Robert Sanderson (1587–1663)

Over the course of the reigns of the last two Tudors and first three Stuarts – just in excess of a century – the national established Church of England was disestablished twice and re-established twice. Following the return to Rome under Mary, Elizabeth's settlement re-established the English Church under the royal supremacy, set down church doctrine and liturgy, embarked on a reform of canon law and so consolidated an ecclesial polity which many today see as an Anglican via media between papal Rome and Calvinist Geneva. However, as a compromise, the settlement contained in itself seeds of discord: it outlawed Roman reconciliation and recusancy; it extended lay and clerical discipline by the use of ecclesiastical commissioners; and it drove Puritans to agitate for reform on Presbyterian lines. While James I continued Elizabeth's policy, disappointing both Puritans and Papists, Charles I married a Roman Catholic, sought to impose a prayer book on Calvinist Scotland, asserted divine-right monarchy, engaged in an 11-year personal rule without Parliament and favoured Arminian clergy. With these and other disputes between Crown and Parliament, civil war ensued, a directory of worship replaced the prayer book, episcopacy and monarchy were abolished and a Puritan-style republic was instituted. The republic failed, and in 1660 monarchy was restored, the Church of England was re-established and a limited form of religious toleration was introduced under the Clarendon Code. In all these upheavals, understandings of the nature, source and authority of human law, civil and ecclesiastical, were the subject of claim and counter-claim. Enter Robert Sanderson: a life begun under Elizabeth and ended under Charles II, a protagonist who felt the burdens and benefits of the age, Professor of Divinity at Oxford and later Bishop of Lincoln, and a clerical-jurist who thought deeply on the nature of human law and its place in a cosmic legal order – so much so, he may be compared with three of his great contemporaries: the lawyer Matthew Hale (1609–1676), the cleric Jeremy Taylor (1613–1667) and the philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1678).

Restoration

This chapter studies how, in early May of 1660, news reached Elizabeth Stuart's nephew that he had been invited to return and take his place on the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland as Charles II. Now, with a Stuart once more on the throne, there was nothing to keep Elizabeth on the Continent. And when, in September of 1660, her niece Mary had travelled home to England, preceding her, there was certainly nothing left for Elizabeth in The Hague. Elizabeth had told Charles Louis she would return when Charles sent for her. Elizabeth was plainly desperate to return to England, but still there was no invitation. The chapter then recounts Elizabeth's death. By the time of her death, aged sixty-six, Elizabeth had lost a kingdom, the Upper Palatinate, several wars, three infant sisters, three brothers (one as a baby), a husband, six children, and several palaces. She had also outlived all the ambassadors and generals who ever had supported or opposed her. But she never lost the love of her people who had so embraced her on St Valentine's Day in 1613, and would mourn the death of their Queen of Hearts the day before her forty-ninth wedding anniversary.

Introduction

Your Majesty […] (as the Mirror of her sexe & quality), the most incomparable in generosity and affability by right termed the Queene of ♥.1 So wrote diplomat, spy, and art broker Sir Balthazar Gerbier in a letter of 1639. The recipient was Elizabeth Stuart (1596–1662), daughter of James VI/I, sister to Charles I, and aunt to Charles II. By the time of her death at the age of 65, she had lived through the reigns of her father and brother, the decade of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, and seen her nephew restored to the throne of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. She was at the centre of the political and military struggle that was the Thirty Years War (1618–48), acting as powerbroker between the great families of Europe, not always successfully, and yet forged a dynasty that led directly to the Hanoverian succession of 1714: King George I was her grandson....

Wagering and Gaming Contracts in New Zealand

<p>The law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand has a long and complex history which pre-dates the birth of this nation by almost two centuries. The Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) is a consolidating statute, but ss.69, 70 and 71, the enactments having specific application in this area, fall far short of providing a complete code of the law. English statutes enacted in the reigns of Charles II (1664), Anne (1710) and William IV (1835) have always been, and continue to be in force in this country, and indeed, their survival here has been more complete than in England where many of their provisions have been excised by the process of legislative repeal. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is very much a product of the English experience for the English enactments in force here are in turn supplemented by New Zealand provisions which have been largely copied from English Gaming Acts of 1845 and 1892. But the New Zealand Legislature has not been completely lacking in imagination. Section 71 of the Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) has no counterpart in the English statutes, and sections 69 and 70 of the New Zealand Act both contain subtle, but significant differences, to their English equivalents. However, although New Zealand law in this area is modelled on that of England, there the similarity ends. English law in existence and applicable to the circumstances of the Colony of New Zealand on the 14th of January 1840 was declared to be in force in New Zealand by the English Laws Act, 1858 (N.Z.). That Act did not, however, apply subsequent English enactments, and substantial reforms to the law of gaming and wagering contracts effected by the gaming Act, 1845 (U.K.) were not adopted in New Zealand until the colonial Gaming and Lotteries Act was enacted in 1881. The English Act of 1845 replaced the gaming contract provisions of the Act of Anne (1710) and repealed all but those securities provisions of that Act that had been modified by the Gaming Act, 1835 (U.K.) Thus, within a period of five years from the inception of the colony, New Zealand was applying English gaming laws that were more than two centuries old whilst the English Courts were faced with the prospect of construing a brand new Act. Thirty six years later the colonial legislature adopted verbatim the contract provisions in the Imperial Act of 1845. But by an apparent over-sight the colonial draftsman failed to effect the substantial repeals of the Acts of 1664 and 1710 the English Act had done. But that was only the first of the colonial errors. A further English Act in 1892 was copied and enacted by the colonial legislature in 1894 but with an appendage that demonstrated that the New Zealand legislature had not fully understood the full import of the English measure. This created difficulties of interpretation which were only compounded by a further error of the draftsman of the 1881 Act when he mistakenly copied s.6 of the Betting Houses Act 1853 (U.K.) into s.34 of the former Act without realising the significance of doing so. The 1894 Act also introduced what is now s.71 of the 1908 Act, a provision the reason for the enactment of which has remained unexplained to the present day. When a consolidation of the Colonial Acts was effected by the Gaming Act 1908 the law of gaming and wagering contracts was already in a state of considerable confusion. That confusion was, of course, carried into that Act, but it did not end there and indeed can be said to have gained a new dimension when, as recently as 1970, the New Zealand legislature enacted the Illegal Contracts Act. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is largely a product of misunderstandings and errors that occurred when legislative attempts were made to re-enact and effect modifications of the English statutes in this country. In this work the writer seeks to identify the points of departure and to find a rational basis for the law of gaming and wagering contracts and this investigation proceeds in the context of a recognised need for proposals for reform. To this end, in chapters 1 and 2 the social climate in which the Acts of 1664, 1710, 1835 and 1845 are enacted, and their purpose and scope, is identified. In chapter 3 the case for the proposition that the Acts of 1664, 1710 and 1835 are in force in New Zealand is made out and this is followed in chapter 4 by an attempt to explain the motivation behind the enactment of the colonial Acts of 1881 and 1894. Included in this chapter is an outline of the difficulties inherent in both the language of these Acts, and the construction applied to them by the Courts, Chapter 5 is devoted to ascertaining the actual scope of the law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand today and in the penultimate chapter the Impact upon, and the implications for that law, of the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 is discussed. Each section is, where appropriate, accompanied by specific proposals for reform, and those proposals are brought together in summary form in chapter 7.</p>

Wagering and Gaming Contracts in New Zealand

<p>The law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand has a long and complex history which pre-dates the birth of this nation by almost two centuries. The Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) is a consolidating statute, but ss.69, 70 and 71, the enactments having specific application in this area, fall far short of providing a complete code of the law. English statutes enacted in the reigns of Charles II (1664), Anne (1710) and William IV (1835) have always been, and continue to be in force in this country, and indeed, their survival here has been more complete than in England where many of their provisions have been excised by the process of legislative repeal. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is very much a product of the English experience for the English enactments in force here are in turn supplemented by New Zealand provisions which have been largely copied from English Gaming Acts of 1845 and 1892. But the New Zealand Legislature has not been completely lacking in imagination. Section 71 of the Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) has no counterpart in the English statutes, and sections 69 and 70 of the New Zealand Act both contain subtle, but significant differences, to their English equivalents. However, although New Zealand law in this area is modelled on that of England, there the similarity ends. English law in existence and applicable to the circumstances of the Colony of New Zealand on the 14th of January 1840 was declared to be in force in New Zealand by the English Laws Act, 1858 (N.Z.). That Act did not, however, apply subsequent English enactments, and substantial reforms to the law of gaming and wagering contracts effected by the gaming Act, 1845 (U.K.) were not adopted in New Zealand until the colonial Gaming and Lotteries Act was enacted in 1881. The English Act of 1845 replaced the gaming contract provisions of the Act of Anne (1710) and repealed all but those securities provisions of that Act that had been modified by the Gaming Act, 1835 (U.K.) Thus, within a period of five years from the inception of the colony, New Zealand was applying English gaming laws that were more than two centuries old whilst the English Courts were faced with the prospect of construing a brand new Act. Thirty six years later the colonial legislature adopted verbatim the contract provisions in the Imperial Act of 1845. But by an apparent over-sight the colonial draftsman failed to effect the substantial repeals of the Acts of 1664 and 1710 the English Act had done. But that was only the first of the colonial errors. A further English Act in 1892 was copied and enacted by the colonial legislature in 1894 but with an appendage that demonstrated that the New Zealand legislature had not fully understood the full import of the English measure. This created difficulties of interpretation which were only compounded by a further error of the draftsman of the 1881 Act when he mistakenly copied s.6 of the Betting Houses Act 1853 (U.K.) into s.34 of the former Act without realising the significance of doing so. The 1894 Act also introduced what is now s.71 of the 1908 Act, a provision the reason for the enactment of which has remained unexplained to the present day. When a consolidation of the Colonial Acts was effected by the Gaming Act 1908 the law of gaming and wagering contracts was already in a state of considerable confusion. That confusion was, of course, carried into that Act, but it did not end there and indeed can be said to have gained a new dimension when, as recently as 1970, the New Zealand legislature enacted the Illegal Contracts Act. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is largely a product of misunderstandings and errors that occurred when legislative attempts were made to re-enact and effect modifications of the English statutes in this country. In this work the writer seeks to identify the points of departure and to find a rational basis for the law of gaming and wagering contracts and this investigation proceeds in the context of a recognised need for proposals for reform. To this end, in chapters 1 and 2 the social climate in which the Acts of 1664, 1710, 1835 and 1845 are enacted, and their purpose and scope, is identified. In chapter 3 the case for the proposition that the Acts of 1664, 1710 and 1835 are in force in New Zealand is made out and this is followed in chapter 4 by an attempt to explain the motivation behind the enactment of the colonial Acts of 1881 and 1894. Included in this chapter is an outline of the difficulties inherent in both the language of these Acts, and the construction applied to them by the Courts, Chapter 5 is devoted to ascertaining the actual scope of the law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand today and in the penultimate chapter the Impact upon, and the implications for that law, of the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 is discussed. Each section is, where appropriate, accompanied by specific proposals for reform, and those proposals are brought together in summary form in chapter 7.</p>

Gangraena i remedium, o herezjach i zwyrodnieniu religijnym w Anglii połowy XVII w.

Gangraena and its cure: on Heresies and Religious Perversions in mid-seventeenth century England The English Civil War saw an explosion in the production of printed material. Booklets, pamphlets, leaflets, and ballads of all types and covering all manner of subjects appeared in their thousands. Indeed, the number of titles printed during this period surpassed 2,000 per year. Among these we find a large category of prints denouncing religious heresy and perverse behaviors. The most elaborate of these was Thomas Edwards’s Gangraena, which ran to several thousand pages in length and spanned three consecutive volumes. In this article, the author looks at various religious sects in England and aspects of their beliefs and behaviors to examine how the Restoration England of Charles II tried to cure its population of unorthodox and perverse religious ideas.

English Civil War / War of the Three Kingdoms

The civil war between Charles I and his parliament broke out in England in 1642; rebellions were already underway in Scotland from 1637, and in Ireland from 1641. The conflict culminated with the trial and execution of the king in 1649. Through the 1650s Britain was governed as a republic, then as a Protectorate under Oliver Cromwell from 1653. But the regime unraveled after Cromwell’s death in 1658, ultimately leading to the Restoration of monarchy under Charles II in 1660. The civil wars were fought on the page as intensely as on the battlefield, producing an outpouring of rich and diverse literature, including (to barely scratch the surface): the poetry and prose of John Milton, Andrew Marvell, the cavalier poets, Katherine Philips, Margaret Cavendish, Lucy Hutchinson, Gerrard Winstanley, Thomas Hobbes, the Earl of Clarendon, Marchamont Nedham. This vibrant and important body of writing was, for much of the 20th century, neglected and poorly understood. The closure of the theaters in 1642, the collapse of royal court culture, and a critical fashion that dismissed writing sullied by political engagement: these factors all produced the illusion of a hiatus in the literary tradition, a “cavalier winter.” These misplaced assumptions, however, have been overturned since the 1980s by a new wave of scholarly interest, galvanized by a renewed recognition of the value and excitement of politically engaged writing. Scholarship informed by different branches of historicism, combining literary criticism variously with New Historicism, with the history of political thought, with social history, and with book history, have all transformed our appreciation of civil war literature. As such, work by historicist critics—and by historians—is inescapably central to this bibliography, and fundamental to our understanding of the period’s literature. But, as will become apparent, plenty of space remains for a diversity of approaches including gender studies, queer studies, critical theory, reception studies, and formalism. This bibliography is organized thematically, rather than around major individual authors, of whom there are many, most of whom appear in multiple sections. For this reason, no attempt has been made to include scholarly editions, though reader-friendly anthologies are listed, many of which make valuable scholarly contributions. Key studies on politics and literature appear in Literature and Politics: Essential Studies, followed by more focused sections on royalism, cavalier poetry, republicanism, and Cromwellian writing. Other sections cover scholarship on printing and pamphleteering, on radicalism, on women’s writing, on gender and sexuality, on drama, and on international and colonial contexts.