DOCSLIB.ORG

Challenges to England's Monarchs the First 50 Years of the 17Th Century Brought Much Change to England’S Monarchy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Challenges to England's Monarchs the First 50 Years of the 17Th Century Brought Much Change to England’S Monarchy Challenges to England's Monarchs The first 50 years of the 17th century brought much change to England’s monarchy. Queen Elizabeth I known by her loyal subjects as “Good Queen Bess”—died in 1603. At her death, many questions remained concerning the exact relationship between the monarchy and the English Parliament. Direct conflict between the queen and Parliament had been largely avoided. But as the Protestants in Parliament gained strength, a serious confrontation seemed inevitable. Having never married, Elizabeth had no direct heir. She was followed by a son of Mary Queen of Scots (whom Elizabeth had ordered beheaded), a Scot named James I [ruled 1603–1625]. Already the king of the Scots, James I knew little about ruling the English. He was also a very difficult man. James I was a staunch believer in the theory of divine right according to which kings and queens ruled as God’s representatives. Divine right gave monarchs across Europe power over all courts, Parliament, even English law itself. This placed James I above the law, which he could alter, decree, or suspend at will. Religiously, he also brought other problems to the monarchy. He was convinced that Calvinist Protestantism would weaken the power of the state and vowed to drive it out of existence in England. Such Protestants, commonly known as Puritans, were soon persecuted by the king’s troops. Some left England entirely, such as the Pilgrims who sailed on the Mayflower to America in 1620. James I also persecuted Catholics (although he first promised them religious toleration). This turned English Catholics against him. A handful of Catholic fanatics, led by Guy Fawkes, plotted to assassinate the king replace him with his daughter, third in the line of succession, Princess Elizabeth. The scheme, called the Gunpowder Plot, because they planned to blow up Parliament on November 5, 1605, a day when King James I was scheduled to speak before the session. During a search of the House of Lords at about midnight on Nov 4 1605, Fawkes was discovered guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder —enough to reduce the House of Lords to rubble hidden under piles of firewood and coal. The plot was revealed to the authorities in an anonymous letter sent to Baron William Parker, on October 26 1605 — the conspirators were arrested and punished. Guy Fawkes, was convicted and sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered. When James I died in 1625, his subjects did not mourn his death. His son, Charles I [ruled 1625–1649] was no more popular than his father. He was a stubborn, willful, and lazy king. Charles I had trouble from the beginning of his reign. Parliament tried to expand its influence at the king’s expense. In 1628, Parliament passed the Petition of Right, which was intended to limit the power of the king. The petition did not allow the king to levy taxes or to imprison anyone without a trial by jury. In response to the act, Charles I dissolved Parliament, vowing he would not allow its members to meet again for eleven years. To finance his kingdom, Charles levied and collected old, obsolete taxes. An out-of date levy, called ship-money, was resurrected. While the old law had collected money from coastal towns to help pay for the royal navy, Charles I required the tax to be paid by all towns, even those hundreds of miles from the coast. All such moves were resented by his subjects and former Parliament members. Time was running out for Charles. By the late 1630s, talk against the king was turning to open rebellion. It began in Scotland where Charles ordered Calvinist churches to use the structures of the Church of England. Riots soon broke out. Scots rose up in protest. Faced with the Scottish revolt, Charles I was desperate for money. He turned to the only place he could—Parliament. Directions: Answer all questions completely. 1) Why do you think Queen Elizabeth never married? 2) Why in England was James I above the law? 3) Why did Guy Fawkes try to kill King James? 4) Explain/Describe how Fawkes tried to kill King James I. 5) Explain how Ship-Money worked. Civil War Comes to England In April 1640, Charles I called Parliament back into session for the first time in eleven years. He was in need of monies to put down the Scots and their rebellion against him. However, many of the body’s leaders demanded reforms from Charles before they would approve taxes. Frustrated, Charles dissolved this Short Parliament the very next month. However, with his money problems unresolved, the king recalled Parliament again in August. Because this Parliament was not formally dissolved until March 1660, it became known as the Long Parliament. This Parliament was not going to cooperate with the king, however. The House of Commons was dominated by men opposed to Charles I. Immediately, they began creating legislation to limit the power of the king. Also a rift developed between members of Parliament. Protestants known as the Puritans dominated the Parliament’s membership. One faction among them felt the king’s power had been adequately limited; the other wanted to continue stripping the monarchy even more. Charles tried to take advantage of the quarrel and went to Parliament himself, accompanied by several hundred soldiers in January of 1642. His intention was to arrest five leaders in the House of Commons who were working to limit the king’s power. Since they knew of the king’s purposes ahead of time, they were not present in the chamber that day. The king’s move was a decisive one. Many members of the House of Commons believed the king had gone too far. In August 1642, when Charles I called for his supporters to rally behind him against Parliament, the House of Commons began preparing for war, calling for an army of 10,000 men. Soon English citizens were taking sides. The nobility supported Charles. Those who were enlisted to his aid were called the Cavaliers (because they wore their hair long, down to their shoulders). The Puritan supporters of Parliament were known as the Roundheads, because they kept their hair cut short. Geographically, the king drew support from western and northern England, while Parliament found allies in the south and east. Many citizens did not support either side, with whole counties and towns declaring themselves neutral. Parliament had several advantages upon entering into civil war against Charles I. Most of the people of London supported them, as did the coastal towns and the navy. Charles made serious mistakes from the beginning of the conflict. He failed to march on London quickly, giving his opponents time to organize and defeat his army. Among the Puritan military leaders, Oliver Cromwell (1599 –1658) brought discipline and order to the Parliamentary army, creating the New Model Army of 20,000 men. These men were well paid, loyal to Cromwell, and sang hymns when marching into battle. The Roundheads defeated the Cavaliers at Marston Moor (1644) and at Naseby (1645). Hostilities continued for several more years, as Parliamentary troops whittled away at Cavalier support for Charles I. Despite desperate attempts to negotiate with the Puritans, Charles was captured and tried in a Parliamentary court. The king of England was found guilty and was beheaded on January 30, 1649. Following the beheading of King Charles I, Parliament established a government ruled by a civilian, a Puritan named Oliver Cromwell. Oliver Cromwell administered the English republic as Lord Protector for the next eleven years, a period referred to as the Inter-Regnum (1649–1660), meaning “period between reigns.” Trying to rule England without the power of a king (much of common law was based on royal rule) was difficult for Cromwell. Many of his policies were unpopular, including his Puritan closing of English theaters. After he died in 1658, Cromwell’s son, Richard, became Lord Protector. Incompetent, he resigned in 1660. This opened the way for a needed change in England. Finally, in 1660, pressure mounted across England to reestablish the monarchy. The son of Charles I (Charles II) who was living in France in exile, agreed to return to England to rule. 6) Why did the King try to arrest Puritan members of Parliament? 7) Explain who were the Cavaliers and Roundheads? 8) What mistakes did King Charles make in the Civil War? 9) Who was put in charge of the Civilian Government? England’s Constitutional Monarchy The period of reestablishment of the English monarchy was called the Restoration and was greeted with great joy in England. Before the 1660s came to an end, London experienced an outbreak of the Bubonic Plague (1665) and a fire (1666), which destroyed the center of the city. Despite such challenges, Charles II proved to be a capable monarch in the face of difficult times. Upon the death of Charles II, his brother James II came to the throne in 1685. James II did not work out, so the leaders of the Tories and Whigs offered the throne to the king of the Netherlands, William of Orange (his wife, Mary, was the daughter of James II). When William agreed, Parliament officially offered both him and Mary the crown. William of Orange came to the English throne as William III [1688 –1702], along with his wife Mary, through a bloodless revolution. This marked the second time during the 1600s that the English threw off their monarch and replaced him. In an age when the rulers of other European states lived by the creed of Absolutism, England’s royal ruled as constitutional monarchs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notes on Political Poems Ca. 1640
    Studies in English Volume 1 Article 13 1960 Notes on Political Poems ca. 1640 Charles L. Hamilton University of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/ms_studies_eng Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons Recommended Citation Hamilton, Charles L. (1960) "Notes on Political Poems ca. 1640," Studies in English: Vol. 1 , Article 13. Available at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/ms_studies_eng/vol1/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the English at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studies in English by an authorized editor of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hamilton: Notes on Political Poems Notes on Political Poems, c. 1640 Charles L. Hamilton HET CIVILwars in England and Scotland during the seventeenth century produced a wealth of popular literature. Some of it has permanent literary merit, but a large share of the popular creations, especially of the poetry, was little more than bad doggerel. Even so, one little-known and two unpublished poems such as the following are important as a guide to public opinion. From the period of the Bishops’ Wars (1638-40) the Scottish Covenanters repeatedly urged the English to abolish episcopacy and to enter a religious union with them.1 The following poem, written very likely on the eve of the meeting of the Long Parliament, exem­ plifies the Scottish feeling very clearly: Oyes, Oyes do I Cry The Bishops’ Bridles Will ye Buy2 Since Bishops first began to ride, In state so near the crown They have been aye puffed up with pride And ride with great renown.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gunpowder Plot Activity Pack
    TTHHEE GGUUNNPPOOWWDDEERR PPLLOOTT The Gunpowder Plot Activity Pack Welcome to Heritage Doncaster’s the Gunpowder Plot activity pack. This booklet is filled with ideas that you can have a go at as a family at home whilst learning about the Gunpowder Plot. Some of these activities will require adult supervision as they require using an oven, a sharp implement, or could just be a bit tricky these have been marked with this warning triangle. We would love to see what you create so why not share your photos with us on social media or email You can find us at @doncastermuseum @DoncasterMuseum [email protected] Have Fun! Heritage Doncaster Education Service Contents What was the Gunpower Plot? Page 3 The Plotters Page 4 Plotters Top Trumps Page 5-6 Remember, remember Page 7 Acrostic poem Page 8 Tunnels Page 9 Build a tunnel Page 10 Mysterious letter Page 11 Letter writing Page 12 Escape and capture Page 13 Wanted! Page 14 Create a boardgame Page 15 Guy Fawkes Night Page 16 Firework art Page 17-18 Rocket experiment Page 19 Penny for a Guy Page 20 Sew your own Guy Page 21 Traditional Bonfire Night food Page 22 Chocolate covered apples Page 23 Wordsearch Page 24 What was the Gunpowder Plot? The Gunpowder Plot was a plan made by thirteen men to blow up the Houses of Parliament when King James I was inside. The Houses of Parliament is an important building in London where the government meet. It is made up of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
    [Show full text]
  • Case and ~C®Mment
    251 CASE AND ~C®MMENT. CROWN -SERVANT- INCORPORATION -IMMUNITY FROM BEING SUED. The recent case of Gilleghan v. Minister of Healthl decided by Farwell, J., is a decision on the questions : Will an action lie against a Minister-of the Crown in respect of an act admittedly done as a Minister of the Crown? Or -is the true view that the only remedy is against the Crown by petition of right? Does the mere incorporation. of a servant of the Crown confer the privilege of suing and the liability to be sued? The rationale for the general rule that a servant of the Crown cannot be sued in his official capacity is that the servant holds no assets in his official capacity which can be seized in satisfaction of a judgment. He holds only on behalf of the Crown.2 Collins, M.R., in Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General3 said : "The revenue of the country cannot be reached by an action against an official, unless there is some provision to be found in the legisla~ tion to enable this to be done." In the Gilleghan case the defendant moved to-strike out the statement of claim. The Minister of Health was established by the Ministry of Health Act- which provided, inter alia, that the Minister "may sue and be sued in the name of the Minister of Health" and that "for the purpose of acquiring and holding land" the Minister for the time being "shall be a corporation sole." Farwell, J ., decided that the provision that the Minister may sue and be sued does not give the plaintiff a cause of action for breach of contract against the Minister.
    [Show full text]
  • Tudors and the Reformation
    Knowledge Organiser: Tudors and the Reformation The Catholic Church faced criticism in the Chronology: what happened on these dates? Vocabulary: define these words 16th century, leading to the Reformation. Martin Luther pins his ‘95 theses’ to the A promise to reduce time spent Some rulers left it and set up their own 1517 Indulgence churches, causing plots, revolts and wars. church door in Wittenberg. in purgatory. Summarise your learning Henry VIII declares himself head of the A movement that divided the 1534 Reformation Church of England. Christian Church in Europe. Criticisms The quality and practices of the of the Church were criticised by Martin The process of dissolving England’s A person that disagrees with the Catholic 1536 Heretic Luther. monasteries begins. official Church. Church Edward VI becomes king and begins to A group of Christians, who broke 1547 Protestant accelerate the Reformation in England. away from the Catholic Church. The Reformation spread across The belief that Jesus Christ is The Mary I becomes queen and tries to reverse Europe, weakening the position 1553 Transubstantiation physically present in the bread Reformation the Reformation in England. of the Catholic Church. and wine during mass. Elizabeth I succeeds Mary and sets up her Declaration that a marriage is 1559 Annulment Henry’s Henry VIII wanted a divorce and own Religious Settlement. invalid. ‘Great had to break from Rome to get Who were these people? What were these events? Matter’ one. The closure and sale of A former monk, who started the Protestant Dissolution Martin Luther England’s monasteries. Reformation in Europe. Impact of In England, the monasteries were Mary, Queen of A rival to the English throne, who fled there the dissolved and the Church Scots after her nobles revolted.
    [Show full text]
  • Runnymede Revisited: Bicentennial Reflections on a 750Th Anniversary William F
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 1976 Runnymede Revisited: Bicentennial Reflections on a 750th Anniversary William F. Swindler William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Swindler, William F., "Runnymede Revisited: Bicentennial Reflections on a 750th Anniversary" (1976). Faculty Publications. 1595. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1595 Copyright c 1976 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs MISSOURI LAW REVIEW Volume 41 Spring 1976 Number 2 RUNNYMEDE REVISITED: BICENTENNIAL REFLECTIONS ON A 750TH ANNIVERSARY* WILLIAM F. SWINDLER" I. MAGNA CARTA, 1215-1225 America's bicentennial coincides with the 750th anniversary of the definitive reissue of the Great Charter of English liberties in 1225. Mile- stone dates tend to become public events in themselves, marking the be- ginning of an epoch without reference to subsequent dates which fre- quently are more significant. Thus, ten years ago, the common law world was astir with commemorative festivities concerning the execution of the forced agreement between King John and the English rebels, in a marshy meadow between Staines and Windsor on June 15, 1215. Yet, within a few months, John was dead, and the first reissues of his Charter, in 1216 and 1217, made progressively more significant changes in the document, and ten years later the definitive reissue was still further altered.' The date 1225, rather than 1215, thus has a proper claim on the his- tory of western constitutional thought-although it is safe to assume that few, if any, observances were held vis-a-vis this more significant anniver- sary of Magna Carta.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LEGACY of the MAGNA CARTA MAGNA CARTA 1215 the Magna Carta Controlled the Power Government Ruled with the Consent of Eventually Spreading Around the Globe
    THE LEGACY OF THE MAGNA CARTA MAGNA CARTA 1215 The Magna Carta controlled the power government ruled with the consent of eventually spreading around the globe. of the King for the first time in English the people. The Magna Carta was only Reissues of the Magna Carta reminded history. It began the tradition of respect valid for three months before it was people of the rights and freedoms it gave for the law, limits on government annulled, but the tradition it began them. Its inclusion in the statute books power, and a social contract where the has lived on in English law and society, meant every British lawyer studied it. PETITION OF RIGHT 1628 Sir Edward Coke drafted a document King Charles I was not persuaded by By creating the Petition of Right which harked back to the Magna Carta the Petition and continued to abuse Parliament worked together to and aimed to prevent royal interference his power. This led to a civil war, and challenge the King. The English Bill with individual rights and freedoms. the King ultimately lost power, and his of Rights and the Constitution of the Though passed by the Parliament, head! United States were influenced by it. HABEAS CORPUS ACT 1679 The writ of Habeas Corpus gives imprisonment. In 1697 the House of Habeas Corpus is a writ that exists in a person who is imprisoned the Lords passed the Habeas Corpus Act. It many countries with common law opportunity to go before a court now applies to everyone everywhere in legal systems. and challenge the lawfulness of their the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Status of Tort Law: Due Process and the Right to a Law for the Redress of Wrongs
    TH AL LAW JORAL JOHN C.P. GOLDBERG The Constitutional Status of Tort Law: Due Process and the Right to a Law for the Redress of Wrongs A B ST RACT. In our legal system, redressing private wrongs has tended to be the business of tort law, itself traditionally a branch of the common law. But do individuals have a "vested interest" in law that redresses wrongs? If so, do state and federal governments have a constitutional duty to provide that law? Since the New Deal era, conventional wisdom has held that individuals do not possess such a right, and consequently, government bears no such duty. In this view, it is a matter of unfettered legislative discretion- "whim" -whether or how to provide a law of redress. This view is wrongheaded. To be clear: I do not argue that individuals have a property-like interest in a particular corpus of tort rules. The law of tort is always capable of improvement, and legislatures have an obligation and the requisite authority to undertake such improvements. Nonetheless, I do argue that tort law, understood as a law for the redress of private wrongs, forms part of the basic structure of our government. And though the Constitution does not confer on any particular individual a right to a specific version of tort rules, all American citizens have a right to a body of law for the redress of private wrongs that generates meaningful and judicially enforceable limits on tort reform legislation. A UT HO R. John C.P. Goldberg is Associate Dean for Research and Professor, Vanderbilt Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • British Festivals: Guy Fawkes, Bonfire Night
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PublicacionesDidácticas (E-Journal) British festivals: Guy Fawkes, Bonfire Night Autor: Martínez García, María Rosario (Maestra de Lenguas Extranjeras (Inglés), Maestra de Inglés en Educación Primaria). Público: Maestros o profesores de lengua inglesa de cualquier etapa educativa. Materia: Inglés. Idioma: Inglés. Title: British festivals: Guy Fawkes, Bonfire Night. Abstract The powerpoint explained next is about the festivity of "Guy Fawkes", or also known as "Bonfire Night". Through different images the story is told and the meaning of why it is celebrated is explained, not very known in Spain. Information is given about how it is celebrated in the United Kingdom and the different activities children carry out there. A rhyme will be taught and finally evaluation activities are given. Keywords: british culture, guy fawkes, bonfire night. Título: Festifvidades Británicas: Guy Fawkes. Resumen El PowerPoint explicado a continuación trata sobre la festividad de "Guy Fawkes", o también llamada "la noche de la hoguera". A través de imágenes se cuenta la historia y el significado de por qué se celebra esta festividad, en España poco conocida. Se da información de cómo se celebra en el Reino Unido y las distintas actividades que realizan los niños allí. Se les enseña una rima y finalmente se dan actividades de evaluación oral. Palabras clave: Cultura inglesa, actividades, noche de la hoguera. Recibido 2016-01-21; Aceptado 2016-01-25; Publicado 2016-02-25; Código PD: 068075 British culture is one of the most important aspects to treat in our English classroom.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Gunpowder Plot & Guy Fawkes Night Four Hundred Years Ago, in 1605, a Man Called Guy Fawkes and a Group Of
    History of the Gunpowder Plot & Guy Fawkes Night Four hundred years ago, in 1605, a man called Guy Fawkes and a group of plotters attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament in London with barrels of gunpowder placed in the basement. They wanted to kill King James and the king’s leaders. Houses of Parliament, London Why did Guy Fawkes want to kill King James 1st and the king’s leaders? When Queen Elizabeth 1st took the throne of England she made some laws against the Roman Catholics. Guy Fawkes was one of a small group of Catholics who felt that the government was treating Roman Catholics unfairly. They hoped that King James 1st would change the laws, but he didn't. Catholics had to practise their religion in secret. There were even fines for people who didn't attend the Protestant church on Sunday or on holy days. James lst passed more laws against the Catholics when he became king. What happened - the Gunpowder Plot A group of men led by Robert Catesby, plotted to kill King James and blow up the Houses of Parliament, the place where the laws that governed England were made. Guy Fawkes was one of a group of men The plot was simple - the next time Parliament was opened by King James l, they would blow up everyone there with gunpowder. The men bought a house next door to the parliament building. The house had a cellar which went under the parliament building. They planned to put gunpowder under the house and blow up parliament and the king.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Second Amendment
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 28 Number 3 Spring 1994 pp.1007-1039 Spring 1994 The History of the Second Amendment David E. Vandercoy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David E. Vandercoy, The History of the Second Amendment, 28 Val. U. L. Rev. 1007 (1994). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol28/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Vandercoy: The History of the Second Amendment THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT DAVID E. VANDERCOY* A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' I. INTRODUCTION Long overlooked or ignored, the Second Amendment has become the object of some study and much debate. One issue being discussed is whether the Second Amendment recognizes the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms,2 or whether the right belongs solely to state governments and empowers each 3 state to maintain a military force. The debate has resulted in odd political alignments which in turn have caused the Second Amendment to be described recently as the most embarrassing provision of the Bill of Rights.4 Embarrassment results from the politics associated with determining whether the language creates a state's right or an individual right.
    [Show full text]
  • Guy Fawkes (13 April 1570 to 31 January 1606), Also Known As Guido Fawkes, the Name Adopted While Fighting for the Spanish in Th
    Guy Fawkes (13 April 1570 to 31 January 1606), also known as Guido Fawkes, the name adopted while fighting for the Spanish in the Netherlands, belonged to a group of provincial English Catholics who planned the failed conspiracy gunpowder, 1605. It wasa failed attempt to assassinate King James I of England and VI of Scotland by a group of provincial English Catholics led by Robert Catesby. MU. The death of Alex Forley is very confusing because we do not know if it is a suicide or a murder, but eventually you know. Wilver (Forley's doctor), he discovers that his patient has an affair with his wife Lisa. He faked the results and told Alex that he had abrain tumor, he did because he was afraid his wife would leave him. Alex Forley thought he had a tumor, which dragged the suicide could not live with the idea of having a brain tumor and died for it. Finally Wilver could save what remained of the marriage to Lisa. PE. Rod Eliot: A detective who has a wife and a child and he already works some time for the police. Bowen: A man who also works as detective at the police station and he’s the assistant of Detective inspector Rod Eliot, he has no wife and he always falls in love with the wrong woman. Alex Forley: The man who shot himself because he thought he had a brain disease, he was pretty rich, a good look and a beautiful house in London. Philip Wilver: The doctor and friend of Alex Forley, A busy and a bit depressive man.
    [Show full text]
  • The Loss of the Core Constitutional Protections of the Excessive Bail Clause Samuel Wiseman
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 36 | Number 1 Article 5 2009 Discrimination, Coercion, and the Bail Reform Act of 1984: The Loss of the Core Constitutional Protections of the Excessive Bail Clause Samuel Wiseman Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Samuel Wiseman, Discrimination, Coercion, and the Bail Reform Act of 1984: The Loss of the Core Constitutional Protections of the Excessive Bail Clause, 36 Fordham Urb. L.J. 121 (2009). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol36/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\server05\productn\F\FUJ\36-1\FUJ105.txt unknown Seq: 1 28-JAN-09 13:20 DISCRIMINATION, COERCION, AND THE BAIL REFORM ACT OF 1984: THE LOSS OF THE CORE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS OF THE EXCESSIVE BAIL CLAUSE Samuel Wiseman* Introduction................................................... 122 R I. A Brief History of the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment ................................... 123 R A. The Petition of Right .............................. 124 R B. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 .................. 126 R C. The Excessive Bail Clause of the English Bill of Rights ............................................. 127 R D. Inclusion in the Bill of Rights ..................... 127 R E. Other Bail Provisions in Early America .......... 128 R II. Interpretation of the Excessive Bail Clause Before Salerno ...............................................
    [Show full text]