The excessive rarity of the _Mercator_, which Wilson could never obtain, and of which probably very few copies exist, has rendered it the least known of Defoe's publications. Even Mr. M'Culloch, from the mode in which he speaks of it (_Literature of Political Economy_, p. 142.), would appear not to have seen it. And therefore, whilst the _British Merchant_, "the shallow sophisms and misstatements" of which we now treat with contempt, is one of the most common of commercial books, having gone through at least three editions, besides the original folio, the _Mercator_, replete as it is with the vigour, the life and animation, the various and felicitous power of illustration, which this great and truly English author could impart to any subject, still exists only in probably four or five copies of the original folio numbers. How many of the advocates for free trade are acquainted with a production in which one of the most gifted minds that the country ever produced, exerts his delightful powers and most effectual "unadorned eloquence" in the support of their favourite doctrine?
I do not see any copy of the _Mercator_ noticed in the printed catalogue of the British Museum. I owe my own to the kindness of MR. BOLTON CORNEY, who allowed me to possess it, having purchased it, I believe, at Mr. Heber's sale.
PUNISHMENT OF EDWARD PRINCE OF WALES, BY KING EDWARD I., FOR DISRESPECT TO A JUDGE.
MR. FOSS has lately shown, in his valuable lives of _The Judges of England_, that historical accuracy has been sacrificed in representing Henry V., on his accession, to have re-invested Sir William Gascoigne with "the balance and the sword." Lord Campbell, warned that chroniclers, historians, moralists, and poets had, without historical warrant, taken for true the story which Shakspeare has made so familiar to us, has, in his _Lives of the Chief Justices_, examined the evidence for attributing to the young king the act of magnanimity, and has affirmed (vol. i. p. 131.) not only that Sir William committed the prince, but that he actually filled the office of Chief Justice under him when he became Henry V. The noble and learned lord has been at some pains to authenticate the story of the commital of the prince, and has shown that there is no sufficient reason for disbelieving that the dauntless judge did make "princely power submit" to justice; and he has brought forward also the probable sources of Shakspeare's information. But these are silent as to the reinstatement of the illustrious judge; and MR. FOSS has established that the young king lost no time in dispensing with the "well-practised wise directions" of Sir William Gascoigne. One is really sorry to be obliged to relinquish belief in the historical foundation of the scene to which Shakspeare has given such fine dramatic effect in his noble lines. My object, however, in now writing is to point out a circumstance in some respects parallel, which occurred in the reign of Edward I. In looking thorough the _Abbreviatio Placitorum_ to-day, I find the record of a judgment in Michaelmas Term, 33 Edw. I. (1305), in which a curious illustration is given of the character of that sovereign; for it appears that Edward Prince of Wales having spoken words insulting to one of the king's ministers (when and to whom I wish I could ascertain), the monarch himself firmly vindicated the respect due to the royal dignity in the person of its servants, by banishing the prince from his house and presence for a considerable time. This anecdote occurs in the record of a complaint made to the king in council, by Roger de Hecham (in Madox the name occurs as Hegham or Heigham), a Baron of the Exchequer, of gross and upbraiding language having been contemptuously addressed to him by William de Brewes, because of his judgment in favour of the delinquent's adversary. The record recites that such contempt and disrespect towards as well the king's ministers as himself or his courts are very odious to the king, and proceeds---- but I will give the original:
