sheriff. Thus the placitum de debitis laicorum, which, in the Reg. Maj. lib. 1. cap. 3. § 6. is said to pertain to the sheriff, is, by Glanville, lib. 1. cap. 3. said to belong to, and to be tried by the King's court, in opposition to that of the sheriff. But yet this process, when treated of in the Reg. Maj. lib. 3. cap. 1. is there, agreeably to Glanville's distinction, and to what he says again when he treats of it more particularly, lib. 10. cap. 1. made to pertain ad coronam Regis; the very phrase which both books use in the beginning to point out the King's court, in opposition to that of the sheriff, when criminal causes are divided betwixt these two courts. Again, the placitum de tertia parte mulierum is in Reg. Maj. lib. 1. cap. 3. § 2. made to pertain to the sheriff, although (which is also an absurdity) the placitum de dotibus, which is the same plea, is made to belong to the ecclesiastic court, by cap. 2. ej. lib. § 1. But, when it is treated of Reg. Maj. lib. 2. cap. 16. there, agreeably to Glanville's book, lib. 1. cap. 6. it is made to pertain to the King's justiciar, § 21. 25. 37. 53. &c. as in Glanville, lib. 6. cap. 1. &c. These are direct instances; some more indirect ones seem to occur, as Reg. Maj. lib. 1. cap. 27. § 1. and cap. 15. § 3. and lib. 3. cap. 20. which seem to suppose, that the pleas there mentioned are treated of in the King's court, and not in the sheriff's, contrary to what is said of them in the beginning of the Regiam Majestatem.

It appears that, though the treatises on each plea are distinct in Glanville, yet they are all confounded in the Regiam Majestatem, by being injudiciously comprised in four books, as has been. already observed. But still they are cited and referred to in the Regiam Majestatem as distinct treatises or books. This was proper in Glanville; but highly improper, and not to be accounted for in the Regiam Majestatem, unless we suppose that it happened through inadvertency in copying it from Glanville. Thus, Reg. Maj. lib. 3. cap. 29. § 12. the treatise Of Marriage is cited; and lib. 2. cap. 11. § 6. the treatise De Loquelis; and lib. 3. cap. 21. § 12. the treatise Of Warrants; and lib. 1. cap. 23. § ult. the Liber de debitis is cited. All which treatises are separate treatises or books in Glanville, but are indiscriminately treated of in the Regiam Majestatem.

But against this last argument it may be urged, that, even in Glanville, lib. 13. cap. 15. the treatise. De heredibus minoribus is cited, although there be no such separate treatise; for the lib. 7. which treats of that matter, is cited by Glanville, lib. 13. cap. 11. as a treatise concerning marriage. The answer is,. that these treatises are so nearly connected, that the same book necessarily comprehended both; so that it might well be cited as a treatise on either marriage or heirs-minors.

NO. XLIX.

I

It may be also remarked, that although Glanville's book be more complete than the Regiam Majestatem, yet, besides the interpolations already mentioned, it wants some things that are in the Regiam Majestatem, which yet agree to the points there treated of. Thus, on every plea, Glanville has a series of brieves, all in their proper places, which are almost wholly omitted in the Regiam Majestatem (except in the single part which concerns terces), and often very abruptly, so that the omission is quite evident. On the other hand, Glanville has some queries, in different parts of his book, which are not answered by him, though these are answered in the Regiam Majestatem. Thus, Glanville, lib. 10. cap. 18. states a point, which is answered Reg. Maj. lib. 3. cap. 14. § 15. More instances of this appear from Glanville, lib. 7. cap. 16. compared with Reg. Maj. lib. 2. cap. 52. § 2. ; and Glanville, lib. 10. cap. 13. ad fin. compared with Reg. Maj. lib. 3. cap. 9. §7.; and Glanville, lib. 11. cap. 5. ad fin. compared with Reg. Maj. lib. 3. cap. 19. § 2. ad fin.-These things coincide entirely with the supposition, that Glanville's book was an original; but seem wholly incompatible with its being a transcript of the Regiam Majestatem. For it would have been very strange, if Glanville had copied the questions, and yet omitted the answers. But it may be easily supposed, that the composer of the Regiam Majestatem might frame answers to a few of Glanville's questions; and it would have been extremely strange, if Glanville had framed, all at once, a set of brieves, to answer a treatise made not in his own country; but it is very supposeable, that, though the Scots and English laws were anciently pretty similar, yet that in all things they were not so and that the brieves in Glanville might not correspond to the Scottish forms, which made it proper not to insert them in the Regiam Majestatem: and this may be suspected to have been the case of the process De fine facto in curia non observato, so slightly mentioned in the Regiam Majestatem, and so fully treated of by Glanville.

There are mentioned in Glanville's book' some laws which relate particularly to the English customs; and there is proof that these prevailed in England at Henry II.'s days: but there is no proof that there were such laws in Scotland at that time. Such is the law which, he says, took place concerning reliefs; that, in feodo militis, it was 100 shillings; and that there was nothing ascertained in baronies, but it was there at the King's pleasure to take what he thought fit. And this tallies exactly with the charters of King John, and the Magna Charta; which first fixed this quantity of these reliefs of baronies, which all the historians and an

1 Vid. Glan. lib. 9. cap. 4. ad fin. and also Reg. Maj. lib. 2. cap. 71.

2

tiquaries of England' agree were till then arbitrary. There is yet another law in Glanville and the Regiam Majestatem, that, by the custom of the kingdom, subsequent marriage had not the effect of legitimating children begotten in concubinage. That this was the law of England about the time of Henry II. may appear, independent of other authorities, from this, that, in the statute of Henry III. commonly called Statut. de Merton. cap. 9. there is meution made of this law as at that time the established law of that country: for, when the bishops and all the clergy intreated the earls and barons to have it altered, they answered, "Quod nolunt leges. Angliæ mutari, quæ hucusque usitatæ sunt et approbatæ." And this continues to be law in England till this day, although it is contrary to the Canon and Civil law. But there is no good reason to believe that this was law in Scotland, at that or any other time.

The result of the whole seems to be pretty certain, that the Regiam Majestatem is a book copied from Glanville.

1 Vid. Spelman, voce Relevium, 51. Glan. lib. 7. cap. 5.

PLAN

FOR

THE CONSTRUCTION

OF A

STEAM LIFE BOAT;

ALSO FOR THE

EXTINGUISHMENT OF FIRE AT SEA,

&c.

BY SIR WILLIAM HILLARY, BART.

AUTHOR OF AN APPEAL TO THE BRITISH NATION ON THE HUMANITY AND POLICY OF FORMING A NATIONAL INSTITUTION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF LIFE FROM SHIPWRECK.

SECOND EDITION.

LONDON:—1825.