“The Dearest Birth Right of the People of England” : The Jury in the History of the Common Law

2002 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
1983 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 276-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Parkin-Speer

In the history of English law and the Puritan Revolution, the Levellers are generally considered opponents of the common law, who increasingly used natural law arguments in their revolutionary propaganda. John Lilburne, one of the foremost Leveller leaders, in the tract The Legall Fundamentall Liberties of the People of England published in June 1649 and at his trial for treason in October 1649 used the common law as presented in Sir Edward Coke's The Institutes of the Laws of England and his report of Dr. Bonham's Case, to support his attack on the Rump Parliament. This was only the second use of Dr. Bonham's Case in public controversy as opposed to in a private law matter. Lilburne's reliance on The Institutes and Dr. Bonham's Case also reveals how Coke's legal thought could be integrated into revolutionary thinking, i.e., the limitation of the powers of parliament, not just through judicial review, but through individual citizens' interpretation of statutory law and their individual judgment of the validity of laws. The tenet of radical Protestantism, the supremacy of individual judgment, finds expression in Lilburne's interpretation of statutes and his belief in the limited powers of Parliament. The idea that radical Protestantism led to democratic theory and shook the foundations of established institutions is given additional support by Lilburne's propaganda and defense of himself.


1977 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 373
Author(s):  
J. L. Barton ◽  
A. W. B. Simpson ◽  
S. J. Stoljar
Keyword(s):  

1971 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. H. Baker

Slade's Case is of such significance in the history of the common law that it has, quite properly, been the subject of more scrutiny and discussion in recent years than any other case of the same age. The foundation of all this discussion has been Coke's report, which is the only full report in print. The accuracy and completeness of Coke's version have hardly been challenged, and the discussions have assumed that it contains almost all there is to know about the case. This assumption must be discarded if we are to understand the contemporary significance of the case.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document