DOCSLIB.ORG

Law of Contract July 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Law of Contract July 2010 LEVEL 6 - UNIT 12 – PUBLIC LAW SUGGESTED ANSWERS - JUNE 2016 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students should have included in their answers to the June 2016 examinations. The suggested answers set out a response that a good (merit/distinction) candidate would have provided. The suggested answers do not for all questions set out all the points which students may have included in their responses to the questions. Students will have received credit, where applicable, for other points not addressed by the suggested answers. Students and tutors should review the suggested answers in conjunction with the question papers and the Chief Examiners’ reports which provide feedback on student performance in the examination. SECTION A Question 1(a) Meaning of parliamentary sovereignty The traditional definition of parliamentary sovereignty is that of AV Dicey: (i) that Parliament can make or unmake any law whatever; (ii) that no other person or body (including the courts) is able to question the validity of an Act of Parliament. The modern concept of Parliamentary sovereignty can be traced back to the 17th century struggle between the Crown and Parliament for supremacy, culminating in the Bill of Rights 1689. The principle was subsequently accepted by the courts. The so-called ‘enrolled Act rule’ illustrates the courts’ reluctance to scrutinise primary legislation. In Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope (1842) the claimant attempted to challenge the validity of an Act, arguing that proper procedures had not been followed; the House of Lords rejected this argument. As Pickin v BRB (1974) shows, the courts cannot ensure that proper parliamentary procedures have actually been observed; all they can do is to check that the Act has been certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments as having been properly passed. There are many illustrations that support Dicey’s view of Parliament’s unlimited legislative competence. For example, statute may amend the constitution (e.g. Bill of Rights 1689, European Communities Act 1972, Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’) to list just a few constitutionally significant statutes); statute has priority Page 1 of 17 over international law (Mortensen v Peters (1906)) and may have retrospective effect (Burmah Oil Co v Lord Advocate (1965)). Conversely, although Parliament remains sovereign, the one thing that it cannot do is to achieve supremacy over subsequent Parliaments; i.e. it cannot bind its successors. A later Parliament may expressly repeal any Act passed by a previous Parliament. Moreover, the courts have adopted the doctrine of implied repeal; where two statutes are inconsistent, the later statute will impliedly repeal the earlier statute insofar as there is inconsistency (Ellen Street Estates v Minister of Health (1934)). However, in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (2002) Laws LJ obiter qualified the traditional doctrine by distinguishing between ‘ordinary’ and ‘constitutional’ statutes, such as the European Communities Act 1972, the HRA and the Scotland Act 1998. A constitutional statute is one that governs the legal relationship between citizen and state in some general, overarching manner, or changes the scope of fundamental constitutional rights. In Laws LJ’s view constitutional statutes cannot be impliedly repealed. Recently, Lord Hope, in the Supreme Court case of H v Lord Advocate (2012), offered support for Thoburn by stating obiter that the Scotland Act could not be impliedly repealed due to its ‘fundamental constitutional nature’. Furthermore, in R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport (2014), the Supreme Court suggested obiter that there were certain fundamental constitutional principles, whether contained in statute or common law, that Parliament did not intend to override when enacting the European Communities Act 1972. It appears, therefore, that implied repeal may not necessarily apply where there is a conflict between two constitutional statutes. 1(b) Impact of the HRA Parliamentary sovereignty is, however, no longer considered to be unqualified, and is subject to certain limitations arising, for example, from the HRA. The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty which guarantees rights such as the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of religion, expression and assembly. The HRA incorporates key Convention rights into domestic law. However, the incorporation has been described as ‘soft’ as Parliament was keen to preserve parliamentary sovereignty. Section 3 obliges the courts to interpret primary and secondary legislation in a way which gives effect to Convention rights, ‘so far as it is possible to do so’. Thus, in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza (2004) the House of Lords interpreted a provision in the Rent Act 1977 that protected the original tenant’s surviving spouse as including the tenant’s surviving same-sex partner. Conversely, in Bellinger v Bellinger (2003) the House of Lords held that it could not interpret the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to include post-operative transsexual people as that would have crossed the boundary from interpreting to legislating, which was Parliament’s role; instead the House made a declaration of incompatibility (below). These cases illustrate that, while the courts use s.3 flexibly, they nonetheless respect parliamentary sovereignty. Page 2 of 17 If the High Court or above is unable to interpret a statute compatibly with Convention rights, s.4 empowers it to declare the statute to be incompatible with the Convention (a ‘declaration of incompatibility’). Crucially, however, parliamentary sovereignty is maintained as this does not invalidate the legislation: the offending statute remains in force and any declaration of incompatibility does not bind the parties to the action (s.4(6)). Where a declaration of incompatibility has been made, the government may amend the legislation by using the ‘fast-track’ procedure created by s.10 enabling a Minister to amend the incompatible legislation by making a ‘remedial order’ where there are ‘compelling reasons’ to do so. Alternatively, the government may submit a Bill to Parliament. There is usually political pressure on the government to amend the offending legislation. Accordingly, after Bellinger the law was changed. However, the HRA does not oblige the government to change the law, and if it does not the offending statute will remain in force. Finally, s.19 obliges ministers introducing a Bill into Parliament to make a statement that the Bill is compatible with Convention rights or that, despite being unable to make such a statement, the government nevertheless wishes to proceed with the Bill. Accordingly, s.19 enables Parliament to enact legislation that violates Convention rights. So the HRA does aim to preserve parliamentary sovereignty. Although the HRA is a constitutional statute, it can be expressly repealed. Until recently, many commentators thought that political constraints meant that this was unlikely, as the HRA protects fundamental rights. However, it is now Conservative Party policy to repeal it and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, and following the May 2015 election the government is consulting on this possibility. Question 2(a) Meaning of royal prerogative Constitutionally, the royal prerogative encompasses special powers, rights and immunities peculiar to the Crown, deriving historically from the common law and not therefore conferred by Parliament. Dicey identified the royal prerogative as ‘the residue of arbitrary authority which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the Crown’, thereby describing their residual nature and the courts’ role in determining whether a prerogative power claimed actually exists. Examples of prerogative powers include treaty-making, declarations of war and deployment of the armed forces, the granting of royal assent, the prerogative of mercy and the issuing of passports. While prerogative powers are vested in the Monarch, in practice they are either exercised by the Monarch on the advice of the government or by the government in the Monarch’s name. 2(b) Relationship between the prerogative and statute As prerogative powers are effectively exercised by the executive, a key issue is the extent to which they are subject to legal control. Owing to the constitutional doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, prerogative powers may be modified by statute. Aspects of the prerogative have therefore been expressly abolished by Page 3 of 17 statute. Examples include the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 which altered the immunities of the Crown in relation to civil proceedings (e.g. the Crown’s tortious liability) and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 which removed the Monarch’s power to dissolve Parliament. Similarly the War Damage Act 1965 altered aspects of the prerogative by removing the government’s obligation to pay compensation where British forces had damaged or destroyed British-owned property in wartime. This Act in effect reversed Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate (1965) where the House of Lords had held that at common law the government was required to pay compensation in those circumstances. The courts have also upheld the ability of statutes impliedly to curtail aspects of the prerogative. In A-G v De Keyser’s Royal Hotel (1920) the House of Lords held that, where statute gave rights of compensation following requisition of property for government purposes, the use of prerogative powers to requisition without paying compensation was curtailed. This case did not involve an ‘abuse’ of prerogative powers as such, but does show statutory restriction of the use of such powers. Laker Airways v Department of Trade (1977) confirmed the superiority of statutory powers. The government tried to revoke Laker Airways’ licence to fly to the USA, ignoring statutory procedures and relying instead on the prerogative powers. The court, however, insisted that the government should follow statutory procedures. Moreover, R v Home Secretary, ex p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • British Royal Banners 1199–Present
    British Royal Banners 1199 – Present Geoff Parsons & Michael Faul Abstract The presentation begins with the (accepted) date of 1199, the death of King Richard I, the first king known to have used the three gold lions on red. It continues to show how King Edward III added the French Royal Arms, consequent to his claim to the French throne. There is then the change from “France Ancient” to “France Modern” by King Henry IV in 1405, which set the pattern of the arms and the standard for the next 198 years. The story then proceeds to show how, over the ensuing 234 years, there were no fewer than six versions of the standard until the adoption of the present pattern in 1837. The presentation includes pictures of all the designs, noting that, in the early stages, the arms appeared more often as a surcoat than a flag. There is also some anecdotal information regarding the various patterns. Anne (1702–1714) Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Vexillology, Washington, D.C., USA 1–5 August 2011 © 2011 North American Vexillological Association (www.nava.org) 799 British Royal Banners 1199 – Present Figure 1 Introduction The presentation begins with the (accepted) date of 1199, the death of King Richard I, the first king known to have used the three gold lions on red. Although we often refer to these flags as Royal Standards, strictly speaking, they are not standard but heraldic banners which are based on the Coats of Arms of the British Monarchs. Figure 2 William I (1066–1087) The first use of the coats of arms would have been exactly that, worn as surcoats by medieval knights.
    [Show full text]
  • ISBN: 978-88-942588-0-6 1 GATES NO FRONTIERS Images and Memories Beyond the War Photo Exhibition Edited by Osservatorio Di Genere
    ISBN: 978-88-942588-0-6 1 GATES NO FRONTIERS Images and Memories beyond the War Photo exhibition edited by Osservatorio di Genere This communication reflects only the point of view of the author; the European Commission is not responsible for any possible use of it 2 Index Preface p. 5 Hungary 46 The logo 7 Historical Context: Hungary from 1945 47 The Project “Walls and Integration” 8 Budapest – 1945. View from the Royal Palace 49 Event 1 - Gates No Frontiers 10 (kilátás a Királyi Palotától) Spain 14 1945. The colleagues of Radio Free Europe are 51 1967 - Geneve – Spanish migrants at passport 15 packing balloons full of propaganda material control Hungary– Gerberstrasse, 1982. The image of 53 1977– Barcelona – Gay Pride demonstration 18 the Soviet “bloc”. 1987 – Gijón – working class mobilizations 21 Hungary – 1989. Dismantle of the “Iron Curtain” 55 against industrial dismantlement on the Austrian-Hungarian border (a “vasfügg 2014 – Melilla – golf course next to the fence 24 öny” lebontása a magyar–osztrák határon). with the Moroccan border Chronology 57 Asturias 27 Lithuania 58 Context Sheet: Asturias from 1940 to 1980 28 Historical Context: Lithuania 59 Imprenta 1954 - Pareya en vespa 1965 30 Chronology 65 Dìa de la Cultura 1976 32 Ukraine 66 Xura de bandera 1984 34 Historical Context: Ukraine 67 Germany 36 Kyiv - 1957. Some partecipants in the Congress 69 Ludwigsburg – 9 September, 1962. Charles de 37 of the World Federation of Democratic Youth Gaulle during his visit in Germany Central State Cine-Photo-Phono-Archive of Amsterdam – 10 March, 1966. The (difficult) 39 Ukraine “H.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading the Irish Woman: Studies in Cultural Encounter and Exchange, 1714–1960
    Reading the Irish Woman: Studies in Cultural Encounter and Exchange, 1714–1960 Meaney, Reading the Irish Woman.indd 1 15/07/2013 12:33:33 Reappraisals in Irish History Editors Enda Delaney (University of Edinburgh) Maria Luddy (University of Warwick) Reappraisals in Irish History offers new insights into Irish history, society and culture from 1750. Recognising the many methodologies that make up historical research, the series presents innovative and interdisciplinary work that is conceptual and interpretative, and expands and challenges the common understandings of the Irish past. It showcases new and exciting scholarship on subjects such as the history of gender, power, class, the body, landscape, memory and social and cultural change. It also reflects the diversity of Irish historical writing, since it includes titles that are empirically sophisticated together with conceptually driven synoptic studies. 1. Jonathan Jeffrey Wright, The ‘Natural Leaders’ and their World: Politics, Culture and Society in Belfast, c.1801–1832 Meaney, Reading the Irish Woman.indd 2 15/07/2013 12:33:33 Reading the Irish Woman Studies in Cultural Encounter and Exchange, 1714–1960 GerArdiNE MEANEY, MARY O’Dowd AND BerNAdeTTE WHelAN liVerPool UNIVersiTY Press Meaney, Reading the Irish Woman.indd 3 15/07/2013 12:33:33 reading the irish woman First published 2013 by Liverpool University Press 4 Cambridge Street Liverpool L69 7ZU Copyright © 2013 Gerardine Meaney, Mary O’Dowd and Bernadette Whelan The rights of Gerardine Meaney, Mary O’Dowd and Bernadette Whelan to be identified as the authors of this book have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Annual Report 2020
    2020Annual Report Report published by the Supreme Court of Ireland with the support of the Courts Service An tSeirbhís Chúirteanna Courts Service Editors: Sarahrose Murphy, Senior Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice Patrick Conboy, Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice Case summaries prepared by the following Judicial Assistants: Aislinn McCann Seán Beatty Iseult Browne Senan Crawford Orlaith Cross Katie Cundelan Shane Finn Matthew Hanrahan Cormac Hickey Caoimhe Hunter-Blair Ciara McCarthy Rachael O’Byrne Mary O’Rourke Karl O’Reilly © Supreme Court of Ireland 2020 2020 Annual Report Table of Contents Foreword by the Chief Justice 6 Introduction by the Registrar of the Supreme Court 9 2020 at a glance 11 Part 1 About the Supreme Court of Ireland 15 Branches of Government in Ireland 16 Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 17 Structure of the Courts of Ireland 19 Timeline of key events in the Supreme Court’s history 20 Seat of the Supreme Court 22 The Supreme Court Courtroom 24 Journey of a typical appeal 26 Members of the Supreme Court 30 The Role of the Chief Justice 35 Retirement and Appointments 39 The Constitution of Ireland 41 Depositary for Acts of the Oireachtas 45 Part 2 The Supreme Court in 2020 46 COVID-19 and the response of the Court 47 Remote hearings 47 Practice Direction SC21 48 Application for Leave panels 48 Statement of Case 48 Clarification request 48 Electronic delivery of judgments 49 Sitting in King’s Inns 49 Statistics 50 Applications for Leave to Appeal 50 Categorisation of Applications for Leave to Appeal
    [Show full text]
  • A Letter from Ireland
    A Letter from Ireland Mike Collins lives just outside Cork City, Ireland. He travels around the island of Ireland with his wife, Carina, taking pictures and listening to stories about families, names and places. He and Carina blog about these stories and their travels at: www.YourIrishHeritage.com A Letter from Ireland Irish Surnames, Counties, Culture and Travel Mike Collins Your Irish Heritage First published 2014 by Your Irish Heritage Email: [email protected] Website: www.youririshheritage.com © Mike Collins 2014 All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilised in any form or any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or in any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author. All quotations have been reproduced with original spelling and punctuation. All errors are the author’s own. ISBN: 978-1499534313 PICTURE CREDITS All Photographs and Illustrative materials are the authors own. DESIGN Cover design by Ian Armstrong, Onevision Media Your Irish Heritage Old Abbey Waterfall, Cork, Ireland DEDICATION This book is dedicated to Carina, Evan and Rosaleen— my own Irish Heritage—and the thousands of readers of Your Irish Heritage who make the journey so wonderfully worthwhile. Contents Preface ...................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................ 4 Section 1: Your Irish Surname .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Revue Française De Civilisation Britannique, XIX-2
    Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique French Journal of British Studies XIX-2 | 2014 La grande famine en irlande, 1845-1851 The Great Famine in Ireland, 1845-1851 Anne-Catherine de Bouvier et Christophe Gillissen (dir.) Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/194 DOI : 10.4000/rfcb.194 ISSN : 2429-4373 Éditeur CRECIB - Centre de recherche et d'études en civilisation britannique Édition imprimée Date de publication : 1 septembre 2014 ISSN : 0248-9015 Référence électronique Anne-Catherine de Bouvier et Christophe Gillissen (dir.), Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique, XIX-2 | 2014, « La grande famine en irlande, 1845-1851 » [En ligne], mis en ligne le 18 novembre 2014, consulté le 09 mai 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/194 ; DOI : https://doi.org/ 10.4000/rfcb.194 Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 9 mai 2020. Revue française de civilisation britannique est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International. 1 SOMMAIRE Foreword H.E. Rory Montgomery Introduction Anne-Catherine de Bouvier et Christophe Gillissen Articles L’échec programmé de la Loi sur les Pauvres Anne-Catherine de Bouvier Les causes de la mortalité pendant la Grande Famine Philippe Brillet The British Relief Association and the Great Famine in Ireland Christine Kinealy ‘Il y a des larmes dans leurs chiffres’: French Famine Relief for Ireland, 1847-84 Grace Neville ‘And this in thriving and prosperous Antrim!’: An
    [Show full text]
  • The Historical Process of the Two Constitutions in Ireland
    ௐ 3 ഇ! ࢱ 57-81! 2019 ѐ/ࡌ؞ཱི !ס έ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώ! ௐ 15 Taiwan International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 57-81 Autumn 2019 愛爾蘭兩部憲法的歷史進程 ࡰ஽ܲ ૩̋ࡊԫ̂ጯઘିચܜ ၡ ࢋ Ą1922 ѐߏдຑႬᜋڱຑႬᜋд 1922 ѐͽ̈́ 1937 ѐЧѣ˘ొጳ ĻĄڱؠ˞˘ొ·႕ࡻ઼О੃۞ĺຑႬᜋҋϤ֣ጳטҋϤ֣۞֗Њ˭Ă ࡻ۞̚ڱѐ۞ 15 ѐมĂຑႬᜋు႙ᕚ௲ҋϤ֣ጳ 1937 זଂ 1922 ѐ ९Ļڱѐ۞ĺຑႬᜋВ׶઼ 1948 זۡ˘Ąڱؠ˞າ۞ጳט৵Ă઼̮ ܜјڱࡻ઼үࠎຑႬᜋ΃நˠ۞ܑᇈĄ఺ቔኢ͛ଂ఺׌ొጳ˞̖ͤ̚ ؠטڱజതϔ઼छдጳژ።Ϋซ඀Ăͽ̈́׎ٙ΃ܑ۞পঅӣཌྷĂ̶۞ ԼតĄڱγ˧̒ᕘĂͽ̈́િૻ઼୉ᄮТٙ૲ֽ۞ጳ۞צ࿅඀̚ᅮٚ ९ڱᙯᔣෟĈຑႬᜋҋϤ֣ăࡻຑ୧ࡗăຑႬᜋВ׶઼ ăௐ 3 ഇĞ2019/ࡌ؞ཱིğס Įέ៉઼ᅫࡁտ؞Ώįௐ 15 58 壹、前言 ன̫೼࿆ᄮۢ۞ຑႬᜋफ˯̶јຑႬᜋВ׶઼ĞࡗҫБफࢬ᎕۞̶̱ ࡻ઼۞ΔຑႬᜋĞࡗҫБफ۞̶̱̝ٺΔొᔴᛳڌğͽ̈́дຑႬᜋफ̣̝ ຑႬᜋफ˯۞ᄮۢݒ̙ߏ఺ᇹĄдགྷ።˞ 700ٺğĄ൒҃Ă100 ѐ݈၆˘ Ă1916 ѐ۞ೇ߿༼੓ཌྷߏҋຑႬᜋ 1798ޢͽ̙̈́ᕝ۞ͅԩڼкѐ۞ࡻ઼௚ Ķࡻ઼۞П፟ಶߏຑႬᜋ۞ᖼ፟ķĂ༊ܫ྅ྻજĄિڠ౵ࢦࢋ۞ޢѐ੓ཌྷ ޢࡻ઼ણᄃௐ˘Ѩ͵ࠧ̂ጼॡӈ೩ֻ˞ຑႬᜋ੓ཌྷ۞፟ົĄ൒҃Ă̱͇̝ ຑႬـ֏Ăజᄮࠎߏ఼ކ༼ᗉᑅĂ࢕ְ˯ԆБεୀĂҭ˵൴ܑ˞ೇ߿זዎ ޙຑႬᜋٙᓝҖ۞ᏴᓝĂ༊͹ૺ۞ޢᜋВ׶઼۞ࢦࢋ֧඀༫Ąೇ߿༼੓ཌྷ ᛨĞSinn Féinğᛏ଀߆ᝋĂ֭ͷኚϠ˞ 1922 ѐĺຑ܆ϲຑႬᜋВ׶઼۞າ ᛨд 1932 ѐεΝ߆ᝋĂజ܆າޢĻĄд።གྷ 10 ѐ۞ે߆ڱႬᜋҋϤ֣ጳ ٺᙯ̚ڱ΃Ăд࣒ጳ۞࿅඀̚ຑႬᜋВ׶ᛨుՎᆿੵጳפຑႬᜋВ׶ᛨٙ Ąڱؠາ۞ጳטѐ 1937 ٺ෪ᇈĂ֭۞ވࡻ઼ͳ ።Ϋซ඀ĄϤ۞ڱຑႬᜋ 1922 ѐͽ̈́ 1937 ѐ׌ొጳٺ఺ቔኢ͛඾ࢦ ăטጳ߆វ̝ڱԛј̝ॡ۩ࡦഀЧளĂЧ઼ጳڱЧ઼ۤົ୧І̙ТĂጳٺ ЈăۤົయЇඈఢቑӮЧѣ׎পঅ҂ณĂܫି؟ᝋ˧ඕၹăˠϔᝋӀٕߏ ୧͛ࠎ͹คҬͼྵᙱࠎέ៉࠹ᙯᛉᗟ೩΍ኢࢗĄࠖѩĂඊ۰ڱ࣐ͽଣ੅ጳ ୧ٕ͛ߏጳ߆௡ᖐઇ࿅кྚ۞ڱдѩቔኢ̙֭͛̚ົ੫၆ຑႬᜋ׌ొጳ ԛј۞።Ϋࡦഀͽ̈́পঅӣཌྷĂ֭ྏဦڱд఺׌ొጳٸᛖĂώኢ͛൏ᕇ૟ ጳ࿅඀ֽͅߍజതϔ઼छ۞ೌݖ൑؉ͽ̈́િૻ઼୉ᄮТٙ૲טᖣϤຑႬᜋ ԼតĄ۞ֽ 貳、律法演變中的英愛關係 ଂҘ̮ 1171 ѐᘲ੺ିົᆿੵ˞ຑႬᜋ੼ͳᝋĞHigh Kingship of Ăࡻॾᜋ۞઼ͳд၁ኳ˯ಶߏຑႬޢIrelandğĂྋ೸˞ຑႬᜋ۞Οҁͳ઼ ຑႬᜋĄ1541 ѐຑႬᜋᛉڼᜋ۞͹ᝋ෪ᇈĂ֭ͽᅳ͹Ğlordshipğ۞̶֗௚ ९ĻĞCrown of Ireland Act 1542ğĂଂѩຑႬᜋڱވ఼࿅˞ĺຑႬᜋͳົ ።Ϋซ඀ 59۞ڱຑႬᜋ׌ొጳ ඕЪд˘੓ĞWikipedia 2019ağĄ၆ܮᅳ͹гҜᄃࡻ઼઼ͳ఺׌࣎ᐝᅟ۞ ९ĻඈТڱވȈˣ͵ࡔٙᎸ੓۞ຑႬᜋϔ୉͹ཌྷ۰҃֏ĂѩĺຑႬᜋͳٺ ڠĂຑႬᜋˠ۞ͅԩ֭Ϗ௣ͤĄ1798 ѐ۞˭̝ڼĄдࡻॾᜋ۞௚ڱӌ׀ٺ ९ĻĞAct of Union 1801ğĄڱĂมତ๊ܳ˞ 1801 ѐ۞ĺᓑ༖ޢ྅Җજεୀ ࡻٺ९Ļ۞ϫ۞ߏдᆿੵຑႬᜋᛉົĂ֭ϤຑႬᜋ۞ 134 Щјࣶڱĺᓑ༖ ෴ைͽ̈́ᙑᄃܛன۞ع९Ļдࡻ઼߆ڱᛉੰ̚΃ܑຑႬᜋĄѩĺᓑ༖˭઼ ၷ᜖˭ĂдຑႬᜋᛉົ̚ͽ
    [Show full text]
  • William Pitt the Younger William Pitt the Younger (28 May 1759 – 23 January 1806) Was a Prominent British Tory Statesman of the Late 18Th and Early 19Th Centuries
    William Pitt the Younger William Pitt the Younger (28 May 1759 – 23 January 1806) was a prominent British Tory statesman of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. He became the youngest Prime Minister in 1783 at the age of 24. He left office in 1801, but was Prime Minister again from 1804 until his death in 1806. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer for most of his time as Prime Minister. He is known as "the Younger" to distinguish him from his father, William Pitt the Elder, who had previously served as Prime Minister. The younger Pitt's prime ministerial tenure, which came during the reign of George III, was dominated by major events in Europe, including the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Pitt, although often referred to as a Tory, or "new Tory", called himself an "independent Whig" and was generally opposed to the development of a strict partisan political system. He led Britain in the great wars against France and Napoleon. Pitt was an outstanding administrator who worked for efficiency and reform, bringing in a new generation of outstanding administrators. He raised taxes to pay for the great war against France and cracked down on radicalism. To meet the threat of Irish support for France, he engineered the Acts of Union 1800 and tried (but failed) to get Catholic Emancipation as part of the Union. He created the "new Toryism", which revived the Tory Party and enabled it to stay in power for the next quarter-century. The historian Asa Briggs argues that his personality did not endear itself to the British mind, for Pitt was too solitary, too colourless, and too often exuded superiority.
    [Show full text]
  • The British Isles= ______+ ______• the UK = Great Britain + Northern Ireland
    • The UK= __________ + _________ • Great Britain= _____ + ________ + ________ • The British Isles= ___________ + __________ • The UK = _Great Britain_ + _Northern Ireland_ • Great Britain = _England_ + _Wales_ + _Scotland_ • The British Isles = _the UK_ + _Ireland_ The UK = Great Britain + Northern Ireland • United Kingdom, island country located off the northwestern coast of mainland Europe. The United Kingdom comprises the whole of the island of Great Britain—which contains England,Wales, and Scotland—as well as the northern portion of the island of Ireland. The capital is London , which is among the world’s leading commercial, financial, and cultural centres. Other major cities include: • Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester in England, • Belfast and Londonderry in Northern Ireland, • Edinburgh and Glasgow in Scotland, • Swansea and Cardiff in Wales. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/615557/United-Kingdom Great Britain = England + Wales + Scotland • Great Britain , also known as Britain , is an island in the Atlantic Ocean, off the north-western coast of continental Europe. • It is the ninth largest island in the world and the largest island in Europe. • With a population of about 62 million people in mid- 2010, it is the third most populous island in the world, after Java (Indonesia) and Honshū (Japan). • It is surrounded by over 1,000 smaller islands and islets. • Politically, Great Britain refers to the island together with a number of surrounding islands, which constitute the territory of England, Scotland and Wales. • The island is part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, constituting most of its territory: most of England, Scotland and Wales are on the island of Great Britain, with their respective capital cities, London, Edinburgh and Cardiff.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime, Deviance, and the Social Discovery of Moral Panic In
    UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON FACULTY OF HUMANITIES History Volume 1 of 1 Crime, Deviance, and the Social Discovery of Moral Panic in Eighteenth Century London, 1712-1790 by Christopher Thomas Hamerton Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy November 2016 ABSTRACT This thesis utilises the theoretical device of Folk Devils and Moral Panics, instigated by Stanley Cohen and developed by Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda, to explore the discovery of, and social response to, crime and deviance in eighteenth- century London. The thesis argues that London and its media in the eighteenth- century can be identified as the initiating historical site for what might now be termed public order moral panics. The scholarly foundation for this hypothesis is provided by two extensively researched chapters which evaluate and contextualise the historiography of public opinion and media alongside the unique character and power located within the burgeoning metropolis. This foundation is followed by a trio of supportive case studies, which examine and inform on novel historical episodes of social deviance and criminality. These episodes are selected to replicate a sequence of observable folk devils within Cohen’s original typology – youth violence, substance abuse, and predatory sex offending. Which are transposed historically as the Mohocks in 1712, Madam Geneva between 1720-1751, and the London Monster in 1790. Taken together, these three episodes provide historical lineage of moral panic which traverses much of the eighteenth-century, allowing for social change, and points of convergence and divergence, to be observed. Furthermore, these discrete episodes of moral panic are used to reveal the social problems of the eighteenth-century capital that informed the control narratives that followed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Union in Court: Allister and Others' Application for Judicial Review
    Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly Advance Vol. 72 AD1 (2021): 91–114 Commentaries and Notes DOI: 10.53386/nilq.v72iAD1.943 The Union in court: Allister and others’ Application for Judicial Review [2021] NIQB 64 Anurag Deb* Queen’s University Belfast Correspondence email: [email protected] INTRODUCTION n hour before the end of 2020, the Brexit implementation period Aended in the United Kingdom (UK). In much of the European Union (EU), 2021 had already begun. From that time, the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (the Protocol) to the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and EU1 has governed much of everyday life in Northern Ireland, but not Great Britain. A mere seven months on, the Protocol has had a tumultuous journey, with London and Brussels exchanging sharp words over its implementation, while nervously watching empty supermarket shelves and rising sectarian tensions in Northern Ireland. On 30 June 2021, the Northern Ireland High Court handed down judgment in Allister and others’ application for judicial review,2 in which the Protocol and its attendant legislation were challenged on multiple grounds. In a dense, comprehensive and keenly awaited judgment, Mr Justice Colton dismissed all five grounds of an extraordinary challenge. The unenviable difficulty of delving into the roots of the famously uncodified UK constitution was compounded by the febrile politics surrounding the Protocol itself. Colton J’s efforts are, therefore, considerable and commendable. In what follows, I examine the facts of the case before turning to the judgment in three main sections: first, its implications for * I am grateful to Dr Conor McCormick and to the anonymous peer reviewer for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this piece.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Political System (Allied- Political Science to History And
    Contemporary political system (Allied- Political science to History and Economics) Paper name: Contemporary political system Paper code:18BPO23C Class: II BA Allied Economics and History Faculty name: V. Senthil Kumar Contact: 9944004231 Unit-2 Political system of the Great Britain The history of the constitution of the United Kingdom concerns the evolution of UK constitutional law from the formation of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland to the present day. The history of the UK constitution, though officially beginning in 1800, traces back to a time long before the four nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland were fully formed. The UK constitution is an accumulation of various statutes, judicial precedents, convention, treaties and other sources which collectively can be referred to as the British Constitution. It is thus more accurate to describe Britain's constitution as an ‘uncodified’ constitution, rather than an ‘unwritten’ one. Important events in the history of England comprises of Civil war, Cromwell and commonwealth and some notable social reforms. The salient features of the British constitution are as follows: Evolutionary, unitary, flexible, Parliamentary executive with sovereignty, mixed constitution, role of conventions and independence of judiciary. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created on 1 January 1801, by the merger of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland under the Acts of Union 1800. The principle of ministerial responsibility to the lower House did not develop until the 19th century—the House of Lords was superior to the House of Commons both in theory and in practice. Members of the House of Commons (MPs) were elected in an antiquated electoral system, under which constituencies of vastly different sizes existed.
    [Show full text]