Selden, John (1584–1654)

Author(s):  
Peter Goodrich

Antiquarian, philologist, parliamentarian, legal historian and practising lawyer, John Selden was a major figure in the renaissance and systematization of common law. In jurisprudence, his importance lies in his attempt to develop certain elements of an epistemology of common law. He made use of history to criticize current legal doctrines, and developed a philosophical methodology in relation to the interpretation of precedent.

Author(s):  
Steven Grosby

A corollary of Hebraism’s orientation to this world is law as the vehicle by which to organize this world. This chapter examines the Hebraic understanding of law, its relation to tradition, and its national jurisdiction in contrast to the universal jurisdiction of Roman law and canon law. Regarding this contrast, the Lex Salica, François Hotman’s Francogallia, and Hugo Grotius’ Antiquity of the Batavian Republic are discussed briefly. The contrast does not mean that universal principles of justice are absent in national law, but the relation between those principles and a national jurisdiction presents a problem, as Edward Coke saw. Within the Christian tradition, the prototype of national law is the law of ancient Israel and subsequently Jewish law. In his examination of Jewish law, especially the Noahide laws of the Talmud, John Selden recognized an affinity between Jewish and English common law that supports Hebraism as a cultural category.


1999 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARK KISHLANSKY

This article exonerates Charles I and Attorney General Sir Robert Heath from charges that they tampered with the records of the court of King's Bench in the Five Knights' Case. It refutes allegations made by John Selden in the parliament of 1628 and repeated by modern historians. Selden's attack on Heath and the king's government was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of King's Bench enrolments and a radical view of the crown's intentions in imprisoning loan resisters. The view that Charles was attempting to establish the prerogative right to imprison opponents without remedy at common law has no basis in either the arguments presented during the Five Knights' Case or the king's behaviour both before and during the parliament. By accepting the most radical critique of Caroline government at face value, historians have concluded that Charles was attempting to establish a ‘legal tyranny’. This article rejects these views.


2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document