NEW RECORD COMMISSION.-No. V.

Rotuli selecti ad res Anglicas et Hibernicas spectantes ex Archivis in Domo Capitulari West-Monasteriensi deprompti. Cura Josephi Hunter, S.A.S. 8vo. pp. 265, besides Indexes.

THIS volume consists, as its title page indicates, of various Rolls selected from the Miscellaneous Records of the Chapter House. They comprise, I. The Patent Roll of the 7th John. II. A return made by the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer of Ireland, setting forth all discharges of debts and accompts, and all grants of annuities, enrolled in Ireland, between the accession of Henry V. and the 11th of Henry VI.; and III. Five Rolls relating to proceedings in England consequent upon the De Montfort rebellion in the reign of Henry III.; and a Roll entitled Terræ Normannorum seisitæ in manum domini Regis tempore Regis Henrici III. vel ante in diversis comitatibus,' but which in fact is an imperfect series of minutes of various writs and grants connected with the lands of Normans seized into the hands of the King when the English continental dominions were lost.*

We shall reserve the first of these Rolls for consideration when we come to notice the volume containing the whole of the Patent Rolls of King John. The second Roll is one which would not interest the majority of our readers; and we shall therefore pass to the Rolls relating to the transactions in the reign of Henry III.

The rebellion of Simon de Montfort—' vir ille magnificus' (Mat. Paris, 672) constitutes one of the most important epochs in English history. Out of it emanated our peculiar system of parliamentary representation, and, with it, the freedom, the power, and the national happiness which have been its results. Interesting as such a period must necessarily be, the diligence of our antiquaries has merely sufficed to raise around it an infinity of doubts. They who are fortunate enough to write after the whole series of the Close and Patent Rolls of Henry III. shall have been pub. lished, may perhaps arrive at truth; at present we amuse ourselves in hunting after it; but our inquiries are, comparatively, to little purpose.

The victory of Evesham restored Henry III. to liberty, terminated the life of de Montfort, and placed his followers at the mercy of the King. So far as regarded the property of his opponents, that mercy consisted in the absolute confiscation of the lands of every one of them. This measure reduced many of the noblest and weal thiest of the nobility to instant and total beggary. They became thenceforth a body ̧of broken men,' distinguished in the Chronicles, as is pointed out by Mr. Hunter (pref. p. xxxii.) by the significant appellation of the Exheredati'-' the disinherited knights.' The desperate state of their fortunes gave them courage; they retreated to the natural strongholds of the country, and to such fortified places as remained in their possession, and still contended with the King although against all hope. The war thus lingered for a considerable period. At length that power, which, with all its defects, during the Middle Ages was a never-failing peace-maker, interfered to miti gate these calamities. We shall state the results in the words of Mr. Hunter.

"The Pope had not been an unconcerned spectator of the distractions from which England had so long been suffering. He had thrown his influence into the scale of the King. But now that the contest might be said to have subsided, so far as it respected any great constitutional or political question, and was a contest of vengeance on the one hand, and despair on the other, the Pope became the advocate of peace and mercy; and it was chiefly through the mediation of the Legate Ottobone, that the King consented to the adoption of lenient measures, and to rescind the determi nation which had stripped at once of all their revenues the persons of higher or lower dignity who had been, in any portion of the contest so long carried on, arrayed against him.

* Vide Gent. Mag. III. 579, N.S.

"It seems to be left undetermined by the Chroniclers of the time under what species of authority it was that the Twelve Mediators agreed upon the terms between the King and the Barons, which are embodied in what is called the Dictum de Kenilworth. The words in which the writer of the Annals of Waverley speaks of the transaction are these: Item ad instantiam Legati Dominus Rex submisit se et suos dicto quatuor Episcoporum, quatuor Comitum, quatuor Baronum, ut ipsi duodecim pacem et tranquillitatem Regni Angliæ reformarent.' There is no mention of any representatives of the Barons having been consulted in the affair. The terms were very moderate and reasonable as respected them; and this Dictum may be regarded as at once the chief cause of the state of internal tranquillity which continued for so many years, and as having done much to fix and establish certain constitutional principles, which are in operation through the whole period of our history to the present moment."-(pref. p. xxxii.)

The effect of the Dictum of Kenilworth upon the disinherited Barons was to substitute a payment of redemption money in the place of the absolute confiscation of their estates. The five Rolls published in this volume relate to the proceedings instituted for settling the assessment and payment of the redemption-money; but we will again take advantage of Mr. Hunter's preface by extracting his description of the Rolls.

"Hitherto it is believed no account has been published of the proceedings subsequent to the Dictum in respect of the redemption of the lands, and the settlement of the many disputes which could not but arise in carrying provisions such as these into effect. In the present volume there are five documents relating to these proceedings, contained in five several Rolls. One of these, which is entitled Terræ Rebellium datæ fidelibus tempore Regis Henrici III. in diversis comitatibus Angliæ,' contains a brief notice of many forfeited lands, with the names of the persons to whom they had previously belonged, and of those who then held them by the gift of the King. The other four Rolls are entitled Placita de Terris datis et occupatis occasione turbacionis in regno Angliæ,' and contain the record of the proceedings in consequence of the Dictum in the four several counties of Essex, Northampton, Suffolk, and Cambridge. "These pleas will be perused as being the best comment on the terms of the Dictum; but they may also be perused with great advantage as they exhibit in the detail of minute facts which are brought out in the charges and replications, many of the circumstances of that state of disturbance, the tempus guerræ of the reign of Henry III. in which England was placed, and show where the severities of it were chiefly felt. There is also much anecdote for the biographer and topographer, and the enquirer into the customs and the state of society of that period may find in these Rolls something that will assist his researches. The Rolls containing these placita are formed of various single Rolls attached together at the head, after the manner of the Exchequer Records. To each is attached one membrane, on which the names of the jurors for the several hundreds are entered. These lists have not been printed. The Pleas in the county of Essex are those only which are printed entire. Of the Pleas for the other counties, extracts only are printed of matters which appeared to the gentleman to whose care the publication of this volume had been confided, to possess the most curiosity and interest."-(pref. p. xxxvii.)

Such is the nature of the volume before us. It contains some curious things; but the most extraordinary circumstance connected with it, is the manner in which it and its ultimate Editor have been recently noticed in the literary and political world.

The circumstances are these: the Rev. Joseph Hunter, from whose introduction we have just been quoting, was some few years ago appointed a Sub-commissioner of Records. This gentleman was well known as the author of the Histories of Hallamshire and the Deanery of Doncaster, in three folio volumes, works of which it may at any event be said that they take rank with the best publications of their kind. He had also published a small philological work, recently noticed in an article upon English Dialects in the Quarterly Review. Mr. Hunter had besides most skilfully and ingeniously determined two difficult and disputed questions in English literature relating to the authorship, and consequently to the authenticity, of Cavendish's Life of Wolsey, and More's Life of Sir Thomas More. Residing at a distance from London, Mr. Hunter had been less known than would otherwise have been the case; but his constant contributions to various branches of literature and a growing sense of GENT. MAG. VOL. VI.

G

the importance of his larger works kept his name before the public, and eight years ago obtained from an impartial and talented critic in the Retrospective Review an avowal that his deep research and critical acumen had established his reputation as a zealous, and, what was far better, a rational and intelligent antiquary.'

His appointment as a Sub-Commissioner of Records was favourably regarded by all persons who were desirous that the Commissioners should be no longer kept in leading-strings by the insignificant persons to whose influence many of their worthless volumes were attributed. Upon this ground, and with a full confidence in his ability, we tendered him and the Commissioners the humble meed of our congratulation upon his appointment in the first article we devoted to this subject. (Gent. Mag. I. 378. N.S.) At the time when Mr. Hunter received his appointment, some one connected with the Commission had just seen reason to suspect that various Records which were on the eve of publication were being edited in a very imperfect and unsatisfactory manner. The disagreeable task of inquiring how far these suspicions were well founded was committed to Mr. Hunter. The result was the discovery of many gross inaccuracies, and the establishment, in the very clearest manner, of the incompetency of the person to whose editorship the books had been entrusted. The question then arose, should the works be wholly suppressed, or should such leaves be cancelled and reprinted as were really too bad' to see the light, and the books thus mutilated be sent into the world with such lists of errata as would pretty well rectify the remaining mistakes. Partly from some considerations arising out of the expense which had been incurred, and partly also out of consideration for the poor blunderer, publication was determined upon, and Mr. Hunter was directed to write Introductions, to put his name to the publications, and to insert in the volumes the results of his collations with the originals. He complied with these directions, except as to putting his name to one of the volumes, with which he was so thoroughly dissatisfied that he refused to do so. That volume is the one which we noticed in our Magazine for March last, and there, in ignorance of this last fact, we commented upon the want of an avowed Editor, and upon the number of errata.

In the Preface to the first of these works Mr. Hunter stated,

'It is proper to add that when the Commission on the Public Records did me the honour to call in my assistance in the performance of the important labours committed to their charge, a considerable portion of the Roll was already finished at the press. The first and the last sheets indeed alone remained; but I have performed the duty of an Editor in respect of the whole Roll, by having gone through a minute and exact collation with the original Record, so that the text when taken in connection with the Corrigenda at p. 163 of this volume, may be received as a faithful representation of the original by the historical enquirer, to whose studies and researches the valuable information contained in this Record is now happily opened, without encountering the difficulties which must always have attended a personal search in the office in which it is deposited, and without that waste of life to which former antiquaries have been subject in the necessity of personal transcription.'-Pref. p. xxiii.

Throughout the Preface to the second volume there runs an evident distinction between the person who transcribed the Roll, and the writer of the Preface; but, as we have before remarked, Mr. Hunter's name does not appear in that volume. In the Preface to the third volume, which is the one now under our notice, we find the following:

The preparation of this volume was originally committed to a gentleman connected with the office in which these Records are deposited, who settled all the editorial arrangements, and superintended by far the largest portion of the volume through the press before my assistance was called in. My duty has therefore been for the most part a revision of the text and the preparation of the present Introduction. The principle on which the original Editor proceeded, was that of making the printed work conform as nearly as common typography, with a few contracts cast for the purpose, would admit, to the writing before him. This, in most instances, deprives the reader of the

benefit of any regular system of punctuation. Other difficulties will also occur in the reading of these Records; but variations from the original must not be presumed in all cases in which a different orthography might be expected, or where a violation of a concord is discernible.'-p. xxxviii.

Such are the facts; and it will be perceived that every one who approached the books was made acquainted with them. How have they been used? Would heart of man once think it? Those very blunders, which Mr. Hunter so carefully pointed out as not his own, have been trumpeted to the world, and held up to the public in the pages of a critical Journal,* as the blunders of Mr. Hunter. That gentleman has been abused in language which speaks at once the character of mind from which it proceeded, and the easiness of temper in the Editor who could admit it into his pages. His whole literary life has been disparaged; his arduous labours decried; his talents vilified; and himself held up to ridicule and contempt on account of the errors in these 'the works printed under Mr. Hunter's direction.' If we were to follow, through all its windings, the tortuous pen from which the sentences to which we have alluded have proceeded, we could produce as clear indications of ignorance, not merely of Records and record-learning, but of learning of every kind, as were ever exhibited in broad daylight; but surely ignorance is not the question here? What mere 'ignorance' could account for the representation of books published in the manner we have stated as PRINTED' under Mr. Hunter's 'DIRECTIONS?'-What mere ignorance' could prudishly feel shocked at the enormity of Mr. Hunter's editorial carelessness as exhibited in the lists of the errata of his predecessor?-What mere 'ignorance' could sneer at this person,' and chuckle over the allusion made in the House of Commons to the incorrectness of HIS Rotuli Selecti?' Finally, what mere ignorance' would have sought to mislead his readers into the belief that errata inserted in the manner we have explained, prove the utter inability of Mr. Hunter to have anything to do with works of this description? No! no! Ignorance has done much; but here there is another cause besides. It is no new case. There may be novelty in steam-boats, railroads, iodine, or electro-magnetism ; but in human †· there is none. This very

6

case has happened before, and may be read in the pages of Martinus Scriblerus, from whence we quote, by memory, A man sitting in a theatre perceived his next neighbour steal a gentleman's pocket handkerchief. 'Sir,' said the thief, finding himself detected, do not expose me, I did it for mere want; be so good as to take it privately out of my pocket and lay it down by the gentleman's side.' The honest man did so ; but the acquaintances of the thief, who sat behind him, immediately cried out, See, Gentlemen, what a thief we have among us! he has stolen a pocket handkerchief!' There will be no difficulty in recognizing some of the parties to this counterpart of the present transaction; and if it were worth our while to drag our readers into that vortex which has recently been opened around the Record Commission, we should find all the others there. But our taste and feeling alike hold us back. Standing aloof from all the parties,-and like Legion, they are many,'-we can but grieve to see that amongst this discreditable squabbling, the real interests of literature are lost sight of; the literary character is degraded; and the paramount rights of honour and honesty are forgotten. Above all, we grieve to see these things escaping beyond the ordinary range of the politician and the trickster, tainting the wholesome atmosphere of quiet studies, and circulating the mean and paltry lie through channels which ought to be devoted, and we will say generally are devoted, to good feeling and truth.

If upon the present occasion we have at all stepped out of our way, it has been because the subject was intimately connected with the book before us, and exhibited moreover an instance of injustice so extraordinary, that we could not have satisfied our conscience without taking notice of it. The critic to whom we have alluded, has added other remarks upon other persons and other works, in the same strain, and with equal injustice; but they do not relate to the volume before us, and we therefore pass them by. Let not him, nor any one else, think that we consider them unanswerable.

* Literary Gazette, No. 1002.

The reader may fill up the blank with any harsh word he likes.