Willelmi, Chronica et Annales (R).
Tewkesbury, Annals of, in Annales Monastici, vol. i (R).
Torigneio, Roberti de, Chronica, in Chronicles of Stephen etc. vol. iv (R).
Triveti, Nicholai, Annales (Eng. Hist. Soc.).
Waverleia, Annales de, in Annales Monastici, vol. ii (R).
Wigorniensis, Florentii, Chronicon (Eng. Hist. Soc.).
Wykes, Thomae, Chronicon, in Annales Monastici, vol. iv (R).
York, Historians of the Church of (R).
Letters, etc.Academica, Munimenta (R).
Cantuarienses, Epistolae, in Chronicles etc. of Richard I., vol. ii (R).
Cantuarienses, Literae (R).
Dunelmense, Registrum Palatinum (R).
Grosseteste, Letters of Bishop (R).
Lanfranci Opera, ed. Giles, Oxford, 1844.
Northern Registers, Historical Papers and Letters from (R).
Osmund, Register of St. (R).
Peckham, Registrum Johannis (R).
Royal and other Historical Letters, Henry III. (R).
Saresberiensis, Joannis, Opera, ed. Giles, Oxford, 1848.
Cartularies.Bath, Two Chartularies (Somerset Record Soc. 1893).
Battle, Cartulary (Camd.).
Brinkburn, Cartulary (Surt.).
Burton, Cartulary (Salt Society, 1884).
Gloucester, History and Cartulary (R).
Guisborough, Cartulary (Surt.).
Malmesbury, Register (R).
Newminster, Cartulary (Surt.).
Paul’s, Domesday of St. (Camd.).
Peterborough, Black Book of, at the end of Chronicon Petroburgense (Camd.).
Ramsey, Cartulary (R).
Rievaulx, Cartulary (Surt.).
Sarum, Charters and Documents of (R).
Selby, Coucher Book (Yorkshire Archaeological Soc. 1891–93).
Whalley, Coucher Book (Chetham Soc. 1847).
Whitby, Cartulary (Surt.).
Winchcombe, Landboc, vol. i, ed. D. Royce, Exeter, 1892.
Worcester, Register (Camd.).
Round, Ancient Charters (Pipe Roll Soc.).
Madox, Formulare Anglicanum, London, 1702.
Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. 1817 etc.
p. 38, middle of page. As to the burh-geat (not burh-geat-setl) see W. H. Stevenson, E. H. R. xii. 489; Maitland, Township and Borough, 209.
p. 126. Dr. Liebermann has withdrawn the suggestion that Vacarius was the author of the tract on Lombard law. See E. H. R. vol. xiii. p. 297. The Summa de Matrimonio has been printed in L. Q. R. xiii. 133, 270.
p. 585, note 91. Add a reference to J. H. Round, The Hundred and the Geld, E. H. R. x. 732.
p. 698. As causes of municipal expenditure we ought to have mentioned the many presents, of a more or less voluntary kind, made by the burgesses to kings, magnates, sheriffs and their underlings. For these see the Records of Leicester, ed. Bateson, passim.
p. 156. As to the ownership and possession of movables, the articles by Mr. J. B. Ames in Harv. L. R. vol. xi. pp. 277 ff. should be consulted.
p. 377, note 393. As to the forfeiture of the goods of a man who dies desperate, see Art. 30 of the Preston Custumal (Harland, Mamecestre, vol. iii. p. xxxviii).
p. 380, note 403. Add a reference to Records of Leicester, p. 219. In 1293 the burgesses decide that the heir is to have the best cauldron, the best pot and so forth. In Scotland the “heirship movables” were of considerable importance. In the seventeenth century the heir would take, among other things, “the great House Bible, a Psalm-book, the Acts of Parliament.” See Hope’s Minor Practicks, ed. 1734, p. 538.
p. 390, note 27. An interesting historical account of the Scottish law of marriage by Mr. F. P. Walker will be found in Green’s Encyclopædia of the Law of Scotland. Pre-Tridentine catholicism seems to find its best modern representative in this protestant kingdom.
p. 509, note 140, and p. 666, note 376. The Annals of Winchester, p. 25, and Thomas Wykes, p. 235, differ about the number of the compurgators, which may have been 25 or 50.
p. 523, side-note, should read “Treason contrasted with felony.”
p. 562, note 400. So the burgess of Preston who has charged a married woman with unchastity must proclaim himself a liar holding his nose with his fingers: Harland, Mamecestre, vol. iii. p. xl.
In the First of the two Books into which our work is divided we have endeavoured to draw a slight sketch, which becomes somewhat fuller as time goes on, of the general outlines of that part of English legal history which lies on the other side of the accession of Edward I. In the Second Book we have tried to set forth at some length the doctrines and rules of English law which prevailed in the days of Glanvill and the days of Bracton, or, in other words, under Henry II., his sons and grandson. The chapters of our First Book are allotted to various periods of history, those of the Second to various branches of law. In a short Introduction we hope to explain why we have been guilty of what may be regarded as certain offences, more especially certain offences of omission.
It has been usual for writers commencing the exposition of any particular system of law to undertake, to a greater or less extent, philosophical discussion of the nature of laws in general, and definition of the most general notions of jurisprudence. We purposely refrain from any such undertaking. The philosophical analysis and definition of law belongs, in our judgment, neither to the historical nor to the dogmatic science of law, but to the theoretical part of politics. A philosopher who is duly willing to learn from lawyers the things of their own art is full as likely to handle the topic with good effect as a lawyer, even if that lawyer is acquainted with philosophy, and has used all due diligence in consulting philosophers. The matter of legal science is not an ideal result of ethical or political analysis; it is the actual result of facts of human nature and history. Common knowledge assures us that in every tolerably settled community there are rules by which men are expected to order their conduct. Some of these rules are not expressed in any authentic form, nor declared with authority by any person or body distinct from the community at large, nor enforced by any power constituted for
