DOCSLIB.ORG

THE RIGHTS-BEARING ENGLISHMAN Early Statements In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE RIGHTS-BEARING ENGLISHMAN Early Statements In CHAPTER EIGHT THE RIGHTS-BEARING ENGLISHMAN Early Statements in Parliament In the early days of the Long Parliament, George Digby, MP for Dorset, made a passionate plea for those liberties that ‘speak us Englishmen’ and moved for a committee to consider the deplorable state into which the nation had fallen.1 Digby was both a royalist and also (at this point in time) a critic of the excesses of royalism. He would later find himself very much on King Charles’ side in the Civil War. In his original position in 1640, how- ever, he showed himself to be a very typical parliamentarian. It had become largely a matter of political consensus that inherited liberties con- stituted true Englishness and that the moderate exercise of regal power was desirable and indeed necessary for the preservation of the nation. What we witness is a process whereby Englishness becomes a key political language from about 1610 onwards, bandied about by parliamentarians and lawyers, all of whom would have considered themselves reasonably conservative and none of whom would have gone out of their way to be subversive. By 1640, the congerie of idea was well-established and Digby’s comment was nothing more – or less – than a commonplace. But the decade then beginning would transform a parliamentary commonplace into an explosive populist language used by highly-politicised laymen to argue for ends as extreme as adult masculine suffrage. How did such evo- lutions and revolutions occur? This immensely significant and varied polemic about Englishness emerged out of the conflicts about money which besmirched the reputa- tions of both the early Stuarts and did so much to sour political relations in the polity. Undoubtedly neither James nor his son, Charles intended to unleash such a furore, had not expected to fall foul of such powerful forms of protest as called their very identity and status into question, but in their 1 Parliamentary History of England, vol. 2, p. 664. Recorded as being spoken by George Digby. There is a note to say that the speech is undated but that it is likely to have been spoken at the beginning of the session in November. It was then that he proposed the committee. © Hilary Larkin, 2014 | doi:10.1163/9789004243873_010 Hilary Larkin - 9789004243873 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NCDownloaded 4.0 license. from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:26:48AM via free access <UN> <UN> 214 chapter eight urgent need for money, they both became involved in technically legal but practically and politically repugnant means to achieve it. The controver- sies in question – notably the Impositions, the Five Knights’ Case, Ship Money, the granting of monopolies – have been well worked-over in the literature, and for those who like to read the signs of encroaching civil war, there is plenty of evidence in each which provides background explana- tion. But my interest in the controversies does not so much lie in this conventional framework of interpretation. Money matters have a ten- dency of transcending themselves and in this case, they touched upon a whole range of susceptibilities and ignited latent and novel views about the status of an Englishman. These much-hated Stuart fiscal experiments gave debates about identity a vitality and a contemporary political rele- vance that they had not possessed before when trailed merely on sociocul- tural phenomena. At no other time in England’s early-modern period, I would contend, was the fiscal question so intimately bound up with powerful constructions of what it was to be English. Indeed, construction is an optimum word for what was being done. It implies agency and invention. Those who use the free Englishman as their parliamentary or public platform are doing something essentially new, for all that so many of them say that they are merely faithful witnessing to the past. It becomes clear when considering the sources that in thrashing out the constitutional and legal issues raised by the usage of the royal preroga- tive, parliamentarians and polemicists are not primarily reflecting on the pre-existing state of the Englishman. They may say that they are doing this. They will be found constantly claiming to be restoring the past. They will even claim that the current debates are about the past. They are not. Their usage of historical example and tradition is entirely politicised and agenda-driven. Arcane and mainstream medieval precedents are dusted down and polished up for contemporary usage. They desperately want to prove their point. This was from first to last a contemporary language, informed by the contexts of the day. It is not always an establishment language – the Levellers would become notorious for taking it to what many thought an unacceptable extreme – but notably, it started off by being eminently respectable. Its early state- ments come from the interiors of Westminster; its expression is the doing of well-educated, cautiously-minded parliamentarians, proud of their sta- tus but anxious also to preserve their relationship with the King. Nobody could accuse the common lawyers who were such a prominent force in Stuart parliaments of undue radicalism. Yet it was precisely because they Hilary Larkin - 9789004243873 Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:26:48AM via free access <UN> <UN> the rights-bearing englishman 215 were given respect for their mandarin-like capacity to unveil the myster- ies of medieval laws that they were able to be more radical than they seemed or even aspired to be. The potential for radicalism was most often hidden from themselves. The opening drama occurs in the fierce debates that characterised the fourth session of James I’s first parliament in 1610. Here it is possible to single out some key strands of thought which laid the basis for subsequent depictions of the Englishman as historic rights-bearer. Impositions were the issue at stake. The value of an earlier parliamentary subsidy (1605–06) had not stretched as far as the extravagant James needed and he had decided to resort to exacting impositions without parliamentary consent, that is to say without the consent of the body of free Englishmen legally convoked.2 The test case for this in 1606 ruled in favour of the King against John Bates, a wayward merchant of the Levant Company who had been unwilling to pay a duty on currants. This bold decision did not fill parliamentarians with confidence, more especially as the Barons of the Exchequer claimed that the King had absolute as well as ordinary power, and that the former was for the safety of the nation and could vary with circumstance, according to his royal wisdom. It seemed to constitute a nefarious precedent for future actions of the sort and when parliament did gather in 1610, its members were determined to make the point that such hand-handed behaviour was unacceptable. Much has been written about parliament’s defence of its own rights and liberties in this context: the debates are a veritable treasure-trove for considerations of custom, precedent and privilege. They are also the first time when we witness a deliberate politico-legal proclamation of what it is to be an Englishman in this newly threatening context. Apart from Thomas Hedley’s contribution, which will be discussed at a later point, there were three whose interventions lay themselves open to this kind of reading. All three were lawyers who made their mark as prom- inent critics of the Impositions. The most arresting contribution is that of James Whitelocke. Born in 1570, he was an Oxford man and a product of the Inns of Court. An outspoken critic of recent government policy, he was in 1610 responsible for transforming the terms of the debate between roy- alty and parliament into something which cut much more deeply than a mere matter of financial disagreement. His central accusation was that 2 See Coward 2003, pp. 140–142; Hirst 1999, pp. 89–92. Hilary Larkin - 9789004243873 Downloaded from Brill.com09/25/2021 04:26:48AM via free access <UN> <UN> 216 chapter eight James’ actions were essentially unconstitutional. England was a distinc- tive entity and impositions eroded that very distinctiveness. [T]he ancient frame of the commonwealth is much altered in points wherein it differs in fortune and blessedness from many other commonwealths. He proceeds to get to the core of what he thinks makes Englishmen distinctive. One is that we are masters of our own and can have nothing taken from us without our consents; another that laws cannot be made without our con- sents, and the edict of a prince is not a law; the third is that the parliament is the storehouse of our liberties.3 Several ideas bear commentary here. The notion of mastery is a crucial one. In this conscious or unconscious allusion to classical ideals, Whitelocke wanted to conjure up the host of desirable values and virtues involved in being a political master. Only those who had self-mastery could govern their passions, their households and indeed take part in good government. He was not beholden to others but had attained to full, ratio- nal masculinity. The giving and withholding of consent was intimately related to mastery and freedom. In that simple act, one showed the capac- ity to determine communal destiny as regards tax or trade or whatever the matter was. Being deprived of such a power was felt to be akin to slavery – a tacit implication here but one which would, in due course, receive much airing. Nicholas Fuller’s weighty speech of 23 June, which provoked such ‘a great Silence’ in the Commons, was another example of an intervention in which deeper issues were put forward and assumptions laid bare.4 It can appear to be a straightforward and conservative plea to the King that ‘all clerks and laymen of this land shall have their laws, liberties, and free customs as largely and wholly as they have used to have the same at any time when they had them best’ yet there is more to it.5 Speaking from a lawyer’s perspective – and one with previous experience of conflict with government – he elaborates upon an argument for the ‘freedom of the subject’ that enthrones the legal inheritance of the land.6 3 Proceedings in Parliament, 1610, vol.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stapylton Final Version
    1 THE PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE OF FREEDOM FROM ARREST, 1603–1629 Keith A. T. Stapylton UCL Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2016 Page 2 DECLARATION I, Keith Anthony Thomas Stapylton, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed Page 3 ABSTRACT This thesis considers the English parliamentary privilege of freedom from arrest (and other legal processes), 1603-1629. Although it is under-represented in the historiography, the early Stuart Commons cherished this particular privilege as much as they valued freedom of speech. Previously one of the privileges requested from the monarch at the start of a parliament, by the seventeenth century freedom from arrest was increasingly claimed as an ‘ancient’, ‘undoubted’ right that secured the attendance of members, and safeguarded their honour, dignity, property, and ‘necessary’ servants. Uncertainty over the status and operation of the privilege was a major contemporary issue, and this prompted key questions for research. First, did ill definition of the constitutional relationship between the crown and its prerogatives, and parliament and its privileges, lead to tensions, increasingly polemical attitudes, and a questioning of the royal prerogative? Where did sovereignty now lie? Second, was it important to maximise the scope of the privilege, if parliament was to carry out its business properly? Did ad hoc management of individual privilege cases nevertheless have the cumulative effect of enhancing the authority and confidence of the Commons? Third, to what extent was the exploitation or abuse of privilege an unintended consequence of the strengthening of the Commons’ authority in matters of privilege? Such matters are not treated discretely, but are embedded within chapters that follow a thematic, broadly chronological approach.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Users\User1\Documents
    Date:June 3,2021 Last Web Update:September 2,2020 WHITLOCK FAMILY RESEARCH - PRINTED & ORIGINAL SOURCES R0001/20 Research by Wilfred John Whitlock - Whitlocks of Langtree, Devon to 1968 R0002/7 Whitlocks of Devon research by J.R. Powell Nov.1910 R0002A/5 Whitlocks of Warkleigh, Langtree, Parkham, Devon from Kate Johnson (nee Whitlock) June 1968 R0003/6 Photocopies of Whitelocke entries in Biographical Dictionary R0004/1 Whitlocks of Warkleigh with connection to Whitlocks of Illinois by Frank M. Whitlock 1936 R0004A/1 Whitlocks of Warkleigh descent from John Lake of Bradmore (Bodleian Library:Rawl D 287) R0004B/1 Whitlocks of Warkleigh descent from John Lake from Visitation of Devon (edit J.L. Vivian. Exeter 1895) R0005/4 Letter from M.M. Johns to Elmo Ashton re Whitlocks of Langtree, Devon R0006/2 Biography of Brand Whitlock (1869-1934) R0007/3 Whitlocks of Devon parish register extracts R0008/1 Biography of Percy Whitlock (1903-1946) from Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians from M.M. Johns R0009/1 Letter Dd. June 7,1906 from J. Stanley Wedlock of Stanley Bridge, P.E.I.. to John Whitlock of Holdsworthy (sic), Devon R0010/3 Whitlock extracts from Biographical Dictionaries from J.E.I. Wyatt R0011/2 Alumni Oxonienses, The Members of the University of Oxford, 1500-1714 by Joseph Foster from Ruth Spalding R0012/1 Biographical sketch of Thomas Whitlock (1806-1875)'s life by Rev.W.C.Beer R0013/54 Whitlocks of Berkshire descent from John Whitlock & Agnes De la Beche (M about 1454) from J. Wyatt 1969 R0014/ (renumbered) R0015/1 Newspaper clipping re 50th Wedding Anniversary of Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • DORSET AS a LOCAL MAGNATE, 1624-1642. in the Previous Chapter
    CHAPTER FIVE: DORSET AS A LOCAL MAGNATE, 1624-1642. In the previous chapter, I argued that Dorset's ecclesiastical patronage is best understood as one dimension of his local influence: most of the benefices in his gift lay near his Sussex estates, and he nearly always chose local men to serve them. 1 I now want to explore more fully Dorset's career as a provincial magnate from his inheritance of the earldom to the outbreak of civil war. I will suggest that muscle in local politics and government depended on three things above all: first, the tenure of specific offices, such as the Lord Lieutenancy of a county, or the High Stewardship of a borough; second, residence in a particular district, and the local knowledge which this yielded; and third, the location of landed estates. The first three sections of this chapter analyse how these variables interacted in Sussex, where Dorset was Lord Lieutenant from 1624, and where his territorial base was concentrated. We will see that Dorset's extensive selling of land to payoff his elder brother's debts did not per se reduce his local clout, and that the office of Lord Lieutenant retained considerable power, especially in military and fiscal matters. However, the Lord Lieutenancy did not necessarily confer electoral patronage, and it seems that Dorset's ------------------------- 1. See Chapter Four, above, pp. 242-3. -260- parliamentary candidates were most consistently successful where they had a local background. In the fourth section, I will strengthen these conclusions with evidence from outside Sussex, and suggest that recent discussion of the early Stuart electorate has tended to neglect the central conflict of interest between noblemen sponsoring their men-of-business and corporations seeking representatives with local knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Earl Marshal, the Heralds, and the House of Commons, 1604–1641
    P. H. HARDACRE THE EARL MARSHAL, THE HERALDS, AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 1604-16411 The successful reassertion of the authority of the Court of the Earl Marshal, in the recent case of the Corporation of Manchester vs. The Manchester Palace of Varieties, Ltd., has renewed interest in this ancient institution. The court ruled that The Manchester Palace of Varieties had wrongly displayed the heraldic arms of the Corporation, contrary to the laws and customs of arms, and that the court itself, which had last sat in 1751 and which Blackstone described as having fallen into contempt and disuse, was still empowered to give relief to those who thought themselves aggrieved in such matters.2 A full account of the Court of the Earl Marshal is much to be de- sired.3 It cannot be attempted in the space of this paper, but one period 1 The author gratefully acknowledges a summer fellowship at the Folger Shake- speare Library which enabled him to do part of the research. Mr. G. D. Squibb and Mr. S. E. Thorne kindly gave advice on certain points. 2 The Times (London), 22 Dec. 1954 and 22 Jan. 1955; The Full Report of the Case of the Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Manchester versus the Manchester Palace of Varieties Limited in the High Court of Chivalry on Tuesday, 21st December, 1954, The Heraldry Society, East Knoyle, Salisbury, 1955. 3 There is a voluminous literature on heraldry, some of which deals with the earl marshal. The best guide is Thomas Moule, Bibliotheca Heraldica Magnae Britanniae, London 1822; see also S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Life of Sir Edward Coke
    This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the information in books and make it universally accessible. https://books.google.com | ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ ſiſili THE LIFE OF SIR EDWARD COKE, LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND IN THE REIGN OF JAMES I. WITH MEMOIRS OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES BY CUTHBERT WILLIAM JOHNSON, Esq. OF GRAY'S INN, BARRISTER-AT-LAW. SECOND EDITION. VOL.11. 'V.:.\ ': " LONDON : HENRY COLBURN, PUBLISHER, GREAT MARLBOROUGH STREET. M.DCCCXLV. 1^ TO NEW YC?,K PUBLIC LIBRARY ASTOR, LENOX ANB TILDKN FOUNDATIONS CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. CHAPTER I. 1616—1617. Coke anxious to be restored to the favour of the court — The quarrel between Secretary Winwood and the Chancellor Bacon — Proposes a marriage between his daughter Frances and Sir John Villiers. Buckingham's brother — Lady Hatton opposes the match — Carries her daughter off — Coke discovers her retreat, and recovers possession of her — Both Coke and his wife complain to the Privy Council — Memorial written for Lady Hatton — Lady Hatton a court beauty — Her conduct to Sir Edward Coke after his disgrace — Notices of them in the gossiping letters of that period — Letter of Lady Hatton to the Privy Council — Is out of favour at court — Petition to the King — Letters of Lady CONTENTS. Hatton to Buckingham — To the King — Again restored to favour at court — Ben Jonson's " Masque of Beauty" — Coke addresses a letter to Buckingham — — States the portion he intends to give his daughter and what Lady Hatton will give —Lady Hatton's letter to Buckingham.
    [Show full text]
  • Liber Famelicus
    LIBER FAMELICUS. THIS book I began to write in, the 18 April 1609, anno 7 Jacobi regni sui Anglise, et Scotise 42. In it I en tend to set downe roemorialls for my posterity of thinges most properly concerning myself and my familye. Oculis in solem, alis in coelum. Motto de cognisance.* Vive diu Whitlocke, tuis sic utere fatis Vt referent sensus alba nee atra tuos. JAMES WHITELOCKE. My father RICHARD WHITELOCK: was the fourthe sun of Richard Whitelock, and was born in the ancient seat of the Whitelocks, called Beeches, situate neer Okingham, a market towne in the countye of Barkes, whiche land hathe continued in our blud sithence the year of our Lord 1231; for it appeerethe by a deed in my cosen William f Whitelockes hand of Beches that Robert J then bishop of Salisburye, who was lord of the manor of Sunning neer Okingham, did give to William de la Beche, out of his purpres- ture§ of Bear Wood, that verye land my cosen William Whitelock now holdethe by discent from his father, and he bathe the originall • This "motto of cognisance" refers to the arms borne by the Whitelocke family, a chevron between three falcons, or, as they are called in one pedigree, three eagles, and the crest, a like bird rising out of a tower. +• My father's elder brother's son, and heir of the family ; William the eldest being ded without issue. Note by the writer of the MS. J Robert de Bingham, bishop of Salisbury 1228—1246. § Inclosure. CAMD. 8OC. B 2 LIBER FAMELICUS.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir James Whitelocke, Chief Justice of Chester 1620-1624
    SIR JAMES WHITELOCKE, CHIEF JUSTICE OF CHESTER 1620-1624 Damian X, Powell Upon his appointment as chief justice of Chester on 29 October 1620, the newly knighted Sir James Whitelocke observed that 'the whole course of life of a professor of the law is devided into three passages' his 'time of study', his 'time of practise' ('the fruit of his studye'), and his time of service to his countrye, and that is the discharge of his civill dutye to the commonwealthe in sutche place as he shall be called unto. So he begins philosophus in getting knoledge, goethe on oeconomus in getting meanes of livelihood, ends politicus in serving his countrye.' Whitelocke's own life is best known for his vocal opposition to impositions in the 1610 parliament, a stance which may have contributed to his imprisonment in 1613 for further challenges to Crown interests over the Earl Marshal's court and a 1609 royal commission into the navy.2 Pragmatically offering to avoid Liber Famelicus of Sir James Whitelocke, a Judge of the Court of King's Bench in the reigns of James I and Charles I, ed. J. Bruce (Camden Society, O.S., X, 1858), p. 80 [hereafter Liber Famelicus}. Liber Famelicus, pp. 32-33; D. X. Powell, 'Why did James Whitelocke go to jail in 1613? "Principle" and political dissent in Jacobean England', Proceedings of the 1993 Australasian Law in History Conference (forthcoming). For biographical details cf. Dictionary of National Biography (London, 1900), LXI, pp. 117-119; R. L. Greaves & R. ZaUer, Biographical Dictionary of British Radicals in the Seventeenth Century (3 vols; Brighton, 1982), III, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Aghr Agricultural History Review. AHEW the Agrarian History of England and Wales, Ed
    Notes Abbreviations used in Notes AgHR Agricultural History Review. AHEW The Agrarian History of England and Wales, ed. J. Thirsk, vol. 4 (Cambridge, 1967); vol. 5, 2 parts (Cambridge, 1984-5). AHR American Historical Review. Barrington Letters A. Searle (ed.) The Barrington Letters, Camden Soc., 4th ser., 28 (1983). BIHR Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, since vol. 60 (1987) published as Historical Research. BL British Library. Blackwood, Lancashire B. G. Blackwood, The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion, 1640-1660, Chetham Soc., 3rd. ser., 25 (1978). Bod. L Bodleian Library, Oxford. Cholmley Sir Hugh Cholmley, Memoirs (1787). Clenennau Letters T. Pierce (ed.) The Clenennau Letters in the Brogyntyn Collection, National Library of Wales Journal, ser. iv, pt i (1947). Cliffe, Puritan Gentry J. T. Cliffe, The Puritan Gentry: The Great Puritan Families of Early Stuart England (1984). Cliffe, Yorkshire J. T. Cliffe, The Yorkshire Gentry from the Reformation to the Civil War (1969). CRO Cornwall Record Office. CSPD Calendar of State Papers Domestic. CUL Cambridge University Library. D'Ewes J. O. Halliwell (ed.) The Autobiography of Sir Simonds D'Ewes, 2 vols (1845). DNB Dictionary of National Biography. DRO Dorset Record Office. EcHR Economic History Review. EHR English Historical Review. Fletcher, Sussex A. Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War. Sussex, 1600-1660 (1975). PSL Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC. Guise Memoirs G. Davies (ed.) The Autobiography of Thomas Raymond and the Memoirs of the Family of Guise of Elmore, Gloucestershire, Camden Soc., 3rd ser., 28 (1917). Harley Letters T. T. Lewis (ed.) Letters of the Lady Brilliana Harley, wife of Sir Robert Harley, Camden Soc., old ser., 58, (1854).
    [Show full text]
  • Commoning of the Common Law: the Renaissance Debate Over Printing English Law, 1520-1640
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 146 JANUARY1998 No. 2 ARTICLES THE COMMONING OF THE COMMON LAW: THE RENAISSANCE DEBATE OVER PRINTING ENGLISH LAW, 1520-1640 RIGHARDJ. Rosst I. WHYWAs ITACCEPTABLE TO PRINT IAW? ........................................... 329 A. H umanism ..................................................................................... 329 t Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. J.D. Yale, 1989; M. Phil. Yale, 1990. For comments and advice, I would like to thank Mary Bilder, Edward Cook, John Demos, Charles Donahue, Richard Epstein, Charles Gray, Peter Hoffer, Morton Horwitz, Stanley Katz, Daniel Klerman, David Lieberman, William Novak, Barbara Shapiro, Peter Stein, James Whitman, and participants in workshops at Harvard, New York University, and the University of Chicago. I especially benefited from the challenging questions of Thomas Green, Richard Helmholz, Steven Pincus, Jacqueline Ross, and Steven Wil. Joanna Grisinger provided excellent research assis- tance. I am grateful for the financial assistance of the Frieda and Arnold Shure Fund and the Bernard G. Sang Fund. (323) 324 UN!VERSITY OFPENNSYLVANIA LAWREVIEW [Vol. 146:323 B. Protestantism.................................................................................. 342 II. THE DEBATE OVER THE RISKS AND ADVANTAGES OF PUBLISHING LAW: PUBLICISTS AND ANTI-PUBLICISTS .............................................. 352 A. ForensicBoundaries .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Memorial Culture of Early Modern English Lawyers: Memory As Keyword, Shelter, and Identity, 1560-1640
    Article The Memorial Culture of Early Modern English Lawyers: Memory as Keyword, Shelter, and Identity, 1560-1640 Richard J. Ross* Between 1580 and 1640, memory became increasingly important in diverse areas of English legal culture: in education, in historical and antiquarian writing, in the bar's understanding of its social role, in the organization of legal literature, in political argument, in mediation between national courts and local remembered law, and in the * Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School. For comments and advice, I would like to thank Edward Cook, John Demos, Daniel Ernst, Jonathan Fine, Robert Gordon, Thomas Green, Hendrik Hartog, Richard Helmholz, Peter Hoffer, Stanley Katz, David Konig, David Lieberman, William Novak, A.G. Roeber, Jacqueline Ross, A.W.B. Simpson, Peter Stein, Christopher Tomlins, James Whitman, and those who attended workshops at Yale, Princeton, New York University, Georgetown, and the University of Chicago. Joanna Grisinger and Gary Rubin provided excellent research assistance. I am grateful for the financial assistance of the Frieda and Arnold Shure Fund and the Bernard G. Sang Fund. I have modernized spelling, punctuation, and capitalization in all quotations from primary sources (including titles of works listed in the text and footnotes). I have consulted English legal manuscripts on microfilm or microfiche, except for works at Harvard Law Library's Rare Book Room, the University of Chicago's Special Collections, Yale's Beinecke Library, and the Free Library of Philadelphia, which I examined in person. 229 Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, Vol. 10, Iss. 2 [1998], Art. 1 Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • The English Radical Whig Origins of American Constitutionalism
    Washington University Law Review Volume 70 Issue 1 January 1992 The English Radical Whig Origins of American Constitutionalism David N. Mayer Capital University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons Recommended Citation David N. Mayer, The English Radical Whig Origins of American Constitutionalism, 70 WASH. U. L. Q. 131 (1992). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol70/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ENGLISH RADICAL WHIG ORIGINS OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM DAVID N. MAYER* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 131 A. "Liberalism" Versus "Civic Republicanism"." A False Debate ............................................... 133 B. "Whiggism" A Restored Understanding............... 138 II. THE EVOLUTION OF ANGLO-AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM: THE DUAL HERITAGE OF SOVEREIGNTY AND FUNDAMENTAL LAW ................. 141 III. VOICES OF DISSENT: THREE GENERATIONS OF "REAL W HIGS" ..... ............................................ 161 IV. THE SUBSTANCE OF WHIG CONSTITUTIONALISM ........... 174 A. "Black-Letter" Texts: The Whig Common-Law Tradition............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lives of Eminent Serjeants-At-Law of the English
    This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the information in books and make it universally accessible. https://books.google.com II I I I .Ml J I I I M I 3 3433 00866722 6 ■. Hv>:N^x LIVES OF EMINENT SERJEANTS-AT-LAW. LIVES OK EMINENT SERJEANTS-AT-LAW OV TUB ENGLISH BAR. BY HUMPHRY WILLIAM WOOLKYCtf, Serjeant-aULaw. IN TWO VOLUMES. „ - . .*. VOL. I. ' ";':: ;D:' ^' / LONDON: Wm. H. ALLEN & CO., 13, WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL. 8.W. 18G9. i D0»SEP13/'i Lew1s & Son, Printers, Swan Bu1ldings, Moorgalc Street. TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE EARL OF DERBY, K.G., HER MAJESTY'S MOST HONOURABLE PRIVY COUNCIL. Chancellor of tjjt Unibttsits of ftgftrt, "LIVES OF EMINENT SERJEANTS,? WITH HIS LOHDSHIP S PF.11MISSIOK, ARE RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED. LIST OF THE SERJEANTS CONTAINED IN THESE LIVES. 1. ADAIR. 30. HOSKINS. 2. BARHAM. 31. KELYNG. 3. BARNARDI8TON. 32. LEEDS. 4. BENDLOES. 33. LENS. 5. BOND, NATHANIEL. 34. MAYNARD. 6. BOND, GEORGE. 35. METHOLD. 7. BONYTHON. 36. MORE. 8. CALLICE. 37. ONSLOW. 9. CARTHEW. 38. PELL. 10. CHAUNCEY. 39. PLOWDEN. 11. CHES8HYRE. 40. PRIME. 12. CONYERS, WILLIAM. 41. ROW. 13. CONYERS, TBISTRAM. 42. SALKELD. 14. CREW. 43. SELLON. 15. DARNALL, JOHN, Sek1ob. 44. SHEPHERD. 16. DARNALL, JOHN, JVNIOB. 45. SKINNER. 17. DAVYS. 46. SKIPWITH. 18. DAVY. 47. STRODE, GEORGE 19. FINCH. 48. STRODE, THOMAS 20. FLEETWOOD. 49. THOMPSON. 21. GLANVILK. 50. TOLLER. 22. GLYN. 51. TREMAINE. 23. HABDBES. 52. TRENCHARD. 24. HAWKINS. 53. WHITAKER. 25. HELE. 54. WHITLOCKE. 26. HEYWOOD. 55.
    [Show full text]