CORRIGENDA ET ADDENDA, Doion to September 1897. [These incorpomtA those contained at the end of each previous Volume (Vols. I to Vll), which, accordingly, neeil not bo consulted excepting in the few cases whci*e (to avoid unnecessary reprinting) special reference is herein made to them.] VOLUHI I. p. i ; dele lines 31 to 35 as also liuo4 1 and 2 on page ii. ; imeri " they are not iuciudetl, aave in two or thrtje ciises, such, inoit) e8i)ecia]iy, aa Abergavenny, Berkeley, &o., where it haa been contended that the tenure per Baroniam. constituted the actual peerage. Bakoniks by tknurk are a class of dignities, which are best dealt with by themselves, and the account of them given in NieoloM and repro- duced in Courthope is, when tested by the light of the researches made during the last threescore years, very inaccurate, besides also that a vast number of such Baronies are altogether omitted in those publications." p. ii ; dtU lines 9 to 11, and iii$ert — As TO Scotland, an accurate distinction between such Barons as may be considered Prbs (%.€., the Qrkatbb Bahons, who were ' Lords of Parliamknt ') and such (i.e., the Lbssbr Baboms) as held only a territorial Barony, ia, at an early period, hardly attainable. In this woric un account will be given of such Scotch Baronies only as were Lords of Pari., or which (tho*, in some cases, almost imperceptibly) developed afterwards into sudi. One of the best autliorities on such a subject, the well known John Riddell (< Scotch Peerage Law,* edit. 1833, p. 89, note 2) remarks that in Scotland ' we had no liereditai7 Lordships of Pari, till about [1437-1463] tlie reign of James II.' [S]. H. R. Stodart, Lyon Clerk Depute, in a letter (1885) to the Editor, writes that ' It does not seem that there were Barons by tenure here [S] as in England* or rather, one might say that the Minor Barom were all Barons by tenure ; they certainly were not Lords of Pari.' Q. Burnett, Lyon, adds, in a similarly directed letter (1889), that ' the Scotch Pari., as it existed in the 14th and 15th centuries and the greater part of the 16th, was an assemblage in one Chamber of three separate orders of the Community, the Prelates, Barons and Burgesses. The Earls belonged to the order of Barons. All Barons in the old sense, t.e., landholders holding their land as a Barony, had the right, or, more properly speaking, were under the obligation, to attend the meeting of the EsUtes, sometimes expressed as part of the reddendum of a charter. By the less considerable landowners the obligation to be present was often held a grievous burden and a sUtute of James I [S], in March 1427/8, enacted that the Small Barons should be excused from attending Pari., provided they sent two or more wise men from each Sheriffdom to represent them. Though this act, as well as a later one, was a failure as to ite main object (Parliamentery representetion) it was probably held to afford a quasi-sanotion to the habitual absence of the Small Barons, while the bestowal of a new title, that of Lord of Parliament, on the more considerable of the order, who might regard parliamentary attendance as a privilege rather than a burden, contributed further to the same result. No such creations, however, existed prior to the time (1406-87) of James I [S], who cieated but few, tho' his successor (1437-60) James II [S]. created a good many, but many Barons even at that period, who attended the meetings of the estates, were not Lords of Parliament.' The distinction between the Greater Barona [S] (who were Lords of Pari.), and the Lesser Barons (who were not such Lords) is emphasised in the creation (14 April 1616) of Sir David Camegy in Baronem Majorem et J>ominum Pariiamenti [S] " ; last line and also lines 1 to 5 on p. iii ; dele the words *' as also of " to ** successor." p. iii ; note (a), insert at end "See p. 171, note (c) and vol. iii> p. 83, note (c) and p. 86, note (a) ; " note (c) line 2 for '* wit " read " writ."
