Constitutional conflicts in seventeenth-century England

in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

In the constitutional conflicts of the 17th century, both Crown and Parliament justified actions contrary to the other's will by reference to necessity. The Crown held the raising of additional finance to be necessary; the Parliament, its raising of a militia. The competence to determine a time of necessity, and to decide on the public good in it, was the key to sovereignty. In a series of cases reaching a peak in Hampden, the courts handed the Crown an unrestrained Prerogative. With the Militia Ordinance, a disturbed Parliament then claimed the competence for deciding on the public good in an emergency, even against the King's will, because its judgements as opposed to the king's discretion in his Royal prerogative were based on the common law which bound even the King. The concept of Parliament as a court of common law is often under-emphasized, though this is at the heart of the Parliament's claim to sovereignty achieved in 1689, because the Monarch could veto legislative acts, but he could not veto judgements.

Constitutional conflicts in seventeenth-century England

in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis / Revue d'Histoire du Droit / The Legal History Review

Sections

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 32 32 24
Full Text Views 58 58 45
PDF Downloads 7 7 5
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0