Prosecutor general of the Russian Empire

The prosecutor general was one of the highest government positions in the Russian Empire, the head of the Governing Senate, who oversaw the legality of the activities of government agencies.
History.
The post of prosecutor general was established by Peter the Great on January 12, 1722. Its predecessor, but with lesser powers, was the post of auditor general, which existed in 1715–1718. The first prosecutor general was appointed Pavel Yaguzhinsky.
The prosecutor general was initially the head of the Senate office and was in charge of the Senate office work; at the same time, he headed the prosecutor's office, which consisted of a three-stage system of control over the Senate and all administrative and judicial institutions, both central and local. Assistant to the Prosecutor General in the Senate was the Chief Prosecutor. Control over the activities of the authorities was carried out through subordinates – prosecutors and fiscals.
The initial duties of the procurator-general included checking that the Senate decisions comply with the laws in force, as well as overseeing decency during meetings. The Prosecutor General was also a mediator in matters between the Senate and the sovereign. Supervision contributed to putting in order the production of cases both in the very presence of the Senate and in its office; the value of the Senate as an effective authority has grown. On the other hand, the establishment of the post of Prosecutor General deprived the Senate of its former relative independence; often, by law, equal to the entire Senate, the Prosecutor General in many cases actually prevailed over him.
After the death of Peter I, the value of the post fell along with the influence of the Senate itself: the Supreme Privy Council established on February 8, 1726, became the most powerful. Prosecutor General Yaguzhinsky was appointed a resident in Poland, and the post of Prosecutor General was effectively abolished; her nominal execution was entrusted to the Chief Prosecutor Voeikov, who had no influence in the Senate.
In March 1730, after the abolition of the Supreme Privy Council by Empress Anna Ioannovna, the Senate was restored to its authority, and in October it was deemed necessary to reinstate the position of prosecutor general; however, a year later, after the establishment of a new central authority – the Cabinet (consisting of three cabinet ministers) – the influence of the Senate fell again; no appointment has occurred. In the interregnum from the death of Anna Ioannovna to the accession of Elizabeth Petrovna, the role of the Senate began to increase; the post of Prosecutor General was reinstated; Prince Nikita Trubetskoy was appointed to it.
On December 12, 1741, shortly after taking the throne, Empress Elizaveta Petrovna issued a decree abolishing the Cabinet and restoring the Governing Senate; convenient prince Trubetskoy remained in his post and held this post almost all the time of the empress's reign, in his subordination was also the all-powerful Secret Office. All the prominent political courts of Elizabethan rule passed through his hands: the case of Andrey Osterman, Burkhard von Münnich in 1742; the case of Field Marshal Stepan Apraksin in 1757 and Chancellor Bestuzhev-Ryumin in 1758.
In 1762, Catherine the Great significantly reformed the Senate on her accession to the throne; Prince Alexander Vyazemsky was appointed to the post of Prosecutor General. He was among the special trustees of Catherine, she entrusted him with many complex cases. After some time, the duties of the Prosecutor General already included the management of justice, finance, the state treasury, and, as before, state supervision of the authorities. Like his predecessors in the post, he headed the body of political investigation – the Secret Expedition, the "heiress" of the Secret Chancellery. He supervised the investigation of Yemelyan Pugachev and other impostors (False Third Peters), Alexander Radishchev, publisher Nikolay Novikov and others. After his resignation in 1792, the duties of the Prosecutor General were distributed among several officials.
With the reform of public administration undertaken by Alexander I, since 1802, the position of the head of the Senate was combined with the position of minister of justice and acquired his final terms of reference: the prosecutor general was the head of the prosecutor's office and the office of the Senate and also enjoyed the right to supervise the activities of officials of the entire judicial department. Without significant changes, the post of Prosecutor General existed until the February Revolution of 1917.


White supremacy in the United States


Magda Langhans

Magda Langhans (born Magda Kelm: 16 July 1903 - 17 January 1987) was a Hamburg political activist and politician (KPD). Because of her political beliefs and activities she spent six of the twelve Nazi years in jail. After the war she resumed her membership of the Hamburgische Bürgerschaft (Hamburg state legislature).
There is a street named after Magda Langhans in Potsdam, but not in her own city, Hamburg.
Life.
Early years.
Magda Kelm was born into a working-class family in Hamburg, the eldest of seven siblings, growing up initially in the city's Hammerbrook quarter and relocating later to Dulsberg on the north side of town. Her father worked as a coachman: her mother as a cleaner. When her father died of tuberculosis her mother remarried, this time to a port worker, but there is little available information on Magda's step father and younger siblings.
Politics.
Early on she worked in domestic service, also employed as a kitchen assistant and in a wine shop. In 1920 she embarked on a traineeship with a printing business, and she was employed in the book printing sector as a type-setter till 1932. She joined a trades union when she was 18 and in 1927, when she was 24, at the prompting of a friend Magda Kelm joined the Communist Party. She quickly took on jobs within the party apparatus, and in 1931/32 attended the Communist Party Academy in Moscow, although the purpose and nature of her studies are no longer easy to determine.
On her return to Hamburg she took a post in the party regional leadership team ("Bezirksleitung") for Wasserkante, the region to the north of the Elbe estuary. It was here that she first met the painter-decorator Heinrich Langhans whom she would later marry. Between 1931 and 1933 she also sat as one of the 26 Communist members of the Hamburgische Bürgerschaft (Hamburg state legislature). Following local elections on 24 April 1932 the Nazi Party became the largest party in the Bürgerschaft, but they were able to take control of the assembly only in 1933, after entering into coalition with the German National Party ("Deutsche Staatspartei"/ DStP) and the National People's Party ("Deutschnationale Volkspartei" / DNVP). On a national level, in January 1933 the political backdrop was transformed when the Nazi Party took power and converted Germany into a one-party dictatorship. Political activity - except in support of the Nazi Party - became illegal. At the end of February 1933 the Reichstag fire was instantly blamed on the Communists, and in March 1933. By this time persecution and arrests of Communist parliamentarians had already started, and following reconfiguration, at the Bürgerschaft session of 8 March 1933 Communist members no longer took part.
Nazi years.
More than fifty years later she disclosed that a couple of weeks before the party's exclusion from the Hamburg parliament Magda Kelms had collected from the city hall 2,000 Marks in attendance allowances for the Communist Party members, which would be used for the support of comrades continuing to work (now illegally) for the party. On 1 May 1933 a demonstration was organised locally, with red banners improvised from bedding hung from apartment windows, but the banners were hurriedly taken in when Nazi paramilitaries appeared on the scene. On 2 May 1933 the apartment she shared was "occupied" by fascists, but she was nevertheless able to continue with her party work till her arrest in May 1934. She took a leading role in underground distribution of the "Rote Fahne" newspaper and other Communist publications in the Hamburg region.
Between 1933 and 1939 approximately 8,500 communists were arrested in the Hamburg area. They were charged, almost invariably, with "Conspiracy to Commit High Treason" ("Vorbereitung zum Hochverrat"). Magda Kelms was arrested in May 1934 and given a six-year prison sentence which she spent in the women's prison in . She was the first woman in Hamburg to be arrested and imprisoned by the Nazis on political grounds.
Her partner, Heinrich Langhans, had also been arrested by the Gestapo, but by 1940 they had both been released, and in that year they married. The marriage, though childless, was close.
Between 1941 and 1945 Magda Langhans worked in clerical and sales jobs.
British occupation zone.
War ended in May 1945, and for Hamburg Nazi rule gave way to the British military occupation. Magda Langhans resumed her membership of the Communist Party, serving till 1949 as head of the Women's Secretariat for the Hamburg party's regional leadership ("Berzirksleitung"). The Hamburgische Bürgerschaft (Hamburg state legislature) was reinstated in February 1946, initially as a nominated body, and the British military administrators nominated Magda Langhans as a member of it. She was one of nine communists, along with members of other parties, mandated to draw up a new constitution for the city. Later, in October 1946 the nominated legislature was replaced by an elected one: the Communists won slightly more than 10% of the popular vote, which was less than half the proportion achieved back in the early 1930s, but they nevertheless, found themselves in Hamburg's first postwar governing coalition, headed up by the Social Democrat, Max Brauer. Between 1946 and 1953 Langhans sat as a member of the Bürgerschaft. There she became the first woman actually to become the vice-president of the . She saw her election as more than a personal achievement, being an important marker for women more generally.
Within the Hamburg legislature Langhans campaigned strongly for women's rights and for retributive measures against perpetrators of state sponsored crimes during the Nazi years. A particular target was the historian Kurt Detlev Möller, "outed" as a former Nazi party member and, she contended, "a great anti-Semite", who was attempting to reinvent himself as Director of the Hamburg City Archive.
German Federal Republic.
In May 1949 three of the four occupation zones into which Germany had been divided at the end of the war were merged and relaunched as the German Federal Republic (West Germany). As part of the process the regional legislatures of the nine states comprising the new country were invited to endorse the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. All except one of the states provided unqualified backing (and conditional backing from the dissenting state, Bavaria, became implicitly unconditional through the actions of the other states). In Hamburg, however, Magda Langhans and the rest of the Communist group in the assembly voted against the basic law in order to avoid the risk of driving a greater wedge than already existed between West Germany and the fourth occupation zone, the Soviet occupation zone, which was itself reinvented later the same year as a separate Soviet sponsored German dictatorship, the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).
In addition Langhans involved herself in the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, serving as the first chair of the organisation's Hamburg branch committee. She was also regional chair for Hamburg of the Democratic Women's League of Germany. However, the East German authorities' savage suppression of the 1953 uprising let to an overall increase in east-west tensions during the 1950s and in 1957 the Democratic Women's League was banned in West Germany. By this time the league - even its West German branch set up only in 1950 - was seen as an agency of East Germany.
Wider Cold War tensions were also on display in August 1956 when the Federal Constitutional Court, after deliberating for five years, reluctantly endorsed the right of the political establishment to ban the Communist Party in West Germany. Langhans continued to work for the party, now illegally, in Bremen and Württemberg. Following a slight easing of political tensions between the two Germanys, in 1968 the West German authorities grudgingly permitted the emergence of a new incarnation of the Communist Party, officially called the German Communist Party ("Deutsche Kommunistische Partei" / DKP). Magda Langhans was a founder member in Hamburg, becoming a member of the regional leadership team ("Bezirksleitung").
On 27 June 1978 Heinrich Langhans died, leaving Magda Lanhans a widow for her final years. She herself died in Hamburg on 17 January 1987.


Thomas Louth

Thomas Louth, or Thomas de Luda (died after 1338) was an English-born judge who spent much of his career in Ireland. He was notable for his long and ultimately unsuccessful struggle with Elias de Asshebournham for the office of Lord Chief Justice of Ireland.
He was a native of Louth, Lincolnshire, and was sometimes known by the Latin version of his name, Thomas de Luda (people born in Louth are still called "Ludensians"). In 1324 he appears on a commission of oyer and terminer. In the same year he was appointed a judge of the Court of Common Pleas (Ireland) but did not take up the latter office.
In 1331 he was appointed Lord Chief Justice of Ireland; he moved to Ireland and was granted lands at Howth, north of Dublin city. He then began a struggle with the Dublin-born judge Elias de Asshebournham for the office; the struggle lasted for
most of the decade, and each man replaced the other so often that it is difficult to determine which of them held office at any given time. There was a genuine concern on the part of the English Crown about the poor quality of Irish- born judges, so Louth as an Englishman should have had the advantage; but Asshebournham, whose father had been a highly regarded royal servant, also had influence at Court. In 1337 Louth suffered what seemed to be a decisive defeat when he was imprisoned for unspecified "excesses", yet the following year he was restored to office after "laudable testimony" to his good conduct, only to be finally removed from office later the same year. His rival Asshebournham stepped down in 1341.


BMP Global Distribution Inc v Bank of Nova Scotia

BMP Global Distribution Inc v Bank of Nova Scotia, , is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the law of restitution and tracing, in this case dealing with a bank's right to recover funds paid by mistake on the deposit of a fraudulent cheque.
The facts.
BMP, a company that distributed non-stick bakeware, entered into an agreement with a third party for selling the rights to distribute such goods in the United States. Subsequently, it received an unendorsed cheque of $904,563 payable to BMP. The cheque was drawn on the account of a company at the Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC"). Neither this company nor the name of the sender of the envelope containing the cheque was known to BMP, or was apparently linked to the business purchasing the right to distribute the bakeware. BMP banked with the Bank of Nova Scotia ("BNS"), and arranged to deposit the cheque into its account there.
After the cheque had cleared and the funds were subsequently released to BMP, several transfers took place over the following ten days to other accounts at BNS held by BMP's principals and a related company. RBC subsequently notified BNS that the cheque for $904,563 was counterfeit, as the drawer's signatures were forged and asked for BNS's assistance. BNS interrupted all transactions in BMP's account and in all related accounts and asked BMP for assistance in recovering the proceeds of the forged cheque. BMP insisted on retaining the amount it still held.
BNS then restrained the funds in accounts under its control that it linked to the forged cheque. RBC and BNS entered into an agreement by which BNS was, at RBC's request, to transfer the restrained funds to RBC and RBC was to indemnify BNS for any losses related to the restraint and transfer. BNS transferred $777,336 to RBC.
The courts below.
In the original case before the British Columbia Supreme Court, the trial judge ordered BNS to pay $777,336 in total pecuniary damages and also awarded damages for wrongful disclosure of information and defamation. In his view, BNS had violated the service agreement as well as the law applicable to banker/customer relations by charging back amounts credited to BMP's and the related accounts.
On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, BNS's appeal was allowed against BMP by reducing the latter's damages to $101. As to the funds traced in the related accounts, the court found that BMP's transfers were proper and that the cheques were actual bills of exchange and dismissed the appeals against BMP's related parties.
Appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a unanimous judgment, BMP's appeal was dismissed, and BNS' cross-appeal was allowed.
The right to recover funds.
As noted in "Barclays Bank v. Simms", if a person pays money to another under a mistake of fact which causes him to make the payment, he or she is "prima facie" entitled to recover it. The person's claim may fail, however, if:
In that regard, BMP had raised the following points in its defence:
Here, RBC had a right to recover the money paid to BMP. RBC's payment was made on the basis of a forged cheque and the defences are not available to BMP in the circumstances of this case.
The principles of tracing.
BNS had the right to claim the amount in BMP's account and to trace funds in the related accounts. There is no issue of identification of the money in BMP's account.
It is possible at common law to trace funds into bank accounts if it is possible to identify the funds. When the chain is broken by one of the intervening parties paying from its own funds, identification of the claimant's funds is no longer possible. However, the fact that a cheque passes through a clearing system, or that it may have been certified, does not break the chain, as the funds have not lost their identity. Tracing is impossible only when the means of ascertainment fail. As noted by the Court,
Aftermath.
The decision has given Canadian financial institutions some protection in the event of the deposit of counterfeit cheques. The Court, however, in "Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada", decided not to extend its principles to other types of fraudulent payments, although the dissenting opinion in that case endorsed the approach.


District of Columbia home rule

District of Columbia home rule is District of Columbia residents' ability to govern their local affairs. As the federal capital, the Constitution grants the United States Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District in "all cases whatsoever".
At certain times, and presently since 1973, Congress has allowed certain powers of government to be carried out by locally elected officials. However, Congress maintains the power to overturn local laws and exercises greater oversight of the city than exists for any U.S. state. Furthermore, the District's elected government exists at the pleasure of Congress and could theoretically be revoked at any time.
A separate yet related controversy is the District's lack of voting representation in Congress. The city's unique status creates a situation where D.C. residents do not have full control over their local government nor do they have voting representation in the body that has full control.
In 2015, D.C. became a member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization.
Constitutional provisions.
James Madison explained the need for a federal district on January 23, 1788, in the Federalist No. 43, arguing that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states, in order to provide for its own maintenance and safety. An attack on the Congress at Philadelphia by a mob of angry soldiers, known as the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, had emphasized the need for the government to see to its own security. Therefore, the authority to establish a federal capital was provided in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which states that Congress shall have the power:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States
The phrase "exclusive legislation in all Cases whatsoever" has been interpreted to mean that Congress is the ultimate authority over the District, thereby limiting local self-government by the city's residents. However, the Founding Fathers envisioned that Congress would devolve some of this power to the local level. For example, Madison stated in the Federalist No. 43 that "a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them."
History of self-government.
On July 16, 1790, the Residence Act provided for a new permanent capital to be located on the Potomac River, the exact area to be selected by President Washington. As permitted by the U.S. Constitution, the initial shape of the federal district was a square, measuring on each side, totaling . The Residence Act also provided for the selection of a three-member board of commissioners, appointed by the President, charged with overseeing the construction of the new capital.
Two other incorporated cities that predated the establishment of the District were also included within the new federal territory: Georgetown, founded in 1751, and the City of Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1749. A new "federal city" called the City of Washington was under construction, partly habitable, on the north bank of the Potomac, to the east of the established settlement at Georgetown.
The Organic Act of 1801 officially organized the District of Columbia and placed the entire federal territory under the exclusive control of Congress.
At its formation, the District consisted of five political subdivisions: the three cities of Washington, Georgetown, and Alexandria, and the unincorporated rural sections organized into two counties: Washington County, D.C. to the east of the Potomac and the Alexandria County, D.C. to the west. It included all of the present Arlington County, plus part of what is now the independent city of Alexandria. The respective laws of Maryland and Virginia were declared still in force.
In 1802, the board of commissioners was disbanded and the City of Washington was officially incorporated. The city's incorporation allowed for a local municipal government consisting of a mayor appointed by the President and two branches of a city council, popularly elected. The local colonial-era governments of Georgetown and Alexandria were also left intact. As such, the citizens of Georgetown retained their popularly elected mayor, as did the City of Alexandria. In 1812, the council was given the power to elect the mayor of the City of Washington. In 1820, the Congress granted the City of Washington a new charter, which allowed for a mayor popularly elected by voters.
The disputes became more political in 1840 when the city elected a member of the anti-Jackson Whig Party as mayor. Two weeks after the election, members of Congress submitted legislation to alter the charter of the City of Washington to remove the city's elected government. However, the bill was unable to pass the Congress due to disputes among members about the status of slavery in the District. The election of President William Henry Harrison, who was favorable to residents of the District, assured that the proposed bill would not become law.
In the years preceding and during the American Civil War, the District developed a complicated, piecemeal government. Three distinct authorities over Washington County and the two cities Washington and Georgetown remained intact. In 1861, as a first step toward political consolidation, those three bodies shared authority over the new Metropolitan Police Department, founded to enforce law throughout the District. Its five-member oversight board of commissioners, each named by the President, included one representing Georgetown, one from the county of Washington, and three from the city of Washington.
During the Civil War, the city experienced a large increase in its population; by 1870, the District's population had grown to nearly 132,000. Despite the city's growth, Washington still had dirt roads and lacked basic sanitation; the situation was so bad that some members of Congress proposed moving the capital elsewhere.
In order to build new infrastructure and make the city's government operate more efficiently, Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which created a new government for the entire federal territory. This Act effectively combined the City of Washington, Georgetown, and unincorporated area known then as Washington County, into a single municipal government for the whole District of Columbia. In the same Organic Act, Congress created a territorial government which consisted of a legislative assembly with an upper-house composed of eleven council members appointed by the President and a 22-member house of delegates elected by the people, as well as an appointed Board of Public Works charged with modernizing the city. In 1873, President Ulysses S. Grant appointed the board's most influential member, Alexander Robey Shepherd, to the new post of governor. Shepherd authorized large-scale projects to modernize Washington but overspent three times the approved budget, bankrupting the city. In 1874, Congress abolished the District's local government in favor of direct rule.
The territorial government was replaced by a three-member Board of Commissioners; two members appointed by the President after approval by the Senate and a third member was selected from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. One of the three members would be selected to act as President of the Board. This form of government continued for nearly a century. Between 1948 and 1966, six bills were introduced in Congress to provide some form of home rule, but none ever passed.
In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson presented to Congress a plan to reorganize the District's government designed by David Carliner. The three-commissioner system was replaced by a government headed by a nine-member city council, a single mayor-commissioner, and an assistant to the mayor-commissioner, all appointed by the president. The mayor-commissioner and his assistant served four-year terms, while the councilmembers served three-year terms. While the Council was officially nonpartisan, no more than six of the Councilmembers could be of the same political party. Councilmembers were expected to work part-time. All councilmembers and either the mayor-commissioner or his assistant was required to have been a resident of the District of Columbia for the three years preceding appointment. All must be District residents while serving their terms in office.
Council members had the quasi-legislative powers of the former Board of Commissioners, approving the budget and setting real estate tax rates. The mayor-commissioner could, without any Congressional approval, consolidate District agencies and transfer money between agencies, powers that the preceding Board of Commissioners could not do since 1952. The mayor-commissioner could veto the actions of the Council, but the Council could override the veto with a three-fourths vote.
Despite a push by many Republicans and conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives to reject Johnson's plan, the House of Representatives accepted the new form of government for the District by a vote of 244 to 160. Johnson said that the new District government would be more effective and efficient.
Walter E. Washington was appointed the first mayor, and Thomas W. Fletcher was appointed the first deputy mayor. The first Council appointments were Chairman John W. Hechinger, Vice Chairman Walter E. Fauntroy, Stanley J. Anderson, Margaret A. Haywood, John A. Nevius, William S. Thompson, J.C. Turner, Polly Shackleton, and Joseph P. Yeldell.
1973 Home Rule Act.
On December 24, 1973, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, providing for an elected mayor and the 13-member Council of the District of Columbia. Each of the city's eight wards elects a single member of the council and five members, including the chairman, are elected at large.
There are 37 Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) elected by small neighborhood districts. ANCs traditionally wield a great deal of influence and the city government routinely takes their suggestions into careful consideration. The Council has the ability to pass local laws and ordinances. However, pursuant to the Home Rule Act all legislation passed by the D.C. government, including the city's local budget, remains subject to the approval of Congress.
The Home Rule Act specifically prohibits the Council from enacting certain laws that, among other restrictions, would:
As noted, the Home Rule Act prohibits the District from imposing a commuter tax on non-residents who make up over 60% of the city's workforce. In addition, over 50% of property in the District is also exempt from taxation. The Government Accountability Office and other organizations have estimated that these revenue restrictions create a structural deficit in the city's budget of anywhere between $470 million and over $1 billion per year. While Congress typically provides larger grants to the District for federal programs such as Medicaid and the local justice system, analysts claim that the payments do not resolve the imbalance. The proposed FY 2017 budget figures show the District raising about $10 Billion in local revenue, out of a proposed FY 2017 $13.4 Billion budget.
Justice system.
The District's local justice system is centered on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which hears all local civil and criminal cases, and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which serves as the highest local appeals court in District of Columbia. Despite the fact that the local courts are technically the third branch of the D.C. government, they are funded and operated by the United States federal government. Though operated by the federal government, the District's local courts are separate from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which only hear cases regarding federal law.
The President of the United States appoints the city's local judges from a group of nominees selected by a judicial nomination commission. All presidential nominees are then confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The local Attorney General of the District of Columbia only has jurisdiction in civil proceedings and prosecuting minor offenses such as misdemeanors and traffic violations. The United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is also appointed by the President and is responsible for prosecuting both federal and local felony crimes, such as robbery, murder, aggravated assault, grand theft, and arson. This setup differs from elsewhere in the country where 93% of local prosecutors are directly elected and the remainder are appointed by local elected officials.
The fact that the U.S. Attorneys in the District of Columbia are neither elected nor appointed by city officials leads to criticism that the prosecutors are not responsive to the needs of local residents. Efforts to create the position of D.C. district attorney regained attention in 2008. The D.C. district attorney would be elected and have jurisdiction over all local criminal cases, thereby streamlining prosecution and making the justice system more accountable to residents.
Relationship with Congress.
Despite the fact that District of Columbia has an elected mayor and district council, significant congressional oversight of the District's local affairs remains in place. Congress has the power to review all bills passed by the council, and can prevent them from taking effect even if they were passed on council with a large majority. It can also pass legislation for the city without approval from residents or the local government, and can even revoke the home rule charter altogether. District leaders have long complained about the interventionist approach that members of Congress, who have no particular attachment to the city, take in dealing with the District's local affairs. However, when confronted by hot-button political issues such as the death penalty, gun control or gay marriage, members of Congress are often pressured to cast votes consistent with the beliefs of their constituents, regardless of the law's effect on the city.
In some instances, congressional intervention in the city's affairs has produced ruinous results. As an early example from the mid-19th century, when Jacksonian Democrats tried to exercise greater authority over the District, the population convened to request retrocession of the District back to the states of Maryland and Virginia. The efforts to return the northern portion of the District failed; however, the citizens of the District's southern territory of Alexandria successfully petitioned to retrocede that area to Virginia in 1846.
The standing committees charged with oversight of the federal city, known as the District committees, were also originally believed to be unimportant when compared to other committees with greater scope and authority. As such, those appointed to the District committees were often less-respected members of Congress. For example, Theodore G. Bilbo, a senator from Mississippi in the 1930 and '40s, was made chairman of the United States Senate Committee on the District of Columbia during his final years in the Senate. Bilbo, an unapologetic racist, used the appointment to extend segregationist policies among the District's increasingly African American population.
The District committees were largely restructured in the late 1970s, and were downgraded to subcommittees in the 1990s. Currently, the District of Columbia is overseen in the House of Representatives by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and its Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives. As a courtesy to the city's residents, the District's non-voting delegate, currently Eleanor Holmes Norton, serves as a member of both committees. The District is overseen in the United States Senate by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and its Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia. The District has no representation in the Senate at all.
The Congress has intervened in the District's local affairs several times since the passage of the Home Rule Act in 1973. In most instances Congress has simply prohibited the District from spending funds to implement laws passed by the city council as opposed to directly overturning them. Most notable was the prohibition on spending funds to enact the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992, which extended health benefits to registered domestic partners in the city, and prohibiting the expenditure of funds to lobby for greater representation in Congress. In other instances, however, the Congress has implemented a more active approach in exercising its authority over the District. For example, legislation was passed in 1992 mandating a referendum on the use of the death penalty in the District, and bills to remove the District's strict gun control regulations have been continuously introduced in the Congress as well.
Efforts to roll back the city's gun laws were curtailed following the June 26, 2008, Supreme Court decision in "District of Columbia v. Heller". The court held that the city's 1976 handgun ban violates the Second Amendment right to gun ownership. However, the ruling does not prohibit all forms of gun control, and pro-gun rights members of Congress are still attempting to repeal remaining gun regulations such as the District's "assault weapon" ban.
The most significant intrusion into the city's local affairs since the passage of Home Rule Act was when the Congress removed the city's authority to control its own finances in the mid-1990s. The situation was a result of mismanagement and waste in the city's local government, particularly during the mayoralty of Marion Barry. By 1995, the city had become nearly insolvent, which prompted the Congress to create the District of Columbia Financial Control Board. As part of the restructuring arrangement, the appointed members of the Financial Control Board had the authority to approve all city spending; however, Congress also agreed to provide more funding for federally mandated programs such as Medicaid. Mayor Anthony Williams won election in 1998. His administration oversaw a period of greater prosperity, urban renewal, and budget surpluses. The District regained control over its finances in September 2001 and the oversight board's operations were suspended.
Proposals for change.
Advocates of greater D.C. home rule have proposed several reforms to increase the District's independence from Congress. These proposals generally involve either limiting oversight or allowing the state of Maryland take back the land it ceded to form the District.
Legislation.
A number of legislative proposals have been made for the Congress, while maintaining its authority over the District, to significantly restrain the degree of oversight. These initiatives include:
As of 2011, all of these proposals were pending before various committees in the Congress.
Retrocession.
The process of uniting the District of Columbia with the State of Maryland is referred to as retrocession. The District was originally formed out of parts of both Maryland and Virginia. However, the portion ceded by Virginia was returned to that state in 1846; all the land in present-day D.C. was once part of Maryland. If both the Congress and the Maryland state legislature agreed, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia could be returned to Maryland, possibly excluding a small tract of land immediately surrounding the United States Capitol, the White House, and the Supreme Court building. If the District were returned to Maryland, exclusive jurisdiction over the city by Congress would be terminated and citizens in D.C. would gain voting representation in the Congress as residents of Maryland. Potential obstacles to retrocession include the need for approval by the State of Maryland and the preference of many District residents for independent statehood. Further, retrocession may require a constitutional amendment as the District's role as the seat of government is mandated by the District Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Retrocession could also alter the idea of a separate national capital as envisioned by the U.S. Founding Fathers.
Statehood.
If the District were to become a state, Congress would no longer have exclusive authority over the city and residents would have full voting representation in the Congress, including the Senate. However, there are a number of constitutional considerations with any such statehood proposal. Article Four of the United States Constitution gives the Congress power to grant statehood; the House of Representatives voted on D.C. statehood in November 1993 and the proposal was defeated by a vote of 277 to 153. The House of Representatives again voted on D.C statehood in June 2020 and the proposal passed by a vote of 232 to 180 with the bill moving to the Senate. Further, like the issue of retrocession, opponents argue that statehood would violate the District Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and erode the principle of a separate federal district as the seat of government. D.C. statehood could therefore require a constitutional amendment.


Robert de Scardeburgh

Robert de Scardeburgh (died after 1351) was an English judge who also held high judicial office in Ireland.
He was born in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, from which he took his surname. He is thought to have been a nephew of Robert de Scarborough, who was Dean of York 1279-90.
In 1331 he was commissioner of assize for Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, and in the same year he became Chief Justice of the Irish Common Pleas. In 1332 he received an unspecified reward for his good services in Ireland and a grant of lands at Malahide, north of Dublin city. In 1334 he returned to England to become a judge of the Court of King's Bench; he was transferred to the Court of Common Pleas and then back to King's Bench; he also served on a commission of array in Yorkshire.
In the late 1330s, the poor quality of many of the Irish judges was giving great concern to the English Crown. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, Thomas Charlton, Bishop of Hereford, was instructed to remove those Irish judges who were considered to be unfit for office and replace them with judges of English birth. Scardeburgh was re-selected for his old position of Chief Justice of Common Pleas in Ireland to replace Simon Fitz-Richard, but Fitz-Richard fought a successful campaign to retain his place and Scardeburgh did not come over to Ireland.
In 1344, he finally returned to Ireland as Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, with custody of the seals of both the courts he presided over, and the fees attaching to them. He was still alive seven years later.
References.


Joseph Epstein

Joseph Epstein (October 16, 1911 – April 11, 1944), also known as Colonel Gilles and as Joseph Andrej, was a Polish-born Jewish communist activist and a French Resistance leader during World War II. He was executed by the Germans.
Communist organizer.
Joseph Epstein was born in Zamość, Congress Poland. He studied law at Warsaw University. There he became aware of the Communist Party of Poland, and later he joined it.
In 1931, he was arrested by the police after speaking at a communist rally, but he was released after a few weeks. He fled to Czechoslovakia, where he sought asylum, but his plea was rejected. Epstein returned to Poland, only long enough to be deported by the authorities.
In Tours (France), where he organized immigrant laborers, Epstein met and married Paula Grynfeld, a Jewish pharmacy student from the city of Łódź in Poland. When the French police were informed by the Polish consulate about his participation in the Communist Party, Epstein was arrested and forced to leave Tours. He and his wife traveled to Bordeaux, where they continued their studies. He organized students into a collective, and he was appointed to the regional committee of the French Communist Party.
In 1933, they moved to Paris. The following year, Epstein passed his final examination, and he completed his law degree; however, he was barred from practicing law because he was not French.
Armed struggle.
In 1936, Epstein joined the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War and took part in the defence of Irun where he was severely wounded. In January 1938, he commanded the Romanian communists' artillery battery "Tudor Vladimirescu". On returning to France at the end of 1938, he was imprisoned at Gurs, a detention camp for political refugees and members of the International Brigades.
In 1939, he entered the ranks of the Polish Army, but later resigned and joined the French Foreign Legion. In 1940, he was captured by the Germans and sent to the Stalag IVB prisoner-of-war camp. Epstein escaped from the camp and went to Switzerland, but was deported to Germany. He managed to obtain false papers on the name of Joseph Duffau and moved to Paris.
With the French Resistance.
In 1941, he began working with Francs-Tireurs et Partisans (FTP), a communist resistance group; by February 1943, he was an operation commander in the Paris region.
He proposed a new guerrilla warfare tactic. Up till this point, the FTP had been operating in three-person cells: one person attacked and two provided covering fire for their escape. He proposed that the teams should have 10 to 15 fighters. Three or four would throw grenades or bombs, and the rest would cover their withdrawal.
The FTP knew that a formation of Wehrmacht soldiers would take part in a parade in a street leading to place de l'Étoile. Epstein's group decided to attack with twelve men. Three of them would attack with grenades while the other nine would secure their withdrawal. Dozens of soldiers were killed or wounded but only one partisan was wounded. German officers reported that their soldiers were attacked by about a hundred guerillas.
In late 1943, the FTP was betrayed, possibly by Joseph Davidovitch, who was a chief of personnel in Missak Manouchian's group. Davidovitch had been arrested by the Gestapo and then released. He claimed, however, that he had escaped.
On October 16, 1943, Epstein was arrested in Évry-Petit-Bourg during a meeting with Manouchian. He was tortured in Fresnes prison and tried along with nineteen other members of the FTP and sentenced to death. He was executed by firing squad at Fort Mont-Valérien.


Edisto Island during the American Civil War

Edisto Island during the American Civil War was the location of a number of minor engagements and for a time of a large colony of African-American escaped former slaves during the American Civil War (1861–1865). Edisto Island was largely abandoned by planters in November 1861 and in December 1861, escaped slaves began setting up their own refugee camps there. In January 1862, armed African Americans from the island and Confederate forces clashed and a Confederate raid in reprisal killed a small number of unarmed African Americans. In February, Union forces were stationed on the island to develop it as a staging area for future campaigns against Charleston, twenty-five miles away, as well as to protect the colony, which would eventually number thousands of African Americans. As Union forces took control of the island, a number of skirmishes occurred, but Confederates withdrew. In June, most of the Union troops left the island in a campaign, which culminated in the Battle of Secessionville. In July, the remaining troops withdrew, and the colony was removed to St. Helena Island. For the rest of the war, a small number of escaped slaves and plantation owners remained and farmed the island, but it was largely abandoned. Near the end of the war, the island was again used as a location of colonies of freed slaves.
Early war.
After success at the Battle of Balls Bluff in the late fall of 1861, Confederate officer Nathan George Evans was promoted to Brigadier General and put in command of the Department of South Carolina and Georgia. The protection of Charleston was an important part of his charge, and Edisto Island would be a key location in Union plans to advance upon the city. North Edisto afforded a safe harbor for large vessels from which Union forces could move to White Point or Simon's Landing, points near to the Charleston and Savannah Railroad. Confederate General P. G. T. Beauregard commanded the defenses of Charleston, South Carolina, at the start of the Civil War at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. In May, Beauregard worked with Edisto Island leader, John F. Townsend of the Bleak Hall Plantation to fortify the island. However, after losing a series of battles in West Virginia, Robert E. Lee was put in command of coastal defenses late in the year. Lee believed the sea islands were indefensible and quietly decided to establish a defense line further inland. Later that year, in November, Union forces established beachheads along the coast, notably at Port Royal. In response, many white plantation owners fled to the interior. Several, including on Edisto Island, burned their cotton before fleeing to prevent the crop from falling into union hands.
In December 1861, Union General Thomas W. Sherman occupied Otter Island, Tybee Island, and St. Helena Sound. Naval commander Samuel F. Du Pont ordered Commander Percival Drayton to assist the army in taking Otter Island. On a reconnaissance trip in St. Helena Sound, Drayton anchored between Otter Island and Edisto Island in St. Helena Sound. While there, he met with a number of slaves, who provided information on rebel actions. Over the coming weeks, Drayton would discover that rebels had attacked and burned slave houses, and the refugees moved Drayton to help establish a colony of over 100 former slaves on Otter Island in December 1861, which would be supervised by Lieutenant James W. Nicholson. The contrabands, as the former slaves were called, were active in their own support as well. For instance, on December 10, contrabands assisted Nicholson in obtaining provisions. While Nicholson was aggressive in defending the camp, Union officials were aware of the threat to the former slaves posed by nearby rebel forces. In mid-December, Drayton made a reconnaissance up the Edisto with the "Pawnee", "Vixen" and "Seneca" and spied fortifications on Edisto Island. He fired upon the fort but received no reply. He then landed at the fort, which was deserted with the guns. Soon after, Drayton led a party to investigate reports of rebels burning cotton houses and outbuildings and encamped near Rockville. When they arrived at the camp, the Confederates had fled, and African Americans were there pillaging. When Drayton returned to his boat, the "Pawnee", 150 African Americans had collected on that and the other boats. Drayton decided to send them to the point of Edisto Island, and they set up a camp in a belt of woods along the seacoast of North Edisto Island, where they were protected from Confederate attacks by a marsh. Drayton left Lieutenant Thomas A. Budd of the "Penguin" in charge. By December 29, 1861, Lieutenant Daniel Ammen of the "Seneca" reported that between 700 and 900 African Americans had gathered on Botany Bay Island on the Atlantic side of Edisto Island, although they still faced threats from Confederates who had been seen on North Edisto Island. Ammen and the "Seneca" had shelled a rebel headquarters and woods on White Point. Ammen wrote to Du Pont on January 21, 1862 that the colony then numbered 1,200 and if Union forces did not occupy Edisto Island, may be unable to defend itself from rebels when collecting food over the country. Ammen also suggested hiring contraband to collect unginned cotton on the island for compensation, and reported that the colony's African-American superintendent wanted to land a force of contrabands at Rockville and drive off the Confederates, who had returned to the camp.
Uprising and reprisal.
On January 20, 1862, a group of African Americans collected arms and fired upon Confederate pickets near Watt's Cut. Evans ordered Colonel Peter F. Stevens to take 100 infantry and a company of cavalry to put down the uprising and destroy supplies on Edisto, and Stevens' operation started on the 22nd. Stevens led the Holcombe Legion (also led by Albert Creswell Garlington and William Pinkney Shingler) with 120 infantry and 65 cavalry to make an attack on the contrabands. On January 22, Stevens crossed the Dawho River and arrived at Edisto. Stevens learned that a group of African Americans had recently attacked a local plantation, and searched for them, eventually going to Point of Pines on Edisto Island across from Seabrook Island. Stevens arrived and captured a some African Americans. About four former slaves were killed or wounded, including women and elderly individuals, and about 14 were captured, also including women and elderly. However, residents of the camp who were staying in the area had been given an alarm and many fled before the Confederates arrived. On January 23, Union Navy Lieutenant Alexander C. Rhind reported that in response to the attack, he had collected 100 to 150 refugees he found at Point of Pines and ordered the "Crusader" to shell houses along the river which were reported to house rebel troops. Since that time, he reported that contrabands had been coming in constantly, and were also settling on Botany Bay Island, one of Edisto Island's barrier islands. By February 3, Treasury Agent Edward L. Pierce estimated the camps numbered 2,300, while on February 10, Du Pont estimated eight to ten thousand, and the risk of famine and disease was increasingly apparent.
Union occupation and engagements.
Thomas Sherman sent a small regiment of soldiers, the 47th New York Infantry, to North Edisto Island on February 12. The soldiers would protect the colony and establish a camp. Regimental Colonel Henry Moore established headquarters at Point of Pines, which would become the headquarters of all Union troops on the island.
By mid-march, Union forces has advanced from Edisto Island to Little Edisto Island with four companies stationed on the northern extremity of both islands, and Evans was informed the Union would cross to the mainland at Edisto Ferry or Pineberry. Evans appointed Colonel P. F. Stevens of the Holcombe Legion to attack the Federals. On March 29, Stevens, with the Holcombe Legion, the Enfield Battalion, and a detachment of dismounted cavalry crossed the river and pushed Federal forces of the 55th Pennsylvania Infantry off Little Edisto Island, capturing 21 prisoners. Federal forces retreated to their artillery on Edisto Island, and the Confederate attack was halted. 2 Union soldiers were killed, and several soldiers were wounded on both sides.
The Union Navy was also heavily involved. On March 18, Pineberry Battery opened fire on a Union Naval reconnaissance. On April 18, the "Crusader" was ambushed by mounted Confederate forces, wounding three men. A party of 60 Union soldiers from the 2nd New Hampshire Volunteer Infantry and the 55th Pennsylvania Infantry struck out the following morning, bringing one howitzer with them, and skirmished with the Confederates for about 15 minutes before the Confederates retreated. No other Union soldiers were injured or killed. On April 29, a union expeditionary force in the gunboats "Hale" and "Crusader" were sent to attack the confederate fortification works near Pineberry, which would lead to the Engagements at Pineberry, Willtown, and White Point.
Union staging area.
Union forces continued to increase troop presence, and on March 31, 1862, General David Hunter reported that there were fourteen hundred troops on Edisto Island, South Carolina. Hunter had recently replaced Thomas W. Sherman in charge of the district, which he called the Southern Expedition and was based at Port Royal. Brigadier General Henry Benham devised a plan to strike at Charleston. Confederate General John C. Pemberton had abandoned the mouth of the Stono River, allowing Union forces to land on James Island, South Carolina. Benham's plan was to send one division under Brigadier General Isaac Stevens to Sol Legare Island, South Carolina by way of Stono Inlet. A second division under Brigadier General Horatio Wright would disembark from Edisto Island to Johns Island, across it and on to James Island. In May 1862, Union forces on the island came from 13 units: First Massachusetts Cavalry, Third Rhode Island Infantry, Captain Hamilton's Battery of Artillery, Third New Hampshire Infantry, 45th Pennsylvania Infantry, 55th Pennsylvania Infantry, 76th Pennsylvania Infantry, 97th Pennsylvania Infantry, 6th Connecticut Infantry, 7th Connecticut Infantry, 46th New York Infantry, 47th New York Infantry, and Colonel Small's Engineers. The 55th Pennsylvania was the only regiment to remain when the troops disembarked on June 2 on Hunter's campaign to attack Charleston which failed when the Confederate won a victory in the Battle of Secessionville on nearby James Island on June 16.
Withdrawal of Union troops.
In the summer of 1862, Union troops protecting coastal colonies began to withdraw to reinforce Union General George B. McClellan who was engaged in the Peninsula Campaign in Virginia, a series of battle between March and July. Hunter withdrew the rest of garrison on Edisto Island on July 11, The last troops to leave were companies of the 55th Pennsylvania, one squadron of Massachusetts troops, and two pieces of field artillery served by detachments of the 3rd Rhode Island Infantry. As a result, the superintendent of the contrabands, Francis E. Barnard, organized the 1,600 former slaves with livestock and personal property and they ferried to St. Helena village, where they spent the remainder of the war. The island's farmland and crops of cotton and corn were abandoned. Barnard died on October 18, 1862 of malaria, and Edward L. Pierce reported that the exertions to settle the contraband on St. Helena Island had brought on the fever. A very small number of contraband remained on the island, and the Union Blockade included a station off of North Edisto Island. Notably, recently escaped slave Robert Smalls and the "Planter" were involved in the withdrawal of troops from the island. Smalls would return to the island in 1865 on an inspection with Brigadier General Rufus Saxton, who was quartermaster of the South Carolina Expeditionary Corps during much of Union occupation of the Island.
Later activities.
On April 9, 1863, two runaway slaves approached captain J. C. Dutch on the bark "Kingfisher", which was stationed off the island, and told them about a party of ten scouts from Company I of the 3rd South Carolina Cavalry (then called the Rebel Troop) who were all from the island. The party sought to observe the vessels passing Edisto on the way to and from Charleston in the wake of the First Battle of Charleston Harbor on April 7. Guided by the former slave, three boatloads of sailors landed surrounded the house where the Confederates were staying and captured all but one of them. In May, 1863, a force of 12 riflemen was sent by Dutch to the island on a raid of corn stored on several of the island's estates to help support the contrabands of nearby camps.
In December 1864, William T. Sherman had successfully captured Savannah in his March to the Sea. During his campaign, a large number of slaves had fled and followed behind Sherman's Army. General Rufus Saxton, who had been a quartermaster under Thomas Sherman at Hilton Head in charge of contraband on various islands, including at Edisto, in 1862, recommended St. Simons Island in Georgia and Edisto Island as good locations for new colonies, as both had previously held colonies but were relatively free of rebels. At the end of the war, Saxton was made Inspector of Settlements and Plantations. Under his supervision, many former refugees returned to Edisto. In 1865, the Freedmen's Bureau was supervising the colony on Edisto. Former plantations, such as the William Seabrook plantation were used as camps and Crawford's Plantation House owned by Confederate officer, William J. Whaley, was used to house Freedmen's Bureau teachers Mary Ames and Emily Bliss.


John Elmsley

John Elmsley (1762 – April 29, 1805) was Chief Justice of Upper Canada and afterwards Lower Canada. In both the Canadas he served as President of the Executive Council and Speaker of the Legislative Council. During the Hunter administration, he was the most powerful man in Upper Canada. In Lower Canada, from 1802 until his death he was second only in rank to the Lieutenant Governor.
Early life in England.
In 1762, he was born in England at Marylebone, London. He was the first son of Alexander and Anne (Elligood) Elmsley. He was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, graduating BA in 1786, MA in 1789, and entered the Inner Temple in 1790.
At London in July, 1796, he married Mary Hallowell, daughter of Captain Benjamin Hallowell (1723-1799) R.N., of Roxbury, Boston, by his wife Mary, daughter of Thomas Boylston. Together they had at least one son, John Jr, who later followed him into the Executive Council of Upper Canada. Mrs Elmsley's Loyalist father was His Majesty's Commissioner of Customs for the Port of Boston at the time of the Boston Tea Party, which led the excited revolutionaries to persecute and expel the family from Boston, on pain of death. Mrs Elmsley was a niece of Governor Moses Gill and her brothers included Admiral Sir Benjamin Hallowell-Carew, one of Nelson's Band of Brothers, and Ward Hallowell (better known as Ward Nicholas Boylston), the great benefactor of Harvard University. Her mother was a first cousin of Susanna Boylston, the mother of the 2nd President of the United States, John Adams, and grandmother of the 6th President, John Quincy Adams.
Upper Canada.
In November 1796, Elmsley arrived at Niagara-on-the-Lake, soon after followed by his wife and father-in-law. Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe had left the province in July, choosing Peter Russell to act as administrator in his absence. Before he left Simcoe had ordered that the provincial capital was moved from Niagara to York (Toronto), and Russell was busy organising the unwelcome upheaval. For legal reasons, Elmsley objected strongly to the move which brought him into conflict with Russell throughout 1797.
In July, 1797, Parliament was held at York, but a compromise had been met with a bill passed to permit the courts to remain at Niagara-on-the-Lake for a further two years. Elmsley finally moved to York in the spring of 1798, building a large house that later became the Lieutenant-Governor's residence. The administrator (Russell) and the chief justice (Elmsley) continued to disagree about almost everything.
Concerning land grants and tariffs with Lower Canada, Elmsley was greatly influenced by his friend Richard Cartwright, generally supporting the Loyalist and merchant points of view. In legal matters, he tried to adapt English law to Canadian circumstances but was consistently opposed by Allcock, who believed that there should be absolutely no tampering with English law, procedures, and precedents. Elmsley was one of the few university graduates in the province, and was much given to elegant phrases and Latin quotations, a habit that may not have endeared him to all his colleagues.
Lower Canada and death.
When the Duke of Portland had appointed Elmsley to the Chief Justiceship of Upper Canada, he had also promised him promotion to the Chief Justiceship of Lower Canada as soon as the post became vacant. In 1800, fearing he would lose money with another move, Elmsley withdrew his claim. Despite his reluctance, he was appointed to the Lower Canadian post in 1802, following the resignation of William Osgoode. The salary was increased from £1,000 to £1,500 a year, and he was to be called to the Executive and Legislative Councils of Lower Canada with a 'seat next in Rank to the Lieutenant Governor.'
He traveled to Montreal in February 1805 with plans to go to the United States after he had become seriously ill in November of the previous year. He died in Montreal on April 29, 1805.
Legacy.
When the Fort York Government House was destroyed in the War of 1812 by an explosion from the British ammunition magazine, Chief Justice Elmsley's house was purchased on King Street and converted into the new Government House. Despite this it was still called Elmsley House for a long period.
Personal.
Elmsley's son Captain John Elmsley (1801-1863) was a member of the Legislative Council of Upper Canada and Executive Council of Upper Canada. Elmsley converted as a Roman Catholic and is buried at St. Michael's Cathedral (Toronto).


Chambre des Comptes (Navarre)

The Chambres des Comptes de Navarre, alias Cour des Comptes de Navarre "(English: Court of Auditors of Navarre)", was formed in during the reign of Louis XIII through the act of merging the "Chambre des Comptes of Pau" with the "Chambre des Comptes of Nérac" into one entity. In , it was merged into the Parliament of Navarre and Béarn in Pau. The First President and the two Presidents, became "Président à mortiers" in the Parliament.
The "Chambre des Comptes of Pau" and the "Chambre des Comptes of Nérac" were created at the same time by Henry II of Navarre on ,
Chambre des Comptes in Pau.
The "Chambre des Comptes in Pau" was given responsibility for Lower Navarre, Béarn, the County of Foix and Bigorre, the Viscounties of Marsan, Turson, Gavardon and the Barony of Captieux, the Viscounties of Lautrec and Nébouzan, the Barony of After-Villemure, and the four valleys of the Aure.
It was reconfirmed and authorized by his successor, Antoine of Navarre, on , who made at the same time a number of laws to set out the powers of the officers, not only for the Chambre des Comptes in Pau, but also for those of Nérac and Vendôme.
Among these laws were those that determined the number of officers that each one had to have, namely one President, five Counselors/Auditors, a Registrar, a Huissier and a Patrimonial Prosecutor (a "Procureur Patrimonial"); the jurisdiction and knowledge were set forth for all matters concerning the types of income and expense accounting, and the circumstances and dependencies, all the same, and with the same authority and justice that had belonged to the King himself.
By , the number of huissiers had been increased to two.
The number of counselors/auditors was increased to six with the addition of a position of "Supernumerary" on , but the first such supernumerary was only installed in office on .
On , the Queen Regnant Jeanne published new laws about religion with two main principles: the first being to suspended all officers who were not Huguenot and prohibit the Lieutenant General from enlisting Catholics, and the second being to seize the property and assets, ecclesiastical or layperson, of those who disobeyed her and to sell them on public auction. This latter is, in essence, the beginning of war in Béarn.
First Presidents.
First Presidents of the Chambres des Comptes of Pau (in chronological order):
Prosecutor and Attorney Generals.
Attorney General (following the separation of the positions):
Chambre des Comptes in Nérac.
In addition to the responsibility for the Duchy of Albret at the time it was formed, it was also responsible for the County of Armagnac and all of its dependent territories, the Pays d'Eaussan, the Seigneurie of Rivière-Basse, the County of Rodez, the four Castellans of Rouergue, the County of Périgord, and the Viscounty of Limoges.
First Presidents.
First Presidents of the Chambres des Comptes of Nérac (in chronological order):


Freeport Doctrine

The Freeport Doctrine was articulated by Stephen A. Douglas at the second of the Lincoln-Douglas debates on August 27, 1858, in Freeport, Illinois. Former one-term U.S. Representative Abraham Lincoln was campaigning to take Douglas's U.S. Senate seat by strongly opposing all attempts to expand the geographic area in which slavery was permitted. Lincoln tried to force Douglas to choose between the principle of popular sovereignty proposed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which left the fate of slavery in a U.S. territory up to its inhabitants), and the majority decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of "Dred Scott v. Sandford", which stated that slavery could not legally be excluded from U.S. territories (since Douglas professed great respect for Supreme Court decisions, and accused the Republicans of disrespecting the court, yet this aspect of the "Dred Scott" decision was contrary to Douglas's views and politically unpopular in Illinois). Instead of making a direct choice, Douglas's response stated that despite the court's ruling, slavery could be prevented from any territory by the refusal of the people living in that territory to pass laws favorable to slavery. Likewise, if the people of the territory supported slavery, legislation would provide for its continued existence.
Douglas's actual words were:
The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, Can the people of a Territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution? I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution. Mr Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska bill on that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police regulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature; and if the people are opposed to slavery, they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a Slave Territory or a Free Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point.
By taking this position, Douglas was defending his Popular Sovereignty or "Squatter Sovereignty" principle of 1854, which he considered to be a compromise between pro-slavery and anti-slavery positions. It was satisfactory to the legislature of Illinois, which reelected Douglas over Lincoln to the Senate. However, the Freeport Doctrine, or "Freeport Heresy" as Southern Democrats called it, alienated many of them. Douglas had actually stated the essence of the doctrine previous to the debate at Freeport, but its prominent public assertion at Freeport contributed (along with other political disputes, such as over the Lecompton Constitution) to antagonizing those in the Southern United States who were demanding ever-increasing protections for slavery. These Southerners subsequently insisted on the Congressional repudiation of the Freeport Doctrine (i.e., the passage of slave codes for the territories), in order to block Douglas's presidential bid in 1860. This led to the split of the Democratic party in 1860, and Douglas's loss in the 1860 presidential election.


Andreas Rogert

Andreas Rogert (10 or 18 November 1754 – 10 June 1833) was a Norwegian jurist and politician.
Rogert was born in Trondhjem (now Trondheim), Norway, on 10 or 18 November 1754. He acquired a legal education in Copenhagen. He worked as a judge and assessor before he became Chief Justice during 1805. He maintained a residence at Collin-gården in Bispegata.
He represented the city of Trondhjem at the Norwegian Constituent Assembly in 1814, together with merchant Peter Schmidt. He was vice-president for meeting the first week, and was one of the fifteen who sat in the Constitutional Committee. He generally favored the Independence Party ("Selvstendighetspartiet"). He was not active in politics after National Assembly.
He died in Trondheim on 10 June 1833.


Uniform Monday Holiday Act

The Uniform Monday Holiday Act () is an Act of Congress that moved permanently to a Monday three Federal holidays in the United States -- Washington's Birthday, Memorial Day, and Labor Day -- and that made Columbus Day a federal holiday, also permanently on a Monday. This created long weekends with three days off ending with the holidays, such as Memorial Day Weekend and Labor Day Weekend.
Veterans Day was moved from November 11 to the fourth Monday in October but in 1978 it was returned to November 11, the actual date of the end of World War I (see Armistice of 11 November 1918) and celebrated in several European countries as Armistice Day.
The Act was signed into law on June 1, 1968, and took effect on January 1, 1971.
Background.
The Act was designed to increase the number of three-day weekends for federal employees, a favorite goal of the travel industry. Veterans Day was removed from this list of "always-on-Monday" holidays when it was moved back to its traditional date of November 11, by act of Congress in 1975, effective 1978.
This Act did not officially change the name of Washington's Birthday to "Presidents Day", nor did it combine Washington's Birthday with Lincoln's Birthday, despite suggestions that those two changes be made. Many U.S. states have adopted some version of the "Presidents Day" name. The perception that the name was changed stems from the fact that the act placed federal observance of Washington's Birthday in the week of February 15 to 21 and, since that week always falls between Lincoln's birthday (February 12) and Washington's (February 22), but never includes either date, popular references have given rise to the title, which recognizes both Presidents. a dozen U.S. states officially refer to the holiday as "Presidents' Day."
Though the holiday was not in existence at the time, Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday (established 1983, first observed 1986) is celebrated on the third Monday in January, which falls on January 15–21, instead of King's actual birth date, January 15, for the same reasons.
Effects.
The Monday holiday dates this act established are:
Also celebrated on Monday:


Landsforbundet for folkeavstemning

Landsforbundet for folkeavstemning ('The National Association for Referendum') was a Norwegian lobby organization.
History.
Inception.
It was founded in April 1961 with the goal of including the institution of referendums in the Norwegian Constitution. The context was the Norwegian "one-party state", which lasted from 1945 to September 1961, and was marked by the continuous majority held by the Norwegian Labour Party in the Norwegian Parliament. The Labour Party did win their majority through a series of free elections, but the opposition wanted to introduce referendums to balance Parliament. In several debates the centre-right opposition (Liberal, Christian Democratic, Centre, Conservative) was unanimous in their demand of constitutionalized referendums.
The association had a predecessor in a study circle organized by the Norwegian Shipowners' Association. It was launched with an appeal from eight notable citizens: barrister Sven Arntzen, Chief Justice Paal Berg, director Gunnar Jahn, professor of medicine Jan Birger Jansen, national archivist Reidar Omang, lawyer Astri Rynning, chief physician Johan Scharffenberg and barrister Sigrid Stray. The chairman of the association's board was Ivar Kaldager, and secretary general was Th. Hasle. People associated with the Labour Party were asked to join, but declined.
The first national convention was held in October 1962. Acting chairman Ivar Kaldager was formally elected. Deputy chair was Paal Berg, and board members were Astri Rynning, editor-in-chief Kjell Bøe, civil servant Trygve Eckhoff, editor-in-chief Dagfinn Flem, engineer Steinar Grundt, barrister Lars Chr. Hægg and lawyer Reidar Selmer.
Notable writings which outlined some the association's ideas were Dagfinn Flem's 1945 book "Det sveitsiske demokrati" about Swiss democracy, as well as Johan Scharffenberg's 1945 book "Qui vadis Norvegia?" in which he proposed constitutional reform. In the early 1960s Scharffenberg was working on a book named "Velgerne som statsmakt", which was to capture his ideas on referendums.
Later work.
The association soon ran into problems. Political scientist Tor Bjørklund has made note of the narrow demographic stratum associated with the association. This soon became evident, as the question of Norwegian membership in the European Economic Community became a hot issue in the autumn of 1961. People in higher social strata, including the ruling Labour Party, tended to support this membership, whereas opponents were people associated with the Socialist People's Party, the Communist Party and the Norwegian Farmers and Smallholders Union. To complicate matters, these fringe organizations proposed that a referendum on the possible Norwegian membership be held. In this situation, Ivar Kaldager soon became vague about the association's views on referendums. It was said that integrating referendums in the Constitution was a more pressing issue than actually holding one.
As it turned out, Norwegian politicians became in favor for both membership and a referendum during 1962. However, French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed Norway's membership, instantly killing the initiative. The same thing happened in 1967. As de Gaulle stepped down, a third debate arose in the early 1970s, but the initiative fell after 53.5% voted against it in the 1972 Norwegian European Communities membership referendum.
In 1984 "Landsforbundet for folkeavstemning" crafted a law proposal that was forwarded by Odd Einar Dørum, Oddleif Fagerheim, Hans Olav Tungesvik and Ola O. Røssum. The proposal was about the right of a minority in Parliament to call a referendum on cases ratified by a parliamentary majority. The proposal received 15 votes, and thus fell. "Landsforbundet for folkeavstemning" later faded out, and no longer exists.


Heinrich Graf von Lehndorff-Steinort

Heinrich Ahasverus Graf von Lehndorff-Steinort (22 June 1909 – 4 September 1944) was an East Prussian junker and aristocrat who became a member of the 20 July plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler.
Biography.
Lehndorff was born in Hanover, Germany and studied economics and business administration in Frankfurt am Main. In 1936 he took over the management of the family estate Steinort in East Prussia. After the Second World War broke out, he was first deployed in Poland, and later, as a reserve lieutenant, posted to General Fedor von Bock's staff, who later became supreme commander of Army Group Centre ("Heeresgruppe Mitte"). During Operation Barbarossa (the German attack on the Soviet Union), Lehndorff became an eyewitness to a massacre of the Jewish population near Barysaŭ in Belarus by Einsatzgruppen. Thereupon, Henning von Tresckow won him over to the cause of military resistance ("Widerstand") against Hitler.
As a first lieutenant in the reserves, Lehndorff was deployed as liaison officer to Defence District I (East Prussia) in Königsberg (today Kaliningrad, Russia). One day after the failed attempt on Hitler's life at the Wolf's Lair on 20 July 1944, Lehndorff was arrested. Along with Kurt Hahn, Gerhard Knaak, Hans Otto Erdmann and Max Ulrich von Drechsel he was sentenced to death by the "Volksgerichtshof" under Günther Nebelung on 4 September 1944. He was hanged the same day at Plötzensee Prison in Berlin. His wife Gottliebe née Gräfin von Kalnein (1913–1993) and their four daughters (Marie Eleanore [who married Wieland Wagner's son, Wolf Siegfried], Vera, Gabriele, and Katharina) spent the remainder of the war confined to concentration camps.
His daughter Vera von Lehndorff (1939– ) became a well-known photographic model and actress under the professional name Veruschka.


Imperial Estate

An Imperial State or Imperial Estate (; , plural: ') was a part of the Holy Roman Empire with representation and the right to vote in the Imperial Diet ('). Rulers of these Estates were able to exercise significant rights and privileges and were "immediate", meaning that the only authority above them was the Holy Roman Emperor. They were thus able to rule their territories with a considerable degree of autonomy.
The system of imperial states replaced the more regular division of Germany into stem duchies in the early medieval period.
The old Carolingian stem duchies were retained as the major divisions of Germany under the Salian dynasty, but they became increasingly obsolete during the early high medieval period under the Hohenstaufen, and they were finally abolished in 1180 by Frederick Barbarossa in favour of more numerous territorial divisions. From 1489, the imperial Estates represented in the Diet were divided into three chambers, the college of prince-electors (), the college of imperial princes () and the college of imperial cities. Counts and nobles were not directly represented in the Diet in spite of their immediate status, but were grouped into "benches" () with a single vote each.
Imperial Knights had immediate status but were not represented in the Diet.
Composition.
Imperial Estates could be either ecclesiastic or secular. The ecclesiastical Estates were led by:
The secular Estates, most notably:
Until 1582 the votes of the Free and Imperial Cities were only advisory. None of the rulers below the Holy Roman Emperor ranked as kings, with the exception of the Kings of Bohemia.
The status of Estate was normally attached to a particular territory within the Empire, but there were some "", or "persons with imperial statehood". Originally, the Emperor alone could grant that status, but in 1653, several restrictions on the Emperor's power were introduced.
The creation of a new Estate required the assent of the College of Electors and of the College of Princes (see below). The ruler was required to agree to accept imperial taxation and military obligations. Furthermore, the Estate was required to obtain admittance into one of the Imperial Circles. Theoretically, personalist Estates were forbidden after 1653, but exceptions were often made.
Once a territory attained the status of an Estate, it could only lose that status under very few circumstances. A territory ceded to a foreign power ceased to be an Estate.
From 1648 onwards, inheritance of the Estate was limited to one family; a territory inherited by a different family ceased to be an Estate unless the Emperor explicitly allowed otherwise. Finally, a territory could cease to be an imperial Estate by being subjected to the Imperial ban (the most notable example involved the Elector Palatine Frederick V, who was banned in 1621 for his participation in the Bohemian Revolt).
In the German mediatization between 1803 and 1806, the vast majority of the Estates of the Holy Roman Empire were mediatised. They lost their imperial immediacy and became part of other Estates. The number of Estates was reduced from about three hundred to about thirty. Mediatisation went along with secularisation: the abolition of most of the ecclesiastical Estates. This dissolution of the constitution of the structure of the empire was soon followed by the dissolution of the empire itself, in 1806.
Rights and privileges.
Rulers of Imperial States enjoyed precedence over other subjects in the Empire. Electors were originally styled ' (Serene Highness), princes ' (high-born) and counts ' (high and well-born). In the eighteenth century, the electors were upgraded to ' (Most Serene Highness), princes to ' (Serene Highness) and counts to ' (Illustrious Highness).
Imperial States enjoyed several rights and privileges. Rulers had autonomy inasmuch as their families were concerned; in particular, they were permitted to make rules regarding the inheritance of their states without imperial interference. They were permitted to make treaties and enter into alliances with other Imperial States as well as with foreign nations. The electors, but not the other rulers, were permitted to exercise certain regalian powers, including the power to mint money, the power to collect tolls and a monopoly over gold and silver mines.
Imperial Diet.
From 1489 onwards, the Imperial Diet was divided into three "": the Council of Electors, the Council of Princes and the Council of Cities. Electoral states belonged to the first of the aforementioned councils; other states, whether ecclesiastical or secular, belonged to the Council of Princes.
Votes were held in right of the states, rather than personally. Consequently, an individual ruling several states held multiple votes; similarly, multiple individuals ruling parts of the same state shared a single vote. These rules were not formalized until 1582; prior to this time, when multiple individuals inherited parts of the same state, they sometimes received a vote each. Votes were either individual or collective. Princes and senior clerics generally held individual votes (but such votes, as noted above, were sometimes shared). Prelates (abbots and priors) without individual votes were classified into two benches—the Bench of the Rhine and the Bench of Swabia — each of which enjoyed a collective vote. Similarly, Counts were grouped into four comital benches with a collective vote each — the Upper Rhenish Bench of Wetterau, the Swabian Bench, the Franconian Bench and the Westphalian Bench.
No elector ever held multiple electorates; nor were electorates ever divided between multiple heirs. Hence, in the Council of Electors, each individual held exactly one vote. Electors who ruled states in addition to their electorates also voted in the Council of Princes; similarly, princes who also ruled comital territories voted both individually and in the comital benches. In the Reichstag in 1792, for instance, the Elector of Brandenburg held eight individual votes in the Council of Princes and one vote in the Bench of Westphalia. Similarly, among ecclesiastics, the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order held one individual vote in the Council of Princes and two in the Bench of the Rhine.
Quaternions.
The so-called imperial quaternions (German: "Quaternionen der Reichsverfassung" "quaternions of the imperial constitution"; from Latin "quaterniō" "group of four soldiers")
were a conventional representation of the Imperial States of the Holy Roman Empire which first became current in the 15th century and was extremely popular during the 16th century.
Apart from the highest tiers of the emperor, kings, prince-bishops and the prince electors, the estates are represented in groups of four. The number of quaternions was usually ten, in descending order of precedence Dukes ("Duces"), Margraves ("Marchiones"), Landgraves ("Comites Provinciales"), Burggraves ("Comites Castrenses"), Counts ("Comites"), Knights ("Milites"), Noblemen ("Liberi"), Cities ("Metropoles"), Villages ("Villae") and Peasants ("Rustici"). The list could be shortened or expanded, by the mid-16th century to as many as 45.
It is likely that this system was first introduced under Emperor Sigismund, who is assumed to have commissioned the frescoes in Frankfurt city hall in 1414.
As has been noted from an early time, this representation of the "imperial constitution" does not in fact represent the actual constitution of the Holy Roman Empire, as some imperial cities appear as "villages" or even "peasants".
E.g. the four "peasants" are Cologne, Constance, Regensburg and Salzburg. The Burggrave of Stromburg (or Straburg, Strandeck, and variants) was an unknown entity even at the time. The representation of imperial subjects is also far from complete. The "imperial quaternions" are, rather, a more or less random selection intended to represent "pars pro toto" the structure of the imperial constitution.


Waving the bloody shirt

"Waving the bloody shirt" and "bloody shirt campaign" were pejorative phrases, used during American election campaigns in the 19th century, to deride opposing politicians who made emotional calls to avenge the blood of soldiers that died in the Civil War. The phrases were most often used against Republicans, who were accused of using the memory of the Civil War to their political advantage. Democrats were not above using memories of the Civil War in such a manner as well, especially while campaigning in the South.
Background.
The phrases gained popularity with a fictitious incident in which Representative, and former Union general, Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts, while making a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in April of 1871, allegedly held up a shirt stained with the blood of a Reconstruction Era carpetbagger who had been whipped by the Ku Klux Klan. While Butler did give a speech condemning the Klan, he never waved anyone's bloody shirt. White Southerners mocked Butler, using the fiction of him having "waved the bloody shirt", to dismiss Klan thuggery and other atrocities committed against freed slaves and Republicans.
The Red Shirts, a defunct 19th-century white supremacist paramilitary organization, took their name from the term.
In current usage, the terms, often abbreviated bloody shirt, are used more broadly to refer to any effort to stir up partisan animosity.


Trial of Thomas Paine

The trial of Thomas Paine for seditious libel was held on 18 December 1792 in response to his publication of the second part of the "Rights of Man". The government of William Pitt, worried by the possibility that the French Revolution might spread to England, had begun suppressing works that espoused radical philosophies.
Paine's work, which advocated the right of the people to overthrow their government, was duly targeted, with a writ for his arrest issued on 21 May. Paine fled to France in September since he had been elected a member of the National Convention in France. He was instead represented "in absentia" by Thomas Erskine, a noted lawyer and orator who was severely criticised by government supporters in the months leading up to the trial.
At the trial, Archibald Macdonald, representing the prosecution, argued that Paine's work served only to inflame the populace and distribute radical ideas to those without the experience to understand them in context. Erskine's reply opened with a defence of the freedom of lawyers to represent whichever clients came to them, and it followed with an exposition of his views on the nature of the freedom of the press that argued that the publication of radical tracts served only to improve the government by highlighting its weaknesses and could not be seditious if published in good faith. Despite Erskine's speech later receiving a rapturous response, Paine was found guilty before Macdonald replied.
The verdict was seen by the government as legitimising their repression of radicalism, and paved the way for the 1794 Treason Trials, in which Erskine played a prominent role.
Background.
French Revolution.
After involving itself in the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War, France found itself financially ruined. Attempts to pass an economic plan to alleviate that in the Estates-General of 1789 led instead to the Third Estate forming the National Assembly. Succeeded, in turn, by the National Constituent Assembly and the Legislative Assembly, the various legislative bodies succeeded in rendering the monarchy constitutional, limited by democratic institutions. Attempts to remove the monarch entirely, although thwarted on 20 June 1792, led to the effective overthrow of Louis XVI on 10 August. On 21 October, France was formally declared a republic.
Britain was initially sympathetic to the revolutionaries of France, but the sympathy dissolved with the execution of Louis XVI and was replaced by hostility and a growing schism within the Whigs. While the Foxite branch argued for the Revolution as a source of general liberty, the administration of William Pitt became increasingly repressive, fearing the spread of Jacobinism to the United Kingdom and the overthrow of the government. The split was reflected in the behaviour of the people. While some joined societies dedicated to parliamentary reform, others formed mobs under the banner of "Church and King" and attacked the homes of liberals and those who sympathised with the French Revolution, including that of Joseph Priestley. The Association for Preserving Liberty and Property against Republicans and Levellers was formed and served as "an organised body of private agents engaged in ferreting out sedition wherever it raised its inky head".
Paine and the "Rights of Man".
Thomas Paine was a noted writer and political theorist whose work had influenced and helped drive the American Revolution. Having returned to England, he decided to write a book, "Rights of Man", addressing the arguments of Edmund Burke, a prominent conservative strongly fearful of the French Revolution. The first part was published in 1791 and attracted no attention from Pitt's administration. The second, published on 16 February 1792, advocated, amongst other things, the right of the people to replace their government if they thought it appropriate. The work was an immediate success, selling a million-and-a-half copies, generated public support for various reform movements. It also brought Paine to the attention of the government and made him a subject to its crackdown. While Paine was visiting an aunt in Kent, Pitt had a writ issued against J.S. Jordan, Paine's publisher, prosecuting him for seditious libel, a crime based on the concept that the executive was beyond reproach, which made it illegal to criticise the government. Paine returned to London and began to campaign for Jordan, finding him a lawyer and agreeing to pay his legal fees. Jordan, however, most likely frightened for his life, pleaded guilty and turned his files over to the court. With that additional evidence, a writ was issued for Paine on 21 May, charging him with the same crime. His trial date was set for 8 June, and later rescheduled for 18 December.
Paine left England before he could be tried since he had been elected a member of the National Convention in France, tasked with writing a new constitution. He departed England on 13 September, never to return, but he further infuriated the government remotely by republishing the "Rights of Man" and writing "Letter Addressed to the Addressors of the Late Proclamation" in which he defended his actions and beliefs against those who had chosen to side with the government. Paine was instead represented "in absentia" by Thomas Erskine, a famous lawyer and orator who served as Attorney General to the Prince of Wales. As the trial date approached, both Erskine and Paine were targeted by vicious personal attacks. Paine's writ was followed by hundreds of loyal addresses, many of which targeted him, the burning of an effigy in Exeter and the banning of the sale of any of his books in Chester. Pamphlets slandering him were widely published, and both Paine and Erskine had their personal lives dug into.
Trial.
The trial was finally held on 18 December 1792 in front of the Court of King's Bench. Lord Kenyon presided, with Erskine representing the defence, and the government represented by Archibald Macdonald, John Scott and Spencer Perceval. Macdonald opened for the prosecution, expressing outrage at the publication of the "Rights of Man" and his concern that it would be made available to so many members of the public who were unfamiliar with political philosophy. He also read excerpts from a letter that Paine had written to him after his arrival in Paris, which contained "everything with which to inflame a jury". He then presented various witnesses, starting with Thomas Haynes, to testify that the works had indeed been published, and following with Thomas Chapman, who had printed the first part of the "Rights of Man". Chapman testified that he had intended to print the second part until he came upon a passage that "appeared of a dangerous tendency" and that, after an argument with a drunken Paine, he then returned the book.
Erskine offered no evidence, admitting that Paine had written both the "Rights of Man" and the letter to Macdonald and instead chose to begin speaking. He opened with a statement against those who had pressured him to refuse Paine's case and stated, in a "brilliant exposition of the principles involved", that:
He then moved on to addressing the freedom of the press and the limits on it, arguing that freedom of speech was necessary to identify the flaws in the structure of the government and the constitution, even if the author was mistaken about the flaws. As long as a writer intended only to enlighten others, prohibiting their speech would serve only to undermine the government by harming the opportunities to improve it. While Macdonald had argued that the book was problematic because it was circulated amongst all classes of society, Erskine argued that this was not the test of whether the "Rights of Man" was seditious. Instead, the test was whether Paine had exclusively dealt with what he believed to be in the best interests of England, its government and its people. While Paine's opinions ran counter to the existing system of government, Erskine argued that "opinion is free and... conduct alone is amenable to the law". For a libel claim to succeed, the Libel Act 1792 required the prosecution to show the publication was motivated by malice. Since Paine had intended only to help mankind, and this was a pure motive, he could not be guilty.
Despite the speech, the jury found Paine guilty before Macdonald replied to Erskine's argument.
Aftermath.
Although it failed to sway the jury, Erskine's speech was given a rapturous response. After he left the court, he was confronted by a mob that cheered him and shouted, "Damn Tom Paine, but Erskine for ever, and the Liberty of the Press; the
King, the Constitution, and Erskine for ever". The crowd proceeded to unhitch the horses from his carriage and carry the carriage (with him inside) to his lodgings at Serjeant's Inn. Over 30 transcripts or reports of the trial were printed, all of which contained Erskine's speech, and many editions emphasised Erskine's name and the theme of his speech on the title pages, using it to sell copies. Other reactions were less positive; William Godwin wrote a letter to Erskine shortly after the trial arguing that his statement that individuals were free to publish works attacking or criticising the Constitution "had a considerable share in prosecuting the verdict of guilty". Paine himself found Erskine's speech and conduct during the trial disappointing, expecting him to do more to defend the principles in the "Rights of Man" than he had.
Pitt's administration took the guilty verdict in Paine's trial as a sign that further prosecutions for sedition were possible and so began many. In the 17 months following the trial, 11 publishers of the "Rights of Man" were prosecuted, receiving prison sentences of up to four years. They acted as a prelude to the 1794 Treason Trials in which a dozen reformers were indicted for allegedly conspiring to bring about a revolution. Erskine played a prominent role in defending many of them, including Thomas Hardy, John Horne Tooke and John Thelwall, all three of whom were acquitted.