[ 10 ]

will be found, that the Word from whenee the Miftake hath arifen is * bannuz banifhed, not, as it hathbeen fuppofed, baignees bathed; and accordingly it isobfervable, that in the A6t of the 11 th of Richard II,whereby the Perföns mentioned in this Statute of the2oth Year, Belknap, Holt , and Burgleigh, threejudges,were banifhed, they have only the bare Addition ofKnights; though indeed the two latter of them werereally Knights created by Bathing : For though this A6tof 20 Rieh. II, by reafon of what hath been already re-marked upon it, cannot beregularly produced tofhew,that they were fö created; yet the Fa£t is evident fromanother 'Inftrument of 7 Rieh . II, the Authority ofwhich cannot be difputed.

There are good Grounds to fiippofe, that the Cu-ftom of Bathing before Knights were formally confli-tuted, was much more antient j and that Bathing, asprevious to a Degree of Knighthood, and concomitantwith the Vigils, had been introduced by the Saxons.We have indeed few Memorials of that Age relatingto our Subjedl; however m Malmsbury informs us, thatAlfred conferred on his Nephew Athelßan , föme De-

i Item noflre Seigneur le Roi eft aflentuz, & ad grauntez de la grace efpe-tiale par aflent, & accord de toutz Seigneurs efpiriruelx & temporeix, & detoutz les Comones en ceft Parlement a Robert Bealkmp, John Holt , & Wil-liam de Burgh, Chivalers bannuz, & demourantz en Irland q’ils reviendrenten Engleterre , &c. St. 20 R. 2 . & vii.

I Append. Numb. 29.m Appendix, Numb* 1.

gree