[77] See [Appendix, Q].
[78] This circumstance seems to have been keenly felt and lamented, as a subject of national disgrace, by some of the historians of England. In addition to the anathemas poured forth by Peter Langtoft, on account of the obstinacy of their northern neighbours—the mortification evinced by Hardyng in the following lines, is highly complimentary to the independent spirit of Scotland. This acknowledged spy, and detected forger, was sent down by his government, in the reign of Henry V., for the mean purpose of stealing away the treaty with Robert Bruce, in which the independence of Scotland was recognised.
“Englande and Wales as to their soueraygne
To you obey, whiche shuld thinke shame of ryght,
To se Scotlande thus proudly disobeyne,
Agayne them two that bene of greate myght,
It is a shame to euery mannes syght,
Sith Iohn Baylioll his ryght of it resygned
To kyng Edward, why is it thus repugned?”
Hardyng’s Chronicle, p. 413–414.
In the two last lines, the writer of the Chronicle founds the pretensions of England to the superiority over Scotland, on the resignation of Baliol. This title he no doubt considered as preferable to any claims previously got up; and we would recommend Dr Lingard to follow his example; for, bad as it is, the supporters of it are not liable to meet with those stubborn historical facts which stand in the way of the advocates for a more venerable antiquity. To show the sincerity which dictates this advice, we shall revert once more to pages 443 and 444, vol. iii. of the Doctor’s work, where we are told, on the authority of Rymer, that the words “libertates, dignitates, honores debiti,” &c. “mean the allowances to be made, and the honours to be shown, to the King of Scots, as often as he came to the English court, by the command of his lord the King of England, from the moment that he crossed the Borders till his return into his own territories.” Had the vassalage of the King of Scotland been of that unqualified nature which the Doctor labours to establish, how comes it that his “allowances” only commence from the moment he crossed the Border, and ceased as soon as he returned to his own territories—merely, we presume, because he was in his own territories. Had it been otherwise, he would doubtless have been found entitled to those expenses or allowances, from the time he left his own domicile, in whatever part of Scotland that domicile may have been situated.
[79] See [Appendix, R].
[80] However singular this statement may appear to some, the author is happy in having it in his power to produce the most incontrovertible evidence of the fact—See [App. A.]
[82] See [Appendix, T].
[83] Vol. iii. 8vo ed. p. 343–355.; and vol. ii. of 4to ed. p. 459–468, 470.