THE DEATH OF CHARLES I

2002 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 727-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
SEAN KELSEY
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
High Court ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Charles I ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
City Of London ◽  
The City

By the winter of 1648–9, demands for retributive justice on Charles I and his supporters had built to a crescendo. But regicide was generally regarded as an extremely bad idea, and the king's trial was contrived as a final bid for peaceful settlement, not a prelude to king-killing. In return for a place at the heart of a new constitutional order, Charles I was required to abdicate his negative voice by pleading to charges brought on the sole authority of the House of Commons. This was a high-risk strategy inspired and justified by the weakening of opposition to the trial in the House of Lords, the city of London and at Edinburgh, and by some of the encouraging signals emanating from deep within the royalist camp itself. However, in their anxiety to avoid having their ultimate sanction forced upon them, the commissioners of the high court of justice gave the king rather more opportunities to plead to the charges against him than was consistent with the maintenance of their own authority. Rather than persuading him to give in, they encouraged him to stand firm, with fatal consequences. Far from being a providential act of vengeance, or indeed the inexorable fate of a man predestined to martyrdom, the execution of Charles I was a highly adventitious occurrence – predictable, perhaps, yet contingent on a wide range of unpredictable circumstances.

England's “Black Tribunal“: an Analysis of the Regicide Court

1973 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
William L. Sachse
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
English History ◽  
High Court ◽  
Charles I ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Commons ◽  
Seal Of Approval

On January 6, 1649 the House of Commons set its seal of approval on the agency by which Charles I would be tried and sentenced to death. By an Act “for erecting of a High Court of Justice for the Trying and Judging of Charles Stuart, King of England,” he was charged with “a wicked design totally to subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and, in their place, to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government.” The Commons maintained that they had shown tolerance toward such “high and treasonable offenses.” But the King's persistence in perverse activities — his raising of “new commotions, rebellions and invasions” — had forced them to take the present course. They were determined that no future ruler should “presume traitorously or maliciously to imagine or contrive the enslaving or destroying of the English nation, and to expect impunity for so doing.” The measure designated one hundred and thirty-five persons to try and adjudge the royal defendant.Thus came into being the most extraordinary judicial body to be met with in English history. Certainly, no court has ever been so vigorously disclaimed as to jurisdiction, or so bitterly vilified as to personnel. To the Cavaliers, who had fought for Charles at Marston Moor and Naseby, as well as to the Presbyterians, who had trooped under the banners of Parliament to reshape, but not destroy, the monarchy, the court and its works were anathema.

scholarly journals Robertson at the City: Portrait of a Cemetery Superintendent

Genealogy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Brian Parsons
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
National Association ◽  
Customer Focus ◽  
Professional Recognition ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Subject ◽  
City Of London ◽  
The City ◽  
Burial Grounds

Since the nineteenth century the management of burial grounds has been the function of the cemetery superintendent. Responsible as he or she is for maintenance of the site, grave preparation, burial procedures, administration and staffing, the superintendent’s remit has gained complexity in the twentieth century through bureaucratization, legislation and more recently from ‘customer focus’. The shifting preference towards cremation has further widened the scope of the work. Little, however, has been written about the occupation. Focusing on the career of John Robertson, superintendent of the City of London Cemetery and Crematorium between 1913 and 1936, this paper draws from his contributions to The Undertakers’ Journal (TUJ), and in particular a series of articles concerning the design and management of cemeteries that forms the largest collection of literature on the subject published in the twentieth century. The paper also examines his involvement with the National Association of Cemetery Superintendents (NACS), an organization founded to support the occupation’s quest for professional recognition. From a genealogical perspective this article underlines the importance of surveying a wide range of sources when conducting genealogical researching.

Explaining Brexit: How the City of London came to be Regulated by the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Vaubel
Keyword(s):  
Majority Voting ◽  
Market Regulation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Financial Market Regulation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Qualified Majority ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
City Of London ◽  
The City

Abstract Qualified majority voting on financial market regulation was made possible by the European Court of Justice changing the meaning of the term “internal market” from “free movement of goods, services, persons and capital” to “conditions of competition which are not distorted”.

Part VI Early Perceptions of Legal Risk, 20 A Landmark Case and its Aftermath

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mccormick Roger ◽  
Stears Chris
Keyword(s):  
Financial Markets ◽  
Historical Explanation ◽  
London Borough ◽  
Legal Risk ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Audit Commission ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
City Of London ◽  
The City

This chapter discusses the case of Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, which had a profound effect on how the City of London perceived the dangers posed by legal risk. It involved a House of Lords decision on an ultra vires point — specifically, the power of the council in question to enter into ‘swap’ transactions. The case arose because this power was challenged by the auditor appointed by the Audit Commission. The surrounding circumstances and the unprecedented manner in which the City of London responded to the case provide both the classic case study and a historical explanation of why legal risk is seen to be so important and how seriously it is taken by those concerned with orderly financial markets.

Politics and Procedure in the Trial of Charles I

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Kelsey
Keyword(s):  
Physical Restraint ◽  
Political Order ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Isle Of Wight ◽  
New Model ◽  
Charles I ◽  
Negotiated Settlement ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
Autumn And Winter

In the autumn and winter of 1648, England descended into a domestic political crisis unparalleled at any time in the country's history before or since. At Newport on the Isle of Wight, representatives from both Houses of Parliament straggled to conclude a treaty with their king that would end years of civil war and restore some semblance of political order. But many Englishmen trembled to contemplate the consequences of negotiated settlement with a man who had caused so much chaos and bloodshed, who had contrived the violent incursion of a Scottish army onto English soil in the summer of 1648, and even now continued to pin his hopes on an invasion of Catholic forces from Ireland. The officers and men of the New Model Army and their radical supporters in the country at large called for an end to negotiations. They also demanded retributive justice on all those, “from the highest to the lowest,” who had almost drowned the nation in innocent blood, lest they seize the opportunity to finish the job. When the army placed the king himself under physical restraint, MPs proceeded regardless to declare themselves satisfied that the search for peaceful settlement ought to continue. The army now purged the House of Commons of the supporters of the Newport treaty. Many of its officers were eager enough to reach some kind of an understanding with the king themselves, but rather than negotiate, they preferred to dictate terms. When the king refused those that the earl of Denbigh purportedly took to him at Windsor Castle late in December 1648, the officers and their allies in the Rump House of Commons prepared to put Charles on trial instead. Justice would at last be done, and it would be seen to be done.

7. Parliamentary Supremacy

2021 ◽  
pp. 185-224
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Legal Power ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Parliamentary Supremacy ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Primary Materials

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. Parliamentary supremacy means that the Westminster Parliament is legally entitled to pass, amend, or repeal any law it wishes. Consequently, if the House of Commons and the House of Lords pass the legislation and the monarch gives her royal assent, then no court or other body has the legal power to declare the legislation invalid. This explains why the term ‘parliamentary supremacy’ has been coined: (the Queen in) Parliament holds the supreme law-making power in the UK. This chapter sketches the history leading to parliamentary supremacy. It discusses the theories behind the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy; restrictions on the power of Parliament; how parliamentary supremacy compares with constitutional supremacy; and how parliamentary supremacy fits with the separation of powers and the rule of law.

New Buildings, New Taxes, and Old Interests: an Urban Problem of the 1670s

1967 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 35-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Andervont Edie
Keyword(s):  
Social Problems ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Urban Problem ◽  
Old City ◽  
City Of London ◽  
The City ◽  
New Buildings

“The country towns are grown poor,” declared Hugh Boscawen, member for Tregony, to his colleagues in the House of Commons in November 1670, “the inlands grow generally poor. The trading people abroad deal only with London.” Sir Robert Howard agreed: “It was ever said by the wisest men he could meet with that the greatness of London … would be the ruin of the country.” But in 1670 the complaint was hardly new. For well over a century English men and monarchs alike had watched with an anxiety increasingly acute as London, already a giant among English towns, continued to add to her size and population. Many in the country had feared, as did Boscawen and Howard, the effects of such growth upon the rest of England, while those close by tended to be aware of the special economic, political, and social problems which the unhealthy and crowded conditions in the overgrown old city presented.On March 12, 1564, Queen Elizabeth had issued a proclamation stating “Rules to prevent crowding, in plague ridden Westminster, close by London.” And on July 7, 1580, she proclaimed from Nonsuch Palace thatThe city of London, aunciently termed [The Queen's] Chambre, is becoming too crowded with families in one house or small tenements, to the danger of Plague. Until order is taken by Parliament, no new building is to be erected within 3 miles of the gates of London. Not more than one family to inhabit any house…. Undersitters, Indwellers or Inmates [lodgers] must find new homes in other boroughs before All Saints next.

scholarly journals THE CASUAL POOR AND THE CITY OF LONDON POOR LAW UNION, 1837–1869

1999 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREA TANNER
Keyword(s):  
The Elderly ◽  
Poor Law ◽  
Local Union ◽  
Civic Pride ◽  
Victorian Period ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Rate Base ◽  
Poor Children ◽  
City Of London ◽  
The City

The City of London Poor Law Union in the early to mid-Victorian period was the richest and least populated of all the metropolitan Poor Law districts. A wide range of parochial, livery, and other charities within the City not only attracted vast numbers of applicants for assistance, but influenced the quality and nature of the care given by the local union. This not only meant that provision for the outdoor poor, children, and the elderly tended to be more liberal than elsewhere in the capital, but that vagrants, many of whom took up winter residence in the City, also experienced a higher standard of pauper treatment than that offered by the surrounding unions. The combination of high Poor Law receipts from a low poor rate base, civic pride, competition from City charities, and the willingness of neighbouring unions to off-load this most troublesome class of pauper on to their rich neighbour gave an unparalleled level of choice to those who were truly at the bottom of the heap in Victorian London.

7. Parliamentary Supremacy: the theory

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Legal Power ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Parliamentary Supremacy ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Primary Materials

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. Parliamentary supremacy means that the Westminster Parliament is legally entitled to pass, amend, or repeal any law it wishes. Consequently, if the House of Commons and the House of Lords pass the legislation and the monarch gives her royal assent, then no court or other body has the legal power to declare the legislation invalid. This explains why the term ‘parliamentary supremacy’ has been coined: (the Queen in) Parliament holds the supreme lawmaking power in the UK. This chapter sketches the history leading to parliamentary supremacy. It discusses the theories behind the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy; restrictions on the power of Parliament; how parliamentary supremacy compares with constitutional supremacy; and how parliamentary supremacy fits with the separation of powers and the rule of law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document