Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/135

 1920 REVIEWS OF BOOKS 127 to Justice Scrope (p. 87), though he may well have been a clerk, was hardly chief clerk, of the common bench, for that office was held in 1313 by John Bacon and William Raven successively. Some of the notes are rather too general, as for instance when Amotherby, Scawton, and Copman- thorpe are put all ' in the same neighbourhood ' (p. 19), whereas the two former villages must be nearly thirty miles from the latter. And though Toudeby (p. 48) seems to assert that Robert, Earl Ferrers, was ' at the battle of Lewes ', it is clear that he was not, as Mr. BoUand says, for the simple reason that he was in prison at the time. That would not, however, prevent some of his retinue from fighting in the battle, and upholders of the eminent pleader's veracity may translate 'a la campaigne ' in that sense. An interesting point in the cases cited is the acerbity with which Chief Justice Bereford silenced the pleader Denham, who maintained that the parties to a contract made in Durham ought not to answer in the common bench because there was a chancery and law and justices in Durham, and its ' bishop is as exempt as is Chester and Wales ' (p. 121, cf. p. 119). But even counsel admitted that, if default could be assigned to the bishop of Durham, the bench had jurisdiction. Bereford's answer was, ' Who are you that you claim this franchise ? You are pleading to the authority of the court. But the bishop raises no objection. You are not the bishop's bailiff. Therefore say something else.' In the face of such an attitude as this, which might be supported by many similar instances, it is a mistake to regard even the most recognized franchises under the Crown as absolutely self-contained jurisdictional units. T. F. Tout. The York Mercers and Merchant Adventurers, 1356-1917. Edited by Maud Sellers, Litt.D. (Surtees Society Publications, 129.) (Durham: Andrews, 1918.) In the history of English commerce there are few subjects more important and none more attractive than that of the merchant adventurers ; and apart from some unrevealed court book of the parent company, or from those records in continental ports which Miss Sellers has been unfortunately prevented by the war from investigating, there was no unexplored source of new material so promising as the records at York which are here repre- sented. Local records not infrequently disappoint the hopes that have been entertained about them, and if in this case the promise has been amply fulfilled, it is due not merely to the quality of the material but still more to the scholarship and devotion of the editor. The two main aspects of the subject on which the new documents and the admirable introduction of Miss Sellers, cast new light are (1) the development of a local gild of mercers operating within the limits of the town economy into an organ of international trade, and (2) the relations, friendly or otherwise, of the merchant adventurers of London. with similar bodies formed in other leading ports. Not until the charter of 1580 did the company at York receive any explicit grant of privileges relating to foreign trade. Of the two previous charters, that of 1357, though prob- ably obtained as Miss Sellers suggests with a view to resuscitating the powers of the older gild merchant, was in form only an incorporation of