A Liberal before Liberalism: Karl Hermann Scheidler and the New Hegelians

This paper is the first substantial investigation in English or German of the work and career of the student of Jacob Fries, leader of the Burschenschaften, educational reformer, and professor of philosophy and law Karl Hermann Scheidler. It examines Scheidler's interventions into political and constitutional debates during the German Vormärz and argues that he developed a unique brand of liberal corporatism that has been overlooked or misunderstood by intellectual historians—one that attempts to bridge the gap between eighteenth-century natural law and nineteenth-century political nationalism by defending the corporate autonomy of the churches and universities, and by promoting a combination of public virtue and moral perfection that he dubbed “political Protestantism.” It emphasizes Scheidler's polemical articles against the “Hegel school” and the “New Hegelians” in Rotteck's and Welcker's Staats-Lexikon. It proposes that a detailed examination of Scheidler's work provides a clearer understanding of how liberalism emerged as a distinct political ideology during the Vormärz and how one strand of German liberalism defined itself against Hegelianism.

No reflective loss: The English approach reconsidered

A company shareholder should have no difficulty in commencing a claim to recover the loss suffered due to a wrong done to their personal property. The right to the protection of property is a fundamental human right in English law. A wronged person whose property right is infringed will have the right to commence legal proceedings against wrongdoers. However, in the company context, the exercise of a shareholder’s right of action may conflict with the company’s right of action where the loss sought is reflective. The English company law’s arrangement has been that a shareholder’s action is exceptional beyond which it will routinely be barred through the principle of the ‘no reflective loss’. Where company’s loss and the shareholders’ loss are reflectively linked, then the company’s action prevails against the shareholder action. This paper argues that the two actions should swap places in law. Shareholder action should be recognised as a general principle of law while it is barred exceptionally in circumstances where stronger policy considerations such as the observation of the corporate autonomy are to be prioritised. This article refers to company law in the UK.

Literature and Law in the Era of Magna Carta

Literature and Law in the Era of Magna Carta traces the fortunes of literary training and experimentation across the early history of the English common law, from its beginnings in the reign of Henry II to its tumultuous consolidations under the reigns of John and Henry III. The period from the mid-twelfth through the thirteenth centuries witnessed an outpouring of innovative legal writing in England, from Magna Carta to the scores of statute books that preserved its provisions. An era of civil war and imperial fracture, it also proved a time of intensive self-definition, as communities both lay and ecclesiastic used law to articulate collective identities. Literature and Law in the Era of Magna Carta uncovers the role that grammatical and rhetorical training played in shaping these arguments for legal self-definition. Beginning with Thomas Becket, the book interweaves the histories of literary pedagogy and English law, showing how foundational lessons in poetics helped generate both a language and theory of corporate autonomy. Geoffrey of Vinsauf’s phenomenally popular Latin compositional handbook, the Poetria nova, finds its place against the diplomatic backdrop of the English Interdict, while Robert Grosseteste’s Anglo-French devotional poem, the Château d’Amour, is situated within the landscape of property law and Jewish-Christian interactions. Exploring a shared vocabulary across legal and grammatical fields, this book argues that poetic habits of thought proved central to constructing the narratives that medieval law tells about itself and that later scholars tell about the origins of English constitutionalism.

“Job Killers” in the News

Chapter 6investigates one outgrowth of the shift in journalism and politics: the rise of the concept of “job killers.” Conservative politicians have successfully coined the term “job killer” for the laws and policies that impede corporate autonomy and unchecked profit-taking. Ironically, these laws (e.g., minimum wage, health care reform, workplace safety rules) are designed to aid the working class. Yet, the term is often uncritically repeated by journalists. The durability of “job killers” as a public concept speaks to a major failure of the press.

Covering Blood and Graves

Gallman and Taylor take up murder at the boundary zones between the Iroquois and British settlers and between Spanish Florida and the Lower Creeks and Seminoles. Despite contrasts between the legal systems of the empires—civil law and inquisitorial procedure on the Spanish side, common law and trial by jury on the British side—indigenous groups came to similar conclusions regarding murder. Specifically, Native leaders rejected execution of the guilty, as proposed by English law, or other punishments, from execution to imprisonment to exile, under Spanish law. They opted instead to resolve matters by “covering the grave,” or giving gifts by the culpable party to the aggrieved party in lieu of revenge. This practice was less likely to spark a blood feud and enabled indigenous groups to preserve corporate autonomy in the face of pressures to conform to imperial norms. Though reluctantly, imperial officials often went along with this in order to keep the peace.

The Great Sidetrack War: In Which Downtown Merchants and thePhiladelphia North AmericanDefeat the Pennsylvania Railroad, 1903–1904

On November 21, 1903, the Pennsylvania Railroad announced that its north-south through trains would no longer enter Broad Street Station in downtown Philadelphia and would stop instead at West Philadelphia. Nor would the company sell tickets from that station to downtown. These schedule changes, which seemed minor to the company and were intended to reduce congestion in the central city, threatened downtown merchants and manufacturers who worried that buyers would shift to more accessible cities. Philadelphia had been sidetracked, theNorth Americanreported. The result was an eruption of boycotts, protests, and petitions that pitted nearly every local trade association against the railroad. Encouraged by theNorth American's editorials, partisan reporting, and stinging cartoons, the protesters forced the Pennsylvania to back down, and in March 1904, through trains returned to Broad Street. The newspaper cloaked this local business dispute in the language of antimonopoly, linking the fears of small businessmen to national anti-railroad concerns. The sidetrack episode also helped launch modern corporate public relations, as the Pennsylvania—stung by this threat to corporate autonomy—soon hired Ivy Lee as its first publicity agent.

Professional Autonomy Reconsidered: The Case of Czech Medicine under State Socialism

The opening of the formerly closed, state socialist societies of East Central Europe has provided the opportunity to bring new empirical evidence to bear upon models of profession-state relations developed in pluralist western societies. The classic view of Tocqueville and Durkheim has been that professions are an intermediary group linking individuals and the state. Although not always explicitly stated, this model served as the basis for scholarly work on the professions in the post-World War II period, where it (more or less) fit the image of a differentiated pluralist society. Most work on the professions was based on the Anglo-American case.But even in the United States, state support was more central to maintaining professional authority than was originally thought. Without explicitly discarding the model, Freidson (1970) introduced a distinction between corporate and technical (clinical) autonomy that provided a way out of the paradox he identified, that both aspects of professional autonomy are protected by the state. Corporate autonomy refers to the political power of the organized profession to define the social and economic context of professional work, and clinical autonomy, to the control of decision making in the workplace. Testing his hypothesis on the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, Freidson argued that despite differing degrees of corporate autonomy, the medical profession retained clinical control of decision making, the core of professional autonomy, even in the extreme case of the former Soviet Union.