Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 October 23
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 22 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | Current desk > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
October 23
[edit]House of Commons, 1808
[edit],_21_-_BL.jpg)
Greetings, Keepers of the Flame! I came across this exquisite pic (by Augustus Charles Pugin (architectural details), figures by Thomas Rowlandson) of the old HoC in St Stephen's Chapel, and wondered if anyone might be able to identify any of the politicians depicted, to improve its description on Commons (no relation). This would seem to be during the minority Pittite Tory Second Ministry (March 1807 – October 1809) of William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland, probably the standing figure.
The Speaker would be Charles Abbot, 1st Baron Colchester, looking more like this pic: File:Speaker Abbot after James Northcote.jpg. Other possible figures on the Government benches could be:
- Lord Eldon—Lord Chancellor
- Lord Camden—Lord President of the Council
- Lord Westmorland—Lord Privy Seal
- Lord Hawkesbury, after 1808, Lord Liverpool – Secretary of State for the Home Department
- George Canning—Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
- Lord Castlereagh—Secretary of State for War and the Colonies
- Lord Mulgrave—First Lord of the Admiralty
- Spencer Perceval—Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Duchy of Lancaster
- Lord Chatham—Master-General of the Ordnance
- Lord Bathurst—President of the Board of Trade
Would the opposition benches be led by William Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville? And who might the youthful figures at the lower right be?
As far as the architecture is concerned, is this Wren's work? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- MinorProphet - mostly Wren's - see St Stephen's Chapel for details. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- As it's the House of Commons then it won't include members of the House of Lords, eg Portland, Eldon, Camden, etc. But watch out for Irish peers, who could be MPs. DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- So, none of the above, then.[1] I note with joy that Archive.org is back up, for the time being anyway.[2] MinorProphet (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Castlereagh and Canning were in the Commons. DuncanHill (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Well spotted - so it could be Castlereagh standing. A little digging shows that the clerk (centre table) seems to be John Ley, Deputy clerk.[3]. MinorProphet (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Castlereagh and Canning were in the Commons. DuncanHill (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- So, none of the above, then.[1] I note with joy that Archive.org is back up, for the time being anyway.[2] MinorProphet (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Original Latin text of a subpoena
[edit]The word subpoena is from the opening words of the writ. I am trying to track down the original Latin text of a subpoena which begins "Sub pœna [...]" so I can add it to the Wiktionary entry. So far I've had no success. Can anyone provide a reference? Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is not hard to fine texts issuing commands sub pena,[4][5][6] but not as the opening words; the typical format is that so-and-so must do this or that sub pena of forfeiture, a fine, or some other unpleasantries. --Lambiam 21:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, @Lambiam: well, various dictionaries claim that the English word is derived from the first words of the writ in Latin, so I thought it is worth trying to track down the actual wording of that specific writ which would be one summoning a defendant to the Court of Chancery to answer a plaintiff's suit (the original sense), or one summoning a witness to testify in a trial. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- "From the opening words" does not necessarily imply "the first two words": that they are from the opening sentence would suffice (I suggest). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.6.86.81 (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Latin-derived law terms of art often are the beginning words of formulaic documents, but in this case I doubt that these dictionaries are correct. Compare the formulation "
the Name of it proceeds from the Words therein
" in a Law dictionary from 1750.[7] --Lambiam 09:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)- @Lambiam: I take the point that the words sub poena may not have been the first two words of the writ, but could well have been somewhere in the opening section. That’s why I feel it would be good to try to see what the actual Latin wording was. One would think that it should be fairly straightforward to retrieve some samples, but surprisingly it’s not! — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I had an interesting hunt for eg pix or transcriptions of documents, but turned up nothing substantial. This paper discusses (among other things) the legality of subpoenas issued by Chancery vs. common law, but has no specific examples. A note refers to "Treatise on the Subpoena", Ch. IV in Hargrave's Law Tracts 348 [pdf 423] (1786) but with no result. (MS letters included at the start of the high-resolution scan from the BM indicate this may have been Hargrave's own copy.) From England Chancery Court Records:
"Proceedings consist of the following documents: ... Writ of Subpoena ordering the defendant to appear in court. Not a lot of these have survived."
Although there was a lot of Latin phraseology involved, would they not have been in English, anyway? MinorProphet (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)- I'll bet those Court of Chancery documents were destroyed in the Burning of Parliament in 1834. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Two examples of the use in subpoena writs in 14th-century Chancery cases:
... Et hoc sub pena centum librarum nullatenus omittas ...
[8][9]. - (Alternative links: [10], [11].) --Lambiam 07:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, £100 fine in 1388 - that's fairly steep: not quite yer average king's ransom.
"In 2023, the relative value of £100 0s 0d from 1388 ranges from £92,360.00 to £67,680,000.00"
[12] (Another alternative for the first link,[13] seems to work: with facing pages in a pdf reader it's most impressive.) 'Egethoyn', whither Dane was bound, appears to be Egerton, Kent: would our article benefit from this recondite snippet of info...? It's not exactly encyclopedic. Might the aggressor have been an ancestor of the artist? MinorProphet (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, £100 fine in 1388 - that's fairly steep: not quite yer average king's ransom.
- I had an interesting hunt for eg pix or transcriptions of documents, but turned up nothing substantial. This paper discusses (among other things) the legality of subpoenas issued by Chancery vs. common law, but has no specific examples. A note refers to "Treatise on the Subpoena", Ch. IV in Hargrave's Law Tracts 348 [pdf 423] (1786) but with no result. (MS letters included at the start of the high-resolution scan from the BM indicate this may have been Hargrave's own copy.) From England Chancery Court Records:
- @Lambiam: I take the point that the words sub poena may not have been the first two words of the writ, but could well have been somewhere in the opening section. That’s why I feel it would be good to try to see what the actual Latin wording was. One would think that it should be fairly straightforward to retrieve some samples, but surprisingly it’s not! — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, @Lambiam: well, various dictionaries claim that the English word is derived from the first words of the writ in Latin, so I thought it is worth trying to track down the actual wording of that specific writ which would be one summoning a defendant to the Court of Chancery to answer a plaintiff's suit (the original sense), or one summoning a witness to testify in a trial. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)