[303]. Cf. supra, p. 47, and Blackstone, Great Charter, xvii.
[304]. See the account given by Mr. Hubert Hall, English Historical Review, IX. 326.
[305]. Alexandre Teulet, Layettes du Trésor, I. p. 423 (1863).
[306]. Engl. Hist. Rev., VIII. 288-294.
[307]. Ibid., IX. 117-121.
[308]. Ibid., IX. 326-335.
[309]. R. Wendover, III. 298, and cf. supra, p. 40.
II. Previous Editions and Commentaries.
Every general history of England and almost every book which has ever appeared on English law has had something to say by way of commentary on Magna Carta. It is perhaps for this very reason that exceedingly few treatises have been devoted exclusively to its elucidation. While edition after edition of the text of the Charter, or of its re-issues, have appeared, few of these have been accompanied by explanations however brief. The paucity of attempts to explain the meaning of the Charter is almost more remarkable than the frequency with which the text has been reproduced. Magna Carta is a document often printed, but seldom explained.
I. Printed Editions of the Text of Magna Carta. Previous to 1759 even the best informed writers on English history laboured under much confusion in regard to the various charters of liberties. Few of them seem to have been aware that fundamental differences existed between the original charter granted by John and the re-issues of Henry III. Much of the blame for this confusion must be borne by Roger of Wendover, who, in his account of the transactions at Runnymede, incorporated, in place of John’s Charter, the text of the two charters granted by Henry.[[310]]