, lying nearer them, took at last
possession of the country, which had scarcely any government; and we are
told by Matthew of Westminster, (p. 193,) that King Edgar made a grant
of the territory to Kenneth III.; that is, he resigned claims which he
could not make effectual, without bestowing on them more trouble and
expense than they were worth: for these are the only grants of provinces
made by kings; and so ambitious and active a prince as Edgar would never
have made presents of any other kind. Though Matthew of Westminster's
authority may appear small with regard to so remote a transaction,
yet we may admit it in this case, because Ordericus Vitalis, a good
authority, tells us, (p. 701,) that Malcolm acknowledged to William
Rufus, that the Conqueror had confirmed to him the former grant of
Lothian. But it follows not, because Edgar made this species of grant
to Kenneth, that therefore he exacted homage for that territory. Homage,
and all the rites of the feudal law, were very little known among
the Saxons; and we may also suppose, that the gla'n of Edgar was so
antiquated and weak, that, in resigning it, he made no very valuable
concession, and Kenneth might well refuse to hold, by so precarious a
tenure, a territory which he at present held by the sword. In short, no
author says he did homage for it.

The only color indeed of authority for Mr. Carte's notion is, that
Matthew Fans, who wrote in the reign of Henry III., before Edward's
claim of superiority was heard of, says that Alexander III. did homage
to Henry III. "pro Laudiano et aliis terris." See p.555. This word seems
naturally to be interpreted Lothian. But, in the first place, Matthew
Paris's testimony, though considerable, will not outweigh that of all
the other historians, who say that the Scotch homage was always done
for lands in England. Secondly, if the Scotch homage was done in general
terms, (as has been already proved,) it is no wonder that historians
should differ in their account of the object of it, since it is probable
the parties themselves were not fully agreed. Thirdly, there is reason
to think that Laudianum in Matthew Paris does not mean the Lothians, now
in Scotland. There appears to have been a territory which anciently
bore that or a similar name in the north of England. For (1.) the
Saxon Chronicle (p.197) says, that Malcolm Kenmure met William Rufus in
Lodene, in England. (2.) It is agreed by all historians, that Henry II.
only reconq