theories; must give the've' terms of the original documents candidly, accurately, and at length. The result is work that must perdure, a book that must become classical; for, put the case that all the author's speculations are unfounded, and will be disproved in due course, the evidence that he has been diligently collecting during the past seven years from the scattered and obscure archives of our towns will remain of priceless value to any one who would either contradict him or follow in his steps. When, if ever, his first volume has become obsolete, there will still be the second volume with its proofs and illustrations, and supplementary proofs and illustrations, its precious extracts from rolls that have never been used before, rolls which are dispersed abroad throughout England, and for the continued existence of which we have no very perfect security.
Differing in this from some of his forerunners, Dr. Gross does not believe that a history of the gild merchant can be a full history, or anything at all like a full history., of the English boroughs. He holds out to us the hope of another ' contribution.' He has, he tells us, collected nuch material bearing on the governmental constit. ution of the towns, in particular on the growth of ' the select body.' Also he has 'almost ready for the press a comprehensive biblioaphy of British municipal history, comprising about 4,000 titles, with a critical survey of the vhole literature.' But then comes a qualification or stipulation� ' Whether it will ever be printed must probably depend upon the success of the present work�' This puts us in a difficulty� We want these furSher contributions, but would like to purchase them without the expenditure of a falsehood� But what are we to say? To tell Dr. Gross that his book will sell well? The falsehood, if such it would be, would not even deceive, for publishers keep accounts; and in truth to predict a great sale for such a book is impossible. Had Dr. Gross wished to make a book that would attract the largest number of readers, he should have taken not Madox but Brentano as his model. He should have been brief; he should have been dogmatic; he should have cited few authorities, and been very positive about the meaning of those that he cited, and then, may be, there would have been for some years a general agreement as to his infallibility� But if in such a context it be 'success' enough to have made a book, which every one who knows anything about the matter of it will pronounce to be a great book, a book which every labouter in the same field must not merely read, but keep pernanently at his elbow, then we claim an immediate fulfilment of the promise. We must have the 'bibliography,' we must have the ' critical survey of literature,' and the history' of the select body, for the 'success of the present work' is assured..it has already taken its place beside the F/r, B,r#i. Should any one ask for more success?
To give a summary of such a book is to do it an injustice; for happily it compses those copious proofs and illustrations, in particular those Andover Gild Rolls, the like of which have not been printed, the like of which few readers of English history can have hoped to see.
