| | |
|
RyanHolmesFirstPaper 3 - 20 Dec 2017 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
The Englishry of the English Law + | | | Struggles between the Crown and the nobility, exacerbated by Britain’s relative physical isolation from the Continent and social and economic changes in the latter medieval period, led to the British monarchy being more constrained by the rule of law than its continental counterparts. For example, the rights of Parliament granted in the Magna Carta were can be temporary compromises to appease an emboldened and restless baronage after the loss of the Angevin’s continental possessions. These rights, through John’s untimely death and their subsequent reaffirmation, grew to eventually topple kings. In the land law, changes in the economy and the irrelevance of knight-service in the face of the yeoman archer led to a crisis of feudalism, and set off centuries of conflict between landowners and the Crown over the collection of incidents and the passage of land. This conflict dragged on for centuries from Quia Emptores, to the respective Statutes of Uses and Wills, ultimately leading to a defeat of royal power with abolition of feudal incidents in the 17th century. | |
>
> | Surely the abolition of
the incidents is not the most striking illustration of the defeat of
royal power in the 17th century. Events of January 1649 and
December 1688 seem more salient, for example.
| | | Section V
Though this essay speaks in broad terms and excludes many important themes, it seeks to establish that the diverse sources of the English law, while providing an essential foundation, are not enough to account for the development of the English legal system’s defining characteristics. The development of the medieval and early modern world, and the effect of these pressures on a relatively isolated island society, is more responsible for the distinctive character of the English law than its beginnings in Anglo-Saxon tradition and Norman governance. | |
>
> |
Section titles would be useful, if there is a point in the divisions
now indicated by number only.
I think the point of the essay, to quarrel with the question, is
valid as a strategy. Whether you have adequately quarreled with the
question is uncertain in this draft, so you could strengthen that to
advantage. The "Englishry of English law" is a concept you can
deny, stating that there is nothing particularly distinctive about
the common law against the European background. Or you can accept
the idea of diversity in outcome and argue that diversity of
population, language and history is not the primary reason for the
atypical evolution of the English law. Both are feasible lines of
argument, though the first requires particularly strong will and
good evidence, as it is quite contrarian. To say, however, that
starting from "the Englishry" of English law requires that we
"ignore the influence of the larger social, political, and economic
pressures shaping the laws of England" does not wash. This is more
about changing your framing top and bottom than about the content of
the essay itself.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |