of the Kentish Saxons, he was call'd Archbishop of Dover, and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury about the Year 600. And Paulinus Bishop of York began to preach about 625 or 630, and those two were the first Bishops in England. About that same time Oswald reign'd King of Nor­thumberland, who having fled to Scotland when a Child, where he was brought up in excellent Discipline, but especially in Piety, he was the first of the English Kings who profess'd Christianity, and was not only bap­tiz'd [Page 316] himself, but took care to have his Saxons diligently instructed in the Christian Faith, which he had imbib'd in Scotland du­ring his Exile: And such was the Opinion which that Age did enterain of the Learn­ing of the Scots, that nothing was accoun­ted well done in Matters of Religion, where, of they were not the Authors.

There flourisn'd at the same time in Ion [...], one of the Hebrides or Scots Western Islands, Columbanus a Pious and Learned Man, out of whose School, as from another Trojan Horse, issued a great number of Souldiers and Professors of Christianity for that Warfare, whose principal Care was to instruct the English in the true Religion; and they preach'd the Gospel with so much Fer­vency and Zeal every where, that when the Saxons who were ignorant of the Scotish Tongue, did not understand what was said, O [...]wald himself sitting close by Aidanus the Bishop, did interpret the same to his Peo­ple: and by those Mens Ministry Religion increas'd so much in England, that the Scots were thereupon [...]referred to be Bishops in England, and Superiors of Abbies and Mo­nastries. There succeded to Paulinus the first. Bishop of York, after he was driven from his See, three Scots Bishops successive­ly, viz. Aidan, Finnan and Coleman: but [Page 317] the Controversy about Easter-day, which had also disquieted the Primitive Church for too Years, was very prejudicial to the Scots, who did therein stoutly oppose the Pope, and followed the Custom of the Eastern Church, though they were oblig'd by the Pope to relinquish their Opinion afterwards. However there are many Episcopal Sees, and many Monasteries, which own Scots­men for their Authors, as may be seen in Mel [...]ury, Ingulf, Hoveden, Worcester and Hu [...]tington; but I have no Time to divert from the Subject in Hand. During all the Time from Paulinus to Egbert, Brother to King Egbert, the Bishops of Yark were con­tent with the single Name of Bishop: But Egbert being of an high Mind because he was Brother to a King, and finding the Arch­bishop's Pall which Pope Honorius had sent to Paulinus the first Bishop who had rejected it, he put it upon himself without any Com­mand or Authority, and so of a Bishop made himself Archbishop, and was the first who was called Archbishop of York, having taken the Pall without a Grant from any one. There were others who succeeded him until the Time of the Conquest, and yet all the Time of the Saxon Monarchy there's no mention made of the Scotish Bishops be­ing subject to the Archbishop of York, or [Page 318] having sworn Obedience to him. Nay, the English themselves don't assert it, but con­fess, that that Privilege was granted to the See of York by latter Popes, viz. Paschal and Alexander the third, that they should preside over the Scots Bishops, who had not as yet an Archbishop of their own, that they might be consecrated by him. But Polidore is very like to be in the right, when he says, that those Popes endeavoured to subject the Scots Bishops to the Archbishop of York: the Scots protesting against it in general, and appealing to the See of Rome, the Controversy was referred to Pope Alex­ander, who did not decide the same; though honest Holinshed affirms, that it was decreed by this very Alexander, that the Scots Bishops should be subject to the Archbishop of York; whereas Polidore calls it, only an Endea­vour of those Popes, not an absolute Sub­jection, but that the whole Controversy was suspended by an Appeal: and Polidore owns, that he had only seen Copies of those Bulls, but not the Bulls themselves. Malms­bury, who hath writ four Books concerning the Transactions of the English Bishops, promises in the Proem of his third Book, whose particular Title is, Concerning the Archbishops of York, that he will omit no­thing that ever he met with in the Relati­ons [Page 319] of his Ancestors, reading of Books or his own proper Knowledg, and yet in that whole Treatise concerning the Dignity of the See of York, he has not one word of the Subjection of the Scotish Bishops, tho afterwards in the Reign of William, being deceiv'd by common Opinion, he reckons all the Scots Bishops, and amongst others the Bishop of Orkney, the Suffragans of York, being ignorant that neither in that Age, nor for some Ages after, was there any Bishop of Orkney; neither is the Bishop of Orkney mentioned amongst the Scots Bishops in that Bull of Pope Clements, of which afterwards. If our Neighbours shall perchance argue, that in the Time of the Conqueror, Thomas Archbishop of York did consecrate Michael Elect of Glasgow, and Turgot of St. Andrews; I answer, that that is no Argument of Su­periority, for Bishops were wont to receive Consecration from others who were not their Superiors: for Richard Archbishop of Canterbury Elect, was consecrated by Henry Bishop of Rochester, as was also Roger Bishop of London and Hugh Bishop of Ely that same day, yet none of them acknowledg'd the Bishop of Rochester their Superior; and Iohn Bishop of Whitehorn was consecrated by Iohn Bishop of Dublin at Pipenel, and William Malvaise Bishop of Glasgow was [Page 320] consecrated by the Bishop of Lions in France: For our Countrymen chose to be consecrated by those whom Fame gave out to excel in Learning and Piety. But if they still go on and say, that the Scots had then no Archbishop, and therefore must of ne­cessity have been subject to the Archbishop of York as nearest, seeing they could not re­ceive Consecration as they call it from any other; I answer, that according to the Ca­non Law, the Consent or Authority of an Archbishop is not requir'd to the Consecra­tion of a Bishop: For it is statute by the Canon Law, that when a Bishop is ordain'd, two Bishops should lay Hands upon him and hold the Gospel over his Head, and one of them repeating the Benediction over him, the rest shall touch his Head. And an Arch­bishop according to the Canon Law, is on­ly the Ordinary of a Province; and certain­ly if Scotland be not a Kingdom, yet the English themselves will own it to be a Pro­vince, in which the Archbishop of York ought not to claim any Jurisdiction, seeing the same was without his Province. Nay, if I had to do with one who understood the Canon Law, I doubt not but I could easily prove, that not only Bishops, but sometimes also Archbishops were consecrated by Bi­shops: I alledg'd some Examples before, and [Page 321] more occure every where in Hoveden, Paris and other English Writers. I confess, that the English were before us in courting those Dignities, and that there were Archbishops in England before there were any in Scot­land; but seeing those Titles had their rise meerly from Ambition, and were usually purchas'd from the Pope by Money, in which the English did always abound, we don't envy them to our Neighbours: for certain­ly Ierom is in the Right, who says, A Bishop and Presbyter are the same, and until that by the Instinct of the Devil, there arose Dissentions in Religion, and that People began to say, I am of Paul, I am of Cephas, and I am of Apollo, the Churches were govern'd by the common Consent of Presbyters: then what would he have said, or rather what would be not have said if in his time some had been call'd Archbishops, and some simple Bishops?

But we must return to those Disputes which sometimes happened concerning this Controversy, whether the Scots Bishops did owe Subjection and Obedience to the Bishop of York: amongst other things which King William promis'd to Henry during his Cap­tivity, before he could be set at Liberty, this is one that he should bring the Scots Bishops to a Conference and Dispute with the Archbishop of York before the Bishops [Page 322] of England, and compel them to do what should appear to be just and equal. The Kings of Scotland and England did thereupon meet at Northampton: But it is better to re­peat Hoveden 's words; William brought with him Richard Bishop of St. Andrews, Jocelin Bishop of Glasgow, Richard Bishop of Dun­kel, Christian Bishop of Whitehorn, Andrew Bishop of Caithness, Simon Bishop of Murray, and the rest of the `Priors and Abbots of his Kingdom: Who being conveen'd before their Lord the King of England, their Lord the King commanded them upon their Allegiance, and the Oath of Fealty which they had sworn to him, that they should show the same Subjection to the Church of England, which they were ob­lig'd to do in the Reign of the Kings his Pre­decessors. To which they answered, That they never were subject to the Church of England, nor ought to show any Subjection thereunto. To which Roger Arch bishop of York replied, af­firming, that the Bishops of Glasgow and Whitehorn were subject to the See of York in the time of the Arch bishop's Predecessors; and did thereupon demonstrate, and sufficiently in­struct the Privileges granted to the Sea of York upon that Head by the Popes. To which Iocelin Bishop of Glasgow rejoin'd, that the Church of Glasgow was a peculiar Daughter to the Church of Rome, and exempted from all Subjection to [Page 323] any other Bishops or Arch-bishops; and although the See of York had the Superiority for some time over the See of Glasgow, yet it is plain that she never deserv'd it: And because Richard Arch-bishop of Canterbury, endeavoured to have had the Church of Scotland subject to his See, he effected so much against the King of England, that [...]e permitted the Scots Bishops to return home without making any Submission to the Church of England.

If we should diligently examine this Story, which is horribly perverted by Hoveden, the Controversy would easily be decided. The▪ Scots had not then any Arch-bishop; and the Bishops supposing that they ought to be consecrated by a Superiour, were accusto­med to go to the Arch-bishop of York, as the nearest, to receive Consecration; which was a foolish Superstition, seeing Bishops might have been consecrated by Bishops, as I said before: and therefore the Question was on­ly, To whom the Right of consecrating the Scots Bishops did appertain? The Kings then met at Northampton, and both of them, with the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and the rest of the English Bishops, sat as Judges. The Arch-bishop of York being Plaintiff, propos'd his Plea; wherein he did not alledg that all the Scots Bishops ow'd him Subjection, but only those of Glasgow and Whitehorn; and as [Page 324] to their Subjection, he produc'd Bulls from the Popes: And therefore it's false what Po­lydore and other English Writers assert, that the Pope granted a Superiority over all the Scots Bishops to the Arch-bishop of York. But the Bishop of Glasgow did clear himself and his Collegue, by this Answer; That al­though the Pope had granted such a Privi­lege to the Arch-bishop of York by Subor­nation, that yet Pope Clement, being well inform'd of the Injustice of his Predecessor, did free all the Bishops of Scotland from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of York, and all other foreign Jurisdiction but that of the Church of Rome: And the Bull of Exemp­tion is also recorded by Hoveden; and there­fore when both Parties held by the Pope's Bull, they parted without doing any thing, which Hoveden ascribes to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury's Fraud. But however that is, 'tis plain both from Hoveden and Polydore, that the Question was not then decided, but left to the Pope; and what was his Opinion in the Affair, we shall see when we come to Edward III.

From what has been said then, it is mani­fest tha [...] what Holinshed afferts concerning the Scots Bishops being first subject to the Arch-flamin, and afterwards to the Arch-bishop of York, is altogether false; for if the [Page 325] ambitious Arch-bishop of York did by any indirect Means obtain a Bull from the Pope, his Successor being mov'd with the Equity of the thing, did annul the same; and de­creed that the Church of Scotland, after he had enumerated all their Bishops, should be immediately subject to the Apostolick See, whereof she was a peculiar Daughter, and none should dare to pronounce a Sentence of Excommunication, or Interdict, against the Kingdom of Scotland, except the Pope himself, or some Legat a Latere; and that if any happened to be pronounc'd other­wise, it should be ipso facto void and null: adding, that none might exercise the Fun­ction of Legate in Scotland but a Native of the Kingdom; and that no Controversy should be carried out of the Kingdom, but in the case of an Appeal to the See of Rome. And as there are many other things to this purpose in the same Bull, which here I pass over; so it is evident, that all this Commen­titious Ecclesiastical Superiority, with the Fictitious Homage, depends on a false Pro­position or Paralogism, and dwindles into nothing. Most Men will perhaps think that I confound things, by ascribing what was done in Richard's time to that of his Father Henry; but I could not do other­wise: for seeing that Homage which [Page 326] Henry II. extorted by Violence and Injustice from K. William, when he was a Captive, was declared to have been so by Richard his Son; it was necessary to join the Ex­tortion of the Homage by the Father, with the Renunciation of the same by the Son. I come now to Richard.

CHAP. XXVI.
Of Richard and John, Kings of England; and what was the Form of the Homage done to them.

YOU write, Mr. Holinshed, that William King of Scots, did Homage to K. Ri­chard for the Kingdom of Scotland; and be­cause he assisted him with Money for his Ransom to the Duke of Austria, you will needs have it that he did it as his Subject. It's but sorry Thanks that you return him for his Bounty: We confess that he gave him Money for a part of his Ransom; but that he did it as his Subject, is your Inven­tion, as a true Trifler and Sophist. For your most angust Queen hath lent Money to the French King, Netherlanders, and many others, which perhaps she will never have again. I say nothing of our selves, whom she hath [Page 327] very often assisted with Money; but if therefore any body should infer that she was subject either to the French, to the Ne­therlanders, or us, he were justly to be ac­counted a mad Man. The same may be said as to Henry VIII. who lent 300000 Angels to the Emperour Charles V. and yet was not therefore reckoned a Liege-Vassal to the Spaniard. But of this Homage neither Poly­dore, Newbriggs, nor Stow, make any men­tion. It's certain that he ow'd Homage at that time upon the Restitution of Cumber­land and Westmoreland; which both our Writers and yours, take notice to have been restored upon paying his Ransom: And it is wanifest that many Offices of the strietest Friendship pass'd betwixt Richard I. and William; for before that Richard undertook his Expedition into the Holy Land, he ob­tain'd Auxiliary Forces from K. William, and invested their General David, Brother to William, with the County of Huntington, who did him faithful and gallant Service in the Holy War: And Richard standing in need of Money at his return, all are agreed that William furnish'd him with some; which you pervert, and alledg that he did it as his Subject. Richard, as I said before, was se­cond to none that ever swayed the English Scepter for Goodness of Disposition, and [Page 328] Magnanimity: But he was very unfortunate in his Return from the Holy War; for first being shipwrackt upon the Coast of Istria as he return'd, he was known and kept Priso­ner by D. Leopold, whom he had offended in that War; and being by him sold to the Emperour Henry, he was forc'd to accept of hard Terms of Ransom: and though K. Wil­liam and he were much of the same Temper and Disposition, yet it appears by Hoveden that there was a sharp Contest betwixt them for Northumberland, which Richard was de­firous to retain, and William claimed it as the Inheritance of his Brother Malcolm, who had possess'd it for many Years. The Matter how­ever was composed during their Time, as if it had been by a silent Transaction, while each of them was permitted to enjoy what he possess'd peaceably; so much did a Like­ness of Disposition reconcile them. Don't you see then, Mr. Holinshed, that you per­vert the Performance of this Homage by a reproachful Interpretation, contrary to the Authority of your own Writers? And the Homage which William perform'd for the Dignities which he held in England, in ex­press words, you do without Evidence or Authority, obtrude upon the World as if it had been perform'd for the Kingdom of Scotland. Then where's your Understanding, [Page 329] your Reason, your Modesty, and the Care of your Reputation, which is the chief thing that is regarded by all honest Men?

William the Father, was the first who per­form'd Homage to K. Iohn; but Hoveden testifies, that it was for Cumberland and Nor­thumberland, that by this ready Obedience he might also prevail with him fairly to re­store Northumberland: But as to the Tricks by which he was eluded, Hoveden hath re­corded enough. However, this Homage was not for Scotland as you dream, which is very familiar to you.

But let us hear Polydore; The King of Scots, says he, came to London to salute Iohn, and is said to have taken his Oath, (he does not affirm it for a Certainty, nor yet that it was for the Kingdom of Scotland) being desired to assist him in his War against the King of France, he refus'd; than which Refusal there could be nothing more said or writ against this Homage; for he who owes Homage, is obliged to perform Military Ser­vice to his Lord whether it be required or not.

The Letters of the Pope, that he might have the King of England's Assistance for re­storing the Arch-bishop of St. Andrews, can have no weight with any Man; for that has always been customary with the Popes to [Page 330] set Neighbouring Princes together by the ears. But let's hear the Words of the Letter, which is exhibited by Hoveden; ‘ Clement desires the King of England that he would advise his Son William, King of Scotland, more seriously, and induce him by his Power, wherein he excels him, if he find it necessary, that K. William would remit his Rancour against Iohn Arch-bishop of St. Andrews.’ What can be inferred from these words, but that the King of England should by the Prerogative of his Dignity and Arms compel William to obey the Pope, because he would not do it otherwise? How often has that been practis'd by Popes, that while one King refuses to obey, they require and implore the Help and Assistance of ano­ther? How frequently does this fall out a­mongst the German Princes? Of whom, if any one refuse to obey the Decree of the Imperial Chamber, the next Prince is com­manded to take Arms, and compel him to obey: Yet one of them is not superiour to another. These things I mention only, that all Men may understand upon what vain and frivolous Arguments our Neighbours have built this fictitious Homage: There was a far other Event of the Friendship betwixt K. Iohn and K. William, than there was be­twixt him and Richard, they being altoge­ther [Page 331] unlike in their Temper: For when K. Iohn was for sometime taken up in his Ex­peditions beyond Sea, that he might lay the Storm which he was afraid of behind him, he did so elude K. William by his fair Speeches, Fictions, and repeated Promises, that it had certainly issued in War, if William had not been prevented by Death. Matthew Paris and Hoveden, have recorded these delatory Answers, which were fram'd by K. Iohn while he abus'd the Plain heartedness of the King of Scots: for sometimes he obtain'd a Delay for six Months, sometimes till his Re­turn from beyond Sea, and sometimes till he could call the States together that he might not do any thing without their Advice: And William did thereupon promise to be a peaceable Neighbour, and keep his Subjects from stirring. Nor will I deny but William did Homage to Iohn, and also upon the Cross of Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury, in the Presence of many others, for the Dig­nities which he held in England; but that he did the same for the Kingdom of Scotland, is absolutely false. The Form of that Homage, and all the rest, is extant in Hoveden; where there's no mention that the same was for Scotland. Nay, Hoveden says expresly, that William swore Fealty to him against all Men, with a Salvo jure suo; that is, reserving his [Page 332] own Royal Prerogative. But there occur two things in Iohn, which pluck up the Roots of this Homage: One is, that when K. Iohn had made himself a Vassal, nay a Farmer to the See of Rome, and subjected himself and his Heirs, and Kingdom and Lands, by a per­petual Bond of Fealty and Allegiance, he expresly mentions those Lands, and cove­nants to pay 700 Marks annually for Eng­land and Ireland; and if Scotland had been then subject unto him, why did he not add something for the Tribute of Scotland, as Holinshed did formerly alledg in the Matter of Peter-pence? But K. Iohn was neither so impudent as to promise it, nor Pandulphus the Pope's Legate, such a Fool as to accept of it. The other is, that when K. Iohn lay under the Infamy of his Nephew's Death, and all the Crimes which could be said or thought of any Man, which rendred him odious to his own Subjects and others, the English Nobility conspir'd together for the Choice of a new King; to whom assented Alexander King of Scots, as one of the Peers of England. Lewis, Son to Philip King of France, had married Bertha Daughter of Philippa Queen of Castile, and Sister to that same K. Iohn; to whom Iohn being ejected, and Arthur and his Sister being dead, the Right of Succession to the Crown of Eng­land [Page 333] did belong: But when Lewis her Hus­band arriv'd in England with Forces to seize the Crown in his Wife's Right, the Nobili­ty of England swore Fealty to him as King of England, and their Liege-Lord: And a­mongst others, Alexander King of Scotland did also swear Fealty to him for the Provin­ces which he held in England. The Form of that Fealty is also extant in Matthew Paris, whose words are these: ‘In the Month of Angust, Alexander King of Scots came to Dover with a Great Army (for fear of K. Iohn) to Lewis, and did him Homage for what he held in England.’ Don't you see here, Mr. Holinshed, if you see any thing, what the Form of this Homage was which the King of Scots paid to the King of Eng­land? And therefore what you advance con­cerning the Homage for the Kingdom of Scotland, are the Imaginations of a vain and impudent Man. Nor can you produce or say any thing in Commendation of the Au­thor of those Comments of your's, as Law­yers speak; and those things do so much the more injure your Fame, if you have any, as the Falshood of your Assertion is to be clearly demonstrated, even by the Testimo­ny of English Historians.

[Page 334]Of this Henry the Father, and his two Sons Richard and Iohn, there are many things to be found in English Writers, that if they could be said against us, Holinshed would take Heaven and Earth to be Witnesses of his Assertion: For how often did Henry II. call the French King his Lord? How often did he submit himself wholly to his Will, surrender himself up to him, and made his three Sons, Richard, Henry, and Iohn, be­come his Liege-men, to use H [...]veden's words, Hoveden in Hen. II. Richard I. and John. and take an Oath of Fealty and Allegiance to him as their Liege-Lord? When K. Phi­lip of France, and Richard King of England, did mutually bind themselves in an Oath for the Recovery of Ierusalem, Richard did ex­presly promise to assist `Philip K. of France against all Mortals, as his Liege-Lord: And 'Philip on the other hand, promised to stand by him against all Mortals, as his Vassal†. Paris in Rich. I. [...]. And as for K. Iohn, he never wrote to `Philip but under the Title of his Lord; nay, he receiv'd the Kingdom of England to be held of him, during his Brother Richard's being detain'd Prisoner in Germany; a mutual Oath of Lord and Client having past betwixt them: and when he succeeded to Richard afterwards, was despoil'd of his Provinces be­yond Sea by the French King, and being also in hazard of losing England, he submitted [Page 335] himself and his Kingdom, his Heirs, and all his Lands, viz. England and Ireland, to the Pope to be held of him, under an annual Tribute, or Farm, of 1000 Marks; which was also put in Execution: For the Pope having lanc'd his Thunder-bolts with Curses and Excommunications, against the King of France and the Barons, he deterr'd them from their Purpose of dethroning K. Iohn; but Seditions and Conspiracies growing greater and greater against him every day, he sent Ambassadors to Admiral Murmelin, then the most powerful of all the Saracen Princes, signifying (which are Matthew Paris's own words) that he surrendred himself and his Kingdom to him, to be held under an An­nual Tribute if he thought good; that he would also abandon the Christian Religion, which he esteemed vain, and faithfully ad­here to that of Mahomet for time to come. Who were the Ambassadors, and what was the Effect of the Embassy, is to be seen in Matthew Paris. I am really struck with Horror, as relating those things; for his Sub­mission, formerly mentioned, to the Pope, is but Childrens Play in comparison of this Surrender. And if the English could have found any such thing against any of our Kings, what a Tragical Business would they have made of it long e're now?

[Page 336]You affirm, Mr. Holinshed, that at the Marriage of Alexander King of Scots, with Margaret Daughter to K. Iohn, he perform'd Homage to his Father-in-Law: But what Author says so besides your self? For Poly­dore and Newbriggs pass over the Matter in silence, as a thing which was never heard of. But at that time K. Alexander held Cumber­land, Westmoreland, and Huntington; and seeing Homage was due for them, what Wonder is it if he perform'd it? But you, Mr. Holinshed, according to your usual Man­ner, alledg it to have been perform'd for the Kingdom of Scotland.

CHAP. XXVII.
Of Henry III. and if any Homage were perform'd to him.

IT remains that we examine Henry the Third's Reign; who because he reign'd 16 Years, his Reign did coincide with those of Alexander the Second and Alexander the Third, Kings of Scots. But you seem nei­ther to understand their History, nor indeed the English History of those Times: For Alexander the Father, did not marry Mar­garet Daughter to Henry III, as you ima­gine, but his Sister Ioanna Daughter to King Iohn; nor is there any English Hi­storian who makes mention that Alexan­der the Father perform'd Homage during the whole time of his Reign, except at that time when both Kings took Arms, and were reconcil'd by means of Richard Earl of Carn [...]al, and Emperor of Germany. That History is thus writ by Polydore: Henry says he, that he might be in Peace at Home, made a new Alliance with his Neighbours the Scots, by marrying his Sister Ioanna to their K. Alexander: But this new Alliance was not able to contain the two Kings with­in the Bonds of Friendship, whenever the [Page 338] Question of the Homage was renewed; as is subjoin'd by Polidore, in those words: David Prince of Wales, flying into Scotland, stirr'd up Alexander to war against the King of England, by giving out that the said King bragg'd that the cowardly Scots were subject to his Command, obedient to whatever he said, and liv'd according to his Prescription; and therefore when Alexander, being provok'd with these Calumnies, did invade England, and Henry met him with an Army, just as they were ready to give Battel, they were reconcil'd by the Industry of the Peers; who were vex'd that a War should be commenc'd on so slight an Occa­sion. Matthew of Westminster and Matth [...] Paris, give us this Story a little otherwise: For says he, When Rumours were brought to Alexander, that the King of England did give himself out as Liege-Lord of Scotland, and that the same was held of him, he sent him a sharp Message, signifying that he neither did, nor ought to hold one single Foot of Scots Ground of him, and did thereupon bid him Defiance, (Defidabat) which is a Word very frequent with them; and entring England in an hostile Manner, haras [...]d, and laid waste all the bor­dering Countries. Henry that he might be a­veng'd for this Arrogance of the King of Scots, prepared an Huge Army privately, having also sent for the Count of Flanders with his Auxilia­ry Forces: Which being arrived in England, the [Page 339] English did murmur and fret that foreign Aid should be sent for, bragging that the English were sufficient of themselves to extinguish the Ne [...]e of Scots. But Henry having propos'd the entire Conquest of Scotland, muster'd all [...] were oblig'd to do Military Service in Eng­land; and having laid a Tax upon the Ecclesi­ [...] for Payment of his hired Troops, and gathered together the whole Nobility and Gen­try of England at Newcastle: When he heard that the King of Scots was ready to receive him with an Army, and that the Matter was now brought to the critical Point, he began to carry himself more modestly: For the Borders of Scotland, which were within his view; having afforded him a dreadful Aspect of [...]cng Spears; and Huge Pole-Axes; and perceiving that he was likely to have a rug­ged Adversary to deal with, he propos'd a Peace by his Brother Richard Earl of Corn­ [...]al, and Emperor of Germany; and by his means he obtain'd it, under a Pretence of Piety, and to avoid such an Effosion of Christian Blood as was likely to ensue. And herein he acted the part of a wise Man, in my Opinion: For according to Paris and [...], Alexander had at that time in his Army 1000 Scots Horse-men well ap­point [...]red; and though not mounted on Ita­ [...] Spanish Horses, yet they had those [Page 340] which were very good: He had moreover, 100000 valiant Foot; who all having una­nimously coness'd themselves, and being a­nimated by the Encouragement of their Preachers, as those who were to fight in a just Cause for the defence of their Country, they despis'd Death; and thereupon Henry went off without doing any thing. Now if any Man, who had no Prejudice against, non particular Inclination to either of these Na­tions, had the writing of this History, I am apt to think he would have express'd him­self thus: The King of Scots being inform'd by David Prince of Wales, who had fled to him, that K. Henry did brag of his being Liege-Lord of Scotland, and that that King­dom did hold of him, he despis'd his former Alliance, and signified to him by an Herald that he did not so much as hold one Foot of Scots Ground of him; and did thereupon denounce War against Henry: Who being enrag'd at this fierce Declaration, and de­signing to punish the King of Scots accord­ing to his Merit for such an high piece of Arrogance, he gathered together the whole Strength [...] his Kingdom, sent also for Auxi­liaries from beyond Sea, and hired Souldiers every where; but perceiving that Alexander was marching against him, with a numerous and resolute Army, that despis'd all Danger, [Page 341] to prevent the Effusion of so much Christian Blood upon so slight an Occasion, he ob­ta [...]'d Peace by means of his Brother Richard, and returned Home ingloriously, as the Con­queror and his Son Rufus had done before him: Who having attempted the same thing, but finding it impossible to put it in execu­tion, return'd without effecting any thing. The Tenor of this Transaction betwixt Hen­ry III. and Alexander II. is recorded both by Westminster and Paris; wherein there's no­thing to be seen that does in the least imply any Homage for Scotland: Nor does Alexan­der yield any thing in point of Dignity to the King of England, in that part of the Transaction. But Holinshed urges, that A­lexander owns the King of England as his Lord: And what wonder, when in reality he was so for the four Provinces above-men­tioned? And so in all those Transactions or Indentures which were betwixt the Kings of France and England, and most of which are to be found in Hoveden, Paris, and others, Henry II. Iohn, and Henry III. own the French King to be their Lord: Nay, Edward the First himself, in his Return from the Holy War through France, swore Allegiance or Homage to the French King as his Liege­Lord. Walsing­ham in Edw. I. And the Princes of Germany, in 47 Contracts which they had made with the [Page 342] Kings of France, professed themselves their Liege-Vassals; as does also the Duke of Gel­derland, though he was not so. Thus Philip de Valois, and Alphonsus King of Castile, do mutually in their Writings call themselves one another's Vassals, when indeed they were not so Bodin, [...] ib. 2. de Repub. c. 9.: For words of Courtesy and Civility, are not to be drawn into Conse­quence; and therefore according to the O­pinion of Lawyers, one is not proved to be a Superiour because another hath saluted him by the Name of his Lord, because this is rather a Title of Honour than Right Bartol. in 1. cum quis [...]sciam de Leg. 3.. But in this Transaction, Alexander did that which was not to be born with in a Vassal; for the Kings having agreed betwixt themselves that this Transaction should be inserted in the Pope's Books, the King of Scots did thereby submit to the Pope's Jurisdiction in this Matter; which Henry would never have endured, if he had been his Liege-Lord: And neither can the Vassal subject himself to the Jurisdiction of any other than his own Lord.

You tell us Wonders if they be true, con­cerning Alexander the Third, Son to this Alexander the Second, viz. that after his Father's Death he was delivered by the No­bility of Scotland, being but then nine Years old, in Guardianship to Henry King of [Page 343] Eng­land as Liege-Lord of Scotland; as if that Kingdom had been a Military Fee of Eng­land, and oblig'd to deliver the Heir into their Custody. It's certain, that during the Life of Alexander his Father, a Contract of Marriage was agreed upon betwixt Henry, in the Name of his Daughter Margaret, and Alexander then Prince of Scotland: And such was the Confidence which Henry III. had in Alexander his Father, that when he went beyond Sea, he put the North of Eng­l [...]d into the Custody of the King of Scots; that he might suppress any Tumults which should happen to arise there Mat. Paris in Hen. III.. Alexander the Father being dead, and Henry King of England urging the Nuptial Contract, Alex­ander the Third came to York in 1252. with a pompous Train, says Matthew Paris; nor had he ever before seen England, whatever you may seign Mr. Holinshed: which Practice is so familiar to you, that I am ashamed of it. But if Alexander had been delivered to be kept by K. Henry at nine Years of Age, until the Tumults, which were then very frequent in Scotland, should be appeas'd; does this infer either Military Wardship, Al­legiance or Homage? It cannot certainly infer it any more than it did when Henry II. Son to the Empress Maud, was sent by his Mother to David King of Scots, to be kept [Page 344] during the War betwixt himself and King Stephen. I perceive, that according to you the Children of Princes cannot be educated in the Courts of their Grand-fathers, out they must needs owe Allegiance and Homage. But you are not only purblind, but stone­blind in your own History, to assert that Henry III. never demanded Homage from Alexander III. his Son-in-Law, because he was not of age to perform it; at least you craftily dissemble as if you had not read that which cuts the throat of all this Contro­versy: And therefore I will oppose to you the very words of Matthew Paris, lest I should seem to have contrived any thing of my own Head Matthew Paris in Hen. III.. ‘The King of Scots in the time of the Marriage, did Homage to the King of England, upon the account of the Tenement (Tenementi) which he held of his Lord the King of England, in the Kingdom of England, and the rest of the Lands of Lenden, or Laudon, which is a Te­nement of Northumberland; and when this was agreed upon, it was also demanded, that the King of Scots should perform Ho­mage and Allegiance to his Lord the King of England, on account of the Kingdom of Scotland, as his Predecessors had done to the Kings of England; as is evidently set forth in many places of the Chronicles. [Page 345] The King of Scots answered, that he came thither in a peaceable Manner, for the Honour of the King of England; and by his Command, to enter into a Confederacy with him by Nuptial Ties, and not to give him any answer to that Question; for he had not deliberated with his Nobles upon that Head, nor had he a Counsel with him competent for so great an Affair.’ In this Answer it is to be observed, that the Words [ as his Predecessors had done to the Kings of England, as is evidently set forth in many pla­ces of the Chronicles] are Paris's own words, and therefore [...]rivolous and vain: For nei­ther does Paris, nor any other English Chro­nologer, ever make mention of Homage perform'd for the Kingdom of Scotland, ex­cept that which was extorted from K. William during his Captivity; of which I have treat­ed before. Or if they have any Author, why are they afraid to name him? For as to all the former Citations, I have clearly refuted them already; but in this Performance of Homage, Alexander did right in performing it for the Lands which he held in England, but refus'd it for Scotland as he ought indeed to have done. I have Authors who say that he added, that he came into England under safe Conduct, and demanded that he might re­turn with the same; and if Henry had not [Page 346] a­bolish'd that Controversy, perhaps the Son had followed the Example of his magnani­mous Father.

You say that Henry being troubled with Seditions in his own Kingdom, obtain'd 5000, our Writers say 10000, Scots; most part of whom perished in that War, fighting stoutly for Henry against Simon Montfort, and the rest of the English Barons. But Alexander be­ing now acquainted with the English Tricks, and that they were accustomed to put a ma­levolent Interpretation upon those Auxilia­ries, as a Service that was due to them, he obtain'd Letters from his Father-in-Law be­fore they march'd from Scotland, that they were not granted as due by Military Service, but meerly upon the account of Benevolence and Friendship. And the like was done by Alexan­der, in relation to Edward 1. when he sent him Auxiliaries to subdue Wales: And where­as you assert, that Alexander perform'd Ho­mage for Scotland at K. Edward's Coronation, you are plainly accus'd of a Lie by Walsing­ham; who mentions the Homage indeed, which Alexander ow'd as Beneficiary for the four Counties above-mentioned, but he has not one word that it was for the Kingdom of Scotland, And Westminster does not so much as take notice of the Homage. And from this place it is manifest, how little Faith is to be [Page 347] given to Holinshed; for where-ever he [...]inds Homage mentioned, he presently, according to his own Punick Faith, adds that it was for Scotland. Nay, that which is yet more, Alexan­der did not come thither till he had first ob­tain'd it in Writing, that he did not come, as being oblig'd thereunto, by Service, but only out of Good-will and Friendship. For the burnt Child, according to the Proverb, dreads the Fire: And as in this Alexander, the Fa­ther, and Son, we perceive a provident Cau­tion to escape the Traps and Gins of the Eng­lish, who lay in wait for 'em; so in Henry the Father, and Edward the Son, we may easily see an excessive Ambition: for over-looking all Bonds of Affinity, they sought to ensnare the King of Scots, that under any Pretext what­soever he might seem to have done Homage for Scotland. But in those Kings the Decision of the Controversy about the Homage, is no less manifest than it was before betwixt Ri­chard, and William King of Scots.

CHAP. XXVIII.
By what Tricks Edward the first sought after the Superiority of Scotland.

BUT now we are come to Edward I. who was not only the Renewer, As­serter and Champion of this Homage, but in whom also this Homage, whatever it was, did expire together with the Benefit: Nor since this Edward, that the Beneficiary Provinces (of Cumberland, Westmoreland, Northumber­land and Huntington) were taken away, is it mention'd by any Author of Credit, that any of the Kings of Scotland did Homage to the Crown of England upon any pretence whatever: and whereas before the Contro­versy about this Homage was manag'd at a distance by Reasons, Arguments and Threats; under this Edward the first it came to be fought hand to hand, and the whole Con­troversy submitted to the Decision of the Sword with such Animosity, and with so great Damage to both Kingdoms, that three hundred thousand Lives were sacrific'd to this Homage, and they fought for it above threescore Years, (for so long it was betwixt Baliol's being crown'd, and David the 2d's [Page 349] being set at Liberty) without intermission, except for two or three Years in the begin­ning of Edward the third's Reign, that a Peace was agreed on, but could not be long­liv'd betwixt two enraged Nations, burn­ing with mutual Hatred at one another; for neither could the Scots endure a Superior, nor the English an Equal in Britain: and in this War those were brought into greatest Danger who did nevertheless come off best in the whole War. And at this time Britain was af [...]licted with greater Miseries than Italy in the second Punick War, yea it was almost destroyed by its own Strength, which af­forded a pleasant Spectacle to the Neigh­bouring Nations: Edward for Magnanimi­ty, enduring Fatigue and Knowledg in Mi­litary Discipline, was inferiour to none of his Ancestors; but his great Vertues were mightily obscur'd by his inhumane Cruelty towards those that he overcame, his Rage against Hostages, and most flagrant desire of rooting out the Memory of the Scots; but he was at last disappointed in his pur­pose of establishing the Dominion of the whole Island in his own Family. I shall faithfully extract the History of this Ed­ward against the Scots, from Walsingham and Westminster, the one a Monk of St. Albans, and the other of Westminster, who liv'd [Page 350] about that time, and shall say nothing from any Scots Historian, but what is sometimes necessary to give light to the History which is miserably obscut'd and darkned by them.

While Alexander the third liv'd, Peace was faithfully kept by Edward: for Alex­ander was so cautious and provident, that he gave him no opportunity to grow upon him; and when Alexander was desired to come to the publick Meeting of the States; wherein Edward receiv'd the Crown, he would not until Edward did by a special Writing, declare, that he did not require it of him as a thing which he was oblig'd to do; but as a piece of Friendship: and when he sent him Assistance against the Welch, he obtain'd a Writing in like manner, That he did not send them as being oblig'd thereunto, but as a special Favour. Alexander being dead without any Off-spring but [...] Grandchild by his Daughter Margaret, who was mar­ried to the King of Norway; Edward de­manded that Grandchild in Marriage to his Son from the Nobility of Scotland, that at last the whole Island might be united, which he also obtain'd, though there were some who conjectured, that the King of England would be a severe Master; But dying in Orkney as the return'd to Scotland, the King­dom was divided into twelve Factions; for [Page 351] there were so many Competitors for the Crown, but the chief were Iohn Baliol an Englishman great Grandchild to that Eber­ [...] or Bernard, who according to Camb­ [...] had the Glory of taking William King of Scots in an Ambush; Robert Bruce Son to Robert Bruce Earl of Carick, and Hastings, who were Grandchildren to three Daugh­ters of David Earl of Huntington, and great Grandchildren to the said D [...]rvid, Brother [...] William King of Scots: All these being afraid of the Power of their fellow Com­petitors, and unwilling that the Kingdom should sustain any damage in the mean Time, submitted the whole Affair to the King of England's Judgment, and chose him to be Arbitrator of the Controversy with common Consent. But Edward perceiving that the disposal of the Crown of Scotland was fallen into his Hands, which he and his Ancestors had so often desir'd with the greatest Eagerness, he conceiv'd an immo­derate Joy thereat in his Heart, raises an Army under a pretence of suppressing any Tumults that might arise from his Decree, and advanc'd with the same to the Borders. The Scots by a certain connate Simplicity, put the best Interpretation upon all these things, being ignorant of Edward's cra [...]ty Humour; who according to the Example [Page 352] of Lysander would ech out the Lion's Skin with that of the Fox; and by his cunning Tricks had lately obtain'd the Superiority of Wales: for having broken them in se­veral Battels, yet not so much as to force them to acknowledg himself or any other Englishman for their Soveraign, he attempt­ed it by this Thracian Comment and Wile: He sends for his Wife who was ready to lie in, to Car [...]a [...]an, a Town almost in the Bor­ders of Wales, where she brought forth her Son, who was afterwards call'd Edward the second, or Edward of Carnarvan; having in the mean time plied the Welch with all his Crast, to acknowledg him for their Lord, which they did constantly refuse, saying, They would receive none as such, but one born in Wales, and who spoke that Lan­guage: Yet at last after many Difficulties, they allow'd Edward the Power of naming him, having taken an Oath, that they would obey, if he nam'd such an One: Whereup­on Edward says, Yea verily, I will give you a Welch Lord and Prince, one born in Wales, altogether ignorant of the English Tongue, and who knows not how to speak any thing else than Welch, and then nam'd his Son. But although the Welch did plain­ly perceive that they were cheated, yet they look'd upon themselves as bound by [Page 353] their Oath, and from that time forward the eldest Son of England hath been always call'd Prince of Wales. He attaqu'd the Scots with the same Craft and Cunning, but only that he did it also in Arms, that he might usurp the Soveraignty of Scotland to himself; for when at first he seem'd unwil­ling to take the Arbitration upon him, as being unequal to so great a Burden, but as­suring them that he would no less preserve the Dignity of the Scotish Nation firm and inviolable than his own: First, he bound them all by an Oath, to acquiesce in his Sen­tence, and demanded, that all Castles, Gari­sons and fortified Places should be delivered into his Custody, under pretence, that the stubborn opposite Parties would not other­wise obey, unless he could force them to it; therefore how great the Simplicity, or rather the Madness of our Countrymen was, to deliver themselves thus, bound up in Chains, into the Hands of any Enemy, let the can­did Reader judg. But Edward march'd to the Borders of Scotland, to fight as Liege Lord, says Walsingham: but I pray you, Mr. Walsingham, who expected War from him, certainly not the Scots, who had committed their greatest Affairs to his Arbitration; and who had then neither King, General, nor Army, as fearing no Enemy, and being sum­moned [Page 354] by him, came with their usual Trains, but without Arms; and there when they expected no such thing, they found Edward upon his Throne, giving himself out for Liege Lord of Scotland, that he would pro­nounce Sentence as such, and that the Cause could not be legally determin'd otherwise than before the Liege Lord. The Scots were struck silent with Astonishment, and found themselves surrounded on all Hands with the English Soldiery; so that Edward goes on, alledging, that he did not demand any new thing, but only the Right of his Predecessors, protesting, that he would de­send the Prerogative of his Crown with his Blood: and that he might the more easi­ly perswade them of this, he made all the Monasteries of England, Scotland and Wales, to be search'd, that he might know what his Right was on that Head. These are Wal­singham's Words In Ed. 1. 1290., and it was found, says he, in the Chronicles of Marianus Scotus, William of Malmsbury, Roger of Hoveden, Henry of Huntington and Ralph of Lysetum; that in the Year 910, Edward the Elder sub­du'd the Kings of Scotland and Cumberland: And though those Bawbles have been alrea­dy refuted, yet I must insist a little further on them. And first, King Edward, that he might not be wanting in number of [Page 355] wit­nesses, produces five, of whom Ralph of Ly­set [...] did never yet see the Light for any thing that we know: Nor does Balaeus in his Catalogue of British Writers make any mention of him; and therefore as Logicians say, de non ente nullum est Iudicium, we can form no Judgment of that which has no Being. Marianus Scotus has no such thing, nor yet Mal [...]sbury, Hoveden nor Hunting­ton, for none of those Authors did ever com­mit it to writing, that those Kings were sub­dued by Edward the Elder; they only say, that Cumberland was given to the King of Scots by Edward, to be held of him that he might suppress the Danish Tumults, and keep the disorderly People in their Duty. Nor if they had writ so, could they prejudg our Cause, for those three, Malmsbury, Hove­den and Huntington were late Writers, and flourish'd at the same Time with King Ed­ward, and wrote in the Time of Henry, or a little before, and therefore I submit it to the Judgment of the candid Reader. If the King of England had brought those three Men along with him, that he might have made use of their Evidence, either for pro­ving the Dignity of their King or Country, or this Superiority, what just Judg would have admitted them, or have given Credit to them though they had been upon Oath? [Page 356] And at last, if they had said, that the Scots were subdued, what would have followed thence? For how often have subdued Nati­ons recovered their Courage; and not on­ly repell'd, but subdued the Conquerors? And therefore this first Proof being destitute of all its Sinews, falls to the ground.

Walsingham adds, that the same Edward was chosen as Lord and Patron by the Kings of Cumberland and Scotland; but we must take notice that the place is corrupted: for West­minster says only, that he was chosen for Lord and Father. Nor does it follow, be­cause he was chosen as Lord and Father to sustain the Impresssions of the Danes, that therefore he was constituted Liege-Lord of Scotland; for many are saluted as Lords, and chosen for Fathers or Lords, who cannot pretend however to any Right but that which results from the meer Good-will of the Electors. Neither is it true that there was then any King of Cumberland; for the Prince of Scotland taking at the same time the Title of Prince of Cumberland, is by the ig­norant Monks believed to have been a King. Walsingham says that Athelstan conquered Constantine King of Scots, and permitted him to reign under him: If you say that he per­mitted him when he could not hinder him, we con [...]ess it; but that he reigned under [Page 357] Athelstan, you have no Author to vouch, no more than you have for Edred's Victory over the Scots, and the Fealty that was sworn to him, except you understand the League against the Danes. But that Edgar overcame Rivadus, Son to Alpin King of Scots, is not only void of all Testimony, but Reason: For besides that there was never any King of Scots of that Name, his suppo­sed Father Alpin was dead 200 Years before him, and by that same Authority he is call'd King of Denmark, Scotland and Norway, though there be no Writer who mentions that ever he did enter into any of them. Nor did ever Malcolm receive the Kingdom of Scotland to be held in Fee of Edward: Nor is there any English Historian who says so; but they do only make mention, that the Auxiliary Forces of Northumberland came thither under their General Earl Sivard: on whose Assistance Malcolm having relied, he deprived Mackbeth the Tyrant, who had in­vaded the Scotish Tnrone, of his Life and Dignity: Although it is also manifest, that Earl Sivard brought those Troops [...] Malcolm his Sister's Son in the Recovery of the Crown of his Ancestors, without any Command from Edward. Who could be­lieve except he read them, that such ridicu­lous Instances should be brought as [Page 358] dence? That Malcolm was overcome both by the Conqueror and Rufus, is not to be found any where, but they were both ob­lig'd to return Home, after the Conclusion of a disadvantageous Peace, upon Malcolm's coming against them with an Army. As to Malcolm's two Sons, the Bastard was execu­ted for bringing English Auxiliary Forces with him into Scotland, and the English were forc'd to retire; the other of them did Homage, but not for the Kingdom of Scot­land. If Alexander succeeded his Brother Edgar, with the Consent of Henry the first, what Wonder! for Henry's Wife was his Sister: but that David did Homage to Ste­phen, is contrary to the Credit of all Histo­rians, who do plainly assert, that David could never be induc'd to perform Homage to Stephen, because he had oblig'd himself to be true to Maud beforehand. As to Wil­liam and Alexander, we have lately spoken; Homage was certainly due to the King of England, nor was it unusual to have it per­form'd: but what's the Difference betwixt this in our Kings, and those of England, or wherein was the State of Scotland different from that of England? for the Conqueror and his Son Rufus, and Henry the first, Hen­ry the second, Richard, Iohn, Henry the third, and lastly Edward the first himself, [Page 359] did all of them swear Homage and Fealty to the King of France, as their Liege Lord, and yet they did not acknowledg him as Su­perior of England.

But let's see what the Scots answered to these Proofs brought by Edward. The Scots s [...]y they answered, that they knew nothing of this Superiority; nor could they with­out an Head, answer to such things, insinu­ating, and that not obscurely, that they ow'd no such Homage, and that if they had had a Head or King at that Time, that Edward would not have demanded that Superiority: The Scots must needs have been Stones or Toad-stools, or something yet more stupid, if they did not know their Lord, of whom they held their Lands;

Such gross Ignorance is not to born with in the most savage Barbarians, for even the In­habitants of Gothland, Island and Finland, know their Lord, and pay their annual Tri­butes very willingly. But Plutarch in Ly­sander, is very much in the right, the Ar­gives contending with the Spartans about the Boundaries of their Lands, and affirming, that their Arguments were stronger than [Page 360] those of the Spartans; Lysander the Spartan General showing them a Sword, said, he that holds this shall have the best in the Con­troversy about the Boundaries of the Lands, and Edward followed his Example in this Controversy: But say our Neighbours, there are Confessions of some of the Scots, recog­nizing the King of England as Liege Lord of Scotland, the Forms of which Confessions being drawn up in French, are exhibited both by Westminster and Walsingham. If what Walsingham and Westminster relate be true, this Confession was extrorted from the Scots by Violence, being surrounded with armed Men who would have cut their Throats if they had not done it: But there are very few Scots there mentioned, for Flo­rence Earl of Holland, Baliol, and Hastings of Bessy, who sign'd instead of his Father, were not Scots but Englishmen; and as for Bruce, it is evidently false, for he might have made such a Confession more to his Advantage elsewhere: Nor are there three Scotsmen in that Charter, neither did they at that time understand the French Tongue; so that whatever was offered to them, they subscrib'd so they might escape safe. By these Methods did Edward proceed to Sen­tence, but finding the Pretensions of two of the Competitors to overballance all the [Page 361] rest, he call'd Bruce apart, and promises to make him King if he would acknowledg him for Liege-Lord; but Bruce answered mag­nanimously, that the Kingdom which he had receiv'd free from his Ancestors, he would never inslave nor render subject to another. Edward being amaz'd with this fierce and resolute Answer, calls upon Baliol, and offers the same Condition to him, which, he being an ambitious Man thirsting after the Crown, and thinking he had made a good Bargain if he could purchase a Throne at any Rate, did willingly embrace. In the mean time King Edward dissembling this under-hand Transaction, pretended that he would de­cide the Matter according to the Opinions of the best Lawyers of France and England, and propounds the Case thus. A certain King holding his Kingdom from another King in Fee, and neither being accustomed to be Crown'd nor Anointed, but only plac'd in a certain Chair, &c. It's truly wonderful how he could propose the Case thus, for here he takes the thing in Contro­versy for granted that the Kingdom of Scot­land was a Fee of England, which was ne­ver so much as once heard of before that time: but 'tis yet more strange, that he should say, that the King of Scots did neither use to be Anointed nor Crown'd; when he [Page 362] himself ordered all Baliol's Equipage to be search'd as he was hastning through England to France, and finding therein the Crown of Scotland, he took it from him, and de­dicated it to St. Thomas Walsing­ham in Edw. I.. But to return to Balibl whom Edward preferr'd, having rejected the rest, he declar'd him King, and receiv'd Homage from him according to the Terms of the Agreement before-mention'd, and in such Form as he thought most suta­ble to his Affairs, and which he did dictate to Baliol, that new King refusing nothing; for Baliol was really an Englishman and great Grandchild to that Bernard, who had the Glory of taking William King of Scots by an Ambush, as I mark'd before out of Camb­den, and was rewarded with many Lands in England upon that Account: So that in this I dissent from my Countrymen, who say, he was a Norman, and Lord of Harcourt: It may be he had some Possessions in Normandy, for his Predecessors came thence with the Conqueror. But Baliol being thus decla­red King, he did not only pay the Price of the Sentence agreed upon before, but also renounced all his Right to Cumberland, Nor­thumberland and Westmoreland, and only re­tain'd Huntington, with the Consent of the King of England, who knew that he could easily divest him of that at any Time: nor is [Page 363] it to be wondered at, that an English Man and a Subject of England, should procure the Advantage of his Lord, especially when by his means he was made capable of ob­taining the Crown, which he did so much long for, according to that of the Poet,

CHAP. XXIX.
Whether or not that Sentence was just, which Edward gave for Bruce against Baliol.

But the English will say, that Edward pronounc'd a very just Sentence, in adjudging the Succession of the Crown of Scotland to Margaret, eldest Daughter to David Earl of Huntington and her Off­spring, and rejecting Isabel the second Daugh­ter, who married Robert Bruce Earl of Car­rick, and her Off-spring; for there's no Bo­dy who does not prefer the First-born to the second, in Individual Fees, and by con­sequence, the Off-spring of the First, to the Off-spring of the Second: although indeed most men think that this Sentence of King Edward's was according to Law, yet because [Page 364] of his being corrupted, and receiving a Reward for his Sentence, he ought not to have been Judg; but if the Matter be tho­roughly canvass'd, perhaps it will be found that this Sentence was not pronounc'd ac­cording to Equity neither: for besides the other Reasons brought by our Countrymen, and the Custom of the Kingdom then ob­served in Judgment, that in the Off-spring of diverse Sisters, the first Male is prefer'd, and the Case of the Count of Nivern and the Duke of Burgundy for the County of Flanders, approv'd by all the Parliaments of France, and especially the Senate of Paris; I appeal them also to the Feudal Law it self, which was at that time tenaciously observ'd by the Noblest Kingdoms in Europe. I shall here cite one Text, which agrees so well to this our Hypothesis, that nothing can be more like: The words of the Text are these, The like if any Man be invested in a Fee, so that it descend upon Women, and leave only two Daughters, of which the one has a Son, and the other a Daughter, whether after their Death the Male ought only to have the Fee; according to Gerard, the Male only: Obertus on the contrary: And on the other Hand if he have Sons. That we may adapt this Text to our Hypothesis, David Earl of Huntington and Chester, to whom as the next [Page 365] of the Paternal Line, the Right to the Kingdom of Scotland, (the whole Off-spring of his Brother William being extinguish'd) and its Succession devolv'd, of which Suc­cession a Woman and those who descend from her are as capable as a Male. He left two Daughters, Margaret the eldest, who married Alan Earl of Galloway, of which Marriage was born Dornagilla Mother to Iohn Baliol, afterwards King; the other was Isabel, married to Robert Earl of Carick, of which Marriage was born Robert Bruce Fa­ther to King Robert the first. The Question is, whether Robert Bruce though born of the second Daughter, yet the first Male, or Dor­nagilla Grandchild by the first born Daugh­ter, is to be preferr'd in the Succession to the Crown, which admits of no Division: In this Question the two great Lights of the Feudal Law, Gerard and Obert are oppos'd to one another; but the Opinion of Gerard, that the first Male is to be preferred, is not only confirm'd by other Places, as well of the Civil as Feudal Law, but also by the Suffrages of all the Interpreters. Baldus Alvaroltus the President, and the Moderns Hottomannus Duarenus, Baro, Conerus and Cujacius; nay, and Hortensius himself does in other Places, approve of the Opinion of Gerard as the truest: Nor is there any Rea­son [Page 366] to doubt, be [...]cause the Text does not ex­press, whether this Son be born of the eldest or second Daughter; for if this Son had been born of the eldest Daughter, there had been no place for doubting. But as to this Que­stion, the Reader may see more in my second Book de Feudis.

Neither is this Decision without a Prece­dent in the Succession of the English Crown: For Henry I. his Male Issue being dead, and having a Grand-son, afterwards Henry II. by Maud his Daughter, who was married to Geffrey Plantagenot Earl of Anjou, he was so­licitous how to secure the Succession of the Crown to them, and made all the States of England swear Fealty to them as those who were to reign immediately after him. Ne­vertheless, he being dead, Stephen, Grand­son to the Conqueror by a Daughter, took the Crown. Nor is it likely that the English would have receiv'd him contrary to their Oaths, except the Law had been for him: For Henry II. Son to Maud, having the Ti­tle by a Woman, and Stephen having the same, he affirm'd himself to be first in the Succession, because he was the first Male, though descending from a Woman: nay, he urg'd that if Maud her self had been alive, he ought to be preferr'd to her, as being the first born Male, and by consequence his Off­spring [Page 367] ought to be preferr'd to Henry II. This Matter was debated a long time in Eng­land; yet Stephen was never accounted an Usurper or Tyrant, but look'd upon as law­ful Heir and King: Nor were ever his Laws r [...]scinded by succeeding Kings, as those of one who had no lawful Authority. Nay, that which is more, at the Agreement betwixt Him and Henry II. his own Son Eustace being dead, he adopted Henry II. that so he might derive the Right of Succession from his Per­son. Which he would never have done, had he been look'd upon as a Tyrant or unlaw­ful King: And in most places of Hoveden it appears, that the first Male descending from a Female Line, is judg'd to have the best Right. For the Antients were of Opini­on, that a Male in the same Degree of Con­sanguinity was always to be preferred: and thus a Brother is preferred to all the Sisters, and so amongst Cousins (for the Case of Si­sters is the same) the first Male was preferred in the Succession to the Grand-father, to a Woman, though begotten by the eldest Son. But the Case is not the same in Brothers; for the first born excludes the younger: but in Women the Case is the same; for they all succeed alike, none of them being preferred to one another.

[Page 368]This is sufficient to be taken notice of at present, seeing I know that there were then other Rules of Judging: for, as it appears by Bodinus, it was customary at that time in most places, that the eldest Son dying before the Father, and leaving a Son behind him, the second Brother was preferred to the Grand-child in the Succession to his Father; and he instances in Cases having been deter­min'd thus. Then let others think as they please, (for I offer Violence to no Man's Judgment) it's my Opinion that, both ac­cording to the Rules of the Feudal Law, and the Custom of the Country, which Edward ought to have observ'd, he gave a very un­just Sentence: Which was not to be expia­ted any otherwise than by the Lives of Mul­titudes, as the Event verified.

CHAP. XXX.
Whether Soveraign Princes can render them­selves, and their Subjects, Vassals to another Prince: And how by the Act of this very Edward, the Superiority was destroyed.

I Hinted above, that a Prince who go­verns a free People cannot render them Slaves, or subject to the Dominion of ano­ther Prince: Nor can the Barons of that Kingdom transfer the Prerogative of that Liberty they have receiv'd from their An­cestors, upon any other than their own Lord. The Authors of this Proposition are Alexan­der Cardinalis, Iason and Imola; who do all of them hold, that the Rights of Majesty have that Prerogative that no Prince has Power to dispose of them in any manner; that they cannot be alienated, renounced, or taken away from a Soveraign Prince, or suf­fer Prescription by any tract of time; and therefore Baldus calls those Rights Sacra Sucrorum, Cynus calls them Individua, which cannot be separated from the Crown or Royal Majesty. For those who are entrusted with the chief Care of the Common-wealth, cannot so much as diminish one foot of the [Page 370] Publick Patrimony, much less give away the Property of it: For Kings, or Soveraign Princes, (says Bodin, a most famous Law­yer) are so far from having the Dominion or [...] of the Publick Farms, that they have not [...] entire Usufr [...]it, but must con­tent themselves with the Use of it; for they are only Proctors or Administrators of what belongs to others, and all the rest are owing to the Common-Wealth, with the Govern­ment whereof they are intrusted: and if a King who is subject to none, do either of his own Accord, or be forc'd against his Will, to serve and obey another, he loses the Ti­tle and Rights of Majesty. Hottomannus handles this Question expresly, Lib. Illust. Quaest. quaest. 1.

But to return to the Transactions of those Times, Baliol was the first, and the only one of all the Kings of Scotland, who acknow­ledged the King of England as Superior of Scotland, as he did Edward according to his Covenant; which assoon as it was known to the Scots, who had received Baliol as King because of their Oath, they took it very ill (as Alexander the second had done before:) and although all the fortified Places were in the Enemies Hand, that the Nobility were bound by their Oath, that a great Army of English were ready to pour in upon them, [Page 371] and though they were destitute of the As­sistance of the great Ones, and the most part as is usual in such Cases, adher'd openly to the English for fear of being undone; yet first, they chid Baliol severely, for rendring the Kingdom subject to an Enemy, which he had received free from his Ancestors: but he promising to be afterwards govern'd by the Peers, took Arms with all Expedition against Edward's return from France; and when at his coming Home, he redemanded Homage from Baliol, Walsingham, Polidore and Holinshed say, the Scots answered, that they were born Free, were subject to none but their own King; nor would they ac­knowledg any other Soveraign, but their own Prince. Edward being incensed, says Polidore, did not only deprive Baliol of the Earldom of Huntington for his Ingratitude, but led a great Army against the Scots, and having killed many thousands, took Berwick by Storm; Walsingham says, that there were 60000 slain there: At Dumbar he routed all the Scots Forces under B [...]liol, in which Bat­tel Bruce took part with the English, as he did a long time after, in hop [...]s that the King of England would eject Baliol, and set him upon the Throne; for so Edward had promised him under-hand after he began to hate Baliol, that he might thereby draw [Page 372] him over to his side. So that Baliol's Cou­rage being quite broke, because he found himself unable to maintain such a War, being despis'd by his Subjects, and contemn'd by his Adversaries, he resign'd the Kingdom into the Hands of Edward, having received in lieu thereof some Lands in Normandy, where he might live the rest of his Days. But I would pray the kind Reader to have a little Patience and Attention, while I beat the Assertors of this Homage with their own Weapons.

This Edward was the first who establish'd the Homage in a King of his own Chusing and Appointment, nay his own Liege-man and Subject. Nor is it any wonder that this cowardly Man, who was altogether unfit for Government, and yet blinded with an Ambition to reign, and above all being an English-man, did this Homage in favour of his Soveraign. And though we should grant what they will never be able to make out by any probable Argument, that the Kingdom of Scotland was a Fee-Liege of England, and that the King of England had before that time been Liege-Lord of Scotland; yet I will make it plainly appear, that that Ho­mage and Superiority was destroyed by Ed­ward. Then the King of England was, as they say▪ Superiour of Scotland, and Baliol his Vassal for the same, if the Gods will have it [Page 373] so. But Baliol, who was a cowardly Man, being deserted by his Subjects, and unable to maintain the War, he came to the King of England at Brechin, and resign'd all the Right which he had to the Crown of Scot­land, with the Homage of his Scots, into the Hands of Edward his Lord, as Liege Lord, which is recorded by all the Writers of both Nations. This Resignation being made, Ed­ward was no more Superior or Liege Lord of Scotland, but Lord-Proprietor of all Scotland, no less than he was of England; for then there was no Vassal for the Kingdom of Scotland: but the Property was consolidate with the Superiority, which Consolidation Lawyers call, Confusio Dominii utilis cum directo [...]; and so Edward himself says, that by this Resig­nation, he was legally constituted Possessor of the full Dominion, that all the Scots were his Subjects, and perform'd Fealty and Homage to him as to their immediate Lord: and therefore if by this Resignation the Pro­perty and profitable Dominion be conjoin'd and consolidated with the Superiority, it follows of necessity, that the Superiority is extinguish'd, for there can be no Superior or Lord, where there is not a Vassal or Infe­rior; for these are Correlate, and if one be wanting, the other must of necessity fall. And therefore what is principally urg'd for [Page 374] the Confirmation of this Homage by our Neighbours, is the chief thing that subverts it; and if they confess that to have been a true and lawful Resignation, it is not need­ful to confess any Superiority or Property afterwards, except they can make it appear, that the Kingdom of Scotland was given in Fee de novo, by the Kings of England, which no Man who hath not declared open War a­gainst the Truth, will as I believe attempt: for there's no English-man who can for shame assert this Homage, or affirm, that Scotland was given after that to be held in Fee of England; nor is it credible that the King of England would so easily part with it, who had so often sought an opportunity to be possess'd of Scotland; and therefore it ap­pears by their own proper Confession, that the Kings of Scotland from that time, which is now three hundred Years, have not been Vas­sals to the Kings of England, nor owed them any Allegiance or Homage. But if our Neighbours ask by what Right then do our Kings possess Scotland at this time, I answer, by one much better than the English possess England; but another Place is more proper for this Controversy: It is sufficient now that I have evinced, that this commentiti­ous Superiority was overturn'd by this Act of Edward the first's, which is supposed [Page 375] to have promoted it most of all.

They did not cease from Arms after the Resignation by Baliol; for when the Scots did assert that that Resignation was void and frivolous, they took Arms with great Expedition, and routed the English in many small and some great Battels, tho the English Writers do only take notice of two, one at Sterlin Bridg, where half the English Army, with Hugh Cressingham their General was slain, and the other at Roslin, where under the Conduct of Simon Fraser their General 8000 Scots scarcely half armed, did in one Day rout three English Armies, whereof each did at least consist of ten thousand Mer­cenary Souldiers; for Ralph Confrey who had 30000 English under his Command, for fear that he should want Provisions and Forage, divided his Army into three Parts, yet so as they might not be far asunder, but help one another as occasion requir'd. But Fraser watching for an Opportunitiy, assoon as he saw their Forces divided into three Bodies, he attaqu'd them one by one, and in the space of one Day, did almost totally cut them off; and so the English who did now promise themselves sure footing in Scotland, were all thrown out, and their bordering Countries expos'd to the Ravages and De­vastations of the Scots. Edward being [Page 376] en­raged at these Successes of our Countrymen, he assembled not only the whole Strength of England, but also that of the Provinces which he did then command beyond-Sea, and march'd into Scotland, and when he ar­rived there, most of the Nobility of Scot­land joined him, and amongst others Bruce with his Forces, which did mightily encrease his Army. But the Scots being nothing ter­rified by such numerous Forces, tho at the same time deserted by most of the chief No­bility, they rais'd an Army, and being lifted up by their former Victories, they prepar'd for Battel in a plain Ground call'd Falkirk; but Ambition prov'd their Destruction, and, as it is said of Eris, threw in an Apple of Contention amongst them, by which Troy was afterwards consumed, because she was not invited to the Marriage of Peleus and Thetis. The Scots Army did not exceed 30000 Men, under the Command of three Generals, Iohn Cummin at that time the most powerful of the Scots Nobility, Iohn Stew­ard and William Wallace: But a fatal Con­tention happen'd amongst them about lead­ing on the Van against the English, for that's the Post of greatest Honour amongst us: Cummin claimed it as his due, nor would Steward yield to him in Dignity, and Wal­lace said it was his Right, and due to his [Page 377] Au­thority as Viceroy. Hence rose Discord and Factions in the Army, and Cummin perceiving that the Souldiery favoured the other two more than him, he went off with all his Forces, for the rest suspected him as a favou­rer of the English; nor was it without ground, for Westminster and Walsingham do both of them exhibit the Form of the Oath which he swore to be true to Edward before that time; and by this his Family which was then, as I have already said, the greatest and most potent of any in Scotland, was so brought under, that the name of Cummin is now very rare in Scotland. As to the other two, Steward and Wallace, the first claimed the leading of the Vanguard because of his Nobility, and the latter demanded it because of his Valour and the Suffrage of the People: Steward being enrag'd at it, upbraid­ed Wallace with the Fable of Aesop or Hora­ce's little Raven, which did so exasperate Wallace, that not being able to master his Passion, he did also march off with all his Forces; the only Blot that can be charged on him during the whole Course of his Life, that he should not have sacrific'd the Resent­ment of the Injury done to himself, to that of his Country at such a critical Juncture: but in all other respects, he may be compar'd to the Antient Hero's, either for [Page 378] Endow­ments of Body or Mind. Steward being left alone in the Field, did (lest he should seem to be fiercer in Words than Deeds) give Battel to the English with a great deal of Gal­lantry, tho he had but one third part of his Army; but that which proved most fatal to him, was his engaging on plain Ground, and not being aware of Bruce, who fell up­on his Reer; so that being encompass'd with a multitude of Horse and Foot, he was cut off with most of his Men. Bruce is branded with the Infamy of this Battel, for having brought great Forces into the Field against his own Countrymen, and fought with too much Bravery in favour of King Edward.

I have insisted the more upon the Event of this Fight, because the English please themselves too much with the Relation of it, and give out, that above 60000 Scots were slain in this Action, whereas they them­selves did not lose above thirty Men: West­minster says, there were 200000 Scots in this Army; Wals [...]ngham does not pitch upon any Number, but says, it was an horrible Battel, the whole Scots Army being destroy'd by the English Cavalry. However that is, it is certain that the Battel was great, and that abundance of Scots fell therein: but though they were broken by this Battel, they did not abandon their Cause; for [Page 379] Wal­lace's Anger being asswaged, he brought back his Forces into the Field; and although he durst not give Battel to the numerous and victorious English Army, yet following them close, he did by falling on their Reer, and cutting of the Straglers, so much pinch the English Cavalry for want of Forage, that Edward was forced to return into England; Bruce followed him by reason of his de­pendence upon him, and requiring him to fulfil his Promise, was rejected with Di [...] ­dain: whereupon he began privily to sound how the Scots stood affected to him, and to solicite them to declare him Heir to the Crown; but all of them being jea­lous of him, his business went on but slow­ly at first.

CHAP. XXXI.
A sharp Epistle from Pope Boniface the 8th, to King Edward about the Injustice of his War against the Scots, and Edward's Apo­logy.

IN the mean time there happened a Con­troversy betwixt Boniface the 8th, and Edward I. about the Right of this Superio­rity over Scotland: For when the Scots be­ing inferior in Arms, had recourse to the Help and Assistance of the Church of Rome, and had plainly instructed the Injuries done to them by Edward, Boniface being mov'd with their Intreaties and the Justice of their Cause, wrote Letters to Edward, accusing him of Injustice in undertaking of this War, and threatning him with Ecclesiastical Cen­sures if he did not desist from troubling the Scots: But this Controversy being copied both by Walsingham and Westminster, I shall go over the Heads of it in a few Words, seeing by them the Decision of this whole Controversy will be manifest; for the Pope proves by very strong Arguments, that this whole. War was unlawfully undertaken, and that Edward did unjustly vex the Scots upon [Page 381] the Account of that Superiority, which he did falsly conceive he had a Right to over their Kingdom. Walsingham, that he may lessen this Authority of the See of Rome, does fabulously assert, that the Scots had corrupted the Pope with Money, as if ever the Scots had so much abounded therewith, as to be able to out-bribe the English: But pray let's hear what Boniface the 8th has to say for Scotland. First, he alledges, That the Kingdom of Scotland did not belong to any other but the See of Rome that it nei­ther is, nor ever was a Fee of England, as Edward alledged: He brings no Proof for this Proposition as being Negative, and has not only a manifest Presumption of Law, seeing the Presumption is always reckoned on the side of Liberty, but Notoriety and perpetual Custom. But afterwards he proves the Matter plainly by Deeds of Edward himself, and Henry his Father: for when A­lexander the third King of Scots sent Auxilia­ry Forces to Henry III. in his War with Simon de Montefort, he demanded an express Ca­veat, that they should not be look'd upon as sent on the Account of any Subjection or Right; which Henry did also testify by his Letters Patents, viz. That he had received those Auxiliary Troops, not as any Assistance any way due to him, but as a special Favour from [Page 382] his Neighbour Prince. And certainly this Argument of the Pope's, does utterly de­stroy the Homage; for if Scotland had been a Kingdom held by Edward's Bounty, he might have demanded those Auxiliaries, not as a Favour, but as a Debt: For the Vassal is obliged to assist his Lord both in War with his Military Force, and at Home with his Counsel and Advice; for Favour and Debt cannot agree, but the supposing of the one, implies a Denial of the other: Nor could Henry declare that Scotland owed him no Service, in more express Terms, than by desiring Assistance from the King of Scots as a Favour.

The third and a most powerful Argu­ment brought by the Pope, is from the Pra­ctice of Edward himself in his own Person: for when Edward required the Presence of his Neighbouring Monarch Alexander at his Coronation by his Letters, the King of Scots not being ignorant of the English Tricks, refus'd it until Edward himself, did by his Letters grant him a Gaveat, that his Presence was not required as that whereunto he was ob­liged, but only as a special Favour. Now what can be said more plain or express against this Homage, seeing the Vassal, as has been alread­dy hinted, is always obliged to appear at his Lord's Court when he is required?

[Page 383]The fourth Argument, and that which is still harder upon Edward, is, that when the King of Scots appeared before him in Per­son, to perform the usual Homage for Tyn­d [...]l and Penreth (which are both in England) before he took the Oath, he did openly, and in the Presence of a great many Persons, viva Voce, declare, that he swore Fealty for the Lands which he held in England, and not as K. of Scotland: for he neither ow'd nor would perform any Homage or Fealty to the King of England, for the Kingdom of Scotland; and that Edward himself did then agree to what was spoken, though nothing could be said or thought more express for the confu­tation of this Homage.

The fifth Argument which the Pope makes use of against Edward, is stronger still: for when Alexander died, leaving only a Grand­child by Edward's Sister, who was his Wife, behind him as Heiress of the Crown, Ed­ward did solicite a Marriage betwixt her and his Son Edward, then Prince of Wales, by all Methods imaginable; whereas had he been Liege Lord of Scotland, the Wardship of the Damsel who was Heiress, and that also of the Kingdom it self, would have fallen to him by Law as the Superior: but the Pope evidences the contrary, viz. That there were Guar­dians of the Kingdom chosen by the Nobles [Page 384] of Scotland, who should take care of the Government and the Damsel, until a dis­pensation of Consanguinity could be obtain'd from the Pope, (for Edward the Son and Margaret were in the second and third De­gree of Consanguinity, as I said, and so could not contract Marriage without a Dispensati­on:) and the Pope adds, That there was an express Proviso made by Edward in Writing, that in case the Marriage should not be a­greed on either by the Default of the No­bility, or otherwise, That he should leave the Kingdom of Scotland free and subject to no Man for ever; and if there happened to be Children by that Marriage, that he should leave the Kingdom in its antient State, and restore it as he received it, that it should retain the Name and Dignity of a Kingdom as before, both in enjoying its own Laws, appointing Officers of State, holding of Parliaments, and deciding [...]auses within the Kingdom, and that none of the Inhabitants should be obliged to go out of the same for Iudgment. Now none can call Parliaments but those who have the Rights of Majesty; so that if this Proviso granted by Edward, do not put this Question about the Homage out of all Controversy, I know not what to say: but that all those things were contained in Edward's Letters Patents thereupon granted and produced before him▪ [Page 385] the same Pope doth testify yet more plainly and fully.

The Pope's sixth Argument is, that this Margaret being dead, and a Controversy a­rising amongst the Nobility about the Suc­ [...] of the Crown, the greatest part were willing that the King of England should [...] Arbitrator, and thereupon he came to [...]wrod [...] Borders with an Army to support those of his own Faction; the rest being called [...] were somewhat afraid, and not trust­ [...] the King's bare Word, that their Obedience [...]wrod [...] be no way prejudicial to the Kingdom, [...] infer any Servitude, they would not come [...] the Borders into his Presence, except he did first assure them by his Letters Patents, that they were not required to do the same, as being thereunto oblig'd, but out of a special Favour, [...] that the Liberties of the Kingdom should [...] prejudice thereby; and these Letters [...] were then produced before the Pope. [...]nd to prevent an Objection which Edward [...] raise, viz. That the King of Scots [...] Homage to him afterwards, the Pope subjoins, that tho the same was perform'd by [...] in whose Favour he had: unjustly pronounced Sentence, and that, some Inno­vations were thereupon made by him con­trary to the usual Custom▪ yet all these things were extorted by Violence and Fear, which [Page 386] may be [...]al a constant Man [...] and therefore they ought not to subsist in Law, nor to re­dound to the Prejudice of the Kingdom. From this sixth Argument of the Pope's, these three things are to be inferred; First▪ That the Nobility of Scotland, though at that time without an Head, ( [...]) the word used by the Pope, would not then acknowledg the King of England as their Lord or Superior; but being called out of the Kingdom in order to an Agreement▪ they obeyed, not as being thereunto obliged, but out of a special Favour, wherein they followed the Example of the last King Alex­ander. The second is, that this Homage being extorted from Baliol, could not subsist in Law, which is the same Reason given for that extorted from King William when a Captive. The third is, that the Sentence pro­nounced by Edward in favour of Baliol, was unduly given, the Modesty of the Word tempering the Injustice of the Senteno [...]; for he might have said▪ which he certainly thought, that the said Sentence in favour of Baliol, was given contrary to all Law and Equ [...]ty: and that therefore Bruce was the true [...] of the Kingdom, which is con­firmed by the Pope's Sentence, of the Au­thority [...]

[Page 387]The 7th Argument is, from the Custom of the Church of Rome; for when a Legat was sent into England from the Apostolical See to exercise his Function, he could not upon that Pretext proceed to do the same in Scotland; neither ever was he, or ought he to be admitted by the Scots, except he brought special Letters from the Pope to the [...]ing of Scotland, which was not necessary if Scotland had been a Fee of England, or that the King of Scots had been subject to the King of England; for in that Case, as Law­yers speak, the Embassy into England had been sufficient alone: and in fine, that the Pope might leave nothing untouch'd, he brings in also that Controversy betwixt the [...]ishop of York and the Scots Clergy concern­ing the Superiority which the Bishop of York did arrogate to himself over all the Scots Bi­shops, which as I said before, being brought into Judgment in England could not be de­termined, though the English Bishops them­selves did preside, but both Parties appealed to the Pope; and therefore Boniface does expresly write in that Epistle, that the Bishop of York could never obtain Judgment for himself, because he produc'd nothing for the Confirmation of his Cause, but a Letter from some Scots Bishops, in which they had writ to the Bishop of York, Memento quod tui [Page 388] su [...]us, Remember that we are yours; a most excellent Argument indeed for a proud Bi­shop, who was seeking to overthrow other Mens Liberty, for writing to him officiously, Nos tui sumus, we are Yours. But to return to the Pope, he in fine, condemns the De­sign and Intention of the King of England, to subdue Scotland, especially being then without a Head or Captain, and trusting them­selves wholly to the King of England; and he admonishes him sharply to withdraw thence on Pain of Excommunication, and leave the Scots to their own Liberties and Laws; and if he had any equitable Plea to alledg for himself, that he should appear be­fore him by his Ambassadors within six Months, to answer the Scots upon that Head, for there were then Scots Ambassadors at Rome, and in their Calamities they did implore the Assistance of the Pope as Liege Lord of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury brought this Denunciation of the Pope's to Edward, then raging in Scotland; and admo­nishing him to leave that Kingdom on pain of Excommunication, Edward being no­thing afraid of the Pope's threats, swore by the Blood of God, for Sion 's sake will I not hold my Peace, and for Jerusalem will I not be at rest, (alluding to those words, Sion and Jerusa­lem, in the Pope's Message) while there's Breath [Page 389] in my Nostrils, but will defend my Right, which is known to all the World, to the utmost of my Power. And therefore that he might obviate the Pope's threatnings, he sent two Letters to him, one from himself, and another from his Nobility, both of them Apologetical, in defence of his Superiority over Scotland: The Tenor of those Letters, is to be found both in Westminster and Walsingham; there­fore I shall go through the Heads of them briefly, that all Men may see how strong and concluding the Pope's Arguments were for the Liberty of Scotland, and what weak, empty and trifling Arguments Edward brings for maintaining his Homage. Beginning then with the ordinary Preface of kissing the Pope's Feet, he says, That he and his An­cestors in all Ages past, had a direct Lord­ship, and presided over Scotland, and gave the Reins of that Government into whose Hands they pleas'd, and dethroned them as they saw occasion; and to elude all Proba­tion, alledges, that these things are so no­torious, that they need no Proof, because he was sure, that if Proof was required, his Na­kedness would be exposed, and that he should not be able to produce any: But lest it should be thought he had done nothing, he brings the first Argument for his direct Dominion, from the Fable of Brutus, and his division of [Page 390] Britain amongst his three Sons, reserving the Royal Dignity to Locrinus his eldest; where­as neither the names of Homage nor Supe­riority were known to the World for 2000 Years after Brutus, as I said before, if ever there was any such Man as he. The second is, that Dunwallo killed Staterius King of Scots for his Rebellion, and had Scotland yielded up to him, which does not infer a Superiority, but the manifest Subversion thereof, if there was any; if the Vassal's Fee be yielded up to the Lord, and consolidate with the Superi­ority. But this Dunwallo reigned before Rome was taken by the Gauls, at which time if there was any such thing as the Name of Scots, or a King of Scotland, I leave it to the Judgment of the candid Reader. The Eng­lish Historians do stifly maintain, that the Scots did not come into Britain before the time of Ho [...]orius and Arcadiu [...]; but that there was any such King of Scots as Staterius, Mon­m [...]uth himself the inventer of these Fables, does not so much as suggest. It's really strange, that Mens minds should be so much set upon Fictions, that they are not afraid of saying any thing, so it may but reproach their Enemies. What is subjoined concern­ing Brennus and Belinus, is of the same stamp; for if Brennus was King of Scotland or Albania, and did with his Countrymen [Page 391] [...] France, Italy, Germany, and at last see Rome it self in Flames, to what a height of Glory has this imprudent Man rais'd the Scots against his Will? but it's strange that he should say, that the Law of Prim [...]geniture had its first rise from the Customs of the [...], when its Original is to be found in the Holy Scriptures many Ages before Troy. We be to that ignorant Sciolist who dictated these things, and did thus impose upon his Magnanimous Prince, as to suggest to him such things as have no Evidence nor Author, [...], not so much as an English Monk. Of the [...] sort are those things which are forged concerning Arthur, as I said above, for that there was a King of Scots called Auguselinus, is not to be found in any Author. But let us go on, The English succeeding to the Kingdom of the Britains, they did together with their Monarchy obtain this Dominion over Scotland, says Edward; but I pray by what Right? for this is not a good Conse­quence, that if any one despoil another of his Country or drive him into Exile, that therefore he must be his lawful Heir. I have answered what relates to Ed [...]ard, Athelstan, and the ridiculous Miracle of St. Iohn of Be­ver [...]y, as also what concerns the Cle [...]t in a huge Rock at Dumbar of an Ell in length made by Athelstan's Sword, the Monument [Page 392] of which is still to be seen there, says Edward, though I believe that whoever goes to seek it in that Place will lose his Labour, there are so many gaping Rocks there. There are two things which he brings as most strong Arguments, one, that this Miracle is [...]ead weekly in Iohn's Legend; and what if he could have said, that it had been read in the Gold­en Legend? but pray where's the Miracle if the Scots beat the English, or the English beat the Scots? for that was not such an un­usual thing in either of the Nations. The second is, that the King of Scots was Godfa­ther to Athelstan's Son; cannot that Honour be done to one Prince by another, but they must needs be said to perform Homage? But by the same Argument some idle Brain may argue, that the most august Queen of Eng­land is subject to the King of Scots, because by her Ambassadors she was Godmother to the King of Scots and his Son the Prince. As to E [...]red I said before, that it does not fol­low that he who swears Fealty to another, must needs be his Subject, except it be Liege Fealty, for every Body knows that there is a social Fealty. As to the feigned Irisius, let them say what they please, so long as there's no such Person to be found in the Catalogue of the Scotish Kings, but feigned Names a­gree best to feigned things. What they alledg [Page 393] [...] Kinalidus, or Rinaldus, E [...]genius, and the [...] of the Kings of Cumberland; I answer [...], that there never was any King of Cum­berland, but only the eldest Son of Scotland who called Prince of Cumberland; and no Man of any Sense did ever call them King: but if he perform'd Homage for Cumberland, a Country of England, he did no more than what he ought; yet this is reproachfully im­puted to the Kingdom of Scotland. For Ed­ward II. Edred, Edgar, Ethelverd, Edmund, Canute and Edward III. I have already answe­red, that never one of them did so much as see the Borders of Scotland, having enough to do at Home to oppose the Danes and Nor­wegians, wherein the Scots did them faith­ful and gallant Service: and if at any time they demanded Homage of them, it was no more than what was their Due for those three Beneficiary Provinces; and if the King of Scots had denied it, he should have dealt in­juriously with his Lord. As to the Conque­ [...]or. Rufus, Henry I. Stephen, and Henry II. I have already said, that they were taught to their own Cost to abstain from invading Scotland.

If the Princes of Scotland did then per­form Homage to those Kings, they did no more than what was their Duty. William King of Scots, when he could obtain no Ju­stice [Page 394] from Henry II. endeavoured to redrest himself by force of Arms, and wa [...]ted England far and near, but with no good Success in the issue: For having been very prosperous in the Undertaking, on his return Home he dispersed all his Horse to plunder the Coun­try; and being attended only with 60, was taken in an Ambus [...] upon the very Border; and while he was Prisoner, Homage was extorted from him for the King [...] of Scot­land. Whereas there is not so much as one English Monk, who say [...] that this Homage was perform'd before for the Kingdom of Scotland by any of the Kings of Scotland: But however that is, Richard, [...] to Henry, understanding that there would never be any durable Peace with the Scots so long as that Pretence of Homage was kept up, he renounc'd it to him, as I said before. So that those things alledg'd by Edward in that Apo­logetical Epistle to the Pope, ‘Nec pueri credent nisi qui nondum are [...]a­vantur,’ won't so much as find Credit amongst Chil­dren.

But as to the Pope's Objections, by which he infers the Freedom of Scotland, both from his own, and his Father's Act and Deed, [Page 395] there's not one word; for what would you have a Man do, who had nothing to say? For according to the Practice of Rhetorici­an [...] those things which cannot be answered, must either be pass'd over in silence or elu­ded. The Nobility of England did write to the Pope to the same effect concerning that Question; and affirm'd, that the Homage was not at all to be doubted of, and there­fore they could not bear it that their King should abate one ace of his Right: and they do importunately request of the Pope, that he would not give any Credit unto, or ad­mit of any Probation from those perjur'd, pe [...]fidious, traiterous Scots, the Pests of Man­kind. I believe truly, that it happened to us, as it did of old to the Britains; who though they took an Oath of perpetual Fi­delity from the Saxons, who were their Guests and Mercenaries, yet were at last dis­poil'd of their Country, depriv'd of all their Riches, driven into Wales, suffered all manner of Injuries that could be done or said by the Saxons, and were also lash'd with all manner of Reproaches. Nay, Bed [...] himself does frequently upbraid them with Perfidiousness; though I don't find in any English Historian, that ever the Britains swore Fealty to the Saxons, or much less broke their Oath to them.

[Page 396]These things I have added concerning the Letters that pass'd betwixt Boniface and Ed­ward, that from their Controversy we might have the full Knowledg of this Affair; for we could never have a better nor easier View of what's to be said and thought con­cerning this Homage. But our Neighbours will say, that their Cause is no way prejudg'd nor affected by this Papal Verdict, which is false; for if Scotland was then a Fee of Eng­land, as they assert without either Shame or Authority, the Pope was the most lawful Judg and Ordinary of this Controversy: For Iohn, Grand-father to this Edward, did subject the Kingdom of England to the See of Rome, and took the Jurisdiction thereof upon him: and therefore if the King of Scots was a Sub vassal, to whom should he com­plain concerning the Injury done him, but to his Liege-Lord? The People of Aquitain being oppress'd with Tributes and Impositi­ons by Edward Prince of Wales, they made their Complaints to the French King, which occasion'd the Loss of Aquitain: and accor­ding to the Feudal Law, if the Sub-vassal be cruelly and unjustly us'd by the immediate Vassal, he has liberty to sue him before the Lord who is superior to them both. Not that I do think the Pope was ever Judg in Scots Affairs; but that it was common at [Page 397] that time for all who were oppress'd with Ca­lamities, and unable to resist, to implore the Assistance of the Pope in their Adversi­ty, because he was then believ'd to have a Jurisdiction over all Christian Princes: Nay, he did arrogate the same to himself; alledg­ing that of the Prophet Isaia [...], The Kingdom, or People, which will not serve you, shall be [...]ooted up. When he call'd himself Lord of France upon that account, and threatned Philip the Fair with a Pontifical Thunder­bolt, except he would acknowledg him as such; the French King ordered his Letters to be burnt in the publick Market-place at Paris, the Sorbonists assisting at the same. Nor did he desist from his Purpose, until he depriv'd the Pope both of his Life and Dig­nity. This I bring only, that all Men may know that the Popes did at that time usurp a Power over Emperors and Kings, that so they may wonder the less at his asserting, that the Kingdom of Scotland did appertain to him.

CHAP. XXXII.
Of the v [...]ious Success in this War against th [...] Scots, [...] how all the English were at las [...] thrown out of Scotland.

HItherto we have managed the Questi­on, Whether this Homage was d [...]e by Law or otherwise, with Reasons and Ar­guments; but the remaining Part of the Controversy was submitted to the Decision of the Sword, and managed with the whole Strength of both Kingdoms, unt [...]l Br [...]ce did constrain the King of England by force of Ar [...]s to abj [...]re that Homage which Edward extorted from Ba [...]ol by F [...]aud and Force: And thought I should willingly (now that all things, by the Goodness of God, tend to a perpetual Peace and Friendship) abstain from [...] this old Sor [...], le [...] the Wound which is now heal'd up, should at some time or other bleed afresh; yet Holinshed will not suffer me to forbear, but attacks our Reputation by all Ways and Means imagi­nable. But to return to Bruce; Baliol being thrown but, and his Memory condemned, so that there's no Footsteps of that Family left in Scotland, Bruce and Cummin bewai­ling [Page 399] the Ruin of their Country, to which they themselves [...]ad so much contributed, they entred into a mutual Covenant, that [...] should be invested with the Crown, which was his Due, and that Cummin for [...]is Assist [...]nce should enjoy all the Patrimony which Bruce had in Scotland. But Bruce [...]ving return'd to the English Court, to avoid all Cause of Suspicion, Cu [...]min either [...] [...]ightned with t [...]e Greatness of the Danger, or thinking that he should the more easily attain the Crown, for which he was one of the 12 Competitors, if Bruce were out of the way, he sent the Compact which was sign'd by both their Hands, to K. Edw [...]d, and discovered the Conspiracy. The Letters being receiv'd, Edward accus'd Bruce of T [...]achery, and shew [...]d him them. Whereupon Bruce, dissembling the Matter, [...]romis'd he would not go from Court till [...] made the Charge appear to be false. Ed­ [...]rd having formerly experienc'd his Faith­fulness and Gallantry, did not at first be­lieve that the Letters were real, but suppo­sed that they might be forg'd by his Rival. Bruce in the mean time, made his Esc [...]pe; and having inverted his Horse's Shoes, be­ca [...]se of the Snow, that he might not be [...]rac'd, he fled with all speed into Scotland: And having [...]ound [...] and reproach'd [Page 400] him with the Treason, he kill'd him; and took the Crown upon him at Scoon, accor­ding to the usual Manner of his Ancestors: but the Solemnity was not great, because most of the Nation did still suspect him. However, being inferiour to no Man in Magnanimity, he resolv'd to try his Fortune; and being accompanied with some of his Country-men ill-armed, he engaged Edward Prince of Wales, and A [...]d [...]mar Valence the King of England's Deputy, but was defeated and put to flight. Our Country-men say that he was worsted in thirteen Battels, or Rencounters, before he fled to the Western Islands; and being suppos'd to have been drown'd as passing a River, the English left seeking after him. Then they rag'd against all Scots-men without any Dis [...]inction, dis­arm'd them every where, and th [...]ust them into Prisons and Work-houses. Nay, ac­cording to the Command of Edward the Fa­ther, the Son thought and talk [...] of nothing less than the utter Extermination of the Scots; but the murdering of such a great and dispers'd Multitude, s [...]em'd too difficult; and the Remainders were reserv'd for a mise­rable Servitude. Edward in the mean time, that he might cut off all hopes of any Change, commanded all the principal Men of the Scots to be search'd for, promising and gran­ting [Page 401] great Rewards to those that would [...]etray them: Nor was he deceiv'd in his [...]opes; for `Bruce's three Brethren were taken, and according to Westminster the [...] Simon Fraser▪ as also the invincible [...] who was betray'd by one that had little reason to have done so: and all of 'em being brought to London, they were bar­barously executed, being drawn at Horse­ [...]ils, affix'd to Gibbets, and their diss [...]cted Members hung up in the Publick Places of Scotland to the Terror of others: For Ed­ward was not contented with the bare Death of his Enemies, as is recorded of him in Hi­story for his Cruelty towards Leolin and David Welch Princes, who were betray'd before that time into his hands. The Eng­lish give this Reason for his Cruelty to­wards the Nobility of Scotland, that they were perjur'd Traitors and Covenant-brea­kers. Whereas not one of them could ever be induced either by Intreaty or Reward, as is witnessed by Polydore, to acknow­ledg the King of England for their Sove­raign: But Edward being afraid of them, made no bones to violate the Laws of War; yet he found himself much mistaken in his Opinion, for what he contriv'd for the Terror of the Scots did so enrage [Page 402] them, that every Man had recourse to Arms: Whereas in my Judgment, Edward might have done what he pleas'd with the Scots at that time, if he had treated them with more Clemency; but they being ren­dred mad, look'd about on all hands for a General to renew the War, not being so­licitous for Arms in the least, though they were disarm'd, as knowing that a strong Man never wants a Weapon, Bruce lur­king mean time in the Hebrides, and un­derstanding that [...]arrick was grievously oppressed by the English, being accom­panied with some of his Country-men, and some Souldiers from the Western Islands, he made a Descent upon [...]arrick, rather with a design of Revenge than any hopes of recovering his Crown; and surprizing the English, who did not look for any such thing, he cut them off, storm'd the For­tresses which they possess'd: and having spread his Terror far and near, the Re­mainders of the Scots who either lurk'd, or were oppress'd by grievous Servitude, flock'd to him from all parts, arm'd them­selves with the Spoils of the English; and continuing in action Day and Night, he prevented his own Fame by a sudden March to the Northern Parts, put the English [Page 403] there to rout, and took and demolish'd all their Fortifications: So that having ga­ [...]red together a great Army, his Sub­j [...]c [...]s coming in to him on all sides, he hastned Southward, first routed the Cum­ [...]i [...]i, and then the English in divers Bat­te [...]s; and in one or two Years time, dis­pos [...]ss'd them of the whole Kingdom, all [...] two or three Castles. Edward the Father, being filled with Indignation, [...]rch'd toward Scotland with a mighty A [...]y, but died on the Borders. How he was affected towards the Scots, appears by Westminster and Walsingham; for his whole Discourse when alive, and his Orders to [...] Son when a dying, was utterly to root out the Scotish Nation: and for that End he commanded that his Bones should be carried about with the Army, at the very Sight of which he said the Scots would flee. Our Historians say, that being ask'd, when he was at the Extremity, what should be done with the fifty Scotish Youths whom he had as Hostages, he commanded all of them to be hanged. A cruel Sentence, e­specially at that time; and so by the just Judgment of God, all his Victories vanish'd into Smoak: And `Bruce having gone through much Fatigue, restored the king­dom [Page 404] of Scotland to his antient Dignity▪ This is that Bruce, the Champion of his Country's Liberty, who never being dis­pirited by his Adversity, nor rendred haughty by the Height of Prosperity, turn'd the Disgrace of the Scots, and the Calami­ties of War, upon the Authors of it; and purchas'd so much Military Glory to the Scots, that in his time, says Walsing­ham, twenty English-men durst not ren­counter three Scots. Walsing­ham in fine Edw. I. And that same Au­thor in another place, says that a hundred English would fly at the Sight of two or three Scots. Walsing­ham in Edw. II. Such is the Difference be­twixt Man and Man, and General and Ge­ral. But now I return to Holinshed, and his Edward II.

CHAP. XXXIII.
Of Edward II. and III. and Henry IV. and whether they receiv'd Homage from the Scots.

THIS Edward II. says he, did at first enjoy Scotland peaceably; such is the Madness of this Man, that he blabs what-ever comes into his Head without Author or Sem­blance of Truth: For Edward II. after his Father's Death, led a vast Army into Scot­land, and was join'd also by abundance of Scots; but Bruce having wasted the Count­try through which he was to march, Edward was forc'd to retire into England for want of Forage, pretending that he durst not trust the Scotish Auxiliaries. But Bruce pursuing him, ravaged the most fruitful Provinces of England, and maintain'd his Army there most part of the Winter; and at his return abundance of the Scots who perceiv'd the Fortune of the War chang'd with the Gene­ral, did also join him. Edward being exa­sperated with these things, designed to de­stroy the whole Nation, and gathered toge­ther a numerous Army from all parts of Eng­land; to whom he join'd abundance of fo­reign [Page 406] Souldiers from Normandy, Britany, Aquitain, Flanders, and other transmarin Provinces, which were then subject unto him. There did also flock to him all Men who were drown'd in Debt, Spendthrifts, Criminals, those of desperate Fortunes, and such as had neither Credit nor Wealth to live upon at home, that the Scotish Nation being destroyed they might settle there, as thinking that the very Sight of such an Ar­my was sufficient to conquer the Scots, or at least that by one Day's labour they should purchase Estates to the themselves for ever. Some say there were 300000 fighting-Men in that Army, others 150000, and the least Number mentioned by any Historian is 100000: But Bruce marching against them with 30000 chosen Men, inur'd to all the Fatigues and Hardships of War, routed and put that vast Army to flight, killing 50000, and taking as many: but he behaved himself with much more Magnanimity and Clemency than Ed­ward did after his Victory at Falkirk; and was so far from revenging the barbarous Execution of his three gallant Brethren, and others of the Scotish Peers, or the nume­rous Calamities which the Scots had suffered before, that he us'd his Victory with the greatest Humanity, took care of the Woun­ded; and ordered the Corps of those of Qua­lity [Page 407] to be carried as far as Berwick: By which, [...] Walsingham, he procur'd the inviolable Love of a great many of the English. And yet their Writers do frequently upbraid us with Barbarity and Inhumanity. But the War was not ended thus; for Edward was thrice [...] afterwards by Bruce, twice near York, and once when he besieged Ber­wick. Nor did the Scots content themselves with their Victories in Britain; but sailing over into Ireland under the Conduct of Ed­ward Bruce, Brother of K. Robert, they main­tain'd a War there for four Years together, and Edward was declared King of Ireland; but not knowing how to moderate his For­ [...]ne, and pushing on his Victories too fast, he engaged with the English and Irish in un­known Places, and so was cut off with all that followed him. In this War, which last­ed only about four Years, Polydore says there perish'd 60000 Scots and 30000 English. This I mention that our Neighbours may un­derstand how many Men, and what Loss of Christian Blood this their Commentitious Homage hath cost both Nations. So that what Holinshed says of this Edward II. that he enjoy'd Scotland peaceably at the begin­ning, is most false; for in [...] the very begin­ning of his Reign, he was wholly driven out of Scotland by `Bruce, and forc'd to fight for [Page 408] his own Kingdom of England: and whereas they have writ upon the Tomb of Edward the first at Westminster, ‘Edvardus primus Scotorum malleus hic est;’