T. M. Scanlon
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199281688
- eISBN:
- 9780191603747
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199281688.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This essay considers the disagreement between Cohen and Rawls on the question of whether individuals should be held responsible for their tastes and preferences. It notes the difference in principle, ...
More
This essay considers the disagreement between Cohen and Rawls on the question of whether individuals should be held responsible for their tastes and preferences. It notes the difference in principle, since the primary goods measure of Rawls holds individuals responsible for their choices as to how to deploy these goods, whereas Cohen’s aim is to equalize access to advantage, and thereby the satisfaction of persons, however costly. It is argued that since Cohen concedes that practical matters of application might compromise egalitarian principle, the two thinkers might be, in practice, not that dissimilar.Less
This essay considers the disagreement between Cohen and Rawls on the question of whether individuals should be held responsible for their tastes and preferences. It notes the difference in principle, since the primary goods measure of Rawls holds individuals responsible for their choices as to how to deploy these goods, whereas Cohen’s aim is to equalize access to advantage, and thereby the satisfaction of persons, however costly. It is argued that since Cohen concedes that practical matters of application might compromise egalitarian principle, the two thinkers might be, in practice, not that dissimilar.
Samuel Scheffler
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199281688
- eISBN:
- 9780191603747
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199281688.003.0007
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This essay focuses on Cohen’s recent arguments for extending the scope of justice beyond Rawls’s formulation. It argues for the merits of Rawls’s argument that the primary subject of justice should ...
More
This essay focuses on Cohen’s recent arguments for extending the scope of justice beyond Rawls’s formulation. It argues for the merits of Rawls’s argument that the primary subject of justice should be restricted to social institutions. It contends that whether or not one agrees with Rawls’s view of what should count as the subject of justice, Cohen is wrong to understand the upshot of this to be either a paltry measure of redistribution or the accommodation of the untrammelled pursuit of selfish interests.Less
This essay focuses on Cohen’s recent arguments for extending the scope of justice beyond Rawls’s formulation. It argues for the merits of Rawls’s argument that the primary subject of justice should be restricted to social institutions. It contends that whether or not one agrees with Rawls’s view of what should count as the subject of justice, Cohen is wrong to understand the upshot of this to be either a paltry measure of redistribution or the accommodation of the untrammelled pursuit of selfish interests.
Jean Dunbabin
- Published in print:
- 1991
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198222910
- eISBN:
- 9780191678523
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198222910.001.0001
- Subject:
- History, European Medieval History, History of Religion
Pierre de la Palud was a friar of aristocratic birth who was appointed Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1329. This biography follows the course of his eventful life, and exploits his copious writings to ...
More
Pierre de la Palud was a friar of aristocratic birth who was appointed Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1329. This biography follows the course of his eventful life, and exploits his copious writings to build up a vivid picture of the man and the world he inhabited. Lawyer, advocate, preacher, reformer, theologian, politician, encyclopedist, crusader – Pierre was all of these, and the voice of each can be heard in his writing. This book traces the career of Pierre de la Palud from his early reflections on contemporary moral issues – including papal prerogatives, contraception, and usury – to his political and diplomatic activities as Patriarch of Jerusalem. From Dominican friar to French courtier, the variety of Pierre's experience and the range of his writings reflect the turbulence of the fourteenth-century Christian church.Less
Pierre de la Palud was a friar of aristocratic birth who was appointed Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1329. This biography follows the course of his eventful life, and exploits his copious writings to build up a vivid picture of the man and the world he inhabited. Lawyer, advocate, preacher, reformer, theologian, politician, encyclopedist, crusader – Pierre was all of these, and the voice of each can be heard in his writing. This book traces the career of Pierre de la Palud from his early reflections on contemporary moral issues – including papal prerogatives, contraception, and usury – to his political and diplomatic activities as Patriarch of Jerusalem. From Dominican friar to French courtier, the variety of Pierre's experience and the range of his writings reflect the turbulence of the fourteenth-century Christian church.
Tim Mulgan
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- May 2006
- ISBN:
- 9780199282203
- eISBN:
- 9780191603624
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019928220X.003.0004
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
This chapter applies Samuel Scheffler’s ‘Hybrid View’ to the morality of reproduction. It concludes that the Hybrid View does not provide a satisfactory account of our obligations to future ...
More
This chapter applies Samuel Scheffler’s ‘Hybrid View’ to the morality of reproduction. It concludes that the Hybrid View does not provide a satisfactory account of our obligations to future generations, as it cannot accommodate either reproductive freedom or parental obligations. The Hybrid View fails because it cannot appreciate the collective moral significance of reproduction. This failure is shared by all other theories that retain the individualist focus of Simple Consequentialism, and thus motivates the exploration of collective forms of Consequentialism, which begins in Chapter 5.Less
This chapter applies Samuel Scheffler’s ‘Hybrid View’ to the morality of reproduction. It concludes that the Hybrid View does not provide a satisfactory account of our obligations to future generations, as it cannot accommodate either reproductive freedom or parental obligations. The Hybrid View fails because it cannot appreciate the collective moral significance of reproduction. This failure is shared by all other theories that retain the individualist focus of Simple Consequentialism, and thus motivates the exploration of collective forms of Consequentialism, which begins in Chapter 5.
Richard M. Pious
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199217977
- eISBN:
- 9780191711541
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217977.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
This chapter focuses on the president's use of prerogative powers and the treatment of detainees in the war on terror. President Bush asserted his prerogative power in interpreting and reinterpreting ...
More
This chapter focuses on the president's use of prerogative powers and the treatment of detainees in the war on terror. President Bush asserted his prerogative power in interpreting and reinterpreting conventions and customary international law obligations, and in interpreting the obligations of government officials to execute faithfully statute law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and various directives. It is argued that officials at the highest levels of government made decisions based on the constitutional authority of the president (as administration lawyers defined it) that left open the probability that detainees would be subjected to inhuman treatment and torture as defined by international law. The chapter explores why the issue of the treatment of prisoners has not risen to the level of an Iran-Contra affair and what the reaction tells us about the politics of prerogative power.Less
This chapter focuses on the president's use of prerogative powers and the treatment of detainees in the war on terror. President Bush asserted his prerogative power in interpreting and reinterpreting conventions and customary international law obligations, and in interpreting the obligations of government officials to execute faithfully statute law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and various directives. It is argued that officials at the highest levels of government made decisions based on the constitutional authority of the president (as administration lawyers defined it) that left open the probability that detainees would be subjected to inhuman treatment and torture as defined by international law. The chapter explores why the issue of the treatment of prisoners has not risen to the level of an Iran-Contra affair and what the reaction tells us about the politics of prerogative power.
R. A. W. Rhodes, John Wanna, and Patrick Weller
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199563494
- eISBN:
- 9780191722721
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199563494.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, UK Politics
To recover the various meanings of executive government in Westminster systems, the first step is to identify the relevant living traditions. This chapter focuses on the main traditions and the ...
More
To recover the various meanings of executive government in Westminster systems, the first step is to identify the relevant living traditions. This chapter focuses on the main traditions and the recurring dilemmas that shape the beliefs and practices of executive government in the dominion countries. It identifies four traditions: the legacy of royal prerogative or hierarchy; responsible government; constitutional bureaucracy; and representative government. Each tradition has a recurring dilemma. In the monarchical tradition, it is the see-sawing balance between the centralized executive prerogative and various checks and balances, including federalism. For the responsible government tradition, it is the conflicting demands of party government and ministerial responsibility. For constitutional bureaucracy, it is the tension between professionalism in policy making and implementation and the demands for responsiveness to political leaders. For the representative government tradition, it is conflict between elite and participatory notions of representative democracy. These dilemmas recur in four present-day debates: the growth of prime ministerial power; the decline in individual and collective ministerial accountability; the politicization of the public service; and executive dominance of the legislature. The next four chapters explore these dilemmas and debates.Less
To recover the various meanings of executive government in Westminster systems, the first step is to identify the relevant living traditions. This chapter focuses on the main traditions and the recurring dilemmas that shape the beliefs and practices of executive government in the dominion countries. It identifies four traditions: the legacy of royal prerogative or hierarchy; responsible government; constitutional bureaucracy; and representative government. Each tradition has a recurring dilemma. In the monarchical tradition, it is the see-sawing balance between the centralized executive prerogative and various checks and balances, including federalism. For the responsible government tradition, it is the conflicting demands of party government and ministerial responsibility. For constitutional bureaucracy, it is the tension between professionalism in policy making and implementation and the demands for responsiveness to political leaders. For the representative government tradition, it is conflict between elite and participatory notions of representative democracy. These dilemmas recur in four present-day debates: the growth of prime ministerial power; the decline in individual and collective ministerial accountability; the politicization of the public service; and executive dominance of the legislature. The next four chapters explore these dilemmas and debates.
Iain Mclean
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- February 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199546954
- eISBN:
- 9780191720031
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546954.003.0013
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, UK Politics
Purpose of a head of state. Executive and non‐executive heads of state in some democratic constitutions. Australian constitutional crisis 1975. Sir David Smith fails to wake the Queen's Private ...
More
Purpose of a head of state. Executive and non‐executive heads of state in some democratic constitutions. Australian constitutional crisis 1975. Sir David Smith fails to wake the Queen's Private Secretary. Argument for monarchy: certainty. Arguments against: democracy; quality of head of state. The Hanoverian dynasty as UK heads of state. How to elect a head of state?. What would happen to the Royal Prerogative in a democracy. The George V—Asquith exchange of letters in autumn 1913.Less
Purpose of a head of state. Executive and non‐executive heads of state in some democratic constitutions. Australian constitutional crisis 1975. Sir David Smith fails to wake the Queen's Private Secretary. Argument for monarchy: certainty. Arguments against: democracy; quality of head of state. The Hanoverian dynasty as UK heads of state. How to elect a head of state?. What would happen to the Royal Prerogative in a democracy. The George V—Asquith exchange of letters in autumn 1913.
Vernon Bogdanor
- Published in print:
- 1997
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198293347
- eISBN:
- 9780191598821
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198293348.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, UK Politics
The office of head of state should be distinguished from that of head of government. The head of state has three main functions. First, there are constitutional functions, which today are primarily ...
More
The office of head of state should be distinguished from that of head of government. The head of state has three main functions. First, there are constitutional functions, which today are primarily of a residual or formal kind, such as appointing a prime minister and agreeing to dissolve the legislature. Second are the ceremonial functions that President de Gaulle once dismissed as opening exhibitions of chrysanthemums. Third, and perhaps most important, there is the symbolic or representative function, by means of which the head of state represents and symbolizes not just the state but also the nation. The head of state represents the nation to itself. These last two functions are, in Bagehot's terminology, `dignified’ rather than `efficient’ functions. They are likely to be better performed when the office of head of state is separated from that of head of government so that the head of state is not an active party politician. The fundamental principle of constitutional monarchy is that of acting on the advice of ministers. But this does not exclude a considerable amount of influence being wielded by an assiduous sovereign.Less
The office of head of state should be distinguished from that of head of government. The head of state has three main functions. First, there are constitutional functions, which today are primarily of a residual or formal kind, such as appointing a prime minister and agreeing to dissolve the legislature. Second are the ceremonial functions that President de Gaulle once dismissed as opening exhibitions of chrysanthemums. Third, and perhaps most important, there is the symbolic or representative function, by means of which the head of state represents and symbolizes not just the state but also the nation. The head of state represents the nation to itself. These last two functions are, in Bagehot's terminology, `dignified’ rather than `efficient’ functions. They are likely to be better performed when the office of head of state is separated from that of head of government so that the head of state is not an active party politician. The fundamental principle of constitutional monarchy is that of acting on the advice of ministers. But this does not exclude a considerable amount of influence being wielded by an assiduous sovereign.
Rosara Joseph
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199664320
- eISBN:
- 9780191748493
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664320.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Constitutional and Administrative Law, Legal History
This book studies the evolution of the war prerogative in England from 1600-2012. It traces the historical theory and practice of the war prerogative and proposes reform of the constitutional ...
More
This book studies the evolution of the war prerogative in England from 1600-2012. It traces the historical theory and practice of the war prerogative and proposes reform of the constitutional arrangements for its exercise. It considers, first, what have writers on political and constitutional theory said about the constitutional arrangements for the war prerogative, and the justifications advanced for those arrangements? Secondly, has the executive actually possessed sole and exclusive powers over war and the deployment of force, or have Parliament and the courts had a role to play in their exercise and scrutiny? Thirdly, are there better ways to organize our constitutional arrangements to enable a more substantive role for Parliament in the exercise and scrutiny of the war prerogative? It is shown that orthodox theoretical and political discourses have continuously asserted the executive's exclusive power over war, but the justifications advanced for that arrangement have changed over time. Contrary to the orthodox discourses, Parliament has played an active and substantive role in the exercise and scrutiny of the war prerogative. The courts have refused to intervene in the exercise of the war prerogative, but have done so more readily in cases involving the exercise of powers incidental to the war prerogative. The book recommends reform of the constitutional arrangements for the war prerogative through the use of ‘institutional mechanisms’ and the enactment of a statute, which would impose conditions on the executive's exercise of its war prerogative.Less
This book studies the evolution of the war prerogative in England from 1600-2012. It traces the historical theory and practice of the war prerogative and proposes reform of the constitutional arrangements for its exercise. It considers, first, what have writers on political and constitutional theory said about the constitutional arrangements for the war prerogative, and the justifications advanced for those arrangements? Secondly, has the executive actually possessed sole and exclusive powers over war and the deployment of force, or have Parliament and the courts had a role to play in their exercise and scrutiny? Thirdly, are there better ways to organize our constitutional arrangements to enable a more substantive role for Parliament in the exercise and scrutiny of the war prerogative? It is shown that orthodox theoretical and political discourses have continuously asserted the executive's exclusive power over war, but the justifications advanced for that arrangement have changed over time. Contrary to the orthodox discourses, Parliament has played an active and substantive role in the exercise and scrutiny of the war prerogative. The courts have refused to intervene in the exercise of the war prerogative, but have done so more readily in cases involving the exercise of powers incidental to the war prerogative. The book recommends reform of the constitutional arrangements for the war prerogative through the use of ‘institutional mechanisms’ and the enactment of a statute, which would impose conditions on the executive's exercise of its war prerogative.
Stuart Carroll
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199290451
- eISBN:
- 9780191710490
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290451.003.0004
- Subject:
- History, European Early Modern History
Honour was itself measurable by the honours that one had either inherited or had conferred by a superior. Ideally, honours should be commensurate with honour, so that ‘reputation is finally ...
More
Honour was itself measurable by the honours that one had either inherited or had conferred by a superior. Ideally, honours should be commensurate with honour, so that ‘reputation is finally sanctified by the bestowal of honours’. Though competition for office was intense and the struggle for possession the cynosure of factional squabbling, disputes over royal office were not a priori causes of feuds. Honours were naturally sought for material reward, but to claim an office or prerogative was also to claim honour and to deny it to someone else, and thus the victor in the competition for office finds his reputation enhanced by the humiliation of the vanquished. This chapter discusses violence associated with honours and prerogatives in early modern France, hunting as a cornerstone of noble sociability, religious festivals, churches and their furnishings, liturgy as rights of lordship and rights of harmony, and death and burial.Less
Honour was itself measurable by the honours that one had either inherited or had conferred by a superior. Ideally, honours should be commensurate with honour, so that ‘reputation is finally sanctified by the bestowal of honours’. Though competition for office was intense and the struggle for possession the cynosure of factional squabbling, disputes over royal office were not a priori causes of feuds. Honours were naturally sought for material reward, but to claim an office or prerogative was also to claim honour and to deny it to someone else, and thus the victor in the competition for office finds his reputation enhanced by the humiliation of the vanquished. This chapter discusses violence associated with honours and prerogatives in early modern France, hunting as a cornerstone of noble sociability, religious festivals, churches and their furnishings, liturgy as rights of lordship and rights of harmony, and death and burial.
Mary Douglas
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199244195
- eISBN:
- 9780191600548
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199244197.003.0010
- Subject:
- Religion, Biblical Studies
Leviticus consists almost entirely of divine laws, which are interrupted twice by narratives, and both of these interruptions are about encroachment on the divine prerogative; there is no accepted ...
More
Leviticus consists almost entirely of divine laws, which are interrupted twice by narratives, and both of these interruptions are about encroachment on the divine prerogative; there is no accepted explanation for why they should occur where they do. The explanation proposed in this chapter is that the structure of law and narrative cuts the book to the shape of the controlling paradigm. This means that the book of Leviticus itself is structured as a tripartite projection of the tabernacle, and thus also as a projection of Mount Sinai. On this reading the two stories (narratives) correspond to two screens which, according to the instructions given in Exodus, divide the desert tabernacle into three sections of unequal size: the narratives interrupt the movement through the laws as the two screens interrupt the movement through the tabernacle. This thesis is discussed in sections covering: Leviticus as a projection of the tabernacle; fire for fire, and burning for burning; the curser cursed; the scandal of the law of talion (retaliation); and the language of oracles.Less
Leviticus consists almost entirely of divine laws, which are interrupted twice by narratives, and both of these interruptions are about encroachment on the divine prerogative; there is no accepted explanation for why they should occur where they do. The explanation proposed in this chapter is that the structure of law and narrative cuts the book to the shape of the controlling paradigm. This means that the book of Leviticus itself is structured as a tripartite projection of the tabernacle, and thus also as a projection of Mount Sinai. On this reading the two stories (narratives) correspond to two screens which, according to the instructions given in Exodus, divide the desert tabernacle into three sections of unequal size: the narratives interrupt the movement through the laws as the two screens interrupt the movement through the tabernacle. This thesis is discussed in sections covering: Leviticus as a projection of the tabernacle; fire for fire, and burning for burning; the curser cursed; the scandal of the law of talion (retaliation); and the language of oracles.
Ceri Sullivan
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199547845
- eISBN:
- 9780191720901
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547845.003.0003
- Subject:
- Literature, 17th-century and Restoration Literature
God deals with uncooperative witnesses by torturing them until they ventriloquize his words. Poets are sulky about admitting that torture (especially when presented by its inflictor as neither ...
More
God deals with uncooperative witnesses by torturing them until they ventriloquize his words. Poets are sulky about admitting that torture (especially when presented by its inflictor as neither gratuitous in motive nor freely inventive in form) which is a good way to get back onto speaking terms. Such specific reference to torture is a result of the trope inevitably present when God addresses man, subjectio, a monologue that presents itself as a dialogue but where, in fact, the speaker answers himself. The rhetorical implications of this practice — found in contemporary discussions of forced evidence drawn from Roman orators such as Cicero, continental jurists, and English practice under the royal prerogative — are based on an understanding of who has the right to hear and the duty to speak. Despite coming from different legal premises, all three systems agree that the torturer claims a sovereign right to inflict pain under defined circumstances, and that he knows in advance what must and will be said in answer to any questions. This stance has certain consequences: torture engrosses the victim's imagination as much as his senses; he is considered to be bound rather than free (and so without the ethos of a man whose words can be believed), and any involuntary confession will convert past and future interrogation into punishment. Two contemporary models — poems and sermons on Job's sufferings (including those by Francis Quarles and Donne's Devotions upon emergent occasions) — exemplify the correct response to injury inflicted by God.Less
God deals with uncooperative witnesses by torturing them until they ventriloquize his words. Poets are sulky about admitting that torture (especially when presented by its inflictor as neither gratuitous in motive nor freely inventive in form) which is a good way to get back onto speaking terms. Such specific reference to torture is a result of the trope inevitably present when God addresses man, subjectio, a monologue that presents itself as a dialogue but where, in fact, the speaker answers himself. The rhetorical implications of this practice — found in contemporary discussions of forced evidence drawn from Roman orators such as Cicero, continental jurists, and English practice under the royal prerogative — are based on an understanding of who has the right to hear and the duty to speak. Despite coming from different legal premises, all three systems agree that the torturer claims a sovereign right to inflict pain under defined circumstances, and that he knows in advance what must and will be said in answer to any questions. This stance has certain consequences: torture engrosses the victim's imagination as much as his senses; he is considered to be bound rather than free (and so without the ethos of a man whose words can be believed), and any involuntary confession will convert past and future interrogation into punishment. Two contemporary models — poems and sermons on Job's sufferings (including those by Francis Quarles and Donne's Devotions upon emergent occasions) — exemplify the correct response to injury inflicted by God.
David Thomas, David Carlton, and Anne Etienne
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- May 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199260287
- eISBN:
- 9780191717390
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199260287.001.0001
- Subject:
- Literature, Drama
Using previously unpublished material from the National Archives, this book offers a new perspective on British cultural history. Statutory theatre censorship was first introduced in Britain by Sir ...
More
Using previously unpublished material from the National Archives, this book offers a new perspective on British cultural history. Statutory theatre censorship was first introduced in Britain by Sir Robert Walpole with his Licensing Act of 1737. Previously, theatre censorship was exercised under the Royal Prerogative. Walpole's action in giving the Lord Chamberlain statutory powers of theatre censorship had the unforeseen consequence that confusion over the relationship between the Royal Prerogative and statute law would prevent any serious challenge to theatre censorship in Parliament until the 20th century. Sections outlining the political history of key periods explain why theatre censorship legislation was introduced in 1737; why attempts to reform the legislation failed in 1832, 1909, and 1949; and finally succeeded in 1968. In 1909, despite a vigorous campaign by playwrights and politicians, opposition from Edward VII helped to prevent the abolition of theatre censorship. Thereafter, resistance to change and obfuscation on the part of Home Office officials undermined attempts to abolish theatre censorship legislation until 1968. There was also strong support for theatre censorship on the part of commercial theatre managers who saw censorship as offering protection from vexatious prosecution. In 1968, although there was opposition from Elizabeth II, Lord Cobbold (her Lord Chamberlain) and Harold Wilson (her Prime Minister), the combined pressure of playwrights, directors, critics, audiences, and politicians (notably Roy Jenkins) ensured that theatre censorship was finally abolished. The book concludes by exploring whether new forms of covert censorship have replaced the statutory theatre censorship abolished with the 1968 Theatres Act.Less
Using previously unpublished material from the National Archives, this book offers a new perspective on British cultural history. Statutory theatre censorship was first introduced in Britain by Sir Robert Walpole with his Licensing Act of 1737. Previously, theatre censorship was exercised under the Royal Prerogative. Walpole's action in giving the Lord Chamberlain statutory powers of theatre censorship had the unforeseen consequence that confusion over the relationship between the Royal Prerogative and statute law would prevent any serious challenge to theatre censorship in Parliament until the 20th century. Sections outlining the political history of key periods explain why theatre censorship legislation was introduced in 1737; why attempts to reform the legislation failed in 1832, 1909, and 1949; and finally succeeded in 1968. In 1909, despite a vigorous campaign by playwrights and politicians, opposition from Edward VII helped to prevent the abolition of theatre censorship. Thereafter, resistance to change and obfuscation on the part of Home Office officials undermined attempts to abolish theatre censorship legislation until 1968. There was also strong support for theatre censorship on the part of commercial theatre managers who saw censorship as offering protection from vexatious prosecution. In 1968, although there was opposition from Elizabeth II, Lord Cobbold (her Lord Chamberlain) and Harold Wilson (her Prime Minister), the combined pressure of playwrights, directors, critics, audiences, and politicians (notably Roy Jenkins) ensured that theatre censorship was finally abolished. The book concludes by exploring whether new forms of covert censorship have replaced the statutory theatre censorship abolished with the 1968 Theatres Act.
ROGER B. MANNING
- Published in print:
- 1993
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780198203247
- eISBN:
- 9780191675805
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198203247.003.0004
- Subject:
- History, British and Irish Early Modern History, Social History
This chapter examines the passage of game laws in medieval England. The original assumption in the enactment of game law was that husbandsmen and artificers used hunting parties as a cover for ...
More
This chapter examines the passage of game laws in medieval England. The original assumption in the enactment of game law was that husbandsmen and artificers used hunting parties as a cover for conspiracies to rise against their lords; thus, the right to hunt must be denied to those without sufficient estates as a means of preserving public order. The emphasis in game legislation and enforcement later shifted to an assertion of the royal prerogative and aristocratic privilege. The chapter explains that during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, further enactment of game legislation and the attempt to assert possession of deer and game went hand-in-hand with the expanding doctrine of the absolute and unqualified rights of private property.Less
This chapter examines the passage of game laws in medieval England. The original assumption in the enactment of game law was that husbandsmen and artificers used hunting parties as a cover for conspiracies to rise against their lords; thus, the right to hunt must be denied to those without sufficient estates as a means of preserving public order. The emphasis in game legislation and enforcement later shifted to an assertion of the royal prerogative and aristocratic privilege. The chapter explains that during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, further enactment of game legislation and the attempt to assert possession of deer and game went hand-in-hand with the expanding doctrine of the absolute and unqualified rights of private property.
ROGER B. MANNING
- Published in print:
- 1993
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780198203247
- eISBN:
- 9780191675805
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198203247.003.0005
- Subject:
- History, British and Irish Early Modern History, Social History
This chapter examines the issue of lawful and unlawful hunting in medieval England in the case of the purlieu men. It explains that Tudor monarchs had respected the rights of purlieu men and ...
More
This chapter examines the issue of lawful and unlawful hunting in medieval England in the case of the purlieu men. It explains that Tudor monarchs had respected the rights of purlieu men and understood the legal constitution imperatives for limiting forest jurisdiction, despite the fact that their rangers often had less respect for those rights. The chapter discusses the purlieu men's assertion of their rights by hunting the royal deer and resisting the royal rangers and keepers, while following a parallel course of litigation against forest and game officials who trespassed upon their property. It suggests that the cases of the Waltham Forest and Cranborne Chase purlieu men clearly demonstrate that the prerogative and equity court were clearly more responsive to royal pressure to protect the game prerogative.Less
This chapter examines the issue of lawful and unlawful hunting in medieval England in the case of the purlieu men. It explains that Tudor monarchs had respected the rights of purlieu men and understood the legal constitution imperatives for limiting forest jurisdiction, despite the fact that their rangers often had less respect for those rights. The chapter discusses the purlieu men's assertion of their rights by hunting the royal deer and resisting the royal rangers and keepers, while following a parallel course of litigation against forest and game officials who trespassed upon their property. It suggests that the cases of the Waltham Forest and Cranborne Chase purlieu men clearly demonstrate that the prerogative and equity court were clearly more responsive to royal pressure to protect the game prerogative.
F. M. Kamm
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780195144024
- eISBN:
- 9780199870998
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0195144023.003.0009
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Moral Philosophy
The first three chapters of Part III of the book (Chs 8–10) examine the question of whether it is morally permissible to treat people in ways ruled out by the Principle of Permissible Harm (PPH; this ...
More
The first three chapters of Part III of the book (Chs 8–10) examine the question of whether it is morally permissible to treat people in ways ruled out by the Principle of Permissible Harm (PPH; this was introduced in Ch. 7 and provides an account of certain restrictions/constraints on killing) only for the sake of minimizing violations of the PPH itself, or whether there is a constraint on doing this. Ch. 8 first examines the arguments Samuel Scheffler presents against both restrictions and constraints, and his defence of prerogatives not to maximize good or minimize harm (his Hybrid Theory); since Scheffler's views on prerogatives are in some ways related to those of Bernard Williams, the latter's views on integrity are also considered. The criticism made of Scheffler in Sect. I of this chapter is concerned with his view of the supposed gulf between prerogatives and restrictions, and consideration is given to whether too great an emphasis on an active/passive distinction does not underlie his strong opposition to restrictions and whether (by a transitivity argument) he is committed to no restrictions even in pursuing personal non‐optimal projects. Possible similarities between prerogatives and restrictions (or constraints) are considered, but the focus is on crucial differences with respect to minimizing the violation of prerogatives and restrictions, these differences giving rise to what are called the Value and Selection Problems; solutions to the Selection Problem based on asymmetries in victims and differentiation between agents are considered. Sect. II of the chapter re‐examines the foundations of a prerogative (not to maximize good or to minimize harm) that Scheffler located in the personal point of view (PPV); rejecting the sufficiency of Scheffler's account, the chapter focuses on freedom of choice over entitlements in creatures who are ends‐in‐themselves, discussing briefly the idea of reasons generated from the PPV in such creatures; finally, an examination is made of the arguments Shelly Kagan has constructed for and against prerogatives, including the Negative and Positive Arguments, and the Argument from Vividness.Less
The first three chapters of Part III of the book (Chs 8–10) examine the question of whether it is morally permissible to treat people in ways ruled out by the Principle of Permissible Harm (PPH; this was introduced in Ch. 7 and provides an account of certain restrictions/constraints on killing) only for the sake of minimizing violations of the PPH itself, or whether there is a constraint on doing this. Ch. 8 first examines the arguments Samuel Scheffler presents against both restrictions and constraints, and his defence of prerogatives not to maximize good or minimize harm (his Hybrid Theory); since Scheffler's views on prerogatives are in some ways related to those of Bernard Williams, the latter's views on integrity are also considered. The criticism made of Scheffler in Sect. I of this chapter is concerned with his view of the supposed gulf between prerogatives and restrictions, and consideration is given to whether too great an emphasis on an active/passive distinction does not underlie his strong opposition to restrictions and whether (by a transitivity argument) he is committed to no restrictions even in pursuing personal non‐optimal projects. Possible similarities between prerogatives and restrictions (or constraints) are considered, but the focus is on crucial differences with respect to minimizing the violation of prerogatives and restrictions, these differences giving rise to what are called the Value and Selection Problems; solutions to the Selection Problem based on asymmetries in victims and differentiation between agents are considered. Sect. II of the chapter re‐examines the foundations of a prerogative (not to maximize good or to minimize harm) that Scheffler located in the personal point of view (PPV); rejecting the sufficiency of Scheffler's account, the chapter focuses on freedom of choice over entitlements in creatures who are ends‐in‐themselves, discussing briefly the idea of reasons generated from the PPV in such creatures; finally, an examination is made of the arguments Shelly Kagan has constructed for and against prerogatives, including the Negative and Positive Arguments, and the Argument from Vividness.
Martin Loughlin
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- September 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199256853
- eISBN:
- 9780191594267
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199256853.003.0014
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law
This chapter examines the origins of modern government's power of potentia. It argues that this governmental power of potentia initially operated by exploiting the residue of lordship and feudal ...
More
This chapter examines the origins of modern government's power of potentia. It argues that this governmental power of potentia initially operated by exploiting the residue of lordship and feudal rights contained within the modern idea of rulership. These feudal and regal rights collectively made up the prerogative powers of the ruler and although in the course of modernization the exercise of these prerogative powers of the king were restricted by constitutional arrangements, these limitations were never entirely comprehensive. With the growth in the responsibilities of modern governments, then, these prerogative powers were exploited. By examining the nature and continuing influence of prerogative powers in modern government, the chapter reveals the ambiguous character of power relations within modern constitutional settlements.Less
This chapter examines the origins of modern government's power of potentia. It argues that this governmental power of potentia initially operated by exploiting the residue of lordship and feudal rights contained within the modern idea of rulership. These feudal and regal rights collectively made up the prerogative powers of the ruler and although in the course of modernization the exercise of these prerogative powers of the king were restricted by constitutional arrangements, these limitations were never entirely comprehensive. With the growth in the responsibilities of modern governments, then, these prerogative powers were exploited. By examining the nature and continuing influence of prerogative powers in modern government, the chapter reveals the ambiguous character of power relations within modern constitutional settlements.
Nigel D. White
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199218592
- eISBN:
- 9780191705595
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199218592.003.0012
- Subject:
- Law, Human Rights and Immigration, Public International Law
Accountability is a central element of a democracy. In simple terms, it means that those in power and making decisions should have to account for those decisions to their peers, to the electorate, ...
More
Accountability is a central element of a democracy. In simple terms, it means that those in power and making decisions should have to account for those decisions to their peers, to the electorate, and, if a crime or violation of law has occurred, to the courts. Given the huge consequences for soldiers and their families, as well as for Britain and the countries and region being subjected to military intervention, decisions to go to war should be subject to scrutiny and review. This chapter considers the breadth of accountability in the British political and legal system, and makes references to other democracies as well as to the international mechanisms of accountability, bearing in mind that decisions to go to war bring the UK into these wider contexts. Indeed, breaches of wider legal orders may have consequences in terms of accountability for the decision-makers as well as soldiers within the British legal and political system.Less
Accountability is a central element of a democracy. In simple terms, it means that those in power and making decisions should have to account for those decisions to their peers, to the electorate, and, if a crime or violation of law has occurred, to the courts. Given the huge consequences for soldiers and their families, as well as for Britain and the countries and region being subjected to military intervention, decisions to go to war should be subject to scrutiny and review. This chapter considers the breadth of accountability in the British political and legal system, and makes references to other democracies as well as to the international mechanisms of accountability, bearing in mind that decisions to go to war bring the UK into these wider contexts. Indeed, breaches of wider legal orders may have consequences in terms of accountability for the decision-makers as well as soldiers within the British legal and political system.
P. R. Cavill
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199573837
- eISBN:
- 9780191721878
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573837.003.0008
- Subject:
- History, British and Irish Early Modern History
Part III explores the effect of the new monarchy on parliament's standing as an institution. Chapter 7 debates the character of Henry VII's relationship with parliament. It first discusses why the ...
More
Part III explores the effect of the new monarchy on parliament's standing as an institution. Chapter 7 debates the character of Henry VII's relationship with parliament. It first discusses why the king summoned only one parliament in the last twelve years of his reign. Attitudes towards the frequency of parliaments are considered. Next it discusses the implications for parliament of the crown's efforts to improve its ordinary income. The revival of feudalism and the reassertion of the royal prerogative are considered. Particular attention is paid to the crown's request for a feudal aid in 1504. Then it discusses perceived parallels between the English parliament and representative assemblies in other European states at this time. Particular attention is paid to the estates general of France and to the Scottish parliament.Less
Part III explores the effect of the new monarchy on parliament's standing as an institution. Chapter 7 debates the character of Henry VII's relationship with parliament. It first discusses why the king summoned only one parliament in the last twelve years of his reign. Attitudes towards the frequency of parliaments are considered. Next it discusses the implications for parliament of the crown's efforts to improve its ordinary income. The revival of feudalism and the reassertion of the royal prerogative are considered. Particular attention is paid to the crown's request for a feudal aid in 1504. Then it discusses perceived parallels between the English parliament and representative assemblies in other European states at this time. Particular attention is paid to the estates general of France and to the Scottish parliament.
Nigel D. White
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- September 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199218592
- eISBN:
- 9780191705595
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199218592.003.0002
- Subject:
- Law, Human Rights and Immigration, Public International Law
This chapter focuses on the British constitution and considers the origins and application of prerogative powers in decisions to deploy British forces to conflict and post-conflict zones. The roles ...
More
This chapter focuses on the British constitution and considers the origins and application of prerogative powers in decisions to deploy British forces to conflict and post-conflict zones. The roles of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are outlined. The traditional dominance of the executive (in reality smaller groupings of the Cabinet in formal committees or informal arrangements) is considered, as is the role of Parliament, which appears to have increased in recent years. The current discussion as to whether this should culminate in Parliamentary approval being given before the deployment of troops is outlined at this stage, and the reasons for it returned to in later chapters, before being fully debated and concluded on in Chapter 11 The slow encroachment of the judiciary into other aspects of the royal prerogative is contrasted with the reserved domain of foreign affairs and the deployment of troops.Less
This chapter focuses on the British constitution and considers the origins and application of prerogative powers in decisions to deploy British forces to conflict and post-conflict zones. The roles of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are outlined. The traditional dominance of the executive (in reality smaller groupings of the Cabinet in formal committees or informal arrangements) is considered, as is the role of Parliament, which appears to have increased in recent years. The current discussion as to whether this should culminate in Parliamentary approval being given before the deployment of troops is outlined at this stage, and the reasons for it returned to in later chapters, before being fully debated and concluded on in Chapter 11 The slow encroachment of the judiciary into other aspects of the royal prerogative is contrasted with the reserved domain of foreign affairs and the deployment of troops.
