DOCSLIB.ORG

Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 74 Issue 3 April 2021 Article 5 4-2021 Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority Christian R. Burset Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Judges Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Christian R. Burset, Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority, 74 Vanderbilt Law Review 621 (2021) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol74/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Advisory Opinions and the Problem of Legal Authority Christian R. Burset* The prohibition against advisory opinions is fundamental to our understanding of federal judicial power, but we have misunderstood its origins. Discussions of the doctrine begin not with a constitutional text or even a court case, but a letter in which the Jay Court rejected President Washington’s request for legal advice. Courts and scholars have offered a variety of explanations for the Jay Court’s behavior. But they all depict the earliest Justices as responding to uniquely American concerns about advisory opinions. This Article offers a different explanation. Drawing on previously untapped archival sources, it shows that judges throughout the anglophone world—not only in the United States but also in England and British India— became opposed to advisory opinions in the second half of the eighteenth century. The death of advisory opinions was a global phenomenon, rooted in a period of anxiety about common-law authority. Early modern English judges had routinely advised the Crown. This advisory role was politically fraught but doctrinally unproblematic thanks to a jurisprudential orthodoxy that treated judges’ opinions as evidence of a preexisting common law. Although this declaratory theory survived into the nineteenth century (and beyond), it began to fragment after 1750, as lawyers began to disagree about the nature of precedent. Those disagreements generated new pressure to clarify the weight of different kinds of legal authority. Most lawyers intuited that advisory opinions were less authoritative than decisions arising from litigation. But because bench and bar lacked a common theory of legal authority, they were unable to articulate a shared understanding of what respect was due to judges’ extrajudicial pronouncements. As a result, advisory opinions became dangerous, because the judges who issued them could not * Associate Professor, Notre Dame Law School. For their questions and comments at various stages of this project, the author thanks Akhil Amar, Will Baude, A.J. Bellia, Sadie Blanchard, Ben Brady, Sam Bray, Chris Casey, Bill Casto, Christine Chabot, Patrick Corrigan, Barry Cushman, Maria Maciá, Gregory Mark, Marah McLeod, Zvi Rosen, Max Stearns, Jay Tidmarsh, Chas Tyler, David Waddilove, and Lael Weinberger. This Article also benefited from feedback at the Notre Dame Law School faculty workshop and the Chicagoland Junior Scholars Conference. Sophia Aguilar, Natalie Fulk, Thomas Hellenbrand, David Spicer, and Nikolai Stieglitz provided helpful research assistance. Brandy Ellis of the Kresge Law Library masterfully connected me with crucial sources under uniquely challenging conditions. 621 622 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 74:3:621 control how future readers might treat them. In response, judges sought to limit their advisory activity—first in England, then in British-controlled Bengal, and finally in the United States, whose judges inherited Britain’s contested and dynamic understanding of the judicial role. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 622 I. EXPLAINING THE CORRESPONDENCE ................................... 628 II. ADVICE-GIVING UNDER THE CLASSICAL COMMON LAW ...... 631 A. Group Consultation ................................................. 633 B. Advising the Advisors .............................................. 634 C. Avoiding Prejudgment ............................................. 636 D. Avoiding Unnecessary Opinions .............................. 636 III. THE DEMISE OF ADVISORY OPINIONS .................................. 638 A. England ................................................................... 638 B. Bengal ...................................................................... 643 C. United States ........................................................... 650 IV. RECONSIDERING EXISTING EXPLANATIONS ......................... 652 A. Constitutional .......................................................... 652 B. Prudential ................................................................ 655 C. Political .................................................................... 657 V. COMPLETING THE STORY ..................................................... 659 A. The Problem of Legal Authority .............................. 660 B. Rethinking the Refusals ........................................... 666 C. How the Correspondence Was Canonized ................ 671 CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 674 APPENDIX: EXTRAJUDICIAL STRAGGLERS ....................................... 677 INTRODUCTION The rule against advisory opinions has been described as “the oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability,”1 but its pedigree is doubtful. Discussions of the doctrine begin not with the Constitution’s text or even a landmark case, but a four-sentence letter from 1793 in which the Jay Court rejected the Washington Administration’s request for advice on questions of international law.2 1. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968) (quoting CHARLES WRIGHT, FEDERAL COURTS 34 (1963)); accord RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., JOHN F. MANNING, DANIEL J. MELTZER & DAVID L. SHAPIRO, HART AND WECHSLER’S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 52 (7th ed. 2015); Helen Hershkoff, State Courts and the “Passive Virtues”: Rethinking the Judicial Function, 114 HARV. L. REV. 1833, 1844 (2001). 2. Letter from U.S. Sup. Ct. JJ. to George Washington (Aug. 8, 1793), in 5 THE SELECTED PAPERS OF JOHN JAY 545, 545 (Elizabeth M. Nuxoll ed., 2017) [hereinafter JAY PAPERS]. 2021] ADVISORY OPINIONS & LEGAL AUTHORITY 623 Courts and commentators have conventionally read that letter as declaring advisory opinions to be unconstitutional,3 but some scholars have questioned that understanding.4 The Constitution never mentions advisory opinions, which English judges had routinely issued. Therefore, the revisionists argue, the Jay Court’s refusal to provide the requested opinions reflected prudential or political concerns, not constitutional ones.5 These accounts offer starkly different interpretations of what has become known as the Correspondence of the Justices. But they agree in treating the Jay Court’s letter as a uniquely American event that responded to distinctively American concerns. This Article disagrees. Drawing on previously untapped archival sources, it shows that judges throughout the common-law world—not only in the United States but also in Britain and its empire—turned against advisory opinions during the second half of the eighteenth century. The demise of advisory opinions was a global phenomenon that requires a transnational explanation. This Article supplies one. During the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, judges routinely provided legal advice to the Crown. This advisory role was politically fraught but doctrinally unproblematic thanks to a jurisprudential orthodoxy that treated judges’ opinions as evidence of a preexisting law.6 Although this declaratory conception of the law survived into the nineteenth century (and beyond), it began to fragment shortly before the American Revolution, as judges and lawyers started to disagree in subtle ways about the nature of precedent. Those disagreements generated new pressure to clarify the weight of different kinds of legal authority. Lawyers intuited that advisory opinions were less authoritative than opinions accompanying judgments. But because bench and bar lacked a common theory of legal authority, they were unable to articulate a shared understanding of exactly what respect was due to judges’ extrajudicial pronouncements. As a result, judges began to worry that readers might invest advisory opinions with the wrong 3. See, e.g., Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153, 176 (2016) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting); United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 781 (2013) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 302 (2004); Eisler v. United States, 338 U.S. 189, 191–92 (1949) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting) (per curiam); Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co. of D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 647–48 (1949) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting); Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 354 (1911); United States v. Evans, 213 U.S. 297, 301 (1909); infra Section III.C. 4. For overviews of the literature, see DAVID P. CURRIE, THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS, 1789-1888, at 12–14 (1985); and FALLON ET AL., supra note 1, at 52–53. 5. See infra Sections IV.B and IV.C (discussing scholarly views on the rationale for the Jay Court’s refusal to provide advisory opinions). 6. See infra Part II. 624 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW [Vol. 74:3:621 kind of authority. In response, judges sought to limit their advisory activity—first
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Early Understandings of the "Judicial Power" in Statutory Interpretation
    ARTICLE ALL ABOUT WORDS: EARLY UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE 'JUDICIAL POWER" IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 1776-1806 William N. Eskridge, Jr.* What understandingof the 'judicial Power" would the Founders and their immediate successors possess in regard to statutory interpretation? In this Article, ProfessorEskridge explores the background understandingof the judiciary's role in the interpretationof legislative texts, and answers earlier work by scholars like ProfessorJohn Manning who have suggested that the separation of powers adopted in the U.S. Constitution mandate an interpre- tive methodology similar to today's textualism. Reviewing sources such as English precedents, early state court practices, ratifying debates, and the Marshall Court's practices, Eskridge demonstrates that while early statutory interpretationbegan with the words of the text, it by no means confined its searchfor meaning to the plain text. He concludes that the early practices, especially the methodology ofJohn Marshall,provide a powerful model, not of an anticipatory textualism, but rather of a sophisticated methodology that knit together text, context, purpose, and democratic and constitutionalnorms in the service of carrying out the judiciary's constitutional role. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 991 I. Three Nontextualist Powers Assumed by English Judges, 1500-1800 ............................................... 998 A. The Ameliorative Power .............................. 999 B. Suppletive Power (and More on the Ameliorative Pow er) .............................................. 1003 C. Voidance Power ..................................... 1005 II. Statutory Interpretation During the Founding Period, 1776-1791 ............................................... 1009 * John A. Garver Professor ofJurisprudence, Yale Law School. I am indebted toJohn Manning for sharing his thoughts about the founding and consolidating periods; although we interpret the materials differently, I have learned a lot from his research and arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Caqe ,T-)65 61
    eiF C714rd FF27JAIKL,ti Ckw.i,ZSI CAqE ,t-)65_61,. ;bo'7qra TAE C3h11© I-SuPRLrnE COi.I fF,a,qRh aF- CoFnmi SSiWER.SI 1N fvE: LE VEF2T K. PdE3221't2^. AKC^N.d^l ^f^r's^'L., t.^SES. A- LLCyt:LSTiN P. oSUEL^Sa7.ReGA(a.OGi 115% 511 M.MArN ST ./LMZc^ni.e^l1 4431U< .4AOa.... pE^,' 0 6 Z006 LAWREIJGE R. Sin^TiJ.FS©.,REG.NO.a©2902Es1 ONE CflSCA6E PLZ.. 7t1(.FL..AKR-dN.ON 44 3ej8, MARCIA J NIENGEL, CLERI( AEFTS.,APLEES..RES.... SUPREME CUF;! OF ILELATQiZ.AP('ELLAnfT, PLAu.ITiF'F LEVErc'l` K,C►RIPFrn! MOi IGaI FdR r-N7RY FdOR ALLEGE LdA1rQI.ITN6kI ZE P'cAcT 1 CE aF LAW L6t^^EN AGAwsT ZnTF1 A'T'f'oRAfEYs Lf1ldYER lA1LAPTlOAIEN As AL3ouE SEE NEraLE EXNIL3rT#'^"^4 "C° &IbuS CvMES,RELATafZ.ArPELLqM.PLAinitrFF LEUERT nc.6RIF'FiN.NE(mF3Y PRRY PbfZ RELIEF LLPOni'Ta WlliG.N RELIER CAnr BE GPtAn[TEd. A.rnaTrer.t FrafR Eti1TRY FoR ALLEGE dnrr4uTW0rtraE PreACTrcE aF LAru IoOisEO Afvr^,E6-ra ArTaRuEYs LAwyER. ^nsCA.PTranrE& AS AbevsE_ .SEC r(s,ucE cxAI PEr.li,rmL. L>APPE.FlL As QF R1a13T z^TRFanI Smi?R'Fa L eF RS.Car'.h LEVESZ~1 SOaw Cl-,..uSE- dRDE2 FOp^ REL)Ar11b, MmANf]E& TA)C f'fLEE AT ALL COS*P `TAlS RZEqmCLE5r wER Ciau F3AR rL, U rs 6lFl, PEnrtvAjG AISTddtC A7rVE REL/EF C,u P. RL. 55(a1^6) t*'s4,uERN WJLUE' 7)IE Au7'F1.. SctP CT RL. P"h.'00 , iti{E rgAl2cFoAln RL,$L.LIh^A^t^^JGR^ZEb PrZALT^CECK LAC^/.
    [Show full text]
  • Bills of Attainder
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 2016 Bills of Attainder Matthew Steilen University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 Hous. L. Rev. 767 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/123 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE BILLS OF ATTAINDER Matthew Steilen* ABSTRACT What are bills of attainder? The traditional view is that bills of attainder are legislation that punishes an individual without judicial process. The Bill of Attainder Clause in Article I, Section 9 prohibits the Congress from passing such bills. But what about the President? The traditional view would seem to rule out application of the Clause to the President (acting without Congress) and to executive agencies, since neither passes bills. This Article aims to bring historical evidence to bear on the question of the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. The argument of the Article is that bills of attainder are best understood as a summary form of legal process, rather than a legislative act. This argument is based on a detailed historical reconstruction of English and early American practices, beginning with a study of the medieval Parliament rolls, year books, and other late medieval English texts, and early modern parliamentary diaries and journals covering the attainders of Elizabeth Barton under Henry VIII and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, under Charles I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Providence Island Company on 28Th September 1629 Letters Of
    The Providence Island Company On 28th September 1629 letters of marque were issued for an expedition to be mounted to St Catalina, an island in the Caribbean (later to be renamed Providence Island). Subscriptions were invited from Lord Saye's circle of powerful political and business friends, who were opposed to the arbitrary rule of the king, for twenty shares at £200 per head. In the summer of 1630 the first meeting of shareholders was held in Brooke House, Holborn, London (held there to avoid the plague in the country). On 4th December a patent was sealed granting the formal incorporation of the splendidly named company of 'The Governor and Company of Adventurers of the City of Westminster for the Plantation of the Islands of Providence, Henrietta and adjacent islands laying upon the coast of America'; known as 'The Providence Island Company'. The total cost of the Patent and fees was £60. The name Providence had great significance at that time; the Adventurers (men who advanced venture capital) believed they were responding to divine will in founding the settlement. They were casting themselves on God's providence. The project could only succeed with God's approval.4 St Catalina, as the Spanish called the island, was situated in the south-west corner of the Caribbean, off the coast of Nicaragua; it is six miles long by four wide and was considered, in the seventeenth century, to be the choicest of the Caribbean islands. It had an equable climate, was fertile and salubrious; with plenty of water. It was easily fortified and there were no venomous creatures.
    [Show full text]
  • I the Committee of Safety
    .· (~. ll II Ii ) ' THE COMMITTEE OF SAFETY. 11 "A thesis submitted to the ,, faculty of the Graduate School of the University of • Minnesota by Etheleen Frances ;emp in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ii degree of Master of Arts, May 5, 1911. 1;1 I Ii II Ii 11 ' :S I:BLI OGRAPHY. l. Source Material 1. Journals of the House of Lords, vol. V and VI. Journals of the House of Commons, vol. II and III. These contain the greater portion of the material on the Committee of Safety. 2. Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. London, 1874 etc. These volumes contain here and there a com­ munication to or from the Committee of Safety but have much less material that might be expected. References found:- 4th Report p 262. 5th Report pp. 48, 54, 56, 63, 65, 69, 80, 107, 114. 7th Report pp. 550-588. 10th Report App. 6 pp. 87-88. 13th Report App. 1 p. 104. 3. Calendar of State Papers. Domestic 1641-1644 London, 1887-8 lla.ny order for military supplies are given in the State Papers but not in full. 4. Rushworth,John, Historical collections, 8 vol. London, 1682-1701. Compilation of declarations and proclamations. Vol. 3 and 7 contain material on the Committee. They contain valuable proclamations of the King which cannot be found elsewhere. 5. Somers, Lord. Tracts, 13 vol. London, 1809-1815. Has several remonstrances of value. ){) 1 ~ ( ' ,.... 6. Whitacre. Diary Add. M S S 31, 116, fol. Had notes from first six months of the Committee period especially.
    [Show full text]
  • PLEASE NOTE This Is a Draft Paper Only and Should Not Be Cited Without
    PLEASE NOTE This is a draft paper only and should not be cited without the author’s express permission THE SHORT-TERM IMPACT OF THE >GLORIOUS REVOLUTION= ON THE ENGLISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM On February 14, 1689, The day after William and Mary were recognized by the Convention Parliament as King and Queen, the first members of their Privy Council were sworn in. And, during the following two to three weeks, all of the various high offices in the government and the royal household were filled. Most of the politically powerful posts went either to tories or to moderates. The tory Earl of Danby was made Lord President of the Council and another tory, the Earl of Nottingham was made Secretary of State for the Southern Department. The office of Lord Privy Seal was given to the Atrimming@ Marquess of Halifax, whom dedicated whigs had still not forgiven for his part in bringing about the disastrous defeat of the exclusion bill in the Lords= house eight years earlier. Charles Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, who was named Principal Secretary of State, can really only be described as tilting towards the whigs at this time. But, at the Admiralty and the Treasury, both of which were put into commission, in each case a whig stalwart was named as the first commissioner--Lord Mordaunt and Arthur Herbert respectivelyBand also in each case a number of other leading whigs were named to the commission as well.i Whig lawyers, on the whole, did rather better than their lay fellow-partisans. Devonshire lawyer and Inner Temple Bencher Henry Pollexfen was immediately appointed Attorney- General, and his cousin, Middle Templar George Treby, Solicitor General.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    INTRODUCTION This volume publishes the papers and correspondence of the Hotham family during the civil wars and interregnum. The head of the family and first baronet, Sir John Hotham, is well known in the national narrative because of his critical role in denying the king entry to Hull on 23 April 1642. This episode ignited much contemporary controversy, raising the stakes in a pamphlet war between the king and his parliamentary opponents, and making armed conflict far more likely. It has attracted considerable attention from constitutional historians who have debated its legal ramifications, while political and military historians have recognized that the king’s failure to seize the large arms magazine at Hull badly undermined the royalist war effort. Yet, despite their national importance in 1642, the Hotham family’s papers have only rarely been utilized by academics. Late twentieth-century historians such as J.T. Cliffe, Barbara English, and Peter Roebuck drew upon the collection to inform their work on the wider theme of Yorkshire gentry landowners,1 but few others have been to Hull to access the archive. This also reflects a relative neglect of northern England in civil war historiography. There has been no biography of either of the Hothams, and their most recent family histories date from as long ago as the First World War. 2 This is unfortunate, because Sir John Hotham and his eldest son were extremely colourful and enigmatic figures, whose letters reveal much about the cultural attitudes of the English gentry in the 1640s. This volume seeks to redress this imbalance and restore the centrality of the Hotham family to the parliamentary cause.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BROUGHTON PLOTTERS, (The Providence !Island Company and Saybrook)
    BUSINESS AND TREASON: THE BROUGHTON PLOTTERS, (The Providence !Island Company and Saybrook) Nicholas J. Allen My deare wife, I am verylye persuaded God will bring some heavye affliction upon this lande, and that speedylye ... if the Lord seeth it will be good for us, he will provide shelter and a hiding place for us and others. ' John Winthrop, Governor of Saybrook, 1635 (in a letter to his wife dated 1629). Introduction Visitors to Broughton Castle, after viewing the rooms used by generations of the Fiennes family for living and socialising, make their way to, or if guided are shewn, the Council Chamber which is at the back and very top of the house. There they will very likely be told, or read in the guide book, that this room is where William Fiennes, eighth Lord Saye and Sele, his son Nathaniel and a group of like-minded men such as Lord Brooke, John Hampden, John Pym, Oliver St John, Lord Warwick and Sir Harry Vane planned their opposition to King Charles' government. The visitor will, very likely, be also told that they used a business venture in the Caribbean, namely the Providence Island Company, as a cover for these political meetings. So why did a group of powerful peers, landed gentry, politicians and businessmen meet, over what seems to be many years, plotting some form of opposition to the King's government — an exceedingly dangerous pastime. The number of men involved and the many meeting places used must have created some major problems of security, and not necessarily stemming from just the participants.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Supreme Court History
    Journal of Supreme Court History THE SUPREME COURT HISTORICAL SOCIETY THURGOOD MARSHALL Associate Justice (1967-1991) Journal of Supreme Court History PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. Chairman Donald B. Ayer Louis R. Cohen Charles Cooper Kenneth S. Geller James J. Kilpatrick Melvin I. Urofsky BOARD OF EDITORS Melvin I. Urofsky, Chairman Herman Belz Craig Joyce David O'Brien David J. Bodenhamer Laura Kalman Michael Parrish Kermit Hall Maeva Marcus Philippa Strum MANAGING EDITOR Clare Cushman CONSULTING EDITORS Kathleen Shurtleff Patricia R. Evans James J. Kilpatrick Jennifer M. Lowe David T. Pride Supreme Court Historical Society Board of Trustees Honorary Chairman William H. Rehnquist Honorary Trustees Harry A. Blackmun Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Byron R. White Chairman President DwightD.Opperman Leon Silverman Vice Presidents VincentC. Burke,Jr. Frank C. Jones E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr. Secretary Treasurer Virginia Warren Daly Sheldon S. Cohen Trustees George Adams Frank B. Gilbert Stephen W. Nealon HennanBelz Dorothy Tapper Goldman Gordon O. Pehrson Barbara A. Black John D. Gordan III Leon Polsky Hugo L. Black, J r. William T. Gossett Charles B. Renfrew Vera Brown Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. William Bradford Reynolds Wade Burger Judith Richards Hope John R. Risher, Jr. Patricia Dwinnell Butler William E. Jackson Harvey Rishikof Andrew M. Coats Rob M. Jones William P. Rogers William T. Coleman,1r. James 1. Kilpatrick Jonathan C. Rose F. Elwood Davis Peter A. Knowles Jerold S. Solovy George Didden IIJ Harvey C. Koch Kenneth Starr Charlton Dietz Jerome B. Libin Cathleen Douglas Stone John T. Dolan Maureen F. Mahoney Agnes N. Williams James Duff Howard T.
    [Show full text]
  • The Black Hole of Empire
    Th e Black Hole of Empire Th e Black Hole of Empire History of a Global Practice of Power Partha Chatterjee Princeton University Press Princeton and Oxford Copyright © 2012 by Princeton University Press Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to Permissions, Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW press.princeton.edu All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Chatterjee, Partha, 1947- Th e black hole of empire : history of a global practice of power / Partha Chatterjee. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-691-15200-4 (hardcover : alk. paper)— ISBN 978-0-691-15201-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Bengal (India)—Colonization—History—18th century. 2. Black Hole Incident, Calcutta, India, 1756. 3. East India Company—History—18th century. 4. Imperialism—History. 5. Europe—Colonies—History. I. Title. DS465.C53 2011 954'.14029—dc23 2011028355 British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available Th is book has been composed in Adobe Caslon Pro Printed on acid-free paper. ∞ Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 To the amazing surgeons and physicians who have kept me alive and working This page intentionally left blank Contents List of Illustrations ix Preface xi Chapter One Outrage in Calcutta 1 Th e Travels of a Monument—Old Fort William—A New Nawab—Th e Fall
    [Show full text]
  • A Pilgrimage Through English History and Culture (F-L)
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Faculty Publications 2009-05-01 A Pilgrimage Through English History and Culture (F-L) Gary P. Gillum [email protected] Susan Wheelwright O'Connor Alexa Hysi Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub Part of the English Language and Literature Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Gillum, Gary P.; O'Connor, Susan Wheelwright; and Hysi, Alexa, "A Pilgrimage Through English History and Culture (F-L)" (2009). Faculty Publications. 12. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/12 This Other is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 833 FAIRFAX, JOHN, 1623-1700. Rare 922.542 St62f 1681 Presbýteros diples times axios, or, The true dignity of St. Paul's elder, exemplified in the life of that reverend, holy, zealous, and faithful servant, and minister of Jesus Christ Mr. Owne Stockton ... : with a collection of his observations, experiences and evidences recorded by his own hand : to which is added his funeral sermon / by John Fairfax. London : Printed by H.H. for Tho. Parkhurst at the Sign of the Bible and Three Crowns, at the lower end of Cheapside, 1681. Description: [12], 196, [20] p. ; 15 cm. References: Wing F 129. Subjects: Stockton, Owen, 1630-1680. Notes: Title enclosed within double line rule border. "Mors Triumphata; or The Saints Victory over Death; Opened in a Funeral Sermon ... " has special title page. 834 FAIRFAX, THOMAS FAIRFAX, Baron, 1612-1671.
    [Show full text]
  • Mantuan Roundel, Venus, Mars, Cupid and Vulcan
    1 RCEWA – Mantuan Roundel, Venus, Mars, Cupid and Vulcan Statement of the Expert Adviser to the Secretary of State that the roundel meets Waverley criteria two and three. Further Information The ‘Applicant’s statement’ and the ‘Note of Case History’ are available on the Arts Council Website: www.artscouncil.org.uk/reviewing-committee-case-hearings Please note that images and appendices referenced are not reproduced. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Brief Description of item A roundel depicting Venus, Mars, Cupid and Vulcan Partially gilded and silvered bronze with a deep brown/black patina Dia. 42 cm Italian, Mantuan or possibly Paduan, c.1480-1500 Condition: Other than areas of wear on the gilded rim, and minor nicks and dents over the surface, the bronze is in very good condition. The reverse retains traces of investment material and has some pale blue- green corrosion overall in the recesses; cracks due to casting flaws have been expertly repaired. The roundel has undergone conservation to remove dirt, old wax and some very small copper 1 sulphate-based pustules. Provenance: Almost certainly owned by George Treby III (c.1726-1761), and then by descent within the Treby family of Plympton, Devon until 2003; sold at Christie’s London, Important European Furniture, Sculpture and Tapestries, Thursday 11 December 2003, lot 20; then by descent until 2019; purchased by current owner Selected Sources and Literature (in chronological order): Christie’s, London, Important European Furniture, Sculpture and Tapestries, Thursday 11 December 2003, lot 20 (see Appendix 1) Export of Works of Art of Cultural Interest 2004-05, London 2005, pp.15-16 (case 1) Denise Allen in Eleanora Luciano, et al, Antico.
    [Show full text]