[k] Lyttelton's Henry II. vol. ii. p. 212.
[m] Hody on Convocations, p. 222, 234.
[n] Lib. ii. c. 9.
[o] Hody and Lord Lyttelton maintain these "barons of the second rank" to have been the sub-vassals of the crown; tenants of the great barons to whom the name was sometimes improperly applied. This was very consistent with their opinion, that the commons were a part of parliament at that time. But Hume, assuming at once the truth of their interpretation in this instance, and the falsehood of their system, treats it as a deviation from the established rule, and a proof of the unsettled state of the constitution.
[q] M. Paris, p. 785. The barons even tell the king that this was contrary to his charter, in which nevertheless the clause to that effect, contained in his father's charter, had been omitted.
[r] Henry II., in 1175, forbad any of those who had been concerned in the late rebellion to come to his court without a particular summons. Carte, vol. ii. p. 249.
[] Upon the subject of tenure by barony, besides the writers already quoted, see West's Inquiry into the Method of creating Peers, and Carte's History of England, vol. ii. p. 247.
[t] Hody on Convocations, p. 293.
[] Brady, Introduction to History of England. Appendix, p. 43.