William A twood. 1095."' Whilst Atwood's references, to prove that Scotland stood in a feudal rela tion to England, are carried up far beyond the eleventh century; one of his statements being that England exercised dominion over it in the time of King Arthur, the hero of a popular poetical romance of the middle ages, one of the theories respecting whom is that he was king of the North Britons of Southern Scotland and Cambria, but whose existence, as an historical personage, has long been questioned, and of which there is no very satisfactory evidence.1 To determine whether this work was, or to what extent, if any, an answer to that of the learned Scotch antiquary and lawyer, it would be necessary to read Sir Thomas Craig's treatise, which I have never seen, and in the cursory examination I have given to Atwood's reply, which is a volume of nearly six hundred pages, what I collect from it is that he claims to have established that Scotland, from a very remote period, was a feud of England, and bound to do homage. That when, in due course of suc cession, the crown of both countries cen tered in James I, the feud, or feu, as the Scotch term it, was merged in him; that Scotland then became annexed to, and a part of England, and that whoever there after became king or queen of England, became also the sovereign of Scotland, "un less the crown of England duly made some other provision "; claiming that he had Scotch blood in his veins,3 and was "the 1 Erskine's Institute of Scotland, pp. 206, 207. Edin. 1812, 5th ed. 2 " S'il y a du vrai dans 1'histoire d'Arthur il est difficile de le demeler. ... II n'existe aucun monument qui prouve qu'Arthur soit un personnage historique." (Nouvelle I1iographic Universelle, vol. 3, p. 390.) (If there is any truth in the history of Arthur, it is difficult to unravel it. . . There does not exist any monument which proves that he was an historical personage.) And see Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons, 5 vol. 1, Book III, chap, iii, and the National Biographical Dictionary, vol. 2, for a very full examination of the subject. 3 His maternal grandfather was Patrick Young, a native of East Lothian in Scotland, the descendant of an ancient Scottish family, and a very distinguished writer. He was
245
first among the moderns in asserting to his countrymen of both kingdoms, the honor of being under one imperial crown, not only by consanguinity, but by law." Atwood's book created the greatest in dignation in Scotland. The Scottish Parlia ment ordered it to be burnt by the hands of the common hangman, directed that the thanks of the Parliament should be publicly delivered by the Lord Chancellor to James Anderson, an eminent Scottish antiquarian, for his reply to it,' and bestowed upon him a reward which Atwood, in a rejoinder, says was four thousand eight hundred and eighty Scottish pounds. The rejoinder of Atwood is entitled " The Superiority of the Crown of England over the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland re asserted against Mr. James Anderson and others by William Atwood, Esq., in anim adversion upon a scurrilous pretended an swer by him," etc., garnishing the title-page of his rejoinder with a quotation from Horace, which, from what we have seen of the character of the man, is worth quot ing: — "Vir bonus est quis? "Qui consulta patrum qui leges jura que servat." (Who is the good man? He who respects the decrees of the senate, the laws and right.)2 Whilst Atwood was engaged in these publications, by which he acquired considerthe librarian of James I, some of whose works he trans lated into Latin, and was the author of several learned publications. He died in 1652, the year after Atwood was born. 2 Watt's Bibliotheca Britannica, 991 m. 3 Allibone, 2900. I Morant's History of Essex, 155. 1 An Historical Essay showing that the Crown of Scot land is Imperial and Independent, in answer to Mr. Atwood's. Edin. 1705. 2 James Anderson, to whom this rejoinder was made, afterwards compiled what has been called a great work, Diplomata et Numismata Scotix, which Cosmo Innes, in his lectures on Scottish Legal Antiquities, says he did to prove the antiquity and independent royalty of Scot land, because " there were some men found in England unworthy enough to propose dealing with Scotland as an old feudal dependent, instead of an ancient and always independent neighbor." (Scotch Legal Antiquities, pp. 288, 289, Edin. 1872.)
