uered from Scotland the northern counties of Northumberland,
Cumberland, and Westmoreland. See Newbriggs, p.383. Wykes, p.30.
Hemingford, p.492, Yet the same country is called by other historians
Loidis, comitatus Lodonensis, or some such name. See M. Paris, p.68.
M. Westi p.247. Annal. Wayerl. p.159, and Diceto, p.531. (3.) This
last-mentioned author, when he speaks of Lothian in Scotland, calls it
Loheneis, (p.574,) though he had called the English territory Loidis.

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

[Footnote 2: NOTE B, p.86. Rymer, vol. ii. p.543. It is remarkable that
the English chancellor spoke to the Scotch parliament in the French
tongue. This was also the language commonly made use of by all parties
on that occasion. I bid, passim. Some of the most considerable among the
Scotch, as well as almost all the English barons, were of French origin:
they valued themselves upon it; and pretended to despise the language
and manners of the island. It is difficult to account for the settlement
of so many French families in Scotland; the Bruces, Baliols, St.
Glairs, Montgomeries, Somervilles, Gordons, Frasers, Cummins; Colvilles,
Umfrevilles, Mowbrays, Hays, Maules, who were not supported there, as in
England, by the power of the sword. But the superiority of the
smallest civility and knowledge over total ignorance and barbarism, is
prodigious.]

[Footnote 3: NOTE C, p.91. See Rymer, vol. ii. p.533, where Edward
writes to the king's bench to receive appeals from Scotland. He knew the
practice to be new and unusual; yet he establishes it as an infallible
consequence cf his superiority. We learn also from the same collection,
(p. 603,) that immediately upon receiving the homage, he changed the
style of his address to the Scotch king, whom he now calk "dilecto et
fideli," instead of "fratri dilecto et fideli," the appellation which he
had always before used to him. See p. 109, 124, 168, 280, 1064. This is
a certain proof that he himself was not deceived, as was scarcely indeed
possible, but that he was conscious of his usurpation. Yet he solemnly
swore afterwards to the justice of his pretensions, when he defended
them before Pope Boniface.]

[Footnote 4: NOTE D, p. 104. Throughout the reign of Edward I., the
assent of the commons is not once expressed in any of the