The 14th to 16th centuries saw the increasingly professionalism of Common law, and the embedding of parliament at the centre of government. Jurists claimed that the people were sovereign, though monarchs would still need some persuading
The 14th to 16th centuries saw the increasingly professionalism of Common law, and the embedding of parliament at the centre of government. Jurists claimed that the people were sovereign, though monarchs would still need some persuading
David, I’m enjoying this series on British/English constitutional law. Since I’m still only up to the Elizabethan age podcasts in the regular feed, I may wait on listening to concluding shedcast in this series until I get up to your episodes on the 17th Century. In the meantime, Sh36b left me with an arcane question. Regarding those accused who refused to enter any plea and thus died under the weight of pressed stones, does the record show whether the Crown in fact kept its side of the “bargain”: i.e., not confiscating the property of the accused because he or she had not been convicted at trial, thus allowing the family to keep the property? Regards, Jerry
The following paper has a reference on page 18. It would seem so, except in the case of Treason.
https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJLH/2000/1.pdf
Cheers!