Scotland's Sovereignty ASSERTED BEING A Dispute concerning HOMAGE, against those who maintain that Scotland is a Feu, or Fee-Liege of England, and that therefore the King of Scots owes Homage to the King of England.  
Wherein there are many Judicious Reflections upon most of the English Historians, who wrote before the Year 1600 and abundance of considerable Passages, which illustrate the History of both Kingdoms.  
By Sir THOMAS CRAIG, Author of the Book de Feudis.  
Translated from the Latin Manuscript, and a Preface added, with a short Account of the Learned Author, and a Confutation of that Homage said to be performed by Malcolm III King of Scotland, to Edward the Confessor, lately found in the Archives of England, and published in a single Sheet, by Mr. Rymer, the King's Historiographer.  
By GEO. RIDPATH.  
London, Printed for Andrew Bell, at the Cross-Keys in the Poultry, and sold by Thomas Brown, Alex. Henderson, George Mosman, john Valens, john Mackey, Mistress Ongstone, Rob. Allex, Booksellers in Edinburgh. 1695.   

BOOKS lately printed and sold by Andrew Bell.  
ADvice to the Young, or the Reasonableness and Advantages of an Early Conversion to God, demonstrated in thr●e Sermons on Eccles. 12. 1. By joseph Stennett.  
A Defence of the Archbishop's Sermon on the Death of her late Majesty of blessed Memory, and of the Sermons of the late Archbishop, Bp of Litchfield and Coventry, Bp of Ely, Bp of Salisbury, Dr. Sherlock, Dr. Wake, Mr. Fleetwood, preached upon that and several occasions; being a Vindication of the late Queen, his present Majesty and the Government, from the malicious Aspersious cast upon them.  
Christians Preparations for holy dying.  
An Exposition with Practical Observations upon the Book of Ecclesiastes; written by Alexander Nisbet, Minister of the Gospel at Irwin in Scotland.  
The Churches Triumph over Death: A Sermon preached upon the Decease of blessed Mr. Robert Fleming, with some Account of his Life.  
Foolish Talking and Jesting described and condemned.  
Holy Union, and holy Contention described and pressed.  
All three by Daniel Burgess.  
Where likewise is to be had all his other Practical Pieces.  
The fulfilling of the Scriptures; or a Discovery of the Accomplishment of God's holy Word in his Providential Works: The third Edition, collected and enlarged with Doctrines and Histories. By the Author Mr. Robert Fleming●  
A brief Refutation of the Errors of Toleration, Erastianism, Independency and Separation, with other Sermons. By Mr. Ferguson.  
A Sermon preached in the high Church of Edinburgh, at the Election of the Magistrates of the City. By james Webster, Minister of the Gospel.  
Novum Lumen Chirurgicum Extinctum: or Med. Colbatch's new Light of Chirurgery put out, by W. W. Surgeon.  
The Barren Figtree; or the Doom and Downfall of the fruitless Professor. By john Bunyan.  
Grapes in the Wilderness; a Discourse fitted to all Times. By Tho. Bell, Professor in the College of Edinburgh.  
Mr. Rutherford's Letters, the third Edition, with an Explanation of Scots Words.   

To the Right Honourable My LORD Secretary JOHNSTON, One of his MAJESTY'S Principal Secretaries of State for the Kingdom of Scotland.  
My LORD,  
I Take the Liberty, though in your Absence, to present you with the ensuing Treatise. It were sufficient to entitle it to your Patronage, that the Subject of it does nearly concern the Honour of your Country; but it has a more peculiar Claim to your Favour, since it is one of the posthumous Works of your Great Grandfather Sir Thomas Craig. The Honourable Name his Book de Feudis has acquired him all over Europe, and which he has in his own Country upon many other Accounts, lays (not to mention the Duties of Nature) particular Obligations to him upon those descended of him. Besides, the Subject of the following Treatise requiring the Knowledge of the Laws and Customs of your Country to judge of it, who can do it better than your Lordship, who has made the Pursuit of Knowledge so much your Work, and to whom this Knowledge (could Knowledge be transmitted with the Blood, as Vice is) should belong by Inheritance? My Author Sir Thomas Craig, and Sir John Skeen, are the two known Oracles of the Scotish Law; and the Latter was your Great Grandfather by the Mother's side, as the Former is by your Father's, and both of them extraordinary Men upon other accounts: Sir John was eminent by his Birth, he being related to the Royal Family; as appears by King James the Sixth's Letters to him yet extant, and by his Employments Abroad, he having been Ambassador for K. James to most of the Courts of Europe, and advanced to that Honourable Post of 
* Which is the best Post in the Kingdom, if the Honour, Profit, and Interest in the Government which it brings him that has it, be jointly considered.  Lord Register at Home. But to go on with your Lordship's Title to the Knowledge of the Laws and Customs of your Country, o● rather their Title to your Protection; Sir John laid particular Obligations upon the Nation by his digesting and compiling those Laws and Customs in h● useful Treatise de Verborum significatione, so much known and referred to everywhere. Your Grand-Vncle too, Sir James Skeen his Son, was Precedent of the Session 
* That is in effect, Lord-Chief-Justice of Scotland, for there is but one Sovereign Court of Justice in private Civil Causes there. ; and your Grandfather the Lord Forresterseat, was with much Honour and Integrity, both a judge and a Privy-Counsellor above 30 Years. Your Father also, the Lord Waristoun, having been, because of his Capacity and Knowledge in the Laws, first King's Advocate, then Lord Register, lost indeed both his Life and Fortune by the Iniquity of the late Reigns; but no Time can deprive him of the Character which his Integrity and the Services he did his Country, have acquired him in the Memory of all good Men.  
My Lord,  
I shall not enter upon the Subject of your own Praise. Things are stronger than Words, and show that you are resolved to imitate such honourable Ancestors. You struggled long under the Ruins of your Family, but without yielding to the many Offers and Opportunities you had of getting out of them, by doing any thing contrary to your own Mind, or otherwise unworthy of you; and now of late that you have risen to a great Post by Ways worthy both of you and it, you show the same Firmness of Mind in Prosperity that you did in Adversity; and neither the daily tempting Opportunities that such a Post affords you of recovering your Family, and becoming suddenly rich, nor the many Examples that you have before you of those that do so in this corrupt Age, have been sufficient to subdue you.  
That your Lordship may go on steadily in the Ways of Virtue, and be an Honour to you● Ancestors, as they are an Honour to you, is the earnest Prayer t● God Almighty, of,  
My LORD, Your Lordship's most obedient Servant, GEO. RIDPATH.   

THE PREFACE.  
NATURE teaches every Man to love his Country, insomuch that the civilised Heathens did always allow Piety to that; the next Place to Piety towards their Gods; and it was esteemed glorious by the old Romans to devote themselves to death for the Safety of their Country: But we have yet a greater Pattern, viz. the Apostle Paul, who wished himself accursed from Christ, so that his Countrymen the jews were ●ngrafted in him; and whatever be the meaning of that Expression, we may safely infer, that it contains a higher Flight of Zeal for the Welfare of his Countrymen than is to be met with in any Heathen Author, and does much exceed the Roman Phrase of devoting themselves to the infernal Gods for their Country's Sake. This is sufficient to justify the Author for writing the following Treatise; so that it only remains that an Account should be given why the same is now translated and published, after having lain dormant neare 100 Years in Manuscript.  
Its a loss that the Learned Author did not publish the same both in Latin and English; but why he did it not, we are not able to conjecture at this Distance. However there's no Reason that Scotsmen should be perpetually silent, when they found the Honour of their Country attaqu'd in this Point by English Historians one after another, as particularly by Heylin in his scurrilous manner, and now by Mr. Rymer Historiographer to his Majesty King William● who hath published a Form of Homage said to be performed by Malcolm the third King of Scots, to Edward the Confessor, for the Kingdom of Scotland and all the adjacent Isles. It were indeed to be wished, that the Latin Manuscript de Hominio were printed for the Honour of Scotland, and the Information of Foreigners who are frequently misled as to our Affairs, and particularly on this Head, by English Historians; but that must either be the undertaking of the Public, or of those who are willing to be at the Charge of it.  
In the mean time seeing our Neighbours have published their Plea for this Homage in their own Language, they cannot well take it amiss if we make this Learned Confutation answer them in that same Dialect.  
Some may perhaps think this Publication unseasonable, as tending to revive old Quarrels betwixt the Kingdoms; but why the Defence of out Independency by Sir Tho. Craig against Mr. Holinshed, who are both dead long ago, should have more influence upon the Friendship of the Nations, than that about our Antiquity betwixt Sir George Mackenzie, Dr. Lloyd and Dr. Stillingfleet, when the Controverting Authors were all alive together, cannot well be divined. But if it should, the first Aggressors must bear the Blame: no Reason can be assigned why Scotsmen should not now defend with their Pens, what their Ancestors maintained so gallantly with their Swords; and as they did never more verify that part of the Character given them by the Learned Cluverius, that they are (Marte felices) Noble Warriors, than in the glorious Defence of their Nation from this very Claim by their Arms, the other part of his Character, that they are also (Ingenio F●lices) very Ingenious, was never demonstrated by a better Instance than this Vindication of their Country from that Ignominious Imputation by their Learning, which will more fully appear by the perusal of this Treatise, wherein the Author hath acquitted himself as become one of his Birth, Estate, Learning and Probity.  
It may be objected by some, that the Knowledge of this Controversy is now become useless, because of the Union of the Crowns; but its hoped that all Men who love their Country, will be willing to know what can be said in defence of its Honour, especially in a Point, which as appears by our Histories, occasioned sixty Years War betwixt the two Kingdoms, and cost them at lest three hundred thousand Lives: An Argument sufficient of itself to whe● the Appetites of the Curious, to hear what is to be said on both sides. But for Scotsmen to be indifferent in this Affair, will argue a mighty Degeneracy form the Zeal of their Ancestors, who according to the Testimony of Paris and Westminster, both English Historians, did in the Reign of Henry the third, bring one hundred thousand Men into the Field, who had all confessed themselves to the Priests, according to the manner of the Times, and resolved every Man to sacrifice his Life for the Honour of his Country, rather than submit to the Homage here treated of, an Instance which is scarcely to be pralleled in History. We read indeed of Curtius and some other Noble Romans, who have devoted themselves to death for their Country; but that is nothing in Comparison to such a Multitude: and yet its probable that the Kingdom of Scotland would have furnished a far greater Number of such if there had been occasion, when the Nobility of Scotland in their Letter to Pope Boniface VIII, protested that they would never be subject to England, so long as there were an hundred Scotsmen alive.  
But that which renders the Knowledge of this Controversy more needful at this time, is the Revival of it by the Form of Homage, said to be performed to Edward the Confessor by our king Malcolm, for Scotland and the adjacent Isles, lately found by Mr. Rymer in the Archives of England; and he hath published it as a Proemium to the public Treaties betwixt England and other Nations, which he designs to print.  
I not sooner seen that Paper, but it brought me in Mind of the Story of Annius de Viterbo that famed Impostor, who being a great pretender to Antiquity, did not only in his twenty seven Books on that Subject impose Sergeant pieces upon the World, under the Name of Berosus Manetho, etc. of which joseph Scaliger, and others advice young Students to beware; but to put a Compliment upon the City of Viterbo, the Place of his Nativity, he ordered some Inscriptions to be engraven, and hiding them among the Vines caused them afterwards to be dug up, and carrying them in triumph to the Magistrates, pretended that he had found Inscriptions, which made it appear, that their City was much elder than Rome, and that it was built by Isis and Osiris, who lived about two thousand Years before Romulus. I would not be understood to reflect upon Mr. Ryme●, as if this Sergeant Homage were of his Contrivance, for I doubt not but he found it, where he says he did; but that it is a Counterfeit, and that noon of the oldest standing, I conceive will appear by what follows.  
1. That there's no mention made thereof by Edward the first, in his defence to Pope Boniface the eighth, who charged him with making an unjust War upon the Scots, and ordered him to desist on Pain of Excommunication: Now can any reasonable Man believe, that if there had been such an Authentic Record of Homage performed for the Kingdom of Scotland not much above two hundred Years before his own Time, that this Prince who traced the fabulous History of his Country as far as Brute with his Trojans, and searched all the Records both of England and Scotland for Arguments to support this pretended Homage, could have missed of such an Authentic Piece as this if it had been then in the Archives of the Nation?  
2. When Richard King of England, as appears by his Charter mentioned in Hoveden, restored to William King of Scotland all the Monuments of Homage either performed, or which had been said to be performed for Scotland upon the Public Faith of the Kingdom; Is it reasonable to suppose, that either the Government of Scotland would have been so silly as to have neglected the demanding of such an Authentic Record, had there been any such, or that the Government of England would have broken the Public Faith to have retained it? Its true, that there's a Caveat in that Charter, that if any such Monuments were retained through forgetfulness, they were ipso facto to be held Null and Voided; but that will nothing help our Adversaries, for its not to be supposed, that an Homage performed in full Parliament, as this is said to have been, could be forgotten by either of the Nations.  
3. It is not to be thought that Henry the eighth would have omitted this Evidence of our Homage in ●his Declaration of War against james the 5th of Scotland, wherein he amassed all that could be said for the same, had there been any such thing in the Archives of his Kingdom. By all which it will appear, that either there was no such Record then in the Archives, or that it was not known, or at lest not looked upon as Authentic: but that it was unknown is next to impossible, seeing it is pretended to have been performed in full Parliament; that it should not have been esteemed Authentic if it had been known, is very improbable, seeing it carries a fairer Countenance than the Arguments they made use of from Brutus, etc. Therefore there's Reason to presume it was forged since that time, and probably in Q. Mary's Reign, because when fresh inquiries were made into the Pretensions of England to this Homage, in the time of Edward VI there's no mention of this Record, as appears by Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation.  
But now I shall exhibit the Charter itself, first in Latin, exactly according to the Copy printed by Mr. Rymer, then in as good English as the barbarous and incongruous Latin will bear, and make such Observations upon it, as will clearly evince its being a Counterfeit.  


MAlcolmus Dei gratia Rex Scotorun & Insularun adjacentium, omnibus Christianis ad quos Presentes Lren pervenerint Salutem, tam Danis et Anglis quam Scotis; sciatis nos et Edwardun primogenitum filtum n rū et beredem, Comiten de Carrick et de Rotsaye, recognovisse nos tenere totum Regnum n rū Sco●iae et Infulas adjacentes de Excellentissimo d no n ro Edwardo, filio Ethe●redi nuper Regis Angliae, Superiore D no Regni Scotiae et insularum adjacentium per Homagium, Ligium et Fidelitatem, prout Antecessores & Progenitores n ri pro antea temporibus retroactis satis notabiliter recognoverunt et fecerunt, prout par antiquior Recorda Coronae satis nobis constat. Quare ex jure directo nos devenimus hōnes untros, O Domine noster S●renis●●●me Edward, fili Ethelredi, Rex Angliae, et Superior Dominus Scotiae et insularum adjacentium, durante vita n ra, contra oens homines vobiscum vivere et mori, tanquam Ligii subditi vestri fidelis, et Lig●ā fidelitatem vobis et haeredibus vestrum portabimus. Stc Deus nos adjuvet et scū Dei judicium. In cujus Rei Testimonium Presentibus sigillum n rū apponi fecunus pro nobis & filio n ro predcon apud Eboracum, quinto die junii, and Regni n ri nono. In Parliamento predicti D ni superioris n ri ibidem tento ex consensu & consilio Margaretae Consortis n rae, filiae Edwardi filii Edmundi Ferrei Lateris, Edgari Atheling frīs, ejusdem Consortis nostrae, & quam plurium Magnatum aliorum Regni n ri praedicti. 
(Locus Sigilli.)    

In English thus.  
MALCOLM King of Scots, and of the Adjacent Isles, to all Christians to whom these present Letters shall come, Greeting, as well to Danes and English as to Scots. Be it known to you, that we and Edward our eldest Son and Heir, Earl of Carrick and Rothsay, have recognised that we hold our whole Kingdom of Scotland, and the adjacent Isles, of our most Excellent Lord Edward Son to Ethelred late King of England, Liege Lord of Scotland, and the adjacent Isles by Liege Homage and Fealty, as our Predecessors and Progenitors are very well known to have recognised and done, as manifestly appears to us by the ancient Records of the Crown; and therefore by direct Law we become your liegemen, OH our most Serene Lord Edward Son of Ethelred King of England, and Liege Lord of Scotland, and the adjacent Isles; and we shall bear liege Fealty to you and your Heirs during our Lives, to live and die with you against all Men as your faithful Liege Subjects. So Help us God, and the Holy Judgement of God. In witness whereof we have caused our Seal to be put to these Presents for us and our Son aforesaid, at York the fifth day of june, and the ninth Year of our Reign, in the Parliament of our liege Lord aforesaid held there, by the Consent and with the Advice of Margaret our Consort, Daughter of Edward, Son to Edmund Ironside, Edgar Atheling Brother to our said Consort, and many others of the Nobility of our Kingdom aforesaid.    
There are many Exceptions to be brought against this Homage, as that it is contrary to all the Forms of Homage recorded even in the English Histories, having an impertinent Address to the King of England in the Nature of a Prayer, OH Domine Noster, etc. an affected Genealogy of Margaret Queen of Scots which is nothing at all to the purpose; a Title by which never any of the Kings of Scotland designed themselves, viz. Scotorum & Insularum adjacentium: Not was there then any Earl of Carrick or Rothsay, and the eldest Son of Scotland was long before that time entitled Prince of Cumberland. Nor is it to be forgot that there is no mention in this Homage of the Northern Counties though then possessed by the Scots, which is another Argument of its being a Forgery. It is also to be observed, that Rothsay was no Title belonging to the Royal Family, till the Stuarts come to the Crown which was in 1377, being 311 Years after the Date of this Homage; for Rothsay is a Town and Castle in the Isle of Boot, the paternal Inheritance of the Stuarts; and the first mentioned in our History to have born the Title of Earl of Rothsay, is David Son to King Robert the third, about 1390, which is 324 Years after this Homage.  
We might also object against the Word Parliament as being French, and not probably used in England till after the Conquest; their public Assemblies at that time being called Wittena a Gemots, which if rendered in Latin then, aught either to have been Conventus Saprentum according to the import of the Words, or Conventus Ordinum, of Comitia Regni, according to the Latin Idiom, and not Parliamentum, which Cambden in his Britannia owns to be a French Word, and of no great Antiquity. But that which proves this Homage to be a Forgery beyond all Controversy, is the alleged Consent of Margaret Queen of Scotland, and Prince Edward her Son, june the fifth, in the ninth Year of Malcolm's Reign, which must be 1066, for he began his Reign April 25. 1057. Now Margaret and her Brother Edgar Atheling, did not leave England till after the Conquest, which was in October 1066. and disigning then for Hungary, they were driven ashore in Scotland by stress of Wether, and there King Malcolm being taken with her Beauty and Probity, married her, as neare as we can guests, in 1067: but that she was not married till she fled out of England after the Conquest, all the English Historioans that I have met with agreed, and particularly Sir William Temple, in his late Introduction to the History of England; so that here she is supposed to given Consent to her Husband's doing Homage to Edward the Confessor before she was married, and when Edward the Confessor was dead: and seeing they will have her Son Prince Edward also to sign it, they must at lest allow him to be fourteen Years of Age before he was capable of signing a Deed of this Importance, whereas he was not then born. These things appear plain to any Man that will be at the Pains to look into the Histories of both Kingdoms, though I must own that that Learned Gentleman james Tyrrel Esq told me of this false Date before I had seen an authentic Copy of the pretended Homage; and as that Gentleman has put a great Obligation upon his Country, by asserting their ancient Liberties in his elaborate Book, called Bibliotheca Politica, its not to be doubted but he will in like manner advance its Honour, by refining and improving their History, without copying the Reproaches cast upon Neighbouring Nations by the common Herd of preceding Historians, or robbing Other Kingdoms of their due Honour, England having so many real Glories of her own, that she needs not bereave her Neighbours of any of theirs; and its hoped that Mr. Rymer will not disgrace his Treatise of the public Leagues and Transactions of England, with such a notorious Counterseit as this appears to be.  
Its but just that we should conclude with some account of Sir Thomas Craig, the Author of the following Treatise.  
He was lineally descended from the Family of Craigston in Buc●an, one of the most Ancient in the Kingdom: he was born about 1548, and having been virtuously educated by the Care of Mr. john Craig a great Divine, and his neare Relation, and made more than an ordinary Progress in the learned Languages and Philosophy, he went to France, and studied the Civil Law: in the Knowledge of which, he exceeded most of his Contemporaries; for he had very great natural Endowments, as well as acquired Parts. On his return from France, he applied himself to the Bar; where he purchased so much Reputation by his Learning and Integrity, that in 1604, when K. james set the Design of an Union betwixt the two Kingdoms on foot, he was chosen by the Parliament of Scotland as one of the principal Commissioners to negotiate that important Affairs.  
He was universally esteemed by all the Great and Learned Men of his Time; kept Correspondence with many of them, and particularly with Cambden, that famous Antiquary.  
He gave a convincing Demonstration of his extraordinary Knowledge in the Law, by his Book de Feudis, so well known to all the Learned in that Faculty: Wherein, like another justinian, he reduced into a clear and intelligible Method the whole Laws of his Country, which were formerly like an undigested Chaos, and illustrated them by the Civil and Canon Law, and the Customs and Statutes of various Nations.  
Having thus devoted the first Fruits of his Pen to the Service of his Country, and the students of the Scots Law, he persisted in that generous Course; and undertook the Defence of his Sovereign's just Right of Succession to the Crown of England, against the ●avils and Objections of Dolman, or rather the Jesuit Parsons; wherein he defeated the bold Adversary to the full Conviction of all Rational Men. This valuable Manuscript is still preserved in the Library of the College of Edinburgh; nor would it have remained unprinted, had not K. james the Sixth's peaceable Access to the Crown of England rendered the Publication of it needless in that Juncture.  
Sir Thomas' Zeal for his Prince and Country, did not stop here; for the desirable Project of Union having warmed the Breast of that Learned Monarch, and inspired his Chief Ministers with an earnest Desire of bringing it about, this Great Author wrote an excellent Piece on that subject, entitled, De Union Regnorum; wherein he has with all the Strength of Reason, Wit, and Eloquence, demonstrated the Necessity and Expediency thereof, though the bad Genius of the Island hath hitherto obstructed it. As the first Effort of his Pen was for the Honour and Advantage of his Country, to which he approved himself a faithful Patriot throughout the whole Course of his Life; his last Effort of that Nature was directed to the same End, which put him upon writing this learned and Elaborate Treatise, De Hominio, in defence of the Independency and Sovereignty of our Kings.  
It is not to be imagined but that this laudable Zeal for his Prince and Country, was well resented; and as an Evidence thereof, the King conferred the Honour of Knighthood upon him, which was reckoned a considerable Honour in those times: But this worthy Man being a Person of substantial Merit, and one who slighted the gaudy Accoutrements of Honour, he could never be brought to accept of it formally; upon which the king commanded that every one should given him the Title.  
These Instances are sufficient to demonstrate his Piety towards his Country; what follows are Evidences of no lesle Piety towards his Parents and Children, and Hospitality towards his Neighbours. His Father being of the Romish Communion, Sir Thomas never desisted from his pious Endeavours till he brought him over to the Protestant Religion, which yielded him no small Joy. His Zeal for the said Religion, and Fatherly-care for his Children, appears by his Will, dated in 1591. about 17 Years before his Death: Wherein he protested, that as he lived, so he intended to die in that Religion which was at that time professed in the Kingdom, in all Points and Heads of Doctrine, which he believed to be the only true and uncorrupted Religion taught and left to us by Jesus Christ; and after a very serious Strain of Practical Devotion, and Provision made for his lady Helen Herriot, a Daughter of Trebourn in East Lotbian, he gave strict Injuctions to his eldest Son Lewis, that as he would inherit the Blessing of God and his Father, he would take a Fatherly-care of the rest of his Brethrens.  
And as he was a dutiful Child himself, and eminent for filial Piety, God rewarded him in that same kind: For his eldest Son, Sir Lewis Craig of Wrights-houses, who attained the Dignity both of a Counsellor and Judge before he was 34 Years old, which was a thing very rare in those days, when few were ever admitted to the Bench, unless to their other good Qualifications, they had a long Tract of Experience adjoined; yet this dutiful Son, notwithstanding his high Station, would always be uncovered to his excellent Father when he come to pled before him at the Bar. His second Son was Sir james Craig of Castle Craig and Craigston, in the County of Cavan and Letrum, and Province of Ulfter in Ireland, who behaved himself gallantly against the Irish Rebels in 1641, and dying in defence of his Country without Issue, left his Estate to his younger Brother Dr. john Craig, Physician in Ordinary to K. james the Sixth, and afterwards Chief Physician to K. Charles I His fourth Son, Mr. Thomas, become an Advocate. And he had moreover, three Daughters, all of them honourably married; the eldest Margaret, to Sir Alexander Gibson of Dury; the second Elizabeth, to Mr. johnston Father to Sir Archibald the late Lord Wariston, and Grandfather to Mr. johnston, one of his Majesty's Secretaries of State for the Kingdom of Scotland; the youngest janet, was married to ... Belchis of Tofts.  
Than as for his Hospitality towards his Neighbours; it was evidenced by his keeping an open Table to People remarkable for their Birth or Learning. And thus having moved in an high Sphere of Reputation till the 60th Year of his Age, he died at Edinburgh, Ann. Dom. 1608. The present Representative of his Family, is Robert Craig of Riccarton; who though he has an opulent Estate if 1200 l. per annum, yet follows the law after the Example of his Predecessors.  
As for the Translation, all that can be said for it is this, that part of it was shown to some of good Judgement before it went to the Press, who were pleased to approve of it. Its but seldom that Originals gain any thing by Translations; and it is not to be supposed that the Publisher's English should come any thing neare the Author's Latin, of which he was known to be so great a Master; but Care has been taken to express his Sense as far as the translator's Capacity could reach it; and he hopes that some Allowances may be granted him though the Style be not found very smooth and equal, seeing the Nature of the Debate would scarcely admit of it.   

ADVERTISEMENT to the Reader.  
THere are some few Dates and Quotations on the Margin left out, because wanting in the Latin Manuscript, as Page 83, and 144. The Transcriber, though a good Penman, yet hath neither understood Latin nor History well, nor was his Copy ever perused by the Author. However, its hoped that no important Mistake hath escaped; but if any Gentleman be so kind as to impart what he discovers to the Bookseller, they shall be fairly considered if ever we come to a Second Edition; and the Manuscript in the Lawyer's Library at Edinburgh shall be consulted, which the Publisher knew nothing of till this was translated. There are also some Latin Verses and Terms of Art, which it was thought advisable to exhibit without Translation, as tending more to the Embellishment of the Discourse than any way needful; and the Verses especially would have sounded harsh in English, except they had been turned into English Metre with a Flame equal to that of the Original: But the Learned know them, and for others they will understand the Controversy as well without them. The Translator begs a favourable Censure, as having undertaken it for the Honour of his Country, and committed no wilful Mistake. The Latin Manuscript may he seen by those who have a mind to it, at the Book seller's.  
Vale   

ERRATA.  
Page Line  18 19 read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 24 4 r. prove that. 27 9 put, after those. 63 9 , after Client. 70 16 r. Logician. 89 28 r. several. 91 9 r. that question. 95 1 deal him. 133 ult. r. them for then. 166 24 for British r. Pictish. 191 11 r. then for than. 229 20 r. History. 280 8 r. Vassals. 317 10 r. their Founders for their Authors. 365 26 r. Alvarottus.  27 , after Hottomann●s. 366 13 r. Plantagenet. 420 11 deal, after David.   

THE CONTENTS.  

Chap. 1. OF the Occasion of writing this Book, and the Asserters of this Homage. Page 1  
II The Definition and Form of Homage. 11  
III At what time Homage began to be known in the World. 17  
IV. At what time Kings began to reign over that Part of Britain which was a Roman Province. 21  
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. 34  
VI That all the Witnesses brought for the Proof of this Homage are suspected. 45  
VII. This Homage is not consistent with the Feudal Law. 59  
VIII. That neither Brutus, Ebrancus, Clotenus, Mulmutius or Dunwallo, knew any thing of this Superiority, or exacted it. 66  
IX.. Of Fergus 1. King of Scots, Coilus King of the Britons, and other British Kings till Cesar's Time. Page 78  
X. What Condition the Scot● were in, and what Society they had with the Britons after the Arrival of Julius Caesar, and the Romans in Britain. 85  
XI. Of the Departure of the Romans out of Britain, and how the Whole was subjected to the Scots and Picts. 97  
XII. Concerning Arthur; whither he subdued Scotland, or required Homage from the King of Scots. 109  
XIII. Of Malgo, and other Kings of the British Line; and whither they could pretend to any Homage. 122  
FOURTEEN. Of the Saxon Monarchy, and its Duration; and whither ever Scotland belonged to the King of England. 131  
XU A true Delineation and Description of the English Saxon Monarchy. 149  
XVI. Whither Cadvan, Ethelfred, Oswald, Oswin or Osbright, did demand this Homage. 159  
XVII. Concerning Ethelwolph, Alured and Edward, Kings of England. 171  
XVIII. Concerning Athelstan, who was the first that received Homage from the King of Scots for Cumberland and Westmoreland. 178  
XIX. Concerning Edmund, Eldred ●nd Edgar, English Saxon Kings, and whither they pretended any right to the Superiority of Scotland. Page 212  
XX. Concerning Ethelred, Edmund Ironside, Canutus and Edward, Kings of England; and whither ever they pretended any Right to Scotland. 226  
XXI. That there's no probable nor likely Reason to be adduced, that Homage was performed for Scotland during the Time of the English Saxon Monarchy. 242  
XXII. Of William the Conq●eror, and whither be pretended any other Right to the Kingdom of England, than that of Conquest. 259  
XXIII. Of the Conqueror, and his Sons Rufus and Henry Kings of England; and whither Homage was performed to them for Scotland. 268  
XXIV. Of Henry II and by what Methods ●e would have settled that Homage upon himself and his Heirs; and of the true Form of this Homage. 284  
XXV. That the Scotish Clergy are subject to no English Archbishop in Spirituals. 309  
XXVI. Of Richard and John, Kings of England; and what was the Form of the Homage done to them. 326  
XXVII. Of Henry III and if any Homage were performed to him. 337  
XXVIII. By what Tricks Edward the First sought after the Superiority of Scotland. Page 348  
XXIX. Whither or not that Sentence was just, which Edward gave for Bruce against Baliol. 363  
XXX. Whither Sovereign Princes can tender Themselves, and their Subjects, Vassals to another Prince: And how by the Act of this very Edward, the S●periority was destroyed. 369  
XXXI. A sharp Epistle from Pope Boniface the 8th to K. Edward, about the Injustice of his War against the Scots; and Edward's Apology. 380  
XXXII. Of the various Success in this War against the Scots, and how all the English were at last throw● out of Scotland. 398  
XXXIII. Of Edward II and III and Henry IU. and whither they received Homage from the Scots. 405  
XXXIV. A Brief and Summary Conclusion of the whole controversy; with some new and strong Arguments against this Fictitions Homage. 415    

A Dispute concerning HOMAGE, against those who maintain that Scotland is 〈◊〉 or Feu-Liege of England; and that therefore the King of Scots owes Homage to the King of England.  

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 conceived myself 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 Dependence on the Rules and Maxims thereof. But the Mind of Man being naturally desirous of farther Knowledge, I began likewise to inquire into the Laws of our Neighbours, to see if there 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 agreed with the Feudal Law; though 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 Knowledge in that sort of Law myself, and knew not of any Man who could assist me. However, I did not abandon the Enterprise, as hoping to meet with that in Books, which was not to be met with elsewhere.  
Having therefore taken care to provide myself with some Books, and enquired diligently of my Friends if they had any such by them; I was advised, 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 surprised at, because I had frequently made use of that Author, and never took notice of any such thing in him▪ but upon his chewing me the Place in his second Book of the Description of Brit●in, Chap. 8, and 9 I resolved on reading of the same, to peruse all that he had writ upon the Subject, to try if I could learn any thing further; and unexpectedly I met with 〈◊〉, Lib. 1. Cap. 22▪ where he pretends to sh●w, how the Superiority of the whole Isand is 〈◊〉 in the Kings of England▪ And having 〈◊〉 it over carefully, I found my Choler begin to rise, and that it heppeard to me exactly as Hol●shed had foretold 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 Badge of Servitud● 〈◊〉  
But I was yet more in●ens'd, 〈…〉 worse, that noon of our Count●y- 〈◊〉 had answered that Calumny, as if they seemed to own the Truth of it by their Silence. But measuring others by myself, 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 looked over those things which he premises, as being only ornamental, and no way belonging to them. And although we found it very often in the Body of Holins●ed's History, that the King of Scotland 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 among the Learned, because it was the Testimony of an Enemy in praise of his own Country, according to the Distich against Poggius; 
Dum patriam laudat, damnat dum Poggius (hosten;  
Nec bonus est Civis nec bonus Historicus.  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 〈◊〉 acknowledge 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 jest 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 Argument, he had abstained from ill Language; but in his Satirical 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 charged 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 Richeses without being criminal or justly reproached for our Poverty, and others may enjoy them without any great Credit: So that I may say with Tacitus, I know not whither the Gods have withheld Richeses from us out of Love or Anger; seeing its possible as Horace says, 
— Sub paupere tecto  
Reges & Regum vita praecurrere amicos ; 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 Richeses from our Neighbours. And as for our Cowardice and Persidy, we shall treat of them afterwards.  
The 〈◊〉 which induce me to a 〈◊〉 of this kind, are, First, the Duty which I own to my most gracious Sovereign, from whose Majesty and Authority Holinshed would not ● little detract by this Invective: for 〈…〉 be no Majesty where there is not a Sovereign Command; neither does he retain the Rights of Sovereignty, who acknowledges another to be superior to himself, or is obliged when called on, to answer at his Court. The next Motive is Love to my Country, which by the Homage, as thus 〈◊〉, seems to be rendered 〈…〉 the Name of a Kingdom, and is in a 〈◊〉 deprived of its Sovereignty▪ and therefore it is my design to vindicate the same from all imputation of Vasialage, jest that 〈◊〉 Calumny should obtain Credi●●, and led Posterity into a Mistake, but chief, jest 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 lest such of them who are of an equal Temper, because I have not entered the Lists without Provocation; nor can they be justly offended, if by solid and true Reasons, I deprive them of this little point of Honour: for according to the common Saying, Turpi●s ejicitur quam non admittitur Hospes▪ Its 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 beaten out of it 300 Years ago. For as to the real Glory of the English Nation, who have filled E●rope with the Fame of their Great Actions, I am neither desirous nor capable of drawing a Veil 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 Huntingdon, Matthew Paris, Matthew of Westminster, Roger Hovedon, Florence of Worcester, and Thomas Walsingham, all Monks: But they content themselves with the bore 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 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 allege many Reasons, some of which were feigned, and others of them made nothing to his purpose of proving that Superiority which he claimed over Scotland. But Henry VIII. seeking for an occasion of War against King james 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 owned in the beginning of his Declaration: For james 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 jest that Conference should have issued in a Reformation. Henry VIII. being a Magnanimous Prince, provoked by this Affronted, 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 abovementioned, 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 john 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 lest 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, wrists many things which he finds in other Authors, feigns abundance as if they were made beforehand, and ascribes many things to other Authors which they never so much as once thought of. But, 
Improvisum aspris veluti qui sentibus anguem  
Pressit humi, nitens trepidusque reprente resurgit  
Attollentem iras & caerula c●lla tumentem.  So Holinshed being afraid to venture himself in the Lists, substitutes one Nicholus Adam a Pettifogger in his Place, whose Arguments he pretends only to repeat, without adding any thing of his own. But Holinshed aught to have remembered that he is no lesle a Cheat who makes use of Sergeant Write, than he who writes them himself; nor is he an honester Man who puts of false Money, than he that coins it. For my own part, in refuting of Holinshed, whom I choose 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 forced to bring things from our own Writers, to given 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 Judge▪ who is not altogether voided of Judgement himself.   

CHAP. II  
The Definition and Form of Homage.  
THE State of the Question is this, Whither the Kingdom of Scotland be a Fee-Liege of the Kingdom of England, and whither the King of Scotland owes, or ever did pay Homage to the King of England upon that Account. The Affirmative is stiffly maintained by all the English. The Scots not contenting themselves with the bore 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 inquire what this Homage is, whence it had its Rise, what is its Form, and when it come first in Use.  
This Homage then is a Profession of Fealty, which the Vassal is obliged to make unto his Lord 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 performed 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 annexed, viz. on the Account of a Benefit received; so that though there should hap 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 Promise was not sufficient, and therefore the Interposition of an Oath was necessary, for without that, it is not called Homage, although the ●Obligation of Fealty be permanent. There was a double Form of Oath used 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 performed 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 administered, in some with more, and in others with lesle Veneration, but so as it was always performed with Reverence. For Rollo D. of Normandy, when he received Neustria from Charles the Gross in Fee, being 〈…〉 never required 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 stretched 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 Liegeman 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 ●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 lesle Veneration used, so that its sufficient if one stand in●●everend Posture however, and desire In●vestitute, or the Renovation of it with all Humility, a● we express it. Among ●he Spaniards, the Kissing of the Hand alone was reckoned 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 IU. For when the Emperor required 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 Ecclesiastics 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 and Us? how can you observe it when you require Homage from those who are God's, and are called 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 its apparent from thence, that Fealty may be performed 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.  
Than 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 published, 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, among the Lombards, and then in France: 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 among his deserving Soldiers; 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 come 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 esteemed or looked upon as an inheritance before Hugh Capet's Time, who that he might oblige the Nobility of the Kingdom which he had usurped, 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 itself, which Charlemain had laid, were confirmed; and this Charlemain 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 reigned 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 come hither, and that only from France and along with the Conqueror, as I am apt to conjecture; yet our Authors allege that Homage was first mentioned in Athelstan's Reign: But the Ancient English Laws before his Time, which were printed at London by john 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 lest mention of Fee or Homage. I take no notice, as I told them, of the mention of Fealty, since that may be neighbourly, and used among Friends and Confederates, neither indeed will they found it mentioned in that sense; and if the Names of Fee and Homage were not known to the World till that Time, with what Countenance can the English Writers, and chief Holinshed, affirm, that Brutus divided the Island of Britain, which was so called from himself, among his three Sons, Locrine, Camber and Albanactus, but reserved the Superiority of the whole to his first born Locrine, seeing the Names of Superiority, Fee, or Homage, were not publicly 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 esteemed a Milesian Fable by Polydore Virgil, a most Learned English Historian, and therefore he calls it a new History lately dropped down from the Clouds, and unknown to all the Ancients 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 Legate 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.  
julius Caesar (whom Tacitus deservedly calls a very great Author) was the first who entered 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 searched diligently into the Antiquity of the Nation which he had conquered, but could never found by what or how great People it was inhabited, nor learn their manner of War, or by what Customs they lived 
* 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 governed all Britain, as is feigned 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 lest he would have some where made mention of this Monarch of all Britain. But Caesar speaks of four Kings in Kent itself, 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 come 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 ancient 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 julius 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 Britons were governed 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 public Meetings to withstand the common Danger, and have prevented the fight of single Cities by themselves. And a little after he adds, When the Britons bewail their Servit●de, they complain that formerly they had each of them their particular Kings, but that now they have two imposed over them, viz. the LEGATE who preys on their Lives, and the PROCTOR or Quaestor 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 governed 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 Brigants had their own Kings, as appears from Tacitus; and Claudius Caesar triumphed 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 convened to meet Probus Caesar 
* Fl. Vopisc. in vita Probi. . In Illyrium there were five, and in Greece there were seventy Kings who combined 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 Britons 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 Britons or Britons, that he was the first who embraced the Christian Religion, I am of Opinion, that he was not a Britain, or at lest not King of all Britain, and that that Epistle of Pope 〈◊〉 to Lucius is a Counterfeit; for noon of the Roman Pontisses, either at that Time or for some Ages after, before the Emperor Phocas who reigned in 602, did ever arrogate the Name of Pope to themselves; and the very Name Lucius is a Roman, not a British Name. Its certain that noon of the Ancients except Bede, make any mention of this Lucius, and neither does his Computation agreed 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 Ancient Laws: and moreover, when that Letter was writ, Britain was a Roman Province, and from the Time that it become such, which was 140 Years before, had already received the Roman Laws: for the Romans imposed their own Laws upon their Provinces, and abolished 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 changed, they are subjected to Roman Officers, and oppressed 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 judge; certainly his calling Lucius God's Vicegerent in his own Kingdom, does not agreed well with the Roman Authority, of which be aught 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 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 ancient and long received Custom of the Romans, they might have Instruments of Servitude, and among 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 its plain that the Romans had petty Princes in this Island, who might serve them as Instruments of Servitude; but there was no Man entrusted with the Government of the whole Island, or that had Authority to assemble the People.  
Tacitus says, that Caratacus and Galganus were Generals who excelled in Nobility and Power, yet does not given them the Name of Kings, except that in one place he calls Caratacus King of the Silures, but not King of Britain, as Cartismandua reigned over the Brigants; but from both of them its apparent enough that the Brigants, Silures and jugani had each of them their own Kings.  
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 become a Roman Province. As to their way of Government, it is certain, that when the Romans had subdued a Country, they used to exauctorate the former Magistrates, reduce the Country into the Form of a Province, and substitute new Roman Magigistrates, viz. a Praetor and Quaestor, 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 Ancient Laws: And so it was as to Kings, whose Realms they used 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 pardoned them, and did not reduce them into the Form of a Province. But when either a Country or Kingdom was reduced into a Province, first they took away their Kings, that they might have no General to head a Rebellion, then they appointed a Praetor or Praeses, who had the sole Command; his Badges were six Fasces, or Bundles of Rods, with Axes; and Lictors, or Sergeants went before him: The Praetor summoned Courts and Conventions, decided private Causes, or delegated others to do it; he commanded the Army which was assigned him for Defence of the Province, raised new Troops, cashiered others, and had the Administration of all things relating to Peace and War. The Quaestor was over the Tribute, Imposts and Customs, whither of Money or Provisions, and kept the Public 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 Legate 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 Legate, who was at that time his Superior, or that the Legate would obey the King. Those who would inform themselves further concerning the Ancient Law of Provinces, may read Charles Sigoni●s, who hath published a particular Treatise on that Subject, and they will found that I have advanced nothing but Truth.  
It remains that I show at what time Britain was reduced 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 returned 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 established 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 Britons enjoyed their own Laws and Kings in the Time of Eleutherius; and Tacitus sets down the Number of the other Governors 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 willing to undeceive our Neighbours as to their Opinion, that Britain, though reduced to the Form of a Province, enjoyed its own Laws and Kings, who were, according to this vain Conceit, endowed with Sovereign 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 Britons. Gildas, whose Credit is most esteemed 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 administered by their own Countrymen before the coming of the Romans, but makes no mention of any Kings. Next, he says, that the Island was governed by the Romans, whom he calls Transmarine Kings; and blaming the Cowardice of the Britons, 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 mere Threaten 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 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 governed that part of it, which was not subject to the Scots and Picts. Bede writes, that the Romans reigned in Britain 470 Years, from the Time that julius Caesar entered the Island; but that any other reigned in their Province during that Time, there's no probable Reason to be alleged for it. But when the Roman Power declined, and that the Britons were not able of themselves to withstand the Invasions of the Scots and Picts, they begged Assistance from the Romans, with lamentable Complaints, but in vain. So that being rejected, they chose, in a tumultuary manner, one of the Ancient British Blood named Vortigern, whom they called Captain, or King, for I found him under both those Titles; and after him Aurelius Ambrose, 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, persuaded the Britons, who were then at a Consult about their Common Safety, to hire Saxon Auxiliaries, which issued in their Destruction; for when the Saxons, who come at first only with three Ships, observed the Fruitfulness of the Island, and the cowardly Temper of the Inhabitants, a greater Number followed in 35 Ships, turned their Arms against the Britons, and divided all Britain into seven, some say nine Kingdoms, among themselves; From that Time, which was in the Year of Christ 456, or according to others, 459, that Hengist arrived in Britain, until King Egbert's Reign, under whom the seven Kingdoms were United, Its certain, that there was no King who reigned over all Britain; for what's writ of King Constantine, and the Auxiliaries which come from Britain in France, are mere 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 performed 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 noon 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 noon to whom it could be sworn; for to suppose that it was performed 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 Judgement, until he hath also perused the following Proposition, and compared 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 found 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 in that part of Britain which he seen, though it was the chief Part then, as it is still, both for the Number and Wealth of the Inhabitants. But among those who inhabited the Inland Parts, and were nothing so cultivate, it was far lesle 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●● Agricolist  (whose Father-in-Law Agricola entered into the innermost Parts of Britain, searched it thoroughly 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 given 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 Grandfather, 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? And whereas Caesar testifies, that there were no Memorials of things passed kept in Britain; and that the Antiquity of that Nation was altogether unknown: Yet Geffrey 
* Lib. 4. c. 1.  relates, that when Caesar come to the opposite Shore of the Morini, seen the Island, asked who the Inhabitants were, and understood the Name of the Kingdom and People, by Hercules, says he, they the Britons, 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 entertained with Laughter and Scorn than confuted, seeing they do so plainly contradict Caesar's own words. I submit it then to the Judgement of the Candid Reader, what Evidence either the Britons 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 julius Agricola, who was Domit●an's Legate in Britain, the British Youth began to be instructed in Roman Letters, (as the Americans are now by the Assistance of the Spaniards) that they excelled 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, its 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 its probable would not have left themselves destitute of some Monuments or Memorials of their own Affairs: I answer, how could they continued their History, or by what Characters did they writ it; for the Latin Letters had not then reached 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, or dispersed and lost by the Exile of his Countrymen, so that there were noon 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 Britons 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 Relics, for about 1000 Years after Christ's Passion, all the Parts of the Cross on which he suffered, as also the Column, and other Relics 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, searched into all the Write of the Ancient Britons, and for that end unlocked 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 Britons, affirms, that the whole is full of Obscurity, and that he had no leader whom he could follow. But Geffrey of Monmouth, and our Holinshed reckon up Fathers and Grandfathers, 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, jest they should come short of the Gauls; and in fine bring it down from the Time of the Gigantic 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 reckoned an History; for I don't acknowledge 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 jest I should seem to have affirmed any 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 ancient 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 entirely 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 ancient 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 were Contemporary. He says, That after Bede's Death the English History ceased, 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 seen 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 lived about the Year 1148, they must still remain in the Archives, which hitherto no English Author did ever allege, or hath been able to demonstrate; for that Chronicle, as is observed by the Prologue, did only set down the Number of Years: And as to those things which he wrote either from the Relations of People worthy of Credit, or what he heard himself as certain Truths, neither those things which are related by credible People, nor such as one may think of undoubted Verity, are sufficient to bias 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 Candour who 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 Authentic 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 Time, when Authors began to commit public 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 composed a History from the Time of Bede to that of Henry the second, I shall willingly given Ground, and yield this Proposition. They who would be further informed, 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 Scots-man: and therefore if there is nothing of this fictitious Homage to be found in Caesar or Tacitus, nor in Gildas and Bede who come 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 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 seen what they writ themselves, nor can bring any approved Historians to vouch what they say; as for Example, Matthew of Westminster, and Florence of Worcester, do both writ 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 aught to believe them: Nor is the bore 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 People; for in that Case the Reader must judge what is to be believed, and what not.  
Its a general and grievous Complaint among the English, that hitherto they have no Historian of Worth, of which they allege this to be the Cause, that there is no Reward proposed, 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 noon at all; for there is no Place where Virtue and Learning is more bountifully rewarded than in England, and consequently no Nation which abounds 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 purged of such: Hence it comes to pass, that no Learned Man attempts it, because he sees that he must either offend the People, or loose his Preferment and Dignity, if he omit any of Geffrey's Fables, but those are not the Laws of History: For he who is engaged in such a Work, aught to observe two things; first, That he writ 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 Babbler Geffrey of Monmouth; yet we see he is in no Esteem among the English, though he be their only Historian, who has writ with any Judgement: yet in many places he deals unfairly with us, which he does tacitly acknowledge himself, when he says, that he only repeats what others have writ, but abstains prudently from making any Judgement 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 Domestic; 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 public Faith, or draw up any public Act to which Credit may be given; but on the contrary, the Title in the Canon Law does expressly enjoin them not to concern themselves with secular Affairs: They cannot be Judges in Temporal 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 aught to led a mournful and folitary Life in their Monasteries, and to abstain altogether from secular Affairs, certainly its very seldom, if ever, that we aught to trust them in public 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 People. It may be they 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 Public and Private among 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, jest they should derogate from the Honour of their Country; so that they made it a matter of Religion to vary, in the lest 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 Huntingdon, 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 Cattles, that if one break over the Ditch the rest follow; and 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 Knowledge but Hearsay and deceitful Fame, which grows as it runs, and of a Fly becomes an Elephant? Moreover, in those Write 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 lesle 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 writ that both of them performed 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 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 knowledge of the Law, or Judicial Proceed. 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 Cloisters; they are so much the more obnoxious to their Passions and Aff●ctions, from which Historians aught 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 passed 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 Sergeant History of 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 injured 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 patronise the most execrable Villainies, according as they have a mind to it .How easy then was it to insert in those Monkish Write, 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 Monastic Write 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 fight about this very Homage, viz. in the Reign of Henry the Second. About whose Time lived Florence of Worcester, Malmsbury, Huntingdon and Hovedon; and Thomas Walsingham, and Matthew of Westminster, wrote in the very Heat of that bloody War betwixt Edward I, TWO, 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 patronised 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 villainous 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, aught to be exactly weighed 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 Candour, judge what is most like to be true. For it is in every Body's Mouth, 
Non audet Stygius Pluto tentare, quod audet  
Infamis Monachus, plenaque fraudis anus:   
Which may be Englished, 
Old Nick himself durst ne 〈◊〉 attempt for Shame  
What's 〈◊〉 by cloystered Monk, and doing D●●e.   
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 its domestic; and how little Cre●●● is to be given to that sort of Evidence, the Customs of every Nations, the Law itself, and daily Experience, does sufficiently demonstrate. This one thing I affirm, that there's no Nation in Europe which admits of domestic 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 proved otherwise, or that they are produced 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 Monastery; yet they are not to be admitted as to the Secrets of State, Peace, War, Judgement of Courts, or Conditions of Peace, and things of greatest moment. What the Civil Law says concerning domestic Evidence, or the Authority thereof▪ appears plainly by the Rescript of Valerian and Galen; Whose Words are these, The Credit of Domestic 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 aught to make use of those Witnesses, say they, for maintaining the Truth, who choose to given Evidence for Truth without either Fear or Favour. And therefore those who given Evidence aught not to depend neither on the Power nor Favour of those for whom they given 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 enfranchised 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 whatever they are commanded, and suppress the Truth for fear of their Masters. But in our Controversy there are noon who given Evidence against us but Englishmen, subject to the K. of England's Power; whom he could compel to given their Testimony, and dictate how they should depone: Moreover, they are such as given 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 confirmed it by the Custom of all Nations, the Precepts of all Laws, and Reason itself. And therefore the Domestic Testimony of the English for the Proof of this feigned Homage, is not sufficient to prejudg a third Person, but aught to be exploded whenever it occurs, as being justly suspected in all its parts. All the Doctors of the Law maintain, that a Domestic Testimony aught 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.  
The third Fault is yet far more grievous; for we are not only pressed with the Domestic Testimony of the English, but because the Evidence of an Enemy against an Enemy, as Times then were, is received as authentic, and believed more firmly than the Oracles of Sibylla or Delphos. Law, and daily Practice, do both admonish that Hatred and Enmity aught to be far from a Witness; for there's noon 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 forbidden the Testimony of one Enemy to be received against another in Law, but do the like if they be but newly reconciled; and refuse also the Testimony of such as devil 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 bend their whole Strength, Actions and Purposes, to 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: Than whither 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 judge 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 Judgement of things.  
There are three things by which all Inferior Matters are governed among us, viz, Law, Custom, and Reason; and certainly neither the Laws nor Customs of Nations, nor Reason itself, 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 Englishman against a Scots-man, than to a Scots-man against an Englishman, or to a Frenchman against an Englishman, than to an Englishman against a Frenchman: For what is there which the English and French don't forge against one another? The Carthaginians and Romans do mutually 〈…〉 of England and Scotland, manage their Affairs? For no Englishman is condemned either for Theft, Robbery, or Fire, except the Matter of Fact be proven by English Witnesses: Neither can a Scots-man be adjudged 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 accused Bruce of aspiring to the Crown of Scotland, rejected the Accusation as proceeding from one Rival against another. Shall such then be admitted to given Evidence against one another? Or will any honest Man given Credit to their Testimony? But the equal Judge 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 given in his Evidence, or that will given any Credit to him in Judgement, 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 Soldier. Therefore a Fee is the most strict and obligatory Bond of Human 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, against all Men, by whatever Kindred, Alliance, or Obligation conjoined, (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 performed by the Lord, in respect of his Vassal, if injured 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 obliged to assist him with his Forces, Arms, Horses and in a Word, to the utmost of his Power, even though he be not called; 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 hap betwixt the Lord and Vassal, it is not to be decided by Arms, but referred to Judgement; yet the Feudal Law will more readily allow Arms to the Vassal, if his Lord deny him Justice, seeing the Fault is rather presumed 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 Life for his Lord's in Battle▪ and if the Vassal for 〈◊〉 his Lord in the Time of Fight, he is deprived of his Fee. The Vassal is obliged to attended at his Lord's Court, when ever a public One is summoned, whither he be called or not, and there to assist with his Counsel, and the like out of Court, as often as he shall be called upon, when his Lord is to consult about things of Moment. He is also to receive the Investiture of his 〈◊〉 from his Lord, nor aught 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 lesle 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 lesle bound to the Vassal in all the things abovementioned, 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 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, Burn, bloody Battles, 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 Balliol; 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 appeared at the King of England's Court or Parliament, either to given Advice, or receive Judgement: 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 Judgement, will given 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 say, that such a thing will never hap, 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 happened before, since the first Original of the two Nations; and that it may be continued for all Time coming, every one of us aught earnestly 〈…〉 him who is the Author of Peace, and alone able to effect it.  
These t●●ngs being premised, it will be manifest from the Nature of a Fee, to any Man who is not already prejudged, 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 evident of itself, 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 Proofs which are brought against us, consist in Examples, which rather demonstrate what was done, than what aught 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 Britons, or Britons; the second of those, which happened 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 lest; but I shall endeavour to wipe of 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 examined 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 deduced from that Commentitious Division of Britain among Brutus his three Sons, Locrine the eldest, Camber the second, and Albanactus the youngest: for the English do stiffly assert, that to Locrine he gave Loegria or Britain, viz. that part of it which was a Roman Province, or possessed by the Angles, with the Superiority of the whole Island; to Camber, Cambria or Wales; and to Albanactus as the youngest, the lest 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 bathe evinced. But Albanactus being killed, which happened very speedily after, as they say, Albania, which was his Portion, accrued to Locrine, and not 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 among the Scots, says he, so that when the youngest of three Brethrens 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 Britons, 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 Soldiers in the Front and Rear, and placed the most faint-hearted in the Middle, that they might be compelled 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 placed his strongest Reasons in the Front, which it would not have been easy for our Countrymen to rencounter. But let's see what this first Argument is: It is true, that in England, when the Youngest of three Brethrens dies, the Elder 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 Custom is observed among 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 lest Share of it would have come to Locrine: Than 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 Locrine 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 Logic neither; for those who worship the same God, and observe the same Laws, Customs and sacred Rites, are not always to be looked on as the same People, and much lesle that one of them must needs therefore be subject to another. For the second Table of the Mosaic Law, the Law of Nations, the Civil Law, this our Feudal Law, and also the Right of Primogeniture, are common among 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 among the Germane, says, that they jest their Horses to such of their Children as were most fierce and expert in War: but who will thence infer, that the Germane were subject to the Britons, because they observed the same Right of Primogeniture? How much more judiciously does Tacitus leave it at an uncertainty, whither the Aravis●i in Pannonia, descended from the Germane Osi, or whither the Osi were a Colony of the Aravisci that come into Germany; when yet, says he, they use the same Language, Customs and Institutions? Or because the Graecian Laws, afterwards known by the Name of the twelve Tables, were brought from Athens and the other Towns of Greece, and embraced by the Romans; will it thence follow, that the Romans paid Homage to the Greeks, or acknowledged them as their Liege Lords? It often happens in Kingdoms, that whenever the Profit of King and People persuades them to it, or that there are any Hopes of Advantage from it, that the Customs observed in one Nation, are transferred to another, although they be distinct in Empire and Jurisdiction: and thus many of the Laws of the Danes and Britons, are still in force in England, and yet that Kingdom is subject to neither of them; and there come 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 governed 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 voided 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 lesle 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 disjoined; for no Body is ignorant, that in some things our Law differs from that of England: and therefore Adams or Holinshed 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 Locrine 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 misspend 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 come to be continued to these Times: for if Locrine had the Superiority of Albany, and succeeded to Albanactus' deceased, it necessarily follows, that the Liege Fee was extinguished with Albanactus, and that Albany returned 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 Lord of the Subordinate, or as the Creditor succeeds to the Debtor, and per contra; and so this Superiority evanished in its Infancy, being stifled with Albanactus, who did not long outlive his Father: Nor was it ever for any thing that I know, revived 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 informed 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 Britons, 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 Britons; 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 Britons .We will grant that those Castles were built by Ebrancus, though 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 Twelvemonth 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 Britons because he built them; by that same way of Arguing, the English Saxons own Homage to the Britons; and the Normans, who are now in possession, own 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 Britons, as the Normans threw the English out of their Possessions; and yet the English Saxon never acknowledged the King of the Britons, nor did the Norman ever acknowledge the King of the English as his Superior or Liege-Lord: Or, because the Israelites built Towns and Castles for Pharaoh, did he serve them and own them Homage, or were the Israelites then seized 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 noon of them at that Time in Britain. Nor is there any mention of the Word (Sasinaru●) Seizing, 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 reigned 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 reigned over all Britain, but only over the Mountainous Country of Cornwall, 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 Offspring failed 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, whither 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, 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 though we should grant all that he says concerning it to be true, it will not be of the lest Advantage to his Conclusion.  
But the Scots, says Holinshed, received the Law concerning Duels from Mulmutius Dunwallo the King of the Britons, 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, noon of the Ancients did ever affirm; nor do I know from whom he has it. If he hath it from noon of the Ancients, 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. 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 Britons, or did him Homage, then Palestine must have belonged to the Britons; in which Goliath 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 Cohobate with Aeneas, as did Paris with Menelaus, and Hector with Ajax and Achilles. Italy must also have belonged to the Britons, because of the Duel betwixt Pallas and Turn●s, and a little after betwixt Turn●s and Aeneas; all of which happened 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 Orsova fought a a Duel for the Principality of the Town called Ibes, Africanus being Judg. I may allege 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, among 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 used under her Subjection; for there was never any who extended the Confines of the British Empire so far. But no wise Man would have ascribed the first Institution of Duels to the Britons, 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 Britons, though 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 Britons, 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 its easy to conjecture why he did so, or at lest 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 Enterprise, hath consecrated the Name of Quintus Mutius to Eternity, although it had no effect. The History does also take notice, that the Scots forced the Camp of the Britons, 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 inferred from this following Verse of Glaudian's, that all Ireland was called Scotland: 
— Totam cum Scotus jernam  
Movit, & infesto spumavit remige The● is.   
And again; Scotorum Cumulos flevit Glacialis jerne .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 determined to settle there, that they were overcome in Battle by the Scots. And in the Life of Charles the Great, writ by an uncertain Author, but one who lived at that Time, 
* Ex fragmentis antiquissimis Historiarum quae circa Annum Domini 850. conscriptae sunt, & typis excusae apud Claudium Chaplet Lutetiae I 588.  this following Passage is found: At that Time a Norman Fleet having entered Ireland, an Island of Scots, an innumerable Multitude of Normans fell in Battle against them, and the rest made a shameful Retreat ,Whence it is manifest, that that Island was not only inhabited by our Countrymen, 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 reproached with it, seeing the noblest Nations in Europe derive their Original from them; and Charles the Fifth reckoned it one of the things wherein he had reason to glory, that he was descended from the Goths and Scythians. 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 expelled 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 Exiles, than serve such malicious Masters, or acknowledge the King of the Britons 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 modelled Armies, that there were scarcely 800 le●t alive on both sides: the King of the Britons; who watched 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, perceiving their Strength now to be brok●●, expelled 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●●●, josina and Durstus, Kings of Scotland who succeeded 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 inquire 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 Englishman can produce an Author for this notorious Falsehood, we will either given him an Answer, or yield the Cause: For the Babbler 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 come in his Head. However, its 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 Candour he hath used towards us, was never plainer than here. Our Historians relate, that after the Return of Re●therus from the Isles, Affairs not being thoroughly settled, that the King of the Britons fatigued 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 beforementioned 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 its 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 Britons or English: Nor was ever their Con●ent expected at the Election; which is a certain Argument that they were never subject to the Britons, 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 enquired 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 Scots-man says of an Englishman, seeing there have been Actions betwixt them much fiercer than Words. The Faithfulness of the Scots is proven by the French Annals. But Holinshed aught to remember what the British and English Writers have left upon Record concerning the Faithfulness of the Britons; for all of them agreed, that it was used as a Proverb, Nec Britones Bello fortes nec Pace fideles: i e. That the Britons were neither courageous 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 among the Vulgar: and in many places both in Gildas and Bede, they are called the perfidious Nation of the Britons; 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 touched the Cowardly Temper of that Nation from Gildas, and shall treat of it further when I come to speak of the Saxons. Than let Holinshed go and extol the Faithfulness, Virtue, and Fortitude of his Britons to the Skies, or above them if he pleases; and let him talk of their subduing France, Italy, and a great Part of Germany, and that Rome itself was conquered and burnt by Brennus, if you please to believe him; while all the ancient Writers do not only descent from him, but gain-stand and contradict him. Those things I say of the ancient Britons; for as to what concerns the Remainders of that Nation, there's no People, now that they have changed their Soil, who are more courageous and hardy than the Welsh, 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 Britons 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 served him in his War against julius 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 served as a Subject under ●assibelanus in his Wars against julius Caesar. But whither 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 alleged 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 served 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? Not Englishman would endure Holinshed to reason thus; neither does he act with Judgement or Justice, who by a reproachful Interpretation would convert the Goodwill 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 inferior to the Servant, if he assist him in Adversity, or extend his Munificence and Liberality towards him. We will grant that our Forces served 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 used by good Authors, to denote only Obedience; and thus jugurtha served Africanus the Younger in the Numatin War, in the Name of the King of Numidia, yet the Kingdom of Numidia was free and independent, and their King not called 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 forged 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 entered into Caledonia; both of which are false, as will appear to any who read those Histories: for Caesar went not 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 julius Caesar, but by julius Agricola some Years after him: Neither does Boethius say, that Caesar entered 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 owed Homage to the King of the Britons.  
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 lest have forged something in their Reigns, as well as others▪ But jest he should seem to have done nothing here, he saus, that King Lucius changed 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 alleges, that he may clear the Way for rendering 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 English Archbishops as their Lords in Spirituals. But if we may believe Malmsbury an English Chronologer, there was no Archbishopric in the Kingdom of the Britons. His words, jest I should be thought to injure him, are, But whither there was any Archiepiscopal See in the Time of the Britons, I do very much doubt; for my Knowledge falters, because Antiquity hath swallowed up the Memorials of those Times: and here he spoke ingenuously, if he had done so in other things 
* In prol. Lib. I de Geftiss Anglorum Pontisicum. . Neither does Gildas make any mention of the Bishops, or Archflamins of the Britons, 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 Ancient Romans, there could be no Archflamins; and if there had been any such, they must of necessity have been set over other Flamens, 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 Flamens, and thus we read of Flamen Dialis and Flamyn Quirinalis in Cicero, 
† Lib. 2. de Legibus.  over whom the great Pontif had the supreme Authority, and not the Arch-flamin; but the Illiterate Geffrey of Monmouth and those who followed him, did never understand what a Flamen was: neither has it any appearance of likelihood, that the Britons would have composed 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, preached the Gospel to us, before Austin preached 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 Prelates, says, That he was almost destitute of all kind of help, that he groped 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 whither 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 Britons, 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 ancient Historian, says, That when Claudius and the Romans invaded Britain, and subjected their Kings, the Scots and Picts did stoutly gain-stand them; though Holinshed will have them to be subdued, and expelled at that Time. But if they were ejected or driven into Exile, who is there that will not ascribe it to 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 Britons did, who if they had been inspired with the same Courage, they had never been subject to the Roman Servitude.  
But that Severus designed to drive the Scots out of the Island, for their Perfidiousness and Rebellion, as Holinshed pretends to writ from Boathius, we won't acknowledge; for they cannot be accused of Perfidiousness, who did never own 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 surrendered themselves, don't continued firm in that Allegiance which they have sworn to the Prince or Republic that overcame them; but take up Arms against those to whose Dominion they submitted, which cannot in any manner be said of the Scots; nor is that true which Holinshed alleges 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 infers, 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 Britons, 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 conquered and expelled 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 outrageous Enemy, he built that Stone Wall from the East to the West side of the Island, that the Britons who obeyed him and the Roman Garrisons might be the more ●afe within their own Barrier●. How those things agreed 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●'● by the Kings of the Britons, its 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 Britons, 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 feigned 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 pressed with Actions of Maximinus or Maximianus, whom Holinshed (contrary to the Current of all Writers, who say, he was born 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 Eugenics. 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, Britons, Picts and Germane Auxiliaries, who combined together for the destruction of one Nation, and that no very great One: but this happened 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 designed the same Thing against the Picts, the latter perceiving the Craft of this Leonine Confederacy, condemned themselves for their impious War against their ancient 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 Sovereignty of the Britons over the Scots, or the supposititious Homage?  
Holinshed says, That when Fergus returned 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 killed, and his Army defeated by Maximian the Roman Legate; 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 performed 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 beaten, so frequently overcome, and at last expelled the Island by the Romans, have hitherto maintained and do still maintain their Royal Dignity without Diminution; whereas the Britons 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 appeared which of the Nations were the best Warriors; for the Britons being almost totally cut of 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 Britons 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 Human, and abjuring the Protection of the Romans. Here are all the true Marks of a Surrender, and so the Britons yielded themselves to the Scots and Picts, nor is there any room left for a Subterfuge. Holinshed and the common Herd of English Historians, given this as the Cause of that Calamity, that above 100000 Britons were carried away by Maximianus, as he returned into Gallia Armorica; and most of them augment the Number, but noon 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 King's Eugenius and Fergus, while they endeavoured 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 touched by them; and here he accuses our Boethius of a Lie, because he says, that all Britain was surrendered, 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 Soldiery, 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 lived amid Frost and Snow at Home. All this he alleges, to lessen the Credit of Boethius' History, which detracts from the Fame and Dignity of the Britons, though the same thing be contained 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, writ 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 recall to mind how many Armies of Scots were defeated by Edward I and yet they never laid down their Arms, until in two pitched Battles 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 Wondering. Therefore Britain was truly surrendered to the Scots and Picts, and the Surrender accepted; and the Britons after they had in vain sought for the Assistance of Aetius the Roman Legate by Tears and lamentable Complaints, submitted to the Yoke, not willingly I confess, but being thereunto compelled 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 Britons growing weary of the continued and grievous Servitude, they sent for Assistance from Britannia Armorica, whence Holinshed writes, that Constantine come with an Army, who killed Dongardus King of Scotland in Battle, and recovered Scotland. This is the third King of Scotland, who in a small interval of Time fell as fight gallantly in the Field, that being looked 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 found nothing among his Britons which relishes so much of true Nobility; nay nor among the English are there many Kings to be found who died in Battle, unless it was during the Heptarchy, while they raged mutually against one another.  
But that we may return to the Armori●i, or People of Little Britain; 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 Britons 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 Britain. But Matthew of Westminster writes, that he died without having done any thing of note, and left Children behind him, Aurelius, Ambrose and Uter; under whose Conduct he says that the Britons fought with the Scots, and obtained a Victory: What Manner of Victory it was, in what Place obtained, 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 Britons, nor depress their Enemies. Would any Body offer such Fooleries as real Matters of Fact? But the Truth is, that the Scots were neither expelled by those of Little Britain, Constantine, Aurelius nor Uter; but held the Sovereignty of the Island until the Saxons, being hired by the Britons, dispossessed them of that Part of Britain which was a Roman Province: And that Aurelius Ambrose 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 Britain, in its true Light; whatever Holinshed and Geffrey of Monmouth may fabulously assert, when the Britons were repulsed by the Romans, and did unwillingly fall of from them, they consulted about choosing a General against the Scots and Picts, and pitched upon Vortigern; who finding himself unable to sustain so great a Burden, whatever Holinshed may say, persuaded 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 noon use to desire Assistance, who are able of themselves to maintain War.  
Whereas Holinshed alleges, that Vortigern gave Galloway, Annandale, and the Mers, which were Scotish Provinces, to be inhabited by the Saxons; its 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 understood the Fruitfulness of the Island, and the cowardly Temper of the Inhabitants, and that Kent was not sufficient for the Soldiers that arrived daily, that Hengist obtained 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 choose 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 Sovereignty of the whole Island, as the Event did quickly verify.  
But this is not to be passed over, that though all Historians agreed that those Countries were given to the Saxons, yet they make no mention of any Homage or Superiority, or that the Britons reserved 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 performed 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 among the Milesian Fables, or as we may say, old Wives Tales. The English possessed Kent, the Is●e of Wight, and the Eastern Parts of Britain, by the Bounty of the Britons; 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 Britain; but also says, that Vortigern being chosen King by the Britons, 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 Britain; which this Man advances as the most certain Truth: Neither is there any mention of them found in Mal●sbury, Huntingdon, Ethelverd, Florence of Worcester, nor Gilds, 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 lived after him, and wrote a true and brief History of those Times, though he takes notice of Vortigern, say any thing of those Auxiliary Britons; nor of that Constantine whom this Juggler avers to have slain the King of Scots in Battle. Ethelverd does not call Vortigern King, but says that he was esteemed as such by all Men: And noon of those Authors take any notice that the Scots were either beaten, 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-soldiers from Germany, they quickly drove the Britons into Wales; and first founded one Kingdom, then a Second, and at last a Heptarchy, or Seven Kingdoms. And therefore what this Babbler 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 lest 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 pleased, so he did but tear the Scots with his Invectives. But how could Vortigern, who was inferior to the Scots in War, and obtained the Kingdom by gross Wickedness, as Historians writ, for which he was hateful to his own Subjects, bring the Scots under his Yoke? For Vortigern after he had called in the Saxons, was first deserted by all his own Subjects, and then dethroned, his Son Vortimer being set up in his Stead, according to their own Historians. Gildas and Bede do both mention Aurelius Ambrose, who succeeded Vortigern, and fatigued the Saxons by War; but they call him a Roman, and the only surviving Person of the Roman Blood, and own that he obtained the Monarchy of Britain, that Part of it I mean that was a Roman Province: which is an Evidence how unwillingly the Britons fell of from the Romans. Malmsbury and Henry of Huntingdon say the same; and Paulus Diaconus writes, that this Aurelius Ambrose assumed the Purple; that is, took upon him the Imperial Dignity in Britain. But this Man being resolved 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 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 harassed 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 entered into a Bond of Friendship, and joined in War with the Saxons, he is foully mistaken, to say not worse; for Palladius, according to Bede, obtained from the Scots, who had received many Injuries from the Britons, 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 entered into a League with the Picts, and joined their Arms to subdue the Britons; this Juggler turned it upon the Scots, as if they by joining with the Saxons, had made War upon the Britons; when on the contrary, as Polidore ingenuously confesses, Constantine the King of Scots being invited by the Saxons, refused to join them, and sent Assistance to the Britons; which was the only thing, as he says, that supported the British State for some time at lest, and kept it from immediate Ruin. So that there is nothing farther from Truth, than to say that V●r●igern or Uter 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, called in the Saxons: and it is very unlikely that the Britons 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 accused as having made War upon them, when we sustained them by our Arms for some time, and kept them from present Ruin.   

CHAP. XII.  
Concerning Arthur; whither 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 noon of them did ever convey such monstrous Lies to Posterity. There are some, who being led into an Error by the English, do writ 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 Englishman nor Scots-man, except Geffrey of Monmouth alone, who hath committed it to writing. But that Man must needs be more than ordinarily impudent, who hath once leapt over the Bounds of Modesty. But there are many things which move me either to think that there was no Arthur, or that at lest he was not King of Britain: For, as the English and Scotish Historians assert, Hengist come into England with his Saxons in 449. They and the Britons 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 advanced to the Throne, though unlawfully begot, because of the great Opinion which Men had conceived of his Virtue: 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 Countrymen the Britons, 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 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 lived in his Time; who did so often put the Saxons to Hight, and drive them out of Britain. Neither does he ever writ, that the Saxons yielded to the Britons after their Arrival; but that having enjoyed the Government in Britain with Hengist, they divided the Kingdom among 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 abhorred 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 lived but 160 Years after him, (for he flourished Ann. Dom. 700.) and comprizes in an accurate History, all the Fights, Battles and Skirmishes betwixt the Britons and Saxons. Neither is he mentioned by Florence of Worcester, nor Ethelverd, the most ancient 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 lest mention of Arthur and Merlin, and though all those things concerning them are feigned by Counterfeits, yet that Man (meaning Geffrey of Monmouth) hath published them to entertain Man's Curiosity. Malmsbury does indeed make mention of him, yet not as a King, but as one of A●relius Ambrosius' Captains; as does also Henry of Huntingdon: 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 jornandes, 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, agreed with noon of the Historians of those Times, although by them he is rendered famous for his Exploits, as having subdued all France and Italy; so that those Historians could not have passed 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) of Bythinia, 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 noon in the World, but were subject to the Roman Empire. And at that Time, when Arthur is said to have reigned, justinian was Emperor, the Goths possessed Italy, Chilperic governed 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 wondered Artist at scraping together whatever may advance the Praise of his Britons. 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 Judgement of the Learned, yea, even of Englishmen themselves, without adding any thing of my own. P●lidone, although he was a Native of Urbin, yet I name him among the English Writers, both because he lived in England, and wrote an History thereof to please K. Henry the Eighth. His own Words, jest I should seem to impose upon any Body, are these: 
Lib. I of his History.  B●t on the contrary, says he, there started up ● certain Writer of our Age; who that he might a● o●e for those Crimes of the ` Britons, I mean their Cowardice and Per●idionsness, scrapes together ab●ndance of ridiculous▪ Fictions concerning them; and with an impudent Vanity, extols their Valour abov●●hat of the Romans on Macedonians. This is Geffrey of Monmouth; who is also surnamed Arthur, because h● spread a Latin Veil over the Fictions of the Britons concerning Arthur, which he hath augmented himself, and given them the name of True History. And the anonymous Continuator of Bede's History, who gins 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 writ concerning Arthur, and his Ancestors 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 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 merely to reproach Geffrey, but spends two entire Pages in confuting him and his Write. Geffrey is indeed a wondered Artist at History; who out of his own Head continued the Story of 1700 Years, so as to led our Writers and all Posterity into a very great Error: and although they know themselves to be imposed upon, yet they will not be reclaimed from their Mistake; they are so very ambitious of Glory, were it even but from Fables. For who is not pleased 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 Offspring, he names as if he had lived 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 pleased, (as Lloyd will have his Cambri to be called Ci●bri) and to have overcome the Gauls, Germane and Romans; and at last, to have set Rome itself on fire. His third Fable concerning C●ssibelan●s is plainly against Caesar's Authority, who, as I said, is reckoned the Chief of Writers. His fourth are the Duels betwixt his Arthur and the Giants, for which Geffrey, as has been said already, did merit the Surname of Arthur▪ His fifth are the Prophecies of Merlin, which are so full of Ambiguities, Turn and Wind, that the Oracles of Delphos are not to be compared 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: its true indeed, but its only that he may cheat us with more safety and secrecy, for he has not been able to name any of those Authors whom he pretends to have translated: And Gildas does expressly testify, that all the Monuments of the Britons, were lost, and noon 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 Hovel King of little Britain? Let Arthur then, with his Historian Geff●ey, go and keep Company with the Night-Owls. Its certain, that there was never any settled Form of Government in the British Republic, neither in Vortigern's Time, who first brought in the Saxons; nor after him was there any established Kingdom, until the Time of Aureli●s Ambrose, who was of Roman extract, and at length chosen King or General (for I found him named both ways) in a tumultuary manner by the Britons, who began, though too late, to repent the bringing in of the Saxons, and deprived 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 Britons. After his Death, when the Kingdom fell by Law upon Lothus his Posterity, and that the Britons set up one Constantine in his place, Modredus, Lothus his Son, pursuing his right by Arms, had a terrible and fatal Battle with the Britons, wherein he died, though Conqueror: Hence followed irreconcilable Feuds betwixt the Picts and Britons, and that League betwixt the Saxons and Picts for the Destruction of the Britons, who though they were for some time assisted by the Scots, (for Palladius obtained from Constantine King of the Scots, that he should not desert the Britons, though he had received many Injuries from them, nor join with the Saxons, though they promised great things, because they were Enemies to the Christian Religion) yet they were at last subdued and forced into Wales; and not only lost the Royal Dignity, (if ever they had any) but were constrained to abandon the most fruitful Provinces of their Country to the Enemy, which they might perhaps have enjoyed 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 Countrymen 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 devolved 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 james VI King of Scots: and although he should not succeed to that Right by Hungus, yet as being descended from 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 neare Edinburgh, Arthur's round Table, Arthur's Vault not far from Sterlin, and the Inscription on his Sepulchre at Glastenbury in England, Hi● jacet Arth●rus, Rex quondam, Rexque future's.  
Which may be Englished thus; 
Here lieth Arthur, who did sometimes reign,  
And had he lived, should have been King again.  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 my, but taken from the most polite of the English Historians themselves. Nor can I guests at any other Cause, why we are imposed upon with this commentitious Arthur, than the depravation of Man's Nature since the Fall, which chooses 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 Ulysses, Add 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' Golden Ass: so the French have their Hugh of Burdea●x; and the Britons being acted by the like Folly, did feign themselves this Arthur, that they might not come short of their Neighbours, and him they given out to be a Demi-God, and Prince of Ghosts, that he might appear the more august unto Men; whence it come to pass, that if there were any Country or Place which struck Men with Horror, that they imagined 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 justin or justinian, something of his Memory would have been transmitted to us. But to return to our purpose.  
In the Book entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 printed at London by john Day in 1568, Arthur's Victories are related, and the Provinces which he subjected to Britain are enumerated, viz. all Scantia, which is now called 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 Sailors, the Sovereignty 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 't is not without reason, that I am brought to think him the Prince of the Ghosts, and feigned 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 not where to be met with, and whose Names were never heard of, they are fittest for Arthur; that 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 whither they could pretend to any Homage.  
HOlinshed subjoins that Malgo or 〈◊〉 succeeded 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 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 judge whither those things be probable.  
Malgo reigned 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 lest Shadow of Probability, that ever he thought of seizing or distributing other Man's Provinces. And at last I set Holinshed here against himself, in whose History there is no such thing to be found, especially when noon of the Saxon Kings did more grievously afflict the Britons 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 straightway 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 Britons recovered, and killed 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 Britons as this Ethelfred, who drove them into their own Wales, and cut of from them all hopes of return: That all the Saxon Kings served the British Kings in the War, is ridiculous, for the Saxons never ceased, until the Britons were expelled, and they themselves possessed of their Country; nor was there any Cessation from War, for Cadwanus and Cadwallo esteemed 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, 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 Britons, who went over into little Britain, because of a raging Famine and Pestilence at Home, had gathered together an Army to recover his Country, he was said to be admonished by an Apparition of a more venerable Shape than any thing Human, that he should not attempt in vain what Fate had forbidden him, for his Country should fall into the Enemy's 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 james VI than to Henry VII. for neither does it appear, that Owen Teudor was descended from the Race of the Welsh 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 whither that Oracle did regard the said Walter, or Henry the seventh, its certain that it hits in the most Serene Prince james the sixth, who is the undoubted Heir of both, by both Lines.  
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 lest 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 itself, and we shall yield the Cause. As to what concerns the Britons after the arrival of julius Caesar, (for before his Time we have nothing to say) it is certain that they were always under the Roman Yoke; and when they went away, all the Histories of that Time do testify that they become tributary, and gave Hostages to the Scots and Picts for thirty Years together: Nor is there any English Author who hath not expressed that very thing. And that they might shake of their Yoke, they invited the Saxons into the Island, by whom they were far more grievously oppressed, expelled their Country, and driven into Wales, which at last they could not retain neither; but falling under the Power of the English, the Britons 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 ancient 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 ancient Writers did by the Name of Britain, understand only that part which was inhabited by the Britons, and enclosed within Severns' 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 conquered nor destroyed, there having never been any Man yet, who could truly boast that he had conquered Scotland. Geffrey writes, That Cadwallo King of Britain, chased the Saxons beyond the Wall, which was built betwixt Britain and Scotland. Bede's words are, Neither was there any of the Kings of Scots who durst enter Britain to infested the Saxons, after that fatal Battle 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 neare the Wall Northward, by which Wall the Romans encompassed Britain from Sea to Sea: Therefore Britain was then called an Island as enclosed with a Wall. I pass by many other Instances, jest I should be tedious to the Reader; but it appears from what has been said, that when we found it mentioned concerning any one, that they reigned 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 its true, makes mention of Reutherus, but he confesses that it was not his design to writ the Scots History) yet nevertheless Holinshed perverts the whole. If it be writ that the Britons made War upon any of our Kings, then straightway Holinshed asserts that they were beaten, conquered, implored Mercy, and performed Fealty and Homage: If they would not submit, then they were expelled by the Britons; 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 Candour 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 Britons 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 hap without the Vassal's Concurrence, as by Fire, Earthquake, Opening of the Earth, Inundation, or be seized by an Enemy, or otherways, the Fee and Lordship ceases, and becomes extinct. But that the Monarchy of the Britons, to which this Homage was due (according to Holinshed) is destroyed, and their Country overrun by an Inundation of Enemies, is certain; and therefore this supposititious Right of Superiority is also by the Rules of the Feudal Law extinguished with the Monarchy of the Britons, to which it was due and appertained. But let us suppose that it is not ceased, then it must needs devolve upon the Posterity of Brut●s, and not upon their most bitter Enemies, who deprived them of their Country, Life and Liberty: And if it be so, the King of Scots is the only Survivor of Brutus' 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 alleged 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 its also wondered that any Men, eminent for Experience and Learning, of which there is no small Number in England, should listen or given Credit to any of those Impostures; for that which is not founded upon any certain Authority, deserves no Credit among honest Men. But I suppose he was afraid to name his Author, jest the Matter should not have succeeded according to his Desire; and in that case, if the quoted Author should have denied him his Patronage, he would have been catched at a Disadvantage, and le●t to enter the Lists alone without Arms.  〈◊〉 ad extremum ridendus & Ilia ducat.  

CHAP. FOURTEEN.  
Of the Saxon Monarchy and its Duration, and whither ever Scotland belonged to the King of England.  
HAving go 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 whither any thing can be found in them to confirm this Commentitious 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, Dominium directum vel utile, I have made manifest in the first Proposition. In Confirmation whereof I add this, that if the ancient English Laws before the Conquest, printed at London under the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be seriously perused, 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 lived 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 afterwards. The Writer of that Time, and the Transactions which happened 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 whither 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 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 allege any other things than what Bede transmitted to Posterity. But those who would have themselves to be believed as to the Transactions of those two Ages and a half did not live till Henry the Second Time, which was about 1170; that is almost 400 Years after those things were transacted concerning which they writ. The oldest is Ethelverd, who lived in 1090; and whither 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 esteemed worthy of Credit, I submit to the Judgement of those who are any way versed in History.  
But here some may object, that they had Chronicles whence they might excerpt those things. Its 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 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 esteemed by them, according to the Custom of those Times, we may make a Conjecture of the rest, that all Men may perceive how frivolous 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 stuffed 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 Monastery. Its wondered to read what great and strange things he writes concerning Edward and A●helstan; all which are ascribed to the Prayers and Merits of St. john 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 Chronicle 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 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 of their Sloth● and Drowsiness, than to seign something which they thought worthy to be remembered? Therefore one set himself about the History, or rather Romance, of St. Cuthbert: Another about that of St. john of Beverly: A third about that of St. Bridget, or some other tutelary Saint to whom their Church was dedicated; which they set of with all manner of Sergeant Fables and Ornaments that could be invented. To this was added a Cartload 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 behooved them to feign, that by their Influence either the Danes were driven 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 sinned in so doing, for they called it only an Officious Lie; and the more notable the Fiction was, they were held worthy of the higher Dignity, and looked upon as People of more than an ordinary size of Piety. Than they were admired by the ignorant Friars, and reverenced by following Writers. At last, when the Government of a Monastery become 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 seen in St. Genevieve's Church at the High-Altar, her Achievements finely painted; and among other things, it was feigned that by her Prayers she had beaten of the English from the Siege of Paris, routed them, chased 'em, and chastised them with innumerable Calamities: though no Englishman did ever either hear or see that Paris was besieged by the English; and Genevieve herself was dead many Years before the Reign of the English, for she died at Paris about 80 Years old, and 513. as is witnessed by Matthew of Westminster. But those Writings having once pleased the Ears and Minds of the common People, were esteemed as true; so that if any Man durst but mutter against them, he was forthwith looked upon as an Heretic 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 occurred, then they described Arthur's Achievements; as Geffrey of Monmouth, who wrote five Books of things that were never transacted; or they forged some new Gildas, that the New History of England might have something of Probability: and so those Write of the Monks coming to be admired, were desired by others that they might be copied; by which Means they were filled 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 enriched their Churches. From the Text of those Legends, or Chronicles▪ as the Vulgar used 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 lest 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 given an Account of Transactions, with the Causes, Occasions, Events and Circumstances at such an Interval of Time?  
But there are two Evidences, chief by whose Testimony more than all the rest, the Equity of our Cause is mightily prejudged, vice 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 published, 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 bewitched 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 Wives Tattle, I am mightily pleased with them; and yet these are the Writers by whose Authority 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 irreconcilable Enemies to Truth, and such as were accustomed to embrace the Shadow for the Substance. 
* Quidam Ignaviae Sectatores. C. de Curionibus.  And those Writers lived 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 lest 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 patronise 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 ancient 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 Sovereign of the Universe; and seeing also, as is said by the Learned in the Law, de sim●li in simile facilis est Transitus, Why should we not think that they would turn every thing that occurred into a Panegyric of their own Prince, so they could but tender him Sovereign of the whole Island?  
juvenal is certainly in the right, when he says in his third Satire, 
Graeculus esuriens in coelum jusseris ibit,  
A hungry Fellow will do any thing to have his Belly full.  And in that same manner, those Court-Dogs do continually fawn upon their Masters, that they may procure some Morsels to stay their ravenous Stomaches. 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 authentic Charters and Monuments (kept in the Archives) under the Handwriting 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; 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, Domestic 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 Britain, Burgundy, etc. to the Kings of France, are still extant in the Archives. Than 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 pulled the Crown from of 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 performed 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 Sterling upon him at the same Time, and taking his O●th, not only to perform faithful Vassalage and perpetual Service, but also that neither the King nor any of his Posterity, should ever pretend to that Crown any otherwise, than by the Bounty and Goodwill 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 performed 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 agreed, 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 lest knowledge of the Feudal Law, must confess those things to be true; for if there be no Benefit granted me, how can I own Service, or with what Confidence can the Lord demand Military Service or Homage, from him who 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 received 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 possessed Britain itself. As to what concerns the Kingdom of the Picts, it cannot be called their Benefit, for that we acquired by our own proper Valour against their Will, they having taken Arms in defence of the Picts; so that Scotland cannot be called 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 hap, 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 aught not to be acquired by Force and Violence, but by Liberality and Munificence, and a Benefit (Beneficium) is the Genus of the Thing defined 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 lest in Clientelary Kingdoms) which was acquired 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 merely 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 revenged upon them in some measure, and show, that he could do that which others could not; he would created 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, 
Esse sat est Servum, jam nolo Vicarius esse  
Qui Rex est Regem maxime non habeat.  And it is a Maxim in Law, Par in parem non habet Imperium, i.e. Equals have no Command over one another; but the King of Bohemia had his whole Kingdom out of the Patrimony of the Empire, and upon that account performed Homage.  
The Antipope 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 allege all Italy belonged 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 Sovereignty, the Pope adjudged 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 received their Kingdoms, from the Bounty of the Emperors and Popes; and so those Kingdoms were originally founded, that they should hold in Vassalage, 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 itself must of necessity cease also. Neither is it usual for Conquerors to leave the Royal Title to the Conquered Kingdom: Britain was called a Kingdom formerly, but after it was subdued by the French, they laid the Name of Kingdom aside. When the Welsh were brought under by the English Power, they were forbidden to choose any more Kings; and it was the like as to Ireland, which was governed by five Kings when conquered by the English; who were all of them constrained to quit that Royal Title, and for the most par● assumed that of Earls; so that fourfold Division of the Kingdom of France among the Sons of Charlemaign, whenever any of them returned to the ancient Patrimony, their Title of Kingdom become antiquated: and indeed in my Judgement, 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 Castille did sometimes pay Homage to the King of Leon, and Portugal did the same to Castille; but Castille was originally no more than a Province, or County of the Kingdom of Leon, and Portugal a part of Castille. Nor did their Princes at first assume Royal Dignity to themselves, jest 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 jest we should seem to be altogether contentious, we will grant, though they can never force us to it neither by Argument nor Example, that a King may be compelled by Arms to acknowledge 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. XU  
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 preserved with a great deal of Difficulty; so that from him we were in no Danger; he being engaged in War with the Britons 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 informed of the Nobleness of the Island, they continued the War with the Britons; and having driven them into Wales, divided the Province among themselves into seven Kingdoms, the Countries being shared according to every one's Merits; so that all the Time of this Heptarchy, they had a Domestic Enemy to contend with, and the Point in controversy was not, which of them should Govern, but which of them should Live: For the Britons, though they had the justest Cause of War that could be, yet being inferior to the Saxons in Valour and Strength, and forced to retire into the Mountains and 〈◊〉 Places; they did continually infested 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 offered, they did not decline Fight, Anger and Grief for the loss of their Country inspiring them with Courage, while Fortune and their own Valour favoured the Saxons: So that during this whole six hundred Years, one War begat another, without any mention of Peace, both Nations fight eagerly; nor in all this time could the Bri●ains be subdued, not, not in the Conqueror's Reign Rufus his Son having killed 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 Ancient 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 ancient Country, and the others to retain it.  
The Britons being thus repulsed, though not conquered, a far more insupportable Mischief fell out among 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 writ 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 Heptarchies 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 Britons in the mean time keeping up their Arms, was the principal Cause of this uniting among the Saxons, for being too weak for the Britons apart, the Saxon Commonalty did the more readily agreed to submit themselves to the Government of One; that so with their united Forces, they might the more easily repel the Britons: then seeing for that whole space of four hundred Years, they had an irreconcilable Enemy at Home, 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 provoked the Saxons, and had already settled himself in Northumberland, that he might assist the Britons against them as become a true Christian, though he had very just Causes of being offended with the Britons; yet by the Influence of the Bishops, he was not only withheld from taking Arms against them, but chose rather seeing they professed 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 given 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 entered Scotland, or if they did, were not permitted to make any long stay there. But besides the Incursions of the Britons, and their own Domestic Broils, and mutual Slaughters which ended in Egbert, the English were attaqu'd with a new and more grievous Judgement than all the former; for the Danes upon the same Motives that the Saxons entered Britain under Hengist, did first infested 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 ancient Fierceness, were grown more Human, they were encouraged to land upon the Continent of Britain with great Forces, and coming of Conquerors in some Battles, were lifted up with the Hopes of enjoying the whole Kingdom. Alfred opposed them stoutly, and being ofttimes beaten and ofttimes 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 Battle. But however that is, he entertained a fair and sincere Friendship with the Scots; for England had embraced the Christian Religion about an Age or two before, and therefore the Scots were easily persuaded 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 done from the Reign of Gregory, who had taken them from the Britons 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, threatening 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 poured Oil into the Flames, allured the Scots to abandon the English, and join Arms with them: The unwary Youth did easily agreed to it, as taking it heinously that those who had been so often relieved by his Father's Arms, in their greatest straitss, should now take away the Reward of his 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 sergeant a Flight, which the Scots taking to be real, broke their Ranks, and pursued them until such 〈◊〉 as new Troops come out from the Prince where they had lain in Ambush, and the rest returning to order of Battle, did first put the Scots, who were eagerly fight, to the Rout, and then the Danes; by which Stratagem the Conqueror did afterwards overcome Harold. Malcolm, the most of his chief Nobility, and the stoutest of the Youth being stain, returned 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 Battle in Person. But when the Danes upon News of this Fight come in with Auxiliary Troops from all parts, their Army increased so mightily, that Athelstan perceived 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 Christians, he first sent Ambassadors to renew the Friendship with them. The King of Scots perceiving the multitudes of Danes which arrived 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; Upon 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 performed 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 among the Lombards and French, might have crept 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 restored, there could be no firm nor lasting Friendship; but Athelstan excused himself by the Pretext abovementioned. From his time, to the Conquest, there passed 130 Years, during which the Scots maintained 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 given 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 Battles, they were forced 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 turned over and over again, to see whither they fix the lest 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 of Europe, as we shall by and by make it appear from the Ancientest 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.  
Whither 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 become (resais●tus) reseized of it. Here I don't know whither 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 belonged to the Picts, whose Kingdom was then entire: with how much more Truth does Bede (who flourished not long after) relate Ethelfred's History, whose very words I shall exhibit, that all Men may see how unfaithful Holinshed hath been, in writing his History. This Ethelfred, says he, King of Northumberland, afflicted the Britons 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 Battle, 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 Battle against the English, while Ethelfred lived. And he adds afterwards, that Ethelfred made a terrible Slaughter of the faithless Britons; and yet Holinshed has the Impudence to charge us with Perfidiousness, and to assert, that Ethelfred subdued all Scotland, (such is the Veracity and Nature of the Man) whereas Bede takes notice, that he never entered Scotland, but contented himself to exercise his Arms against the Britons; 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: Or let him cite me any other Historian, if he can, who is to be compared with Bede for Faithfulness or the Pre-eminence 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 Countrymen the English Saxons don't break your Face, for such a notorious Fiction. For it is certain that the Britons were at that time deprived both of their Country and Sovereignty 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 his Kingdom of Northumberland seized, did fly into Scotland, you yourself bear Witness, as do also our Annals, and all those that writ 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 entertained 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 received, 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 yourself in your History, nor Bede before you, make any mention, that ever Oswald made War upon the Scots. That which led you 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 tender them Tributary; but of this afterwards (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, governed 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 compared 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 yourself, Holinshed, in your History. Its certain that Oswin lived in a very good understanding with the Scots. But the Picts having broke their League with the Scots, and being left to themselves, were grievously harassed by the Northumberland Saxons: yet nevertheless, they held the Kingdom still, and did afterwards cut of 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 inferred. Although 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 acknowledge that K. Alpin was defeated, taken, and beheaded by Brudaeus King of the Picts; and that his Head was fastened to a Pole over the Gates of Camelodunum: But though you should declare it upon Oath, that that inhuman 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 publicly fastened to a Pole, was not the part of a Liege-Lord. Those things do plainly argue that there was no such Band of Society or Friendship at that time, betwixt the Scots and the English, as is required betwixt Lord and Vassal; but if there were, the King of England deserved to be deprived 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 come of Conqueror in the first Battle; but being afterwards defeated and taken, they cut of his Head: but, according to your wont Candour 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 Battles by Kennethus, Alpin's Son, and the Revenger of his Father's Death, not withstanding the Assistance which they received from the English, they were totally destroyed; and their City of Camelodunum, where the Head of that noble Prince was publicly affixed to a Pole, (the most prodigious and heinous Breach of the Law of Nations from the Beginning of the World to that Day) was razed from the very Foundations; so that there is not the lest Vestige thereof now to be seen: And thus that most woeful Disgrace was expiated and revenged, by one which was yet more woeful. Nor were the Remainders of the Pictish Nation, which was once so famous among the Britons and Romans, and who cut of 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, OH 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 writ that Osbright and Ella, with an Army of Britain's and Saxons, did invade Scotland, put the Scots to flight, and despoiled them of the Countries by South Forth, because they chose a King of themselves. We confess all but the Cause of the War, for 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, transferred all their Right to the Kingdom of the Picts upon the Britons and Northumbrians, whose Kings being joined with the Remains of the Picts, defeated the Scots, who were much weakened by their many former Battles 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 Enemy's Valour, as to our own Negligence: For the Scots having come of victorious, and believing that they had nothing more to do, lay down upon the Grass, made merry in the Enemy's Camp, and betook themselves to rest; and the English, etc. who were watching for an Opportunity, having notice of their Security by some Traitors, surprised them asleep and without Arms, and cut them almost totally of: However, though they become victorious in this Manner, yet they never demanded Homage; but satisfying themselves with the Countries on the South of Forth, abstained from doing us any farther Injury. But you have nothing neither 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 Britons; 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. Its 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 reassumed 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 beaten, routed, subdued, reduced, and expelled 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 forced the English to quit it. Whereas, according to the Laws of History, he aught to have recorded the one as well as the other, or have passed them both over in silence: It being altogether intolerable in an Historian to commemorate the famous Achievements of his Countrymen, 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 Candour 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 Britons and Saxons. Where, I pray, and in what Author did you read this? Or who ever writ that the Right of Choosing our Kings belonged to the Saxons and Britons? When did this begin, and who was the first that was chosen? For our Kings are not so much as elected by ourselves, and far lesle by our Enemies, but come to the Crown by Succession. Or if the Consent of the Britons and Saxons were to be required in this Affair, you might have been pleased to acquaint us whither 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 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 Hunger and Hubba, I do not regard them: Its 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 performed 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 hoped to found lesle Resistance, and a larger Reward of their Trouble, they left Scotland, and turned their Arms against the English. To inquire 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 Hunger 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 Hunger and Hubba 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 Westsaxons, 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 rendered the same tributary thereunto by the Impost of Peter Pennies, is asserted by you Mr. Holinshed; and according to your wont 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 juvenal says: Don't think much to name your Man. You might as well have ●eigned that we paid Tribute to Caesar, for it was never neither written, painted, feigned nor heard, that the Scots paid Peter-pences: sed solatio est miserorum habere pares, Its 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 ordained, 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 obtained 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 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 writ 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, not, not so much as an Englishman; or if you have any who hath recorded it, that Gregory was installed 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 conquered the Danes, and ejected them totally out of the Kingdom of Scotland, he applied himself to recover the Countries besouth Forth, which were then possessed by the Danes, who had dispossessed the English that took them formerly from the Scots, and cut of Constantine King of the Britons with his whole Army, because he would not part with Annandale, Galloway, and the rest of the Scotish Countries which he had acquired 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, reconciled 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 shall hear by and by. This Gregory did also subdue Ireland, which makes it so much the lesle probable, that he who conquered so many Nations and People, should be compelled 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 conspired against him with the Danes. Edward indeed being grieved that so many large Countries were cut of from England, and given to the Scots by his Father, would needs redemand them contrary to the Public Faith and Covenant; and it may be that the King of Scots was forced to join with the Danes. But to prove that he received his Kingdom from Edward, and acknowledged 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 mentioned, does the same: As for you Mr. Holinshed, I confess I do not wonder, for you have so accustomed yourself to Falsehood, that its 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, who was so famous for his Valour and Achievements, except it be john Leland, who dedicated his Book on this Subject to that King. But as to Marianus Scotus, there is not the lest 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, not 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 Britons, whom we now call Welch, yet it is so plainly contradictory to the Truth of History, that Polydore hath tempered it thus, by saying, That he obtained the Sovereignty of all the People in the Island except the Scots. Florence of Worcester, who is more ancient than either Hoveden or Malmsbury, says, That the King of Scots, and Reginald King of the Danes, did choose this Edward the Elder for their Father and Lord, and entered 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 obtained a Peace with the English, proceeded not further. But neither Malmsbury nor Huntingdon 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 received 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 stiffly deny as to Homage performed to him, after Constantine was defeated, is owned 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 entered and viewed the Camp of Avalassus the Dane, and then returned to his own Army; though the Spanish Writers mention this as a very great Commendation in Alphonsus the Catholic, who did the like in the Moors Camp: And what you affirm of the Scots having been bribed by the Danes to break their League with the English, is all of a piece. Histories do indeed make 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 arrived 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 itself: 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 Forefathers had granted the Provinces of Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmoreland to the Scots, demanded them back again, threatening 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 quit 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 agreed in their Relations of this Affair. We own that the League was broke (but by your Fault); 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 turned Monk. But all the English Authors that I have read, say that Constantine was present in Person, and routed. Neither do they agreed 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 surrendered 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 agreed in the Place of Battle. Malmsbury says they fought at Brunefurd in England; some will have it that they fought in Scotland, whereas Athelstan never seen that Country: And others given out that they fought at the Mouth of Humber; wither they pretend that Avalassus, and Constantine his Father-in-Law, arrived 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 pleased: But as to any Homage performed 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 Judgement, (but following the English Annals) says, that Constantine swore Feal●y to Athelstan; but whither it were for Scotland, or those beneficiary Provinces, he says not. And Henry the 8th, in that Declaration of his beforementioned, 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 forced to quit his Kingdom; but was afterwards restored, that he might reig● under Athelstan. Henry of Huntingdon 
† 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 surrendering himself to the English. Hoveden writes, that Constantine was defeated; and that afterwards having given his Oath, he entered 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 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 returned home: Which is repeated by Florence of Worcester in the same Words. The Continuator of Bede passes by all those things, as being involved in Darkness; but never one of them says that Homage was performed, much lesle 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; (jurasse in Verba Athelstani) but this is an homonymous Phrase that may be diversely taken. For ●. S●ipio, called afterwards Africanus, compelled Q. Cecilius Metellus, and others of the Roman Nobility, who consulted together to desert Italy after the Battle of Cannae (jurare in sua Verba) to swear Subjection to him; but it is not likely that he received Homage from them. jurare in Verba, is by good Authors taken for a firm Assent; as jurare 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 given Assent to no Man's Opinion: and whereas they may say, Polydore did probably use the Words jurasse in Verba to signify Homage, its 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 Judge in this Affair, but only to writ what the most ancient 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 though some may have left it in writing, that Homage was performed; and though we should yield this freely, and grant that to have been which never was, yet there is noon so voided of Modesty as to assert, that Homage was performed for Scotland; for neither does the Nature of the Benefit itself, 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 be performed without a Benefit: And therefore I know not what to say as to those English Writers, seeing they don't agreed among themselves neither, as to the Place, Generals, Event, nor Effects of that Battle: 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 perished, 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 People, as they own themselves. As to what concerns the Surrender, (Deditionem) or entire subjecting of ourselves, 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 Collatine People (the deditione populi Collatini). But they might however, have learned from their own Polydore 
* Lib. 5. Hist. , concerning the Surrender of the Kingdom of Northumberland to K. Egbert: for in the first the Collatine People lost their Liberty; and in the latter, the Northumbrians lost the Honour of 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 given one's self up to Labour; and as a Son is said (dedere se Patri) to given 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 Falsehood, who adventure to assert a thing of such moment without Authority or Evidence. The Romans, at lest those who were in the greater Camp, did also surrender or yield themselves up after the Battle of Cannae; and both the Consuls, T. Veturius Calvi●us, and Sp. Posthumius Albinus, surrendered themselves at the Furcae Ca●dinae, when the whole Army passed under the Yoke: But the People of Rome did neither acknowledge the Carthaginians their Lords in the one, nor the Samnites 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 Battle, or of his having been killed or taken; but that upon receiving the ill News of the unsuccessful Battle, he put on the Monks Habit. The hotheaded Youth Malcolm, who was declared Prince of Scotland, being improvident, did totally loose his Army, and missed narrowly himself at that Time, as I said before. And here Mr. Holinshed, you insult over us in a wondered 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 Britons have indeed of Declaiming against your English Saxons, Mr. 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 Perjured Wretches, Covenant-breakers, who had violated their Pledged Faith, the Laws of War, and overturned all Laws Divine and Human, 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, 
Stultus & improbus ●ic am●r est, dignusque notari,  
Cum tu● pervideas oculis male Lippus inunctis  
Cu● in 〈◊〉 vitiis, tam cernis acutum  
Quam ant Aquila a●t serpens Epida●rius at illi contra  
Evenit, inquirant Vitia ut tua rursus & illi.  He does not do well in my Judgement, who takes no notice of the Beam in his own Eye, and finds fault with the Mote in his Neighbour's. 
Nam vitiis nemo sine nascitur, optimus ille est  
Qui minimis urgetur:  
Not Man is born without a Fault, but he  
Is the best Man, who is from Faults most free.   
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 discussed, that all Men may understand whither 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, Whither the same was performed for the Kingdom of Scotland, which until that Time was free, or for those Provinces which he received 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 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 Grandfather, was the first who gave it the Name of England. The King of Scots was not reduced to such Straitss 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 pressed 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. 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 performed 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 Huntingdon 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 Foreigners▪ And (in like manner) Edred his Brother and Successor, by granting Northumberland to the Scots, which was reduced 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 assigned 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 revived again and flourished with Richeses, though it had been often destined 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 possessed of the adjacent Countries? And he does also take notice of the Stone-Cross, commonly called Re-cross or King's-Cross in Richmondshire, 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 fixed in order to separate the Lands given by the several Kings to 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 come to join the Picts in Britain, although they did continually infested our Countrymen (meaning the Britons) with War, yet the Scotish Monarchy did not grow up of a sudden, but they lurked a long time in that Place where they arrived, until they did totally exterminate the Picts; and that the Kingdom of Northumberland fell by its intestine Broils, and the Incursions of the Danes. Than, 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 Sovereignty over the Rest, having imposed a Tribute upon it, and received 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 confessed by both Parties, that those 〈◊〉 were then possessed 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 Englishman 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 rendered our Possession of those Countries very uneasy; and the like happened in 〈◊〉, as is witnessed by 〈◊〉 for though either the whole, or at lest 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 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 possessed 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 own that Homage for Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Northumberland, the Beneficiary Countries, and if he performed it, what Wonder!  
And seeing there were not two Homages performed, (for noon of the Monastical Writers do mention two) and that it appears there was only One, let us inquire further, (though it be plain enough from what is already past) whither it was for Scotland, or for Cumberland, and the other Provinces. In all Payments, Lawyers will have the Payment to be interpreted according to the meaning of the Debtor, and that the Paiment was made for that which the Debtor said it was: But our Countrymen when that Debt was paid, did plainly express, that they paid the said Homage for those Countries. The English confess the Payment, but suppress the Cause for which it was made, that they may be at Liberty to wrist 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 Balliol and James the first, of whom in the following Chapter: and therefore the Expression and Interpretation of the Debtor, and not of the Creditor, is to be received in this Homage. Again, according to Law, if Paiment be made without Addition of what Debt it is for, the Payment 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 Payment is presumed to be for that which is certain, and not for that which is doubtful. But no Body is ignorant that it is controverted, whither 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, is confessed by both Parties, so th●t this Debt is out of all Controversy▪ and therefore Reason persuades, and Law pre●umes, that the Pa●ment was made for those Countries, when every 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 presumed 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, whither it be Person or Thing▪ but the incurable Itch of Scribbling 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 performed Homage, but only Malcolm, who was made Prince of Cumberland on that Condition. But Malcolm could not perform Homage for the Kingdom of Scotland, which was then free, and of which Constantine was Sovereign: For he only aught to perform it, who is Possessor of the Kingdom, and not the Heir Apparent as we call him. For Cumberland, Malcolm both could, and aught to have done it, seeing he held it in Fee of At●elstan. Than 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 lest Shadow of Probability?  
Whilst Holinshed seeks for Arguments, on every Hand, as to Athelstan, that he may confirm 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, come 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, whither or not the Superiority over Scotland was rightfully due to him; he prayed 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 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 designed only to express the Fable of Actius Navius the Augur: Yet this is writ and received as a Truth by most of the English, and hath occasioned many, and particularly myself, 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 not lesle ridiculous, concerning Athelstan's Knife, which was deposited on the Altar of St. john of Beverly, at the Time of that Expedition into Scotland, which he redeemed again with great Largesses and Endowments, when he returned victorious.  
But the History is plain in itself, that Athelstan having overcome the Prince of Scots, took from him the Provinces of Cumberland, Nort●umberland and Westmoreland; but not being able to maintain a War against the Danes and Scots both, and conceiving that the Scots would be more easily reconciled than the Danes, who aimed at the Sovereignty 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 designed Successor to the Crown of Scotland, was called 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 possessed by the Danes. And thus our Historians agreed 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 would divert the Arms of the Danes from him, adding that he did only reign in a precarious 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 themselves 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, killed their King, and defeated the S●ots, long before Caesar's Time? Than if our Neighbours look upon themselves as injured, if without Judgement we resign our Faith to Saxo Gramma●icu●, Kran●zi●● and other Historians of De●mark and Norway, in what they writ concerning Su●n●, C●nute, etc. in their Conquest of England, because both of them are too much addicted 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 against us with so much▪ B●ncour? for we are tau●ht by natural Reason, to given the 〈…〉 to others that we have from them, and tha● we should do the same ourselves that we think equal in others. But however that is, we shall found more heinous thin●● alleged against 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 〈◊〉 obtained 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 precariously, 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 Sovereign 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 Monastical 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 Judge when he perceives that the English affir●▪ and the Scots deny this Homage, will according to Law and Equity, determine 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 mere Rumours, in a Matter of so great moment. But if any Man can produce Deeds for this, writ by either Party, or Charters, and ancient Monuments, corroborated by their Seals, as in the Case of K. john formerly mentioned, then they have something to which they may given 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 myself, nor think that they deserve Credit from others. First, because our Laws do expressly forbidden Credit to be given to such Testimonies as may be begged; 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 Public Counsels of the Kingdom, and who never were present at those Transactions themselves, a●e by no means to be admitted as Evidence in a Public Controversy, especially Matter of Fact which happened some Ages before they were born: for if they were brought to swear in Court, and the Judge should inquire at them if they knew the Parties against whom they are led as Evidence, they will say no. If they be asked, as to the Matter itself, how they come to the knowledge of those things which they swear, what Cause, or, if not the true Cause, what probable Cause at lest can they bring, viz. whither they seen those things, and were present at the Transactions, they will answer, no. If they be asked, how they come to know it then, they will answer with Malmsbury and Florence, that they had it from credible Men. If the Judge urge them further, and ask whither those credible Men seen those things themselves, they will also say, not; as they must of necessity do concerning things transacted so many Years ago. And if the Judge inquire 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 given no probable Reason, as we use to speak, for their Deposition, don't deserve Credit in any Court. If they be interrogated concerning things done in their own Time, whither or not they know that the Scots surrendered o● yielded themselves up? They will answer, we know they d●d. If they be asked, what a Surrender (deditio) is, and whither they seen the Scots surrender, and the English receive their Towns, Lands, Waters, Images and all Utensils, Human and Divine, (all which are required in a Surrender, nor can it be done without an express Stipulation, as is witnessed by Livy in the Surrender of Collatia, and the Collatine 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, whither they know that Hostages w●re gi●en, that Tribute was imposed, 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 officiously, 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, whither he seen that Homage performed and received? He will answer, not; for he was not at that Time without the Pr●cincts of his Cloister. If he 〈◊〉 asked, whence he had it then? he will tell you, from credible Men who were present at the Transactions: But if he asked again, whither those who pretended to be pre●ent 〈◊〉 the Homage performed? He will answer, they seen it. If he be interrogated, whither that Homage was performed for Scotland, or the Beneficiary Provinces? He will tell you, he knows not that; but o●ly that he who related it, seen the King of Scots ●wear Fea●●y with his Hands put betwixt those of the King of England; but whither it were for Sc●tland or Cumberland, etc. 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 performed to Athelstan; they will answer, that the King of Scots did make a Surrender of himself: For that he surrendered to Edward 1. they have read in that Legend of St. john of Beverly, which is repea●ed once a Month in the Church; or in that of St. Cuthbert, or some other tutelary Saint. Or they will answer with Polydore, that they remember it is so writ, but are not Judges whither it be true or false.  
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 resolved to purchase the Favour of the Court, or the Applause of the Vulgar, and to writ 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 yourself bear them witness Mr. Holinshed; and their being twice driven out of Britain, because they would neither subject themselves to the Britons nor the Romans, does sufficiently instruct it; and the most terrible Wars which they maintained against Edward I, TWO, and III upon this very account, are sufficient to persuade any Man that reads them of the Truth of it. For though the Scots were overcome by Edward I in three or four fatal Battles, yet they could never be brought to acknowledge 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 fight until they compelled Edward III who was called 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 Battles, wherein they lost two Kings; yet they never abandoned the Cause, yielded up themselves, nor performed Homage: Nay in this present Age, we have been defeated in two bloody Battles; 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 ourselves, nor was Homage demanded of us. Is it so then Mr. Holinshed, that we cannot be beaten, but you will have us to surrender upon it immediately? For as often as the Rabble of English Historians found it mentioned that the Scots were defeated, then strait they will have them to be subdued, reduced, 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 having that Kingdom in his power, which he and his Ancestors had so greedly coveted, would have left them the Name of a King? if it be so, its without a Precedent. For when Ireland was conquered, their Kings were commanded to lay aside the Royal Title, as I have mentioned before, and so become fiduciary Earls: And the like did hap before that in Wales; which being once conquered, was deprived of the Royal Title: and when Northumberland was surrendered, it lost the Name of Kingdom. Than let Malmsbury say whatever comes uppermost, and allege that Constantine was forced to resign his Crown, to which he was afterwards restored 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 persuade 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 assigned why they should lie. If any Body will compare the Time when those Writers lived, with the Matters then transacted, it will appear that all of them wrote their Histories at that Time when this Homage was most fiercely disputed betwixt the two Kings: And seeing those Monks could not defend the Cause of their ●ountry by the Sword, it needs not seem strange to any Man that they should favour ●t what they could with their Tongue and ●en: And this Victory was also obtained in England, when Scotland at the same time was ●ot so much as touched. ●hat the Legend of St. john of Beverly asserts, that Athelstan ●ntred Scotland as far as Dunbar to fight constantine, is utterly false; for this Battle 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 touched, 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 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 Commentitious 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 ascribed to Edmund. So that the English Historians set no Bounds to their Rancour 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 given to the Write 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 obtained. But what 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, Whither Homage was performed for Scotland or ●ot? The Question of Right remains, Whither Constantine or Malcolm could enslave the Kingdom, which they received free from their Ancestors, to another King; or tender 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 overthrew ●ll ●hat our Enemies have hitherto advanced. 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 whither they pretended any right to the Superiority of Scotland.  
You subjoin, Mr. Holinshed, that Indulphus King of Scots, with ten thousand Men served 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 aught. But being declared King of Scotland, he never seen Edmund: Nor is there any mention of this Homage in Malmsbury, Huntingdon, 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: Nay, which is more, when Indulphus was importuned by the Danes, not to disturb them in their Wars against the English, he refused, and drew the Arms of the Danes from the English upon himself; and having fought and conquered them in a terrible bloody Battle, he pursued a flying Brigade unwarily, and (as our Countrymen have often smarted for their too great Forwardness and Heat) he was killed by a Body of the Danes, which had never been broke. And for these good Services we must be reckoned to have served 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 King; nor does any Man besides yourself 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 passed over, if you could have found any Author for it, such is your Candour towards us. This is wondered Ignorance in those Monks, that when they given 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, writ, that Irisius and Reinaldus were Kings of Scotland, and performed Homage to the Kings of England: but if all the Catalogues of our Kings, and all the public Monuments be examined, there are noon 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 performed, and what Author they can produce for it. And as to what you say, that the Homage was performed 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 Write, and ours, as I have said before, that the Kings of Scotland had not only recovered those Provinces by force of Arms jong 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.  
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 seen 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 used to perform this Homage: It is credible that the King of England did not only furnish him Lodgings there, but also bear the Expenses of his Journey, and that according to Agreement. For seeing the King of Scots did 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 aught at lest 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 public Charge: which we confess was first agreed on by Edgar, as we shall afterwards explain it in Richard I; and as it is prescribed 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 reigned at the same time: to which of them then do you say, shall we given Credit? To ours certainly. there being noon of your Writers that I 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 its supposed would not detract any thing from the Offspring of his own Country, does attribute the same to us. Neither is this true, that the said Law is only observed among 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) come from the Feudal Law: for it is equal and just, that when the Vassal is uncapable by reason of Nonage, 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 mary 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 English u●on this account, because they followed their Example for their own conveniency, as all Governments use to do, than that they are subject to them now, because they have lately followed their example in laying an Impost upon Goods imported, especially Wine. But the truth is, Mr. Holinshed, you indulge yourself too much in a Liberty of forging what you plea●e.  
What you assert as to the Homage performed 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, james King of Galloway and jucullus 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 Lyric 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 found those called Kings of Cumberland, Galloway, Man, or of our Isles? Who dignified them with 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 Elder Son of Scotland, under the Name of a Principality; but no Man did ever hear or writ that it was called a Kingdom, except some silly Monks, who receive every little Whisper and Rumour as Oracles. Nor is this Kingdom numbered among 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 designed by a Royal Title, in the Write of those ignorant and unexperienced Monks; and as during Edgar's Reign, there was no other King of Cumberland than he who was designed 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 myself; 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 among 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 exposed 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 celebrated the Feast of our Lord's Nativity with great Banquets, and splendid Entertainment, and to invite their Neighbouring Princes out of kindness, and among 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 used to be continued to Epiphany, 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 created 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 performed 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 walked upon the Shore of the Sea, he put of his Robe, and sitting down on a Chair within the Seamark, forbade the approaching Wave to touch his Feet, but being wet by the same, he is said to have turned 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 ascribed to the great God, as it aught 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 human Lot, for which the English were deservedly punished not long after, being forced to redeem themselves, their Wives and Children, and Liberties twice or thrice from the Danes, and were at last despoiled of the Kingdom, and all their Military Glory, first by the Danes, and then by the Normans.  
You will also have it, that Edgar provoked Kennadus King of Scots to a Duel, viz. in England, wither he had invited him to a Feast: and if he declined this Duel in England, what wonder, especially with his Host, jest he should violate the Laws of Hospitality, which we read in the second P●nick War to have been refused by T. Quintius Crispin●s to Campanes his Host. Though it is evident that Kennadus, whom we call Kenneth●s or rather Canutus, was very valiant in War, and noon of our Historians do so much as make mention of his having ever been in England.  
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 yourself mention it in your History, where you are a little more modest: so that you have nothing of Kennethus' being subdued by War, nor having performed Homage; but here according to your depth of Judgement, you think it as easy to subdue the Scots as to writ it. I don't marvel that you who writ so many Wonders, should relate that Kennethus King of Scots poisoned 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' having promised to receive any one that Ed●ard 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 Successor 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 imposed, nor subjected to another'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 performed Homage for Cumberland, (for it was held in Fee of England) but for Scotland he neither aught 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 ironside, Canutus and Edward Kings of England, and whither ever they pretended any Right to Scotland.  
YOU will have it that Ethelred Brother to Edward, designed to make War upon this Malcolm, because of his conspiring against him with Sueno King of Denmark: but Malcolm having submitted himself, and begged 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 reigned 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 expelled out of England by the Assistance of Malcolm, who owed the same for Cumberland and Westmoreland; but as to his Submission, there are noon of your Writers who make any mention, nor do you yourself in your History wherein you are something more modest. It may be when he cleared himself from the Conspiracy with the Danes, which yet is not mentioned by any Author, you wrist 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, noon of our King's having given the Danes more Defeats, and turned the Arms of the Danes and Norwegians from the English upon himself; and having broke their Strength in four or five great Battles, 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 purchased Peace for themselves and their Subjects with Money, as being unequal to the Danes in Arms, which is owned by Polidore and all others that ever wrote the History of England. But say they, there is in that Place where the last Battle was fought betwixt the Scots and the Danes, a Chapel erected in Honour of St. Olaus the Patron of the Norwegians. What that Chapel is may yet be seen, (for 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 justly glory in this, that for 200 Years together we sustained the most violent Impressions of the Danes and Norwegians, and forced them to abandon their Design, though we were attacked by many of their Generals and Armies, there being but a narrow Sea betwixt us. Whereas you, though attacked 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 yourselves 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 Country's benorth Humber, with the Superiority of Scotland; which Malcolm resisted according to the usual Form, but at last performed Homage for the Kingdom of Scotland, which Canute held of K. Edmund as long as he lived; and compelled Malcolm to dedicated the Church, lately mentioned, to Olaus the Patron of the Norwegians: and so you make two superior Lords of Scotland, and created 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 writ, that Canutus and Edmund were reconciled 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 Emmas Privity. Nor did Emma mary Canutus until Edmund was dead: Neither was she Mother, but only Stepmother to Edmund; so very ignorant are you in your own Mistory. But that Canutus was invested with the Superiority of Scotland, no Man besides yourself did ever writ; nor do I believe that it was ever read before, that Malcolm did then swear Fealty to him: Not truly; and I am afraid that you do rather want Honesty than Knowledge; and that you did not writ those things by Mistake, but because you had a Mind to deceive others, or did at lest believe that noon of our Countrymen would ever read those things; and therefore you thought yourself at liberty to blab and prate what you pleased. 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 Malcolm, who only resisted him for fashion's sake: It remains to be enquired, whither those things agreed with the Truth of the History. And first, Mr. Holinshed, you allege 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 jeohmar, without much Trouble, and forced 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 looked upon it as a Typographical Error, had I not found the very same Names in Huntingdon, and also in Caradocus, a Welsh 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 Battles were fought. Must we then believe such unlearned and ignorant Monks, who did not know the Names of the Kings that performed 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 given 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 performed; which perhaps we may grant them, as being 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 styles 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 passed 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 among 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 among his Titles; and therefore it must of necessity follow, that either Canute or Holinshed, with his Malmsbury and Huntingdon, have forgot themselves; it is not usual with Kings to omit any of their Titles, nor would he have passed 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 others of both Orders, Ecclesiastics as well as Laics. And it is to be seen in Florence abovementioned, when he divided his Kingdoms among 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 caused 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 governed 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 writ 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 the Mouths of those ignorant Monks, (to say not worse of them) who do writ so often that the Scots rebelled, were routed, conquered and subdued, I shall exhibit here one Testimony of King Edward, who succeeded Canute, which will overturn all those Calumnies. For when it was debated in the public Meeting of the States or Parliament, Who aught to be accounted as Denizens of England, and enjoy the same Privileges with them: Those of Britain in France were named, first, because they were originally from England, Edward added the Welsh next, because King Inas married a Wife out of Wales, and at that time there was a general Intermarriage betwixt the Welsh 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 become one Flesh throughout all Britain, by which they become one Nation, and one People through the whole Island. All those abovementioned (says he) did ever stand stoutly as one Man, for the common Utility 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, jest any one should accuse me of adding somewhat of my own. This Law of Edward, William the Conqueror confirmed in the public Meeting of the States 
* In Archaionomiâ. , as they are translated from the Saxon Tongue by William Lambard, in the Edition printed at London by john 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 aught of Right to cohabit and remain in the Kingdom of Britain. Secondly, It is expressly provided, that the Scots may and aught of Right to cohabit and remain in the Kingdom of Britain or England, that is, be accounted Denizens, and enjoy the Privileges of the Kingdom. There's a twofold Reason given in the Text, why they aught to be reckoned among the Denizens 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 Utility of the Crown and Kingdom against the Danes and Norwegians, and fought it most valiantly and unanimously 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 become 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 come 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 writ, that the King of Scots did so often rebel, and conspire against the English, with the Danes and Norvegians, was so often conquered, surrendered, and forced 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 approved by all the States of England, who its 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 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 Soldiers 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 allege, that the King of Scots aught 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 Macbeth, but that he himself takes notice that Macbeth was slain afterwards, being afraid belike that he should omit any thing, and therefore would be sure to writ the same thing twice. This Macbeth was slain in Battle by Malcolm Prince of Cumberland, and true Heir to the Crown of Scotland, but driven thence by the Tyranny of Macbeth. 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 joined his Nephew with his Forces, as the Obligation of Kindred required he should, and afterwards that same Sivard did appear in Battle 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 supposed 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 among the Normans and us, before the English had any thing of it. But this is to be observed, that Cumberland and Northumberland were possessed 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 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 lurked 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 entertained 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 catched every way in this Fiction, and encumbered on all Hands, and that you don't distinguish those Times aright? This Malcolm whom you 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 owed Homage upon that account, and therefore it's no wonder that he performed the same.  
Writers say, that Sivard marched into Scotland to assist Malcolm, and it may be that it was by Edward's Command, which was no more than what become 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 Battle Macbeth who seized upon the Crown by Violence, was killed by Macduff Earl of Fife.  
There was a bloody Battle 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 fallen in that Battle, as he was likely to have done, we could not have said that he was killed by Douglas or the Scots: Nor for the same reason can we say, that Macbeth 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 performed 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 shortsighted, 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 inquire concerning the Right to this Homage, whither the Saxons obtained it before their Arrival in Britain, or acquired it after: That they had it before, no wise Man will allege, there having been no Communion neither in Vassalage nor Superiority betwixt those Nations. If they say that they acquired it afterwards, either they had it from the Britons, or purchased it by their own Valour. That they had it from the Britons is very improbable; for according to the Feudal Law, this Superiority cannot be transferred from 〈◊〉 Lord to another, except the Lord quit 〈◊〉 Right with Consent of the Vassal. But ●●ere's no mention of the Britons having quit their Right in any Author: nor is 〈◊〉 probable that they who were oppressed 〈◊〉 so many, and such remarkable Injuries 〈◊〉 the Saxons, would given up their Right 〈◊〉 them, or gratify them in any thing. But ●ome Englishman may perhaps answer, that ●e succeeded the Britons 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 Investiture of their Kingdoms from him, and paying him Homage, being deceived by a corrupt Opinion, that the rest of the Princes of the World aught to acknowledge the Roman Emperor for their Sovereign. The English pretend the same, and make use of the like deceitful Argument, that the Britons being driven out, their Kingdom is transferred to them; and upon that Account they claim the Right of Homage from the Scots: Thomas with the Englishmen leave, I make bold to say, that the great Turk's Argument is much the Stronger and more Honest: for he seized 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 Britons, there were many other things that did concur, which I should rather were objected by the Britons, than our Countrymen. Therefore if they neither acquired this Right by the Concession of the Britons, nor by a lawful Succession in their Room; it follows of Course, that they must have acquired it since their Arrival in Britain: and though it be manifestly repugnant to the Nature of a Kingdom and Royal Majesty to acknowledge a Liege Lord, yet if there be any such thing among Kings, as an acknowledgement 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 acknowledge 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, merely from a Caesar-like Ambition, as I said before; and the two latter, viz. Naples and Sicily were adorned 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 acknowledge a Superior; but this could not have Place in Ancient Kingdoms which were originally Independent: for no Man in his right Wits, who was originally Free, will easily condescend to be rendered subject to the Power of another, seeing upon any Offence against his Liege Lord, he is immediately deprived 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 Britons, and the Saxons did also wrist the Sovereignty 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 proved, that the Britons had no Kings before the Eruptions of the Scots, but were subject to a Roman Legate. If then the Scots were independent from the very first Constitution of their Kingdom, How could it be that they should enslave themselves to the Will of another, and acknowledge 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 acknowledge 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 writ that they were; for seeing we do far exceed the English in Antiquity, it cannot be supposed that we obtained 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 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 of 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 recalled the Benefit for which it was performed?  
The second Part remains still, which is, that being conquered by their Arms, we were forced to acknowledge the King of England as our Superior. It is true indeed, that Nations overcome by War, do sometimes acknowledge 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 acknowledge him and their own King for 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, used to be suppressed 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? Not surely, but that all occasion of Rebellion might be cut of, they abolished the Name of Kings, and established Fiduciary Earls. But of a King overcome in War, and left in his own Country as a Fiduciary, no Man hath ever hitherto read or heard.  
It remains now that we inquire into the Matter of Fact, whither or not it be likely that the King of Scots, being overcome by the Saxon Arms, was compelled to swear Fealty to the King of England, and acknowledge him as his Liege-Lord. Certainly from their Arrival with Hengist, to the time of the Conquest, they had war with the Britons for 400 Years; and the Britons being wasted with many Overthrows, did very much consume the Strength of the Saxons. Nor did the Britons lay aside the Royal Dignity until William Rufus, the Conqueror's Son, overcame them in 1193, and killed 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 raged against one another with mutual Slaughters, until the rest of the Saxon Kings being conquered, the King of the West Saxons obtained the Sovereignty of all England except Wales, which happened 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 embraced the Christian Religion, to which the Danes were capital Enemies, as I said before: And, Secondly, because they had experienced 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 allured himself being assisted by the Scots Auxiliaries, did break the Strength of the Danes, (Who had already seized a great part of England) and entertained 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 obtained; that was indeed a great one which Osbright and Ella, being conjoined with the Britons, did gain over the Scots, and I know not if ever they had a greater afterwards: 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 ours, that he might scrape together on every side whatever could be injurious to our Fame; so as having thrown of 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, among many others. From his time till that of Edward the Martyr, or Athelstan, there was no War betwixt the English and Scots; and its certain, that during that Time they obtained no Victory over us: for the English Historians would never have passed it over, seeing they take notice of things far lesle considerable and stuff their Write with mere Trifles and Oldwives Fables: And the English Saxons raging against one another with mutual Butcheries all that time, and being quickly after attacked by the Danes, its 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, as aforesaid. But Athelstan having obtained 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, forced 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 falsely 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 noon 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 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 writ 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 itself 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 gained 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 jeffrey of Monmouth; for I perceive his Fault to be common to all Historians; and therefore honest Men do seldom given Credit to the Historians of one Nation who writ against another, especially with which they are at Enmity. But Holinshed, with his Leland and Adams, filled us with Expectations of valid Proofs from the authentic and unsuspected Annals of both Kingdoms; at lest 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 used 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 Judgement 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: Whither or not this Constantine or Malcolm could tender the Kingdom subject, or oblige it to pay Homage to another, seeing they had received it free from their Ancestors? For it is certain that no Man can alienate the Rights of Majesty derived from his Forefathers, or make himself feudatory to another Prince; and that neither Constantine nor Malcol●, nor any of those who succeeded them, could invest another with the Rights of the Kingdom, which come 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 Englishmen will agreed with me, they being not lesle concerned 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 tender 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 forced to redeem their Liberty with Money. But john 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 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 though King John was a lawful King, neither he nor any other King could alienate the Kingdom without consent of the ` Peers, who are obliged 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 tender it tributary to any other King or Prince, so as the Peers may be compelled to do Homage to any foreign Prince. For he loses the Rights of Majesty, and cannot be any more called a King, who is subject to the Power and Command of another, seeing he was formerly inferior to God only; and he does manifestly abdicate, and deserves no more the Title of a King, who aught to preserve the People committed to his Charge, and all their Privileges ●●●●olable, ●f he subject them to the Power ●f ●●other: And of Right a King can neither 〈◊〉 nor emancipate his Kingdom to another; 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 informed 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 Nourished himself following Polydore, denies that this Liege Homage performed by K. john to the Pope, did any way prejudg his Successors the Kings of England; but only himself; who swore it, and committed the Offence; although there was a public Indenture signed obliging to this Homage, and confirmed not only by the Hand and Seal of K. john, but those of 16 Earls. I wonder that those who are so sharp-sighted as to discern an Homage in every public Transaction of ours, by which they will have Posterity to be bound and obliged, should deny the Kingdom of England to be a Fee, though the Name of Liege-Homage be expressly mentioned, a Tribute of 1000 Marks positively agreed on, and an express Proviso made that noon should succeed to the Crown of England without Investiture obtained from the Pope; and yet they will not have it that this Act of K. John'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 performed 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 Liegeman 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 Britons nor Saxons had, or could pretend to have, any Right over this Kingdom, how inconsiderable soever: And therefore this second Army of Instances have abandoned their Camp, deserted their General, and run over to the Enemy.   

CHAP. XXII.  
Of William the Conqueror, and whither 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 rendered 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 whither 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 inhuman Cruelty of Edward I against us: Who being inflamed with an eager Desire of extirpating 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 public 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 Monasteries, and other public Places where they were kept; and took them with him into England, upon the vain hopes which he had conceived first of possessing the Superiority which he had falsely ●●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 obliged 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 acknowledge any Superior Lord, (which is more than the English can say for themselves▪) But if our Kings received any thing from theirs under the Notion of a Benefit, or Bounty, (Beneficii) its not to be recokoned strange that they should have performed Homage for that, seeing the Benefit cannot be retained without the Homage, the one going always along with the other. But if the Lord either by Injustice, or due Course of Law, recall his Bounty, it were very uncivil in him when he takes that away, still to require Service or Homage.  
But before we come to those things which are objected against us by Holinshed in particular, we must inquire in general, that if there was any Homage due from Scotland to the King of England, to whom it aught to accrue after the Conquest, whither 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 given 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. Than seeing Right cannot be purchased by Force and Arms, nor Prescription be pleaded against him who cannot act, but that by Laws both Human and Divine, every one's Right aught to remain entire to him; we must found out who it is that succeeded to that Right by Law.  
There are some who feign, that William the Conqueror was named by Edward the Confessor for his Successor, and that he left the Kingdom to him by his Will; and Holinshed who is ashamed of nothing, how unreasonable soever, will have it, that he succeeded 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 Elder called 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) jest he should incur any Damage from the Children of an excellent Father, whose Memory was precious to the English, he proscribed Edward who was therefore surnamed the Exile. This Edward retiring to the Court of Henry the Emperor, found so much Favour there, that he obtained 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 to Edmund, only by the Father's Side, whither it was by the Craft of his Mother Emma, or by Election, as the English will have it, usurped 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 recall 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 returned into England, but died that same Year. King Edward grieved 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 writ what they please concerning this Edward, and rank him among 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 called the true King of England; and therefore its 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 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 Firstborn, 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 devolved 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 of the Crown devolved 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 forced to acknowledge a Foreigner for their Sovereign, by whom being despoiled of their Richeses and Estates, they were forced 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 governed 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 grants to Alan Count of Britain, 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, turned 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, retired into Wales, and the latter being totally rooted out, have left noon 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 Child's play to what they suffered 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 Nobleman's Estates to those that bid most, he forced all the English to swear Fealty and Homage, and laid grievous Imposts upon private Man's Estates, and claimed every thing as his own by the Right of Conquest; he did moreover, abolish the Laws and Institutions of the Country, changed the ancient 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 called 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 advice you again and again, not to be guilty any more of rejecting the true Heir of the Crown. And, 
Si Gen●● humanun● & Mortalia temnitis Arma,  
At sperate Deos memores fandi atque nefandi.    

CHAP. XXIII.  
Of the Conqueror and his Sons Ru●us and Henry Kings of England, and whither Homage was performed to them for Scotland.  
NOW I return to the Conqueror, and whither he acquired any new Right to the Kingdom of Scotland; for that he succeeded to the old Right, or that the same was devolved upon him, can neither be maintained 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 advice the Reader, that there's no public Writing, Charter or Monument produced against us for the Conqueror's Right, but only Domestic Testimony, and that also of an Enemy; and how much Credit that deserves hath been explained already, and is referred to the Judgement of the Impartial Reader: nor if all the Monkish Writers be duly and orderly examined, will it be found that there was any Homage performed for Scotland.  
The Conqueror, says Holinshed, having subdued England, thought he had done nothing unless he also subdued Scotland, and did therefore invade the same, and forced 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 received by Malcolm, who was mindful of the Assistance they had given him to recover his Kingdom, and enriched them with Lands and Fees; so that it is not without cause the English writ, that the whole Nobility of England went over to the Scots 
* Westminster and Matth. Paris.  The Conqueror being enraged 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 received several Defeatss in the People of his Generals, he only come himself to the Borders; but Malcolm meeting him with a well appointed Army, and both sides waiting for the Signal of Battle, 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 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 acknowledge 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 despoiled, should be restored 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 Battle; for the King of Scots had at that time a most formidable Army, not only composed of his own Subjects, but English Exiles: The gallant Sivard Earl of Northumberland had joined his Nephew Malcolm 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 writ, 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 become 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 Judgement of all the English Writers, Malcolm did only perform that Homage which he owed; but that it was performed for Scotland, no Body writes but this Holinshed, and the sergeant Nicholas Adams. Let them then turn over all the Write of the Monks till they sweated and pant, and let them unlock all the Cabinets, they shall never found that Malcolm performed Homage for Scotland, which is the Point in Hand; for we do not deny that Homage was performed as long as we held those Northern Provinces, but after they were taken away, there was neither any due nor performed. In matters of Money, Judgement is never given except upon clear E●●dence, and how much lesle aught it to be given in a Controversy which concerns the Liberty not of one Man, but of a whole Kingdom, and that the most Ancient in Europe. And in Law, as often as the same Discourse will admit of two Interpretations, that only is to be received which is most agreeable to the thing transacted, and makes for Liberty: Therefore what Holinshed or the Pettifogger Adams say, that Homage was performed, to the Conqueror for the Kingdom of Scotland, is altogether false. But this is their ordinary way, that whenever they found it mentioned that Homage was performed to allege, 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 banished, returned Home: nor can the English themselves assert, that he reaped any other Advantage from that War, though at the same time it 〈◊〉 to be observed, that we undertook the ●●me upon the account of the English, as we ●ad formerly sustained the Attacks of the ●anes for their Safety and Government.  
Rufus, the Conqueror's Son, having conceived, 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 received Homage from the King of Scots for Scotland; but in what Place, Time or Year, you do not say, for fear of being catched in a manifest Lie: for there's no mention of this Homage in William of Newbriggs, though he come 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 obtained it: Others, that Rufus prepared 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 retired; and that Robert of Normandy made Peace with Malcoln King of Scots, who waited for the Coming of the English with a very strong Army neare 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 perceive any thing, that most of the Writers do wholly omit all mention of this Homage, and that the 〈◊〉 possessed 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 received more Damage than Advantage by that Expedition, and was the first that desired Peace; which he could not obtain, but upon yielding up most of those Pl●ces which his Father had seized? 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 Battle array, Robert Duke of Normandy, who accompanied his Brother Rufus to the Scotish Wars, perceiving Edgar Etheling in Malcolm's Army, and having been familiar with him in times past, called upon him, and was the first that mentioned a Peace; and by their means the two Kings were reconciled on these Conditions, That M●lcolm should do the same Offices to Rufus which he had performed 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 Liegeman, which does not at all agreed with the Homage then alleged to be performed. 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 obliged 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' Liegeman, must needs be false: For he 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 inferior in Arms. But our Neighbours act according to their usual Custom, in upbraiding us constantly with Cowardliness, or something that is dishonourable. That Malcolm become Rufus' Liegeman, we don't deny; but upon what account he become 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 inhuman Cruelty towards Northumberland when he ravaged the same, and the other that he and his eldest Son were slain in plain Battle: And though those things don't much concern the Question of Homage, which is the Subject of the present Dispute, yet it is not to be passed 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 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 ancient 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 infested Malcolm with War) harassed 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 given no Quarter, and leave the Soldiers 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 killed in Battle: Its a known Story. For William the Conqueror being very lavish of his Faith, as the English themselves do testify, detained some Garrisons in Northumberland: Malcolm having expected Restitution a long time, but in vain, besieged Alnwick; and the Garrison being destitute of all Relief, offered to surrender, Robert Mowbray, 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 designed to surrender: the King come 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 of by his swift Horse, on the Confidence of whose Heels he undertook this memorable Enterprise. 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 Garrison 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 to Rufus But you cannot produce one ancient 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 dethroned 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 among us: And this was followed by our Countrymen; 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 Huntingdon, 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 numbered among 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 deprived of the Kingdom, and killed in the space of two Years. But Holinshed won't take notice of this, that Duncan was not admitted to the Throne until he took an Oath that he would entertain no English nor Norman Soldiers, 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 Soldiers 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 deserved to have his Fee taken away. But the Matter speaks of itself, 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 devil there.  
You writ, that the most renowned Prince Henry I received 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 Prince knowing the Norman Government to be weak, and established by no Law in England, and that the Succession to both Kingdoms was due to Margaret Queen of Scots, and her Children, he obtained Ma●d, the Daughter of Malcolm and Margaret, for Wife, that he might from her at lest 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 Virtue and Education are in much esteem with us, though they accounted 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.  
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 among the Kings of England. You add, that she gave to her Uncle K. David for Wife, the Daughter of Earl Woldeo●is, Heiress of Huntingdon and Northumberland; and therefore because David was the first who did Homage for Huntingdon you in●er as a necessary Consequence, that his Predecessors performed the same for the Kingdom of Scotland; and that now you have left no place of Subterfuge for our Countrymen, who hold that the Homage was performed for Huntingdon before they obtained the Possession of it. As to the Heiress of Huntingdon, 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 yourself Mr. Holinshed: So that this necessary Conclusion of yours comes to nothing; for though K. David was the first that performed Homage for the County of Huntingdon, its certain that many of his Ancestors performed 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.  
You object, that David refused Homage to Stephen, because he had performed 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 performed to Stephen; nor if they had, would it any way help our Neighbour's Cause, as I said before. For we will grant that Homage was performed 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 refused to swear Fealty to him for the same. However, he sent his Son Henry as was meet, who was gifted with the County of Huntingdon 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 dissolved by Osbright, and never renewed again. If you had writ simply, without any Addition, that Malcolm had performed Homage, it might have been born with; for seeing Malcolm enjoyed four large Provinces in England, viz. Cumberland, Northumberland, Westmoreland and Huntingdon, which he did then hold of the English in Fee, what wonder if he performed Homage for them? And therefore I beseech the candid Reader that he would forbear giving Judgement 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 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 writ, Mr. Holinshed, that Malcolm King of Scots performed 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 own 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 given you and all other English Writers, if there be any who agreed 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 Homage in the same Manner as his Grandfather performed 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 had no other Dignities but Scotland, which was preserved safe and entire in this Homage. Neither was this only true as to Malcolm, says Hoveden, but also as to his Grandfather and Predecessors; and therefore if any Man inquire after the Form of Homage paid by Constantine to Athelstan, it necessarily follows that the same was performed with a Salvo to the Royal Dignity: And so the Homage was performed 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 hare-brained Fellow, and one who lies at catch for other Man's Fame, seeing you are not ashamed 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 cleared himself of that Crime; and acquainted them, that having go to London to perform Homage, he was compelled by 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 〈◊〉 passed 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 Huntingdon, 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 owed Homage, and not for the Kingdom of Scotland, as you do wilfully dream, Mr. Holin●●ed. What you writ of Henry the Second having adjudged the four Dominions above mentioned, to the Crown of England, because of Malcolm's Rebellion, was never asserted by any but yourself; or if otherwise, tell us when, by what Methods, or in what Place did this Rebellion hap: 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 tender the first Lie probable, 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, adjudged to the Crown of France by the Senate of Paris? and yet they were never restored until the English were driven thence by force of Arms. Its 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, Perjured, and Enemies to Mankind, and whatever else your paltry Choler could have suggested; as you are not ashamed 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 found guilty of breaking their Oaths, even you yourself being Witness in your History Mr. Holinshed; but you cannot 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●● etc. which were frequently adjudged 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 Huntingdon remained in the Possession of the Scots until the time of Edward the first, who took it from john Balliol; so that while you rage against us, you quite forget what you aught 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 Huntingdon 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 Huntingdon being dead without Issue, that Henry the second gave that County with its Appurtenances to William King of Scots; so little do your Writers agreed among themselves, and you, Mr. Holinshed, descent 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 among themselves, we will divide the Reign of this William, as we 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 performed 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 performed 〈◊〉 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 centre in one, viz. That this Homage was performed with a Salvo 〈◊〉 Royal Dignity, and only in Right of those Lands which the King of Scots held in England; so that its certain from your own 〈◊〉, that there was no Homage performed 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 showed 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 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 Huntingdon Cumberland and Westmoreland, he hoped by this Obsequiousness, to have also 〈◊〉 obtained the County of Northumberland; 〈◊〉 finding that the King of England invented causes of Delay, he returned Home very angry, with a Design to recover his Right by Arms, (which are always just and necessary, when Right cannot be obtained without them) and when William had tried 〈◊〉 to recover his Due by Entreaties 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 inhuman 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 pitched Battle 
* In Hen. II  and that so great a Multitude of those Scots Pismires were slain, as cannot be numbered; 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 exposed himself so often to defend Henry's Dignity, prevail any thing in favour of William. And here you say, Mr. Holinshed, that he was obliged to part with Huntingdon, Cumberland and Northumberland, for his Ransom; from which it is apparent, that he was not only then in Possession of Huntingdon, 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 witnessed by Hoveden: Therefore it is certain that the King of Scots did always own Homage for Gumberland and Northumberland, which overturns all your former Arguments.  
But you think this an invincible Argument to prove your vain Babbling, 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 Judge, says Horace, is a bad enquirer into the Truth. Lewis King of France offered at the Tomb of Thomus the Martyr, (as he is called by Hoveden) a very large and valuable Golden Cup, and gave for the use of the Monks who served 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 among 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 Tenor 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 itself, to require of a Man who was not his own Master, but a Captive, and at that time a Subject of England, an acknowledgement of Superiority over Scotland. Let the Law of Nations pled for us, for all Kingdoms agreed 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 lest, 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, aught not to be observed in Law, because they were extorted by Violence. 
* Matthew Paris in Hen. III  And therefore the Scots who served under Charles the seventh then Dauphin of France, were altogether in the right in their Answer to King james 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 acknowledge 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 acknowledged him for their Liege Lord. Certainly he who is in the Power of an Enemy, or detained Captive, may easily be compelled to do any thing; but the Laws allow him this relief, that being once at Liberty, he is not obliged to perform what he promised against his Will, and therefore whatever was done, said or promised by King William then in the Power of his Enemies, detained so many Years in strict Custody, and having no Hopes of redeeming himself otherwise, is accounted 〈◊〉 and voided 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 voided in Law. What if Richard King of England, when he was detained 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 Magnanimity called coeur de Lion, i e. Lion's Heart, when he was sold by Leopold to the Emperor Henry, and seen no other way of delivering himself from his Captivity, he did 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 communed 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 Deathbed 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 compared, and we shall found that one Egg is not more like another, for both of them in their Captivity subjected their Kingdoms to the Power of another: but its perhaps more dishonourable on Richard's part, who promised to pay 5000 l. Sterlin annually as a Tribute; and both of them being at Liberty, obtained 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 acknowledge the same thing 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 found nothing in our William, but what they may found 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 Virtues that he had were exceeded, or at lest equalled 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 unpunished in Henry, for on his Deathbed he cursed himself and his Childen, and the Day of his Birth; nor could he ever be prevailed on by the Bishops to absolve his Children from that Curse, though they did inculcate how much he hazarded his Salvation thereby, But his Son Richard made an entire 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 testified, that the Homage which was performed 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 Virtue; for Hoveden says, that he did very much enlarge his Father's good Deeds, and diminished his evil One's; those whom his Father disinherited, he restored to their Ancient Rights, whom his Father banished he recalled, whom his Father imprisoned 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 lived very neare those times 
* In the first Part of the Annals of Richard I . William King of Scots come 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 enjoyed them, and King Richard restored to him the Castles of Roxburgh 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 of happy Memory, Henry King of England extorted from him by new Charters and his imprisonment, so as he perform entirely 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 encroached upon the Borders or Marches of the Kingdom of Scotland, since the Imprisonment of the said King William, without Judgement, it is our Will, that they be entirely restored, and reduced to that same State they were in before his Imprisonment. Moreover, as to the Lands which he aught to hold in England, whither in Demain or Fee, viz. in the County of Huntingdon, and any where else, that he and his Heirs for ever do enjoy them in as full and ample manner as Malcolm possessed, or aught to have possessed them▪ except that the said Malcolm 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 hap to be found or retained 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 become 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.  
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 lest 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 hordest and good Men. So that I given you your choice, whither you had rather that you yourself should be accused of Falsehood, or your Countrymen of Perjury: for if you have them not when you say you have them, you are guilty of writing a Falsehood; but if you really have them, you charge your Countrymen 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 contained any Subjection of Scotland, were faithfully restored; as you yourself do also writ: And Richard himself confesses that he had returned that Charter or Indenture, which K. William had made during his Captivity, to hold the Crown of Scotland in Fee of the Crown of England; and if any other Monuments be retained through Forgetfulness they are to be esteemed voided and null Don't you see Mr. Holinshed, what Snares you have brought yourself into? As to what concerns those four Castles, they were delivered as Pledges▪ so that on payment 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 pledge, given ground to presume that the Debt was paid. The Testimony of Robert Mountain which you adduce, is to: no purpose. By these its as clear as the Sun shine, that there were two Homages performed 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 of England? And as to those Lands which he had in England, whither in Demain or in Fee, viz. in the County of Huntingdon, (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 aught to have possessed them; and if his Father granted any thing to K. William, he ratified and confirmed 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 happened to be found, or were retained through Forgetfulness, the King declares them voided 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 of the King of England's Court; and whither the King of Scots, because he was his Vasial, aught to appear in the same. The King of Scots denied that he aught 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 aught to appear wherever 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 called to the King of England's Court, it should be at the King of England's Expense; and that the King of Scots should be received on the Borders of England by the Nobility of England, viz. one Bishop, one Earl, some Lords and some Knights; who should also attended 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 Expense. 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 touched before, and should not insist any further on the Decision of this Controversy, but that Holinshed's Sauciness is to be quelled; and that I am forced 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 its a Wonder, considering how they strained 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 expressly 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 performed for our Possessions in England. They should have at lest curtailed something which, as I have already hinted, is very familiar 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 Judgement. But to the rest of 〈◊〉 Objections.  
As to the petty Kings of Galloway, who as you will have it, performed Homage to 〈◊〉 if there were nothing else in your whole ●ork to accuse you of Folly and Falsehood, his alone is sufficient to make you be hissed out of all good Man's Company; for every 〈◊〉 knows that Galloway is noon of the 〈◊〉 nor largest Counties in Scotland. Yet you have first dignified the same with the Title of a Kingdom, and now with that of 〈◊〉 Principality, that so your Countrymen may reap the more Glory from a Trifle. If the Princes of Galloway performed 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 acknowledge another for his Superior. 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 offered or performed 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 〈◊〉 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 Neighbour's Historians are but too much addicted to praise their own Countrymen.   

CHAP. XXV.  
That the Scotish Clergy are subject to no English Archbishop in Spirituals.  
HOlinshed adds, That during the Reign of this Henry II Pope Alexander granted the Jurisdiction over all the Scots Bishops, to the Archbishop 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. For Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Dignities depended on the Pleasure of the Pope; but Temporals are determined according to Law and Equity, and the Bonds of Human 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 its a perfect Non-sequitur, that because the Scots Bishops are subject to the Archbishop of York in Ecclesiastical Affairs, therefore the King of Scots aught to be subject to the King of England in Temporals: For by the same Argument, because the whole Christian World is, or at lest was subject to the Pope in Spirituals, therefore they must also be subject in Temporals; and thus all Kings aught to receive their Investiture from the Pope only. So all Diocesans acknowledge their Bishops, Barons and other Vassals acknowledge the Rectors of the Churches and their Vicars, their Superiors in Spirituals; yet they don't therefore acknowledge 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 infer a Superiority over the Kingdom? It is nothing but a mere Paralogism; if because the Scots Bishops received their Consecration from the Archbishop of York, therefore Scotland is subject to England. Who would think that the English should argue thus, among whom Philosophy is diligently cultivated in all its parts, but that their Passion perverts their Judgement: 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, Whither the Scots Bishops did in ancient Times own the Archbishop of York as their Superior; and whither it was not in the Reign of this Henry II that it was first ambitiously obtained 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 Flamens, by Beli●●s King of Britain, Brother to that Brennus who is said to have burnt Rome, and were afterwards converted into three Archbishops 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 said to have taken, plundered, and burnt Rome, and that 〈◊〉 Inundation of the Welsh into Italy, to be errand 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 joseph of Arimathea's coming to preach in Britain Or if our Neighbours think otherwise, let them, or any others who patronise 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 Consecration from the Archbishop of York as their Superior, and that according to the ancient Laws and Statutes. But, Mr. Holinshed, if it was only believed 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, 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 voided, you yourself 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 noon, but what he hath established by one Bull he can revoke by another, especially if he can say that he hath done it from his certain Knowledge; and that what he granted to day to the Archbishop 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 induced by good Motives, did grant as much power to the Scots Archbishops as to the English, as shall be declared anon. But you assert, Mr. Holinshed, that this Privilege granted to the Archbishop of York, was according to the Laws and Ancient Statutes. Than I pray you, Sir, if you have any Law or Statute by which the Sco●s Bishops are subjected to the Archbishop of York; if there be any Pragmatical Sanction, or if you have any Ordinance or Decree either of Ecumenical or Provincial Council, why don't you produce, or at lest quote them? Say under what Consul, 〈◊〉 or Pope this Privilege was granted, if you would have us to believe you: but you have carried yourself 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 discussed from its Original, I will make it appear, that the Scots did not only lay the Foundation of the Archbishopric of York, but of Christianity itself in England.  
Than to pass over that most silly Fable of the three Archflamins, and the twenty eight Flamens; its 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 Britons or English have any, let them name them, and at what Time they flourished: but as for Palladius he lived about the Time of the Saxon Conquest, and by his persuasion Constantine King of Scots, did for some time maintain and bear up the Cause of the Britons 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 Irruption upon the Britons, 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 Britons 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 dwelled, was given him by Edelbert King of the Kentish Saxons, he was called 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 reigned 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 professed Christianity, and was not only baptised himself, but took care to have his Saxons diligently instructed in the Christian Faith, which he had imbibed in Scotland during his Exile: And such was the Opinion which that Age did entertain of the Learning of the Scots, that nothing was accounted well done in Matters of Religion, where, of they were not the Authors.  
There flourisned 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 Soldiers and Professors of Christianity for that Warfare, whose principal Care was to instruct the English in the true Religion; and they preached 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 Man's Ministry Religion increased so much in England, that the Scots were thereupon preferred to be Bishops in England, and Superiors of Abbeys and Monasteries. There succeeded to Paulinus the first. Bishop of York, after he was driven from his See, three Scots Bishops successively, viz. Aidan, Finnan and Coleman: but 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 obliged 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 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 of his Ancestors, reading of Books or his own proper Knowledge, 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, though afterwards in the Reign of William, being deceived by common Opinion, he reckons all the Scots Bishops, and among 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 among 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 consecrated Michael Elect of Glasgow, and Turgot of St. Andrews; I answer, that that is no Argument of Superiority, for Bishops were want 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 noon of them acknowledged the Bishop of Rochester their Superior; and john Bishop of Whitehorn was consecrated by john Bishop of Dublin at Pipenel, and William Malvaise Bishop of Glasgow was 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 required to the Consecration of a Bishop: For it is statute by the Canon Law, that when a Bishop is ordained, 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 aught 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 alleged some Examples before, and more occur 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 merely from Ambition, and were usually purchased from the Pope by Money, in which the English did always abound, we don't envy them to our Neighbours: for certainly jerom is in the Right, who says, A Bishop and Presbyter are the same, and until that by the Instinct of the Devil, there arose Dissensions in Religion, and that People began to say, I am of Paul, I am of Cephas, and I am of Apollo, the Churches were governed 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 called Archbishops, and some simple Bishops?  
But we must return to those Disputes which sometimes happened concerning this Controversy, whither the Scots Bishops did own Subjection and Obedience to the Bishop of York: among other things which King William promised 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 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 ` Prior's and Abbots of his Kingdom: Who being conveened 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 obliged 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 aught 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 jocelin Bishop of Glasgow rejoined, that the Church of Glasgow was a peculiar Daughter to the Church of Rome, and exempted from all Subjection to any other Bishops or Archbishops; and although the See of York had the Superiority for some time over the See of Glasgow, yet it is plain that she never deserved it: And because Richard Archbishop 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 Archbishop; and the Bishops supposing that they aught to be consecrated by a Superior, were accustomed to go to the Archbishop 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 Archbishop of Canterbury, and the rest of the English Bishops, sat as Judges. The Archbishop of York being Plaintiff, proposed his Plea; wherein he did not allege that all the Scots Bishops owed him Subjection, but only those of Glasgow and Whitehorn; and as to their Subjection, he produced Bulls from the Popes: And therefore its false what Polydore and other English Writers assert, that the Pope granted a Superiority over all the Scots Bishops to the Archbishop of York. But the Bishop of Glasgow did clear himself and his Colleague, by this Answer; That although the Pope had granted such a Privilege to the Archbishop of York by Subornation, that yet Pope Clement, being well informed 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 Archbishop 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 Archbishop of York, is altogether false; for if the ambitious Archbishop of York did by any indirect Means obtain a Bull from the Pope, his Successor being moved 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 Apostolic See, whereof she was a peculiar Daughter, and noon should dare to pronounce a Sentence of Excommunication, or Interdict, against the Kingdom of Scotland, except the Pope himself, or some Legate a Latere; and that if any happened to be pronounced otherwise, it should be ipso facto voided and null: adding, that noon 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 confounded 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 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 writ, 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. Its 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 ourselves, whom she hath 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 Emperor 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. Its certain that he owed 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 passed betwixt Richard I and William; for before that Richard undertook his Expedition into the Holy Land, he obtained Auxiliary Forces from K. William, and invested their General David, Brother to William, with the County of Huntingdon, 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 furnished him with some; which you pervert, and allege that he did it as his Subject. Richard, as I said before, was second to noon that ever swayed the English Sceptre for Goodness of Disposition, and Magnanimity: But he was very unfortunate in his Return from the Holy War; for first being shipwrackt upon the Coast of Istria as he returned, he was known and kept Prisoner by D. Leopold, whom he had offended in that War; and being by him sold to the Emperor Henry, he was forced 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 possessed 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 possessed 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 performed 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 performed for the Kingdom of Scotland. Than where's your Understanding, 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 performed Homage to K. john; 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, come to London to salute john, 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 refused; 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 whither it be required or not.  
The Letters of the Pope, that he might have the King of England's Assistance for restoring the Archbishop of St. Andrews, can have no weight with any Man; for that has always been customary with the Popes to 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 advice his Son William, King of Scotland, more seriously, and induce him by his Power, wherein he excels him, if he found it necessary, that K. William would remit his Rancour against john Archbishop 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 practised 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 among the Germane 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 superior 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. john and K. William, than there was betwixt him and Richard, they being altogether unlike in their Temper: For when K. john 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 framed by K. john while he abused the Plain heartedness of the King of Scots: for sometimes he obtained 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 john, and also upon the Cross of Hubert Archbishop 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 expressly, that William swore Fealty to him against all Men, with a Salvo jure suo; that is, reserving his own Royal Prerogative. But there occur two things in john, which pluck up the Roots of this Homage: One is, that when K. john 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 expressly 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 allege in the Matter of Peter-pences? But K. john 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. john lay under the Infamy of his Nephew's Death, and all the Crimes which could be said or thought of any Man, which rendered him odious to his own Subjects and others, the English Nobility conspired 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 Philippe Queen of Castille, and Sister to that same K. john; to whom john being ejected, and Arthur and his Sister being dead, the Right of Succession to the Crown of England did belong: But when Lewis her Husband arrived 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 among 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 August, Alexander King of Scots come to Dover with a Great Army (for fear of K. john) 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 yours, as Lawyers speak; and those things do so much the more injure your Fame, if you have any, as the Falsehood of your Assertion is to be clearly demonstrated, even by the Testimony of English Historians.  
Of this Henry the Father, and his two Sons Richard and john, 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 john, 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 jerusalem, Richard did expressly 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. john, he never wrote to ` Philip but under the Title of his Lord; nay, he received the Kingdom of England to be held of him, during his Brother Richard's being detained Prisoner in Germany; a mutual Oath of Lord and Client having past betwixt them: and when he succeeded to Richard afterwards, was despoiled of his Provinces beyond Sea by the French King, and being also in hazard of losing England, he submitted 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 lanced his Thunderbolts with Curses and Excommunications, against the King of France and the Barons, he deterred them from their Purpose of dethroning K. john; 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' own words) that he surrendered 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 Child's 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 ere now?  
You affirm, Mr. Holinshed, that at the Marriage of Alexander King of Scots, with Margaret Daughter to K. john, he performed Homage to his Father-in-Law: But what Author says so besides yourself? 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 Huntingdon; and seeing Homage was due for them, what Wonder is it if he performed it? But you, Mr. Holinshed, according to your usual Manner, allege it to have been performed for the Kingdom of Scotland.   

CHAP. XXVII.  
Of Henry III and if any Homage were performed to him.  
IT remains that we examine Henry the Third's Reign; who because he reigned 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 mary Margaret Daughter to Henry III, as you imagine, but his Sister joanna Daughter to King john; nor is there any English Historian who makes mention that Alexander the Father performed Homage during the whole time of his Reign, except at that time when both Kings took Arms, and were reconciled 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 joanna to their K. Alexander: But this new Alliance was not able to contain the two Kings within the Bonds of Friendship, whenever the Question of the Homage was renewed; as is subjoined by Polidore, in those words: David Prince of Wales, flying into Scotland, stirred up Alexander to war against the King of England, by giving out that the said King bragged that the cowardly Scots were subject to his Command, obedient to whatever he said, and lived according to his Prescription; and therefore when Alexander, being provoked with these Calumnies, did invade England, and Henry met him with an Army, just as they were ready to given Battle, they were reconciled by the Industry of the Peers; who were vexed that a War should be commenced on so slight an Occasion. Matthew of Westminster and Matth●● Paris, given us this Story a little otherwise: For says he, When Rumours were brought to Alexander, that the King of England did given 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 aught 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 entering England in an hostile Manner, haras●d, and laid waste all the bordering Countries. Henry that he might be avenged 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 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 proposed the entire Conquest of Scotland, mustered all 〈◊〉 were obliged 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 proposed a Peace by his Brother Richard Earl of Corneal, and Emperor of Germany; and by his means he obtained 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 Horsemen well appoint●red; and though not mounted on Ita●●● Spanish Horses, yet they had those which were very good: He had moreover, 100000 valiant Foot; who all having unanimously conessed 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 despised Death; and thereupon Henry went of 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 expressed himself thus: The King of Scots being informed 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 despised 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 enraged 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 Soldiers every where; but perceiving that Alexander was marching against him, with a numerous and resolute Army, that despised all Danger, 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, returned 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 lest 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 abovementioned? 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 john, 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 Liege-Lord. 
* Walsingham in Edw. I  And the Princes of Germany, in 47 Contracts which they had made with the 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 Castille, do mutually in their Write 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 Superior 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 King's 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 England as Liege-Lord of Scotland; as if that Kingdom had been a Military Fee of England, and obliged to deliver the Heir into their Custody. Its 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 hap 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 come 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 appeased; 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 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 Grandfathers, out they must needs own Allegiance and Homage. But you are not only purblind, but stone-blind 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 lest 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, jest 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. The King of Scots answered, that he come 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 given 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' own words, and therefore frivolous and vain: For neither does Paris, nor any other English Chronologer, ever make mention of Homage performed 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 refused it for Scotland as he aught indeed to have done. I have Authors who say that he added, that he come into England under safe Conduct, and demanded that he might return with the same; and if Henry had not abolished 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, obtained 5000, our Writers say 10000, Scots; most part of whom perished in that War, fight 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 obtained Letters from his Father-in-Law before they marched from Scotland, that they were not granted as due by Military Service, but merely 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 performed Homage for Scotland at K. Edward's Coronation, you are plainly accused of a Lie by Walsingham; who mentions the Homage indeed, which Alexander owed as Beneficiary for the four Counties abovementioned, 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 given to Holinshed; for wherever he ●inds Homage mentioned, he presently, according to his own Punic Faith, adds that it was for Scotland. Nay, that which is yet more, Alexander did not come thither till he had first obtained it in Writing, that he did not come, as being obliged thereunto, by Service, but only out of Goodwill 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 overlooking 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 lesle 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 Huntingdon) were taken away, is it mentioned 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 managed at a distance by Reasons, Arguments and Threats; under this Edward the first it come 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 sacrificed to this Homage, and they fought for it above threescore Years, (for so long it was betwixt Baliol's being crowned, and David the 2d's 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 longlived 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 of best in the whole War. And at this time Britain was afflicted with greater Miseries than Italy in the second Punic 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 Knowledge in Military Discipline, was inferior to noon of his Ancestors; but his great Virtues were mightily obscured by his inhuman 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. Alban, and the other of Westminster, who lived about that time, and shall say nothing from any Scots Historian, but what is sometimes necessary to given light to the History which is miserably obscuted and darkened by them.  
While Alexander the third lived, 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 public Meeting of the States; wherein Edward received 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 obliged to do; but as a piece of Friendship: and when he sent him Assistance against the Welsh, he obtained a Writing in like manner, That he did not sand them as being obliged thereunto, but as a special Favour. Alexander being dead without any Offspring 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 obtained, though there were some who conjectured, that the King of England would be a severe Master; But dying in Orkney as the returned to Scotland, the Kingdom was divided into twelve Factions; for there were so many Competitors for the Crown, but the chief were john Balliol 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 Grandchilds to three Daughters of David Earl of Huntingdon, and great Grandchilds 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 Judgement, 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 desired with the greatest Eagerness, he conceived an immoderate Joy thereat in his Heart, raises an Army under a pretence of suppressing any Tumults that might arise from his Decree, and advanced 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 of Lysander would each out the Lion's Skin with that of the Fox; and by his cunning Tricks had lately obtained the Superiority of Wales: for having broken them in several Battles, yet not so much as to force them to acknowledge himself or any other Englishman for their Sovereign, 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 called Edward the second, or Edward of Carnarvan; having in the mean time plied the Welsh with all his Craft, to acknowledge him for their Lord, which they did constantly refuse, saying, They would receive noon as such, but one born in Wales, and who spoke that Language: Yet at last after many Difficulties, they allowed Edward the Power of naming him, having taken an Oath, that they would obey, if he named such an One: Whereupon Edward says, Yea verily, I will given you a Welsh 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 named his Son. But although the Welsh did plainly perceive that they were cheated, yet they looked upon themselves as bound by their Oath, and from that time forward the eldest Son of England hath been always called 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 Sovereignty of Scotland to himself; for when at first he seemed unwilling to take the Arbitration upon him, as being unequal to so great a Burden, but assuring them that he would not lesle 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, Garrisons 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 judge. But Edward marched 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 by him, come 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 determined 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, alleging, that he did not demand any new thing, but only the Right of his Predecessors, protesting, that he would descend the Prerogative of his Crown with his Blood: and that he might the more easily persuade them of this, he made all the Monasteries of England, Scotland and Wales, to be searched, 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 Huntingdon and Ralph of Lysetum; that in the Year 910, Edward the Elder subdued the Kings of Scotland and Cumberland: And though those Baubles 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 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 judicium, we can form no Judgement of that which has no Being. Marianus Scotus has no such thing, nor yet Mal●sbury, Hoveden nor Huntingdon, for noon 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 Huntingdon were late Writers, and flourished 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 Judgement 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 Judge would have admitted them, or have given Credit to them though they had been upon Oath? 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 repelled, 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 mere Goodwill 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 Athelstan, you have no Author to vouch, not 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 voided 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 called 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 come thither under their General Earl Sivard: on whose Assistance Malcolm having relied, he deprived Macbeth 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 dence? That Malcolm was overcome both by the Conqueror and Rufus, is not to be found any where, but they were both obliged 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 forced 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 induced to perform Homage to Stephen, because he had obliged 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 performed: 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, john, Henry the third, and lastly Edward the first himself, did all of them swear Homage and Fealty to the King of France, as their Liege Lord, and yet they did not acknowledge 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 owed 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; 
Non obtusa adeo gestabant pectora Scoti;  
Nec tam aversus equis nostro Sol jungit ab Orbe.  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 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, recognising 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, Balliol, and Hastings of Bessy, who signed 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 subscribed 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 rest, he called Bruce apart, and promises to make him King if he would acknowledge him for Liege-Lord; but Bruce answered magnanimously, that the Kingdom which he had received free from his Ancestors, he would never enslave nor tender subject to another. Edward being amazed with this fierce and resolute Answer, calls upon Balliol, 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 underhand 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 Crowned nor Anointed, but only placed in a certain Chair, etc. It's truly wondered 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 Crowned; when he himself ordered all Baliol's Equipage to be searched as he was hastening 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 preferred, having rejected the rest, he declared him King, and received Homage from him according to the Terms of the Agreement beforementioned, and in such Form as he thought most suitable to his Affairs, and which he did dictate to Balliol, that new King refusing nothing; for Balliol 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 marked before out of Cambden, and was rewarded with many Lands in England upon that Account: So that in this I descent 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 come thence with the Conqueror. But Balliol 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 retained Huntingdon, with the Consent of the King of England, who knew that he could easily divest him of that at any Time: nor is 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, 
Si ●iolandum est I●s Imperii causa  
Violandum est aliis reb●● pictatem colas.    

CHAP. XXIX.  
Whither or not that Sentence was just, which Edward gave for Bruce against Baliol.  
But the English will say, that Edward pronounced a very just Sentence, in adjudging the Succession of the Crown of Scotland to Margaret, eldest Daughter to David Earl of Huntingdon and her Offspring, and rejecting Isabel the second Daughter, who married Robert Bruce Earl of Carrick, and her Offspring; for there's no Body who does not prefer the Firstborn to the second, in Individual Fees, and by consequence, the Offspring of the First, to the Offspring of the Second: although indeed most men think that this Sentence of King Edward's was according to Law, yet because of his being corrupted, and receiving a Reward for his Sentence, he aught not to have been Judge; but if the Matter be thoroughly canvased, perhaps it will be found that this Sentence was not pronounced according to Equity neither: for besides the other Reasons brought by our Countrymen, and the Custom of the Kingdom then observed in Judgement, that in the Offspring of divers Sisters, the first Male is preferred, and the Case of the Count of Nivern and the Duke of Burgundy for the County of Flanders, approved by all the Parliaments of France, and especially the Senate of Paris; I appeal them also to the Feudal Law itself, which was at that time tenaciously observed 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, whither after their Death the Male aught 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 Huntingdon and Chester, to whom as the next of the Paternal Line, the Right to the Kingdom of Scotland, (the whole Offspring of his Brother William being extinguished) and its Succession devolved, 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 john Balliol, 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, whither Robert Bruce though born of the second Daughter, yet the first Male, or Dornagilla Grandchild by the first born Daughter, is to be preferred 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 opposed to one another; but the Opinion of Gerard, that the first Male is to be preferred, is not only confirmed by other Places, as well of the Civil as Feudal Law, but also by the Suffrages of all the Interpreters. Baldus Alvaroltus the Precedent, 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 to doubt, because the Text does not express, whither 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 Grandson, 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 received 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 affirmed himself to be first in the Succession, because he was the first Male, though descending from a Woman: nay, he urged that if Maud herself had been alive, he aught to be preferred to her, as being the first born Male, and by consequence his Offspring aught to be preferred to Henry II This Matter was debated a long time in England; yet Stephen was never accounted an Usurper or Tyrant, but looked upon as lawful Heir and King: Nor were ever his Laws rescinded 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 looked 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 judged to have the best Right. For the Ancients 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 among Cousins (for the Case of Sisters is the same) the first Male was preferred in the Succession to the Grandfather, 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, noon of them being preferred to one another.  
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 Grandchild in the Succession to his Father; and he instances in Cases having been determined thus. Than let others think as they please, (for I offer Violence to no Man's Judgement) it's my Opinion that, both according to the Rules of the Feudal Law, and the Custom of the Country, which Edward aught to have observed, 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.  
Whither Sovereign Princes can tender 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 tender 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 received from their Ancestors, upon any other than their own Lord. The Authors of this Proposition are Alexander Cardinalis, jason 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 Sovereign 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 Commonwealth, cannot so much as diminish one foot of the Public Patrimony, much lesle given away the Property of it: For Kings, or Sovereign Princes, (says Bodin, a most famous Lawyer) are so far from having the Dominion or 〈◊〉 of the Public Farms, that they have not 〈◊〉 entire Usufruit, 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 Commonwealth, with the Government whereof they are entrusted: and if a King who is subject to noon, do either of his own Accord, or be forced against his Will, to serve and obey another, he loses the Title and Rights of Majesty. Hottomannus handles this Question expressly, Lib. Illust. Quaest quaest. 1.  
But to return to the Transactions of those Times, Balliol 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 Balliol 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 Enemy's Hand, that the Nobility were bound by their Oath, that a great Army of English were ready to pour in upon them, and though they were destitute of the Assistance of the great One's, and the most part as is usual in such Cases, adhered openly to the English for fear of being undone; yet first, they chid Balliol severely, for rendering the Kingdom subject to an Enemy, which he had received free from his Ancestors: but he promising to be afterwards governed by the Peers, took Arms with all Expedition against Edward's return from France; and when at his coming Home, he redemanded Homage from Balliol, Walsingham, Polidore and Holinshed say, the Scots answered, that they were born Free, were subject to noon but their own King; nor would they acknowledge any other Sovereign, but their own Prince. Edward being incensed, says Polidore, did not only deprive Balliol of the Earldom of Huntingdon 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 Battle Bruce took part with the English, as he did a long time after, in hop●s that the King of England would eject Balliol, and set him upon the Throne; for so Edward had promised him underhand after he began to hate Balliol, that he might thereby draw him over to his side. So that Baliol's Courage being quite broke, because he found himself unable to maintain such a War, being despised by his Subjects, and contemned by his Adversaries, he resigned 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 beaten the Assertors of this Homage with their own Weapons.  
This Edward was the first who established the Homage in a King of his own Choosing and Appointment, nay his own Liegeman 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 Englishman, did this Homage in favour of his Sovereign. 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. Than the King of England was, as they say▪ Superior of Scotland, and Balliol his Vassal for the same, if the Gods will have it so. But Balliol, who was a cowardly Man, being deserted by his Subjects, and unable to maintain the War, he come to the King of England at Brechin, and resigned 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 not more Superior or Liege Lord of Scotland, but Lord-Proprietor of all Scotland, not lesle 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 director; 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 performed Fealty and Homage to him as to their immediate Lord: and therefore if by this Resignation the Property and profitable Dominion be conjoined and consolidated with the Superiority, it follows of necessity, that the Superiority is extinguished, 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 urged for 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 Englishman 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 possessed 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 overturned by this Act of Edward the first's, which is supposed to have promoted it most of all.  
They did not cease from Arms after the Resignation by Balliol; for when the Scots did assert that that Resignation was voided and frivolous, they took Arms with great Expedition, and routed the English in many small and some great Battles, though 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 lest consist of ten thousand Mercenary Soldiers; 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 required. But Fraser watching for an Opportunitiy, assoon as he seen 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 of; and so the English who did now promise' themselves sure footing in Scotland, were all thrown out, and their bordering Countries exposed to the Ravageses and Devastations of the Scots. Edward being 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 marched into Scotland, and when he arrived there, most of the Nobility of Scotland joined him, and among others Bruce with his Forces, which did mightily increase his Army. But the Scots being nothing terrified by such numerous Forces, though at the same time deserted by most of the chief Nobility, they raised an Army, and being lifted up by their former Victories, they prepared for Battle in a plain Ground called Falkirk; but Ambition proved their Destruction, and, as it is said of Eris, threw in an Apple of Contention among 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, john Cummin at that time the most powerful of the Scots Nobility, john Steward and William Wallace: But a fatal Contention happened among them about leading on the Van against the English, for that's the Post of greatest Honour among 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 Authority as Viceroy. Hence risen Discord and Factions in the Army, and Cummin perceiving that the Soldiery favoured the other two more than him, he went of 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 enraged at it, upbraided Wallace with the Fable of Aesop or Horace's little Raven, which did so exasperated Wallace, that not being able to master his Passion, he did also march of 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 sacrificed 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 compared to the Ancient Hero's, either for Endowments of Body or Mind. Steward being left alone in the Field, did (jest he should seem to be fiercer in Words than Deeds) given Battle to the English with a great deal of Gallantry, though 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 ware of Bruce, who fell upon his Rear; so that being encompassed with a multitude of Horse and Foot, he was cut of with most of his Men. Bruce is branded with the Infamy of this Battle, 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 given out, that above 60000 Scots were slain in this Action, whereas they themselves did not loose 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 Battle, the whole Scots Army being destroyed by the English Cavalry. However that is, it is certain that the Battle was great, and that abundance of Scots fell therein: but though they were broken by this Battle, they did not abandon their Cause; for Wallace's Anger being assuaged, he brought back his Forces into the Field; and although he durst not given Battle to the numerous and victorious English Army, yet following them close, he did by falling on their Rear, and cutting of the Stragglers, 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 Disdain: whereupon he began privily to sounded how the Scots stood affected to him, and to solicit 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 moved with their Entreaties and the Justice of their Cause, wrote Letters to Edward, accusing him of Injustice in undertaking of this War, and threatening 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 the Account of that Superiority, which he did falsely 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 alleges, 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 alleged: 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 looked 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 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 agreed, 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, refused 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?  
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 People, viva Voce, declare, that he swore Fealty for the Lands which he held in England, and not as K. of Scotland: for he neither owed nor would perform any Homage or Fealty to the King of England, for the Kingdom of Scotland; and that Edward himself did then agreed 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 solicit 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 itself, 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 of Scotland, who should take care of the Government and the Damsel, until a dispensation of Consanguinity could be obtained 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 ancient 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 noon of the Inhabitants should be obliged to go out of the same for judgement. Now noon 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▪ 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 among the Nobility about the Such 〈◊〉 of the Crown, the greatest part were willing that the King of England should 〈◊〉 Arbitrator, and thereupon he come 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 bore 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 obliged, 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 though the same was performed 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 may be●al a constant Man● and therefore they aught 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 acknowledge 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 Balliol, 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 Balliol, 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 Balliol, 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 〈…〉  
The 7th Argument is, from the Custom of the Church of Rome; for when a Legate 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 aught 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 untouched, 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 Judgement in England could not be determined, though the English Bishops themselves did preside, but both Parties appealed to the Pope; and therefore Boniface does expressly writ in that Epistle, that the Bishop of York could never obtain Judgement for himself, because he produced 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 su●us, Remember that we are yours; a most excellent Argument indeed for a proud Bishop, who was seeking to overthrew other Man's 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 allege 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 Zion 's sake will I not hold my Peace, and for Jerusalem will I not be at rest, (alluding to those words, Zion and Jerusalem, in the Pope's Message) while there's Breath 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 threaten, 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 Reinss of that Government into whose Hands they pleased, and dethroned them as they seen occasion; and to elude all Probation, alleges, 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 jest 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 Britain among his three Sons, reserving the Royal Dignity to Locrine 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 Judgement of the candid Reader. The English Historians do stiffly 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 inventor of these Fables, does not so much as suggest. It's really strange, that Man's 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 〈◊〉 France, Italy, Germany, and at last see Rome itself in Flames, to what a height of Glory has this imprudent Man raised the Scots against his Will? but its strange that he should say, that the Law of Primogeniture 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 Britons, 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. john 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 of which is still to be seen there, says Edward, though I believe that whoever goes to seek it in that Place will loose 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 John'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 beaten the English, or the English beaten 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 agreed best to feigned things. What they allege 〈◊〉 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 performed Homage for Cumberland, a Country of England, he did no more than what he aught; 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 from Henry II endeavoured to redressed himself by force of Arms, and wa●ted England far and neare, 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 performed 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 renounced it to him, as I said before. So that those things alleged by Edward in that Apologetical Epistle to the Pope, Nec pueri credent nisi qui nondum are ●avantur ,won't so much as found Credit among 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, there's not one word; for what would you have a Man do, who had nothing to say? For according to the Practice of Rhetoricians those things which cannot be answered, must either be passed over in silence or eluded. The Nobility of England did writ to the Pope to the same effect concerning that Question; and affirmed, 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 given any Credit unto, or admit of any Probation from those perjured, perfidious, traitorous Scots, the Pests of Mankind. I believe truly, that it happened to us, as it did of old to the Britons; who though they took an Oath of perpetual Fidelity from the Saxons, who were their Guests and Mercenaries, yet were at last despoiled of their Country, deprived of all their Richeses, driven into Wales, suffered all manner of Injuries that could be done or said by the Saxons, and were also lashed with all manner of Reproaches. Nay, Bed● himself does frequently upbraid them with Perfidiousness; though I don't found in any English Historian, that ever the Britons swore Fealty to the Saxons, or much lesle broke their Oath to them.  
These things I have added concerning the Letters that passed betwixt Boniface and Edward, that from their Controversy we might have the full Knowledge 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 prejudged 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 Judge and Ordinary of this Controversy: For john, Grandfather 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 oppressed with Tributes and Impositions by Edward Prince of Wales, they made their Complaints to the French King, which occasioned the Loss of Aquitain: and according to the Feudal Law, if the Sub-vassal be cruelly and unjustly used 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 Judge in Scots Affairs; but that it was common at that time for all who were oppressed with Calamities, and unable to resist, to implore the Assistance of the Pope in their Adversity, because he was then believed to have a Jurisdiction over all Christian Princes: Nay, he did arrogate the same to himself; alleging that of the Prophet Isaia●, The Kingdom, or People, which will not serve you, shall be ●ooted up. When he called himself Lord of France upon that account, and threatened Philip the Fair with a Pontifical Thunderbolt, except he would acknowledge him as such; the French King ordered his Letters to be burnt in the public Marketplace at Paris, the Sorbonists assisting at the same. Nor did he desist from his Purpose, until he deprived 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 lesle 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, Whither 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 abjure that Homage which Edward extorted from Ba●●ol by Fraud 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 healed 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; Balliol being thrown but, and his Memory condemned, so that there's no Footsteps of that Family left in Scotland, Bruce and Cummin bewailing the Ruin of their Country, to which they themselves ●ad so much contributed, they entered 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 returned 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 signed by both their Hands, to K. Edw●●d, and discovered the Conspiracy. The Letters being received, Edward accused Bruce of Treachery, and shewid him them. Whereupon Bruce, dissembling the Matter, promised he would not go from Court till 〈◊〉 made the Charge appear to be false. Ed●●rd having formerly experienced his Faithfulness and Gallantry, did not at first believe that the Letters were real, but supposed that they might be forged by his Rival. Bruce in the mean time, made his Escape; and having inverted his Horse's Shoes, because of the Snow, that he might not be ●rac'd, he fled with all speed into Scotland: And having ●ound 〈◊〉 and reproached him with the Treason, he killed 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 inferior to no Man in Magnanimity, he resolved to try his Fortune; and being accompanied with some of his Countrymen 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 Countrymen say that he was worsted in thirteen Battles, or Rencounters, before he fled to the Western Islands; and being supposed to have been drowned as passing a River, the English left seeking after him. Than they raged against all Scots-men without any Distinction, disarmed them every where, and thrust them into Prisons and Work-houses. Nay, according to the Command of Edward the Father, the Son thought and talk● of nothing lesle than the utter Extermination of the Scots; but the murdering of such a great and dispersed Multitude, seemed too difficult; and the Remainders were reserved for a miserable Servitude. Edward in the mean time, that he might cut of all hopes of any Change, commanded all the principal Men of the Scots to be searched for, promising and granting great Rewards to those that would ●etray them: Nor was he deceived in his ●opes; for ` Bruce's three Brethrens were taken, and according to Westminster the 〈◊〉 Simon Fraser▪ as also the invincible 〈◊〉 who was betrayed 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 Horsetails, affixed to Gibbets, and their dissected Members hung up in the Public Places of Scotland to the Terror of others: For Edward was not contented with the bore Death of his Enemies, as is recorded of him in History for his Cruelty towards Leolin and David Welsh Princes, who were betrayed before that time into his hands. The English given this Reason for his Cruelty towards the Nobility of Scotland, that they were perjured Traitors and Covenant-breakers. Whereas not one of them could ever be induced either by Entreaty or Reward, as is witnessed by Polydore, to acknowledge the King of England for their Sovereign: 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 contrived for the Terror of the Scots did so enrage them, that every Man had recourse to Arms: Whereas in my Judgement, Edward might have done what he pleased with the Scots at that time, if he had treated them with more Clemency; but they being rendered mad, looked about on all hands for a General to renew the War, not being solicitous for Arms in the lest, though they were disarmed, 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 Countrymen, and some Soldiers from the Western Islands, he made a Descent upon ●arrick, rather with a design of Revenge than any hopes of recovering his Crown; and surprising the English, who did not look for any such thing, he cut them of, stormed the Fortresses which they possessed: and having spread his Terror far and neare, the Remainders of the Scots who either lurked, or were oppressed by grievous Servitude, flocked to him from all parts, armed 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 there to rout, and took and demolished all their Fortifications: So that having ga●●●red together a great Army, his Subjects' coming in to him on all sides, he hastened Southward, first routed the Cum●i●i, and then the English in divers Batters; and in one or two Years time, dispossessed 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 asked, 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 Judgement of God, all his Victories vanished into Smoak: And ` Bruce having go through much Fatigue, restored the kingdom of Scotland to his ancient Dignity▪ This is that Bruce, the Champion of his Country's Liberty, who never being dispirited by his Adversity, nor rendered haughty by the Height of Prosperity, turned the Disgrace of the Scots, and the Calamities of War, upon the Authors of it; and purchased so much Military Glory to the Scots, that in his time, says Walsingham, twenty Englishmen 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 General. But now I return to Holinshed, and his Edward II   

CHAP. XXXIII.  
Of Edward II and III and Henry IU. and whither they received 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 whatever 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 joined also by abundance of Scots; but Bruce having wasted the Counttry through which he was to march, Edward was forced 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 maintained his Army there most part of the Winter; and at his return abundance of the Scots who perceived the Fortune of the War changed 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 joined abundance of foreign Soldiers from Normandy, Britain, Aquitain, Flanders, and other transmarin Provinces, which were then subject unto him. There did also flock to him all Men who were drowned 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 lest 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 lest Number mentioned by any Historian is 100000: But Bruce marching against them with 30000 chosen Men, enured to all the Fateigues and Hardships of War, routed and put that vast Army to flight, kill 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 Brethrens, and others of the Scotish Peers, or the numerous Calamities which the Scots had suffered before, that he used his Victory with the greatest Humanity, took care of the Wounded; and ordered the Corpse of those of Quality to be carried as far as Berwick: By which, 〈◊〉 Walsingham, he procured 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 neare 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 maintained 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 of with all that followed him. In this War, which lasted only about four Years, Polydore says there perished 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 enjoyed 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 forced to fight for 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;  
They aught to have writ on Edward the second Tomb, Filius Edvardus Scotorum funditur armis .Nor did the English act any thing considerable against the Scots during the Reigns of this Edward, which they ascribe to his ill Fortune; nor should we be angry at them for doing so, provided they would allow the Scots to impute their Calamities to Balliol an Englishman, and moreover, an abominable Coward.  
But Holinshed tells us wonders of Edward the third, viz. That he restored this Homage, the King of Scots having covenanted to pay him 30000 l. Sterlin in three Years time▪ certainly this Man aught to be sent to a Mad-house; but one Fault draws another after it, and the Sparks of the former Crime is a Firebrand to the latter; for Holinshed hath so enured himself to Falsehood, that for the maintaining of one Lie, he is not ashamed to forge a thousand more, and that also against the Credit of English Historians; for the Truth of the Story, as recorded by Polidore himself, Froisard and Walsingham, is thus.  
Edward the third, whom the English call their Hector, desiring to revenge his Father's disgrace, in the beginning of his Reign assembled a great Army, having also sent for abundance of Forces from Hainault and the Netherlandss to invade Scotland; but being eluded and kept in play by a small Army of Scots, and almost slain in the middle of his own Camp by james Douglas the Achilles of that time, who entered the same courageously with two hundred Horse, Edward was obliged to retire without so much as seeing Scotland; and finding himself scarce able otherwise to bear up against the Valour of the Scots, that he might consult the quiet of his own People, he married his Sister joanna to David Bruce, by consent of his Peers, having abjured all right of Dominion or Superiority, and restored all the Monuments which contained the Homage, even Holinshed himself being witness; and therefore I wonder at the Impudence of that Man, who asserts, that all those Monuments are still kept by the English. Walsingham says, that he made Charters to resign all right and claim of Superiority, which either he or his Progenitors had over the Kingdom of Scotland. Than what could be said more express? Homage was twice extorted for Scotland, once from King William, and afterwards from Balliol, and the King of England was twice compelled to abjure it.  
As to what was done by Edward Balliol we don't regard it, for he followed his Father's footsteps; and the Scots did drive both him and the King of England out of their Nation by force of Arms, though I confess, they received many overthrows first: and this is wondered and worthy to be observed, that in all those Wars the English were still victorious at first, yet at long run they were constantly forced to quit the Kingdom, though not without mutual Overthrows: But it is still a greater Wonder, that this Edward being a magnanimous Prince, and otherwise worthy of all Commendation, having when he married his Sister to David King of Scots established a perpetual Peace by Oath, which was promised to be sincerely observed on both sides; and did at the same time abjure that Homage, that he should nevertheless assist Edward Balliol, Son to john Balliol, with 4000 armed Men, to recover the Kingdom of Scotland; and Polidore does mightily ●orment himself, while he seeks a Veil every where to cover this matter with, but all in vain: for Edward, according to the manner of his Forefathers, did so greedily gape after this Homage, that its hard to say, whither the English did covet, or the Scots refuse it, with the greatest Eagerness; but there's noon but yourself, Mr. Holinshed, who ever asserted, that David performed Homage to him; for though he was not so fortunate in War as his Father, yet he never ●eased making War upon England while he was able, but what he did during his Captivity is uncertain, for that he performed Homage, is neither writ by Walsingham, nor any other English Historian of that time. But if he performed it during his Captivity, which yet is not said by any Historian, the King of England did little consult his own Honour, to extort Homage from a Prisoner who was not his own Master: for there's nothing so inhuman, nay I may say, so dishonest as to demand any Right from a Man who is not his own Master, but hath lost his Liberty, and so is not obliged to perform such Obligations, as I said formerly in King William; and all Laws and Nations agreed in this, that there aught to be a Restitution where Consent hath been obtained by Force and Violence. That is also vain, and derogates mightily from the reputation of the English, which Holinshed says, that Balliol the younger resigned into the Hands of Edward all the Right which he had to the Crown of Scotland, and that the said Edward the third received the Royal Crown of Scotland from him. How come it to pass then, that this King who was the most fortunate of all their Kings in War, and was called the Hector of England, was dispossessed of the Crown of Scotland? But all those things which are writ by Holinshed, are to be marked with the Censor's Note, as also what he subjoins concerning Robert and Henry.  
You writ that Robert the third delivered his Son james to Henry the fourth as into Wardship, wherein you do manifestly pervert the History against Polidore, and all the other English Writers: For King Robert being afraid of intestine Broils, sent his Son james privately for France with only one Ship, that he might live retiredly there; but he was taken by the English Fleet contrary to the Faith of the Truce in his Passage, which Polidore does not dissemble, and was detained there eighteen Years, there being in the mean time a most cruel War betwixt England and France. The Historians of both Nations say, that he was ransomed with Money, and that the King of England might ensure his Friendship, he married him to his Kinswoman the Duke of Somerset's Daughter, having no Daughter of his own; but neither his being admitted to ransom by the English, who at that tim● enjoyed the Sovereignty of France, nor his Wife's Entreaties, not any other consideration whatever, could withhold him from assisting the French, whose Affairs were then in a ruinous Condition with two complete Armies which he sent into France: I grant it is true, that during his being detained Prisoner, he accompanied Henry the fifth into France, that he might withdraw the Scots Army, who defeated the English, and killed George Duke of Clarence, Henry the fifth's Brother, from the Assistance of the French: but that I may here repeat what I said before, the Scots who did at that time serve in France, answered, that they would not acknowledge james for their King so long as he was in the Power of his Enemies; but as soon as he was ransomed, he attaqu'd the English with so much Vigour, that he prevented their sending Forces or Recruits into France, and so that Kingdom was delivered out of the Hands of the English. What james did while he was in the Enemy's Hand, is nothing to the Purpose, and if Holinshed may be credited, the King of England acted very dishonourably, in forcing him at that time to perform Homage; but there's no English Historian that I know of, who makes mention of the same, nay, not so much as Holinshed himself, in the Life of Henry the 5th, or 6th; and therefore it must of necessity be a Fiction, ●eeing he has no Authority for it: Polidore puts himself to a great deal of Trouble, to ward of the Disgrace of the English in breaking the Truce, but in vain. The Prince who thought himself safe because of the public Faith, was contrary to the same committed to Custody; I would not for any thing that Holinshed could object so much against us. After that time there's noon who received any Homage from the Scots, though Henry the eighth sent the Duke of Norfolk into Scotland with a vast Army to receive the same; but he having only crossed tweed, and burnt a Monastery upon the Bank of it, as soon as he seen the Scots Army marching towards him in order of Battle, he quickly retired over the River with so much Precipitation, that to show good Example to his Men, having alighted from his Horse, according to the British manner, he waded through the R●ver up to his Shoulders.   

CHAP. XXXIV.  
A B●ief and Summary▪ Conclusion of the whole Controversy; with some new and strong Arguments against this Fictitious Homage.  
BUT that we may now put an end to this Dispute, its certain that in the 〈◊〉 of the Britain Kings, there was no such 〈◊〉 as Homage in the World; nay, nor ●u●ing the Reign of the English Saxons, un●il Athelstan's Time: nor is there any mention of the same by any English Writer, for it was impossible, that they should make mention of th●t thing which had no Being at that time in England. But I have just ground of Complaint against the English Historians, who by a direct Paralogism, A dicto secundu● quid ad dictum simpliciter, as Logicians speak, would obtrude this Commentitious Homage upon us by Sophisms; for whereas this Homage was only due and performed for the Countries given us in Fee, that Posterity might know, that those Countries were ●ot of the Patrimony of Scotland, but of England; yet they have only left it upon Record in general, that this Homage was performed, and think they committed no Fault therein; and thus by not being accurate and exact, they gave a fair Occasion to Posterity, either of deceiving others, or being mistaken themselves: for later Writers (as its usual for every one to favour the Honour of their own Country) drew what former Authors had said, a dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simplex, or formed an universal Conclusion from particular Premises; and they again mistaking yet more grossly, perverted things a dicto simplici, ad dictu● secundum quid, viz. finding it mentioned simply in former Writers, that the Scots had performed Homage, they applied it as dictum secundum quid, contrary to the Mind of their Predecessors, viz. that Homage had been performed for the Kingdom of Scotland, which is but too familiar with Mr. Holinshed. But that I may come to the Kings of the Norman Race, who of all the Kennel of Cloistered Monks did every say, that Homage was performed for the Kingdom of Scotland, either to William the Father or Son, or to Henry the first or second, before William King of Scots; but the Form of this Homage is manifest and clear in Hoveden and Matthew Paris, which Malcolm and William used, viz. with a Salvo for their own Dignities and Rights; and sometimes it was expressly added, for their Lands or Dominions in England; that this was the true Form of the Homage performed, not only by Malcolm and William, but also by every one of their Predecessors or Ancestors, is plainly testified by King Richard, ●nd that Scotland was always independent, both in his Time and that of his Predecessors; why then should we fatigue ourselves in a Matter so plain, seeking a Knot in a Rush, ●s the saying is, when the Kings of England themselves do testify, that the Kingdom of Scotland was free from any kind of Homage, and own, that the Homage was due only for the Beneficiary Provinces? What William King of Scots did, or what Right was extorted from him when he was not Master of himself, signifies little, as I have said before. After King William's time, the Kings of Scots, Alexander the second and third, when they heard of some Rumours spread by the English concerning this Homage, declared War against them, that there might be no suspicion of their Servitude conveyed to Posterity: nay as it appears plainly by that Epi●●le of Boniface, Alexander the third when he performed that Homage to the Hammer of the Scots (Scotorum Malleo) as they call Edward the first, declared plainly and expressly in the Audience of a great Multitude, that he did only perform the ●ame for the Beneficiary Counties which he held in England, but that he neither owed, nor would perform any for the Kingdom of Scotland, and Edward accepted of the Homage on those Terms: and in Truth according to my Opinion, he had acted more wisely, and consulted the Interest of himself and his Subjects better, if he had still left those Provinces to be held in F●e by the Scots; for they had neither been so soon dispossessed of their Hereditary Possessions in France, nor should have found their own Subjects so mutinous. But let them see to that, we will return to our purpose.  
That Scotland is neither a Fee of England, nor that the King of Scots owes any Homage to the King of England, appears from this, that the Vassal is obliged to seek a Renovation of the Fee, as often as either the Person of the Lord or Vassal is changed within the Year, otherwise he loses all Right to his Fee: But at the Inauguaration of our Kings, the Consent of the King of England was never required, nor was ever the renewal of the Investiture demanded from any Successor to the Crown of England; but for almost 2000 Years, the next of the Blood did constantly succeed in a continued Series, the like whereof is not to be found in any Nation in Europe, not not in France itself, without Vanity be it spoken; so that they were not subjected to the Choice of any Man, nor was there any Room for the Judgement or Command of the King of England in the Case. Balliol was the only Man who ever had Investiture from the King of England, and that he purchased by Bribery: but never did any King before him, nor any of those who come after him, receive the Ensigns of Royalty from the Hands of any other than their own Countrymen; and as for Edward Balliol who followed his Father's Example, and swore Homage to the King of England, we never acknowledged him for King.  
There can be neither War, Peace, nor Truce betwixt the Lord and the Vassal; for those things are transacted betwix●●●ch as are of equal Dignity: for when a P●●ce is published, the Names of both Princes are expressed and placed in the s●me Degree of Honour; but that there hath been Peace, Truce and War, betwixt the Scots and the English, is owned by all the English Historians, though Holinshed does here call it Rebellion.  
And as for your Court and Parliament, we did not only never acknowledge their Superiority over us, but were never summoned to them: So that from those things, the impartial Reader will be able to judge, whither the King of England could claim any Right of Superiority over Scotland.  
To this we may add, that as in a military Fee, the Wardship of the Heir is due to the Lord, who during the Vassal's Minority has the Administration of the Fee, and in the mean time ●e enjoys all the Product thereof: and though since the Conquest so many of our Princes have happened to be Pupils or Minors, as Edgar, Malcolm, Alexander's the second and third, David, Bruce, james the first, second, third and 4th, Mary, and james the sixth; yet where is it ever read that they were delivered into the Wardship of the King of England, or that the Revenues of Scotland w●re returned into the Exchequer of England during their Minority, or that the Scots were obliged to be accountable to the English on that Head? What Benefices, which w●re then numerous and rich in Scotland, are either recorded or reported to have been bestowed by the King of England? Though during the Minority of Vassals, the Right of Patronage or Presentation, and the Administration of the Fee, do according to the Laws of both Kingdoms, belong to the Lord: and who ever read or heard that the Government of Scotland was administered by the King of England, in the Minority of so many Princes? Nor is it credible that the Kings of England would have been wanting to have demanded their Right, who did so greedily catch at every Opportunity of enjoying this Kingdom especially when their Kings were not capable of defending the same during their Nonage.  
Moreover, who ever writes that the Consent of the English King was required in matching our Princes? or who i● it that takes notice, that ever ●●ey demanded the single or double Value of the Dower, according to the Laws of Wardship? But that which is more, seeing according to the Feudal Law, the Heir can neither contract Friendship nor Alliance with his Lord's Enemies; our Princes did often, nay, almost always mary among those who were greatest Enemies to the English. Those things will be easily perceived by any Man, who is not as dull as a Stock, to be no part of a Vassal's duty to his Lord, but the quite contrary, and that all this sergeant show of Homage or Tutelary Fealty, is a mere Fiction.  
Nor is this to be omitted, that according to the Feudal Law, if there be any Controversy betwixt the Lord and the Vassal, about the Lord or the Fee, the Judgement mus● go for him who hath been in Possession for thirty Years, in which time the direct Dominion does also prescribe: but our Countrymen have been in Possession of their Liberty now for three hundred Years since Baliol's time, the English themselves being witness; nor have any of the Kings of England obtained that Homage from us for so long time.  
Who ever heard that the consent of the English was demanded in calling or holding our Parliaments? When did the King of England preside, o● when was he present at them in Person, or by his Deputies? Were our Laws made or published by his Authority? for Laws cannot be made by any one who has a Superior, nor can any Man call a Parliament who hath not the Right of Sovereignty and Majesty. Have not Feudal Dignities, such as the Titles of Dukes, Earls and Barons, been conferred by our Princes, and yet those Honours cannot be performed by a Vassal or any other but a Liege Lord? In f●ne, be●ides the vain Ostentation of the Monastical Writers, who don't know what Homage is; What has there been hitherto done by them or us, which makes us Vas●als?  
We have hitherto retained the Sovereign Majesty inviolable, without being subject to any Body; our Kings administered Justice according as they themselves thought meet, made War and Peace with whom they pleased, granted Letters of Reprisal and such other things which never use to be done by any other than real and independent Kings: On the other Hand, what has the King of England done that we should acknowledge him for Sovereign, seeing that Bond betwixt the Lord and Vassal does not so much consist in Words, as in Fealty, Benevolence and good Offices?  
Valvasors, Valvasins, and the rest of the inferior Orders of Beneficiaries, if they be unjustly oppressed by their Lord, they use to appeal unto their Superior, to whom the Cognizance and Examination of the Grievance belongs: This the King of England was made sensible of when Edward the Black Prince did oppress Aquitain with Taxes and Impositions. The Aquitains appealed from their immediate Lord the King of England, to their Liege Lord the King of France, who did also given Sentence in their Favours; which the King of England refusing to obey, Aquitain was taken away from him, and restored to the Crown of France, which holds it to this Day. But when did Scotsmen, though frequently injured by their Kings, appeal to the King of England, or when was the Cognizance of our Offences devolved upon you? Inferior Valvasors are obliged to assist their Supreme Lord against their immediate Lord with their Lives and Fortunes; but when did we assist the English against our own Prince?  
Nay our Kings have not only been always looked upon and acknowledged as supreme and independent in the Kingdom of Scotland by Foreigners, viz. the Emperor, Kings of France, Spain, Denmark, Sweden and Poland, but the Kings of England themselves have always given as great Titles of Honour and Dignity to our Kings, in their Letters, and Contracts of Alliance or Peace, as ever they received from ours, or as ever they gave to the most potent Kings of Europe who are invested with the Rights of Majesty: Which is a most certain Evidence, that the Majesty of our Kings had never suffered any Diminution, and this is unusual to be performed by a Lord to his Vassal.  
There is lastly, that adamantine or inviolable League betwixt the French and the Scots; which could never be infringed by any Revolution of time, and wherein both Kings do expressly promise' upon Oath to assist one another against their common Enemy the English, with offensive and defensive Arms: and that this League was made 200 Years before the Norman Conquest, Holinshed himself bears us witness. And though that League hath cost us the Ransom of three Kings, and the Lives of 100000 Men, yet it may be said concerning it, that 

— Nec jovis ira, nec ignis,  
Nec potuit ferrum nec edax abolere Vetustas.   

Nor Jove himself, though armed with thundering Dart,  
Nor Sword nor Time the French and Scots could part.   Nor is there any thing that makes more against that fictitious Homage, than this League, which is still kept in the Archives of both Kingdoms. For where was it ever heard of, that another King's Liegeman, or Vassal, entered into a League with his Lord's Enemy? For the Vassal is obliged to take Arms for his Lord and his Dignity, whensoever his Lord requires it, and to lay them down again at his Command.  
But here some of our Countrymen will object, that all this Labour is in vain; for where's the Dishonour of it, that we being formerly Vassals to the English, have now shook of their Yoke for 300 Years? and that its certainly more for the Disgrace of the English, that they have been beaten from the Possession of this feigned Homage. I answer, that I am sensible of the Truth of the things objected: For Bodinus being misled by the English Writers, when he writes that Constantine King of Scots reigned as Vassal to Athelstan, and that Balliol did professedly hold the Crown of Scotland as a Fee of England; he subjoins, but the Scots Kings ever since Baliol's time, have abjured the English Homage, and never would acknowledge the King of England their Superior, nor themselves his Vassals; though David King of Scots, being Edward the Third's Prisoner, did importunately demand Leave to do so from his Subjects; yet finding it in vain, he was at last dismissed by Edward on this Condition only, that he should entertain Peace and Friendship with him. Alphonsus III King of Portugal, is much esteemed by all Men for his refusing Homage to the Kings of Castille, though it had been formerly paid by his Ancestors: and since that time the King of Castille ceased to be accounted Superior, or Lord of Portugal. And in our time, Basi●ius Duke of Muscovy, who formerly was accustomed to given Audience to the Ambassadors, or receive the Letters of the Cham of Tartary upon his Knee, and in a Posture of Adoration; yet the shook of his Yoke in 1524▪ and now assumes the Title of a Great Emperor, for which no Body blames him. But as to what concerns that Homage, the English can object nothing against us which does not militate against themselves; for the Conqueror performed Homage for N●rmandy, Henry II for Nor●andy, Anjou, Poicton, and Aquitain: and so did all the Kings of England from him to Henry V do Homage to the French King in the Posture of Supplicants, with their Hands stretched out, as is observed by Bodin●s, who hath transcribed the Form of this Homage out of the Archives of France: And the Homage continued as long as did the Bounty; but that being redemanded by the French, they ceased to be their Vassals. And the Emperor Charles V who was far more potent than the Kings of England, before he was made Emperor held all his Dominions in Fee from other Princes, Flanders from the French King, Brabant, and the rest of the Dominions of the Netherlandss, Milan and Austria of the Emperor, the Kingdoms of N●ples, Sicily, Cor●ica, Sardinia, Arragon, ●astile, and at length Navarre, of the See of Rome: And therefore we aught not to be upbraided for that which was common to us, with the most Potent Princes.  
But as for Holinshed, there can be nothing in the World vainer than he; who hath packed up together Truths, Falsehoods, things doubtful and feigned, into one Bundle, without any Distinction or Judgement, so he could but vomit out his Fooleries and Scurrilities, or exercise his saucy Pen against the Scots; for he brings those things as Truths against us, which he acknowledges to be Fables in the History of the Britons. However, Holinshed hath done right in this one thing, in consulting his own Reputation by not putting his History in Latin; for if he had done it in that Language, he had exposed himself to the Laughter of all Men: and there's no doubt but he was wonderfully pleased with his own History, when he perceived his old Wives Fables read by ●is Country ●men with so much pleasure; certainly he thought himself in Heaven, and there we leave him, s●eing he despises us who are here below him. But the more that the English contemn us, so much the le●s is their own Glory; who have never been able hitherto either to drive us out of our Country, or make us their Subjects, how despicable, vile, poor, cowardly and barbarous soever they are pleased to accounted us. We will grant you Richeses, Honours and Power; but will not yield to you, nor any Nation in Europe, either in Antiquity of Government or Lineage. You have also Richeses with which you are accustomed to hire Mercenary Soldiers: You have moreover, Public Navies, Fleets, Great Guns; and above all, you do cultivate Military Discipline. For us, our Wealth is but small to hire Soldiers; we have no Public Armouries, no Great Guns, are much inferior to you in Number, have no Royal or Public Fleet, not Fortified Towns, and scarcely a Castle or two which are safe from the Attacks of Enemies; and which hath always been much to our Disadvantage, no Military Discipline.  
Certainly we should have been in a very ill Condition long e'er now, if there had not been something to supply such, and so many Defects. King Eumenes, when his Affairs were in a ruinous Condition, and that he had nothing left which he could call his own but the Castle in which he was besieged, yet when a Peace come to be treated of betwixt himself and K. Antigonus, who was superior to him in Power and Dignity, he answered, That he would acknowledge no Man his Superior so long as he could hold a drawn Sword in his Hand.  
But that I may at last finish this Controversy, I shall only by a single Tetrastick, revenge upon Holinshed the Injury done to our Boethius by Leland, in a Satirical and bitter one at the End of Ortelius his Theatre; to which they may subjoin this if they please.   

Ad Lectorem.  
QV●ris Holinshedii Historia● cognoscere Lector,  
Augeae stabulum dicere jure po●es:  
Non hanc Eurotas, non hanc Tyrinthius ipse  
Expurgare potest spongia sola potest.  
6 March, 1602.   
FINIS.