TRUSTS. Construction. Director's liability to company's creditors Spendthrift ELECTRIC STreet RailwaYS. Additional burden EXTENT OF Legislative PowER. The Granger cases JURISDICTION of Federal Courts over QUESTION ARISING UNDER STATE LAW SCHOOL 44 318 43 98, 150, 257, 441 MEANING OF "PENAL" IN INTERNATIONAL LAW. Huntington v. Attrill PROTECTION OF STUDENTS AGAINST INNKEEPERS HARVARD LAW REVIEW. VOL. VI. APRIL 15, 1892. NO. 1. GLANVILL REVISED. to re WHEN I was editing for the Selden Society some precedents for proceedings in manorial courts I had occasion mark that one of the manuscripts that I had been using-it lies in the library of our English Cambridge, and is there known as Mm. I. 27-contained "a revised, expanded, and modernized edition" of Glanvill's treatise on the laws of England.1 This remark brought to me from the American Cambridge a very kind note suggesting that more should be said of this revised Glanvill, and the editors of the HARVARD LAW REVIEW have been good enough to permit me to say a few words about it in these pages. I hope that the circulation of their excellent magazine will not suffer thereby. Almost the whole of the manuscript book in question seems to me to have been written by one man, though at many different times. It opens with a table of contents. Upon this follows a Registrum Brevium which I should ascribe to Edward I.'s reign (1272-1307), and not to the latest years of that reign. Then at the beginning of a new quire begins the revised Glanvill. This, as I shall remark below, gradually degenerates into a mere series of writs. Then we reach "Explicit summa que vocatur Glaunvile." A few more writs follow, with some notes and the articles of the eyre. Then the correspondence which took place between Henry III. and de Montfort on the eve of the battle of Lewes ; then a short account of that battle (14 May, 1264). Then the 1 The Court Baron, Selden Soc., p. 6. king's writ to the mayor and bailiffs of York announcing that peace had been made. Then the following: "And in order that you may know of the events of the battle fought at Evesham between Worcester and Oxford on Tuesday the nones of August in the 49th year of King Henry, son of King John, between the lord Edward son of the King of England and the lord Gilbert of Clare Earl of Gloucester, and Simon of Montfort and his followers, who was slain on the same day, as was his son Henry and Hugh Despenser. [Here we come to the end of a line and a full stop. Then we have the following at the beginning of the next line:] In the 49th year of King Henry, son of King John, and the year of Our Lord 1265, at Whitsuntide, the following page (subsequens pagina) was written in the chapel of S. Edward at Westminster and extracted from the chronicles by the hand of Robert Carpenter of Hareslade, and he wrote this." The date is then given by reference to various events, ranging from the creation of the world downwards. It is the year of grace 1265; it is the 33d year since King Henry's first voyage to Gascony; since his second voyage it is twelve years plus the interval between the 1st of August and Whitsuntide; it is twenty years from the beginning of the king's new work at Westminster, and one year since the battle of Lewes. Thus we are brought to the foot of a page. At the top of the next page (and the structure of the book seems to show that nothing has here been lost) we find a precedent for a will, which is followed by a few legal notes written in French, and these bring us to the well-marked end of one section of the book. The statement about Robert Carpenter, minutely accurate though it is meant to be, is none the less a very puzzling one. In the first place, "he wrote this," (hic hoc scripsit) is not free from ambiguity. Did he trace the very characters that we now see, or was he merely the author, the composer or compiler of the text that we now read? And then, whatever "wrote " may mean, what was it that he wrote? At Whitsuntide in the year 1265, at Whitsuntide in the 49th year of Henry III., he cannot have written anything about the battle of Evesham, for that battle was still in the future. We are told that he wrote "the following page," but the following page contains a precedent for a will, and contains nothing that could have been "extracted" from any "chronicles." I have not solved the difficulty. Was the man who wrote this manuscript the man who revised and tampered with Glanvill's text? This also is a question that I cannot answer. On the one hand, what he gives us is not always free from mistakes of that stupid kind which we should naturally attribute rather to a paid copyist than to a man who was putting thought into his work. On the other hand, both in the Glanvill and in the other matters contained in this volume there are frequent allusions to one particular part of England, namely, the Isle of Wight and the neighborhood of Southampton and Portsmouth. Thus in Glanvill's famous passage about the privileged towns, which describes how by becoming a citizen of one of them a villain will become free, a passage to which Dr. Gross has lately invited our careful attention,1 the name of Southampton has been introduced; and when the writer wants an example of a writ addressed to a feudal court, he supposes the court to be that held by the guardian of the heir of Baldwin de Redvers, Earl of Devon and lord of the Isle of Wight. Allusions to Baldwin and his family (the family de L'Isle, de Insula, that is, of the Isle of Wight) are not uncommon. But this question, whether Carpenter was the man who revised Glanvill's text, or whether he merely copied a text which had already been revised by some one else, is a question which we cannot answer until all the MSS. which profess to give Glanvill's treatise have been examined. In the mean time I will indulge in no speculations, but will simply describe what is found in the Cambridge manuscript. A few words about the date of this revised version may however be premised. As it stands it cannot have been written before 1215, for it alludes to Magna Charta; before 1236, for it alludes to the Statute of Merton; before 1237, for it alludes to the Statute or ordinance of that year which fixed a period of limitation for divers writs. Further, it alludes to the minority of Baldwin de L'Isle. This allusion may be ambiguous, for unless I have erred, there were two periods in Henry III.'s reign during which a Baldwin heir to the Earldom of Devon was an infant in ward to the king. The first of these occurred at the beginning of the reign. The second opened in 1245, and must have endured until 1256 or thereabouts. But our "Glanvill" also alludes to Isabella, 1 Gross, Gild Merchant, i. 102. 2 Harvard Law Review, iii. 102. 3 Annales Monastici, i. 113; Courthope, Historic Peerage, 158. * Annales Monastici, i. 99, ii. 99; Excerpts from the Fine Rolls, i. 431. |