DOCSLIB.ORG

Magna Carta Commemoration Essays [1917]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Magna Carta Commemoration Essays [1917] The Online Library of Liberty A Project Of Liberty Fund, Inc. Henry Elliot Malden, Magna Carta Commemoration Essays [1917] The Online Library Of Liberty This E-Book (PDF format) is published by Liberty Fund, Inc., a private, non-profit, educational foundation established in 1960 to encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. 2010 was the 50th anniversary year of the founding of Liberty Fund. It is part of the Online Library of Liberty web site http://oll.libertyfund.org, which was established in 2004 in order to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. To find out more about the author or title, to use the site's powerful search engine, to see other titles in other formats (HTML, facsimile PDF), or to make use of the hundreds of essays, educational aids, and study guides, please visit the OLL web site. This title is also part of the Portable Library of Liberty DVD which contains over 1,000 books and quotes about liberty and power, and is available free of charge upon request. The cuneiform inscription that appears in the logo and serves as a design element in all Liberty Fund books and web sites is the earliest-known written appearance of the word “freedom” (amagi), or “liberty.” It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash, in present day Iraq. To find out more about Liberty Fund, Inc., or the Online Library of Liberty Project, please contact the Director at [email protected]. LIBERTY FUND, INC. 8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300 Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684 Online Library of Liberty: Magna Carta Commemoration Essays Edition Used: Magna Carta Commemoration Essays, edited by Henry Elliot Malden, M.A. with a Preface by the Rt. Hon. Viscount Bryce, O.M., Etc. For the Royal Historical Society, 1917. Editor: Henry Elliot Malden Foreword: Viscount James Bryce About This Title: A collection of essays about the history and continuing significance of Magna Carta. PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011) 2 http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/339 Online Library of Liberty: Magna Carta Commemoration Essays About Liberty Fund: Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. Copyright Information: The text is in the public domain. Fair Use Statement: This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit. PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011) 3 http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/339 Online Library of Liberty: Magna Carta Commemoration Essays Table Of Contents Magna Carta Celebration, 1915. General Committee. Nominated In 1914. Introduction By H. E. Malden, M.A. Professor Wm. S. Mckechnie, Magna Carta (1215–1915). an Address Delivered On Its Seventh Centenary, to the Royal Historical Society and the Magna Carta Celebration Committee. Professor G. B. Adams, Innocent Iii and the Great Charter. J. H. Round, “barons” and “knights” In the Great Charter. Sir P. Vinogradoff, Magna Carta, C. 39. Nullus Liber Homo, Etc. Charles Howard Mcilwain, Magna Carta and Common Law. H. D. Hazeltine, the Influence of Magna Carta On American Constitutional Development. Prof. Rafael Altamira, Magna Carta and Spanish MediÆval Jurisprudence. Hilary Jenkinson, Financial Records of the Reign of King John. PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011) 4 http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/339 Online Library of Liberty: Magna Carta Commemoration Essays [Back to Table of Contents] MAGNA CARTA CELEBRATION, 1915. GENERAL COMMITTEE. Nominated In 1914. (Italics indicate University or Society nominating a Representative on the Committee.) CHAIRMAN: ?The Right Hon. Viscount Bryce, O.M., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., F.B.A. PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY: ? C. H. Firth, LL.D., Litt.D., F.B.A., Regius Professor of Modern History, University of Oxford. His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. His Eminence Cardinal Gasquet. The Rt. Hon. the Lord Mayor of London. The Rt. Hon. Viscount Dillon, M.A., F.S.A., Society of Antiquaries. The Rt. Hon. Lord Cozens-Hardy, Master of the Rolls. The Rt. Hon. Lord Fitzmaurice, M.A. ? The Rt. Rev. Bishop G. F. Browne, D.D., D.C.L., F.S.A. The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Kennedy, F.B.A. (the late) Lincoln’s Inn. The Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick Pollock, Bart., D.C.L., LL.D., F.B.A., Selden Society. Sir James H. Ramsay, Bart., M.A., D.L. Sir E. W. Brabrook, C.B., F.S.A., London and Middlesex Archæological Society. Sir William Byrne, K.C.V.O., C.B., Gray’s Inn. ? Sir C. E. H. Chadwyck-Healey, K.C.B., K.C., F.S.A., Selden Society. Sir Henry Howorth, K.C.I.E., F.R.S., Royal Archæological Institute. ? Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, M.A., D.Litt., Ph.D., F.B.A., Director and Principal Librarian, British Museum. Sir Vesey Knox, K.C., Gray’s Inn. Sir Sidney Lee, Litt.D. Sir H. C. Maxwell Lyte, K.C.B., F.S.A., F.B.A., Deputy Keeper of the Records. Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, G.C.B., D.C.L., LL.D., Litt.D., F.B.A. Sir Adolphus Ward, Litt.D., LL.D., F.B.A., Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge. The Very Rev. the Dean Of Lincoln, D.D. The Very Rev. the Dean Of Salisbury, D.D. The Very Rev. the Dean Of Carlisle, D.D. ? The Ven. Archdeacon Cunningham, D.D., LL.D., F.B.A. The Hon. John Abercromby, President, Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011) 5 http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/339 Online Library of Liberty: Magna Carta Commemoration Essays Professor G. B. Adams, Ph.D., Yale University, U.S.A. Professor C. M. Andrews, Ph.D., Yale University, U.S.A. H. W. Appleton, M.A., Professor of Ancient and Modern History, University of Sheffield. Robert Bagster, F.S.A., British Archæological Association. Professor J. F. Baldwin, Vassar College, U.S.A. C. R. Beazley, D.Litt., F.R.G.S., Professor of History, University of Birmingham. Charles BÉmont, Directeur-Adjoint à l’École des Hautes-Etudes, Paris. E. deGray Birch, LL.D., F.S.A. Sir F. A. Bosanquet, K.C., Inner Temple. P. Hume Brown, M.A., LL.D., Professor of Ancient History and Palæography, University of Edinburgh. Oscar Browning, M.A. William Moir Bryce, M.A., Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. R. M. Burrows, M.A., D.Litt., Ph.D., Principal King’s College, University of London. W. A. Cater, F.S.A., British Archæological Association. Miss A. M. Cooke, M.A., Lecturer in History, University of Leeds. ? J. F. Chance, M.A. Patrick Cooper, M.A., University of Aberdeen. W. J. Corbett, M.A. ? H. W. C. Davis, M.A. The Rt. Hon. H. A. L. Fisher, M.A., LL.D., F.B.A., Vice-Chancellor, University of Sheffield. The Hon. J. W. Fortescue, M.V.O., Librarian, Windsor Castle. Edwin Freshfield, LL.D., Pipe Roll Society. Rev. Henry Gee, D.D., University of Durham. ? G. P. Gooch, M.A. A. J. Grant, M.A., Professor of History, University of Leeds. Mrs. J. R. Green. ? Hubert Hall, F.S.A., Literary Director, Royal Historical Society; Secretary to the Royal Commission on Public Records. Frederic Harrison, Litt.D. Professor C. H. Haskins, Ph.D., Harvard University, U.S.A. H. D. Hazeltine, Litt.D. ? F. J. C. Hearnshaw, M.A., LL.D., Professor of Mediæval History, University of London. W. S. Holdsworth, D.C.L., All Souls Reader in English Law, University of Oxford. Sir Courtenay P. Ilbert, K.C.B., K.C.S.I. Professor J. F. Jameson, Ph.D., LL.D., Carnegie Institution, Washington, U.S.A. C. H. Jenkinson, M.A., Surrey Archæological Society. Edward Jenks, B.C.L. C. S. Kenny, LL.D., F.B.A., Downing Professor of the Laws of England, University of Cambridge. ? C. L. Kingsford, M.A., F.S.A. PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011) 6 http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/339 Online Library of Liberty: Magna Carta Commemoration Essays ? G. T. Lapsley, M.A., Ph.D., University of Cambridge. Felix Liebermann, Ph.D., LL.D., University of Berlin. W. A. Lindsay (the late), K.C., D.L., Pipe Roll Society. A. G. Little, M.A., Lecturer in Palæography, Victoria University of Manchester. Colonel E. M. Lloyd, R.E. R. Lodge, M.A., Litt.D., LL.D., Professor of History, University of Edinburgh. Miss E. A. McArthur, Litt.D. J. D. Mackie, M.A., Lecturer in Modern History, University of St. Andrews. C. H. McIlwain, Professor of History and Government, Harvard University, U.S.A. Rev. J. P. Mahaffy, C.V.O., D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., Vice-Provost of Trinity College, Dublin. ? W. S. McKechnie, LL.B., D.Phil., Lecturer in Constitutional Law and History, University of Glasgow. D. J. Medley, M.A., Professor of History, University of Glasgow. J. Hepburn Millar, B.A., LL.B., Professor of Constitutional Law and Constitutional History, University of Edinburgh. J. H. Morgan, M.A., Professor of Constitutional Law, University of London. George Neilson, LL.D. C. W. C. Oman, M.A., F.S.A., F.B.A., Chichele Professor of Modern History, University of Oxford. Colonel M. B. Pearson, C.B., London and Middlesex Archæological Society. W. Petit-Dutaillis, Recteur de l’Université de Grenoble, Université de France. L. O. Pike, M.A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statute Law Repeals: Consultation Paper Repeal of Turnpike Laws
    Statute Law Repeals: Consultation Paper Repeal of Turnpike Laws SLR 02/10: Closing date for responses – 25 June 2010 BACKGROUND NOTES ON STATUTE LAW REPEALS (SLR) What is it? 1. Our SLR work involves repealing statutes that are no longer of practical utility. The purpose is to modernise and simplify the statute book, thereby reducing its size and thus saving the time of lawyers and others who use it. This in turn helps to avoid unnecessary costs. It also stops people being misled by obsolete laws that masquerade as live law. If an Act features still in the statute book and is referred to in text-books, people reasonably enough assume that it must mean something. Who does it? 2. Our SLR work is carried out by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission pursuant to section 3(1) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. Section 3(1) imposes a duty on both Commissions to keep the law under review “with a view to its systematic development and reform, including in particular ... the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments, the reduction of the number of separate enactments and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law”. Statute Law (Repeals) Bill 3. Implementation of the Commissions’ SLR proposals is by means of special Statute Law (Repeals) Bills. 18 such Bills have been enacted since 1965 repealing more than 2000 whole Acts and achieving partial repeals in thousands of others. Broadly speaking the remit of a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill extends to any enactment passed at Westminster. Accordingly it is capable of repealing obsolete statutory text throughout the United Kingdom (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Magna Carta and the Development of the Common Law
    Magna Carta and the Development of the Common Law Professor Paul Brand, FBA Emeritus Fellow All Souls College, Oxford Paper related to a presentation given for the High Court Public Lecture series, at the High Court of Australia, Canberra, Courtroom 1, 13 May 2015 Magna Carta and the Development of the Common Law I We are about to commemorate the eight hundredth anniversary of the granting by King John on 15 June 1215 of a ‘charter of liberties’ in favour of all the free men of his kingdom [of England] and their heirs. That charter was not initially called Magna Carta (or ‘the Great Charter’, in English). It only acquired that name after it had been revised and reissued twice and after the second reissue had been accompanied by the issuing of a separate, but related, Charter of the Forest. The revised version of 1217 was called ‘The Great Charter’ simply to distinguish it from the shorter, and therefore smaller, Forest Charter, but the name stuck. To call it a ‘charter of liberties’ granted by king John to ‘all the free men of his kingdom’ of England is, however, in certain respects misleading. The term ‘liberty’ or ‘liberties’, particularly in the context of a royal grant, did not in 1215 bear the modern meaning of a recognised human right or human rights. ‘Liberty’ in the singular could mean something closer to that, in the general sense of the ‘freedom’ or the ‘free status’ of a free man, as opposed to the ‘unfreedom’ of a villein. ‘Liberties’, though, were something different (otherwise known as ‘franchises’), generally specific privileges granted by the king, particular rights such as the right to hold a fair or a market or a particular kind of private court, the right to have a park or a rabbit warren which excluded others from hunting or an exemption such as freedom from tolls at markets or fairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Eighteenth Report Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill
    Law Commission Reforming the law Statute Law Repeals: Eighteenth Report Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill Joint Report Law Com No 308 / Scot Law Com No 210 The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM No 308) (SCOT LAW COM No 210) STATUTE LAW REPEALS: EIGHTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers January 2008 Cm 7303 SG/2008/4 £25.75 The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton, Chairman Mr Stuart Bridge Mr David Hertzell Professor Jeremy Horder Mr Kenneth Parker QC The interim Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Mr William Arnold.1 The Law Commission is located at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Drummond Young, Chairman Professor George L Gretton Professor Gerard Maher QC Professor Joseph M Thomson Mr Colin J Tyre QC The Chief Executive of the Scottish Law Commission is Mr Michael Lugton. The Scottish Law Commission is located at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh, EH9 1PR. The terms of this report were agreed on 3 December 2007 The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk 0 Crown Copyright 2008 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    No. 16-1466 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit KEVIN BROTT; KATHALEEN BONDON; LOUIS CHURCHWELL; PHARQUIETTE CHURCHWELL; FREDRICKS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; KAREN FRISCO; PATRICIA GREEN; VERONICA HARWELL-SMITH; RICKEY HOLDEN; CAROLYN HOLDEN; ROBERT JONES; JEREMY KEITH; JOEL F. KOWALSKI; SHARON KOWALSKI; THERESA LOPEZ; ILEINE MAXIN; THOMASINE MESHAWBOOSE; THOMAS NAVARINI; LUIS SANTILLANES; YOLANDA SANTILLANES; WESTSHORE ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INCORPORATED; 2017 8TH, LLC; 2170 SHERMAN, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. _______________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids, No. 1:15-cv-00038. The Honorable Janet T. Neff, Judge Presiding. BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS MARK F. (THOR) HEARNE II MATTHEW L. VICARI MEGHAN S. LARGENT STEPHEN J. VAN STEMPVOORT STEPHEN S. DAVIS MILLER, JOHNSON, SNELL & ARENT FOX LLP CUMMISKEY, P.L.C. 1717 K Street, NW 45 Ottawa Ave. SW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (202) 857-6000 (616) 831-1700 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants COUNSEL PRESS ∙ (866) 703-9373 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Case: 16-1466 Document: 10 Filed: 04/28/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interest Sixth Circuit Case Number: 16-1466 Case Name: Brott, et al. v. United States Name of counsel: Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II Pursuant to 6th Cir. R. 26.1, Kevin Brott, et al. Name of Party makes the following disclosure: 1. Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? If Yes, list below the identity of the parent corporation or affiliate and the relationship between it and the named party: No.
    [Show full text]
  • Read an Extract from Land and Family
    Contents List of figures ix List of tables x Abbreviations xii General Editor’s preface xiii Preface xv 1 The peasant land market and the Winchester pipe rolls by P.D.A. Harvey 1 2 The bishop’s estate 11 The bishop of Winchester’s estate 12 The pipe rolls 13 Other estate records 17 Principal sources of supply 18 Population 25 Location and commerce 27 The regional distribution of fines 28 Conclusion 35 3 Units of property 37 Virgated tenements 38 Unvirgated lands 48 Cottages, cotlands, messuages and houses 51 Property outside agriculture 54 Conclusion 55 4 Tenures 57 Changes affecting customary tenure 58 Changes affecting non-customary tenure 64 Tenures and the written word 68 Conclusion 70 5 Entry fines 71 The changing number of transfers 71 The changing level of average entry fines, 1263–1349 74 The changing level of average entry fines, 1350–1415 77 Conclusion 82 Land and Family 6 Families and their land 84 Families and outsiders 84 Intermanorial and interregional variation 90 New tensions, new devices 97 Conclusion 101 7 Transfers within families 103 Custom and inheritance: (a) widows 104 Custom and inheritance: (b) sons 108 The impact of epidemics 110 Ways of modifying custom 112 Intrafamilial transfers inter vivos 113 Marriage 115 Conclusion 116 8 Buyers and sellers 118 Transactions between families inter vivos 119 Buyers and sellers 120 Reasons for selling 123 Extrafamilial transfers post mortem 126 Leases 128 Conclusion 131 9 Accumulation 132 Before the Black Death 132 After the Black Death 136 Large accumulations 142 The polarisation of land tenure 148 Conclusions 150 10 Conclusions 152 The estate as a whole 152 Regional differences 154 Intermanorial differences 155 Appendix 159 Bibliography 161 Index 169 viii Chapter 1 The peasant land market and the Winchester pipe rolls P.D.A.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LEGACY of the MAGNA CARTA MAGNA CARTA 1215 the Magna Carta Controlled the Power Government Ruled with the Consent of Eventually Spreading Around the Globe
    THE LEGACY OF THE MAGNA CARTA MAGNA CARTA 1215 The Magna Carta controlled the power government ruled with the consent of eventually spreading around the globe. of the King for the first time in English the people. The Magna Carta was only Reissues of the Magna Carta reminded history. It began the tradition of respect valid for three months before it was people of the rights and freedoms it gave for the law, limits on government annulled, but the tradition it began them. Its inclusion in the statute books power, and a social contract where the has lived on in English law and society, meant every British lawyer studied it. PETITION OF RIGHT 1628 Sir Edward Coke drafted a document King Charles I was not persuaded by By creating the Petition of Right which harked back to the Magna Carta the Petition and continued to abuse Parliament worked together to and aimed to prevent royal interference his power. This led to a civil war, and challenge the King. The English Bill with individual rights and freedoms. the King ultimately lost power, and his of Rights and the Constitution of the Though passed by the Parliament, head! United States were influenced by it. HABEAS CORPUS ACT 1679 The writ of Habeas Corpus gives imprisonment. In 1697 the House of Habeas Corpus is a writ that exists in a person who is imprisoned the Lords passed the Habeas Corpus Act. It many countries with common law opportunity to go before a court now applies to everyone everywhere in legal systems. and challenge the lawfulness of their the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium: the Fundamental Right to a Remedy, 41 San Diego Law Review 1633 (2004)
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Publications The chooS l of Law January 2004 Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium: The undF amental Right to a Remedy Tracy A. Thomas 1877, [email protected] Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/ua_law_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Tracy A. Thomas, Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium: The Fundamental Right to a Remedy, 41 San Diego Law Review 1633 (2004). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The chooS l of Law at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Publications by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Forthcoming, Symposium: Remedies Discussion Forum, 41 U.S.D. ___ (2004) Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium: The Fundamental Right to a Remedy Under Due Process Tracy A. Thomas* One of the legacies of Brown v. Board of Education is its endorsement of affirmative remedial action to enforce constitutional rights.1 In Brown I and Brown II, the United States Supreme Court rejected mere declaratory or prohibitory relief in favor of a mandatory injunction that would compel the constitutionally-required change.2 Disputes over the parameters of this active remedial power and compliance with the ordered remedies have dominated the ensuing decades of post-Brown school desegregation cases.3 These enforcement disputes have overshadowed the importance of Brown’s establishment of a remedial norm embracing affirmative judicial action to provide meaningful relief.
    [Show full text]
  • The Royal Prerogative and Equality Rights the Royal
    THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE AND EQUALITY RIGHTS 625 THE ROYAL PREROGATIVE AND EQUALITY RIGHTS: CAN MEDIEVAL CLASSISM COEXIST WITH SECTION 15 OF THE CHARTER? GERALD CHI PE UR• The author considers whether the prerogative L' auteur se demande si la prerogative de priorite priority of the Crown in the collection of debts of de la Cour01me dans le recouvrement des crea11ces equal degree is inconsistem with the guaramee of de degre ega/ respecte la garantie d' egalite que equality found in section I 5 of the Canadian Charter colltiefll /' art. 15 de la Charle des droits et libertes. of Rights an.d Freedoms "Charter." He concludes Sa conclusion est negatfre et ii estime qu',me telle that the Crown prerogative of priority is 1101 prerogatfre ne constitue pas une limite raismmable consistent with section I 5 and that such prerogative dons ,me societe fibre et democratique, atLrtermes de is not a reasonable limit in a free and democratic /' art. I de la Charte. society under section 1 of the Charter. L' a111eur etudie d' abord /es origines de la The author first investigates the origins of the prerogative de la Courom1e,puis la prerogative de la Crown prerogative in general and then the priorite plus particulierement. II I' examine ensuite a prerogative of priority in particular. The author then la lumiere de la Chane. L' auteur dec:/areque /' objet proceeds to apply the Charter to the prerogative of de la prerogative de priorite etait de recom,aitre la priority. The author submits that the purpose of the notion medierale de preeminence et superiorite prerogative priority is to recogni:e the medieval person11elle de la Reine sur ses sujets, et qu'un tel concept of the personal pre-eminence and superiority objet est contraire aux valeurs promues par la of the Queen over her subjects and that such a garalltie d' egalite e11oncee dons I' art.
    [Show full text]
  • 'LAW MERCHANT' and the FAIR COURT of ST. IVES, 1270-1324 By
    THE ‘LAW MERCHANT’ AND THE FAIR COURT OF ST. IVES, 1270-1324 by Stephen Edward Sachs This thesis has since been revised for publication. The updated version may be cited as: Stephen E. Sachs, From St. Ives to Cyberspace: The Modern Distortion of the Medieval ‘Law Merchant,’ 21 AM. U. INT’L L. REV. (2006). An electronic copy of the revised version is available at: http://ssrn.com/id=830265 © 2002 Stephen E. Sachs THE ‘LAW MERCHANT’ AND THE FAIR COURT OF ST. IVES, 1270-1324 by Stephen Edward Sachs A thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors Harvard University Cambridge Massachusetts 21 March 2002 © 2002 Stephen E. Sachs TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................i Abbreviations................................................................................................................ iii Chapter I: Introduction ...................................................................................................1 Chapter II: Who Rules the Fair? Authority Over a “Merchant Court” ............................9 Chapter III: One Law Merchant, or Several? ................................................................50 Chapter IV: Merchant Law and Politics........................................................................98 Epilogue: Lex Mercatoria and Lex Cyberspace...........................................................119 Bibliography ...............................................................................................................125
    [Show full text]
  • CREATING an AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY and ITS LIMITS in AMERICAN HISTORY Claire Priest
    CREATING AN AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY AND ITS LIMITS IN AMERICAN HISTORY Claire Priest Contact Information: Northwestern University School of Law 357 East Chicago Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 503-4470 Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements: ∗Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. B.A., J.D., Ph.D. Yale University. I would like to thank James McMasters of Northwestern’s Law Library for his help in finding copies of many of the primary sources used to write this Article. For extremely valuable comments and suggestions, I would like to thank Bernard Bailyn, Stuart Banner, Kenworthey Bilz, Charlotte Crane, David Dana, Michele Landis Dauber, Christine Desan, Tony A. Freyer, Morton J. Horwitz, Daniel Hulsebosch, Stanley N. Katz, Daniel M. Klerman, Naomi Lamoreaux, Charles W. McCurdy, Edmund S. Morgan, Janice Nadler, Sarah Pearsall, Dylan Penningroth, George L. Priest, Richard J. Ross, Emma Rothschild, Dhananjai Shivakumar, Kenneth L. Sokoloff, Vicky Saker Woeste, Gavin Wright and the seminar participants at Northwestern University School of Law’s Faculty Workshop, Stanford Law School’s Faculty Workshop, UCLA’s Legal History Colloquium and Economic History Workshop, NYU’s Legal History Colloquium, the University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law’s Faculty Workshop, the Chicago Legal History Seminar, the American Society for Legal History’s Annual Meeting, the University of Illinois College of Law’s Faculty Workshop, the Omohundro Institute of Early American History’s Annual Conference, and Harvard University’s Conference on Atlantic Legalities. The Julius Rosenthal Fund at Northwestern University School of Law provided generous research support. CREATING AN AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW: ALIENABILITY AND ITS LIMITS IN AMERICAN HISTORY This Article analyzes an issue central to the economic and political development of the early United States: laws protecting real property from the claims of creditors.
    [Show full text]
  • Abolishing the Doctrine of Consideration - the Story of the Arra- Part 2
    ilr.ccsenet.org International Law Research Vol. 7, No. 1; 2018 Abolishing the Doctrine of Consideration - The Story of the Arra- Part 2 Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: December 26, 2017 Accepted: January 16, 2018 Online Published: February 10, 2018 doi:10.5539/ilr.v7n1p95 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ilr.v7n1p95 20. PLOWDEN (1565) Sharington v Strotton (1565)1 concerned the conveyance of land by use by the owner to his brother and heirs, reserving a life interest (a liferent).The case was reported by Plowden and much use of the word 'consideration' was made of - albeit, it should be noted that Plowden's reports were published in Law French in 1571 and translated in 1761. The case arose on a bill of trespass against Strotton and others for taking timber without authority from land subject to a use (a trust) contained in a deed. The crucial issue was whether the use was valid. Counsel for the P's (Fleetwood and Wray) argued that the use was invalid since there was no consideration. Plowden (appearing for the D's with Bromley - he described himself as an 'apprentice of the Middle Temple') argued that the use was valid since a deed 'imported consideration' 2 - a proposition of law accepted by later courts and one which still prevails today (the actual case held that natural love and affection was sufficient consideration but this was soon reversed).3 So, what was consideration ? And, why was natural love and affection treated as, in effect, having a money value (being a good price) ? (a) Use of the Word 'Consideration' The word 'consideration' was used extensively in the case report.
    [Show full text]
  • The Salisbury Oath: Its Feudal Implications
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1943 The Salisbury Oath: Its Feudal Implications Harry Timothy Birney Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Birney, Harry Timothy, "The Salisbury Oath: Its Feudal Implications" (1943). Master's Theses. 53. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/53 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1943 Harry Timothy Birney THE SALISBURY OATH - ITS FEUDAL IMPLICATIONS by HARRY TIMOTHY BIRNEY, S.J., A.B. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN LOYOLA UNIVERSITY J~e 1943 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 CHAPTER I FEUDALI SM - IN THEORY • • • • • • • • • • • 3 II FEUDALISTIC TENDENCIES IN ENGLAND BEFORE 1066 ••••••••••••••••••••• 22 III NORMAN FEUDALISM BEFORE 1066 • • • • 44 IV ANGLO - NORMAN FEUDALISM PRECEDING THE OATH OF SALISBURy........... 62 V THE SALISBURY OATH • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 81 CONCLUSION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • •
    [Show full text]