| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="PaperTopics" |
|---|
Statutes & Royal Ordinances, Edward II |
| | “Sic voluntas hodie vincit rationem. Nam quicquid regi placuerit, quamvis ratione careat, legis habet vigorem” [Thus today will overcome reason. For whatever pleases the king, although lacking reason, has the force of law].
Vita Edwardi Secondi. |
|
<
< | The king being the fount of all justice, was also a judicial authority. It seems that Edward II personally did involve himself in the judicial decision making process if the matter had enough at stake for him to be involved. Attachment 2 mentions adjournment for further royal deliberation. |
>
> | The king being the fount of all justice, was also a judicial authority. It seems that Edward II personally did involve himself in the judicial decision making process if the matter had enough at stake for him to be involved. La Warre v. Bishop of Coventry (attached) mentions adjournment for further royal deliberation. |
| | |
|
<
< | So does Attachment 3. |
>
> | So does King v. The Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem (attached). |
| | |
|
<
< | However, sometime the King would intervene to instruct the courts to act in a way that would be expressly violative of a statute, and that did not go without protest. In Scoland v. Grandison [Attachment 4] the counsel for the defendant, says that his client need not answer to the writ since it was presented in violation of the procedure laid (not on the day provided for) by statute. The judge note that they were under direct order from the King to allow the writ. |
>
> | However, sometime the King would intervene to instruct the courts to act in a way that would be expressly violative of a statute, and that did not go without protest. In Scoland v. Grandison [Attached] the counsel for the defendant, says that his client need not answer to the writ since it was presented in violation of the procedure laid (not on the day provided for) by statute. The judge note that they were under direct order from the King to allow the writ. |
| | The interesting (and relevant for our purpose) exchange happens on page 175-76, where to the Counsel’s contention that the statute in question was made by the “common counsel of the Realm”, and therefore should not be overridden by a simple directive of the king. However, the judges responded that the king’s command was at par with “common counsel”
What also came up was the fact that such a view is in clear violation of the Ordinances, which were still fresh (the case was sometime in the years 1313-1314) |
|
<
< | Similarly, in another case of the question came up whether certain actions were in violation of the Magna Carta. The response of the judges was that since they were acting in King’s stead, the have to give weight to the king’s wishes (which were conveyed through a letter) even if it goes against the principles of Magna Carta. [Attachment 5] |
>
> | Similarly, in the case of Horneby v. Abbot of Croyland the question came up whether certain actions were in violation of the Magna Carta. The response of the judges was that since they were acting in King’s stead, the have to give weight to the king’s wishes (which were conveyed through a letter) even if it goes against the principles of Magna Carta. [Attached] |
| | |
| |
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="King_Edward_II.jpg" attr="" comment="King Edward II, from De Secretis Secretorum, circa 1326" date="1229418350" name="King_Edward_II.jpg" path="King Edward II.jpg" size="108436" stream="King Edward II.jpg" user="Main.SandiptoDasgupta" version="1" |
|---|
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="A_History_of_English_LAw.png" attr="" comment="A History of English Law (1903)" date="1229423646" name="A_History_of_English_LAw.png" path="A History of English LAw.png" size="52617" stream="A History of English LAw.png" user="Main.SandiptoDasgupta" version="1" |
|---|
|
|
>
> |
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="Scoland_v._Grandison_-_Facts.pdf" attr="" comment="Year Book of Edward II: The Eyre of Kent 6 & 7 Edward II (Selden Society v. 24, 27, 29), Pages 159-161" date="1230317863" name="Scoland_v._Grandison_-_Facts.pdf" path="Scoland v. Grandison - Facts.pdf" size="792703" stream="Scoland v. Grandison - Facts.pdf" user="Main.SandiptoDasgupta" version="1" |
|---|
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="Scoland_v._Grandison_-_Relevant_Arguments.pdf" attr="" comment="Year Book of Edward II: The Eyre of Kent 6 & 7 Edward II (Selden Society v. 24, 27, 29), Pages 175-176" date="1230317937" name="Scoland_v._Grandison_-_Relevant_Arguments.pdf" path="Scoland v. Grandison - Relevant Arguments.pdf" size="565419" stream="Scoland v. Grandison - Relevant Arguments.pdf" user="Main.SandiptoDasgupta" version="1" |
|---|
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="Horneby_v._Abbot_of_Croyland.pdf" attr="" comment="Year Book of Edward II: 5 Edward II (Selden Society V. 63), Pages 6-8." date="1230318850" name="Horneby_v._Abbot_of_Croyland.pdf" path="Horneby v. Abbot of Croyland.pdf" size="673768" stream="Horneby v. Abbot of Croyland.pdf" user="Main.SandiptoDasgupta" version="1" |
|---|
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="La_Warre_v._Bishop_of_Coventry.pdf" attr="" comment="Year Book of Edward II: 11 Edward II (Selden Society v.61), Pages 309, 312 and 315 (especially 312)" date="1230319213" name="La_Warre_v._Bishop_of_Coventry.pdf" path="La Warre v. Bishop of Coventry.pdf" size="869718" stream="La Warre v. Bishop of Coventry.pdf" user="Main.SandiptoDasgupta" version="1" |
|---|
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="King_v._The_Prior_of_the_Hospital_of_St._John_of_Jerusalem.pdf" attr="" comment="Year Book of Edward II: 8 Edward II (Selden Society v.41), Pages 73-75 and 78 (especially 78)" date="1230319312" name="King_v._The_Prior_of_the_Hospital_of_St._John_of_Jerusalem.pdf" path="King v. The Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem.pdf" size="1167530" stream="King v. The Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem.pdf" user="Main.SandiptoDasgupta" version="1" |
|---|
|