Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia

The Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia (commonly known as Badinter Arbitration Committee) was an arbitration body set up by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community (EEC) on 27 August 1991 to provide the Conference on Yugoslavia with legal advice. Robert Badinter was appointed to President of the five-member Commission consisting of presidents of Constitutional Courts in the EEC. The Arbitration Commission has handed down fifteen opinions on "major legal questions" raised by the conflict between several republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY).
Opinions.
Between late 1991 and the middle of 1993, the Arbitration Commission handed down 15 opinions on legal issues arising from the fragmentation of Yugoslavia.
Opinion No. 1 (Dissolution of SFRY).
On 20 November 1991 Lord Carrington asked whether the secession of some republics from SFRY preserved its existence, as Serbia and Montenegro claimed, or caused its dissolution with all the republics being equal successors to the SFRY. The commission replied on 29 November 1991, "the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia is in the process of dissolution".
Opinion No. 2 (Self-determination).
On 20 November 1991 Lord Carrington asked: "Does the Serbian population in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as one of the constituent peoples of Yugoslavia, have the right to self-determination?" The commission concluded on 11 January 1992 "that the Serbian population in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia is entitled to all the rights concerned to minorities and ethnic groups... Republics must afford the members of those minorities and ethnic groups all the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized in international law, including, where appropriate, the right to choose their nationality". The opinion also extended the principle of "uti possidetis" to the former Yugoslavia for the first time.
Opinion No. 3 (Borders).
On 20 November 1991 Lord Carrington asked: "Can the internal boundaries between Croatia and Serbia and between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia be regarded as frontiers in terms of public international law?" Applying the principle of "uti possidetis juris", the commission concluded on 11 January 1992, "The boundaries between Croatia and Serbia, between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, and possibly other adjacent independent states may not be altered except by agreement freely arrived at... Except where otherwise agreed, the former boundaries become frontiers protected by international law".
Opinion No. 4 (Bosnia and Herzegovina).
The Commission was asked whether the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be recognised. The Commission decided against recognition because, unlike the other republics seeking independence, Bosnia and Herzegovina had not yet held a referendum on independence.
Opinion No. 5 (Croatia).
The Commission considered the application of Croatia for the recognition of its independence. The Commission ruled that Croatia's independence should not yet be recognized because the new Croatian Constitution did not incorporate the protections for minorities required by European Community. In response, to this decision, the President of Croatia wrote to Badinter to give assurances that the deficit would be remedied, and the European Community then recognized Croatia.
Opinion No. 6 (Macedonia).
The Commission recommended for the European Community to accept the request of the Republic of Macedonia for recognition, as the Republic had given the necessary guarantees to respect human rights and international peace and security. However, the European Community was initially reluctant to accept the recommendations because of Greek opposition.
Opinion No. 7 (Slovenia).
The Commission recommended for the European Community to recognise Slovenia.
Interlocutory decision.
The Commission rejected Serbian and Montenegrin objections to its competence to respond to three references that it had received from Lord Carrington, which resulted in Opinions 8, 9 and 10.
Opinion No. 8 (Completion of the process of the dissolution of the SFRY).
The Commission decided that the legal process of the dissolution of the SFRY had completed and so the SFRY no longer existed.
Opinion No. 9 (Settlement of problems of state succession).
The Commission considered state succession, resulting from the cessation of the SFRY, should be resolved. It ruled that it should be resolved by mutual agreement between the several successor states, with an equitable division of the international assets and obligations of the former SFRY. It also decided that the membership of the SFRY in international organizations could not be continued by any successor state, but each state would have to apply for membership anew.
Opinion No. 10 (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - Serbia and Montenegro).
In this decision, the Commission ruled that the FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) could not legally be considered a continuation of the former SFRY, but it was a new state. Thus, the European Community should not automatically recognize the FRY but apply the same criteria as for the recognition of the other post-SFRY states.
Text.
The text of the first ten opinions of the Badinter Commission has been published in the "European Journal of International Law".
Opinions 1-3 are reproduced in 3 EJIL 1 (1992) pp. 182ff (available online or for free at ).
Opinions 4-10 are reproduced in 4 EJIL 1 (1993) pp. 74ff (available online).
Criticism of Opinion No. 3.
Peter Radan, an Australian legal academic, has criticised the Badinter Commission's interpretation of the SFRY Constitution. Apart from principles of international law, the Badinter Commission sought to justify the relevance of the Badinter Borders Principle by reference to article 5 of the 1974 Constitution of the Yugoslavia. The Commission said that the Badinter Borders Principle applies all the more readily to the Republics since the second and fourth paragraphs of Article 5 of the Constitution of the SFRY stipulated that the Republics’ territories and boundaries could not be altered without their consent.
Article 5 stipulates:
(1) The territory of the SFRY is indivisible and consists of the territories of its socialist republics.
(2) A republic’s territory cannot be altered without the consent of that republic, and the territory of an autonomous province — without the consent of that autonomous province.
(3) A border of the SFRY cannot be altered without the concurrence of all republics and autonomous provinces.
(4) A border between republics can only be altered on the basis of their agreement, and in the case of a border of an autonomous province — on the basis of its concurrence.
In referring to article 5, his criticism is that the Badinter Commission was guilty of selective quoting.
Radan's reason for this opinion is that in relying on paragraphs 2 and 4 of article 5, the Badinter Commission ignored the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3. In doing so it was justifying the division of the SFRY and the alteration of its international borders in violation of paragraphs 1 and 3. Radan argues that the territorial integrity of republics and the sanctity of their borders referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of article 5 only applied in the context of the Yugoslav state whose own territorial integrity and borders remained in place. According to Radan, a republic seeking to violate the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 5 could hardly reap the guarantees contained within paragraphs 2 and 4. Consequently, he argues that article 5 provides no support for the application of the Badinter Borders Principle to the fragmentation of the SFRY.
Based upon the above analysis of the reasoning of the Badinter Commission in Opinion No 3 Radan concludes that neither the international law principles of respect for the territorial status quo and uti possidetis nor the provisions of article 5 of the Constitution of the SFRY 1974 provides any justification for the Badinter Borders Principle" and that in redrawing the new borders between independent states "it may even be necessary to facilitate orderly and voluntary transfers of parts of the population."


Vigils for Peace

Vigils for Peace () is the name of regular series of vigils that have taken place on Mondays in many cities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland since March 2014. The vigils are explicitly not left-wing or right-wing in political orientation, although they are inspired by the Monday demonstrations in East Germany that took place in 1989 and 1990.
The vigils were triggered by the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and the concerns it generated in Germany about conflict and war, but a primary focus has been the Federal Reserve System in the United States and its argued effects on the global economy and political events.
Vigils.
The first "vigil for peace" was organized in March 2014 Brandenburg Gate in Berlin by Lars Mährholz, a professional skydiver and entrepreneur. Its slogan was: "For peace in Europe and the world, for an honest press, and against the deadly politics of the Federal Reserve (a private bank)." (German: "Für Frieden in Europa, auf der Welt, für eine ehrliche Presse und gegen die tödliche Politik der Federal Reserve [einer privaten Bank].") One of the speakers at the first vigil was Ken Jebsen, a former television and radio anchor for the Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, and he soon became a prominent figure in the movement and the regularly-occurring vigils in Berlin. The vigils in Berlin were soon emulated by other activists in over 80 other cities in German-speaking countries, who used Facebook and social media to set the meeting times and locations. At the beginning of June, organizers of several vigils also gathered in Senftenberg.
Speakers.
In addition to Jebsen, journalist Jürgen Elsässer and Andreas Popp, a critic of the interest-based banking system, spoke at the first vigil. In May, other speakers included musician Prinz Chaos and former Attac activist Pedram Shahyar. On June 9, Diether Dehm, a politician of The Left party, spoke and sang at the Berlin vigil, triggering internal party discussions about the value and political orientation of the movement.
Participants.
In May 2014, the Center for Technology and Society ("Zentrum Technik und Gesellschaft")
at the Technical University of Berlin administered a survey of vigil participants. They reported that their survey showed that participants were younger, better educated, and more active on the Internet than the average member of the German public. 38% of participants identified themselves more with the left, although a greater percentage, 39%, rejected the left-right political schema entirely. In terms of voting orientation in the 2013 Bundestag elections, participants displayed overproportional votes for The Left, the Pirate Party, and the Alternative for Germany party. A third of participants did not vote or did not enter valid ballots.
Reception.
Some members of the Left Party, including Andrej Hunko, Heike Hänsel, Sabine Leidig, and Volker Külow, have argued that solidarity with the vigils is worthwhile. However, on May 25 and 26, the official federal party organ distanced itself from the vigils, arguing that the claimed participation of "right-wing populists, nationalists, conspiracy theorists, and anti-Semites" can serve to make Third Position strategies "socially acceptable".


Henry Brett (MP)

Henry Brett (c. 1587 – 31 March 1674) was an English politician who sat in the House of Commons from 1640 to 1644. He supported the Royalist side in the English Civil War.
Brett was the son of James Brett of Leicester. He became an official under the Lord Chancellor.
In April 1640, Brett was elected Member of Parliament for Gloucester in the Short Parliament. In November 1640 he was re-elected MP for Gloucester in the Long Parliament and held the seat until he was disabled in February 1644. Brett joined the Royalist side and sat in the King's assembly in Oxford. He signed the loyal letter to Lord Essex for peace at Oxford on 27 January 1645. On 7 August 1646 he begged to "compound on the Oxford Articles for delinquency" and paid a fine of around £874.
Brett was appointed alderman of Gloucester on 16 May 1672. He died at the age of 87.
Brett married Margaret Rudd, widow of Anthony Rudd and daughter of Alderman Thomas Seames of Gloucester. His brother Arthur Brett was a gentleman of the Privy Chamber to King James I. His grandson Henry Brett of Sandywell Park was MP for Bishops Castle.


HMS Virulent (P95)

HMS "Virulent" was a V-class submarine of the Royal Navy. She was built during the Second World War as part of the second batch (18 in number) of V-class submarines ordered on 21 May 1942.
She was built by Vickers-Armstrong (Newcastle-on-Tyne), being laid down on 30 March 1943, launched on 23 May 1944, and finally commissioned on 1 October 1944.
Fate.
"Virulent" was lent to the Hellenic Navy as "Argonaftis" (U15) from 29 May 1946 until 3 October 1958. She was intended to be towed from Malta to the River Tyne. She broke adrift from the tow on 15 December 1958 and became stranded on the northern Spanish coast. She was then found and towed by two Spanish trawlers, the frigate "Hernán Cortés" and the patrol boat "V-18" to Pasajes on 6 January 1959. Sold to a Spanish scrap company in spring 1961, she was eventually scrapped in April 1961 at Pasajes.


Charlotte Stanley, Countess of Derby

Charlotte Stanley, Countess of Derby (December 1599– 31 March 1664), born Charlotte de La Trémoille, is famous for her robust defence of Lathom House during the English Civil War.
Early life.
Charlotte, born at the chateau of Thouars, Poitou, in France, was the daughter of the French nobleman Claude de La Trémoille, 2nd Duke of Thouars, and his wife, Countess Charlotte Brabantina of Nassau. Her maternal grandparents were William I, Prince of Orange, and Charlotte de Bourbon.
On 26 June 1626, Charlotte married the English nobleman James Stanley, 7th Earl of Derby, and was naturalised as an English citizen by Act of Parliament in February 1629.
Her husband was a Royalist commander in the English Civil War, later taken prisoner at Nantwich in 1651 and beheaded at Bolton.
English Civil War.
Lady Derby was famous for her defence of Lathom House in the Siege of Lathom House by Parliamentary forces during the First English Civil War in 1644. During the absence of her spouse, she was left in charge of what turned out to be the last remaining Royalist stronghold in Lancashire. Immediately after the fall of Warrington, she was requested to acknowledge Parliament's authority and surrender her house, but she refused on the grounds that doing so would dishonour her husband. She offered to limit herself to defending her home and this postponed further attacks on her position. In February 1644, Latham House was besieged by the forces of Sir Thomas Fairfax. Lady Derby had fortified the castle to resist bombardment and assembled a militia of seasoned marksmen who were able to inflict significant losses by sniping. She expressly refused repeated offers of surrender. On 27 May 1644, Prince Rupert arrived with Royalist forces and the siege was broken. Lady Derby and her staff were evacuated to the Isle of Man. Lady Derby's defence of Lathom House is commemorated in Letitia Elizabeth Landon's poem.
Isle of Man.
Her husband was also Lord of Mann. Lady Derby's attempt to barter the island for her husband's freedom provoked an anti-English revolt led by Illiam Dhone.
Lady Derby was holding Man, but the total destruction of the Royal army at the Battle of Worcester, the flight of Prince Charles to an exile in France and the execution of her husband left her without hope of assistance. She eventually yielded with reluctance to the necessity of a surrender and retained, says David Hume incorrectly, "the glory of being the last person in the three kingdoms, and in all their dependent dominions, who submitted to the victorious rebels". The last holdout against Cromwellian forces occurred on the island of Inishbofin, County Galway, Ireland in 1653.
Family.
Charlotte and Derby were parents of four daughters and six sons. Only five of their children appear to have survived to a marriageable age:
Charles's two sons, William, the 9th Earl (c. 1655–1702), and James, the 10th (1664–1736), both died without sons, and consequently, when James died in February 1736, his titles and estates passed to Sir Edward Stanley (1689–1776), a descendant of the 1st Earl. From him the later Earls of Derby are descended.


Congressional Czech Caucus

Congressional Czech Caucus was inaugurated on February 27, 2008 in Washington, D.C.


Visas and Virtue

Visas and Virtue is a 1997 narrative short film directed by Chris Tashima and starring Chris Tashima, Susan Fukuda, Diana Georger and Lawrence Craig. It was inspired by the true story of Holocaust rescuer Chiune "Sempo" Sugihara, who is known as "The Japanese Schindler". Sugihara issued over 2,000 transit visas to Polish and Lithuanian Jews from his consulate in Kaunas, Lithuania, in August 1940, in defiance of his own government (Japan), thereby allowing an estimated 6,000 individuals to escape the impending Holocaust.
Background.
This film is a dramatization (docu-drama) and contains fictional characters and events. It is not a documentary. It is based on an original one-act play by Tim Toyama, which was performed at The Road Theatre Company in Los Angeles in 1995. The play was then adapted by actor/director Chris Tashima in 1996, and completed as a 26-minute film in 1997. The film was produced by Cedar Grove Productions with Visual Communications serving as non-profit sponsor.
"Visas and Virtue" won the Oscar for Best Live Action Short Film in March, 1998 (70th Academy Awards). The Oscar statuettes went to actor and director Tashima and producer Chris Donahue.
Synopsis.
Haunted by the sight of hundreds of Jewish refugees outside the consulate gates, a Japanese diplomat and his wife, stationed in Kaunas, Lithuania, at the beginning of World War II, must decide how much they are willing to risk. Inspired by a true story, "Visas and Virtue" explores the moral and professional dilemmas that Consul General Chiune "Sempo" Sugihara faces in making a life or death decision: defy his own government's direct orders and risk his career, by issuing life-saving transit visas, or obey orders and turn his back on humanity.
Cast.
(In order of appearance)<br>
"Japan, 1985"
"Lithuania, 1940
"Refugees at Interviews"
"Special Appearance"


To the Left for Independence

To the Left for Independence ("a Manca pro s'Indipendentzia", aMpI) was a separatist and communist political party in Sardinia. Founded in July 2004, the party's goals were to make Sardinia gain its independence from the Roman rule, start a communist revolution, adopt the Sardinian language as official and de-militarize the island. Some of its members have been accused of terrorism, but there was little, if any, evidence that they were actually terrorists.
For the 2009 regional election the party formed a joint list, Independence Union, with the more established Sardinia Nation and other minor separatist groups, gaining only 0.5% of the vote and no seats in the Regional Council of Sardinia.
In the 2014 regional election the party was the main member of the United Independentist Front, whose candidate, aMpI's Pier Franco Devias, won 1.0% of the vote and whose list 0.7%.
The party has been disbanded in 2015, with many of its members that flowed into Liberu - Liberos Rispetados Uguales (Free Respected Equal).


Zvornik massacre

The Zvornik massacre refers to acts of mass murder and violence committed against Bosniaks and other non-Serb civilians in Zvornik by Serb paramilitary groups (Arkanovci, Territorial Defence units, White Eagles, Yellow Wasps) at the beginning of the Bosnian War in 1992. It was part of a wider campaign of ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War: by one estimate, 40,000 Bosniaks were expelled from the Zvornik district.
It was the second city in Bosnia and Herzegovina that was forcefully taken over by Serb forces during the Bosnian War. A total of 3,936 people were killed or went missing in the Zvornik municipality between 1992 and 1995 (of which 2,017 were Bosniak civilians), according to the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo. The U.N. established International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) convicted five Serb officials, who were found guilty of persecution, forcible transfer and/or deportation, murder, unlawful detention, torture (crimes against humanity) and wanton destruction, plunder of property (violations of law of war).
Background.
According to the 1991 census data, the district of Zvornik had a population of 81,111: 48,208 (59.4%) of which were Bosniaks and 30,839 (38%) were ethnic Serbs. A total of 14,600 people lived in the city of Zvornik, 8,942 (61.0%) of them were Bosniaks, 4,281 (29.2%) of the Serbian nationality, 74 (0.5%) of Croatian nationality, and 1,363 (9.3 per cent) were defined as "others".
As a border town situated at the Bosnian-Serb Drina river, Zvornik was of great strategic importance. It is significant because Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia are linked at that point not only through a road bridge between the Zvornik urban area and the Karakaj industrial zone, and another one in Zvornik itself, but also via a railroad bridge between Karakaj and the town of Čelopek. It represents an important link along the Belgrade-Sarajevo line, as well as within the Belgrade-Tuzla line.
Officially, there was no garrison of the former JNA in the Zvornik district. The Zvornik region itself was controlled by the 17th Corps Tuzla. Up to the fall of 1991, the 17th Corps consisted of 3 brigades and one partisan brigade, and was part of the First Military District of Belgrade. After the re-organization of the JNA in the spring of 1992, it formally fell under the command of the Second Military District of Sarajevo, but most likely continued to be led by the First Military District of Belgrade.
By 1991-92, preliminary tank units (apparently from the abandoned Jastrebarsko garrison in Croatia) were stationed near Zvornik. By February or March 1992 (at the time of the referendum on independence), additional units of the former JNA-tank units and artillery and anti-aircraft positions were stationed in the Zvornik region. Initially, the tanks still carried the JNA emblems. It was only later that they were replaced by the Serbian flag and the coat-of-arms emblem. On the Serb side of the Drina river bank, various tank positions could be identified as well. Additional forces, including artillery, anti-aircraft weaponry, and tanks were being positioned there.
Attack on Zvornik.
Build-up.
The attack on Zvornik started on 8 April 1992, just a few days after the Serb seizure of Bijeljina. According to witness accounts, former JNA troops from the following garrisons were involved during the attack:
Planes and helicopters which participated were reportedly from Tuzla. Prior to the attack, units from Novi Sad, Šabac, Sremska Mitrovica and Valjevo (Serbia) were partly stationed along the Serbian side of the Drina river bank, and partly on the Bosnian side. They further participated in the attack on Zvornik, operating from Serbian territory. They were equipped with machine-guns (M 52, M 65, M 66, M 70A, M 70B, M 72); hand grenade launchers (Zolja); kalashnikovs; MiG 21 and J-21 Jastreb with machine-guns and gunners; helicopters (MT 6 or MT 8 and others); and knives. Infantry units were not only composed of the «regular members» of the former JNA and of mobilized reserve forces, but also of «volunteers»
The attack.
The military attack on Zvornik occurred on 8 April 1992. Later, there were sporadic military operations with units of the former JNA cooperating with paramilitary units. These operations mainly focused on the medieval fortress of Kulagrad, southwest of Zvornik, where some dozen resistance fighters were holding out. However, on 26 April, this fortress was conquered in a concerted attack by former JNA troops, with air support, and by paramilitary units. Immediately after the fall of Kulagrad, the town of Divić, situated south of Zvornik, was attacked. Divić was almost exclusively populated by Bosniaks and was situated at the hydro-electric power plant. The attack on the town was conducted both from the Serbian side and from Bosnian territory, using tank forces, artillery, and infantry units with portable mortars. JNA units and paramilitary units cooperated. Arkanovci operated in front-line positions, taking the city. Their core troops left the city after the successful attack to prepare a raid on the next city, Bratunac.
The attack began on the morning of 8 April, with mortar fire on the Bukovik and Meterize city districts, as well as on the Bosniak-held defence positions on the Debelo Brdo hill. It came from the artillery positions in Karakaj, from the Bosnian side before Meterize, and from the Serbian side of the River Drina (Mali Zvornik). First shots were fired in the Meterize suburb. This attack was mainly carried out by the heavy equipment of the JNA (artillery and tanks). There are also reports of Arkanovci snipers firing from Mali Zvornik on the opposite river bank, and of snipers aiming at residents from positions on highrise buildings in Zvornik itself. The Bosniak position on Debelo Brdo, however, fell on that same day and was occupied.
During the night there was heavy shelling of the town. The capture of the city did not begin until the following day, 9 April. In the morning, there were again negotiations with Arkan, which ended in an ultimatum for the surrender of weapons and the town by 8:00 a.m. At 8:00 a.m. artillery fire started again, followed by the capture of the town by the infantry. The Arkanovci assumed a leading role in the take-over of the city, proceeding from the north via the Bukovik and Meterize city districts heading for the city centre. In addition, infantry units of the JNA in cooperation with Serb volunteers (Šešeljevci, Beli Orlovi) took part in seizing the city. They approached the city primarily from the west, in a second wave. It was reported that on the very first day, as well as during the subsequent weeks, there were random executions, rapes, and massacres. In these, the units of the Šešeljevci, Beli Orlovi and the so-called "territorial defence" were also involved. On 10 and 11 April, Zvornik was captured. The Kulagrad fortress south of Zvornik and the town of Divić bordering Zvornik to the South had not yet been occupied.
On 9 April, artillery attacks on Kulagrad started as the attacking units were expecting major Bosniak resistance forces. Even before the attack, Serbian media reported that "several thousand Bosniak extremists" were hiding in Kulagrad. In fact, there were probably no more than a few dozen armed Bosniaks under the command of a former JNA officer who spontaneously organized a resistance movement with light equipment (small arms). From 11 April onward, there were almost daily attempts by small combat groups from various paramilitary units to capture the fortress. These attempts failed, however, despite the fact that Kulagrad was constantly under fire from mortars, anti- aircraft guns and tanks. The reason for this failure might be due to the apparent lack of coordination of the attacks, as well as deficiencies in the training of the infantry units involved. These settlements were captured by May.
Aftermath.
Around 10 or 11 April, the «ordinance on the introduction of the general work requirement», along with an extension of the deadline, was broadcast by Radio Zvornik. But this appeal was not followed, as there were still numerous paramilitary troops in town who were looting and terrorizing the locals. Therefore, the appeal was broadcast once more a few days later (approximately 15 or 16 April). The overall response to these appeals was however rather poor. The experiences of those who did follow the appeal to return to the workplace showed that the true purpose of this appeal, and of others that followed, was to monitor male Bosniak inhabitants.
Immediately after the occupation of the town, a night curfew was imposed which remained in force until the «ethnic cleansing» was completed. During the day, men were allowed to move around only with a permit issued by the Serbian police at Zvornik. Many of the men who went to Karakaj (or later to the police office in Zvornik) in order to apply for a «permit» were suddenly deported into one of the camps in the industrial district of Karakaj. While at the camp, they were subjected to severe torture and murder, in particular by members of the paramilitary troops whose quarters were partly in the same buildings as those in which the prisoners were detained. Many of the men, therefore, did not dare to pick up their passes themselves, but remained in hiding in houses. However, even persons with a pass were not safe from random aggressions by the numerous paramilitary units in town. It was reported by some witnesses that immediately upon leaving the police station, they had their passes taken away or torn into pieces by members of a paramilitary group. Some of them were attacked and deported into camps.
From the onset of the occupation, Bosniaks were prohibited from working, except for persons deemed indispensable (e.g. hospital personnel, who were not released until the end of May). Everyday life was dominated by the fact that maraudering paramilitary troops, who were not controlled by any authority, terrorized the Bosniak population of Zvornik.
Expulsion and organized deportation.
After the expulsion of the Bosniak population by means of terror, the next step was to prepare the total expulsion of the inhabitants with the support of administrative measures. The first step had already been the appeal to return. The registration of property that was mandatory for all inhabitants, including the Serbian population, served above all the purpose of registering the male Bosniak population. For this reason, only men were eligible for registration, which had to be completed before the Serbian municipality or the Serbian militia, even if a property was originally registered under the wife's name. These registrations led to arrests and deportations to camps, apparently on the basis of pre-established lists.
An «agency for the exchange of houses» was set up, to which the Bosniak inhabitants were to transfer their houses. In return, the Bosniaks were promised houses belonging to Bosnian Serbs (e.g. in the Tuzla region) who supposedly had also assigned their homes to the agency. In order to make this ostensible offer to exchange houses more appealing, Serbian radio stations transmitted broadcasts regarding the successful exchange of homes by prominent Bosniak inhabitants. These exchanges were, in many cases, found out to be falsified or conducted under coercion.
Departure from the town was only possible on the condition that property was renounced and transferred to the "Serbian District of Zvornik". These transfers were executed in cooperation with the police and paramilitary units, especially the Draganovci. Documents that had to be shown upon leaving the town included:
Legal proceedings.
ICTY.
The U.N. established International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) issued several indictments for crimes after the capture of Zvornik. In its verdicts, it found the Serb officials guilty of persecution, forcible transfer and/or deportation, murder, unlawful detention, torture (crimes against humanity) and wanton destruction, plunder of property (violations of law of war):
The ICTY found that at least 491 people were killed in Zvornik in 1992: 85 persons on 30 May 1992 at the Drinjača school; 352 persons in June 1992 at Gero’s Slaughterhouse and Karakaj Technical School; 20 persons in June 1992 at the Karakaj Technical School; and 34 men at Čelopek Dom in June 1992. It further concluded:
Regional courts.
Vojin Vučković, commander of the Yellow Wasps, and his brother, Duško, were convicted in 1996 for killing of 17 civilians in Čelopek, a suburb of Zvornik, in 1992.
On 28 November 2005, the War Crimes Chamber in Belgrade began the trial of the "Zvornik Group" (Branko Grujić, Branko Popović, Dragan Slavković, Ivan Korać, Siniša Filipović, Dragutin Dragićević and Duško Vučković). They were accused of murdering at least 22 and forcefully deporting 1822 Bosniaks.
On 4 January 2010, Darko Janković was arrested in suspicion of killing at least 19 Bosniaks in Čelopek.
In June 2010, the Belgrade court brought a verdict and sentenced three people for war crimes in Zvornik. Dragan Slavković was sentenced to 12 years, Ivan Korać to 9 years and Siniša Filipović to three years in prison. The fourth suspect, Dragutin Dragičević, was freed of all charges. The three convicts were said to have tortured and killed at least 19 out of 162 illegally captured Bosniak civilians from Divič in the "Dom kulture" in Čelopek.
During the trial, witness B-24, a police officer and member of the Crisis staff in Zvornik, described how in April 1992 a person working in Zvornik under the pseudonym "Marko Pavlovic" made a phone call to JNA officers and within 24 to 48 hours, weapons and ammunition shipments would arrive for the "defense" of Zvornik. The ICTY brought the following verdict on Zvornik:
On 1 October 2010, at the trials of Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin, which are accused of committing crimes between 1 April and 31 December 1992, in 20 municipalities throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina including Zvornik, a former member of the Serbian Democratic Party (SDS) testified that senior Bosnian Serb officials were informed of the atrocities that were being committed in Zvornik.
On 22 November 2010, Branko Grujić, a municipal official, and Branko Popović, a former territorial defense commander, were sentenced to 6 and 15 years respectively for their role in the "Zvornik group" that "imprisoned, inhumanely treated and killed around 700 people" in Zvornik from May to July 1992. The verdict determined that more than 1,600 civilians were forced to leave the Zvornik area. The bodies of 352 victims have been found and identified since the war. The War Crimes Prosecutor's Office said it would appeal the verdicts, stating that the sentences were "inadequate considering the responsibility of the accused, with regard to the number of victims, the mass and brutal character of the crimes."


Miramar Palace

The Miramar Palace (Spanish: "Palacio de Miramar", also known as "Palacio Municipal de Miramar" or "Palacio Real"; Basque: "Miramar jauregia") is a late 19th-century palace located on the La Concha Bay of the city of San Sebastián, Basque Country, Spain. It was built in 1893 commissioned by the Spanish Royal Family, based on an 1889 project by English architect Selden Wornum.
History.
The close relationship between San Sebastián and the Spanish Royal Crown began with Isabella II of Spain, who, in the mid-19th century, began to summer in the city in order to take sea baths. The bond became stronger when Maria Christina of Austria, consort of Alfonso XII of Spain, moved the court's summer location to San Sebastián when she was widowed. The Royal Family's summer visits required a Royal Summer House, which was ordered by Maria Christina to English architect Selden Wornum. The site chosen for the Palace was a large estate over La Concha Bay where the Monastery of San Sebastián El Antiguo had been located; the Queen bought the estate from the Count of Moriana. The estate was enlarged with an adjacent estate where El Antiguo Church was located -the Church had to be moved to a nearby site-, and some other small estates. The Palace was finished in 1893, although a new building named the "Pabellón del Príncipe" (Prince's Pavilion) was added in 1920. The construction of the Palace required a false tunnel for the crossing of the trams -the tunnel passes under the Palace gardens.
After Maria Christina's death in 1929, the Palace was inherited by Alfonso XIII of Spain, and afterwards confiscated by the Government in 1931 with the advent of the Second Spanish Republic. In 1933 it passed into the hands of the San Sebastián City Council with the condition that it would serve as the summer retreat of the President of the Republic and that part of the facilities would be used for educational and cultural purposes.
During Francoism, the Palace returned to the hands of Alfonso XIII's children, principally to Don Juan de Borbón. The joint ownership over the estate was dissolved in 1958. Don Juan retained the Palace and the immediate surroundings, except for a 1,000 square-metre plot, sold in 1963. The rest of the estate, separated in two plots of 10,000 and 37,000 square metres, was sold in 1963 in benefit of Juan de Borbón's siblings for housing construction.
After the dissolution of the joint ownership, the initial area of 80,000 square metres of the estate was reduced to 34,136 square metres, bought by the San Sebastián City Council from Don Juan in 1972.
Currently, the Palace gardens are open to the public in fixed opening hours, and the noble areas can be visited in guided tours on fixed times. The Miramar Palace houses the Summer Courses of the University of the Basque Country. Until 2016, the Palace housed Musikene, the Higher School of Music of the Basque Country.
Design.
The Miramar Palace has a purely English style and presents some neogothic ornaments. On the inside it has some noble areas that remain faithful to their original configuration, among them the White Hall, the Music Hall, the Wooden Hall, the Petit Salon, the Library and the Royal Dining Room. The rest of the Palace has been renovated successively since it was acquired by the City Council, making it become more functional. The last works were conducted in 2001 to build classrooms for Musikene. In 2007, the tower of the Palace was refurbished.
The Palace preserves the original outside look. Parties are conducted in the palace's gardens and noble areas, particularly in the context of the San Sebastián International Film Festival.


Thomas Birch (English Parliamentarian)

Thomas Birch (1608 – 5 August 1678) was an English landowner, soldier and radical Puritan who fought for Parliament in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and sat in the House of Commons at various times between 1649 and 1658.
Part of a large Puritan family, many of whom also served in the Parliamentarian army, Birch played a significant role in securing Lancashire during the First English Civil War. He was governor of Liverpool from 1644 to 1655, and helped suppress the Royalist rising in the North-West during the 1651 Third English Civil War.
Unlike many of his colleagues, who were moderate Presbyterians, Birch was associated with the religious Independents who dominated the New Model Army, and included Oliver Cromwell. As a result, he was the dominant force in Lancashire under the Commonwealth. However, he increasingly moderated his political views and was excluded from the 1656 to 1658 Second Protectorate Parliament as a result.
After The Restoration of Charles II in 1660, he retired from public life and lived quietly in Liverpool, where he died on 5 August 1678.
Biography.
John Birch was born around 5 June 1608 in Birch Hall, Rusholme, now part of Manchester, eldest son of John Birch (1581–1611) and Anne Hey. He also had a sister, Anne. His father died in 1611 when he was three years old; in 1641, his property was assessed as bringing in £250 per year, a substantial sum for the period.
In 1623, he married Alice Brooke (died 1697); their ten children included five sons, Thomas (1629–1700), George (died after 1697), Matthew, Andrew (1652–?) and his twin Peter (1652–1710), who later became a Tory and Church of England priest. Their five daughters were Anne, Alice, Mary, Elena, and Deborah (died after 1710).
Career.
Wars of the Three Kingdoms.
Little is known of his career prior to the outbreak of the First English Civil War in 1642; he had numerous relatives in the Manchester area, mostly Presbyterians who supported the Parliamentarian cause, including Colonel John Birch. Although North-West England was largely Royalist, Manchester was a Parliamentarian stronghold; in June 1642, Birch was named Deputy Lieutenant of Lancashire and raised a regiment of infantry.
One of the first clashes of the war took place on 15 July when the Earl of Derby, Royalist leader in the North-West, tried to capture the arms store at Manchester. He was repulsed by Birch, beginning a rivalry which lasted until the Earl's death in 1651. When Derby besieged Manchester on 26 September, Birch was part of the garrison that held out until the Royalists retreated on 1 October, a victory that boosted Parliamentary morale in the area.
In December, he was promoted major in a regiment commanded by Colonel Ralph Assheton, MP for Liverpool in the Long Parliament. He was present at the capture of Preston in February 1643, a significant victory that isolated Royalist forces in North-East Lancashire. One of his colleagues was George Booth, who later led Booth's Uprising in 1659.
In 1643, Birch was appointed to the Lancashire Sequestration Committee, responsible for imposing fines on Royalists, and also colonel of a regiment of infantry in the Northern Association. He was made governor of Liverpool in June 1644, shortly before it was taken by Prince Rupert on his march north. Defeat at the Battle of Marston Moor in July cost the Royalists the North-West; Liverpool was retaken in November and Birch was given a garrison of 600 to hold the port. His regiment took part in the June 1646 siege of Goodrich Castle, one of the last actions of the First Civil War.
Victory exacerbated divisions within Parliament; most of the leadership in Lancashire were moderate Presbyterians, among them Ralph Assheton, Alexander Rigby, Richard Standish and Sir Richard Hoghton. They were concerned by the radicalism of the religious Independents who dominated the New Model Army, such as Congregationalists like Oliver Cromwell and Thomas Birch. However, when the Second English Civil War began in 1648, the Lancashire leaders remained loyal to Parliament and fought at Preston in August. The Earl of Derby still held the Isle of Man for Charles I; Birch arrested his two daughters and held them in Liverpool Castle as a guarantee for his good behaviour.
The breaking point for many moderates was the decision to put Charles I on trial for treason, followed by his execution on 30 January 1649. Along with his cousin John, Sir Richard Wynn, MP for Liverpool, was excluded by Pride's Purge in December 1648; Assheton, Rigby, Sir Richard Hoghton, and others were dismissed from the army following the 1650 Militia Act. Birch was one of the few who retained their positions, replacing Wynn as MP for Liverpool in October 1649, and being appointed colonel of the Lancashire militia; for the next few years, he was the senior government officer in the region.
When the Third English Civil War broke out in 1651, the Earl of Derby landed in Lancashire planning to link up with Charles II at Worcester. Supported by Birch, a detachment of the New Model under Colonel Robert Lilburne scattered Derby's troops at Wigan Lane on 25 August. Although the Earl escaped, he was taken prisoner after the Battle of Worcester in September, and executed; Birch and Robert Duckenfield were sent to secure the Isle of Man, which they completed by early November.
Post-1651.
Although Liverpool was not represented in the 1653 Barebones Parliament, Birch was re-elected as MP in the First and Second Protectorate Parliaments. The latter was reluctantly called by Cromwell, largely to approve taxation for the army; along with Shuttleworth and Sir Richard Hoghton, both purged in 1648, Birch was one of the Lancashire MPs excluded from Parliament under Article VII of the 1653 Instrument of Government for opposing these measures.
This indicated Birch was now aligning with his former colleagues, and he was not elected to the 1659 Third Protectorate Parliament. Commitment to the Commonwealth was partially the product of his religious radicalism, but it became clear he was moderating his views in this area as well. In 1649, he confiscated a building previously occupied by the Collegiate church of Manchester; in 1653, Humphrey Chetham, a wealthy Presbyterian merchant, left money in his will for this to be turned into a charity school, now Chetham's School of Music. In 1656, Birch ensured the appointment of Presbyterian Henry Newcome as minister of what is now Manchester Cathedral.
In 1658, Cromwell died and was succeeded by his son Richard Cromwell, who resigned in May 1659. Increasing political instability led to Booth's Uprising in August, an attempt to restore Charles II led by Sir George Booth, who fought with Birch during the First English Civil War. Mainly confined to Cheshire, the revolt was quickly defeated by General Lambert, although its leaders escaped punishment. Birch remained neutral, although Henry Newcome urged his congregation to join the rising, while Liverpool declared its support for Booth.
Birch was clearly seen as sympathetic since shortly before The Restoration in May 1660, the new commander-in-chief, George Monck, made him colonel of Lambert's former regiment. After Charles returned, Birch retired into private life; his past radicalism meant he was suspected of involvement in a 1663 republican conspiracy, but there was no evidence to support the claim.
He may have been protected by his cousin John and other acquaintances who were MPs in the Cavalier Parliament. He complied with the 1662 Act of Uniformity requiring membership of the Church of England, although he continued to support Non-conformist priests at Birch Chapel. One of these was Henry Finch (1633–1704), a celebrated Presbyterian preacher. He died at home in Liverpool on 5 August 1678.
Sources.


Economics of English towns and trade in the Middle Ages

The economics of English towns and trade in the Middle Ages is the economic history of English towns and trade from the Norman invasion in 1066, to the death of Henry VII in 1509. Although England's economy was fundamentally agricultural throughout the period, even before the invasion the market economy was important to producers. Norman institutions, including serfdom, were superimposed on a mature network of well established towns involved in international trade. Over the next five centuries the English economy would at first grow and then suffer an acute crisis, resulting in significant political and economic change. Despite economic dislocation in urban areas, including shifts in the holders of wealth and the location of these economies, the economic output of towns developed and intensified over the period. By the end of the period, England would have a weak early modern government overseeing an economy involving a thriving community of indigenous English merchants and corporations.
Invasion and the early Norman period (1066-1100).
William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, defeating the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings and placing the country under Norman rule. This campaign was followed by fierce military operations known as the Harrying of the North between 1069–70, extending Norman authority across the north of England. William's system of government was broadly feudal in that the right to possess land was linked to service to the king, but in many other ways the invasion did little to alter the nature of the English economy. Most of the damage done in the invasion was in the north and the west of England, some of it still recorded as "wasteland" in 1086. Many of the key features of the English trading and financial system remained in place in the decades immediately after the conquest.
Trade, manufacturing and the towns.
Although primarily rural, England had a number of old, economically important towns in 1066. A large amount of trade came through the Eastern towns, including London, York, Winchester, Lincoln, Norwich, Ipswich and Thetford. Much of this trade was with France, the Low Countries and Germany, but the North-East of England traded with partners as far away as Sweden. Cloth was already being imported to England before the invasion through the mercery trade.
Some towns, such as York, suffered from Norman sacking during William's northern campaigns. Other towns saw the widespread demolition of houses to make room for new motte and bailey fortifications, as was the case in Lincoln. The Norman invasion also brought significant economic changes with the arrival of the first Jews to English cities. William I brought over wealthy Jews from the Rouen community in Normandy to settle in London, apparently to carry out financial services for the crown. In the years immediately after the invasion, a lot of wealth was drawn out of England in various ways by the Norman rulers and reinvested in Normandy, making William immensely wealthy as an individual ruler.
The minting of coins was decentralised in the Saxon period; every borough was mandated to have a mint and therefore a centre for trading in bullion. Nonetheless, there was strict royal control over these moneyers and coin dies could only be made in London. William retained this arrangement and also maintained a high coin standard, which led to the use of the term "sterling" for Norman silver coins.
Governance and taxation.
William I inherited the Anglo-Saxon system in which the king drew his revenues from a mixture of customs; profits from re-minting coinage; fines; profits from his own demesne lands, and the system of English land-based taxation called the geld. William reaffirmed this system, enforcing collection of the geld through his new system of sheriffs and increasing the taxes on trade. William was also famous for commissioning the Domesday Book in 1086, a vast document which attempted to record the economic condition of his new kingdom.
Mid-medieval growth (1100-1290).
The 12th and 13th centuries were a period of huge economic growth in England. The population of England rose from around one and a half million in 1086 to around four or five million in 1300, stimulating increased agricultural outputs and the export of raw materials to Europe. In contrast to the previous two centuries, England was relatively secure from invasion. Except for the years of the Anarchy, most military conflicts either had only localised economic impact or proved only temporarily disruptive. English economic thinking remained conservative, seeing the economy as consisting of three groups: the "ordines", those who fought, or the nobility; "laboratores", those who worked, in particular the peasantry; and "oratores", those who prayed, or the clerics. Trade and merchants played little part in this model and were frequently vilified at the start of the period, although increasingly tolerated towards the end of the 13th century.
Trade, manufacturing and the towns.
Growth of English towns.
After the end of the Anarchy, the number of small towns in England began to increase sharply. By 1297 a hundred and twenty new towns had established and in 1350, by when the expansion had effectively ceased, there were around 500 towns in England. Many of these new towns were centrally planned - Richard I created Portsmouth, John founded Liverpool, with Harwich, Stony Stratford, Dunstable, Royston, Baldock, Wokingham, Maidenhead and Reigate following under successive monarchs. The new towns were usually located with access to trade routes, rather than defence, in mind. The streets were laid out to make access to the town's market convenient. A growing percentage of England's population lived in urban areas; estimates suggest that this rose from around 5.5% in 1086 to up to 10% in 1377.
London held a special status within the English economy. The nobility purchased and consumed many luxury goods and services in the capital, and as early as the 1170s the London markets were providing exotic products such as spices, incense, palm oil, gems, silks, furs and foreign weapons. London was also an important hub for industrial activity; it had many blacksmiths making a wide range of goods, including decorative ironwork and early clocks. Pewter-working, using English tin and lead, was also widespread in London during the period. The provincial towns also had a substantial number of trades by the end of the 13th century - a large town like Coventry, for example, contained over three hundred different specialist occupations, and a smaller town such as Durham could support some sixty different professions. The increasing wealth of the nobility and the church was reflected in the widespread building of cathedrals and other prestigious buildings in the larger towns, in turn making use of lead from English mines for roofing.
Land transport remained much more expensive than river or sea transport during the period. Many towns in this period, including York, Exeter and Lincoln, were linked to the oceans by navigable rivers and could act as seaports, with Bristol's port coming to dominate the lucrative trade in wine with Gascony by the 13th century, but shipbuilding generally remained on a modest scale and economically unimportant to England at this time. Transport remained very costly in comparison to the overall price of products. By the 13th century, groups of common carriers ran carting businesses, with carting brokers existing in London to link traders and carters. These used the four major land routes crossing England: Ermine Street, the Fosse Way, Icknield Street and Watling Street. A large number of bridges were built during the 12th century to improve the trade network.
In the 13th century, England was still primarily supplying raw materials for export to Europe, rather than finished or processed goods. There were some exceptions, such as very high quality cloths from Stamford and Lincoln, including the famous "Lincoln Scarlet" dyed cloth. Despite royal efforts to encourage it, barely any English cloth was being exported by 1347.
Expansion of the money supply.
There was a gradual reduction in the number of locations allowed to mint coins in England; under Henry II, only 30 boroughs were still able to use their own moneyers and the tightening of controls continued throughout the 13th century. By the reign of Edward I there were only nine mints outside London and the king created a new official called the Master of the Mint to oversee these and the thirty furnaces operating in London to meet the supply for new coins. The amount of money in circulation hugely increased in this period; before the Norman invasion there had been around £50,000 in circulation as coin, but by 1311 this had risen to more than £1m. The physical implication of this growth was that coins had to be manufactured in large numbers, being moved in barrels and sacks to be stored in local treasuries for royal use as the king travelled. During the 13th Century, nominal wages fluctuated, but the overall trend was flat. As a result of the increase in money supply, prices in general increased significantly over the course of the century. As a result of the price inflation, real wages - one of the stickiest of prices - declined steadily.
Rise of the guilds.
The first English guilds emerged during the early 12th century. These guilds were fraternities of craftsmen that set out to manage their local affairs including "prices, workmanship, the welfare of its workers and the suppression of interlopers and sharp practices". Amongst these early guilds were the "guilds merchants", who ran the local markets in towns and represented the merchant community in discussions with the crown. Other early guilds included the "craft guilds", representing specific trades. By 1130 there were major weavers' guilds in six English towns, as well as a fullers guild in Winchester. Over the coming decades more guilds were created, often becoming increasingly involved in both local and national politics, although the guilds merchants were largely replaced by official groups established by new royal charters.
The craft guilds required relatively stable markets and a relative equality of income and opportunity amongst their members to function effectively. By the 14th century these conditions were increasingly uncommon. The first strains were seen in London, where the old guild system began to collapse - more trade was being conducted at a national level, making it hard for craftsmen to both manufacture goods and trade in them, and there were growing disparities in incomes between the richer and poor craftsmen. As a result, under Edward III many guilds became companies or livery companies, chartered companies focusing on trade and finance (the management of large amounts of money), leaving the guild structures to represent the interests of the smaller, poorer manufacturers.
Merchants and the development of the charter fairs.
The period also saw the development of charter fairs in England, which reached their heyday in the 13th century. From the 12th century onwards, many English towns acquired a charter from the Crown allowing them to hold an annual fair, usually serving a regional or local customer base and lasting for two or three days. The practice increased in the next century and over 2,200 charters were issued to markets and fairs by English kings between 1200 and 1270. Fairs grew in popularity as the international wool trade increased: the fairs allowed English wool producers and ports on the east coast to engage with visiting foreign merchants, circumnavigating those English merchants in London keen to make a profit as middlemen. At the same time, wealthy magnate consumers in England began to use the new fairs as a way to buy goods like spices, wax, preserved fish and foreign cloth in bulk from the international merchants at the fairs, again bypassing the usual London merchants.
Some fairs grew into major international events, falling into a set sequence during the economic year, with the Stamford fair in Lent, St Ives' in Easter, Boston's in July, Winchester's in September and Northampton's in November, with the many smaller fairs falling in-between. Although not as large as the famous Champagne fairs in France, these English "great fairs" were still huge events; St Ives' Great Fair, for example, drew merchants from Flanders, Brabant, Norway, Germany and France for a four-week event each year, turning the normally small town into "a major commercial emporium".
The structure of the fairs reflected the importance of foreign merchants in the English economy and by 1273 only one third of the English wool trade was actually controlled by English merchants. Between 1280-1320 the trade was primarily dominated by Italian merchants, but by the early 14th century German merchants had begun to present serious competition to the Italians. The Germans formed a self-governing alliance of merchants in London called the "Hanse of the Steelyard" - the eventual Hanseatic League - and their role was confirmed under the Great Charter of 1303, which exempted them from paying the customary tolls for foreign merchants. One response to this was the creation of the Company of the Staple, a group of merchants established in English-held Calais in 1314 with royal approval, who were granted a monopoly on wool sales to Europe.
Jewish contribution to the English economy.
The Jewish community in England continued to provide essential money lending and banking services that were otherwise banned by the usury laws, and grew in the 12th century by Jewish immigrants fleeing the fighting around Rouen. The Jewish community spread beyond London to eleven major English cities, primarily the major trading hubs in the east of England with functioning mints, all with suitable castles for protection of the often persecuted Jewish minority. By the time of the Anarchy and the reign of Stephen, the communities were flourishing and providing financial loans to the king.
Under Henry II, the Jewish financial community continued to grow richer still. All major towns had Jewish centres and even smaller towns, such as Windsor, saw visits travelling Jewish merchants. Henry II used the Jewish community as "instruments for the collection of money for the Crown", and placed them under royal protection. The Jewish community at York lent extensively to fund the Cistercian order's acquisition of land and prospered considerably. Some Jewish merchants grew extremely wealthy, Aaron of Lincoln so much that upon his death a special royal department had to be established to unpick his financial holdings and affairs.
By the end of Henry's reign the king ceased to borrow from the Jewish community and instead turned to an aggressive campaign of tallage taxation and fines. Financial and anti-Semite violence grew under Richard I. After the massacre of the York community in which numerous financial records were destroyed, seven towns were nominated to separately store Jewish bonds and money records and this arrangement ultimately evolved into the Exchequer of the Jews. After an initially peaceful start to John's reign, the king again began to extort money from the Jewish community, imprisoning the wealthier members, including Isaac of Norwich, until a huge, new taillage was paid. During the Baron's War of 1215-7, the Jews were subjected to fresh anti-Semitic attacks. Henry III restored some order and Jewish money-lending became sufficiently successful again to allow fresh taxation. The Jewish community became poorer towards the end of the century and was finally expelled from England in 1290 by Edward I, being largely replaced by foreign merchants.
Governance and taxation.
During the 12th century the Norman kings attempted to formalise the feudal governance system initially created after the invasion. After the invasion the king had enjoyed combination of income from his own demesne lands, the Anglo-Saxon geld tax and fines. Successive kings found that they needed additional revenues, especially in order to pay for mercenary forces. One way of doing this was to exploit the feudal system, and kings adopted the French feudal aid model, a levy of money imposed on feudal subordinates when necessary; another method was to exploit the scutage system, in which feudal military service could be transmuted to a cash payment to the king. Taxation was also an option, although the old geld tax was increasingly ineffective due to an increasing number of exemptions. Instead a succession of kings created alternative land taxes, such as the tallage and carucage taxes. These were increasingly unpopular and, along with the feudal charges, were condemned and constrained in the Magna Carta of 1215. As part of the formalisation of the royal finances, Henry I created the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a post which would lead to the maintenance of the Pipe rolls, a set of royal financial records of lasting significance to historians in tracking both royal finances and medieval prices.
Royal revenue streams still proved insufficient and from the middle of the 13th century there was a shift away from the earlier land based tax system towards one based on a mixture of indirect and direct taxation. At the same time Henry III of England had introduced the practice of consulting with leading nobles on tax issues, leading to the system of the English parliament agreeing on new taxes when required. In 1275, the "Great and Ancient Custom" began to tax woollen products and hides, with the Great Charter of 1303 imposing additional levies on foreign merchants in England, with the poundage tax introduced in 1347. In 1340, the discredited tallage tax system was finally abolished by Edward III.
In the English towns the burgage tenure for urban properties was established early on in the medieval period, being based primarily on tenants paying cash rents rather than providing labour services. Further development of a set of taxes that could be raised by the towns, including murage for walls, pavage for streets or pontage, a temporary tax for the repair of bridges. Combined with the "lex mercatoria", which was a set of codes and customary practices governing trading, provided a reasonable basis for the economic governance of the towns.
The 12th century also saw a concerted attempt to curtail the remaining rights of unfree peasant workers and to set out their labour rents more explicitly in the form of the English Common Law. This process resulted in the Magna Carta explicitly authorising feudal landowners to settle law cases concerning feudal labour and fines through their own manorial courts rather than through the royal courts.
Mid-medieval economic crisis - the Great Famine and the Black Death (1290-1350).
Great Famine.
The Great Famine of 1315 began a number of acute crises in the English agrarian economy. The famine centred on a sequence of harvest failures in 1315, 1316 and 1321, combined with an outbreak of the murrain sickness amongst sheep and oxen between 1319–21 and the fatal ergotism fungi amongst the remaining stocks of wheat. In the ensuing famine, many people died and the peasantry were said to have been forced to eat horses, dogs and cats as well to have conducted cannibalism against children, although these last reports are usually considered to be exaggerations. Poaching and encroachment on the royal forests surged, sometimes on a mass scale. Sheep and cattle numbers fell by up to a half, significantly reducing the availability of wool and meat, and food prices almost doubled, with grain prices particularly inflated. Food prices remained at similar levels for the next decade. Salt prices also increased sharply due to the wet weather.
Various factors exacerbated the crisis. Economic growth had already begun to slow significantly in the years prior to the crisis and the English rural population was increasingly under economic stress, with around half the peasantry estimated to possess insufficient land to provide them with a secure livelihood. Where additional land was being brought into cultivation, or existing land cultivated more intensively, the soil may have become exhausted and useless. Bad weather also played an important part in the disaster; 1315-6 and 1318 saw torrential rains and an incredibly cold winter, which in combination badly impacted on harvests and stored supplies. The rains of these years was followed by drought in the 1320s and another fierce winter in 1321, complicating recovery. Disease, independent of the famine, was also high during the period, striking at the wealthier as well as the poorer classes. The commencement of war with France in 1337 only added to the economic difficulties. The Great Famine firmly reversed the population growth of the 12th and 13th centuries and left a domestic economy that was "profoundly shaken, but not destroyed".
Black Death.
The Black Death epidemic first arrived in England in 1348, re-occurring in waves during 1360-2, 1368-9, 1375 and more sporadically thereafter. The most immediate economic impact of this disaster was the widespread loss of life, between around 27% mortality amongst the upper classes, to 40-70% amongst the peasantry. Despite the very high loss of life, few settlements were abandoned during the epidemic itself, but many were badly affected or nearly eliminated altogether. The medieval authorities did their best to respond in an organised fashion, but the economic disruption was immense. Building work ceased and many mining operations paused. In the short term, efforts were taken by the authorities to control wages and enforce pre-epidemic working conditions. Coming on top of the previous years of famine, however, the longer term economic implications were profound. In contrast to the previous centuries of rapid growth, the English population would not begin to recover for over a century, despite the many positive reasons for a resurgence. The crisis would dramatically affect English agriculture, wages and prices for the remainder of the medieval period.
Late medieval economic recovery (1350–1509).
The events of the crisis between 1290 and 1348 and the subsequent epidemics produced many challenges for the English economy. In the decades after the disaster, the economic and social issues arising from the Black Death combined with the costs of the Hundred Years War to produce the Peasants Revolt of 1381. Although the revolt was suppressed, it undermined many of the vestiges of the feudal economic order and the countryside became dominated by estates organised as farms, frequently owned or rented by the new economic class of the gentry. The English agricultural economy remained depressed throughout the 15th century, with growth coming from the greatly increased English cloth trade and manufacturing. The economic consequences of this varied considerably from region to region, but generally London, the South and the West prospered at the expense of the Eastern and the older cities. The role of merchants and of trade became increasingly seen as important to the country and usury became increasingly accepted, with English economic thinking increasingly influenced by Renaissance humanist theories.
Governance and taxation.
Even before the end of the first outbreak of the Black Death, there were efforts by the authorities to stem the upward pressure on wages and prices, with parliament passing the emergency Ordinance of Labourers in 1349 and the Statute of Labourers in 1351. The efforts to regulate the economy continued as wages and prices rose, putting pressure on the landed classes, and in 1363 parliament attempted unsuccessfully to centrally regulate craft production, trading and retailing. A rising amount of the royal courts' time was involved in enforcing the failing labour legislation - as much as 70% by the 1370s. Many land owners attempted to vigorously enforce rents payable through agricultural service rather than money through their local manor courts, leading to many village communities attempting to legally challenge local feudal practices using the Domesday Book as a legal basis for their claims. With the wages of the lower classes still rising, the government also attempted to regulate demand and consumption by reinstating the sumptuary laws in 1363. These laws banned the lower classes from consuming certain products or wearing high status clothes, and reflected the significance of the consumption of high quality breads, ales and fabrics as a way of signifying social class in the late medieval period.
The 1370s also saw the government facing difficulties in funding the war with France. The impact of the Hundred Years War on the English economy as a whole remains uncertain; one suggestion is that the high taxation required to pay for the conflict "shrunk and depleted" the English economy, whilst others have argued for the war having a more modest or even neutral economic impact. The English government clearly found it difficult to pay for its army and from 1377 turned to a new system of poll taxes, aiming to spread the costs of taxation across the entire of English society.
Peasants' Revolt of 1381.
One result of the economic and political tensions was the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 in which widespread rural discontent was followed by invasion of London involving thousands of rebels. The rebels had many demands, including the effective end of the feudal institution of serfdom and a cap on the levels of rural rents. The ensuing violence took the political classes by surprise and the revolt was not fully put down until the autumn, with up to 7,000 rebels being executed in the aftermath. As a result of the revolt, parliament retreated from the poll tax and instead focused on a system of indirect taxes centring on foreign trade, with 80% of tax revenues drawn from the exports of wool. Parliament continued to collect direct tax levies at historically high levels up until 1422, although they reduced in later years. As a result, successive monarchs found that their tax revenues were uncertain, with Henry VI enjoying less than half the annual tax revenue of the late 14th century. England's monarchs became increasingly dependent on borrowing and forced loans to meet the gap between taxes and expenditure and even then faced later rebellions over levels of taxation, including the Yorkshire rebellion of 1489 and the Cornish rebellion of 1497 during the reign of Henry VII.
Trade, manufacturing and the towns.
Shrinking towns.
The percentage of England's population living in towns continued to grow but in absolute terms English towns shrunk significantly as a consequence of the Black Death, especially in the formerly prosperous east. The importance of England's Eastern ports declined over the period, as trade from London and the South-West increased in relative significance. Increasingly elaborate road networks were built across England, some involving the construction of up to thirty bridges to cross rivers and other obstacles. Nonetheless, it remained cheaper to move goods by water, and consequently timber was brought to London from as far away as the Baltic, and stone from Caen brought over the Channel to the South of England. Shipbuilding, particular in the South-West, became a major industry for the first time and investment in trading ships such as cogs was probably the single biggest form of late medieval investment in England.
Rise of the cloth trade.
Cloth manufactured in England increasingly dominated European markets during the 15th and early 16th centuries. England exported almost no cloth at all in 1347, but by 1400 around 40,000 cloths a year were being exported – the trade reached its first peak in 1447 when exports reached 60,000. Trade fell slightly during the serious depression of the mid-15th century, but picked up again and reached 130,000 cloths a year by the 1540s. The centres of weaving in England shifted westwards towards the Stour Valley, the West Riding, the Cotswolds and Exeter, away from the former weaving centres in York, Coventry and Norwich.
The wool and cloth trade was primarily now being run by English merchants themselves rather than by foreigners. Increasingly, the trade was also passing through London and the ports of the South-West. By the 1360s, between 66 and 75% of the export trade was in English hands and by the 15th century this had risen to 80%, with London managing around 50% of these exports in 1400, and as much as 83% of wool and cloth exports by 1540. The growth in the numbers of chartered trading companies in London, such as the Worshipful Company of Drapers or the Company of Merchant Adventurers of London continued and English producers began to provide credit to European buyers, rather than the other way around. Usury grew during the period, with few cases being prosecuted by the authorities.
There were some reversals. The attempts of English merchants to break through the Hanseatic league directly into the Baltic markets failed in the domestic political chaos of the Wars of the Roses in the 1460s and 1470s. The wine trade with Gascony fell by half during the war with France, and the eventual loss of the province brought an end to the English domination of the business and temporary disruption to Bristol's prosperity until Spanish wines began to be imported through the city a few years later. Indeed, the disruption to both the Baltic and the Gascon trade contributed to a sharp reduction in the consumption of furs and wine by the English gentry and nobility during the 15th century.
There were advances in manufacturing, especially in the South and West. Despite some French attacks, the war created much coastal prosperity thanks to the huge expenditure on ship building during the war, with the South-West also becoming a centre for English piracy against foreign vessels. Metalworking continued to grow and in particular, pewter working which generated exports second only to cloth. By the 15th century pewter working in London was a large industry, with a hundred pewter workers recorded in London alone, and pewter working had also spread from London to eleven major cities across England. London goldsmithing remained significant but saw relatively little growth, with around 150 goldsmiths working in London during the period. Iron-working continued to expand and in 1509 the first cast iron cannon was made in England. This was reflected in the rapid growth in the number of iron-working guilds, from three in 1300 to fourteen by 1422.
The result was a substantial influx of money that in turn encouraged the import of manufactured luxury goods; by 1391 shipments from abroad routinely included "ivory, mirrors, paxes, armour, paper..., painted clothes, spectacles, tin images, razors, calamine, treacle, sugar-candy, marking irons, patens..., ox-horns and quantities of wainscot". Imported spices now formed a part of almost all noble and gentry diets, with the quantities being consumed varying according to the wealth of the household. The English government was also importing large quantities of raw materials, including copper, for manufacturing weapons. Many major landowners tended to focus their efforts on maintaining a single major castle or house rather than the dozens a century before, but these were usually decorated much more luxurious than previously. Major merchants' dwellings, too, were more lavish than in previous years.
Decline of the fair system.
Towards the end of the 14th century, the position of fairs had begun to decline. The larger merchants, particularly in London, had begun to establish direct links with the larger landowners such as the nobility and the church; rather than the landowners buying from a chartered fair, they would buy directly from the merchant. Meanwhile, the growth of the indigenous England merchant class in the major cities, especially London, gradually crowded out the foreign merchants upon whom the great chartered fairs had largely depended. The crown's control over trade in the towns, especially the emerging newer towns towards the end of the 15th century that lacked central civic government, was increasingly weaker, making chartered status less relevant as more trade occurred from private properties and took place all year around. Nonetheless, the great fairs remained of importance well into the 15th century, as illustrated by their role in exchanging money, regional commerce and in providing choice for individual consumers.


Zinskauf

Zinskauf (, "purchase interest") was a financial instrument, similar to an annuity, that rose to prominence in the Middle Ages. The decline of the Byzantine Empire led to a growth of capital in Europe, so the Catholic Church tolerated "zinskauf" as a way to avoid prohibitions on usury. Since "zinskauf" was an exchange of a fixed amount of money for annual income it was considered a sale rather than a loan. Martin Luther made "zinskauf" a subject of his "Treatise on Usury" and his "Sermon on Trade and Usury" and criticized clerics of the Catholic Church for violating the spirit if not the letter of usury laws.
In one historian's analysis:


Infanta Isabel Fernanda of Spain

Infanta Isabel Fernanda of Bourbon (18 May 1821 – 8 May 1897), was a Spanish princess and the eldest child of Infante Francisco de Paula of Spain and of his niece, Princess Luisa Carlotta of the Two Sicilies.
Infanta Isabel married her riding instructor, the Polish Count Ignatius de Gurowski in 1841. Gurowski was a romantic partner of the Marquis de Custine. She was educated in a school in Paris and created a great scandal when she eloped and married for love and settled in Brussels. When her brother married Queen Isabella II of Spain in 1846, the Belgian aristocracy and court were obliged to allow her to attend court and social life. When the queen of Belgium died in 1850, her rank made her the first lady of the Belgian court and thereby gave her a sort of hostess role until she returned to Spain in 1854.


2020 Croatian parliamentary election

The 2020 Croatian parliamentary election took place on 5 July 2020. They were the tenth parliamentary elections since the first multi-party elections in 1990 and elected the 151 members of the Croatian Parliament. 140 Members of Parliament were elected from geographical electoral districts in Croatia, three MPs were chosen by the Croatian diaspora and eight MPs came from the ranks of citizens registered as belonging to any of the 22 constitutionally recognized national minorities.
During April 2020, there had been widespread media speculation that the election would be called earlier than originally planned, due to the uncertainty created by the still-ongoing worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Namely, though the spread of the virus had been brought under control by that time, fears still persisted that the number of infected cases could once again begin to rise in autumn and that this could, therefore, impede or even prevent the holding of the election. Thus, several prominent members of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) – the senior partner in the ruling coalition, (including Speaker of the Parliament Gordan Jandroković) had voiced their support for the proposal that the elections be held some time during the summer. In addition, in early May several sources from within both the ruling HDZ and the opposition Social Democratic Party (SDP) stated that parliament could be dissolved as early as mid-May, with elections then taking place in late June or early July. On 14 May 2020, Prime Minister Andrej Plenković confirmed that the government had indeed reached an agreement with the parliamentary opposition on the holding of an early election and the dissolution of parliament thus took place on 18 May. This entailed that President Zoran Milanović had to formally call the election by 17 July 2020 at the latest.
In the elections, the ruling Christian-democratic HDZ faced its main challenge from the centre-left Restart Coalition chaired by SDP leader Davor Bernardić, which consists of the SDP and several smaller parties (such as the Croatian Peasant Party, Civic-Liberal Alliance, Croatian Party of Pensioners and Istrian Democratic Assembly). In addition, opinion polls had shown that a conservative coalition led by 2019 presidential candidate Miroslav Škoro – consisting of Škoro's own Homeland Movement party, some of the parties of the Croatian Sovereignists coalition and several other smaller right-wing parties – would become the third-largest grouping in parliament, while the centre-right Bridge of Independent Lists (Most) – which finished a strong third in both the 2015 and 2016 elections, and which had supported Škoro's presidential campaign, could be reduced to the role of a minor parliamentary party. Also, the Green–Left Coalition, consisting of We Can!, the New Left, the Worker's Front, ORaH, Zagreb is OURS and For the City, were expected to enter the parliament for the first time.
The ruling HDZ obtained an upset victory over the Restart Coalition, who had previously been leading in opinion polls for several weeks prior to the elections.
Background.
In the previous parliamentary election, held on 11 September 2016, the center-right Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) won an upset plurality of seats - receiving 61 MPs in the parliament, while the opposition People's Coalition won 54 seats. Therefore, HDZ chairman Andrej Plenković began talks on the formation of a governing majority with the third-placed Bridge of Independent Lists (Most) party, as well as with MPs representing national minorities. Meanwhile, as a result of the defeat of his coalition the SDP chairman (and People's Coalition Prime Ministerial candidate), Zoran Milanović, announced his withdrawal from politics. A few weeks after the election, HDZ and Most successfully concluded their coalition talks and agreed to form a government that would rely on the outside support of the 8 Members of Parliament representing the national minorities. As a result, on 10 October 2016, Plenković presented 91 signatures of support from MPs to President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović and she, therefore, proceeded to give him a 30-day mandate (expiring on 9 November 2016) to form a government. Thereafter, Parliament formally convened on 14 October 2016 with the election of Most chairman Božo Petrov as a Speaker, while a parliamentary vote held on 19 October 2016 confirmed the proposed Cabinet of Andrej Plenković by a vote of 91 in favor, 45 against and 3 abstentions. Thus, Plenković became the 12th Prime Minister of Croatia, while his cabinet became the fourteenth to hold the office since the first multi-party election took place in 1990 – while Croatia was still a constituent republic of SFR Yugoslavia.
Most left the governing coalition in April 2017, amid a disagreement with the HDZ over Finance Minister Zdravko Marić's alleged withholding of information relating to financial irregularities in Agrokor - one of Croatia's largest firms, which had brought about a crisis due to Agrokor not being able to pay back its loans. Thus, as the HDZ-led government was left without a clear parliamentary majority (and a no-confidence vote in Marić was only narrowly avoided by a 75–75 split vote in Parliament), the possibility of an early election (the third in 18 months) greatly increased during May. However, in June the Plenković government managed to regain a parliamentary majority by forming a new cabinet, which included members of the center-left Croatian People's Party - Liberal Democrats (HNS-LD). Yet, the decision to enter into government with the HDZ - made by the HNS-LD's central body, was quite unexpected and thus immediately created a split within the HNS-LD. Namely, only five of the party's nine MPs decided to support the newly-formed coalition, while the remaining four (including former party chair Vesna Pusić) opted instead to form a new political party - named the Civic-Liberal Alliance (Glas), and remain in the opposition.
Prime Minister Andrej Plenković and his HDZ party have faced criticism from numerous activists, public figures and political opponents for allegedly dissolving the Parliament several months in advance in order to avoid holding elections during a major economic crisis (caused by the COVID-19 pandemic), which is expected to have a severe impact on Croatia in autumn, once the financial losses in the tourism sector are included in economic projections.
Many citizens of Zagreb have accused the government and the ruling HDZ party of leaving them unprotected for several months by dissolving the Parliament and by failing to adopt the necessary legal measures to deal with the earthquake damage before doing so. Namely, instead of pursuing the adoption of a set of emergency laws, the government has decided to delay any new legal framework on this issue by at least 3 to 6 months. This caused activists from several public platforms - mainly from Green-Left coalition, to gathered on St. Mark's Square on 17 May 2020, where they remained for 24 hours in order to protest against the resolution on the early dissolution of parliament.
As soon as parliament was dissolved the HDZ's local branch in the city of Vukovar (the site of one of the most major and emotionally symbolic battles in the Croatian War of Independence) decided to cut its ties with the party's central organization, claiming that they felt that their city has been misused for political gain and that the government had also failed to provide it with opportunities for economic development. Thus, this former branch of the HDZ will contest the election as part of some other coalition.
Outgoing 9th Assembly of Parliament.
The following is a partisan makeup of the 9th Assembly of the Croatian Parliament as of 18 May 2020:
On 18 May 2020, the 9th Assembly dissolved itself by a vote of 105 in favor.
Electoral system.
The 151 members of the Croatian Parliament are elected from 10 geographical and two special electoral districts:
Results.
The ruling HDZ obtained an upset victory over the Restart Coalition, who had previously been leading in opinion polls for several weeks prior to the elections. The HDZ likely received a boost from public approval over its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic also caused voter turnout to be the lowest since the first democratic elections in 1990, with under half of registered voters participating.
Aftermath.
Acknowledging his party's defeat in the legislative elections, Davor Bernardić stepped down as the leader of Social Democrats.
On 6 July 2020, HDZ leader Andrej Plenković announced that he had collected the support of the necessary 76 MPs needed to form a government, following coalition negotiations. He announced that he had received support from his party and allies, the HNS – LD, the NS-R, and all 8 representatives of the national minorities.


Maria Fedecka

Maria Aniela Fedecka (1904, Moscow - 21 December 1977, Warsaw) was a Polish social worker, member of Workers' Defence Committee. During World War II she was an activist in the Polish Underground and Polish anti-Holocaust resistance in Wilno (now Vilnius, Lithuania). During German occupation she helped save many Jewish children as well as the poverty-stricken peasants of Lebioda, her husband's hometown situated near Lida (now in Belarus). In 1987, Maria Fedecka was honoured by Yad Vashem as Righteous among the Nations for the help she had brought to Jewish children and their families.
After the war, in 1945, Fedecka took part in the "repatriation action" (the return to Poland of Poles who did not want to remain in the territories annexed by the Soviet Union). She also came to the aid of those young people who were threatened with prison and deportations to "gulags" in the USSR.
In PRL she lived mainly in Sopot (near Gdańsk in Poland). In 1947 she took the initiative of creating, with Zdzisław Grabski and Michał Pankiewicz, the League for the Struggle Against Racism quickly dismantled by authorities for political reasons. The League was composed of a small number of Polish intellectuals, aware of the moral threat for the country's renewal in the aftermath of Kielce and other anti-semitic incidents. In the 1970s Fedecka was active in the anti-communist opposition in People's Republic of Poland.


Kenrick Eyton

Sir Kenrick Eyton (c. 1607 – 21 November 1681) was a Welsh lawyer and politician who sat in the House of Commons in 1660. He fought in the Royalist army in the English Civil War.
Eyton was the son of Sir Gerard Eyton of Eyton, Denbighshire. He was called to the bar. He joined the Royalist army and was one of the commissioners to arrange the surrender of Denbigh Castle to General Thomas Mytton on 14 October 1646.
In 1660, Eyton was elected Member of Parliament for Flintshire in the Convention Parliament. He was appointed King's Attorney at Chester in August 1660 and Prothonotary and Clerk of the Crown for Denbighshire and Montgomeryshire in July 1661. In 1670 he was appointed Second Justice of the Court of Great Sessions in Wales for Anglesey, Caernarfon and Merioneth. He was knighted on 13 April 1675.
Eyton married Eleanor Mutton, daughter of Sir Peter Mutton of Llanerch.


Edward Morant (politician)

Edward Morant (1730–1791) was a British politician and plantation owner who sat in the House of Commons for 26 years from 1761 to 1787.
Early life and education.
Morant was the son of John Morant of Jamaica and his wife Mary Pennant, daughter of Edward Pennant, chief justice of Jamaica, and was baptised on 10 December 1730.
He was educated at John Roysse's Free School in Abingdon, (now Abingdon School). He matriculated at St Mary Hall, Oxford on 7 March 1747. gaining a Doctor of Civil Law. Morant's father died when he was three and when he came of age, he inherited family estates on the island of Jamaica; they were put at , and the plantation accounts show an average income from Jamaica of about £20,000 per annum. Several places on the island take the family name including Morant River, Morant Point and Morant Bay.
Marriages.
Morant married firstly Eleanor Angelina Dawkins, widow of William Dawkins and daughter of Edward Yeamans of Liguanea, Jamaica, on 10 June 1754. She died two years later. Morant represented Vere in the Jamaica assembly between 1752 and 1756 and served in the council from 1757 to 1759. He left Jamaica for England in 1759. He made a second marriage to Mary Whitehorne Goddard, daughter of James Goddard of Conduit St London on 22 April 1762.
Political career.
In the 1761 general election Morant was returned on William Beckford’s interest as Member of Parliament for Hindon. In the 1768 general election he stood for re-election at Hindon, but his own agents threw him over just before the poll and he came third. In February 1770 he purchased Brockenhurst House at Brockenhurst near Lymington for £6,400 and began to move in the foremost political and social circles. He was awarded DCL in 1773.
Morant next stood for parliament in 1774 when he was put up by his friend the Duke of Bolton for Lymington and was elected MP. As he was unlikely to be returned again for Lymington he quickly arranged to stand at Yarmouth in the 1780 general election and was returned as MP in that and the next election in 1784. He vacated his seat in 1787. He was described as a thoroughly independent Member: never held, nor solicited, any office or favour.
Later years.
On 16 July 1791, Morant was driving in Kensington when his horses took fright. He was thrown from the carriage and carried home senseless. He died on 27 July 1791. His son Edward Morant was a cricketer.


Edward Elvines

Edward Elvines was an English politician who sat in the House of Commons in 1654. He supported the Parliamentary cause in the English Civil War.
Elvines was possibly the son of William Elvines, a baker of Worcester, who left money for the poor of the town by his will of 2 April 1612. On the outbreak of the Civil War, Elvines took the parliamentary side but had to flee the county for opposing the commissioners of Array in 1642. He tried to recruit men to the parliamentary cause when the Earl of Essex went to Worcester but had to flee again when Sir William Russell took the city for the Royalists. He was away for four years while his whole estate was exposed to the enemy and he had to live on credit. When Worcester fell to Parliament in 1646, he became an alderman of the city and a member of the Parliamentary Committee for Worcestershire. He was persuaded to become mayor, as there was no one else they would confide in, on a faithful promise of reimbursement of all costs. However, Col. Rainsborough was called away and the Committee was dissolved so he did not receive recompense. He was added to the Committee for Sequestrations in Worcestershire on 29 July 1648, and was appointed a sub-commissioner of sequestrations for Worcestershire on 25 February 1650.
When the Scottish army arrived at Worcester in 1651, Elvines had to flee for the third time, but returned with the parliamentary army. He was persuaded to become mayor again, which he described as "to the hazard of his life among the sick Scots". On 2 March 1652 the Council of State recommended the House of Commons to appoint John Coucher and Elvines, aldermen of Worcester, to be J.P.s for the city. He was appointed one of the three Sequestration Commissioners for Worcestershire on 14 December 1653, and another order of 10 January 1654 made the appointment void.
In 1654, Elvines was elected Member of Parliament for Worcester in the First Protectorate Parliament. On 2 May 1654 he petitioned the Oliver Cromwell " to consider his great expenses and sufferings for the public, and give him an estate to live upon in his old age .. as he was now unable to serve, having hardly a subsistence." The petition was referred to the Committee who reported that £600 should be paid him from delinquents' estates and an ordinance was made by the Protector and his Council in September 1654 " for payment of £6oo for his fidelity when Mayor in 1646 and when Governor in 1651, for his losses by the burning of his house, the plundering of his goods, and his expense in money."