Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/624

 6 1 4 Reviews of Books and 139), but doe« not believe that Edward deserves the credit for the peace which prevailed within England during his later years so much as Boniface's unfortunate attempt at intervention in the Scottish affair and the lucky escheat of some of the great baronies (pp. 216-224). In the struggles of Edward II. 's reign the author sees more of per- sonal rancor and shameless self-seeking on the part of noble-born poli- ticians than of any comprehensive or far-sighted grasp of constitutional principles. In this he will be supported by most scholars, yet we would like to question the statement (p. 243) that the complete "ignoring of the commons" in 1310 was not due to "aristocratic jealousy". If not jealousy, surely contempt, and the two are so closely allied that it is hard to distinguish sometimes. Other statements also may be challenged. Justice is not done to the contracting parties in calling the indemnity offered to Prince Louis in 1217 "a bribe" (p. 13). Nor can the reissue of the charter of the same date be called " its final form" — even "substantially" (ibid.). It is assigning too much impor- tance to Henry's council of regency to say that from this council arose the idea of limited monarchy (p. 29). The suggestion (pp. 116, 117) that Earl Simon deliberately sacrificed the men of London to the neces- sities of his plan of battle at Lewes hardly does justice to Simon, nor is it consistent with later estimates of his character. On the other hand, the introduction of the popular element in the famous Parliament of 1265 seems to have been an afterthought on Simon's part and due rather to his necessities than to any " boldness and largeness of his spirit" (p. 120). It is difficult to see how the passage of the Severn at Kempsey (p. 126) reveals Simon's skill when the withdrawal of Edward from Worcester made the passage possible. The skilful strate- gist and tactician of the Evesham campaign is not Simon but Edward. Again, the gredt custom of 1275 was more than an expedient to raise revenue. It was substituted not so much for the old land-tax as for the irregular levies of prise (p. 148). The date 1279 is a little early to speak of Parliament as "the estates" (p. 151). It is scarcely more accurate to say that Parliament " passed " a statute at a time when the legislative function of Parliament was still confined to the " humble petition" (ibid.). The statement (p. 152) that "all medieval laws were rather enunciations of an ideal than measures which practical statesmen aimed at carrying out in detail ", can scarcely be meant to be taken seriously. Louis X.'s posthumous child was a son not a daughter (p. 295). The character of Edward III. is somewhat over- drawn. At all events one could hardly style him a " fluent and eloquent speaker in . . . English" (pp. 310, 312). The possession of Berwick by the English, after Halidon Hill, was in no sense "final" (p. 320). The statement that the death of the elder Artevelt marked " the end of the Anglo-Flemish alHance " should at least be qualified (p. 349). One hesitates to accuse the author of not having read the Statute of Laborers. But he certainly could not have read carefully or at least recently when he made the statement (p. 373): "The statute provided