The Casebook of Sir Edward Coke

Pólemos ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-190
Author(s):  
Ian Ward
Keyword(s):  
Civil Wars ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Considerable Part ◽  
James I ◽  
Charles I ◽  
King Charles I ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract Sir Edward Coke, Jacobean Lord Chief Justice, is commonly regarded as being one of the great jurists in English legal history. In considerable part, for reason of his vigorous defence of the courts of common law against the seeming intrusions of royal prerogative, his running dispute with King James I is renowned, not least as a precursor to the civil wars which would later engulf James’s son, King Charles I. The purpose of this essay is revisit Coke and, more closely still, some of his most famous judgments, in order to trace the origins of the principle of ‘legality’. It will close in whimsical tones, by wondering what Coke might have thought of ‘legal’ regime put in place in the UK during the coronavirus pandemic.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosamund Oates
Keyword(s):  
Civil Wars ◽  
Pivotal Role ◽  
Elizabeth I ◽  
Henry Viii ◽  
James I ◽  
Protestant Church ◽  
Charles I ◽  
Turbulent Times ◽  
Stuart England ◽  
The Church

Tobie Matthew (c.1544–1628) lived through the most turbulent times of the English Church. Born during the reign of Henry VIII, he saw Edward VI introduce Protestantism, and then watched as Mary I violently reversed her brother’s changes. When Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558, Matthew rejected his family’s Catholicism to join the fledgling Protestant regime. Over the next sixty years, he helped build a Protestant Church in England under Elizabeth I, James I, and Charles I. Rising through the ranks of the Church, he was Archbishop of York in the charged decades leading up to the British Civil Wars. Here was a man who played a pivotal role in the religious politics of Tudor and Stuart England, and nurtured a powerful strain of Puritanism at the heart of the established Church....

The Progresses, Processions, and Royal Entries of King Charles I, 1625-1642

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siobhan Keenan
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
The Political ◽  
Cultural Significance ◽  
Archival Research ◽  
Public Display ◽  
Modern Culture ◽  
Charles I ◽  
King Charles I

The Progresses, Processions, and Royal Entries of King Charles I, 1625–1642 is the first book-length study of the history, and the political and cultural significance, of the progresses, public processions, and royal entries of Charles I. As well as offering a much fuller account of the king’s progresses and progress entertainments than currently exists, this study throws new light on one of the most vexed topics in early Stuart historiography—the question of Charles I’s accessibility to his subjects and their concerns, and the part that this may, or may not, have played in the conflicts which culminated in the English civil wars and Charles’s overthrow. Drawing on extensive archival research, the book opens with an introduction to the early modern culture of royal progresses and public ceremonial as inherited and practised by Charles I. Part I explores the question of the king’s accessibility and engagement with his subjects further through case studies of Charles’s ‘great’ progresses in 1633, 1634, and 1636. Part II turns attention to royal public ceremonial culture in Caroline London, focusing on Charles’s royal entry on 25 November 1641. More widely travelled than his ancestors, Progresses reveals a monarch who was only too well aware of the value of public ceremonial and who did not eschew it, even if he was not always willing to engage in ceremonial dialogue with his people or able to deploy the power of public display to curry support for his policies as successfully as his Tudor and Stuart predecessors.

BEYOND THE PALE: JOHN CUSACKE AND THE LANGUAGE OF ABSOLUTISM IN EARLY STUART BRITAIN

1998 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
LINDA LEVY PECK
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
James I ◽  
Charles I ◽  
Colonial Theory ◽  
Colonial Government

John Cusacke, an Irish gentleman who was educated on the continent and worked on the fringes of the court of wards, constructed a striking re-reading of kingship, law, colonial government, and parliament in a series of tracts written between 1615 and 1647. His writings provide insight both into seventeenth-century colonial theory and early Stuart political thought. Shaped in the cauldron of Irish land struggles and continental political thought, Cusacke rejected Old English constitutionalism, arguing instead that Ireland was a colonial dependency of England. Further, to gain royal favour for various projects, Cusacke recast contemporary conceptions of parliament and common law, rejecting the centrality of custom, insisting that the king was the law maker and vigorously attacking Sir Edward Coke. Cusacke's writings reached the libraries of James I and Charles I, and their officials Sir Robert Naunton, master of the court of wards, and attorney-general Sir Robert Bankes. Cusacke's tracts graphically demonstrate the existence of an absolutist political discourse in early Stuart Britain applied not to issues of theology or of international law but to domestic politics.

Could Charles I Be Trusted? The Royalist Case, 1642-1646

1966 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. W. Daly
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Civil War ◽  
General Public ◽  
Veto Power ◽  
English History ◽  
James I ◽  
Charles I ◽  
King Charles I ◽  
Constitutional Analysis

The followers of King Charles I in the Civil War, long among the whipping boys of English history, have been receiving better treatment since the Whig interpretation of the seventeenth century lost its pristine vigour. This is particularly true of their constitutional position as set forth in the great outpouring of manifestoes and pamphlets during the war. Edward Hyde, perhaps the key figure in this aspect of royalism, has recently profited from a capable defence of his opinions and policy. Similarly, pamphleteers such as Henry Ferne, Dudley Digges, and John Bramhall are now fairly well known, thanks largely to J. W. Allen's pioneering study of their writings. From work like this it is clear that the royalist spokesmen accepted the increased importance of Parliament, the end of prerogative courts and nonparliamentary taxation, and the supremacy of common and statute law. Like their armies in the field, they were defending the monarchy as overhauled in 1641, not as the Tudors left it, much less as James I may have conceived it. Indeed the classical doctrine of the mixed or balanced constitution, glorified by Blackstone and widely accepted until nearly 1830, is now credited, not to Philip Hunton, but to the royalists. Such rehabilitation has done much to remove the patronizing label of “wrong but romantic,” which was once the best which they could hope for from historians or the general public.Allen and those who followed him naturally concentrated on the legal and constitutional analysis of the origins of authority, the veto power, sovereignty, nonresistance, and so forth.

The Irish courts of law, 1801–1914

1957 ◽  
Vol 10 (40) ◽  
pp. 363-391
Author(s):  
R.B. McDowell
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Thirteenth Century ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
James I ◽  
Charles I ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Court Of Chancery

At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were six superior courts in Ireland—chancery, the three common law courts (king’s bench, common pleas and exchequer), the admiralty court and the prerogative court (an ecclesiastical court with jurisdiction over testamentary matters).Four of these courts were of medieval origin. The exchequer was probably in existence before the close of the twelfth century, the Irish chancery was founded early in the thirteenth century, the first Irish chancellor being appointed in 1244, and the antecedents of the courts of king’s bench and common pleas are to be found in the thirteenth century. The other two courts were comparatively modern. The court of prerogative and faculties based its rights to exercise jurisdiction on two sixteenth century acts and two seventeenth century patents, one of James I and one of Charles I. And though admiralty jurisdiction had been exercised in Ireland from medieval times, the Irish court of admiralty had been created by statute in 1784. From the court of chancery and the three common law courts there was an appeal to the court of error (known as the court of exchequer chamber) composed of the judges of the three common law courts, and in 1857 it was enacted that the court of exchequer chamber when hearing an appeal should consist of the judges of the two courts from which the appeal did not arise. From the admiralty court and from the prerogative court there was an appeal to delegates in chancery.

Hooke’s Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 207-225
Author(s):  
Brian Cantor
Keyword(s):  
Civil Wars ◽  
Royal Society ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Robert Hooke ◽  
Robert Boyle ◽  
Hooke’S Law ◽  
Charles I ◽  
King Charles I ◽  
Hooke's Law ◽  
Set Up

When a material is stretched, the extension is proportional to the stretching force, with the elastic modulus defined as the constant of proportionality. This is called Hooke’s law and was discovered by Robert Hooke, just after the end of the English civil wars in the mid-17th century. This chapter examines the underlying atomic forces responsible for Hooke’s law, the use of tensors to describe three-dimensional stresses and strains in a material, and the relationships between the different elastic moduli under different loading conditions. Hooke was the son of a clergyman, born and brought up on the Isle of Wight, a royalist stronghold, where King Charles I fled after his imprisonment by Parliament, only to be recaptured and executed. Hooke was smuggled to London and then Oxford under the protection of Royalist academics, where he became a member of the group of intellectuals who, after the restoration of the monarchy, led the Enlightenment and set up the Royal Society. He took on many jobs: Lab Assistant to Robert Boyle, Curator at the Royal Society, Professor of Geometry at Gresham’s College, City Surveyor for the rebuilding of London after the Great Fire, and First Officer in Christopher Wren’s architectural firm. He was paranoid about his need for money and about people stealing his scientific ideas. He feuded with many of the great scientists of his age, claiming that he invented their ideas first, notably with Newton about his theories of gravity.

Anglo-Scottish Relations, 1603–40

1950 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 31-48
Author(s):  
C. V. Wedgwood
Keyword(s):  
Long Range ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Charles I ◽  
King Charles I ◽  
History Of

Clarendon, in his History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, states that the disturbances in Scotland which preceded- the Bishops' Wars came as a shock to the English councillors of King Charles I. It seems probable that they came as a shock to King Charles himself. The unexampled authority that his father James VI had succeeded in establishing for the Crown in Scotland—an authority Which he continued to exercise at long range when he became king of England—was something which Charles I had learnt to take for granted.

scholarly journals Pain, Penance, and Protest

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara M. Butler
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Multidisciplinary Approach ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Law And Literature ◽  
Coercive Measure ◽  
Charles I ◽  
King Charles I ◽  
The Common

In medieval England, a defendant who refused to plead to a criminal indictment was sentenced to pressing with weights as a coercive measure. Using peine forte et dure ('strong and hard punishment') as a lens through which to analyse the law and its relationship with Christianity, Butler asks: where do we draw the line between punishment and penance? And, how can pain function as a vehicle for redemption within the common law? Adopting a multidisciplinary approach, this book embraces both law and literature. When Christ is on trial before Herod, he refused to plead, his silence signalling denial of the court's authority. England's discontented subjects, from hungry peasant to even King Charles I himself, stood mute before the courts in protest. Bringing together penance, pain and protest, Butler breaks down the mythology surrounding peine forte et dure and examines how it functioned within the medieval criminal justice system.

The fifth earl of Guilford (1766–1827) and his secret conversion to the Orthodox church

1976 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 247-256
Author(s):  
Kallistos Ware
Keyword(s):  
Present State ◽  
Church Of England ◽  
Orthodox Church ◽  
James I ◽  
Charles I ◽  
King Charles I ◽  
Magnum Opus ◽  
King James I ◽  
Established Church

In September 1725 archbishop Wake of Canterbury wrote to patriarch Chrysanthos of Jerusalem, warning him that the non-jurors were in schism from the official and established church of England; and so the remarkable correspondence between the non-juring bishops and the patriarchs of the east was suspended without ever coming to any decisive conclusion. Wake’s letter marks in many ways the end of an era. During the previous hundred years, from the reign of king James I onwards, there had been a series of surprisingly positive contacts between England and the Orthodox world. Archbishop Abbot, for example, exchanged letters with Cyril Lukaris (1572–1638), patriarch first of Alexandria and then of Constantinople; and as a result of this Cyril not only sent the Codex Alexandrinus as a gift to king Charles I in 1628, but also despatched his most promising disciple, Mitrophanis Kritopoulos (1589–1639), future patriarch of Alexandria, to study for five years at Balliol College, Oxford (1617–22). Later in the century Orthodoxy was made known in England through a series of books, such as Thomas Smith’s An Account of the Greek Church, published in Latin in 1676 and in English four years later, and Paul Rycaut’s The Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches, published in 1679. To these should be added John Covel’s magnum opus entitled Some Account of the Present Greek Church, which did not appear until 1722, but which reflects experience gained in the Levant some fifty years before. During 1699-1705 there was even a short-lived Greek College at Gloucester Hall, Oxford. Last but not least, in 1716–25 came the negotiations between the non-jurors and the Orthodox, to which reference has been already made.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document