DOCSLIB.ORG

Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Passage in Modern English Legal History Rachel Vorspan Fordham University School of Law, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Passage in Modern English Legal History Rachel Vorspan Fordham University School of Law, Rvorspan@Law.Fordham.Edu Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 1997 Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Passage in Modern English Legal History Rachel Vorspan Fordham University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Law Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Rachel Vorspan, Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Passage in Modern English Legal History , 34 San Diego L. Review 921 (1997) Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/208 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "Freedom of Assembly" and the Right to Passage in Modern English Legal History RACHEL VORSPAN* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE RIGHT TO PASSAGE IN ENGLISH LAW .................... 927 A. Origins of the Right ............................... 927 B. Doctrinal Content of the Right ........................ 929 C. Enforcement of the Right ............................ 932 II. HIGHIvAY OBSTRUCTION AND THE LAW OF PUBLIC ORDER IN THE EARLY AND MID-NINETEENTH CENTURY .................. 935 A. Early Doctrinal Development: R. v. Carlile ............... 936 B. The Emerging "Habitof Public Meeting".................. 938 C. The Legal Status of Street Meetings .................... 940 III. SOCIETAL CONFLICT AND THE FORGING OF LEGAL DOCTRINE: THE SALVATION ARMY, THE SOCIALISTS, AND THE SUFFRAGETTES ... 942 A. Obstruction and Salvation ........................... 943 1. The Suppression of SalvationistStreet Meetings ......... 944 2. Beatty v. Gillbanks and the Law ofProcessions ......... 950 3. Local Acts and Bylaws: Drawingthe Line on PriorRestraints ............................... 956 B. The Socialists, the Unemployed, and the Road to TrafalgarSquare ................................. 962 * Associate Professor of Law, Fordham University. A.B. 1967, U. C., Berkeley; M.A. 1968, Ph.D. 1975, Columbia University (English History); J.D. 1979, Harvard Law School. I wish to thank Martin Flaherty, James E. Fleming, Bruce A. Green, Jill Heitler, Vivienne Hodges, Robert J. Kaczorowski, James Kainen, Barbara Wilcie Kern, James Oldham, Edward A. Purcell, Jr., Julie Singer, and William Treanor for their encouragement and assistance. 1. The Suppression of Socialist Street Meetings ........... 962 2. The Battle for TrafalgarSquare .................... 966 C. The Doctrinal Resolution of the 1880s .................. 976 D. Congruence of Policy and Doctrine: The Suffragette Campaign ...................................... 982 IV. DISSONANCE AND REORIENTATION: THE RIGHT OF PASSAGE FROM THE 1930S TO THE PRESENT ............................. 990 A. Communism and Fascism in the 1930s .................. 991 1. The Street Meetings of the NUWM: Use and Abuse of Obstruction Law ........................ 992 2. Processions and Nationalized Controls: The Public Order Act 1936 .......................... 997 B. The 1960s: Revitalizing the Resolution of the 1880s ......... 1000 1. New Left Meetings: Strengthened Controls ............ 1002 2. Processions in the 1960s: Continuing Forbearance ...... 1010 C. The Triumph of Functionalism: From Red Lion Square to the Public Order Act 1986 ......................... 1012 1. The Rhetoric of Balanced Rights: Intellectual Precursors in the 1970s .......................... 1013 2. The 1980s: Reconceiving the Resolution of the 1880s .... 1017 a. The New Reasonableness of Meetings ............. 1020 b. The New Unreasonablenessof Processions ......... 1024 c. Legislative Functionalism: The Public Order Act 1986 ................................. 1028 V. HIGHWAY OBSTRUCTION AND FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY ............ 1035 VI. CONCLUSION ........................................ 1042 It is a commonplace of the Anglo-American legal system that the law of nuisance protects a landowner's enjoyment of an interest in land' as well as the public's exercise of common rights to health, safety, comfort, and morality.2 In contrast, the regulation of popular protest activity has 1. The essence of private nuisance has traditionally been interference with an owner's or occupier's use and enjoyment of land. See, e.g., CLERK & LINDSELL ON TORTS 24-01 (16th ed. 1989); W.V.H. ROGERS, WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ ON TORT 372- 73 (11th ed. 1979); F.H. Newark, The Boundaries of Nuisance, 65 LAW Q. REV. 480, 482 (1949); J.R. Spencer, PublicNuisance-A CriticalExamination, 48 CAMBRIDGE L.J. 55, 57. 2. In the nineteenth century Sir James Fitzjames Stephen defined public nuisance as "an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, that obstructed or inconvenienced the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects." JAMES F. STEPHEN, A DIGEST OF THE CRIMINAL LAW 105 (London, MacMillan 1877) [hereinafter STEPHEN, DIGEST]. He enumerated four varieties of public nuisance: 1) interference with public health or comfort, 2) acts dangerous to public safety, 3) acts against public morality, and 4) interference with public rights of passage. JAMES F. STEPHEN, 4 COMMErARIES ON THE LAW OF ENGLAND 150-51 (C.H.S. Fifoot ed., 19th ed. 1928). The definition of public nuisance is similar today. See, e.g., ARCHBOLD: PLEADING, EVIDENCE & PRACTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES § 3821 (Stephen Mitchell ed., 39th ed. 1976) (stating that a person is guilty of public nuisance who does 922 [VOL. 34: 921, 1997] Freedom of Assembly SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW seemingly been entrusted to the traditional criminal law governing public order.3 This dichotomy, however, presents an incomplete and mislead- ing picture of the historical role of nuisance law, which during the past two centuries has served a critical function in controlling outdoor political activity. The central inquiry of this Article is to explore why, given the availability of specifically tailored public order offenses, the authorities nevertheless relied extensively on nuisance to regulate street assemblies during major periods of domestic disturbance in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A related undertaking is to unfold the consequences of the political uses of nuisance law for both evolving legal doctrine and popular attitudes toward the right of public assembly. A study of the political applications of nuisance leads ineluctably to the concept of the "right to passage." Residing at the core of nuisance doctrine in the public order context, it is arguably the only positive right recognized in English common law. Since the Middle Ages, the English legal system has been preoccupied with easing and facilitating movement along the "highway."' A vast network of nuisance offenses developed to preserve travel against obstruction, and for the past two centuries the right to passage has featured prominently in political and legal discourse.6 It was a curious right-literal, physical, indeed in all an act not warranted by law or omits to discharge a legal duty, "if the effect of the act or omission is to endanger the life, health, property, morals, or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects"). 3. The criminal law governing public order includes the common law offenses of riot, rout, unlawful assembly, affray, sedition, and public mischief as well as numerous statutory violations. See generally A.V. DICEY, INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF THE CONSTIrUrION (8th ed. 193 1); LEON RADzINOwlCz, A HISTORY OF ENGLISH CRuvNAL LAw AND ITS ADMInSTRATION FROM 1750 (4 vols., 1948); MICHAEL SUPPERSTONE, BROwNLE's LAW OF PUBLIC ORDER AND NATIONAL SECURITY (2d ed. 1981); DAVID WILLIAMS, KEEPING THE PEACE (1967). 4. See, e.g., SuPPERSTONE, supra note 3; PETER THORNTON, PUBLIC ORDER LAW 89 (1987). Other English positive rights are statutory. For a discussion of the constitutional status of the right to assemble, see infra notes 67-72 and accompanying text. 5. The term "highway" encompassed roads, streets, pavements, footpaths, churchways, alleys, lanes, carriageways, cartways, bridlepaths, rivers, bridges and tunnels, and the modes of protected passage included travel by foot, horse, wagon, carriage and (eventually) automobile. See Highways Act, 1835, 5 & 6 Will. 4, ch. 50, § 5; HAROLD PARRISH & GERALD PONSONBY, PRATT AND MACKENZIE'S LAW OF HIGHVAYS 3-14 (20th ed. 1962) [hereinafter PRATT AND MAcKENzIE]. 6. As an example of the importance of the subject, the basic treatise on highways law, Pratt and MacKenzie's Law of Highways, underwent 21 editions between 1836 and senses pedestrian-that simply protected travellers from annoyance, injury, inconvenience, or delay caused by physical impediments in the street. The right was, however, restricted to passing and repassing "for the purpose of legitimate travel' 7 in accordance with "reasonable and ordinary use, ' concepts that underwent considerable permutation and reinterpretation in response to changing historical circumstances. Obviously, a right implicating permissible uses of the streets could be critical to the regulation of popular protest activity, and beginning in the mid-nineteenth century outdoor meetings and processions became increasingly important forms of political expression. If applied restrictively, nuisance doctrines defining street
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BDOHP Biographical Details and Index Lord Wright of Richmond
    BDOHP Biographical details and index Lord Wright of Richmond (28.06.31-06.03.20) - career outline with, on right, relevant page numbers in the memoir to the career stage. Served Royal Artillery, 1950–51 p 3 Joined Diplomatic Service, 1955 pp 2-3 Middle East Centre for Arabic Studies, 1956–57 pp 3-6 Third Secretary, British Embassy, Beirut, 1958–60 - Private Secretary to Ambassador and later First Secretary, pp 12-15 British Embassy, Washington, 1960–65 Private Secretary to Permanent Under-Secretary, FO, 1965–67 pp 10-11 First Secretary and Head of Chancery, Cairo, 1967–70 - Deputy Political Resident, Bahrain, 1971–72 - Head of Middle East Department, FCO, 1972–74 - Private Secretary (Overseas Affairs) to Prime Minister, 1974–77 pp 7-10, 25, 34-35 Ambassador to Luxembourg, 1977–79 pp 30-31 Ambassador to Syria, 1979–81 pp 30-33 Deputy Under-Secretary of State, FCO, 1982–84 - Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1984–86 pp 33-34, 36 Permanent Under-Secretary of State and Head pp 11-12, of Diplomatic Service, 1986–91. 16-18, 21, 30 Member, Security Commission, 1993–2002. - General comments on Middle East and United States, pp 6-8; political versus professional diplomatic appointments, pp 15-20; retirement age in diplomatic service, pp 21-23; recruitment, pp 23-25; Foreign Office image, pp 38-40; John Major, pp 40-42; leaking of restricted papers, pp 43-45. Lord Wright of Richmond This is Malcolm McBain interviewing Lord Wright of Richmond at his home in East Sheen on Monday, 16 October 2000. MMcB: “Lord Wright, you were born in 1931, educated at Marlborough and Merton College, Oxford, you did a couple of years’ national service in the Royal Artillery, and then joined the Diplomatic Service, presumably after going to Oxford, in 1965.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law and Civil Liberties ISBN 978-1-137-54503-9.Indd
    Copyrighted material – 9781137545039 Contents Preface . v Magna Carta (1215) . 1 The Bill of Rights (1688) . 2 The Act of Settlement (1700) . 5 Union with Scotland Act 1706 . 6 Official Secrets Act 1911 . 7 Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 . 8 Official Secrets Act 1920 . 10 The Statute of Westminster 1931 . 11 Public Order Act 1936 . 12 Statutory Instruments Act 1946 . 13 Crown Proceedings Act 1947 . 14 Life Peerages Act 1958 . 16 Obscene Publications Act 1959 . 17 Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 . 19 European Communities Act 1972 . 24 Local Government Act 1972 . 26 Local Government Act 1974 . 30 House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 . 36 Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 . 38 Highways Act 1980 . 39 Senior Courts Act 1981 . 39 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 . 45 Public Order Act 1986 . 82 Official Secrets Act 1989 . 90 Security Service Act 1989 . 96 Intelligence Services Act 1994 . 97 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 . 100 Police Act 1996 . 104 Police Act 1997 . 106 Human Rights Act 1998 . 110 Scotland Act 1998 . 116 Northern Ireland Act 1998 . 121 House of Lords Act 1999 . 126 Freedom of Information Act 2000 . 126 Terrorism Act 2000 . 141 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 . 152 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 . 158 Police Reform Act 2002 . 159 Constitutional Reform Act 2005 . 179 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 . 187 Equality Act 2006 . 193 Terrorism Act 2006 . 196 Government of Wales Act 2006 . 204 Serious Crime Act 2007 . 209 UK Borders Act 2007 . 212 Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 . 213 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 . 218 European Union Act 2011 .
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Act 2016
    REPUBLIC OF NAURU Crimes Act 2016 ______________________________ Act No. 18 of 2016 ______________________________ TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 – PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Short title .................................................................................................... 1 2 Commencement ......................................................................................... 1 3 Application ................................................................................................. 1 4 Codification ................................................................................................ 1 5 Standard geographical jurisdiction ............................................................. 2 6 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—ship or aircraft outside Nauru ......................... 2 7 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—transnational crime ......................................... 4 PART 2 – INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................ 6 8 Definitions .................................................................................................. 6 9 Definition of consent ................................................................................ 13 PART 3 – PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................. 14 DIVISION 3.1 – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION ................................................................. 14 10 Purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Discussing What Prime Ministers Are For
    Discussing what Prime Ministers are for PETER HENNESSY New Labour has a lot to answer for on this front. They On 13 October 2014, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield FBA, had seen what the press was doing to John Major from Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Black Wednesday onwards – relentless attacks on him, Mary, University of London, delivered the first British which bothered him deeply.1 And they were determined Academy Lecture in Politics and Government, on ‘What that this wouldn’t happen to them. So they went into are Prime Ministers for?’ A video recording of the lecture the business of creating permanent rebuttal capabilities. and an article published in the Journal of the British Academy If somebody said something offensive about the can be found via www.britishacademy.ac.uk/events/2014/ Government on the Today programme, they would make every effort to put it right by the World at One. They went The following article contains edited extracts from the into this kind of mania of permanent rebuttal, which question and answer session that followed the lecture. means that you don’t have time to reflect before reacting to events. It’s arguable now that, if the Government doesn’t Do we expect Prime Ministers to do too much? react to events immediately, other people’s versions of breaking stories (circulating through social media etc.) I think it was 1977 when the Procedure Committee in will make the pace, and it won’t be able to get back on the House of Commons wanted the Prime Minister to be top of an issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Process Paper and Bibliography
    ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Books Kenney, Annie. Memories of a Militant. London: Edward Arnold & Co, 1924. Autobiography of Annie Kenney. Lytton, Constance, and Jane Warton. Prisons & Prisoners. London: William Heinemann, 1914. Personal experiences of Lady Constance Lytton. Pankhurst, Christabel. Unshackled. London: Hutchinson and Co (Publishers) Ltd, 1959. Autobiography of Christabel Pankhurst. Pankhurst, Emmeline. My Own Story. London: Hearst’s International Library Co, 1914. Autobiography of Emmeline Pankhurst. Newspaper Articles "Amazing Scenes in London." Western Daily Mercury (Plymouth), March 5, 1912. Window breaking in March 1912, leading to trials of Mrs. Pankhurst and Mr. & Mrs. Pethick- Lawrence. "The Argument of the Broken Pane." Votes for Women (London), February 23, 1912. The argument of the stone: speech delivered by Mrs Pankhurst on Feb 16, 1912 honoring released prisoners who had served two or three months for window-breaking demonstration in November 1911. "Attempt to Burn Theatre Royal." The Scotsman (Edinburgh), July 19, 1912. PM Asquith's visit hailed by Irish Nationalists, protested by Suffragettes; hatchet thrown into Mr. Asquith's carriage, attempt to burn Theatre Royal. "By the Vanload." Lancashire Daily Post (Preston), February 15, 1907. "Twenty shillings or fourteen days." The women's raid on Parliament on Feb 13, 1907: Christabel Pankhurst gets fourteen days and Sylvia Pankhurst gets 3 weeks in prison. "Coal That Cooks." The Suffragette (London), July 18, 1913. Thirst strikes. Attempts to escape from "Cat and Mouse" encounters. "Churchill Gives Explanation." Dundee Courier (Dundee), July 15, 1910. Winston Churchill's position on the Conciliation Bill. "The Ejection." Morning Post (London), October 24, 1906. 1 The day after the October 23rd Parliament session during which Premier Henry Campbell- Bannerman cold-shouldered WSPU, leading to protest led by Mrs Pankhurst that led to eleven arrests, including that of Mrs Pethick-Lawrence and gave impetus to the movement.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 10 General Offenses
    CHAPTER 10 General Offenses Article I Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions Sec. 10-1 Definitions generally Sec. 10-2 Legislative intent Sec. 10-3 Affirmative defenses Sec. 10-4 Penalty Sec. 10-5 Parental responsibility for acts of minor children Sec. 10-6 Attempts; aiding, abetting or advising Sec. 10-7 Accessory to crime Article II Property Sec. 10-21 Trespass Sec. 10-22 Interference with use of public property Sec. 10-23 Parking on private premises Sec. 10-24 Littering Article III Damage or Destruction Sec. 10-41 Public property generally Sec. 10-42 Criminal mischief Sec. 10-43 Posters Article IV Theft and Related Offenses Sec. 10-61 Theft generally Sec. 10-62 Bad checks Sec. 10-63 Theft of rental property Sec. 10-64 Joyriding Sec. 10-65 Shoplifting Sec. 10-66 Price switching Sec. 10-67 Theft by receiving Sec. 10-68 Questioning of person suspected of theft without liability Article V Public Health and Safety Sec. 10-81 Abandoned containers Sec. 10-82 Storage of flammable liquids in vehicles Sec. 10-83 Storage of construction materials Sec. 10-84 Contamination of water Sec. 10-85 Poisonous substances Sec. 10-86 Cruelty to animals Sec. 10-87 Hunting and feeding of wildlife prohibited Sec. 10-88 Fire bans Article VI Morals Sec. 10-101 Lewd conduct Sec. 10-102 Obscene conduct Sec. 10-103 Indecent books or demonstrations Article VII Public Peace Sec. 10-121 Disorderly conduct Sec. 10-122 Disrupting lawful assembly Sec. 10-123 Loitering Sec. 10-124 Unlawful assembly Sec. 10-125 Unlawful interference; educational institutions 10-1 Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Mundella Papers Scope
    University of Sheffield Library. Special Collections and Archives Ref: MS 6 - 9, MS 22 Title: Mundella Papers Scope: The correspondence and other papers of Anthony John Mundella, Liberal M.P. for Sheffield, including other related correspondence, 1861 to 1932. Dates: 1861-1932 (also Leader Family correspondence 1848-1890) Level: Fonds Extent: 23 boxes Name of creator: Anthony John Mundella Administrative / biographical history: The content of the papers is mainly political, and consists largely of the correspondence of Mundella, a prominent Liberal M.P. of the later 19th century who attained Cabinet rank. Also included in the collection are letters, not involving Mundella, of the family of Robert Leader, acquired by Mundella’s daughter Maria Theresa who intended to write a biography of her father, and transcriptions by Maria Theresa of correspondence between Mundella and Robert Leader, John Daniel Leader and another Sheffield Liberal M.P., Henry Joseph Wilson. The collection does not include any of the business archives of Hine and Mundella. Anthony John Mundella (1825-1897) was born in Leicester of an Italian father and an English mother. After education at a National School he entered the hosiery trade, ultimately becoming a partner in the firm of Hine and Mundella of Nottingham. He became active in the political life of Nottingham, and after giving a series of public lectures in Sheffield was invited to contest the seat in the General Election of 1868. Mundella was Liberal M.P. for Sheffield from 1868 to 1885, and for the Brightside division of the Borough from November 1885 to his death in 1897.
    [Show full text]
  • Omissions and Criminal Liability
    OMISSIONS AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY J. PAUL McCUTCHEON INTRODUCTION The question of liability for omissions raises issues of profound significance for the criminal law. While discussion thereof might be predominently theoretical - in practice prosecutors are likely to encounter few omissions cases - it is nevertheless impOltant as it embraces consideration of the proper scope of the criminal law, its function in the prevention of harm and the en­ couragement of socially beneficial conduct and the practical effectiveness and limits of the criminal sanction. Although it has not been seriously considered by Irish courts the issue has attracted the attention of courts and jurists in other jurisdictions. I The Anglo-American tradition is one ofreluctance to penalise omissions; to draw on the time honoured example no offence is committed by the able-bodied adult who watches an infant drown in a shallow pool. That gruesome hypothetical is happily improbable, but the general proposition is substantiated by the much-cited decision in People v. BeardsleyZ where it was held that the accused was not criminally answerable for the death from drug use of his 'weekend mistress' in circumstances where he failed to take the necessary, and not unduly onerous, steps to save her life. Likewise, the law does not impose a general duty to rescue those who are in peril nor is there a duty to warn a person of impending danger.3 A passive bystander or witness is not answerable for his failure to act, even where the harm caused is the result of criminal conduct.4 This general reluctance is evident in the manner in which criminal offences are defined.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW Law.Adelaide.Edu.Au Adelaide Law Review ADVISORY BOARD
    Volume 40, Number 3 THE ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW law.adelaide.edu.au Adelaide Law Review ADVISORY BOARD The Honourable Professor Catherine Branson AC QC Deputy Chancellor, The University of Adelaide; Former President, Australian Human Rights Commission; Former Justice, Federal Court of Australia Emeritus Professor William R Cornish CMG QC Emeritus Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law, University of Cambridge His Excellency Judge James R Crawford AC SC International Court of Justice The Honourable Professor John J Doyle AC QC Former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of South Australia Professor John V Orth William Rand Kenan Jr Professor of Law, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Professor Emerita Rosemary J Owens AO Former Dean, Adelaide Law School The Honourable Justice Melissa Perry Federal Court of Australia The Honourable Margaret White AO Former Justice, Supreme Court of Queensland Professor John M Williams Dame Roma Mitchell Chair of Law and Former Dean, Adelaide Law School ADELAIDE LAW REVIEW Editors Associate Professor Matthew Stubbs and Dr Michelle Lim Book Review and Comment Editor Dr Stacey Henderson Associate Editors Kyriaco Nikias and Azaara Perakath Student Editors Joshua Aikens Christian Andreotti Mitchell Brunker Peter Dalrymple Henry Materne-Smith Holly Nicholls Clare Nolan Eleanor Nolan Vincent Rocca India Short Christine Vu Kate Walsh Noel Williams Publications Officer Panita Hirunboot Volume 40 Issue 3 2019 The Adelaide Law Review is a double-blind peer reviewed journal that is published twice a year by the Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide. A guide for the submission of manuscripts is set out at the back of this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • U DAB Records of the Association of British Counties 1841-2016
    Hull History Centre: Records of the Association of British Counties U DAB Records of the Association of British Counties 1841-2016 Accession number: 2005/04; 2005/07; 2008/06; 2017/23 Historical Background: The Association of British Counties (ABC) is a society, formed in 1989, dedicated to promoting awareness of the continuing importance of the 86 historic (or traditional) Counties of Great Britain. ABC believes that the Counties are an important part of the culture, geography and heritage of Great Britain. ABC contends that Britain needs a fixed popular geography, one divorced from the ever changing names and areas of local government but, instead, one rooted in history, public understanding and commonly held notions of cultural identity. ABC, therefore, seeks to fully re-establish the use of the Counties as the standard popular geographical reference frame of Britain and to further encourage their use as a basis for social, sporting and cultural activities. Custodial history: Papers of the ABC tend to be kept in the homes of the relevant committee members and officers. Some of the papers in this accession were passed on by Valerie Andrews to Michael Bradford, with the intention of the archive of the ABC being deposited at the University. Description: This collection contains papers from Valerie Andrews, Secretary to the Association of British Counties (ABC) from 1989 onwards, together with papers of Michael Bradford, Chairman of the ABC until c. 2004. Material includes ABC minutes, newsletters, correspondence, official papers and publications, and scrapbooks, as well as subject files relating to local government and British counties, and related press cuttings.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Lords Official Report
    Vol. 796 Tuesday No. 270 12 March 2019 PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT ORDEROFBUSINESS Questions Children: Oral Health .............................................................................................................................................907 Prisons: Rehabilitation............................................................................................................................................910 Unpaid Internships .................................................................................................................................................912 Fracking: Planning Guidance .................................................................................................................................914 Intellectual Property (Copyright and Related Rights) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 Designs and International Trade Marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2019 Motions to Approve .................................................................................................................................................917 General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Contaminants in Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 General Food Hygiene (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Motions to Approve .................................................................................................................................................917
    [Show full text]
  • EXAMINER Issue 4.Pdf
    Jabez Balfour THE CASEBOOK The Cattleman, Analyses The Lunatic, The Ripper & The Doctor Murders Tom Wescott issue four October 2010 JACK THE RIPPER STUDIES, TRUE CRIME & L.V.P. SOCIAL HISTORY INTERNatIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY R J Palmer concludes his examination of Inspector Andrews D M Gates Puts his stamp GOING on the 1888 Kelly Postal POStal Directory THE CASEBOOK The contents of Casebook Examiner No. 4 October 2010 are copyright © 2010 Casebook.org. The authors of issue four signed articles, essays, letters, reviews October 2010 and other items retain the copyright of their respective contributions. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication, except for brief quotations where credit is given, may be repro- CONTENTS: duced, stored in a retrieval system, The Lull Before the Storm pg 3 On The Case transmitted or otherwise circulated in any form or by any means, including Subscription Information pg 5 News From Ripper World pg 120 digital, electronic, printed, mechani- On The Case Extra Behind the Scenes in America cal, photocopying, recording or any Feature Stories pg 121 R. J. Palmer pg 6 other, without the express written per- Plotting the 1888 Kelly Directory On The Case Puzzling mission of Casebook.org. The unau- D. M. Gates pg 52 Conundrums Logic Puzzle pg 128 thorized reproduction or circulation of Jabez Balfour and The Ripper Ultimate Ripperologists’ Tour this publication or any part thereof, Murders pg 65 Canterbury to Hampton whether for monetary gain or not, is & Herne Bay, Kent pg 130 strictly prohibited and may constitute The Cattleman, The Lunatic, and copyright infringement as defined in The Doctor CSI: Whitechapel Tom Wescott pg 84 Catherine Eddowes pg 138 domestic laws and international agree- From the Casebook Archives ments and give rise to civil liability and Undercover Investigations criminal prosecution.
    [Show full text]