We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2011
The following notes were put together in response to a suggestion that workers in other fields might be interested to hear something of our problems and the solutions we are finding for them. I have addressed myself to such readers and have tried to avoid both the minute and the technical. I have confined myself to four topics largely from considerations of space. An article that covered the whole ground could have been little more than a select bibliography, and what I thought was wanted in this case was an indication of what the books contained. The selected topics have been chosen partly with reference to the amount and importance of the work that has recently been devoted to them, and partly because of their special relevance to the subject in hand. Thus much could have been said of the very interesting development of views as to origins and the pre-conquest period in general or of the important advances that have been made in the understanding of revenue, taxation and finance, but it will probably be agreed that these had to make way for such subjects as constitutional theory and parliament. Reasons for certain other obvious omissions will be given later.
1 The best bibliography, a first-rate work although the annual production has now outstripped it by twenty-one years, is: Gross, C, Sources and Literature of English History to 1485, 2nd ed. revised, 1915. The Royal Historical Society is considering the prospects and means of publishing a new edition of this indispensable work. Meanwhile A Short Bibliography of English Constitutional History by H. M. Cam and A. S. Turberville [Historical Association Leaflet, No. 75], 1929, will be found sound and useful.
2 For an apt illustration of this point see Stubbs, , Historical Introductions to the Rolls Series, ed. Hassall, , Oxford University Press [hereafter U.P.], 1902, p. 291.Google Scholar
3 Petit-Dutaillis, Ch. in Studies and Notes Supplementary to Stubbs’ Constitutional History, in, 307–8, Manchester U.P., 1929. M. Petit-Dutaillis has since published a valuable study of the comparative development of French and English history, La Monarchìe Féodale en France et en Angleterre, Xe-XIIe Siecle, Paris, 1933Google Scholar, which may be read with interest and profit although, as far as English constitutional matters are concerned, with certain reserves.
4 Studies and Notes, p. 482, n. 2.
5 But see Tout, T. F., “The study of mediaeval chronicles” in Collected Papers, in, 1 ff., Manchester U.P., 1934, a good example of the value of Stubbs’ intuitions is afforded by the emphasis he laid on the quarrel between Henry II and Becket over the sheriff's aid. Round had no difficulty in showing that the payment involved was not danegeld and that Stubbs’ argument that Becket was resisting a tax was inadmissible (Round, Feudal England, pp. 497 ff.). What he could not or did not see was the importance of any resistance to autocracy on grounds of principle.
6 Tout, T. F., The Place of the Reign of Edward II in English History, Manchester U.P., 1914. Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England, 6 vols., Manchester U.P., 1920–33 [hereafter cited as Chapters]. Collected Papers, 3 vols., Manchester U.P., 1932–4.
7 “Some conflicting tendencies in English administrative history during the fourteenth century” in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, viii (1924), 82 ff., reprinted in Collected Papers, III, 223 ff.
8 Chapters, v, 229.
9 Viollet, P., Histoire des Institutions Politiques de la France, III (1903), 296.
10 In Studies and Notes Supplementary to Stubbs’ Constitutional History, III. M. Lefebvre had seen only the first and second volumes of the completed work but he had used the fugitive publications in which Tout anticipated his most important conclusions. Some of these have been reprinted. See next note.
11 See Collected Papers, III, 93–117, 191–276.
12 Riess, L., Geschichte des Wahlrechts zum englischen Parlament im Mittelalter, Leipzig, 1885.Google Scholar“Der Ursprung des englischen Unterhauses” in Historische Zeitschrift, LX (1888), 1 ff.
13 Memoranda de Parliamento, Rolls Series, 1893. The permanent part of the introduction will form part of a volume of selected essays of Maitland about to be published by the Cambridge University Press.
14 Mcllwain, C. H., The High Court of Parliament and its Supremacy. Yale U.P., New Haven, and Oxford U.P., 1910.Google Scholar
15 See Plucknett, T. F. T., Statutes and their Interpretation in the first half of the Fourteenth Century, Cambridge U.P., 1922.Google Scholar
16 Baldwin, J. F., The King's Council in England during the Middle Ages, Oxford U.P., 1913. It is no disparagement of this scholarly work to point out that it is not in the same class with Professor Mcllwain's very remarkable book.
17 This has recently been discussed with reference to the exclusion of Archbishop Stratford from parliament in the spring of 1341 by Dr B. Wilkinson in “The protest of the Earls of Arundel and Surrey in the crisis of 1341” in English Historical Review [hereafter E.H.R.], XLVI (1931), 177 ff. See also Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O. “The parliaments of Edward III” in Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research [hereafter B.I.H.R.], VIII, 72 ff.
18 Richardson, H. G., “The origins of parliament” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society [hereafter T.R.H.S.], 4th ser., xi (1928), 137 ff. Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., “Early records of the English parliaments” in B.I.H.R. v, 129, VI, 71, 129; “The parliaments of Edward III”, ibid, VIII, 65, IX, 1; “The king's ministers in parliament”, 1272–1377 in E.H.R. XLVI (1931), 529, XLVII (1932), 194, 376; “Parliamentary documents from formularies”, in B.I.H.R. XI, 147. Future investigation has been much facilitated by the critical study of the origin, nature and authority of the rolls of parliament to be found in the articles cited above and particularly by the learned authors’ recent publication of a new collection of those rolls: Rotuli Parliamentorum Anglie Hactenus Inediti MCCLXXIX-MCCCLXXIII, Royal Historical Society [hereafter R.H.S.] (Camden, Third Series, LI) (1935).Google Scholar It came too late to make anything but this brief reference possible. For a view of parliamentary development in the fourteenth century attributing much greater and earlier importance to the commons see the late Miss Clarke's book cited below p. 154 n. 4.
19 Pasquet, D., The Origin of the House of Commons, translated by R. G. D. Laffan, with a Preface and Additional notes by G. Lapsley, Cambridge U.P., 1925.Google Scholar
20 Interim Report of the Committee on House of Commons Personnel and Politics, 1264–1832, H.M. Stationery Office, 1932.Google Scholar
21 White, A. B., Self-Government at the King's Command, Minneapolis, 1933.Google Scholar An excellent little book which does not appear to have attracted the attention that it merits. Cam, H. M., The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls, 1930. Edwards, J. G., “The personnel of the commons in parliaments under Edward I, Edward II”, in Essays in Medieval History presented to T. F. Tout, Manchester U.P., 1925.Google Scholar See Professor Pollard's attack and Mr Edward's rejoinder in History, xi, 15, 204. Lapsley, G., “Knights of the shire in the parliament of Edward II” in E.H.R. xxxiv (1919), 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 152. “Buzones” in ibid, XLVII (1932), 177, 545. Lewis, N. B., “Re-election to parliament in the reign of Richard II” in ibid, XLVIII (1933), 364. McKisack, M., The Parliamentary Representation of the English Boroughs during the Middle Ages, Oxford U.P., 1932.Google Scholar Muir, J. M., “The personnel of parliament under Henry IV” in B.I.H.R. II, 88 [summary of an unpublished thesis]. Tout, T. F., Chapters, 111, 291–93 [an extensive and valuable note on the attendance of borough members]. Wood-Legh, K. L., “Sheriffs, lawyers, belted knights in the parliaments of Edward III” in E.H.R. XLVI (I931), 372; “The knights’ attendance in the parliaments of Edward III” in ibid. XLVII (1932), 398. I have cited only general works, though much has been done for single counties and boroughs, cf. Interim Report, pp. 12–14, 49.
22 Stubbs, C.H. III, 4th ed., pp. 465–6. Riess assumed that the boroughs wished to escape the burden and expense of representation, and that those succeeded in doing so which were able to interpose a bribeable official between themselves and the sheriff to whom the writ was addressed. This condition would be fulfilled in towns within hundreds or liberties. Riess's conclusions had been accepted by Gneist with certain reserves and Stubbs modified his text “out of respect to Dr Gneist's authority”.
23 Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., “The king's ministers in parliament” in E.H.R. XLVII (1932), 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Pollard, A. F., The Evolution of Parliament, 2nd ed., 1926, caps. IV, and VI and xvi. The Anominalle Chronicle, ed. Galbraith, V. H., Manchester U.P., 1927, pp. 79 ff.Google Scholar
25 Pickthorn, , Early Tudor Government, Cambridge U.P., 1934, I, 90–91.Google ScholarChrimes, S. B., “‘House of Lords’ and ‘House of Commons’ in the fifteenth century” in E.H.R. XLIX (1934), 494 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 I have selected only one of a number of available considerations to illustrate this point.
27 Vernon Harcourt, L. W., His Grace the Steward and the Trial of Peers, London, 1907.Google ScholarPike, L. O., Constitutional History of the House of Lords, London, 1894.Google ScholarRound, J. H., Peerage and Pedigree, 2 vols. London, 1910.Google Scholar Tout, Chapters, III.
28 The modern doctrine that a writ received and obeyed conferred a hereditary right was unknown, and even at the end of the fourteenth century “peers of parliament” were not necessarily barons sitting by hereditary custom, though probably this was more often the case than not. See Tout, Chapters, III, 136–9, 296 n.
29 Richardson, and Sayles, , “The king's ministers in parliament” in E.H.R. XLVII (1932), 194 and 377 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Stubbs, C.H. 11, 48–49.
31 All this has been discussed from very different points of view by Professor Pollard in his Evolution of Parliament, 2nd ed., caps. IV and v and Tout, Chapters, III, 138 and 296, cf. Index, s.v. “Peers”.
32 Stubbs, C.H. in, 458–61. This is confined to the episcopate, but he considers that they were peers and not merely lords of parliament. If by peers you mean those who should be and are habitually summoned to parliament in the Middle Ages, this is of course the case. Archbishop Stratford could describe himself as “par terrae major”. Birchington, in Anglia Sacra, I, 28, cf. Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, 1, 5th ed., 1922, pp. 234–9.
33 Pike, L. O., Constitutional History of the House of Lords, 1894, cap. ix. On his view the prelates were recognized as spiritual lords but “so far as they were peers at all, were entitled to the name, only in virtue of their temporal possessions or baronies ”, P. 159.
34 Chew, H. M., English Ecclesiastical Tenants in Chief, Oxford, 1932.Google Scholar We must go warily in these matters. The Bishop of Carlisle was one of the six bishops who held in alms and owed no military service to the king, yet when he was fined in 1263 before the Justices in Eyre the word “baro ”was added to the record to indicate that he was to be amerced by the king in Council. Northumberland Pleas, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Record Series, II (1922), No. 704, pp. 236–8.
35 The Anominalle Chronicle, ed. Galbraith, V. H., Manchester U.P., 1927, contains an account of the Good Parliament taken from an unknown writer “closely in touch with the events he is describing if not an eye-witness of at least part of them”.
36 Favent, Historia…de modo et forma Mirabilis Parliamenti…Anno Domini millesimo CCCLXXXVI, ed. McKisack, M., Camden Miscellany, xiv, R.H.S., 1926. In spite of the title it is, in fact, an account of the Merciless Parliament by an author who although a “political propagandist” is “remarkably accurate in his relation of facts” and may have been an eyewitness or received his information from one who was. The material furnished by these (and other) writers has been ably presented by Tout in “The English parliament and public opinion” in Mélanges d'Histoire offerts à Henri Pirenne, Brussels, 1926; reprinted in Collected Papers, 11, 173.
37 Langland, Works, ed. Skeat, W. W., E.E.T.S. Pt. III, pp. 500 ff. [Passus IV], 1875. Internal evidence restricts the date of the work to the first three weeks of September 1399.
38 Gray, H. L., The Influence of the Commons on Early Legislation [Harvard Historical Series, vol. xxxiv], Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also The Fane Fragment of the 1461 Lords’ Journal, ed. Dunham, W. H., Yale U.P. and Milford, London, 1935.
39 Holdsworth, Sir William, The Influence of the Legal Profession on the Growth of the English Constitution, Oxford U.P., 1924. Cf. his History of English Law, 11, 3rd ed., pp. 429 ff.
40 Wittke, C, The History of English Parliamentary Privilege [Ohio State University Studies…in Constitutional History and Political Science, No. 6], Columbus, Ohio, 1921.Google Scholar
41 Pickthorn, Early Tudor Government, pp. 108–14. Chrimes, S. B., Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century, Cambridge U.P. This valuable work is now passing through the press. I have had the advantage of reading but not yet of studying it.
42 Chapters, iv, 17–19.
43 Place of Edward II. “The English parliament and public opinion” in Collected Papers, II, 173. Mr Richardson and Professor- Sayles, loc. cit., emphasize the more general aspect of this feudal reaction in politics; cf. above p. 128, n. 29.
44 Baldwin, J. F., The King's Council, cap. xii. Pickthorn, K. W. M., Early Tudor Government, cap. II. Plucknett, T. F. T., “The place of the council in the fifteenth century” in T.R.H.S., 4th ser., I (1918), 157 ff.
45 Kern, F., “Recht und Verfassung im Mittelalter” in Historische Zeitschrift, cxx (1919), 1 ff. Mcllwain, C. H., Magna Carta Commemorative Essays, R.H.S. (1917), p. 122; Political Theory in the West, 1932; caps, v and VI, e.g. p. 189 and see index. Pickthorn, K. W. M., Early Tudor Government, cap. v. Plucknett, T. F. T., Statutes and their Interpretation, vide supra, p. 124. Chrimes, S. B., Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century, vide supra, p. 130, n. 41.
46 Gray, H. L., The Influence of the Commons on Early Legislation, pp. 177 ff.
47 Law Quarterly Review, L (1934), 201 and 540 ff.
48 Mitchell, S. K., Studies in Taxation under John and Henry III, Yale U.P., New Haven and London, 1914. Willard, J. F.( Parliamentary Taxes on Personal Property, 1390–1334, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1934. Gras, N. S. B., The Early English Customs System [Harvard Economic Studies, vol. xviii], Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, 1918.
49 See Unwin, G., “The estate of the merchants, 1336–1365” and Barnes, F. R., “The taxation of wool, 1327–1348” both in Finance and Trade under Edward III, Manchester U.P., 1918.
50 The principle, if any, upon which towns were selected for representation has not been ascertained. Whatever the tests were, they are not likely to have been applied consistently. There is an interesting discussion of the subject by the late J. F. Willard in his essay “Taxation Boroughs and Parliamentary Boroughs, 1294–1336” in Essays in Honour of Jantes Tait, Manchester U.P., 1933. He shows that in the period in question both the sheriffs and chief taxers, who were acting without instructions in the majority of cases, chose the same towns.
51 “The Plena Potestas of English parliamentary representatives” in Oxford Essays in Medieval History presented to H. E. Salter, Oxford U.P., 1934.
52 See in this sense Stephenson, C, “Taxation and Representation in the Middle Ages”, in Hasfuns Anniversary Essays, 1929, pp. 291 ff. Mcllwain, C. H., in Cambridge Medieval History, vn (1932), 604–82.
53 See Pickthorn, Early Tudor Government, particularly pp. 21–9, and Chrimes, Constitutional Ideas.
54 This question is discussed at length in Miss Clarke's, M. V. posthumous volume Medieval Representation and Consent, London, 1936Google Scholar, which came to hand too late to be appreciated here. It is understood that a study on this subject by Mr H. G. Richardson is shortly to appear. Meanwhile we have Professor Morris's, essay, “The Date of the Modus Tenendi Parliamentum” in E.H.R. XLIX (1934), 407 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55 See Webb, C. C. J.( John of Salisbury, 1932. The preface gives the necessary bibliographical indications. Mr Webb is the editor of John's most important speculative works. Mr J. Dickinson has published a translation of certain parts of the Policraticus under the title The Statesman's Book of John of Salisbury, New York, 1927.Google Scholar The introduction, which discusses medieval conceptions of kingship, has appeared in part in Speculum, 1 (1926), 309 ff.
56 Carlyle, A. J., A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West, 5 vols., 1903–28. These cover the period from the second to the fourteenth century. It is understood that a sixth and final volume is about to appear.
57 Viollet, P., Institutions Politiqu.es de la France, II, 20.
58 Kern, F., Gottesghadentum und Widerstandsrecht im früheren Mittelalter, Leipzig, 1914Google Scholar; “Recht und Verfassung im Mittelalter” in Historische Zeitschrift, cxx (1919), 1 ff. Mcllwain, C. H., The Growth of Political Thought in the West, London, 1932Google Scholar; The High Court of Parliament, Yale U.P. and London, 1910Google Scholar; “Magna Carta and the Common Law” in Magna Carta Commemoration Essays, R.H.S., London, 1917.Google Scholar
59 Below, von, G., Der deutscher Staat des Mittelalters, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1925.Google Scholar The subject has long been vigorously and hotly debated by German scholars and a substantial part of Below's book is devoted to a summary of this controversy.
60 Bloch, M., Les Rois Thaumaturges [Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l'Université de Strasbourg. Fasc. 19], Strasbourg, Paris and London, 1924.Google ScholarRussell's, Mr J. C. study of “The canonization of opposition to the king in Angevin England” in Haskins’ Anniversary Essays, Boston, 1929Google Scholar, presents an interesting and relevant suggestion not very satisfactorily worked out.
61 De Necessariis Observantiis Scaccarii Dialogus, ed. Hughes, A., Crump, C. G. and Johnson, C, Oxford U.P., 1902.Google Scholar
62 See Kirn, P., “Die Mittelalterliche Staatsverwaltung als Geistesgeschichtliches Problem” in Historische Vierteljahrschrift, XXVII (1932), 523.Google Scholar In § 4 he deals with the Dialogus. He describes the author as a lively critic of the state about which he reasons by seeking the thought that lies behind the administrative arrangements he describes.
63 Bracton de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae, ed. Woodbine, G. H., Yale U.P. and Oxford U.P., vol. I (1915), vol. II (1922).Google Scholar
64 Glanvill De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Regni Angliae, Yale U.P. and Oxford U.P., 1932.Google Scholar
65 The text is in Woodbine, II, 110; see I, 330 ff., where he has described it as a not very distant echo of the troubles between Henry III and his barons and adds that the authority on which it rests is far too insufficient to allow us to regard Bracton as the author. The utmost that can be said for Bracton's authorship will be found in Ehrlich, L., Proceedings against the Crown (1216–1377) [Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, ed. Vinogradoff, vol. VI], Oxford U.P., 1921, pp. 202 ff.Google Scholar The disputed passage crept into the text seemingly before 1290 when it was incorporated into Fleta, an anonymous law-book based on Bracton. In the time of Edward II it was developed in a sense unfavourable to royalty by a justice of assize in a gloss on Bracton. This has been worked out by Davies, J. C., The Baronial Opposition to Edward II, Cambridge U.P., 1918, p. 16.Google Scholar
66 See Clarke, M. V., “The origin of impeachment” in Oxford Essays in Medieval History presented to H. E. Salter, pp. 164 ff., Oxford U.P., 1934.Google Scholar
67 Powicke, F. W., Stephen Langton, Oxford U.P., 1928.Google Scholar See also Cambridge Medieval History, VI, cap. VII, pp. 232 ff., Cambridge U.P., 1929.Google ScholarDr Thompson's, FaithThe First Century of Magna Carta [Research Publications of the University of Minnesota], Minnesota U.P., Minneapolis, 1925Google Scholar, is a real contribution to our knowledge of the history and influence of what may be called the Common Law Charter as distinguished from the dictated treaty of Runnymede. In this context it may be noticed that the direct constitutional importance of the Forest Law has been sensibly diminished by Miss Wright's proof that it did not (and indeed could not) exclude the Common Law within the area of the Forest, although it created new offences and restricted the exercise of proprietary rights. The study is a remarkable one and deserves attention. Wright, E. C, “Common law in the thirteenth-century English Royal Forest” in Speculum, III (1928), 166 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68 Treharne, R. F., The Baronial Plan of Reform, 1258–1263, Manchester U. P., 1932.Google Scholar
69 Jacob, E. F., in Cambridge Medieval History, VI, cap. vIII.
70 Ibid. p. 271.
71 Jacob, E. F., Studies in the Period of Baronial Reform and Rebellion, 1258–1267 [Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, ed. Vinogradoff, vol. VIII], Oxford U.P., 1925.Google Scholar
72 He was a Franciscan friar who wrote soon after the battle. He gives a full and reasoned account of the baronial programme, but it cannot be made to square with Bracton's statement of the law. The best edition is that of C. L. Kingsford, Oxford U.P., 1890.
73 A number of short but important studies of various aspects of this period should be noticed; Jacob, E. F., “The reign of Henry III“in T.R.H.S. 4th series, X (1927), 21 ff.Google Scholar; “What were the Provisions of Oxford” in History, IX (1925), 188 ff.Google Scholar; “The complaints of Henry III against the Baronial Council” in E.H.R. XLI (1926), 559 ff.CrossRefGoogle ScholarRichardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., “The Provisions of Oxford—a forgotten document and some comments” in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XVII (1933), 291 ff.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPowicke, F. M., “Some observations on the Baronial Council, 1258–1260”, in Essays … Presented to T. F. Tout, Manchester U.P., 1925.Google ScholarDenholm-Young, N., “Robert Carpenter and the Provisions of Westminster“in E.H.R. L (1935), 22 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Documents of the Barons' War” in E.H.R. XLVIII (1933), 558 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar (deals with the reconstruction of the government after the battle of Lewes). The classical study of Simon de Montfort published by M. Charles Bémont in 1884 was revised by the author and published in English (the translation was made by Professor Jacob) in 1930 (Oxford U.P.). The documents appended to the original edition were omitted and in some other respects the venture proved less satisfactory than had been hoped. Treharne, R. F., “The personal rule of Henry III and the Aims of the Baronial Reformers of 1258”, in History, XVI (1932). 336 ff.Google Scholar
74 Tout, Place of Edward II; Chapters, vols. II and III. Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., “The early records of the English parliaments” in B.I.H.R. VI, 71 ff.; “The King's ministers in parliament”, Pt. II, in E.H.R. XLVII (1932), 194 ff.Google Scholar
75 The problem of the interest of the commons, if any, secured by the Statute of York in 1322 has long been the subject of a chronic controversy which has recently become acute, see Lapsley, G., “The commons and the Statute of York” in E.H.R. XXVIII (1913), 118 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tout, Place of Edward II, pp. 150–1; Davies, J. C, Baronial Opposition to Edward II, pp. 513 ff.; Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., “Early records of the English parliaments” in B.I.H.S. VI, 76; Johnstone, H., Camb. Med. Hist, VII, 425–6; Clarke, M. V., in Essays in Honour of James Tait, pp. 29, 30, 42; McIlwain, C. H., Growth of Political Thought in the West, pp. 377–8; Haskins, G. L., The Statute of York and the Interest of the Commons, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1935.Google Scholar Mr Haskins argues that the position of the commons in parliament has been overrated and that this statute so far from securing to them a share in legislation represents a statement of autocratic royal power. It may reasonably be doubted whether this is the final word on the matter. A view emphasizing the importance of the commons will be found in Miss Clarke's book referred to above p. 134, n. 54.
76 This work has now appeared and is referred to supra, p. 134, n. 54.
77 Clarke, M. V., “Committees of estates and the deposition of Edward II“in Essays in Honour of James Tait, Manchester, 1933.Google Scholar Cf. Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., Rotuli Parliamentorum Anglie Hactenus Inediti, Camden Soc. 3rd series, LI (1935), 99–102.Google Scholar Tout's very brief notice of the matter will be found in Chapters, III, 1–6.
78 See E.H.R. XLIX (1934), 581–3.Google Scholar
79 Tout, Chapters, III, 65–150. Other references up and down the volumes may readily be consulted by means of the excellent index. Hughes, D., The Early Years of Edward III, London U.P., 1915, Part II, caps, VII-IX.Google ScholarClarke, M. V., “Forfeitures and treason in 1388“in T.R.H.S. 4th series, XIV (1931)Google Scholar; “The origin of impeachment” in Oxford Essays ….presented to H. E. Salter, Oxford U.P. Lapsley, G., “Archbishop Stratford and the parliamentary crisis of 1341” in E.H.R. XXX (1915), 6–18, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarWilkinson, B., “The protest of the Earls of Arundel and Surrey in the crisis of 1341” in E.H.R. XLVI (1931), 177 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
80 Tout, Chapters, III, 69 ff.
81 Ibid. pp. 77–8.
82 Clarke, M. V., “The origin of impeachment” cited above. What follows is a statement of Miss Clarke's contention in so far as it bears on the point I am trying to illustrate. The argument is to me convincing.
88 The text is given in Lodge and Thornton, English Constitutional Documents, Cambridge U.P., 1935, p. 26.Google ScholarPubMed I wish to draw attention to this very useful collection of fourteenth and fifteenth century texts.
84 Clarke, M. V.,”Forfeiture and treason in 1388“in T.R.H.S. 4th series, XIV (1931).Google Scholar
85 Lodge and Thornton, op. cit. p. 156.
86 Chapters, III, 432.
87 Lapsley, G., “The parliamentary title of Henry IV” in E.H.R. XLIX (1934), 585 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Galbraith, V. H. and Clarke, M. V., “The deposition of Richard II“in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XIV (1930), 24 ff.Google Scholar
88 An argument in this sense will be found in Dr Chrimes's forthcoming work to which reference has already been made.
89 This point is discussed in the study referred to above p. 145, n. 87.
90 Plucknett, T. F. T., “The place of the council in the fifteenth century” in T.R.H.S., 4th series, I (1918)Google Scholar; “The Lancastrian Constitution” in Tudor Studies, ed. Seton-Watson, R. W., London, 1934.Google Scholar
91 McIlwain, C. H., The Growth of Political Thought in the West, 1932, pp. 354 ff.
92 Jacob, E. F., “Sir John Fortescue and the Law of Nature“in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XVIII (July 1934), No. 2.Google Scholar
93 Chrimes, S. B., “Sir John Fortescue and his theory of dominion“(The Alexander Prize Essay) in T.R.H.S., 4th series, XVII (1934).Google Scholar
94 Pickthorn, K. W. M., Early Tudor Government, Cambridge U.P., 1934.Google Scholar
95 Chrimes, S. B., Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century, Cambridge U.P., 1936.Google Scholar
96 Maitland, F. W., Roman Canon Law in the Church of England, London, 1898.Google Scholar
97 Brooke, Z. N., The English Church and the Papacy from the Conquest to the reign of John, Cambridge U.P., 1931. See also his “The effects of Becket's murder on papal authority in England” in Cambridge Historical Journal, 11, 212 ff.Google Scholar
98 The references are given in Gross, Sources and Literature of English History, 2nd ed., 1915, No. 767, p. 142. The reference (No. 769) to Stubbs' delphic comment in the 1900 edition of his Seventeen Lectures (prefixed to the lectures on the History of the Canon Law) should not be missed.
99 See Phillimore in Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., v, 201–2. Not so, of course, Professor Holdsworth, see History of English Law, I, 3rd ed., 580–98.
100 Thorne, G. E., “Le Droit Canonique en Angleterre” in Revue Historique de Droit Français et Étranger, 4th series, XIII (1934), 499 ff.Google Scholar
101 See Phillimore ubi supra. Lyndwood was a fifteenth-century English canonist whose Provinciale used to be regarded as a collection of specifically English canon law.
102 Cheney, C. R., “Legislation of the medieval English Church“in E.H.R. L (1935), 193, 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
103 Gibbs, M. and Lang, J., Bishops and Reform 1215–1272, Oxford U.P., 1934.Google Scholar
104 Ayer, J. C., “On the medieval national church” in Papers of the American Society of Church History, 2nd series, vol. IV, New York, 1914.Google Scholar
105 It will be recalled that Henry only withdrew the Constitutions in so far as they contained objectionable customs introduced in his time although he released the bishops from the pledge they had given to observe the customs and promised not to exact it in the future. When the document was submitted to the pope by Becket he rejected a large part of it irrespective of this distinction. Brooke, op. cit. cap. XIV.
106 Stutz, U., Geschichte des kirchlichen Benefizialwesens 1, i and Die Eigenkirche als Element des mittelalterlich-germanischen Kirchenrechts. Both published at Berlin in 1895.
107 Maitland, F. W., Collected Papers, III, 210 ff. This should be consulted in the forthcoming volume of Maitland's Essays (Cambridge U.P.), where it is furnished with additional notes.
108 Böhmer, H., “Das Eigenkirchenthum in England” in Festgabe für Felix Liebermann, Halle, 1921.Google Scholar
109 Gabel, L. C., Benefit of clergy in England in the later Middle Ages [Smith College Studies in History, XIV], Northampton, Massachusetts, 1929.Google Scholar Cf. Firth, C., “Benefit of clergy, in the time of Edward IV” in E.H.R. XXXII (1917), 175 ff.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPoole, A. L., “Outlawry as a punishment for criminous clerks” in Essays in Honour of James Tait, Manchester, 1933, pp. 239 ff.Google Scholar
110 Kimball, E. G., “Tenure in Frankalmoign and secular service” in E.H.R. XLIII (1928), 341 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The judicial aspects of Frank Almoign tenure” in ibid, XLVII (1932), 1 ff.
111 The opening words of the writ, Circumspecte Agatis, have given a name to the composite text.
112 Graves, E. B., “Circumspecte Agatis“in E.H.R. XLIII (1928), 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle ScholarJohnstone, H., “Archbishop Pecham and the Council of Lambeth of 1281” in Essays … Presented to T. F. Tout, Manchester, 1925.Google ScholarRichardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., “The early statutes”, Pt. II, in Law Quarterly Review, L (1934), 540 ff.Google Scholar
113 Smith, A. L., Church and State in the Middle Ages, Oxford U.P., 1913.Google Scholar
114 Barraclough, G., Papal Provisions, Oxford, 1935.Google Scholar See also in the same sense (though from a different point of view) Mollat in Camb. Med. Hist, VII, cap. X and the works there cited. Deeley, A., “Papal provision and royal rights of patronage” in E.H.R. XLIII (1928), 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
115 Hartridge, R. A. R., A History of Vicarages in the Middle Ages, Cambridge U.P., 1930.Google ScholarWood-Legh, K. L., “Appropriation of parish churches” in Cambridge Historical Journal, III (1929), 14 ff.Google Scholar
116 Deeley, A., op. cit. Barraclough, G., “The constitution ‘Execrabilis’ of Alexander IV” in E.H.R. XLIX (1934), 193 ff., an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the costly litigation that often followed provision to a benefice.Google Scholar
117 Lunt, W. E., The Valuation of Norwich, Oxford U.P., 1926.Google Scholar A valuation of the revenues of the English Church made as a result of the clerical tenth granted in 1253 in anticipation of the crusade. The editor's Introduction, pp. 1–169, is a valuable study of the whole subject. He has since published a further and broader study also contained in an introduction to a collection of texts. Papal Revenues in the Middle Ages, New York, Columbia U.P.; London, Milford, 1934.Google Scholar
118 Perroy, E., L'Angleterre et le Grand Schisme d'Occident, I (1378–99), Paris, 1933.Google Scholar
119 The Diplomatic Correspondence of Richard II, R.H.S., Camden, 3rd series, XLVIII (1933).Google Scholar
120 Waugh, W. T., “The Great Statute of Praemunire“in E.H.R. XXXVII (1922), 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For another and important aspect of the matter, see Graves, E. B., “The legal significance of the Statute of Praemunire of 1353“in Haskins Anniversary Essays, Boston, 1929.Google Scholar
121 Arising out of the political disorders, 1386–8. The party of the Appellants obtained the “purge of the episcopate “which enabled them to complete the work of the Merciless Parliament, at the price of allowing Urban to take a subsidy from the English clergy.
122 Workman, H. B., John Wyclif, 2 vols., Oxford U.P., 1926.Google Scholar
123 Richardson, H. G., “Heresy and the lay power under Richard II“in E.H.R. LI (1936), 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
124 See Maitland, H. W., “The Deacon and the Jewess” in Roman Canon Law in the Church of England, pp. 158 ff.
125 Epist. XXVI, cited by Macdonald, p. 121; see note 126.
126 Böhmer, H., Die Fälschungen Erzbischof Lanfranks, Leipzig, 1902.Google ScholarMacdonald, A. J., Lanfranc, Oxford U.P., 1926Google Scholar; “Eadmer and the Canterbury Privileges” in Journal of Theological Studies, XXXII (1930), 39Google Scholar (a reply to Frau Dueball). Dueball, M., Der Suprematstreit Zwischen … Canterbury und York, 1070–1126, Berlin, 1929.Google Scholar
127 A pamphlet drawn up by Stubbs in 1887 but not published and a speech delivered by him in the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury in 1898 were reprinted under the title On Convocation by the late Archdeacon Hutton (London, 1917) and may still be consulted with profit.
129 Churchill, I. R., Canterbury Administration, 2 vols., London, 1933.Google Scholar
129 Gibbs, M. and Lang, J., Bishops and Reform, 1215–1272, Oxford U.P., 1934.Google Scholar
130 Wood-Legh, K. L., Church Life under Edward III, Cambridge U.P., 1934.Google Scholar Interesting light is thrown on the administration of the Statute of Mortmain by Little's, Mr A. G. “The Franciscans and the Statute of Mortmain” in E.H.R. XLIX (1934), 673 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Myres, Mr J. N. L., “Notes on the history of Butley Priory, Suffolk“in Oxford Essays in Medieval History presented to H. E. Salter, Oxford U.P., 1934.Google Scholar
131 Offer, C. J., The Bishop's Register, London, 1929.Google Scholar
132 Ellis, J. T., Anti-Papal Legislation in Medieval England (Doctoral Dissertation at the Catholic University of America), Washington, D.C., 1930.Google Scholar
133 Stephenson, C., Borough and Town. A Study of Urban Origins in England, Medieval Academy of America, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1933.Google Scholar
134 Pirenne, H., Les Villes du Moyen Âge, Brussels, 1926.Google Scholar See also his chapter in the Cambridge Medieval History, VI (1929), 505 ff.Google Scholar
135 Stenton, F. M. in History, XVIII, 256. Tait, J. in E.H.R. XLVIII (1933), 642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
136 “The origin of the borough of Cambridge” in Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, XXXV (1935), 33 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Tout, “Mediaeval town planning” in Collected Papers, III, 59.
137 «The study of early municipal history in England”, Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. X (1922).Google ScholarBritish Borough Charters, 1216–1307, Cambridge U.P., 1923Google Scholar (completing the work of A. Ballard who published the first volume, 1042–1216, in 1913 and died while engaged on the present volume, in 1915). “Liber Burgus” in Essays … Presented to T. F. Tout, Manchester U.P., 1925.Google Scholar“The Firma Burgi and the Commune in England, 1066–1191” in E.H.R. XLII (1927), 321 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar “Origin of town councils in England”, ibid, XLV (1929), 177 ff. “The borough community in England”, ibid. XLV (1930), 529. “The common council of the borough”, ibid, XLVI (1931), 1 ff. Since the present article was in print Dr Tait has published a volume containing these studies together with some new matter.
138 Professor Tait's views have been unfavourably criticized by Meyer, E. F. in “Comments on the observations of Tait on the Common Council of the English borough”, Speculum, VII (1932), 249 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This little piece is wordy rather than weighty. Mr Meyer is the author of The English Craft Gilds and Borough Governments of the Later Middle Ages [University of Colorado Studies, XVII], 1925, which I have not seen.
139 Trenholme, N. N., The English Monastic Borough [University of Missouri Studies, II, No. 3], Columbia, Missouri, 1927.Google Scholar
140 Lobel, M. D., The Borough of Bury St Edmund's, Oxford U.P., 1935.Google Scholar
141 Murray, K. E. M., The Constitutional History of the Cinque Ports, Manchester U.P., 1935.Google Scholar
142 Weinbaum, M., Verfassungsgeschichte Londons 1066–1268 [Beiheft XV zur Viertel-jahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte], Stuttgart, 1929Google Scholar; London unter Edward I und II. Verfassungs-und Wirtschaftsgeschichtliche Studien I. Untersuchungen II. Texte (same series, Beihefte XXVIII and XXIX), Stuttgart, 1933.Google Scholar See also Stenton, F. M., Norman London [Historical Association Leaflet, Nos. 93 and 94], 1934 (a revised edition of the essay first printed in 1915).
143 Actually the first of the second instalment of the work to which Dr Weinbaum has given a separate title.
144 Professor Tait in E.H.R. XLIX (1934), 511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
145 Prejudice and Promise in XVth Century England (The Ford Lectures, 1923–24), cap. v, Oxford U.P., 1925.Google ScholarKnoll, K., London in Mittelalter, Vienna and Leipzig, 1932Google Scholar, is a book on the popular side which makes no great contribution to constitutional history.
