“We have here, in short, a notable contribution to our institutional history not merely for the results attained, but also for its rigid investigation, reminding us how often close inquiry may modify accepted views. One rises however from its perusal with the feeling that, however impartially the appendices may set the evidences before us, the author has throughout a case to prove, is a counsel speaking to his brief. And that case is prejudiced rather than assisted by the use of forensic methods.” J. H. Round.
| + + − | Eng. Hist. R. 22: 778. O. ’07. 2420w. |
“This lengthy and erudite work ... is scarcely intended for general reading.”
| + + | Nation. 85: 332. O. 10, ’07. 680w. |
“We suspect that Mr. Harcourt is not really very interested in the stewardship; he uses it only as convenient padding to his pet theory that procedure in the trial of peers is founded on a forged document; and herein he has expended a great deal of useless energy.”
| − | Sat. R. 104: 337. S. 14, ’07. 640w. |
“He is steeped in the political and personal history of his period, he possesses a sense of humor, and that gift of imagination without which the past is a sealed book alike to those who write and those who read. We are paying a high, but not an excessive, compliment when we say that no better piece of work of its class has been accomplished since Bishop Stubbs penned the last of his prefaces in the ‘Rolls series.’”
| + + + | Spec. 99: 198. Ag. 10, ’07. 2300w. |
“If the reader grants the right of the author to choose what subject he pleases he can feel only admiration for the manner in which the study is executed.”
| + | Yale. R. 16: 334. N. ’07. 100w. |