a MS. of the Argument in Brownlow and Mitchell. It was from the printed catalogue of the Stowe MSS. that Mr. Spedding first learnt that this Argument was extant, and it was only after our failure to obtain access to it that we discovered it was already in print,-whether from this source or not we have no means of judging.

D. D. HEATH.

MAXIMS OF THE LAW.

PREFACE.

I HAVE already observed that it is difficult to account for the shape in which this treatise comes to us, or to fix its date.

The difficulty arises from the Preface, which dwells at length on the reasons which have influenced Bacon to retain Law French as the language of his expositions; whereas what we have is in English, and I think in good Baconian style. It is certain the Preface and Text, as they stand, were never intended to be published together; and the question is, as to the relation between them.

The first edition was in 1630, with the second edition of the Use of the Law: a common title, The Elements of the Common Law, being prefixed, as well as a separate one to each part. The Text agrees pretty closely with that of Harl. MSS. 1783. and with a MS. at Lincoln's Inn, and is reprinted in Mr. Montagu's edition. There are two other MSS. in the Harleian Collection, Nos. 856. and 6688., generally representing the text of the common edition.

The Lincoln's Inn MS. contains only the first paragraph of the Preface, and the 25th Rule is inserted before the 23rd, as it is also in the first edition. The last three Rules are added after a "finis," and in a different hand, in Harl. MSS. 1783.; and though they are all in the index of Harl. MSS. 6688. the text ends with the heading of No. 23. In other respects the differences in these texts are merely verbal and throw no light on the subject I am discussing.'

But besides these, there is a MS. in the University Library at Cambridge, bearing the name and date "Thos. Corie, Hosp. Graii, 1630," which differs so widely from the others that I

1 In Harl, MSS, 6688. there are one or two additional examples given in very slip-slop Anglo-French, which I have not noticed as they may as well be a transcriber's addition as Bacon's own,

have thought it advisable to give the principal variations in foot-notes, as they show something of the history of the work.

The dedication in the other MSS. and editions bears date Jany or Jan 8th, 1596 (i. e. 1596-7). In the Camb. MS. it ismerely 1596, i. e. any time between March 25th 1596, and March 24th 1597; and it seems clear, as I have pointed out in a note, that it was an earlier draft, and that shortly after its composition may we not say after its presentation? - Bacon had the interview or communication with the Queen to which he alludes in the later draft.

In the Camb. MS. there are only 20 Rules, instead of 25; they stand in a different order; and there are in many Rules fewer examples, as well as considerable variations in the phraseology and sense.

My own impression is that the shorter text has been expanded into, and not abridged from, the longer. But it is of more importance to observe that whereas it is clear that Bacon, while at work on either text, had before him cases adjudged as late as 37° Eliz. i. e. 1594 and 1595,- I have failed to find any indication in the marginal references, which so abound in some of the MSS. and editions, of any use of later cases." If this be the fact, it seems to me quite conclusive that these English texts belong entirely to a period of Bacon's life contemporary with, or prior to, the date of his Dedication, and are not chance fragments from the larger Collection at which he tells us, when Attorney General, he had recently been and hoped to continue working.3

The Preface contains no internal marks to fix its date. Besides the omission of the main part of it in the Lincoln's Inn MS. it may be observed that in the Camb. MS. it appears to be designed to introduce exactly one hundred Rules, instead of the "some few" of the common text.

On the whole, I think the probable solution is, that at an early date in Bacon's law studies he conceived the thought of such a treatise De Regulis Juris as he advocates in the De Augmentis and in the Proposals, and began to work at it "more

1 Nos. 1 to 20 in the Camb. MS. correspond with Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 18, 15, 16, 12, 1, 2, 19, 21, 20, 22, 9, 25, 3, 23, 24, in the text.

2 See notes in the 1st and 3rd Rules. The latter may perhaps suggest that the longer text was in hand some time in 1597, or may be 1598.

* Proposal for amending the Laws of England. See also the list of his law manuscripts in the Commentarius solutus.