a

M. Paris, p. 623.

b

M. Paris, p. 200. Hist. Croys. Cont. p. 474. W. Heming. p. 562. Trivet, p. 168.

c

M. Paris, p. 200.

d

Rymer, vol. i. p. 215.

e

Rymer, vol. i. p. 215. Brady’s App. Nº. 143.

f

M. Paris, p. 200, 202.

g

Ibid. p. 200. M. West. p. 277.

h

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 79. M. West. p. 277.

i

M. Paris, p. 203.

k

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 81.

l

M. Paris, p. 204, 205. Chron de Mullr. p. 195.

m

M. Paris, p. 206. Ann. Waverl. p. 183. W. Heming. p. 563. Trivet, p. 169. M. West. p. 277. Knyghton, p. 2428.

n

Rymer, vol. i. p. 221. M. Paris, p. 207. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 83. M. West. p. 278. Knyghton, p. 2429.

o

M. Paris, p. 256. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 82.

p

Brady’s App. Nº. 144. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 83.

q

M. Paris, p. 210.

r

Trivet, p. 174.

s

Rymer, vol. i. p. 276.

t

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 102.

u

Rymer, vol. i. p. 198. M. Paris, p. 221, 224. Ann. Waverl. p. 188. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 141, 146. M. West. p. 283.

w

M. Paris, p. 217, 218, 259. Ann. Waverl. p. 187. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 129.

x

M. West. p. 282.

y

Clause 9. H. 3. m. 9. and m. 6. d.

z

M. Paris, p. 220.

a

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 137.

b

M. Paris, p. 221. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 138.

c

Coke’s Comment. on Magna Charta, chap. 17.

d

Rymer, vol. i. p. 269. Trivet, p. 179.

e

M. Paris, p. 233.

f

Ibid.

g

Ibid.

h

Ypod. Neustriae, p. 464.

i

P. 252. M. West. p. 216. ascribes this counsel to Peter Bishop of Winchester.

k

M. Paris, p. 259.

l

Ibid. p. 259, 260, 261, 266. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 41, 42. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 220, 221. M. West. p. 291, 301.

m

M. Paris, p. 263.

n

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 151.

o

M. Paris, p. 258.

p

Ibid. p. 265.

q

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 219.

r

M. Paris, p. 265.

s

Ibid. p. 609.

t

M. Paris, p. 271, 272.

u

Rymer, vol. i. p. 448. M. Paris, p. 286.

w

M. Paris, p. 236, 301, 305, 316, 541. M. West. p. 302, 304.

x

M. Paris, p. 484. M. West. p. 338.

y

M. Paris, p. 295, 301.

z

Rymer, vol. i. p. 383.

a

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 150.

b

Trivet, p. 174.

c

M. Paris, p. 491. M. West. p. 338. Knyghton, p. 2436.

d

M. Paris, p. 566, 666. Ann. Waverl. p. 214. Chron. Dunst. vol i. p. 335.

e

M. Paris, p. 301.

f

M. Paris, p. 406.

g

M. Paris, p. 507.

h

M. Paris, p. 393, 394, 398, 399, 405. W. Heming. p. 574. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 153.

i

M. Paris, p. 614.

k

M. Paris, p. 501.

l

M. Paris, p. 501, 507, 518, 578, 606, 625, 648.

m

M. Paris, p. 244.

n

Ibid. p. 254.

o

Rymer, vol. i. p. 323. M. Paris, p. 255, 257.

p

Innocent’s bull in Rymer, vol. i. p. 471, says only 50,000 marks a year.

q

M. Paris, p. 451. The customs were part of Henry’s revenue, and amounted to 6000 pounds a year: They were at first small sums paid by the merchants for the use of the king’s warehouses, measures, weights, c. See Gilbert’s history of the Exch. p. 214.

r

M. Paris, p. 460.

s

M. Paris, p. 480. Ann. Burt. p. 305, 373.

t

M. Paris, p. 474.

u

M. Paris, p. 476.

w

M. Paris, p. 650.

x

Rymer, vol. i. p. 502, 512, 530. M. Paris, p. 599, 613.

y

Rymer, vol. i. p. 587. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 319.

z

M. Paris, p. 614.

a

Rymer, vol. i. p. 547, 548, c.

b

Rymer, vol. i. p. 597, 598.

c

M. Paris, p. 612, 628. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 54.

d

M. Paris, p. 614.

e

M. Paris, p. 619.

f

Rymer, vol. i. p. 624. M. Paris. p. 648.

g

Rymer, vol. i. p. 630.

h

M. Paris, p. 638. The same author, a few pages before, makes Richard’s treasures amount to little more than half the sum, p. 634. The king’s dissipations and expences, throughout his whole reign, according to the same author, had amounted only to about 940,000 marks, p. 638.

i

The sums mentioned by ancient authors, who were almost all monks, are often improbable, and never consistent. But we know from an infallible authority, the public remonstrance to the council of Lyons, that the king’s revenues were below 60,000 marks a year: His brother therefore could never have been master of 700,000 marks; especially as he did not sell his estates in England, as we learn from the same author: And we hear afterwards of his ordering all his woods to be cut, in order to satisfy the rapacity of the German princes: His son succeeded to the earldom of Cornwal and his other revenues.

k

M. Paris, p. 432.

l

M. Paris, p. 498. See farther, p. 578. M. West. p. 348.

m

M. Paris, p. 518, 558, 568. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 293.

n

M. Paris, p. 568.

o

M. Paris, p. 579.

p

M. Paris, p. 580. Ann. Burt. p. 323. Ann. Waverl. p. 210. W. Heming. p. 571. M. West. p. 353.

q

M. Paris, p. 597, 608.

r

Ibid. p. 314.

s

Ibid. p. 315.

t

Rymer, vol. i. p. 459, 513.

u

M. Paris, p. 649.

w

Annal. Theokesbury.

x

Rymer, vol. i. p. 655. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 334. Knyghton, p. 2445.

y

M. Paris, p. 657. Addit. p. 140. Ann. Burt. p. 412.

z

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 336.

a

Chron. T. Wykes, p. 52.

b

Ann. Burt. p. 411.

c

M. Paris, p. 661.

d

Ibid. p. 661, 662. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 53.

e

M. Paris, p. 667. Trivet, p. 209.

f

Annal. Burt. p. 427.

g

Annal. Burt. p. 427.

h

Ibid. p. 428, 439.

i

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 348.

k

M. Paris, p. 604.

l

Rymer, vol. i. p. 675. M. Paris, p. 566. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 53. Trivet, p. 208. M. West. p. 371.

m

Chron. T. Wykes, p. 53.

n

Ann. Burt. p. 389.

o

Rymer, vol. i. p. 755.

p

Ann. Burt. p. 389.

q

Rymer, vol. i. p. 755.

r

Rymer, vol. i. p. 722. M. Paris, p. 666. W. Heming. p. 580. Ypod. Neust. p. 468. Knyghton, p. 2446.

s

M. Paris, p. 667.

t

M.Paris, p. 668. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 55.

u

Rymer, vol. i. p. 724.

w

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 354.

x

Trivet, p. 211. M. West. p. 382, 392.

y

Trivet, p. 211. M. West. p. 382.

z

Chron. T. Wykes, p. 59.

a

Chron. T. Wykes, p. 57.

b

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 358. Trivet, p. 211.

c

M. Paris, p. 669. Trivet, p. 213.

d

M. Paris, p. 668. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 58. W. Heming. p. 580. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 363.

e

Rymer, vol. i. p. 776, 777, c. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 58. Knyghton, p. 2446.

f

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 363.

g

Rymer, vol. i. p. 772. M. West. p. 385. Ypod. Neust. p. 469.

h

M. Paris, p. 669. W. Heming. p. 583.

i

M. Paris, p. 670. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 62. W. Heming. p. 583. M. West. p. 387. Ypod. Neust. p. 469. H. Knyghton, p. 2450.

k

M. Paris, p. 670. M. West. p. 387.

l

Chron. T. Wykes, p. 63.

m

W. Heming. p. 584.

n

W. Heming. p. 584.

o

M. Paris, p. 671. Knyghton, p. 2451.

p

Rymer, vol. i. p. 790, 791, c.

q

Ibid. p. 795. Brady’s appeals, N o . 211, 212. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 63.

r

Rymer, vol. i. p. 792.

s

Knyghton, p. 2451.

t

Chron. T. Wykes, p. 65.

u

Ibid.

w

Rymer, vol. i. p. 793. Brady’s App. N o . 213.

x

Brady’s App. N o . 216, 217. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 373. M. West. p. 385.

y

Rymer, vol. i. p. 798. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 373.

z

Rymer, vol. i. p. 802.

a

Fitz-Stephen, Hist. Quadrip. Hoveden, c.

b

Chron. T. Wykes, p. 66. Ann. Waverl. p. 216.

c

M. Paris, p. 671. Ann. Waverl. p. 211.

d

Knyghton, p. 2457.

e

Ann. Waverl. p. 216.

f

Blackiston’s Mag. Charta. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 378.

g

Chron. T. Wykes, p. 67. Ann. Waverl. p. 218. W. Heming. p. 585. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 383, 384.

h

Chron. de Mailr. p. 232.

i

M. Paris, p. 676. W. Heming. p. 588.

k

M. Paris, p. 675.

l

M. Paris, p. 675.

m

Rymer, vol. i. p. 879, vol. ii. p. 4, 6. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 94. W. Heming. p. 589. Trivet, p. 240.

n

M. Paris, p. 677.

o

Chron. T. Wykes, p. 90.

p

M. Paris, p. 678, 679. W. Heming. p. 520.

q

Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 404.

r

Rymer, vol. i. p. 809. M. Paris, p. 678.

s

Walsing. Edw. I. p. 43.

t

Statute of Merton, chap. 9.

u

Statute of Marlb. chap. 20.

w

Ibid. chap. 16.

x

Statutes at large, p. 6.

y

We learn from Cicero’s orations against Verres, lib. iii. cap. 84, 92, that the price of corn in Sicily was, during the praetorship of Sacerdos, five Denarii a Modius; during that of Verres, which immediately succeeded, only two Sesterces: That is, ten times lower; a presumption, or rather a proof, of the very bad state of tillage in ancient times.

z

See also Knyghton, p. 2444.

a

M. Paris, p. 586.

b

Brussel Traité des Fiefs, vol. i. p. 576.

c

M. Paris, p. 372.

d

Ibid. p. 410.

e

Ibid. p. 525.

f

Ibid. p. 6o6.

g

Ibid. p. 160.

h

Madox, p. 152.

i

M. Paris, p. 613.

k

Brussel, vol. i. p. 622. Du Cange verbo Judaei.

l

Vol. i. p. 155.

m

M. Paris, p. 509.

n

M. Paris, p. 421.

o

Trivet, p. 191.

p

Rymer, vol. i. p. 228. Spelman, p. 326.

q

Page 268.

r

Titles of honour, part 2. chap. 3.

s

Parliamentary Hist. vol. i. p. 151.

t

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 1. Walsing p. 43. Trivet, p. 239.

u

Walsing. p. 44. Trivet, p. 240.

w

Walsing, p. 44. Trivet, p. 241. M. West. p. 402.

x

Walsing. p. 45.

y

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 32, 33.

z

Spellman’s Gloss. in verbo Trailbaston. But Spellman was either mistaken in placing this commission in the fifth year of the king, or it was renewed in 1305. See Rymer, vol. ii. p. 960. Trivet, p. 338. M. West. p. 450.

a

Walsing. p. 48. Heming. vol. i. p. 6.

b

T. Wykes, p. 107.

c

In the year 1290.

d

Walsing. p. 54. Heming. vol. i. p. 20. Trivet, p. 266.

e

Trivet, p. 128.

f

Ann. Waverl. p. 235.

g

Walsing. p. 46, 47. Heming. vol. i. p. 5. Trivet, p. 248.

h

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 68. Walsing. p. 46. Trivet, p. 247.

i

T. Wykes, p. 105.

k

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 88. Walsing. p. 47. Trivet, p. 251. T. Wykes, p. 106.

l

Rymer, p. 92.

m

Dr. Powell’s Hist. of Wales, p. 344, 345.

n

Walsing. p. 50. Heming. vol. i. p. 9. Trivet, p. 258. T. Wykes, p. 110.

o

Heming. vol. i. p. 11. Trivet, p. 257. Ann. Waverl. p. 235.

p

Heming. vol. i. p. 12. Trivet, p. 259. Ann. Waverl. p. 238. T. Wykes, p. 111. M. West. p. 411.

q

Sir J. Wynne, p. 15.

r

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 149, 150, 174.

s

Heming. vol. i. p. 16, 17.

t

Heming. vol. i. p. 29. Trivet, p. 267.

u

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 266.

w

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 482.

x

Heming. vol. i. p. 30. Trivet, p. 268.

y

Heming. vol. i. p. 36.

z

Heming. vol. i. p. 31.

a

Walsing. p. 55.

b

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 559.

c

Hoveden, p. 492, 662. M. Paris, p. 109. M. West. p. 256.

d

P. 662.

e

Neubr. lib. ii. cap. 4. Knyghton, p. 2392.

f

Hoveden, p. 811.

g

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 844.

h

See note [A] at the end of the volume.

[A], p. 89

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 216, 845. There cannot be the least question, that the homage usually paid by the kings of Scotland was not for their crown, but for some other territory. The only question remains, what that territory was? It was not always for the earldom of Huntingdon, nor the honour of Penryth; because we find it sometimes done at a time when these possessions were not in the hands of the kings of Scotland. It is probable, that the homage was performed in general terms without any particular specification of territory; and this inaccuracy had proceeded either from some dispute between the two kings about the territory and some opposite claims, which were compromised by the general homage, or from the simplicity of the age, which employed few words in every transaction. To prove this we need but look into the letter of king Richard, where he resigns the homage of Scotland, reserving the usual homage. His words are, Saepedictus W. Rex ligius homo noster deveniat de omnibus terris de quibus antecessors sui antecessorum nostrorum ligii homines fuerunt, et nobis atque haeredibus nostris fidelitatem jurarunt. Rymer, vol. i. p. 65. These general terms were probably copied from the usual form of the homage itself.

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

A late author of great industry and learning, but full of prejudices, and of no penetration, Mr. Carte, has taken advantage of the undefined terms of the Scotch homage, and has pretended that it was done for Lothian and Galloway, that is, all the territories of the country now called Scotland, lying south of the Clyde and Forth. But to refute this pretension at once, we need only consider, that if these territories were held in fee of the English kings, there would, by the nature of the feudal law, as established in England, have been continual appeals from them to the courts of the lord Paramount; contrary to all the histories and records of that age. We find, that, as soon as Edward really established his superiority, appeals immediately commenced from all parts of Scotland: And that king, in his writ to the king’s-bench, considers them as a necessary consequence of the feudal tenure. Such large territories also would have supplied a considerable part of the English armies, which never could have escaped all the historians. Not to mention that there is not any instance of a Scotch prisoner of war being tried as a rebel, in the frequent hostilities between the kingdoms, where the Scottish armies were chiefly filled from the southern counties.

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

It is certain, that in very ancient language, Scotland means only the country north of the friths of Clyde and Forth. I shall not make a parade of literature to prove it; because I do not find that this point is disputed by the Scots themselves. The southern country was divided into Galloway and Lothian; and the latter comprehended all the south-east counties. This territory was certainly a part of the ancient kingdom of Northumberland, and was entirely peopled by Saxons, who afterwards received a great mixture of Danes among them. It appears from all the English histories, that the whole kingdom of Northumberland paid very little obedience to the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, who governed after the dissolution of the heptarchy; and the northern and remote parts of it seem to have fallen into a kind of anarchy, sometimes pillaged by the Danes, sometimes joining them in their ravages upon other parts of England. The kings of Scotland, lying nearer them, took at last possession of the country, which had scarcely any government; and we are told by Matthew of Westminster, p. 193. that king Edgar made a grant of the territory to Kenneth III. that is, he resigned claims, which he could not make effectual, without bestowing on them more trouble and expence than they were worth: For these are the only grants of provinces made by kings; and so ambitious and active a prince as Edgar would never have made presents of any other kind. Tho’ Matthew of Westminster’s authority may appear small with regard to so remote a transaction; yet we may admit it in this case, because Ordericus Vitalis, a good authority, tells us, p. 701. that Malcolm acknowledged to William Rufus, that the Conqueror had confirmed to him the former grant of Lothian. But it follows not, because Edgar made this species of grant to Kenneth, that therefore he exacted homage for that territory. Homage and all the rites of the feudal law were very little known among the Saxons; and we may also suppose, that the claim of Edgar was so antiquated and weak, that, in resigning it, he made no very valuable concession, and Kenneth might well refuse to hold, by so precarious a tenure, a territory, which he at present held by the sword. In short, no author says, he did homage for it.

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

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

i

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 539, 845. Walsing. p. 56.

k

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 543. See note [B] at the end of the volume.

[B], p. 90

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

l

Page 56. M. West. p. 436. It is said by Hemingford, vol. i. p. 33, that the king menaced violently the Scotch barons, and forced them to compliance, at least to silence.

m

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 548.

n

Walsing. p. 58.

o

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 529, 545. Walsing. p. 56. Heming. vol. i. p. 33, 34. Trivet, p. 260. M. West. p. 415.

p

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 577, 578, 579.

q

Ibid. p. 546.

r

Ibid. p. 555, 556.

s

Ibid. p. 529. Walsing. p. 56, 57.

t

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 531.

u

Ibid. p. 573.

w

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 590, 591, 593, 600.

x

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 590.

y

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 603, 605, 606, 608, 615, 616.

z

Ryley’s Placit. Parl. p. 152, 153.

*

See note [C] at the end of the volume.

[C], p. 94

See Rymer, vol. ii. p. 533. where Edward writes to the King’s Bench to receive appeals from Scotland. He knew the practice to be new and unusual; yet he establishes it as an infallible consequence of his superiority. We learn also from the same collection, p. 603, that immediately upon receiving the homage, he changed the style of his address to the Scotch king, whom he now calls dilecto fideli, instead of fratri dilecto fideli, the appellation which he had always before used to him; see p. 109. 124. 168. 280. 1064. This is a certain proof, that he himself was not deceived, as was scarcely indeed possible, but that he was conscious of his usurpation. Yet he solemnly swore afterwards to the justice of his pretensions, when he defended them before pope Boniface.

a

Walsing. p. 58. Heming. vol. i. p. 39.

b

Walsing. p. 58.

c

Heming. vol. i. p. 40. M. West. p. 419.

d

Heming. vol. i. p. 40.

e

Walsing. p. 60. Trivet, p. 274. Chron. Dunst. vol. ii. p. 609.

f

Trivet, p. 275.

g

Ibid.

h

Trivet, p. 276.

i

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 619, 620. Walsing. p. 61. Heming. vol. i. p. 42, 43. Trivet, p. 277.

k

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 620, 622. Walsing. p. 61. Trivet, p. 278.

l

Heming. vol. i. p. 51.

m

Chron. Dunst. vol. ii. p. 622.

n

Walsing. p. 62. Heming. vol. i. p. 55 Trivet, p. 282. Chron. Dunst. vol. ii. p. 622.

o

Trivet, p. 279.

p

Heming. vol. i. p. 49.

q

Trivet, p. 284. Chron. Dunst. vol. ii. p. 642.

r

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 680, 681, 695, 697. Heming. vol. i. p. 76. Trivet, p. 285.

s

Cotton’s Abr. p. 11.

t

Madox’s Baronia Anglica, p. 114.

u

Madox’s Baronia Anglica, p. 115.

w

We hear only of one king, Henry II. who took this pains; and the record, called Liber niger Scaccarii, was the result of it.

x

Madox, Bar. Ang. p. 116.

y

Ibid. p. 122. Hist. of Exch. p. 404.

z

In order to pay the sum of 100,000 marks, as king Richard’s ransom, twenty shillings were imposed on each knight’s fee. Had the fees remained on the original footing, as settled by the Conqueror, this scutage would have amounted to 90,000 marks, which was nearly the sum required: But we find, that other grievous taxes were imposed to complete it: A certain proof, that many frauds and abuses had prevailed in the roll of knights’ fees.

a

Chancellor West’s enquiry into the manner of creating peers, p. 43, 46, 47, 55.

b

In Britann. p. 122.

c

Spellm. Gloss. in voce Comes.

d

Essays on British antiquities. This practice, however, seems to have been more familiar in Scotland and the kingdoms on the continent, than in England.

e

There are instances of princes of the blood who accepted of the office of sheriff. Spellman in voce Vicecomes.

f

Rot. Claus. 38. Hen. III. m. 7. and 12 d.: As also Rot. Claus. 42. Hen. III. m. 1. d. Prynne’s Pref. to Cotton’s Abridgment.

g

Brady’s answer to Petyt, from the records, p. 151.

h

Brady’s Treatise of Boroughs, App. N o . 13.

i

Ibid. p. 31. from the records. Heming. vol. i. p. 52. M. West. p. 422. Ryley, p. 462.

k

Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 21.

l

Brady of Boroughs, App. N o . 1, 2, 3.

m

The king had not only the power of talliating the inhabitants within his own demesnes, but that of granting to particular barons the power of talliating the inhabitants within theirs. See Brady’s answer to Petyt, p. 118. Madox’s Hist. of the Exchequer, p. 518.

n

Writs were issued to about 120 cities and boroughs.

o

Brady of Boroughs, p. 25, 33, from the records. The writs of the parliament immediately preceding, remain; and the return of knights is there required, but not a word of the boroughs: A demonstration, that this was the very year in which they commenced. In the year immediately preceding, the taxes were levied by a seeming free consent of each particular borough, beginning with London. Id. p. 31, 32, 33, from the records. Also his answer to Petyt, p. 40, 41.

p

Reliquia Spellm. p. 64. Prynne’s pref. to Cotton’s Abridg. and the Abridg. passim.

q

Brady of Boroughs, p. 59, 60.

r

Ibid. p. 37, 38, from the records, and append. p. 19. Also his append. to his answ. to Petyt, Record. And his gloss. in Verb. Communitas Regn. p. 33.

s

Ryley’s Placit. Parl. p. 241, 242, c. Cotton’s Abridg. p. 14.

t

Brady of Boroughs, p. 52. from the records. There is even an instance in the reign of Edward III. when the king named all the deputies. Id. answ. to Petyt, p. 161. If he fairly named the most considerable and creditable burgesses, little exception would be taken; as their business was not to check the king, but to reason with him, and consent to his demands. It was not till the reign of Richard II. that the sheriffs were deprived of the power of omitting boroughs at pleasure. See Stat. at large, 5th Richard II. cap. 4.

u

See note [D] at the end of the volume.

[D], p. 108

Throughout the reign of Edw. I. the assent of the commons is not once expressed in any of the enacting clauses; nor in the reigns ensuing, till the 9 Edw. III. nor in any of the enacting clauses of 16 Rich. II. Nay even so low as Hen. VI. from the beginning till the 8th of his reign, the assent of the commons is not once expressed in any enacting clause. See preface to Ruffhead’s edit. of the Statutes, p. 7. If it should be asserted, that the commons had really given their assent to these statutes, though they are not expressly mentioned; this very omission, proceeding, if you will, from carelessness, is a proof how little they were respected. The commons were so little accustomed to transact public business, that they had no speaker, till after the parliament 6th Edw. III. See Prynne’s preface to Cotton’s abridg. Not till the first of Richard II. in the opinion of most antiquaries. The commons were very unwilling to meddle in any state affairs, and commonly either referred themselves to the lords, or desired a select committee of that house to assist them, as appears from Cotton. 5 E. III. n. 5; 15 E. III. n. 17; 21 E. III. n. 5; 47 E. III. n. 5; 50 E. III. n. 10; 51 E. III. n. 18; 1 R. II. n. 12; 2 R. II. n. 12; 5 R. II. n. 14, 2 parl. 6 R. II. n. 14; parl. 2. 6 R. II. n. 8. c.

w

In those instances found in Cotton’s abridgement, where the king appears to answer of himself the petitions of the commons, he probably exerted no more than that power, which was long inherent in the crown, of regulating matters by royal edicts or proclamations. But no durable or general statute seems ever to have been made by the king from the petition of the commons alone, without the assent of the peers. It is more likely that the peers alone, without the commons, would enact statutes.

x

Brady’s answ. to Petyt, p. 85. from the records.

y

Cotton’s abridgement, p. 13.

z

See note [E] at the end of the volume.

[E], p. 109

It was very agreeable to the maxims of all the feudal governments, that every order of the state should give their consent to the acts which more immediately concerned them; and as the notion of a political system was not then so well understood, the other orders of the state were often not consulted on these occasions. In this reign, even the merchants, though no public body, granted the king impositions on merchandize, because the first payments came out of their pockets. They did the same in the reign of Edward III. but the commons had then observed that the people paid these duties, though the merchants advanced them; and they therefore remonstrated against this practice. Cotton’s abridg. p. 39. The taxes imposed by the knights on the counties were always lighter than those which the burgesses laid on the boroughs; a presumption, that in voting those taxes, the knights and burgesses did not form the same house. See Chancellor West’s enquiry into the manner of creating peers, p. 8. But there are so many proofs, that those two orders of representatives were long separate, that it is needless to insist on them. Mr. Carte, who had carefully consulted the rolls of parliament, affirms, that they never appear to have been united till the 16th of Edward III. See Hist. vol. ii. p. 451. But it is certain that this union was not even then final: In 1372, the burgesses acted by themselves, and voted a tax after the knights were dismissed. See Tyrrel, Hist. vol. iii. p. 734. from Rot. Claus. 46 Edw. III. n. 9. In 1376, they were the knights alone, who passed a vote for the removal of Alice Pierce from the king’s person, if we may credit Walsingham, p. 189. There is an instance of a like kind in the reign of Richard II. Cotton, p. 193. The different taxes voted by those two branches of the lower house, naturally kept them separate: But as their petitions had mostly the same object, namely, the redress of grievances, and the support of law and justice both against the crown and the barons, this cause as naturally united them, and was the reason why they at last joined in one house for the dispatch of business. The barons had few petitions. Their privileges were of more ancient date: Grievances seldom affected them: They were themselves the chief oppressors. In 1333, the knights by themselves concurred with the bishops and barons in advising the king to stay his journey into Ireland. Here was a petition which regarded a matter of state, and was supposed to be above the capacity of the burgesses. The knights, therefore, acted apart in this petition. See Cotton, abridg. p. 13. Chief baron Gilbert thinks, that the reason why taxes always began with the commons or burgesses was, that they were limited by the instructions of their boroughs. See Hist. of the Exchequer, p. 37.

a

See note [F] at the end of the volume.

[F], p. 109

The chief argument from ancient authority, for the opinion that the representatives of boroughs preceded the forty-ninth of Henry III. is the famous petition of the borough of St. Albans, first taken notice of by Selden, and then by Peyt, Brady, Tyrrel, and others. In this petition, presented to the parliament in the reign of Edward II. the town of St. Albans asserts, that though they held in capite of the crown, and owed only, for all other service, their attendance in parliament, yet the sheriff had omitted them in his writs; whereas both in the reign of the king’s father, and all his predecessors, they had always sent members. Now, say the defenders of this opinion, if the commencement of the house of commons were in Henry III.’s reign, this expression could not have been used. But Madox, in his History of the Exchequer, p. 522, 523, 524, has endeavoured, and with great reason, to destroy the authority of this petition for the purpose alleged. He asserts, first, that there was no such tenure in England as that of holding by attendance in parliament, instead of all other service. Secondly, That the borough of St. Albans never held of the crown at all, but was always demesne land of the abbot. It is no wonder, therefore, that a petition which advances two falsehoods, should contain one historical mistake, which indeed amounts only to an inaccurate and exaggerated expression; no strange matter in ignorant Burgesses of that age. Accordingly St. Albans continued still to belong to the abbot. It never held of the crown, till after the dissolution of the monasteries. But the assurance of these petitioners is remarkable. They wanted to shake off the authority of their abbot, and to hold of the king; but were unwilling to pay any services even to the crown: Upon which they framed this idle petition, which later writers have made the foundation of so many inferences and conclusions. From the tenor of the petition it appears, that there was a close connection between holding of the crown, and being represented in parliament: The latter had scarcely ever place without the former: Yet we learn from Tyrrel’s Append. vol. iv. that there were some instances to the contrary. It is not improbable, that Edward followed the roll of the earl of Leicester, who had summoned, without distinction, all the considerable boroughs of the kingdom; among which there might be some few that did not hold of the crown. Edward also found it necessary to impose taxes on all the boroughs in the kingdom without distinction. This was a good expedient for augmenting his revenue. We are not to imagine, because the house of commons have since become of great importance, that the first summoning of them would form any remarkable and striking epoch, and be generally known to the people even seventy or eighty years after. So ignorant were the generality of men in that age, that country burgesses would readily imagine an innovation, seemingly so little material, to have existed from time immemorial, because it was beyond their own memory, and perhaps that of their fathers. Even the parliament in the reign of Henry V. say, that Ireland had, from the beginning of time, been subject to the crown of England. (See Brady.) And surely, if any thing interests the people above all others, it is war and conquests, with their dates and circumstances.

b

Archbishop Wake’s State of the church of England, p. 235. Brady of Boroughs, p. 34. Gilbert’s Hist. of the Exch. p. 46.

c

Ann. Waverl. p. 227, 228. T. Wykes, p. 99, 120.

d

Gilbert’s Hist. of Exch. p. 51, 54.

e

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 692. Walsing. p. 64. Heming. vol. i. p. 84. Trivet, p. 286.

f

Heming. vol. i. p. 75.

g

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 607. Walsing. p. 66. Heming. vol. i. p. 92.

h

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 718. Walsing. p. 67. Heming. vol. i. p. 99. Trivet, p. 292.

i

Walsing. p. 68. Trivet, p. 299.

k

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 726. Trivet, p. 295.

l

Heming. vol. i. p. 72, 73, 74.

m

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 761. Walsing. p. 68.

n

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 706. Heming, vol. i. p. 104.

o

Heming. vol. i. p. 107. Trivet, p. 296. Chron. Dunst. vol. ii. p. 652.

p

Heming. vol. i. p. 107.

q

Walsing. p. 65. Heming. vol. i. p. 51.

r

Walsing. p. 69. Heming. vol. i. p. 107.

s

M. West. p. 429.

t

Heming. vol. i. p. 109.

u

Heming. vol. i. p. 108, 109. Chron. Dunst. p. 653.

w

Chron. Dunst. vol. ii. p. 654.

x

Walsing. p. 69. Trivet, p. 296.

y

Heming. vol. i. p. 52, 110.

z

Heming. vol. i. p. 111.

a

Walsing. p. 69.

b

Heming. vol. i. p. 112.

c

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 783. Walsing. p. 70.

d

M. West. p. 430.

e

Heming. vol. i. p. 113.

f

Heming. vol. i. p. 114. M. West. p. 430.

g

Walsing. p. 72. Heming. vol. i. p. 115. Trivet, p. 302.

h

Walsing. p. 72. Heming. vol. i. p. 117. Trivet, p. 304.

i

Heming. vol. i. p. 138.

k

Walsing. p. 73. Heming. vol. i. p. 138, 139, 140, 141. Trivet, p. 308.

l

Walsing. p. 74. Heming. vol. i. p. 143.

m

Heming. vol. i. p. 143.

n

Heming. vol. i. p. 159.

o

Heming. vol. i. p. 167, 168.

p

Heming. vol. i. p. 168.

q

Hemingford, vol. i. p. 170.

r

Walsing. p. 80. We are told by Tyrrel, vol. ii. p. 145. from the Chronicle of St. Albans, that the barons not content with the execution of the charter of forests, demanded of Edward as high terms as had been imposed on his father by the earl of Leicester: But no other historian mentions this particular.

s

Heming. vol. i. p. 171. M. West. p. 431, 433.

t

Brady, vol. ii. p. 84. Carte, vol. ii. p. 292.

u

It must however be remarked, that the king never forgave the chief actors in this transaction, and he found means afterwards to oblige both the constable and mareschal to resign their offices into his hands. The former received a new grant of it: But the office of mareschal was given to Thomas of Brotherton, the king’s second son.

w

Heming. vol. i. p. 146.

x

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 817. Heming. vol. i. p. 149. Trivet, p. 310.

y

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 823.

z

Walsing. p. 70. Heming. vol. i. p. 118. Trivet, p. 299.

a

Walsing. p. 70. Heming. vol. i. p. 118.

b

Heming. vol. i. p. 121, 122.

c

Heming. vol. i. p. 127.

d

On the 11th of September 1297.

e

Walsing. p. 73. Heming. vol. i. p. 127, 128, 129. Trivet, p. 307.

f

Heming. vol. i. p. 130.

g

Heming. vol. i. p. 131, 132, 133.

h

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 813.

i

Walsing. p. 75. Heming. vol. i. p. 163.

k

Walsing. p. 76. T. Wykes, p. 127. Heming. vol. i. p. 163, 164, 165. Trivet, p. 313, says only 20,000. M. West. p. 431, says 40,000.

l

This story is told by all the Scotch writers; though it must be owned that Trivet and Hemingford, authors of good credit, both agree that Bruce was not at that time in Edward’s army.

m

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 844.

n

Ibid. p. 863.

o

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 873. Walsing. p. 85. Heming. vol. i. p. 186. Trivet, p. 330. M. West. p. 443.

p

Heming. vol. i. p. 197.

q

Ibid. p. 205.

r

Ryley, p. 506.

s

Brady’s hist. vol. ii. App. N o . 27.

t

M. West. p. 453.

u

Walsing. p. 91. Heming. vol. i. p. 222, 223. Trivet, p. 344.

w

Heming. vol. i. p. 223. M. West. p. 456.

x

Institute, p. 156.

y

History of the English law, p. 158, 163.

z

Articuli super Cart. cap. 6. Edward enacted a law to this purpose; but it is doubtful, whether he ever observed it. We are sure that scarcely any of his successors did. The multitude of these letters of protection were the ground of a complaint by the commons in 3 Edward II. See Ryley, p. 525. This practice is declared illegal by the statute of Northampton passed in the second of Edward III. but it still continued, like many other abuses. There are instances of it so late as the reign of queen Elizabeth.

a

Statute of Winton.

b

Statute of Acton Burnel.

c

Statute of conspirators.

d

Spelman. Gloss. in verbo justiciarius. Gilbert’s Hist. of the Exchequer, p. 8.

e

Brady of Boroughs, p. 25, from the records.

f

P. 234. See also M. West, p. 409.

g

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 77, 107.

h

Id. p. 862.

i

Anderson’s history of commerce, vol. i. p. 137.

k

Anderson’s hist. of commerce, vol. i. p. 146.

l

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 361. It is the charter of Edw. I. which is there confirmed by Edw. III.

m

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 530.

n

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 1092.

o

Trivet, p. 346.

p

Rymer, vol. iii. p. i. Heming, vol. i. p. 243. Walsing. p. 96.

q

T de la More, p. 593. Walsing. p. 97.

r

T. de la More, p. 593. Trivet, cont. p. 3.

s

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 47. Ypod. Neust. p. 499.

t

Brady’s App. N o . 49.

u

Trivet, cont. p. 5.

w

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 80.

x

Ibid. p. 92. Murimuth, p. 39.

y

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 87.

z

Heming. vol. i. p. 248. T. de la More, p. 593.

a

Rymer, vol. iii, p. 167.

b

Brady’s App. N o . 50. Heming, vol. i. p. 247. Walsing. p. 97. Ryley, p. 526.

c

Brady’s App. N o . 51.

d

Ryley’s Placit. Parl. p. 530, 541.

e

Brady’s App. N o . 53. Walsing. p. 98.

f

Trivet, cont. p. 4.

g

Walsing. p. 101.

h

Walsing. p. 101.

i

Rymer, vol. ii. p. 324.

k

T de la More, p. 593.

l

Dugd. Baron. vol. ii. p. 44.

m

Walsing. p. 101. T. de la More, p. 593. Trivet, cont. p. 9.

n

Ryley, p. 538. Rymer, vol. iii. p. 366.

o

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 481.

p

T. de la More, p. 594.

q

Ibid.

r

Ypod. Neust. p. 501.

s

Ryley, p. 560. Rymer, vol. iii. p. 722.

t

Brady, vol. ii. p. 122. from the records, app. No. 61. Ryley, p. 560.

u

Dugd. Baron. vol. i. p. 389.

w

T. de la More, p. 594.

x

Walsingham, p. 113. T. de la More, p. 595. Murimuth, p. 55.

y

Trivet, cont. p. 25.

z

Monach. Malmes.

a

Murimuth, p. 55.

b

Tyrrel, vol. ii. p. 280. from the register of C. C. Canterbury.

c

Walsing. p. 114.

d

Tottle’s collect. part 2. p. 50. Walsing. p. 114.

e

Tottle’s collect. part 2. p. 54. Rymer, vol. iii p. 891.

f

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 89. Walsing. p. 114, 115. T. de la More, p. 595. Murimuth, p. 56.

g

Walsing. p. 115.

h

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 907. T. de la More, p. 595.

i

Walsing. p. 115. Murimuth, p. 57.

k

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 958.

l

Walsing. p. 115.

m

Ypod. Neust. p. 504.

n

T. de la More, p. 596. Walsing. p. 116.

o

Tyrrel, vol. ii. p. 291. from the records.

p

Leland’s Coll. vol. i. p. 668.

q

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 1022. Murimuth, p. 60.

r

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 74, 98.

s

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 7, 8, 20. T. de la More, p. 596. Walsing. p. 120. Ypod. Neust. p. 506.

t

T. de la More, p. 598. Murimuth, p. 65.

u

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 184, 188, 225.

w

T. de la More, p. 598.

x

Walsing. p. 123. Ypod. Neust. p. 507. T. de la More, p. 598. Murimuth, p. 66.

y

Ypod. Neust. p. 508.

z

Walsing. p. 123.

a

Walsing. p. 124. T. de la More, p. 599. Murimuth, p. 66.

b

Walsing, p. 124.

c

Murimuth, p. 67.

d

Leland’s Coll. vol. i. p. 673. T. de la More, p. 599. Walsing. p. 125. M. Froissart, liv. i. chap. 13.

e

Walsing. p. 125. Ypod. Neust. p. 508.

f

Walsing, p. 126. Murimuth, p. 68.

g

Knyghton, p. 2765, 2766. Brady’s App. N o . 72.

h

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 137. Walsing. p. 125.

i

Walsing. p. 126.

k

Anonymi Hist. p. 838.

l

T. de la More, p. 602.

m

Cotton’s Abridg. p. 8.

n

Cotton’s Abridg. p. 66, 81. Rymer, vol. v. p. 600.

o

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 31, 101.

p

It was pretended, that he kissed the knights who received him on the mouth, navel, and breech. Dupuy, p. 15, 16. Wals. p. 99.

q

Vertot, vol. ii. p. 142.

r

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 323, 956. vol. iv. p. 47. Ypod. Neust. p. 506.

s

Trivet, cont. p. 17, 18.

t

Wals. p. 107.

u

Rot. Parl. 7 Edw. II. n. 35, 36. Ypod. Neust. p. 502.

w

Murimuth, p. 48. Walsingham, p. 108, says it rose to six pounds.

x

Ypod. Neust. p. 502. Trivet, cont. p. 18.

y

Dugdale passim.

z

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 388.

a

Rymer, vol. iii. p. 770.

b

Brady’s hist. vol. ii. p. 143, from Claus. 15 Edw. II. M. 14. Dors. in cedula.

c

Ypod. Neust. p. 502. Wals. p. 107.

d

Ypod. Neust. p. 503. T. de la More, p. 594. Trivet, cont. p. 22. Murimuth, p. 51.

e

Ypod. Neust. p. 504.

f

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 245, 257, 258, c.

g

Froissard, liv. iv. chap. 18.

h

Ibid. liv. i. chap. 17.

i

Ibid. liv. iv. chap. 19.

k

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 312. Froissard, liv. iv. chap. 19.

l

Froissard, liv. iv. chap. 19.

m

Froissard, liv. iv. chap. 19. Hemingford, p. 268. Ypod. Neust. p. 509. Knyghton, p. 2552.

n

Froissard, liv. iv. chap. 19.

o

Rymer, p. 337. Heming. p. 270. Anon. Hist. p. 392.

p

Ypod. Neust. p. 510.

q

Knyghton, p. 2554.

r

Avesbury, p. 8. Anon. Hist. p. 395.

s

Heming. p. 271. Ypod. Neust. p. 510. Knyghton, p. 2555.

t

Avesbury, p. 9.

u

Brady’s App. No. 83. Anon. Hist. p. 397, 398. Knyghton, p. 2556.

w

Cotton’s Abridg. p. 85, 86.

x

Cotton’s Abridg. p. 10.

y

Cotton’s Abridg.

z

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 384.

a

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 251.

b

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 21.

c

Heming. p. 272. Walsing. p. 131. Knyghton, p. 2560.

d

Knyghton, p. 2561.

e

Heming. p. 273. Walsing. p. 131. Knyghton, p. 2561.

f

Heming. p. 273. Knyghton, p. 2561.

g

Cotton’s Abridg.

h

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 564, 565, 566.

i

Heming. p. 275, 276, 277. Knyghton, p. 2559. Otterborne, p. 115.

k

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 590.

l

Ibid. p. 614.

m

Froissard, liv. 1. chap. 4.

n

Id. liv. i. chap. 22.

o

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 477, 481. Froissard, liv. 1. chap. 25. Anon. Hist. p. 394. Walsing. p. 130. Murimuth, p. 73.

p

Froissard, liv. 1. chap. 29.

q

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 747. Froissard, liv. 1. chap. 27.

r

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 777.

s

Froissard, liv. 4. chap. 29, 33, 36.

t

Froissard, liv. 1. chap. 30. Meyerus.

u

Froissard, liv. 1. chap. 30.

w

Cotton’s Abridg.

x

Dugd. Baron. vol. ii. p. 146.

y

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 35.

z

Heming. p. 303. Walsingham, p. 143.

a

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 39. Heming. p. 305.

b

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 30.

c

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 41, 42, 43. Heming. p. 307. Walsing. p. 143.

d

Cotton’s Abridg. p. 17.

e

14 Edward III.

f

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 51. Avesbury, p. 56. Heming. p. 321.

g

Walsing. p. 148.

h

Rymer, vol. v. p. 197.

i

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 57.

k

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 54.

l

Du Tillet, Recueil de Traitéz, c. Heming. p. 325, 326. Walsing. p. 149.

m

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 64. Avesbury, p. 65.

n

Heming. p. 352. Ypod. Neust. p. 514. Knyghton, p. 2580.

o

Ypod. Neust. p. 513.

p

Avesbury, p. 70. Heming. p. 326. Walsingham, p. 150.

q

Heming. p. 339. Ang. Sacra, vol. i. p. 21, 22. Walsingham, p. 153.

r

Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p. 27.

s

Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p. 38, 39, 40, 41.

t

15 Edw. III.

u

Statutes at Large, 15 Edw. III. That this protest of the king’s was secret appears evidently, since otherwise it would have been ridiculous in the parliament to have accepted of his assent: Besides the king owns that he dissembled, which would not have been the case, had his protest been public.

w

Statutes at Large, 15 Edw. III.

x

Cotton’s Abridgm. p. 38, 39.

y

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 64.

z

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 65, 66, 67, 68.

a

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 69.

b

Ibid. chap. 70, 71.

c

Ibid. chap. 73.

d

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 81.

e

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 81.

f

Ibid. chap. 93.

g

Ibid. chap. 94.

h

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 95.

i

Ibid. chap. 99. Avesbury, p. 102.

k

Heming. p. 359.

l

Rymer, vol. v. p. 453, 454, 459, 466, 496. Heming. p. 376.

m

Froissard, liv. x. chap. 96. p. 100.

n

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 103. Avesbury, p. 121.

o

It is reported of this prince, that, having once, before the attack of a town, promised the soldiers the plunder, one private man happened to fall upon a great chest full of money, which he immediately brought to the earl, as thinking it too great for himself to keep possession of it. But Derby told him, that his promise did not depend on the greatness or smallness of the sum; and ordered him to keep it all for his own use.

p

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 104.

q

Ibid. chap. 110.

r

Ibid. chap. 112.

s

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 120.

t

Ibid. chap. 121.

u

Ibid. chap. 134.

w

Avesbury, p. 123.

x

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 121.

y

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 122.

z

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 124.

a

Ibid. chap. 125.

b

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 125.

c

Ibid. chap. 126, 127.

d

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 127.

e

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 128.

f

Jean Villani, lib. 12. cap. 66.

g

Du Gange Gloss. in verb. Bombarda.

h

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 130.

i

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 130.

k

Ibid.

l

Ibid. chap. 131.

m

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 131. Knyghton, p. 2588.

n

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 130. Walsingham, p. 166.

o

Knyghton, p. 2588.

p

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 116.

q

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 133.

r

Ibid. chap. 136.

s

Ibid. chap. 143. Walsingham, p. 168. Ypod. Neust. p. 517, 518.

t

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 137.

u

Ibid. chap. 138.

w

Ibid. chap. 138.

x

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 139.

y

Rymer, vol. v. p. 537.

z

Froissard, liv. I. chap. 144, 145. Avesbury, p. 161, 162.

a

Froissard, liv. 1. chap. 146.

b

Froissard, liv. I. chap. 146.

*

See note [G] at the end of the volume.

[G], p. 238

This story of the six burgesses of Calais, like all other extraordinary stories, is somewhat to be suspected; and so much the more as Avesbury, p. 167, who is particular in his narration of the surrender of Calais, says nothing of it: and on the contrary extols in general the king’s generosity and lenity to the inhabitants. The numberless mistakes of Froissard, proceeding either from negligence, credulity, or love of the marvellous, invalidate very much his testimony, even though he was a contemporary, and though his history was dedicated to queen Philippa herself. It is a mistake to imagine, that the patrons of dedications read the books, much less vouch for all the contents of them. It is not a slight testimony, that should make us give credit to a story so dishonourable to Edward, especially after that proof of his humanity, in allowing a free passage to all the women, children, and infirm people, at the beginning of the siege; at least, it is scarcely to be believed, that, if the story has any foundation, he seriously meant to execute his menaces against the six townsmen of Calais.

c

Froissard, liv. 1. chap. 146.

d

Froissard, liv. 1. chap. 140, 141, 142.

*

See note [H] at the end of the volume.

[H], p. 243

There was a singular instance about this time of the prevalence of chivalry and gallantry in the nations of Europe. A solemn duel of thirty knights against thirty was fought between Bembrough, an Englishman, and Beaumanoir, a Breton, of the party of Charles of Blois. The knights of the two nations came into the field; and before the combat began, Beaumanoir called out, that it would be seen that day who had the fairest mistresses. After a bloody combat the Bretons prevailed; and gained for their prize, full liberty to boast of their mistresses’ beauty. It is remarkable, that two such famous generals as Sir Robert Knolles, and Sir Hugh Calverley, drew their swords in this ridiculous contest. See Pere Daniel, vol. ii. p. 536, 537, c. The women not only instigated the champions to those rough, if not bloody frays of tournament; but also frequented the tournaments during all the reign of Edward, whose spirit of gallantry encouraged this practice. See Knyghton, p. 2597.

e

Stowe’s Survey, p. 478. There were buried 50,000 bodies in one churchyard, which Sir Walter Manny had bought for the use of the poor. The same author says, that there died above 50,000 persons of the plague in Norwich, which is quite incredible.

f

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 144.

g

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 146. Avesbury, p. 243.

h

Froissard, liv. I. chap. 144, 146.

i

Froissard, liv. I. chap. 144. Avesbury, p. 206. Walsing. p. 171.

k

Walsing. p. 171.

l

Rymer, vol. v. p. 823. Ypod. Neust. p. 521.

m

Walsing. p. 171.

n

Froissard, liv. I. chap. 158. Walsing. p. 171.

o

Froissard, liv. I. chap. 161.

p

Froissard, liv. I. chap. 162.

q

Rymer, vol. vi. p. 72, 154. Froissard, liv. I. chap. 164.

r

Froissard, liv. I. chap. 164.

s

Poul. Cemil. p. 197.

t

Froissard, liv. I. chap. 168.

u

Rymer, vol. vi. p. 3.

w

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 173.

x

Rymer, vol. vi. p. 45, 46, 52, 56. Froissard, liv. i. chap. 174. Walsing. p. 173.

y

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 182, 183, 184.

z

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 181.

a

Ibid. chap. 187.

b

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 201.

c

Ibid. chap. 205.

d

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 208. Walsing. p. 174.

e

Rymer, vol. vi p. 461. Walsing. p. 174.

f

Walsing. p. 175.

g

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 211.

h

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 211.

i

Rymer, vol. vi. p. 178. Froissard, liv. i. chap. 212.

k

See note [I] at the end of the volume.

[I], p. 259

This is a prodigious sum, and probably near the half of what the king received from the parliament during the whole course of his reign. It must be remarked, that a tenth and fifteenth (which was always thought a high grant) were, in the eighth year of his reign, fixed at about 29,000 pounds: There were said to be near 30,000 sacks of wool exported every year: A sack of wool was at a medium sold for five pounds. Upon these suppositions it would be easy to compute all the parliamentary grants, taking the list as they stand in Tyrrel, vol. iii. p. 780: Though somewhat must still be left to conjecture. This king levied more money on his subjects than any of his predecessors; and the parliament frequently complained of the poverty of the people, and the oppressions under which they laboured. But it is to be remarked, that a third of the French king’s ransom was yet unpayed when war broke out anew between the two crowns: His son chose rather to employ his money in combating the English, than in enriching them. See Rymer, vol. viii. p. 315.

l

The hostages were the two sons of the French king, John and Lewis; his brother Philip duke of Orleans, the duke of Bourbon, James de Bourbon count de Ponthieu, the counts d’Eu, de Longueville, de St. Pol, de Harcourt, de Vendome, de Couci, de Craon, de Montmorenci, and many of the chief nobility of France. The princes were mostly released on the fulfilling of certain articles: Others of the hostages, and the duke of Berry among the rest, were permitted to return upon their parole, which they did not keep. Rymer, vol. vi. p. 278, 285, 287.

m

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 213.

n

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 214.

o

Rymer, vol. vi. p. 421.

p

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 119, 120.

q

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 227, 228, c. Walsing. p. 180.

r

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 214.

s

Ibid. chap. 214, 215.

t

Hist. du Guesclin.

u

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 230.

w

Rymer, vol. vi. p. 384. Froissard, liv. i. chap. 231.

x

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 241.

y

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 242, 243. Walsingham, p. 182.

z

This tax was a livre upon a hearth; and it was imagined, that the imposition would have yielded 1,200,000 livres a year, which supposes so many hearths in the provinces possessed by the English. But such loose conjectures have commonly no manner of authority, much less in such ignorant times. There is a strong instance of it in the present reign. The house of commons granted the king a tax of twenty-two shillings on each parish, supposing that the amount of the whole would be 50,000 pounds. But they were found to be in a mistake of near five to one. Cotton, p. 3. And the council assumed the power of augmenting the tax upon each parish.

a

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 244.

b

Rymer, vol. vi. p. 219, 230, 234, 237, 243.

c

Rot. Franc. 35 Edw. III. m. 3. from Tyrrel, vol. iii. p. 643.

d

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 245.

e

Ibid. chap. 247, 248.

f

Walsingham, p. 183.

g

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 277. Walsingham, p. 185.

h

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 310.

i

Rymer, vol. vi. p. 621. Cotton’s Abridg. p. 108.

k

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 302, 303, 304. Walsingham, p. 186.

l

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 311. Walsingham, p. 187.

m

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 291. Walsingham, p. 185.

n

Froissard, liv. i. chap. 311. Walsingham, p. 187.

o

Walsingham, p. 189. Ypod. Neust. p. 530.

p

Walsingham, p. 189.

q

Rymer, vol. vi. p. 564.

r

Dr. Robertson’s Hist. of Scotland, B. I.

s

Cotton’s Abridg. p. 108, 120.

t

Ibid. p. 122.

u

Cotton’s Abridg. p. 18.

w

Chap. 2.

x

4 Edw. III. chap. 14.

y

36 Edw. III. cap. 1. 37 Edw. III. cap. 1, c.

z

28 Edw. III. cap. 3.

a

They assert, in the 15th of this reign, that there had been such instances. Cotton’s Abridg. p. 31. They repeat the same in the 21st year. See p. 59.

b

36 Edw. III. c.

c

14 Edw. III. cap. 19.

d

36 Edw. III. cap. 2.

e

7 Rich. II. cap. 8.

f

Ashmole’s hist. of the garter, p. 129.

g

Cotton’s Abridg. p. 148.

h

Cotton, p. 71.

i

Cotton’s Abridg. p. 56, 61, 122.

k

Rymer, vol. v. p. 491, 574. Cotton’s Abridg. p. 56.

l

Cotton, p. 114.

m

Ibid. p. 67.

n

Cotton’s Abridg. p. 47, 79, 113.

o

Ibid. p. 32.

p

Ibid. p. 74.

q

Ibid.

r

Walsing. p. 189, 190.

s

Tyrrel’s Hist. vol. viii. p. 554. from the records.

t

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 363.

u

P. 17, 18.

w

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 39.

x

P. 47.

y

P. 52, 53, 57, 58.

z

P. 69.

a

P. 76.

b

P. 101.

c

P. 38.

d

P. 152.

e

Cotton, p. 53. He repeats the same answer in p. 60. Some of the commons were such as he should be pleased to consult with.

f

Cotton, p. 57.

g

Ibid. p. 138.

h

Ibid. p. 132.

i

Observations on the statutes, p. 193.

k

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 434.

l

Cotton’s Abridg. p. 110.

m

25 Edw. 111. 27 Edw. III.

n

27 Edw. III. 38 Edw. III.

o

Cotton, p. 74, 128, 129.

p

Ibid. p. 112.

q

Cotton, p. 41.

r

Ibid. p. 119, 128, 129, 130, 148.

s

11 Edw. III. cap. 14. 4 Edw. III. cap. 2. 15 Edw. III. cap. 4.

t

Cotton, p. 10.

u

Ibid. p. 51, 62, 64, 70, 160.

w

Walsing. p. 170.

x

10 Edw. III. cap. 2. 27 Edw. III. cap. 2.

y

Cotton, p. 75.

z

Ibid. p. 54.

a

Ibid. p. 48, 69.

b

34 Edw. III. cap. 5.

c

Cotton, p. 29.

d

11 Edw. III. cap. 5. Rymer, vol. iv. p. 723. Murimuth, p. 88.

e

11 Edw. III. cap. 2.

f

28 Edw. III. cap. 5

g

Rymer, vol. v. p. 520.

h

Cotton, p. 155, 164.

i

Cap. 3.

k

Rymer, vol. iv. p. 664.

l

37 Edw. III. cap. 3.

m

25 Edw. III. cap. 1, 3.

n

Dugdale’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 784. Brady’s hist. vol. ii. App. N o 92. The pay of a man at arms was quadruple. We may therefore conclude, that the numerous armies, mentioned by historians in those times, consisted chiefly of ragamuffins, who followed the camp, and lived by plunder. Edward’s army before Calais consisted of 31,094 men; yet its pay for sixteen months was only 127,201 pounds. Brady, ibid.

o

Commodities seem to have risen since the Conquest. Instead of being ten times cheaper than at present, they were in the age of Edward III. only three or four times. This change seems to have taken place in a great measure since Edward I. The allowance granted by Edward III. to the earl of Murray, then a prisoner in Nottingham castle, is one pound a week; whereas the bishop of St. Andrews, the primate of Scotland, had only six-pence a day allowed him by Edward I.

p

27 Edw. III.

q

Cotton, p. 117.

r

27 Edw. III. cap. 7.

s

Anderson, vol. i. p. 151.

t

Id. p. 177.

u

37 Edw. III. cap. 8, 9, 10, c.

w

10. Edw. III.

x

36 Edw. III cap. 15.

y

Rymer, vol. vii. p. 526. This paper, by the style, seems to have been drawn by the Scots, and was signed by the wardens of the marches only.

z

Rymer, vol. vi. p. 554.

a

Cotton, p. 97.

b

See Observations on the more ancient Statutes, p. 375. 2d edit.

c

Walsing. p. 150.

d

Rymer, vol. vii. p. 161.

e

See note [J] at the end of the volume.

[J], p. 288

In the fifth year of the king, the commons complained of the government about the king’s person, his court, the excessive number of his servants, of the abuses in the Chancery, King’s Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, and of grievous oppressions in the country, by the great multitudes of maintainers of quarrels , (men linked in confederacies together) who behaved themselves like kings in the country, so as there was very little law or right, and of other things which they said were the cause of the late commotions under Wat Tyler. Parl. Hist. vol. i. p. 365. This irregular government, which no king and no house of commons had been able to remedy, was the source of the licentiousness of the great, and turbulency of the people, as well as tyranny of the princes. If subjects would enjoy liberty, and kings security, the laws must be executed.

In the ninth of this reign, the commons also discovered an accuracy and a jealousy of liberty, which we should little expect in those rude times. "It was agreed by parliament," says Cotton, p. 309, "that the subsidy of wools, wool fells, and skins, granted to the king until the time of Midsummer then ensuing, should cease from the same time unto the feast of St. Peter ad vincula; for that thereby the king should be interrupted for claiming such grant as due." See also Cotton, p. 198.

f

Rymer, vol. vii. p. 190.

g

Walsing. p. 209

h

Froissard, liv. 2. chap. 50, 51. Walsing. p. 239.

i

Liv. 2. chap. 74.

k

Froissard, liv. 2. chap. 74. Walsingham, p. 275.

l

There were two verses at that time in the mouths of all the common people, which, in spite of prejudice, one cannot but regard with some degree of approbation:

  • When Adam delv’d and Eve span,
  • Where was then the gentleman?
m

Froissard, liv. 2. chap. 74.

n

Ibid. chap. 75.

o

Ibid. chap. 76. Walsingham, p. 248, 249.

p

Froissard, liv. 2. chap. 77.

q

Walsingham, p. 250, 251.

r

Froissard, vol. ii. chap. 77. Walsingham, p. 252. Knyghton, p. 2637.

s

Walsingham, p. 267.

t

5 Rich. II. cap. ult. as quoted in the observations on ancient statutes, p. 262.

u

Walsingham, p. 265.

w

Froissard, liv. 2. chap. 149, 150, c. liv. 3. chap. 52. Walsingham, p. 316, 317.

x

Froissard, liv. 3. chap. 41, 53. Walsingham, p. 322, 323.

y

Cotton, p. 310, 311. Cox’s Hist. of Ireland, p. 129. Walsingham, p. 324.

z

Walsingham, p. 328.

a

See note [K] at the end of the volume.

[K], p. 296

Knyghton, p. 2715, c. The same author, p. 2680, tells us, that the king, in return to the message, said, that he would not for their desire remove the meanest scullion from his kitchen. This author also tells us, that the king said to the commissioners, when they harangued him, that he saw his subjects were rebellious, and his best way would be to call in the king of France to his aid. But it is plain, that all these speeches were either intended by Knyghton merely as an ornament to his history, or are false. For (1) when the five lords accuse the king’s ministers in the next parliament, and impute to them every rash action of the king, they speak nothing of those replies which are so obnoxious, were so recent, and are pretended to have been so public. (2) The king, so far from having any connexions at that time with France, was threatend with a dangerous invasion from that kingdom. This story seems to have been taken from the reproaches afterwards thrown out against him, and to have been transferred by the historian to this time, to which they cannot be applied.

b

Cotton, p. 315. Knyghton, p. 2683.

c

It is probable that the earl of Suffolk was not rich, nor able to support the dignity without the bounty of the crown: For his father, Michael de la Pole, though a great merchant, had been ruined by lending money to the late king. See Cotton, p. 194. We may remark that the dukes of Glocester and York, though vastly rich, received at the same time each of them a thousand pounds a year, to support their dignity. Rymer, vol. vii. p. 481. Cotton, p. 310.

d

Cotton, p. 315.

e

Knyghton, p. 2686. Statutes at large, 10 Rich. II. chap. i.

f

Cotton, p. 318.

g

In the preamble to 5 Henry IV. cap. vii. it is implied, that the sheriffs in a manner appointed the members of the house of commons, not only in this parliament, but in many others.

h

Knyghton, p. 2694. Ypod. Neust. p. 541.

i

The parliament in 1341, exacted of Edward III. that, on the third day of every session, the king should resume all the great offices; and that the ministers should then answer to any accusation that should be brought against them: Which plainly implies, that, while ministers, they could not be accused or impeached in parliament. Henry IV. told the commons, that the usage of parliament required them to go first through the king’s business in granting supplies; which order the king intended not to alter, Parl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 65. Upon the whole, it must be allowed, that, according to ancient practice and principles, there are at least plausible grounds for all these opinions of the Judges. It must be remarked, that this affirmation of Henry IV. was given deliberately, after consulting the house of peers, who were much better acquainted with the usage of parliament than the ignorant commons. And it has the greater authority, because Henry IV. had made this very principle a considerable article of charge against his predecessor; and that a very few years before. So ill grounded were most of the imputations thrown on the unhappy Richard!

k

Cotton, p. 322.

l

Knyghton, p. 2715. Tyrrel, vol. iii. part 2. p. 919. from the records. Parliamentary History, vol. i. p. 414.

*

See note [L] at the end of the volume.

[L], p. 301

We must except the 12th article, which accuses Brembre of having cut off the heads of twenty-two prisoners, confined for felony or debt, without warrant or process of law: But as it is not conceivable what interest Brembre could have to treat these felons and debtors in such a manner, we may presume that the fact is either false or misrepresented. It was in these men’s power to say any thing against the persons accused: No defence or apology was admitted: All was lawless will and pleasure.

They are also accused of designs to murder the lords: but these accusations either are general, or destroy one another. Sometimes, as in article 15th, they intend to murder them by means of the mayor and city of London: Sometimes, as in article 28th, by trial and false inquests: Sometimes, as in article 28th, by means of the king of France, who was to receive Calais for his pains.

m

At least this is the character given of him by Froissard, liv. 2. who knew him personally: Walsingham, p. 334. gives a very different character of him; but he is a writer somewhat passionate and partial; and the choice made of this gentleman by Edward III. and the Black Prince for the education of Richard, makes the character given him by Froissard, much more probable.

*

See note [M] at the end of the volume.

[M], p. 303

In general, the parliament in those days never paid a proper regard to Edward’s statute of treasons, though one of the most advantageous laws for the subject that has ever been enacted. In the 17th of the king, the dukes of Lancaster and Glocester complain to Richard, that Sir Thomas Talbot, with others of his adherents, conspired the death of the said dukes in divers parts of Cheshire, as the same was confessed and well known; and praying that the parliament may judge of the fault. Whereupon the king and the lords in the parliament judged the same fact to be open and high treason: And hereupon they award two writs, the one to the sheriff of York, and the other to the sheriffs of Derby, to take the body of the said Sir Thomas returnable in the King’s bench in the month of Easter then ensuing. And open proclamation was made in Westminster-hall, that upon the sheriffs return, and at the next coming in of the said Sir Thomas, the said Thomas should be convicted of treason, and incur the loss and pain of the same: And all such as should receive him after the proclamation should incur the same loss and pain. Cotton, p. 354. It is to be observed, that this extraordinary judgment was passed in a time of tranquillity. Though the statute itself of Edward III. reserves a power to the parliament to declare any new species of treason, it is not to be supposed that this power was reserved to the house of lords alone, or that men were to be judged by a law ex post facto. At least, if such be the meaning of the clause; it may be affirmed, that men were at that time very ignorant of the first principles of law and justice.

n

Dugdale, vol. ii. p. 170.

o

Knyghton, p. 2677. Walsingham, p. 342.

p

Rymer, vol. vii. p. 659.

q

Ibid. p. 687.

r

Cotton, p. 365. Walsingham, p. 352.

s

15th August, 1388.

t

Froissard, liv. 3. chap. 124, 125, 126. Walsingham, p. 355.

u

Rymer, vol. vii. p. 820.

w

Ibid. p. 811.

x

Ibid. p. 727. Walsingham, p. 347.

y

Rymer, vol. vii. p. 152.

z

Liv. 4. chap. 86.

a

Cotton, p. 378. Tyrrel, vol. iii. part 2. p. 972, from the records. Parliamentary History, vol. i. p. 473. That this confession was genuine, and obtained without violence, may be entirely depended on. Judge Rickhill, who brought it over from Calais, was tried on that account, and acquitted in the first parliament of Henry IV. when Glocester’s party was prevalent. His acquittal, notwithstanding his innocence, may even appear marvellous, considering the times. See Cotton, p. 393.

b

Froissard, liv. 4. chap. 90. Walsing. p. 354.

c

Rymer, vol. viii. p. 7.

*

See note [N] at the end of the volume.

[N], p. 308

In the preceding parliament, the commons had shewn a disposition very complaisant to the king; yet there happend an incident in their proceedings, which is curious, and shews us the state of the house during that period. The members were either country gentlemen, or merchants, who were assembled for a few days, and were entirely unacquainted with business; so that it was easy to lead them astray, and draw them into votes and resolutions very different from their intention. Some petitions, concerning the state of the nation, were voted; in which, among other things, the house recommended frugality to the king, and for that purpose, desired, that the court should not be so much frequented as formerly by bishops and ladies. The king was displeased with this freedom: The commons very humbly craved pardon: He was not satisfied unless they would name the mover of the petitions. It happened to be one Haxey, whom the parliament, in order to make atonement, condemned for this offence to die the death of a traitor. But the king, at the desire of the archbishop of Canterbury, and the prelates, pardoned him. When a parliament in those times, not agitated by any faction, and being at entire freedom, could be guilty of such monstrous extravagance, it is easy to judge what might be expected from them in more trying situations. See Cotton’s Abridg. p. 361, 362.

d

The nobles brought numerous retainers with them to give them security, as we are told by Walsingham, p. 354. The king had only a few Cheshire men for his guard.

e

Statutes at Large, 21 Richard II.

f

Cotton, p. 368.

g

Ibid. p. 377. Froissard, liv. 4. chap. 90. Walsing. p. 354.

h

Tyrrel, vol. iii. part 2. p. 968. from the records.

i

Cotton, p. 399, 400. Dugdale, vol. ii. p. 171.

k

Cotton, p. 370, 371.

l

Ibid. p. 371.

m

Walsing. p. 355.

n

Statutes at large, 21 Rich. II.

o

Cotton, p. 372.

p

The names of the commissioners were, the dukes of Lancaster, York, Albemarle, Surrey, and Exeter, the marquis of Dorset, the earls of March, Salisbury, Northumberland, Glocester, Winchester, and Wiltshire, John Bussey, Henry Green, John Russel, Robert Teyne, Henry Chelmeswicke, and John Golofre. It is to be remarked, that the duke of Lancaster always concurred with the rest in all their proceedings, even in the banishment of his son, which was afterwards so much complained of.

q

Cotton, p. 372. Walsing. p. 355.

r

Cotton, p. 372. Parliamentary history, vol. i. p. 490.

s

In the first year of Henry VI. when the authority of parliament was great, and when that assembly could least be suspected of lying under violence, a like concession was made to the privy council from like motives of convenience. See Cotton, p. 564.