An affidavit is a sworn written statement by a person (the deponent), who signs it in the presence of a commissioner for oaths. It sets out facts known to the deponent. In certain cases, particularly proceedings in the Chancery division of the High Court, evidence may be taken by affidavit rather than by the witness appearing in person. Research Affidavit
In law, a confidential communication is a communication made by one person to another which the latter cannot be compelled to give in evidence as a witness. Generally all communications made between a client and his agent, between the agent and the counsel in a suit, or between the several parties to a suit, are treated as confidential. The privilege of confidentiality does not extend to disclosures made to a medical adviser, and in England it has been decided also that confessions made to a priest are not to be treated as confidential. Research Confidential Communication
The word contest has several interpretations within the English language. In popular parlance, a contest is often regarded as a conflict or competition. This may be friendly, such as a sports contest, or more aggressive such as a contention. Another interpretation of contest is in the form of a keen controversy, where one disputes an argument. Thus, one can contest another's statement.
Formerly, during the 17th century, the term contest was used to mean to bear witness, or to confirm or assert with the witness of an oath. Thus to contest was to swear to a fact or statement under oath. But this use had fallen into disuse by the 20th century. Research Contest
In law, a deposition is the testimony given in court by a witness upon oath. It is also used to signify the attested written testimony of a witness by way of answer to interrogatories. Depositions are frequently taken conditionally, or de bene esse, as it is called; for instance, when the parties are sick, aged, or going abroad, depositions are taken, to be read in court in case of their death or departure before the trial comes on. Research Deposition
The meeting of the Long Parliament (as it was afterwards called) in November 1640 ended the great days of the English monarchy, and sowed the seeds for the English Civil War. The Commons were determined on reform; they meant to put an end to the king's unconstitutional methods in both Church and State. Charles I himself, though he seldom faced facts, saw that some concessions would be necessary. But a real settlement was not achieved, chiefly because tempers were rising and the atmosphere soon became that of a revolution. Charles was partly to blame. He had no real desire for a lasting understanding with Parliament, and his shifty character aroused general distrust. But he found that the more he gave way to Parliament, the more it demanded. John Pym, a squire of Somerset, was the acknowledged leader of the Commons.
His enemies nicknamed him 'King Pym'. He was 'the first great popular organiser', for he used the press, the petition, and even the platform to support his cause. He now led the attack on the chief instruments of the late personal government. The judges who had upheld Charles's financial exactions in the Courts were arrested and imprisoned, and so was Archbishop Laud, who was beheaded in 1645. But the principal victim was Strafford. He was charged with having tried to 'subvert the fundamental laws and government of England and Ireland, and instead thereof to introduce an in March arbitrary and tyrannical government against law'. 1641 he was brought to Westminster Hall to be tried for high treason. But his accusers were at once faced with a difficult point. Strafford may have tried to 'subvert the laws'; but treason meant treason to the king, and had Strafford been a traitor to Charles? It was difficult to prove that he had, and as the trial proceeded it became clear that the verdict would be Not Guilty. But the Puritan majority in the House was determined that Strafford should die. Parliament therefore passed a special Bill of Attainder, condemning the minister to death without trial.
The Lords passed the Bill of Attainder, and it remained for the king to give or to withhold his consent. Some may think that it was Charles's duty to risk his life to defend Strafford. But the mob raged round Whitehall, howling for blood. Charles feared for the safety of the queen and his children, and he gave way. ' If my own person only were in danger', he told the Council, with tears in his eyes, 'I would gladly venture it to save Lord Strafford's life.' Three days later the earl was led to his execution in May 1641 in the presence of a crowd of 200000 people who had come to witness the end of 'Black Tom Tyrant'. No man ever died more bravely. 'I thank my God', he said, as he prepared to die, 'I am not afraid of death, but do as cheerfully put off my doublet at this time as ever I did when I went to bed.' The executioner offered to cover his eyes with a handkerchief. 'Thou shalt not bind my eyes.' said Strafford, 'for I will see it done.' And so he placed his head upon the block.
His misfortune, wrote Laud, was that 'he served a mild and gracious prince, who knew not how to be, or be made great'. That summerParliament was busy passing a number of Acts intended to make absolute government impossible for the future. One Act declared that the presentParliament could not be dissolved without its own consent; another - the Triennial Act - that in future Parliaments should be Called every three years. The three Courts by which the king and Laud had carried out their religious and financial measures were abolished - the Star Chamber, the Court of High Commission, and the Council of the North. Finally Ship-Money and other arbitrary forms of taxation were declared illegal. These abolitions of the year 1641 were the permanent, constructive work of the Puritan revolution; nor were the institutions then destroyed restored with the monarchy in 1660. Meanwhile another Bill had come up for discussion. A petition was presented to Parliament praying for the ending of episcopacy (that is, the rule of the Church by bishops) 'in all its roots and branches'.
The thorough-going Puritan members considered the petition, and a 'Root-and-Branch' Bill in 1641 was prepared, but it fell through. For now a new factor came into play. Hitherto a large majority, both of Lords and Commons, had been united in their opposition to the king. But this Bill divided parliamentarians for the first time. There were many who began to fear extremes; and a moderate party now sprang up. It was out of this debate on the Root-and- Branch Bill that the germs of the future Roundhead and Cavalier parties were formed. The extremists - the Roundheads - included Pym, Hampden, and Oliver Cromwell. The chief figures on the other side were LordFalkland and Sir Edward Hyde, afterwards the famous Earl of Clarendon, the future Chancellor and historian. Parliament adjourned for six months, but met again at the end of October. It had no sooner assembled than terrible news arrived from Ireland. Now that the stern hand of Strafford was withdrawn, the crushed Irish had risen against their lords. There was a sudden and horrible rebellion thousands of Protestants were massacred in cold blood. When this news was received in London it only served to increase the Puritanfury. Meanwhile the Commons drew up a Grand Remonstrance in November 1641, in which they recited the past acts of the king and his servants to which they objected - there were 201 items - and stated a programme for the future. Some of its clauses prayed the king to reduce the power of the bishops and to remove 'oppressions in religion'. Another clause asked His Majesty to employ ministers 'such as the Parliament may have cause to confide in' - which in later times solved the problem of disputes between king and Parliament.
All this shows that Parliament had considerably advanced its demands. During the months from November 1640 to September 1641 they, had succeeded in placing constitutional checks on the king's power. From November 1641 to August 1642 they were bent on seizing control of both Church and State, until they forced Charles to reply: ' If I granted your demands, I should be no more than the merephantom of a king.' The Grand Remonstrance was passed by a majority of only eleven - a fact which illustrates the growth of the anti-Puritan party.
The situation, at the end of 1641, was dangerous in the extreme. On the one hand the queen and the swaggering ' Cavaliers' of the Court were urging Charles to strike at King Pym and his fellow leaders before it was too late. On the other hand, London was a stronghold of Puritanism, and it was the London merchants who had felt the weight of Charles's taxation most heavily. The London ' prentices' and the king's swordsmen were itching to get at one another's throats. Never the less Pym proceeded steadily on his way. He was determined to deprive the king of the command of the militia; for it was obvious that if the Irish rebellion was to be crushed a militia must be called out. And once Charles had command of the national armed forces, would he not use them to crush Parliament and destroy English liberty for ever? Pym had no doubt that he would. A Militia Bill was therefore brought in, and - contrary to all English law and custom - it took the command of the military forces out of the king's hands. To this Charles of course refused his consent.
Early in January 1642 he took the queen's advice, and instructed the Attorney- General to impeach Pym, Hampden, and three other leading members of the Commons. The members were alarmed, but Charles promised them 'on the word of a king' that no violence should be done them. The next day - the 4th of January 1642 - he went down to the House with 400 swordsmen. He left his guard at the door, and walked in accompanied only by Prince Rupert, his German nephew. But the five members, warned of his intention, had fled by river. There was a dead silence as the king looked round. He asked the Speaker, Lenthall, where the missing members were. 'I have neither eyes to see', Lenthall replied, 'nor tongue to speak in this place, but as this House shall direct me.' There was another pause as Charles scanned the benches. 'I see', he said at last, 'all the birds are flown. I do expect you will send them to me as soon as they shall return hither.' Then, amid cries of 'Privilege, privilege', he walked out. By this revolutionary act the king had outlawed himself. All hope of reconciliation being now past, he determined to try the issue of war. He left his capital on the 10th of January, sent the queen out of the country, and took up his quarters at York. Parliament claimed the control of the militia and secured the command of the fleet. During the spring and summer of 1642 both sides were busy raising troops. The great strength of the Puritan cause was London. The city contained a tenth of the population of England - 500000 out of five million. The number of troops which London provided was more than sufficient to quell any Royalist opposition in the surrounding country. The London 'train-bands' therefore protected the Puritan leaders during the eight months that the king was gathering his army in the north - January to August 1642. And so the English Civil War started. Research Long Parliament
An oath is a sworn statement, affirmation, or pledge, usually based upon religious principles and often used in legal matters. In a court of law, for example, all witnesses must swear that the testimony they give is the truth. Another example is the oath taken by public officials when they assume office. Members of the British parliament swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch - which Sinn Fein politicians elected in Northern Ireland have refused to do, thus causing them to be barred from sitting in the house. Aliens take an oath of allegiance when they become citizens of the USA. Taking an oath generally implies some legal or moral sanction for failing to carry out one' s sworn pledge; a trial witness, for instance, may be charged with perjury for lying under oath. The oath has its origins in religious customs, and some form of binding oath can be found in every culture.
Oaths are administered to those entering such institutions as the military, secret societies, religious orders, and marriage. Research Oath
A tournament was originally an exhibition of combat between mounted men. Named from the tournament, or quick turning of the horses, it appeared in Europe in the 11th century, and quickly grew in popularity, both in France and England, where, in the reign of Henry II, it became necessary to prohibit tournaments owing to extravagant indulgence in them by the younger nobility. Later, tournaments were allowed to be held under royal licence, und a classic account of one in the time of Richard I is given in the book Ivanhoe, in which the customs and rules of such assemblies are graphically indicated. Froissart is also a mine of information regarding tournaments.
The essential feature of a tournament was the single combat of knight with knight, each striving to unhorse or incapacitate his opponent, the usual weapon being the lance. Sometimes, however, one body of knights fought against another body. They took place on most occasions of rejoicing.
Participation in tournaments was usually reserved for those of noble birth, and about the end of the 13th century a new set of rules was embodied in a statute of arms for tournaments, which laid down, among other provisions, that disputes arising out of a tournament were to be settled by a court of honour composed of princes and earls. By the 16th century the tournament had degenerated until it was merely a form of pageant. The term is now applied to many kinds of athletic contests.
In the 18th century novel Ivanhoe, the author, Walter Scott describes the arena and audience of a fictional 12th century tournament as follows:
On the verge of a wood, which approached to within a mile of the town of Ashby, was an extensive meadow, of the finest and most beautiful green turf, surrounded on one side by the forest, and fringed on the other by straggling oak-trees, some of which had grown to an immense size. The ground, as if fashioned on purpose for the martial display which was intended, sloped gradually down on all sides to a level bottom, which was enclosed for the lists with strong palisades, forming a space of a quarter of a mile in length, and about half as broad. The form of the enclosure was an oblong square, save that the corners were considerably rounded off, in order to afford more convenience for the spectators. The openings for the entry of the combatants were at the northern and southern extremities of the lists, accessible by strong wooden gates, each wide enough to admit two horsemen riding abreast. At each of these portals were stationed two heralds, attended by six trumpets, as many pursuivants, and a strong body of men-at-arms for maintaining order, and ascertaining the quality of the knights who proposed to engage in this martial game.
On a platform beyond the southern entrance, formed by a natural elevation of the ground, were pitched five magnificent pavilions, adorned with pennons of russet and black, the chosen colours of the five knights challengers. The cords of the tents were of the same colour. Before each pavilion was suspended the shield of the knight by whom it was occupied, and beside it stood his squire, quaintly disguised as a salvage or silvan man, or in some other fantastic dress, according to the taste of his master, and the character he was pleased to assume during the game. The central pavilion, as the place of honour, had been assigned to Brian be Bois-Guilbert, whose renown in all games of chivalry, no less than his connexions with the knights who had undertaken this Passage of Arms, had occasioned him to be eagerly received into the company of the challengers, and even adopted as their chief and leader, though he had so recently joined them. On one side of his tent were pitched those of Reginald Front-de-Boeuf and Richard de Malvoisin, and on the other was the pavilion of Hugh de Grantmesnil, a noble baron in the vicinity, whose ancestor had been Lord High Steward of England in the time of the Conqueror, and his son WilliamRufus. Ralph de Vipont, a knight of St John of Jerusalem, who had some ancient possessions at a place called Heather, near Ashby-de-la-Zouche, occupied the fifth pavilion. From the entrance into the lists, a gently sloping passage, ten yards in breadth, led up to the platform on which the tents were pitched. It was strongly secured by a palisade on each side, as was the esplanade in front of the pavilions, and the whole was guarded by men-at-arms. The northern access to the lists terminated in a similar entrance of thirty feet in breadth, at the extremity of which was a large enclosed space for such knights as might be disposed to enter the lists with the challengers, behind which were placed tents containing refreshments of every kind for their
tion, with armourers, tarriers, and other attendants, in readiness to give their services wherever they might be necessary.
The exterior of the lists was in part occupied by temporary galleries, spread with tapestry and carpets, and accommodated with cushions for the convenience of those ladies and nobles who were expected to attend the tournament. A narrow space, betwixt these galleries and the lists, gave accommodation for yeomanry and spectators of a better degree than the mere vulgar, and might be compared to the pit of a theatre. The promiscuous multitude arranged themselves upon large banks of turf prepared for the purpose, which, aided by the natural elevation of the ground, enabled them to overlook the galleries, and obtain a fair view into the lists. Besides the accommodation which these stations afforded, many hundreds had perched themselves on the branches of the trees which surrounded the meadow; and even the steeple of a country church, at some distance, was crowded with spectators.
It only remains to notice respecting the general arrangement, that one gallery in the very centre of the eastern side of the lists, and consequently exactly opposite to the spot where the shock of the combat was to take place, was raised higher than the others, more richly decorated, and graced by a sort of throne and canopy, on which the royal arms were emblazoned. Squires, pages, and yeomen in rich liveries, waited around this place of honour, which was designed for Prince John and his attendants. Opposite to this royal gallery was another, elevated to the same height, on the western side of the lists; and more gaily, if less sumptuously decorated, than that destined for the Prince himself. A train of pages and of young maidens, the most beautiful who could be selected, gaily dressed in fancy habits of green and pink, surrounded a throne decorated in the same colours. Among pennons and flags bearing wounded hearts, burning hearts, bleeding hearts, bows and quivers, and all the commonplace emblems of the triumphs of Cupid, a blazoned inscription informed the spectators, that this seat of honour was designed for 'La Royne de las Beaulte et des Amours'. But who was to represent the Queen of Beauty and of Love on the present occasion no one was prepared to guess.
Meanwhile, spectators of every description thronged forward to occupy their respective stations, and not without many quarrels concerning those which they were entitled to hold. Some of these were settled by the men-at-arms with brief ceremony; the shafts of their battle-axes, and pummels of their swords, being readily employed as arguments to convince the more refractory. Others, which involved the rival claims of more elevated persons, were determined by the heralds, or by the two marshals of the field, William de Wyvil, and Stephen de Martival, who, armed at all points, rode up and down the lists to enforce and preserve good order among the spectators.
Gradually the galleries became filled with knights and nobles, in their robes of peace, whose long and rich-tinted mantles were contrasted with the gayer and more splendid habits of the ladies, who, in a greater proportion than even the men themselves, thronged to witness a sport, which one would have thought too bloody and dangerous to afford their sex much pleasure. The lower and interior space was soon filled by substantial yeomen and burghers, and such of the lesser gentry, as, from modesty, poverty, or dubious title, durst not assume any higher place. It was of course amongst these that the most frequent disputes for precedence occurred.
Walter Scott goes on to describe the rules of the tournament, which he says were imparted to the audience by the monarch:
First, the five challengers were to undertake all comers.
Secondly, any knight proposing to combat, might, if he pleased, select a special antagonist from among the challengers, by touching his shield. If he did so with the reverse of his lance, the trial of skill was made with what were called the arms of courtesy, that is, with lances at whose extremity a piece of round flat board was fixed, so that no danger was encountered, save from the shock of the horses and riders. But if the shield was touched with the sharp end of the lance, the combat was understood to be at 'outrance', that is, the knights were to fight with sharp weapons, as in actual battle.
Thirdly, when the knights present had accomplished their vow, by each of them breaking five lances, the Prince was to declare the victor in the first day's tourney, who should receive as prize a warhorse of exquisite beauty and matchless strength; and in addition to this reward of valour, it was now declared, he should have the peculiar honour of naming the Queen of Love and Beauty, by whom the prize should be given on the ensuing day.
Fourthly, it was announced, that, on the second day, there should be a general tournament, in which all the knights present, who were desirous to win praise, might take part; and being divided into two bands of equal numbers, might fight it out manfully, until the signal was given by Prince John to cease the combat. The elected Queen of Love and Beauty was then to crown the knight whom the Prince should adjudge to have borne himself best in this second day, with a coronet composed of thin gold plate, cut into the shape of a laurel crown. On this second day the knightly games ceased. But on that which was to follow, feats of archery, of bull-baiting, and other popular amusements, were to be practised, for the more immediate amusement of the populace.
At the flourish of clarions and trumpets, they started out against each other at full gallop; and such was the superior dexterity or good fortune of the challengers, that those opposed to Bois-Guilbert, Malvoisin, and Front-de-Boeuf, rolled on the ground. The antagonist of Grantmesnil, instead of bearing his lance-point fair against the crest or the shield of his enemy, swerved so much from the direct line as to break the weapon athwart the person of his opponent - a circumstance which was accounted more disgraceful than that of being actually unhorsed; because the latter might happen from accident, whereas the former evinced awkwardness and want of management of the weapon and of the horse. The fifth knight alone maintained the honour of his party, and parted fairly with the Knight of St John, both splintering their lances without advantage on either side.
The shouts of the multitude, together with the acclamations of the heralds, and the clangour of the trumpets, announced the triumph of the victors and the defeat of the vanquished. The former retreated to their pavilions, and the latter, gathering themselves up as they could, withdrew from the lists in disgrace and dejection, to agree with their victors concerning the redemption of their arms and their horses, which, according to the laws of the tournament, they had forfeited. The fifth of their number alone tarried in the lists long enough to be greeted by the applauses of the spectators, amongst whom he retreated, to the aggravation, doubtless, of his companions' mortification.
During intervals of the tournament it appears that heralds inspired the contestants and audience by announcements and chants inspiring chivalry and bravery such as:
'Love of ladies, splintering of lances! stand forth gallant knights, fair eyes look upon your deeds!' Research Tournament
Alfred Swaine Taylor was a British medical jurist. He was born in 1806 at Northfleet and died in 1880. Educated at Guy's Hospital and at St Thomas' Hospital he became professor of medical jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital in 1831, remaining in the post until 1877. He was the first lecturer in England on the subject of medical jurisprudence and was constantly in demand as a medical expert witness at trials where his profound knowledge of poisons, wounds and the like was much valued. In 1844 his 'Manual of Medical Jurisprudence' was published. Research Alfred Taylor
The Probert Encyclopaedia was designed, edited and programed by
Matt and Leela Probert
Abbreviations
Research Affidavit
