Legal Debates on ‘Ex Officio’ Procedure in Late 16th Century England: Robert Bill’s Position
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-10-378-394
Abstract
The article examines the origins of the modern right to remain silent and not testify against oneself, which was established in legal discussions among English jurists in the sixteenth century and in the practice of English courts in the seventeenth century. The aim of the article is to analyze the conflict between common and civil law jurists in the late sixteenth century regarding the procedure of ex officio oath-taking, that is, taking an oath due to the prosecutor’s official position. The legal context of the 1580s-1590s, when there was a dispute over the activities of the High Commission, is reviewed. The legal texts under consideration demonstrate a struggle between inquisitorial practices and attempts to make the judicial process (including the church) “properly organized.” Special attention is paid to the position of Robert Bill, a clerk of the Privy Council. The author delves into the arguments Bill presents against ex officio oaths. The analysis of the legal debate allows for a broader understanding of several conflicts: the relationship between church and common law in England after the Reformation and the balance of power between authorities and subjects’ rights.
Keywords
Robert Bill,
High Commission,
common law lawyers,
inquisition,
ex officio oath,
right to remain silent
Supporting agencies: The study is supported by Russian Science Foundation, project number 23-28-00818 “Inquisitorial procedures of the High Commission and the right to remain silent in public debates in England in the late 16th — early 17th centuries”, https://rscf.ru/project/23-28-00818/
About the Author
D. S. Mityureva
University of Tyumen
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Daria S. Mityureva - PhD in History, research scientist, Laboratory of Ideas, Contexts, and Events.
Tyumen
References
1. Collinson, P. (1988). Puritans, Men of Business and Elizabethan Parliaments. Parliamentary History, 7 (2): 187—211.
2. Collinson, P. (2006). Servants and citizens: Robert Beale and other Elizabethans. Historical Research, 79 (206): 488—511.
3. Dmitrieva, O. V. (2012). Elizaveta Tudor. Moscow: Young Guard. 308 p. ISBN 978-5-235-03550-8. (In Russ.).
4. Giurato, R. (2018). The Language of Constitutionalism and the Royal Prerogative in the English Parliament of 1593: James Morice’s Speech on the Ex Officio Proceedings and his Constitutional Thought. Parliamentary History, 37 (3): 327—349.
5. Hampson, J. E. Richard Cosin and the Rehabilitation of the Clerical Estate in Late Elizabethan England: Doct. Diss. University of St. Andrews, 1997. 287 p.
6. Herman, L. (1992). The Unexplored Relationship Between the Privilege Against Compulsory Self-Incrimination and the Involuntary Confession Rule. Ohio State Law Jour-nal, 53 (1): 101—209.
7. Ilyutchenko, N. V. (2015). The principle of nemo tenetur se ibsem accusare: comparative legal analysis. Bulletin of Moscow University. Episode 11. Law, 3: 42—49. (In Russ.).
8. Kondratiev, S. V. (2020). Article 29 of the Magna Carta: two interpretations of Edward Coke. News of UrFU. Series 2. Humanities, 22 (1) (196): 84—98. DOI: 10.15826/izv2.2020.22.1.006. (In Russ.).
9. Lake, P. (2008). A Tale of Two Episcopal Surveys: The Strange Fates of Edmund Grindal and Cuthbert Mayne Revisited: The Prothero Lecture. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, 18: 129—163.
10. Lee, G. Ch. (2007). History of the Inquisition: modern version. Moscow: Eksmo. 512 p. ISBN 978-5-699-20812-8. (In Russ.).
11. Levy, L. W. (1969). The Right Against Self-Incrimination: History and Judicial History. Political Science Quarterly, 84(1): 1—29.
12. Pechegin, D. A. (2017). Investigative beginning of criminal proceedings. Journal of Russian Law, 5: 110—119. DOI: 10.12737/article_58f48b494ed927.89236667. (In Russ.).
13. Rigg, J. M. (1904). Beale, Robert. In: Dictionary of National Biography, 4. Available at: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Beale,_Robert (accessed: 25.09.2023).
14. Shagan, E. H. (2004). The English Inquisition: Constitutional Conflict and Ecclesiastical Law in the 1590s. The Historical Journal, 47 (3): 541—565.
15. Taviner, M. Robert Beale and the Elizabethan polity: Doct. Diss. University of St. Andrews, 2000. 347 p.
16. Togoeva, O. I. (2022). “The True Truth”: Languages of Medieval Justice. Moscow: AST Publishing House. 400 p. ISBN 978-5-17-150644-5. (In Russ.).
17. Vaughan, J. D. Secretaries, Statesmen and Spies: the Clerks of the Tudor Privy Council, C. 1540—1603: Doct. Diss. University of St. Andrews, 2007. 211 p.
18. Wigmore, J. H. (1891). Nemo Tenetur Seipsum Prodere. Harvard Law Review, 5 (2): 71—88.
Review
For citations:
Mityureva D.S. Legal Debates on ‘Ex Officio’ Procedure in Late 16th Century England: Robert Bill’s Position. Nauchnyi dialog. 2023;12(10):378-394. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-10-378-394
Views:
257
Email this article 