certainly have exerted myself to get the manuscript of Froissart, at Breslau in Silesia, inspected; for I imagine that more will be found respecting Scotland in it than in the printed copy.

Any thing that I have as to the five James's and Queen Mary, will come in properly among my notes on their Acts of Parliament; a work which has been long under my hands, and which I am unwilling to lose sight of.

I remember that Mr. Boswell told me, some years ago, that he meant to write the life of James IV.: whether he made any progress in it, I know not.

From your purpose of undertaking so large a work as that which you mention, I judge that you are resolved to let Mr. Whitaker alone: somebody told me that you intended to examine him. Mr. Tytler and he have dispersed all the birds of ill omen which hovered round the royal body. Accept my thanks for the civilities shown to me in your late book.

MR. PINKERTON TO LORD HAILES.

Kentish Town, near London,
Feb. 1st, 1791.

I was duly honored with your lordship's obliging answer to my last, to which I did not reply, because I was apprehensive of being troublesome; but I am now induced to beg your lordship's

opinion upon a very important department of our history, the old laws of Scotland.

The statutes of Malcolm II. I give up with your lordship; and the Regiam Majestatem with Mr. Davidson. But some parts of the latter strike me as real ancient Scotish laws, preserved in that treatise; as for instance, lib. i. c. 16 to 20, which are clearly referred to in stat. Alex. c. 12, and lib. iv. c. 36, 38, 39, 40. The former part is ascribed to David I. by stat. Alex. c. 12; and the latter, from its intrinsic evidence, seems to contain some of the oldest laws. Skene mentions that, in some manuscripts, the latter chapters are titled, Leges inter Brettos et Scotos; and your lordship will remember, in your Annals an instrument of Edward I. is mentioned, referring to the laws inter Brettos et Scotos. Most of the other passages in the Regiam Majestatem not in Glanville, I suppose to be later laws, inserted when the Regiam Majestatem was really compiled under David II. I can discover no manuscript older than the fifteenth century, which is another argument for its not being more ancient than the fourteenth; and under James I. it is regarded as established law; so it hardly can be more modern than David II. But this is submitted to your lordship.

In the Harleian Library is a good manuscript of the old Scotish laws, written about 1430; and it is believed as ancient as any extant. I have compared it carefully with Skene's edition, and find that your lordship is perfectly right in blaming Skene for gross errors, omissions, and interpolations. The statutes of Robert II. are not in this

manuscript; but the first statutes of Robert I. are erroneously called Statuta Roberti de Bruys Secundi ejus nominis. I beg your lordship's opinion as to the authenticity of the statutes of Robert II. in Skene. The concluding chapter is a great evidence in their favor.

The Leges Burgorum seem to be of David I., but with later interpolations. It is natural to think that our burghs had the first regular laws.

The Quoniam Attachiamenta seem far later. In a brieve in this manuscript the style is "Robertus Dei gratia," &c. Skene has only " Rex," &c. This manuscript differs much from Skene.

Next in this manuscript are the statutes of David II. totally different from those in Skene. They are a mixture of those ascribed to- Alex. II. and Robert I. in Skene, with many not in Skene at all.

The Leges Forestarum here fill near eighty pages in Skene about eight. Many of them in this manuscript refer to burghs, sailors, &c. May not these laws be those of the forests, or south of Scotland, about Jedburgh and Selkirk ? At any rate they should have been published as in the manuscripts. They seem from this manuscript to belong to Alexander II.

The first statutes of Robert I. are not so numerous as in Skene; and yet there are some here that are not in Skene. I follow the order of the manuscript.

The statutes of William differ almost entirely from Skene. Those of Alexander II. agree pretty well; but the order differs.

The second statutes of Robert I. agree to ch. 21. with the first in Skene: then they vary much.

Those of Robert III. agree better than any of the rest; but they also vary towards the end.

From this detail your lordship will perceive, that the differences between this manuscript and Skene are prodigious. I should wish very much to know, if the manuscripts examined by your lordship vary as much; and if any of our lawyers or antiquaries have critically examined our old statutes, and endeavored to ascertain them to the proper monarchs. This can only be done by collating the manuscripts and preferring the most ancient. I suspect, however, that Skene's work is an abstract digested by him; and that the old manuscripts agree much among themselves.

I am much obliged to your lordship for the hint concerning Froissart, but beg leave to mention that the best manuscript of his work is in the British Museum; and that all the editions en lettre Gothique, (there are about ten,) are far fuller than the editions by Sauvage.

LORD HAILES TO MR. PINKERTON.

Edinburgh, Feb. 28th, 1791.

I am favored with your letter: the present state of my health will not permit me to make a long answer. You appear not to be acquainted with my tract on Regiam Majestatem. Many years ago I projected an edition of our laws; but

different avocations prevented me from making much progress in it. I met with a copy of the laws of Robert I. in the chartulary of Moray; and, that manuscript being of the age of that king, I considered it as the most authentic. I collated all the good manuscripts which I could find; and I drew up some explanatory notes; and there the matter rested. There is a confusion in our ancient statutes, which I never had time to unravel: for example, there is somewhere in the statutes of William, the Lion, a law similar to one in the Friderician Constitutions later than the days of William; and I see many examples of the same laws ascribed to different kings. Lord Kames thought favorably of the second statutes of Robert I.: I did not think so favorably of them. It is hard to say what of Leges Burgorum are Scotish, what English: the truth is, that the laws and regulations of the two kingdoms were nearly similar. I cannot enter into a detail of the reasons of their similarity.

DR. JOSEPH WARTON TO MR. PINKERTON.

Winchester, April 28th, 1791.

I am confident you will pardon me for availing myself of that freedom, which lovers of literature sometimes take with one another, in troubling you with a letter on a passage in your excellent and valuable Collection of Ancient Scotish Poems. You say, page 138, Vol. I., that Dr. Beattie has