+ Cath. World. 83: 400. Je. ’06. 610w. (Review of v. 10.)
“Of the volumes thus far published that of Adams in the Hunt series covers somewhat less ground than that of Davis, but as in the main they treat of the same period, they are convenient for purposes of comparison. Hunt has made some slight excursions into this unexplored realm, but the chief merit of his work consists not in the new material brought to light, but in his courage in speaking the truth, both about the victors and the vanquished in the contest leading up to the independence of the United States.” George L. Beer.
+ + Critic. 48: 450. My. ’06. 2210w. (Review of v. 2, 3 and 10.)
“Taken as a whole, the work of Professor Adams covers a difficult period of English history with a combination of unity and depth that neither Sir James Ramsay nor Miss Norgate has completely attained.” St. George D. Sioussat.
+ + – Dial. 40: 122. F. 16, ’06. 2140w. (Review of v. 2, 3 and 10.)
“This richness of suggestion and allusion seems to be the element of greatest originality in Mr. Hodgkin’s volume, which is in no sense a rival of the works of Seebohm, Maitland, or Vinagradoff.”
+ + Dial. 41: 92. Ag. 16, ’06. 360w. (Review of v. 1.)
“Dr. Hunt’s lucid and orderly narrative is of none the less value because his conclusions have been inevitably, for the most part, anticipated. A modest protest may be allowed against the period of time chosen for this volume. The strong qualities of Dr. Hunt as an historian are conspicuously manifest in the chapters relating to the American war of independence.” Hugh E. Egerton.
+ + – Eng. Hist. R. 21: 173. Ja. ’06. 860w. (Review of v. 10.)
“It is well-proportioned and with trifling exceptions, accurate narrative, incorporating without unduly obtruding the chief results of the minute investigation to which the Norman and Angevin periods have of late years been subjected. Its treatment of controversial subjects is marked by caution and judicial candour. Yet it cannot honestly be said that the book is very readable.” J. Tait.