Ines L. Mubgar-Spencer 1 to What Extent Did the NMA Change The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
LANSDOWN BATTLE and CAMPAIGN Lansdown Hill 5Th July
LANSDOWN BATTLE AND CAMPAIGN Information from The UK Battlefields Resource Centre Provided by The Battlefields Trust http://battlefieldstrust.com/ Report compiled by: Glenn Foard: 29/05/2004 Site visit: 21/05/2004 Lansdown Hill 5th July 1643 By late May 1643 Sir William Waller’s army, based around Bath, was parliament’s main defence against the advance out of the South West of a royalist army under Sir Ralph Hopton. After several probing moves to the south and east of the city, the armies finally engaged on the 5th July. Waller had taken a commanding position on Lansdown Hill. He sent troops forward to skirmish with the royalist cavalry detachments and finally forced the royalists to deploy and then to engage. After initial success on Tog Hill, a mile or more to the north, his forces were eventually forced to retreat. Now Hopton took the initiative and made direct and flanking attacks up the steep slopes of Lansdown Hill. Despite heavy losses amongst the regiments of horse and foot in the centre, under musket and artillery fire, the royalists finally gained a foothold on the scarp edge. Repeated cavalry charges failed to dislodge them and Waller was finally forced to retire, as he was outflanked by attacks through the woods on either side. He retreated a few hundred yards to the cover of a wall across the narrowest point of the plateau. As darkness fell the fire-fight continued. Neither army would move from the cover they had found and both armies contemplated retreat. Late that night, under the cover of darkness, it was the parliamentarians who abandoned their position. -
Levellers Standard
Registered Charity No: 272098 ISSN 0585-9980 SURREY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY CASTLE ARCH, GUILDFORD GU1 3SX Tel/ Fax: 01483 532454 E-mail: [email protected] Website: ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/surreyarch Bulletin N u m b e r 3 2 8 April 1999 The True ^ Levellers Standard The State of Community opened, and-Prcfcntedtothe Sons of Men. Ferrard frififimtlej, fViSiam Everard, Richard Gtodff^o^me^ tohn Paimery Thcmoi Starrer lohnSotith, fyiUiamHoggrillj John Cottrton, Robert SawjcTy miliam TajUry Thonuu Eder, Chrifiofhtr Clifford^ Henry Sickfrfiafe, John 3arker, InhnTajlor^^. Beginning to Plant and Manure the Wade land upon George-Hill, in the Parifti of* fValtony in the Countx'of Snrrm. 'm L 0 N D 0 Ny Printed in the Yeer. M D C X LI *. Surrey: Seed-bed of Christian Socialism 350th Anniversary of the True Levellers on George's Hill Introduction Tony Benn MP In Gerrard Winstanley's pamphlet The True Levellers' Standard Advanced, published on 26th April 1649, these words appear that anticipated the conservationists and commune dwellers of today, that denounced the domination of man by man, proclaimed the equality of women and based it all on God and Nature's laws: In the beginning of Time, the great Creator, Reason, made the Earth to be a Common Treasury, to preserve Beasts, Birds, Fishes and Man, the lord that was to govern this Creation; for Man had Domination given to him, over the Beasts, Birds and Fishes; but not one word was spoken in the beginning, that one branch of manldnd should r u l e o v e r a n o t h e r . -
The Fusilier Origins in Tower Hamlets the Tower Was the Seat of Royal
The Fusilier Origins in Tower Hamlets The Tower was the seat of Royal power, in addition to being the Sovereign’s oldest palace, it was the holding prison for competitors and threats, and the custodian of the Sovereign’s monopoly of armed force until the consolidation of the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich in 1805. As such, the Tower Hamlets’ traditional provision of its citizens as a loyal garrison to the Tower was strategically significant, as its possession and protection influenced national history. Possession of the Tower conserved a foothold in the capital, even for a sovereign who had lost control of the City or Westminster. As such, the loyalty of the Constable and his garrison throughout the medieval, Tudor and Stuart eras was critical to a sovereign’s (and from 1642 to 1660, Parliament’s) power-base. The ancient Ossulstone Hundred of the County of Middlesex was that bordering the City to the north and east. With the expansion of the City in the later Medieval period, Ossulstone was divided into four divisions; the Tower Division, also known as Tower Hamlets. The Tower Hamlets were the military jurisdiction of the Constable of the Tower, separate from the lieutenancy powers of the remainder of Middlesex. Accordingly, the Tower Hamlets were sometimes referred to as a county-within-a-county. The Constable, with the ex- officio appointment of Lord Lieutenant of Tower Hamlets, held the right to call upon citizens of the Tower Hamlets to fulfil garrison guard duty at the Tower. Early references of the unique responsibility of the Tower Hamlets during the reign of Bloody Mary show that in 1554 the Privy Council ordered Sir Richard Southwell and Sir Arthur Darcye to muster the men of the Tower Hamlets "whiche owe their service to the Towre, and to give commaundement that they may be in aredynes for the defence of the same”1. -
Bills of Attainder
University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 2016 Bills of Attainder Matthew Steilen University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Matthew Steilen, Bills of Attainder, 53 Hous. L. Rev. 767 (2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/123 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE BILLS OF ATTAINDER Matthew Steilen* ABSTRACT What are bills of attainder? The traditional view is that bills of attainder are legislation that punishes an individual without judicial process. The Bill of Attainder Clause in Article I, Section 9 prohibits the Congress from passing such bills. But what about the President? The traditional view would seem to rule out application of the Clause to the President (acting without Congress) and to executive agencies, since neither passes bills. This Article aims to bring historical evidence to bear on the question of the scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause. The argument of the Article is that bills of attainder are best understood as a summary form of legal process, rather than a legislative act. This argument is based on a detailed historical reconstruction of English and early American practices, beginning with a study of the medieval Parliament rolls, year books, and other late medieval English texts, and early modern parliamentary diaries and journals covering the attainders of Elizabeth Barton under Henry VIII and Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford, under Charles I. -
Drinking Houses, Popular Politics and the Middling Sorts in Early-Seventeenth Century Norwich Fiona WILLIAMSON Singapore Management University, [email protected]
Singapore Management University Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Research Collection School of Social Sciences School of Social Sciences 2-2015 Drinking houses, popular politics and the middling sorts in early-seventeenth century norwich Fiona WILLIAMSON Singapore Management University, [email protected] Elizabeth SOUTHARD DOI: https://doi.org/10.2752/147800415X14135484867063 Follow this and additional works at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research Part of the Political History Commons, and the Social History Commons Citation WILLIAMSON, Fiona, & SOUTHARD, Elizabeth.(2015). Drinking houses, popular politics and the middling sorts in early- seventeenth century norwich. Cultural and Social History, 12(1), 9-26. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/2652 This Journal Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Social Sciences at Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Collection School of Social Sciences by an authorized administrator of Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University. For more information, please email [email protected]. Cultural and Social History Published in CulturalThe and Journal Social History, of the Social History Society Vol. 12 Issue 1, February 2015, DOI 10.2752/147800415X14135484867063 page 9-26 ISSN: 1478-0038 (Print) 1478-0046 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfcs20 Drinking Houses, Popular Politics and the Middling Sorts in Early Seventeenth-Century Norwich Fiona Williamson & Elizabeth Southard To cite this article: Fiona Williamson & Elizabeth Southard (2015) Drinking Houses, Popular Politics and the Middling Sorts in Early Seventeenth-Century Norwich, Cultural and Social History, 12:1, 9-26, DOI: 10.2752/147800415X14135484867063 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2752/147800415X14135484867063 Published online: 01 May 2015. -
Witches and Witchcraft in Ely
Witches and Witchcraft in Ely A HISTORY Francis Young Printed for the author by Cambridge Print Solutions Cambridge, 2013 Published by Francis Young © Francis Young 2013 Francis Young has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work. francisyoung.wordpress.com ISBN 978-0-9926404-0-8 Table of Contents Introduction 1 1. Hereward and the Witch 3 2. A Necromancer in the Lady Chapel 5 3. Witchcraft and the Reformation 9 4. Witchfinders in Ely 11 5. Witchcraft in Ely in Modern Times 15 Notes 20 Introduction The Cambridgeshire Fens are one of the last places in England where traditional belief in witchcraft was widespread. Until as late as the mid-twentieth century, Fenland communities were isolated, and their inhabitants were more vulnerable to environmental illnesses, such as malaria, than the rest of the population. A hard life, geographical isolation, close-knit communities and mistrust of outsiders may all have contributed to the Fenlanders’ abiding belief in the power of witchcraft. Ely’s place in the history of English witchcraft is a special one. As the cathedral city at the heart of the Fens, under the independent jurisdiction of the Bishop, Ely was the place where anyone locally accused of witchcraft would be brought to trial. The city was the hub from which John Stearne completed the last stage of Matthew Hopkins’s infamous witch-hunt in the 1640s, and Ely was the scene for the (quite literal) downfall of the first ‘witch’ to appear in English history. -
Rump Ballads and Official Propaganda (1660-1663)
Ezra’s Archives | 35 A Rhetorical Convergence: Rump Ballads and Official Propaganda (1660-1663) Benjamin Cohen In October 1917, following the defeat of King Charles I in the English Civil War (1642-1649) and his execution, a series of republican regimes ruled England. In 1653 Oliver Cromwell’s Protectorate regime overthrew the Rump Parliament and governed England until his death in 1659. Cromwell’s regime proved fairly stable during its six year existence despite his ruling largely through the powerful New Model Army. However, the Protectorate’s rapid collapse after Cromwell’s death revealed its limited durability. England experienced a period of prolonged political instability between the collapse of the Protectorate and the restoration of monarchy. Fears of political and social anarchy ultimately brought about the restoration of monarchy under Charles I’s son and heir, Charles II in May 1660. The turmoil began when the Rump Parliament (previously ascendant in 1649-1653) seized power from Oliver Cromwell’s ineffectual son and successor, Richard, in spring 1659. England’s politically powerful army toppled the regime in October, before the Rump returned to power in December 1659. Ultimately, the Rump was once again deposed at the hands of General George Monck in February 1660, beginning a chain of events leading to the Restoration.1 In the following months Monck pragmatically maneuvered England toward a restoration and a political 1 The Rump Parliament refers to the Parliament whose membership was composed of those Parliamentarians that remained following the expulsion of members unwilling to vote in favor of executing Charles I and establishing a commonwealth (republic) in 1649. -
The Social Impact of the Revolution
THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE REVOLUTION AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE'S DISTINGUISHED LECTURE SERIES Robert Nisbet, historical sociologist and intellectual historian, is Albert Schweitzer professor-elect o[ the humanities at Columbia University. ROBERTA. NISBET THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE REVOLUTION Distinguished Lecture Series on the Bicentennial This lecture is one in a series sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute in celebration of the Bicentennial of the United States. The views expressed are those of the lecturers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff,officers or trustees of AEI. All of the lectures in this series will be collected later in a single volume. revolution · continuity · promise ROBERTA. NISBET THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE REVOLUTION Delivered in Gaston Hall, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. on December 13, 1973 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Washington, D.C. © 1974 by American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. ISBN 0-8447-1303-1 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number L.C. 74-77313 Printed in the United States of America as there in fact an American Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century? I mean a revolu tion involving sudden, decisive, and irreversible changes in social institutions, groups, and traditions, in addition to the war of libera tion from England that we are more likely to celebrate. Clearly, this is a question that generates much controversy. There are scholars whose answer to the question is strongly nega tive, and others whose affirmativeanswer is equally strong. Indeed, ever since Edmund Burke's time there have been students to de clare that revolution in any precise sense of the word did not take place-that in substance the American Revolution was no more than a group of Englishmen fighting on distant shores for tradi tionally English political rights against a government that had sought to exploit and tyrannize. -
The Levellers' Conception of Legitimate Authority
Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política y Humanidades ISSN: 1575-6823 ISSN: 2340-2199 [email protected] Universidad de Sevilla España The Levellers’ Conception of Legitimate Authority Ostrensky, Eunice The Levellers’ Conception of Legitimate Authority Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política y Humanidades, vol. 20, no. 39, 2018 Universidad de Sevilla, España Available in: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=28264625008 This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International. PDF generated from XML JATS4R by Redalyc Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative e Levellers’ Conception of Legitimate Authority A Concepção de Autoridade Legítima dos Levellers Eunice Ostrensky [email protected] Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil Abstract: is article examines the Levellers’ doctrine of legitimate authority, by showing how it emerged as a critique of theories of absolute sovereignty. For the Levellers, any arbitrary power is tyrannical, insofar as it reduces human beings to an unnatural condition. Legitimate authority is necessarily founded on the people, who creates the constitutional order and remains the locus of political power. e Levellers also contend that parliamentary representation is not the only mechanism by which the people may acquire a political being; rather the people outside Parliament are the collective agent able to transform and control institutions and policies. In this sense, the Levellers hold that a highly participative community should exert sovereignty, and that decentralized government is a means to achieve that goal. Araucaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Keywords: Limited Sovereignty, Constitution, People, Law, Rights. Filosofía, Política y Humanidades, vol. Resumo: Este artigo analisa como os Levellers desenvolveram uma doutrina da 20, no. -
The Return of the King (1658±1660)
1 The Return of the King (1658±1660) 1 The Fall of the Protectorate (September 1658±April 1659)1 `All Men wondred to see all so quiet, in so dangerous a time' wrote the Puritan minister Richard Baxter of the autumn of 1658.The death of Oliver Cromwell on 3 September signalled no discernible quickening of either royalist or repub- lican pulses.There was no sudden or general upsurge of public opinion either against the Protectorate or for a return to monarchy: `Contrary to all expec- tation both at home and abroad, this earthquake was attended with no signal alteration', recalled Charles II's Chancellor, Edward Hyde, afterwards Earl of Clarendon.2 Nor, though `all the commonwealth party' may have `cried out upon [Richard's] assuming the protectorship, as a high usurpation', was there any concerted attempt by republicans to undo what they saw as the perversion of the Good Old Cause into the tyranny of rule by a single person: `There is not a dogge that waggs his tongue, soe great a calm are wee in', observed John Thurloe, Oliver's, and now Richard's, Secretary of State.3 The Humble Petition and Advice, the Protectorate's constitution since 1657, empowered Cromwell to name his successor, but this was managed `so sleightly, as some doubt whether he did it at all' reported John Barwick, future Dean of St Paul's, in a letter to Charles II.Nevertheless, despite the want of any formal or written nomination, Richard Cromwell's succession was generally accepted not only without opposition but with signs of positive relief.The proclamation of his -
Date Ellingham Kirby Cane
Date Ellingham Kirby Cane 1642 James Clarke was overseer of the poor. Civil War Norfolk, together with Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire and the Isle of Ely were linked together under the Parliamentarian forces for mutual defence in December 1642 (the Eastern Association), from which Oliver Cromwell raised the nucleus of his New Model Army. Parliament rejected from their livings any minister suspected of Catholic and/or Royalist sympathies. Since ours stayed in post, one assumes they kept their heads down. Iconoclasts were busy destroying any image of saints, angels or the Trinity. Maybe this is when the bishop in Ellingham lost his nose and the angel on his crosier. 1643 Lowestoft, was then a small herring fishing town (population about 1,500) without a harbour, though sizable vessels could anchor off shore. The houses were on the cliff top. Yarmouth was a Parliamentary town; Lowestoft seems not to have had strong attachment either way. Informants told Cromwell, then at Norwich with 5 troops of Eastern Association forces, that there were Royalists fortifying at Lowestoft. He set out the next morning, probably at dawn, so would have arrived about noon and drew up, together with a force from Great Yarmouth that had cannon. The resistance which Lowestoft presented was to block roads in (except where they had placed 3 cannon dragged up from the battery at Ness point and placed at the top of Rant Score to cover the market place and High Street) and put a chain across to stop a cavalry charge. Cromwell ordered the town to give up the strangers, town and army or take the consequences. -
A True Account of the New Model Army
Paul Z. Simons A True Account of the New Model Army 1995 Contents The Set Up . 3 The New Model Army . 4 What They Believed . 5 What They Did . 7 Where They Went . 9 Conclusion . 10 2 Revolutions have generally required some form of military activity; and mili- tary activity, in turn, generally implies an army or something like one. Armies, however, have traditionally been the offspring of the revolution, impinging little on the revolutionary politics that animate them. History provides numerous examples of this, but perhaps the most poignant is the exception that proves the rule. Recall the extreme violence with which rebellious Kronstadt was snuffed out by Bolshevism’s Finest, the Red Guards. The lesson in the massacre of the sailors and soldiers is plain, armies that defy the “institutional revolution” can expect nothing but butchery. The above statements, however, are generalizable solely to modernity, that is to say, only to the relatively contemporary era wherein the as- sumption that armies derive their mandate from the nation-state; and the nation- state in turn derives its mandate from “the people.” Prior to the hegemony of such assumptions, however, there is a stark and glaring example of an army that to a great degree was the revolution. Specifically an army that pushed the revolution as far as it could, an army that was the forum for the political development of the revolution, an army that sincerely believed that it could realize heaven on earth. Not a revolutionary army by any means, rather an army of revolutionaries, regicides, fanatics and visionaries.