« AnteriorContinuar »
all party spirit in describing the nature and growth of our Institutions.
The texts of Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, and the Bill of Rights—those three great landmarks of English Constitutional History-which were given in full in the First Edition, have been supplemented by the text of the Act of Settlement, which completes the written Code of our Constitution.
T. P. T.-L.
THE TEMPLE, December, 1879.
EDITOR'S PREFACE TO THE THIRD
IN sending forth the Third Edition of such a book as the present, it seems chiefly necessary to state briefly the reasons which prevailed with me to undertake a task which could only entail much heavy work, and no less heavy a responsibility.
To Oxford men of our generation, and more particularly to those, who, like ourselves, read for Honours in the old undivided School of Jurisprudence and Modern History, it will be unnecessary to say that Taswell-Langmead and I were close friends. I first knew him in the Summer Term of 1862, and I came to know him as a friend of one of my brother competitors in a competition within the University which gained me some of my most valued Oxford friends. Of these some still remain to me, while others, such as Lockhart of University, and TaswellLangmead himself, have been too early lost to the world, -the former shortly after gaining the crown of his Oxford work by election to the Stowell Fellowship in his College, and on the very threshold of his career at the English Bar ; the latter just as his historical work had begun to receive its due meed of recognition, in his election to the thoroughly congenial Chair which he filled at the time of his death. Knowing Langmead as I had known him, working with him as I had worked with him on the previous editions of this book, I felt that I could bring to the preparation of the Third Edition a more intimate acquaintance with the author's mind on the subject matter of his book than any other Editor, though better known in the World of Letters. And I still think that I was right in undertaking the task, however the accomplishment may fall short of my desires. I have endeavoured to correct all such press errors as I noticed in revising the present edition, and I have also compared all the extracts of any length and importance with the text of the authors cited, and have, as far as possible, brought them into exact conformity with the originals. In the extracts from Rot. Parl, and the Mediaval Statutes, this has often involved the entire re-casting of the text. In the case of writers such as Kemble, I have used the same care to bring the passages cited into conformity with the special orthography of the author, and to shew, in all cases, by the ordinary marks of omission, where an extract was welded together from different portions of the same page, or of following pages, or of text and notes.
The foot-notes which I have added to the present edition are throughout distinguished from Langmead's by the use of square brackets, and generally also by the word “ED." For the notes at the end of several chapters, where I have brought out and sometimes criticised the views of M. Glasson, in his recent elaborate and interesting Histoire du Droit et des Institutions Politiques de l'Angleterre, I am necessarily solely responsible, as Langmead had only commenced reading the work, and had not left more than a few pencilled marginal notes by way of a guide to his own judgment of M. Glasson's book.
In illustrating the mediæval portion of Langmead's book, I have frequently cited Mr. Digby's valuable History of the Law of Real Property, Mr. Dowell's History of Taxation, and Mr. Clifford's Private Bill Legislation, on the subjects of their respective works. I have also availed myself of the interesting side-lights thrown upon History by the publications of Societies, such as the Royal Society of Literature, the Royal Archæological Institute, the Camden Society, and others, to a greater extent than in the previous editions. I have departed from Langmead's orthography in the matter of Anglo-Saxon names, because it was a matter on which I knew him to have simply followed others, and not given the result of his own independent judgment, while the point was one on which I always differed from him. At the same time it is one on which I do not think that an iron rule of consistency can be maintained. In the Appendices, for which I am solely responsible, I have sought to say a few words on some topics of Historical interest which seemed to me to require further treatment than could be given in footnotes, and on some of which Langmead himself would not improbably have spoken had he been bringing out this edition. Where the Appendices refer to passages in the text, I hope they may be found to set them in a somewhat clearer light. I would, of course, by no means have it