1705, ISBN: 07dbc47f48efc8f1ceffc915f7ed6d72

Livres de poche

UK: Edward Jones, 1705. 1st Edition 1705. All the proceedings in relation to the Aylesbury-Men : Committed by the House of Commons: And the Report of the Lords Journal, and Reports of the… Plus…

UK: Edward Jones, 1705. 1st Edition 1705. All the proceedings in relation to the Aylesbury-Men : Committed by the House of Commons: And the Report of the Lords Journal, and Reports of the Conferences, and of The Free Conference. Together with what stands upon the Journal of the House of Commons, in the Reign of King James I. in the Case between Sir Francis Goodwin and Sir John Fortescue. London 1705 James I The 1703–4 session saw the culmination of the celebrated Ashby v. White case. Its origins lay in Whig attempts to neutralize Pakington’s control of the constables at Aylesbury. As Steele later acknowledged, the suit was carried on at Wharton’s expense and direction. At the election of January 1701, Matthew Ashby had been refused the right to vote by the constables on the grounds that he was a ‘poor indigent person’, whom the overseers of the poor were trying to have removed from the parish (he having been similarly refused in 1698). Ashby sued the constables for damages at the assizes and won £5, although he had claimed £200. This was an attempt by Wharton to intimidate future constables by threatening them with financial penalties if they failed to do his bidding. The constables appealed to Queen’s bench on the grounds that the matter lay outside the jurisdiction of the courts, being a matter for the House of Commons. In Michaelmas term 1703, the Queen’s bench judges overturned the assizes verdict by 3–1 (with the Whig lord chief justice, Sir John Holt†, in the minority), ruling that ‘no such action did by law lie against the defendants’. Ashby thereupon applied for a writ of error on 17 Nov., taking the matter before the House of Lords, where the Whigs had their main strength and where Wharton had previously proved himself adept at manipulating legal causes, particularly over the possession of lead mines in Yorkshire (see Squire, Robert). On 14 Jan. 1704 the Lords found for Ashby, voting that: by the known laws of this kingdom, every freeholder, or other persons having a right to give his vote at the election of Members, to serve in Parliament, and being wilfully denied, or hindered to do so, by the officer, who ought to receive the same, may maintain an action in the Queen’s court against such officers, to assert his right and receive damages for the injury. The Commons responded to this threat to their privileges by appointing a committee on 17 Jan. to search the Lords’ Journals for their proceedings on this case and that of Soames v. Barnardiston, and on the following day to inspect the Queen’s bench judgment. At this point Sir Charles Hedges* wrote that ‘the judgment in the Aylesbury cause has a little inflamed matters’, a considerable understatement considering the tone of the debate in the committee of the whole on the 25th. Both John Brewer and Sir Edward Seymour, 4th Bt.*, commented on Wharton’s involvement, and the committee came to a series of resolutions endorsed by the House on the following day. important, they voted that: according to the known laws and usage of Parliament, it is the sole right of the Commons of England, in Parliament assembled, except in cases otherwise provided for by Act of Parliament, to examine and determine all matters relating to the right of election of their own Members. This applied to ‘the qualification or right of any elector, or any person elected’; otherwise the returning officers would be exposed ‘to multiplicity of actions, vexations suits and unsupportable expenses and will subject them to different and independent jurisdictions, and inconsistent determinations in the same cause, without relief’. Ashby was voted guilty of a breach of the privilege of the House, but was not ordered into custody. However, the lawyers acting for him were warned that to pursue the case further would be a breach of the privileges of the Commons. The Lords took their time in preparing their response; a long report produced on 27 Mar. reasserted the right of electors to sue for damages should they be wrongly deprived of their right to vote. The resolutions based on this report were then ordered to be printed. The Commons had adjourned for a week on the 27th and when they convened on 3 Apr. Parliament was prorogued before they could complete their response.Informed commentators such as James Vernon I* were not convinced that the matter had ended there, predicting that a new session would see the arguments revived. Indeed, the recess saw a number of pamphlets published on the controversy. At this point Ashby dropped out of the picture, although in April 1704 the Whig attorney Richard Meade moved a writ of certiorari removing the proceedings of Ashby’s settlement case from the quarter sessions to Queen’s bench. Meade’s role was of greater importance, because although White’s lawyer had been served with the resolutions of the Commons on the case in March 1704, he announced in July that he would embark on other suits for damages against the constables at the assizes.58 pages, complete in it's own right. Taken from a bound up book that would have held the reports of parliament for that period. This was quite common to bind up the acts to keep them together probably for public or business use. Pages are in average condition. A little light marking and edge separation where it was taken from the book. Edges lightly rubbed. Light soling/marking. More images can be taken upon request. Ref15516. First Edition. Soft Cover. Fair. Folio - over 12" - 15" tall., Edward Jones, 1705<

1705, ISBN: 07dbc47f48efc8f1ceffc915f7ed6d72

Livres de poche

Gebraucht, [PU: Edward Jones, UK], 1st Edition 1705. All the proceedings in relation to the Aylesbury-Men : Committed by the House of Commons: And the Report of the Lords Journal, and Rep… Plus…

Gebraucht, [PU: Edward Jones, UK], 1st Edition 1705. All the proceedings in relation to the Aylesbury-Men : Committed by the House of Commons: And the Report of the Lords Journal, and Reports of the Conferences, and of The Free Conference. Together with what stands upon the Journal of the House of Commons, in the Reign of King James I. in the Case between Sir Francis Goodwin and Sir John Fortescue. London 1705 James I The 1703–4 session saw the culmination of the celebrated Ashby v. White case. Its origins lay in Whig attempts to neutralize Pakington’s control of the constables at Aylesbury. As Steele later acknowledged, the suit was carried on at Wharton’s expense and direction. At the election of January 1701, Matthew Ashby had been refused the right to vote by the constables on the grounds that he was a ‘poor indigent person’, whom the overseers of the poor were trying to have removed from the parish (he having been similarly refused in 1698). Ashby sued the constables for damages at the assizes and won £5, although he had claimed £200. This was an attempt by Wharton to intimidate future constables by threatening them with financial penalties if they failed to do his bidding. The constables appealed to Queen’s bench on the grounds that the matter lay outside the jurisdiction of the courts, being a matter for the House of Commons. In Michaelmas term 1703, the Queen’s bench judges overturned the assizes verdict by 3–1 (with the Whig lord chief justice, Sir John Holt†, in the minority), ruling that ‘no such action did by law lie against the defendants’. Ashby thereupon applied for a writ of error on 17 Nov., taking the matter before the House of Lords, where the Whigs had their main strength and where Wharton had previously proved himself adept at manipulating legal causes, particularly over the possession of lead mines in Yorkshire (see Squire, Robert). On 14 Jan. 1704 the Lords found for Ashby, voting that: by the known laws of this kingdom, every freeholder, or other persons having a right to give his vote at the election of Members, to serve in Parliament, and being wilfully denied, or hindered to do so, by the officer, who ought to receive the same, may maintain an action in the Queen’s court against such officers, to assert his right and receive damages for the injury. The Commons responded to this threat to their privileges by appointing a committee on 17 Jan. to search the Lords’ Journals for their proceedings on this case and that of Soames v. Barnardiston, and on the following day to inspect the Queen’s bench judgment. At this point Sir Charles Hedges* wrote that ‘the judgment in the Aylesbury cause has a little inflamed matters’, a considerable understatement considering the tone of the debate in the committee of the whole on the 25th. Both John Brewer and Sir Edward Seymour, 4th Bt.*, commented on Wharton’s involvement, and the committee came to a series of resolutions endorsed by the House on the following day. important, they voted that: according to the known laws and usage of Parliament, it is the sole right of the Commons of England, in Parliament assembled, except in cases otherwise provided for by Act of Parliament, to examine and determine all matters relating to the right of election of their own Members. This applied to ‘the qualification or right of any elector, or any person elected’; otherwise the returning officers would be exposed ‘to multiplicity of actions, vexations suits and unsupportable expenses and will subject them to different and independent jurisdictions, and inconsistent determinations in the same cause, without relief’. Ashby was voted guilty of a breach of the privilege of the House, but was not ordered into custody. However, the lawyers acting for him were warned that to pursue the case further would be a breach of the privileges of the Commons. The Lords took their time in preparing their response; a long report produced on 27 Mar. reasserted the right of electors to sue for damages should they be wrongly deprived of their right to vote. The resolutions based on this report were then ordered to be printed. The Commons had adjourned for a week on the 27th and when they convened on 3 Apr. Parliament was prorogued before they could complete their response.Informed commentators such as James Vernon I* were not convinced that the matter had ended there, predicting that a new session would see the arguments revived. Indeed, the recess saw a number of pamphlets published on the controversy. At this point Ashby dropped out of the picture, although in April 1704 the Whig attorney Richard Meade moved a writ of certiorari removing the proceedings of Ashby’s settlement case from the quarter sessions to Queen’s bench. Meade’s role was of greater importance, because although White’s lawyer had been served with the resolutions of the Commons on the case in March 1704, he announced in July that he would embark on other suits for damages against the constables at the assizes.58 pages, complete in it's own right. Taken from a bound up book that would have held the reports of parliament for that period. This was quite common to bind up the acts to keep them together probably for public or business use. Pages are in average condition. A little light marking and edge separation where it was taken from the book. Edges lightly rubbed. Light soling/marking. More images can be taken upon request. Ref15516 Size: Folio - over 12" - 15" tall<

1705, ISBN: 07dbc47f48efc8f1ceffc915f7ed6d72

London: Edward Jones, 1704. 83pp, [1], disbound. Text is browned and lightly foxed throughout, previous owners name to half-title. Includes: ’The case between Sir Francis Goodwin, an… Plus…

London: Edward Jones, 1704. 83pp, [1], disbound. Text is browned and lightly foxed throughout, previous owners name to half-title. Includes: ’The case between Sir Francis Goodwin, and Sir John Fortescue, in the reign of K. James I. as it stands upon the journal of the House of Commons’, with a separate title page (pp.59-83). ESTC gives date of publication as 1705, with half-title as called for. "Ashby v. White (1703) ... It concerns the right to vote and misfeasance of a public officer ... Mr Ashby was prevented from voting at an election by the misfeasance of a constable, Mr White, on the apparent pretext that he was not a settled inhabitant" (Wikipedia). First Edition. Disbound. Good. 4to. Pamphlet., Edward Jones, 1704<