Death by burning
Death by burning is an execution method involving deliberately causing death through the effects of combustion or exposure to extreme heat. It has a long history as a form of capital punishment, many societies have employed it for activities considered criminal such as treason, rebellious actions by slaves, witchcraft and sexual transgressions, such as incest or homosexuality; the best known executions of this type are those where the condemned is bound to a large wooden stake and a fire lit beneath them. This is called burning at the stake, or in some cases, auto-da-fé. For burnings at the stake, if the fire was large, death came from carbon monoxide poisoning before flames caused lethal harm to the body. If the fire was small, the condemned would burn for some time until death from hypovolemia, heatstroke or the simple thermal decomposition of vital body parts. Other forms of death resulting from exposure to extreme heat are known. For example, pouring substances such as molten metal onto a person, as well as enclosing persons within, or attaching them to, metal contraptions subsequently heated.
Immersion in a heated liquid as a form of execution is considered distinct from death by burning, classified as death by boiling. The 18th century BC law code promulgated by Babylonian king Hammurabi specifies several crimes in which death by burning was thought appropriate. Looters of houses on fire could be cast into the flames, priestesses who abandoned cloisters and began frequenting inns and taverns could be punished by being burnt alive. Furthermore, a man who began committing incest with his mother after the death of his father could be ordered by courts to be burned alive. In Ancient Egypt, several incidents of burning alive perceived rebels are attested. For example, Senusret I is said to have rounded up the rebels in campaign, burnt them as human torches. Under the civil war flaring under Takelot II more than a thousand years the Crown Prince Osorkon showed no mercy, burned several rebels alive. On the statute books, at least, women committing adultery might be burned to death. Jon Manchip White, did not think capital judicial punishments were carried out, pointing to the fact that the pharaoh had to ratify each verdict.
Furthermore, the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus asserts that the Egyptians had a terrible punishment for children who murdered their parents: With sharpened reeds, bits of flesh the size of a finger were cut from the criminal's body. He was placed on a bed of thorns and burnt alive. In the Middle Assyrian period, paragraph 40 in a preserved law text concerns the obligatory unveiled face for the professional prostitute, the concomitant punishment if she violated that by veiling herself: A prostitute shall not be veiled. Whoever sees a veiled prostitute shall seize her... and bring her to the palace entrance.... They shall pour hot pitch over her head. For the Neo-Assyrians, mass executions seem to have been not only designed to instill terror and to enforce obedience, but as proof of their might. For example, Neo-Assyrian King Asuhurnasirpal II was evidently proud enough of his bloody work that he committed it to monument and eternal memory as follows:I cut off their hands, I burned them with fire, a pile of the living men and of heads over against the city gate I set up, men I impaled on stakes, the city I destroyed and devastated, I turned it into mounds and ruin heaps, the young men and the maidens in the fire I burned.
In Genesis 38, Judah orders Tamar—the widow of his son, living in her father's household—to be burned when she is believed to have become pregnant by an extramarital sexual relation. Tamar saves herself by proving. In the Book of Jubilees, the same story is told, with some intriguing differences, according to Caryn A. Reeder. In Genesis, Judah is exercising his patriarchal power at a distance, whereas he and the relatives seem more involved in Tamar's impending execution. In Hebraic law, death by burning was prescribed for ten forms of sexual crimes: The imputed crime of Tamar, namely that a married daughter of a priest commits adultery, nine versions of relationships considered as incestuous, such as having sex with one's own daughter, or granddaughter, but for example, to have sex with one's mother-in-law or with one's wife's daughter. In the Mishnah, the following manner of burning the criminal is described: The obligatory procedure for execution by burning: They immersed him in dung up to his knees, rolled a rough cloth into a soft one and wound it about his neck.
One pulled it one the other until he opened his mouth. Thereupon one ignites the wick and throws it in his mouth, it descends to his bowels and sears his bowels; that is, the person dies from being fed molten lead. The Mishnah is, however, a late collections of laws, from about the 3rd century AD, scholars believe it replaced the actual punishment of burning in the old biblical texts. In the 6th century AD collection of the sayings and rulings of the pre-eminent jurists from earlier ages, the Digest, a number of crimes are regarded as punishable by death by burning; the 3rd century jurist Ulpian, for example, says that enemies of the state, deserters to the enemy are to be burned alive. His rough contemporary, the juristical w
Charter of Liberties
The Charter of Liberties called the Coronation Charter, was a written proclamation by Henry I of England, issued upon his accession to the throne in 1100. It sought to bind the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of nobles, church officials, individuals; the nineteenth-century historians Frederick Maitland and Frederick Pollock considered it a landmark document in English legal history and a forerunner of Magna Carta. The document addressed abuses of royal power by his predecessor William II, as perceived by the nobility the over-taxation of the barons, the abuse of vacant sees, the practices of simony and pluralism; the Charter of Liberties was ignored by monarchs, until in 1213 Archbishop Langton reminded the nobles that their liberties had been guaranteed over a century prior in Henry I's Charter of Liberties. Henry I of England, nicknamed Beauclerk, was the fourth and youngest son of William I by his queen Matilda of Flanders; the name Beauclerk was given because Henry was well educated, being able to read and write Latin, possessed a knowledge of English law and natural history.
He had received 5,000 pounds of silver from his father, but no land holdings. He used this to purchase a district in the Cotentin Peninsula in Normandy for 3,000 pounds from his brother Robert of Normandy. Robert needed money. Various political intrigues occurred in France, which led to the imprisonment of Henry for two years by his brother William II King of England. In 1096, Robert left Normandy for the First Crusade. Henry swore fealty to William. William was killed in a hunting accident on 2 August 1100. With William dead and Robert absent, Henry claimed the English crown. Henry was faced with three political problems; the earls and barons did not accept him. There was antagonism from the Church Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury; the native Anglo-Saxon population was not receptive to the new king. Henry reconciled with Anselm, he married Edith, the daughter of King Malcolm III of Scotland, of mixed Anglo-Scots heritage, so garnered great favor with the Anglo-Saxons. She changed her name to the Norman Mathilda.
However, the choice displeased the earls. Henry needed to secure his throne. William II of England, the son of William the Conqueror and brother of Henry Beauclerk, had issued a charter in 1093, when he was ill and fearing death; the text of this charter has been lost to history. It is believed to have freed prisoners, forgiven debts, assured that holy and good laws would be maintained. Whatever promises William made, he broke after he recovered his health. Henry went further, he negotiated with the leading earls, making various concessions to them. When all sides were agreed, the agreement was issued as the Charter of Liberties. After a traditional greeting, the Charter of Liberties contained fourteen declarations, summarized as follows: Henry, king of the English, to Bishop Samson and Urso de Abetot and all his barons and faithful, both French and English, of Worcestershire, greeting. William I had been a great admirer of the laws of Edward the Confessor, he had reformed many laws in an effort to make the law of Edward the common law of England while establishing a strong Norman rule and custom.
During the entire Norman period, there was little legislation. Henry began his reign with the Charter of Liberties, sending a strong message: he was returning to his father’s ways, which were viewed with great nostalgia; the perceived abuses of William II were to be abolished. The corruption and larceny of reliefs, marriages, murder fines and so forth, was to end. Debts and past offences were to be forgiven; the demesne lands and military tenants were to be freed from the danegeld of Danelaw. Above all, the “laga Eadwardii” Law of Edward the Confessor, as amended by William I, would be restored; the proclamation was made with the assumption that the barons would make the same concessions to their tenants as the king had promised to them. Plucknett is of the opinion that this good will did flow down the feudal chain; the Charter was not legislation, but rather a promise to return to the law, as it existed in the time of William I, before it had been corrupted by William II. The promises made in the Charter could not be enforced.
There is ample evidence. The Pipe Rolls which came thirty-one years into Henry’s reign indicate he had extended the power of the crown well beyond the limits set in the Charter; the establishment of the Exchequer, ostensively to end corruption and fraud in the taking and holding of taxes, in reality, led to greater power of the crown. The direction of its chief minister, Bishop Roger of Salisbury evolved the law for tenants in chief which became the harshest and most severe in Europe; this occurred silently, placed precedent upon precedent. Early in his reign, Henry issued a writ declaring the county and hundred courts should be held as in the days of Edward the Confessor; these had the result of bringing the ancient traditional tribunals in accordance with newer Norman methods. Chroniclers of the age state that Henry legislated about theft, restored capital punishment, harshly treated utterers of bad money and rapacious exactions of his courtiers, he made his roving army the terror of every neighborhood.
Henry made the measure of his own arm the standard ell. The drowning of his son, William, in the loss of the White Ship in 1120, led
Bible translations into English
Partial Bible translations into languages of the English people can be traced back to the late 7th century, including translations into Old and Middle English. More than 450 translations into English have been written; the New Revised Standard Version is the version most preferred by biblical scholars. In the United States, 55% of survey respondents who read the Bible reported using the King James Version in 2014, followed by 19% for the New International Version, with other versions used by fewer than 10%. Although John Wycliffe is credited with the first translation of the Bible into English, there were in fact many translations of large parts of the Bible centuries before Wycliffe's work. Parts of the Bible were first translated from the Latin Vulgate into Old English by a few select monks and scholars; such translations were in the form of prose or as interlinear glosses. Few complete translations existed during that time. Most of the books of the Bible were read as individual texts, thus the sense of the Bible as history that exists today did not exist at that time.
Instead, an allegorical rendering of the Bible was more common and translations of the Bible included the writer’s own commentary on passages in addition to the literal translation. Toward the end of the 7th century, the Venerable Bede began a translation of scripture into Old English. Aldhelm translated the complete Book of Psalms and large portions of other scriptures into Old English. In the 10th century an Old English translation of the Gospels was made in the Lindisfarne Gospels: a word-for-word gloss inserted between the lines of the Latin text by Aldred, Provost of Chester-le-Street; this is the oldest extant translation of the Gospels into the English language. The Wessex Gospels are a full translation of the four gospels into a West Saxon dialect of Old English. Produced in 990, they are the first translation of all four gospels into English without the Latin text. In the 11th century, Abbot Ælfric translated much of the Old Testament into Old English; the Old English Hexateuch is an illuminated manuscript of the first six books of the Old Testament.
Another copy of that text, without lavish illustrations but including a translation of the Book of Judges, is found in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Misc. 509. The Ormulum is in Middle English of the 12th century. Like its Old English precursor from Ælfric, an Abbot of Eynsham, it includes little Biblical text, focuses more on personal commentary; this style was adopted by many of the original English translators. For example, the story of the Wedding at Cana is 800 lines long, but fewer than 40 lines are the actual translation of the text. An unusual characteristic is that the translation mimics Latin verse, so is similar to the better known and appreciated 14th-century English poem, Cursor Mundi. Richard Rolle wrote an English Psalter. Many religious works are attributed to Rolle, but it has been questioned how many are genuinely from his hand. Many of his works were concerned with personal devotion, some were used by the Lollards; the 14th century theologian John Wycliffe is credited with translating what is now known as Wycliffe's Bible, though it is not clear how much of the translation he himself did.
This translation came out in two different versions. The earlier text is characterised by a strong adherence to the word order of Latin, might have been difficult for the layperson to comprehend; the text made more concessions to the native grammar of English. Early Modern English Bible translations are of between about 1500 and 1800, the period of Early Modern English. This, the first major period of Bible translation into the English language, began with the introduction of the Tyndale Bible; the first complete edition of his New Testament was in 1526. William Tyndale used the Greek and Hebrew texts of the New Testament and Old Testament in addition to Jerome's Latin translation, he was the first translator to use the printing press – this enabled the distribution of several thousand copies of his New Testament translation throughout England. Tyndale did not complete his Old Testament translation; the first printed English translation of the whole bible was produced by Miles Coverdale in 1535, using Tyndale's work together with his own translations from the Latin Vulgate or German text.
After much scholarly debate it is concluded that this was printed in Antwerp and the colophon gives the date as 4 October 1535. This first edition was adapted by Coverdale for his first "authorised version", known as the Great Bible, of 1539. Other early printed versions were the Geneva Bible, notable for being the first Bible divided into verses and which negated the Divine Right of Kings; the first complete Roman Catholic Bible in English was the Douay–Rheims Bible, of which the New Testament portion was published in Rheims in 1582 and the Old Testament somewhat in Douay in Gallicant Flanders. The Old Testament was completed by the time the New Testament was published, but due to extenuating circumstances and financial issues was not published until nearly three decades in two editions, the first released in 1609, the rest of the OT in 1610. In this version, the seven deuterocanonical books are mingled with the other books, rather than kept separate in an appendix. While early English Bibles were based on a small number of Greek texts, or on Latin translations, modern English translations of the Bible are based on a
Lollardy was a pre-Protestant Christian religious movement that existed from the mid-14th century to the English Reformation. It was led by John Wycliffe, a Roman Catholic theologian, dismissed from the University of Oxford in 1381 for criticism of the Roman Catholic Church; the Lollards' demands were for reform of Western Christianity. They formulated their beliefs in the Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards. Lollard, Lollardi or Loller was the popular derogatory nickname given to those without an academic background, educated only in English, who were reputed to follow the teachings of John Wycliffe in particular, were considerably energized by the translation of the Bible into the English language. By the mid-15th century, "lollard" had come to mean a heretic in general; the alternative, "Wycliffite", is accepted to be a more neutral term covering those of similar opinions, but having an academic background. The term is said to have been coined by the Anglo-Irish cleric Henry Crumpe, but its origin is uncertain.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it most derives from Middle Dutch lollaerd, from a verb lollen. It appears to be a derisive expression applied to various people perceived as heretics—first the Franciscans and the followers of Wycliffe; the Dutch word was a colloquial name for a group of the harmless buriers of the dead during the Black Death, in the 14th century, known as Alexians, Alexian Brothers or Cellites. These were known colloquially as lollebroeders, or Lollhorden, from Old High German: lollon, from their chants for the dead. Middle English loller is recorded as an alternative spelling of Lollard, while its generic meaning "a lazy vagabond, an idler, a fraudulent beggar" is not recorded before 1582. Two other possibilities for the derivation of Lollard are mentioned by the Oxford English Dictionary, the Latin lolium, the weedy vetch a reference to the biblical Parable of the Tares, he was burned at Cologne in the 1370s. Lollardy was a religion of vernacular scripture. Lollards opposed many practices of the Catholic church.
Anne Hudson has written that a form of sola scriptura underpinned Wycliffite beliefs, but distinguished it from the more radical ideology that anything not permitted by scripture is forbidden. Instead, Hudson notes that Wycliffite sola scriptura held the Bible to be "the only valid source of doctrine and the only pertinent measure of legitimacy."With regard to the Eucharist, Lollards such as John Wycliffe, William Thorpe, John Oldcastle, taught a view of the real presence of Christ in Holy Communion known as "consubstantiation" and did not accept the doctrine of transubstantiation, as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. The Plowman's Tale, a 16th century Lollard poem argues that theological debate about orthodox doctrine is less important than the Real Presence: I say the truth through true understanding: His flesh and blood, through his subtle works, is there in the form of bread. In what matter it is present need not be debated, whether as subject or accident, but as Christ was when he was alive, so He is there.
Wycliffite teachings on the Eucharist were declared heresy at the Blackfriars Council of 1382. William Sawtry, a priest, was burned in 1401 for his belief that "bread remains in the same nature as before" after consecration by a priest. In the early 15th century a priest named; when asked about consecration during his questioning, he repeated only his belief in the Real Presence. When asked if the host was still bread after consecration, he answered only: "I believe that the host is the real body of Christ in the form of bread". Throughout his questioning he insisted that he was "not bound to believe otherwise than Holy Scripture says". Following the questioning, Wyche recanted, after he was excommunicated and imprisoned. A suspect in 1517 summed up the Lollards' position: "Summe folys cummyn to churche thynckyng to see the good Lorde - what shulde they see there but bredde and wyne?"Lollard teachings on the Eucharist are attested to in numerous primary source documents. It is discussed in The Testimony of William Thorpe, the Apology for Lollard Doctrines, Jack Upland, Opus Arduum.
Simon Fish was condemned for several of the teachings in his pamphlet Supplication for the Beggars including his denial of purgatory and teachings that priestly celibacy was an invention of the Antichrist. He argued that earthly rulers have the right to strip Church properties, that tithing was against the Gospel, they did not believe the church practices of confession were necessary for salvation. They considered honoring of their images to be a form of idolatry. Oaths and prayers for the dead were thought to have no scriptural basis, they had a poor opinion of the trappings of the Catholic Church, including holy bread, holy water, bells and church buildings. They rejected the value of papal pardons. Special vows were considered to be in conflict with the divine order established by Christ and were regarded as anathema. Sixteenth-century martyrologist John Foxe described four main beliefs of Lo
Bill of Rights 1689
The Bill of Rights known as the English Bill of Rights, is an Act of the Parliament of England that sets out certain basic civil rights and clarifies who would be next to inherit the Crown. It received the Royal Assent on 16 December 1689 and is a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William III and Mary II in February 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England; the Bill of Rights lays down limits on the powers of the monarch and sets out the rights of Parliament, including the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, freedom of speech in Parliament. It sets out certain rights of individuals including the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and reestablished the right of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights condemned several misdeeds of James II of England; these ideas reflected those of the political thinker John Locke and they became popular in England.
It sets out – or, in the view of its drafters, restates – certain constitutional requirements of the Crown to seek the consent of the people, as represented in Parliament. In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act 1689, applies in Scotland; the Bill of Rights 1689 was one of the inspirations for the United States Bill of Rights. Along with the Act of Settlement 1701, the Bill of Rights is still in effect in all Commonwealth realms. Following the Perth Agreement in 2011, legislation amending both of them came into effect across the Commonwealth realms on 26 March 2015. During the 17th century, there was renewed interest in Magna Carta; the Parliament of England passed the Petition of Right in 1628 which established certain liberties for subjects.
The English Civil War was fought between the King and an oligarchic but elected Parliament, during which the idea of a political party took form with groups debating rights to political representation during the Putney Debates of 1647. Subsequently, the Protectorate and the English Restoration restored more autocratic rule although Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679, which strengthened the convention that forbade detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. Objecting to the policies of King James II of England, a group of English Parliamentarians invited the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau to overthrow the King. William's successful invasion with a Dutch fleet and army led to James fleeing to France. In December 1688, William took over the provisional government by appointment of the peers of the realm, as was the legal right of the latter in circumstances when the King was incapacitated, summoned an assembly of certain members of parliament; this assembly called for an English Convention Parliament to be elected, which convened on 22 January 1689.
The proposal to draw up a statement of rights and liberties and James's violation of them was first made on 29 January 1689 in the House of Commons, with members arguing that the House "cannot answer it to the nation or Prince of Orange till we declare what are the rights invaded" and that William "cannot take it ill if we make conditions to secure ourselves for the future" in order to "do justice to those who sent us hither". On 2 February a committee specially convened reported to the Commons 23 Heads of Grievances, which the Commons approved and added some of their own. However, on 4 February the Commons decided to instruct the committee to differentiate between "such of the general heads, as are introductory of new laws, from those that are declaratory of ancient rights". On 7 February the Commons approved this revised Declaration of Right, on 8 February instructed the committee to put into a single text the Declaration, the resolution of 28 January and the Lords' proposal for a revised oath of allegiance.
It passed the Commons without division. On 13 February the clerk of the House of Lords read the Declaration of Right, the Marquess of Halifax, in the name of all the estates of the realm, asked William and Mary to accept the throne. William replied for his wife and himself: "We thankfully accept what you have offered us", they went in procession to the great gate at Whitehall. The Garter King at Arms proclaimed them King and Queen of England and Ireland, whereupon they adjourned to the Chapel Royal, with the Bishop of London preaching the sermon, they were crowned on 11 April. The Coronation Oath Act 1688 had provided a new coronation oath, whereby the monarchs were to "solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, the laws and customs of the same", they were to maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, the Protestant Reformed faith established by law. This replaced an oath.
The previous oath required the monarch to rule based on "the laws and customs... granted by the Kings of England". The Declaration of Right was enacted in an Act of Parliament, the Bill of Rights 1689, which received the Royal Assent in December 1689; the Act asserted "certain ancient rights and liberties" by declaring that: the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal.
Kingdom of Great Britain
The Kingdom of Great Britain called Great Britain, was a sovereign state in western Europe from 1 May 1707 to 31 December 1800. The state came into being following the Treaty of Union in 1706, ratified by the Acts of Union 1707, which united the kingdoms of England and Scotland to form a single kingdom encompassing the whole island of Great Britain and its outlying islands, with the exception of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; the unitary state was governed by a single parliament and government, based in Westminster. The former kingdoms had been in personal union since James VI of Scotland became King of England and King of Ireland in 1603 following the death of Elizabeth I, bringing about the "Union of the Crowns". After the accession of George I to the throne of Great Britain in 1714, the kingdom was in a personal union with the Electorate of Hanover; the early years of the unified kingdom were marked by Jacobite risings which ended in defeat for the Stuart cause at Culloden in 1746.
In 1763, victory in the Seven Years' War led to the dominance of the British Empire, to become the foremost global power for over a century and grew to become the largest empire in history. The Kingdom of Great Britain was replaced by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on 1 January 1801 with the Acts of Union 1800; the name Britain descends from the Latin name for the island of Great Britain, Britannia or Brittānia, the land of the Britons via the Old French Bretaigne and Middle English Bretayne, Breteyne. The term Great Britain was first used in 1474; the use of the word "Great" before "Britain" originates in the French language, which uses Bretagne for both Britain and Brittany. French therefore distinguishes between the two by calling Britain la Grande Bretagne, a distinction, transferred into English; the Treaty of Union and the subsequent Acts of Union state that England and Scotland were to be "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain", as such "Great Britain" was the official name of the state, as well as being used in titles such as "Parliament of Great Britain".
Both the Acts and the Treaty describe the country as "One Kingdom" and a "United Kingdom", which has led some much publications into the error of treating the "United Kingdom" as a name before it came into being in 1801. The websites of the Scottish Parliament, the BBC, others, including the Historical Association, refer to the state created on 1 May 1707 as the United Kingdom of Great Britain; the term United Kingdom was sometimes used during the 18th century to describe the state, but was not its name. The kingdoms of England and Scotland, both in existence from the 9th century, were separate states until 1707. However, they had come into a personal union in 1603, when James VI of Scotland became king of England under the name of James I; this Union of the Crowns under the House of Stuart meant that the whole of the island of Great Britain was now ruled by a single monarch, who by virtue of holding the English crown ruled over the Kingdom of Ireland. Each of the three kingdoms maintained laws.
Various smaller islands were in the king's domain, including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. This disposition changed when the Acts of Union 1707 came into force, with a single unified Crown of Great Britain and a single unified parliament. Ireland remained formally separate, with its own parliament, until the Acts of Union 1800; the Union of 1707 provided for a Protestant-only succession to the throne in accordance with the English Act of Settlement of 1701. The Act of Settlement required that the heir to the English throne be a descendant of the Electress Sophia of Hanover and not be a Catholic. Legislative power was vested in the Parliament of Great Britain, which replaced both the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland. In practice it was a continuation of the English parliament, sitting at the same location in Westminster, expanded to include representation from Scotland; as with the former Parliament of England and the modern Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Parliament of Great Britain was formally constituted of three elements: the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Crown.
The right of the English peerage to sit in the House of Lords remained unchanged, while the disproportionately large Scottish peerage was permitted to send only 16 representative peers, elected from amongst their number for the life of each parliament. The members of the former English House of Commons continued as members of the British House of Commons, but as a reflection of the relative tax bases of the two countries the number of Scottish representatives was reduced to 45. Newly created peers in the Peerage of Great Britain were given the automatic right to sit in the Lords. Despite the end of a separate parliament for Scotland, it retained its own laws and system of courts, As its own established Presbyterian Church, control over its own schools; the social structure was hierarchical, the same elite remain in control after 1707. Scotland continued to have its own excellent universities, with the strong intellectual community in Edinburgh, The Scottish Enlightenment had a major impact on British and European thinking.
As a result of Poynings' Law of 1495, the Parliament of Ireland was subordinate to the Parliament of England, after 1707 to the Parliament of Great Britain. The Westminster parliament's Declaratory Act 1719 (also called the Dependency of Ireland
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was established by the Acts of Union 1800, which merged the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland. The United Kingdom, having financed the European coalition that defeated France during the Napoleonic Wars, developed a large Royal Navy that enabled the British Empire to become the foremost world power for the next century; the Crimean War with Russia and the Boer wars were small operations in a peaceful century. Rapid industrialisation that began in the decades prior to the state's formation continued up until the mid-19th century; the Great Irish Famine, exacerbated by government inaction in the mid-19th century, led to demographic collapse in much of Ireland and increased calls for Irish land reform. The 19th century was an era of rapid economic modernisation and growth of industry and finance, in which Britain dominated the world economy. Outward migration was heavy to the United States; the empire was expanded into much of South Asia. The Colonial Office and India Office ruled through a small number of administrators who managed the units of the empire locally, while democratic institutions began to develop.
British India, by far the most important overseas possession, saw a short-lived revolt in 1857. In overseas policy, the central policy was free trade, which enabled British and Irish financiers and merchants to operate in many otherwise independent countries, as in South America. London formed no permanent military alliances until the early 20th century, when it began to cooperate with Japan and Russia, moved closer to the United States. Growing desire for Irish self-governance led to the Irish War of Independence, which resulted in most of Ireland seceding from the Union and forming the Irish Free State in 1922. Northern Ireland remained part of the Union, the state was renamed to the current "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in 1927; the modern-day United Kingdom is the same country as the one from this period—a direct continuation of what remained after the secession—not an new successor state. A brief period of limited independence for Ireland came to an end following the Irish Rebellion of 1798, which occurred during the British war with revolutionary France.
The British government's fear of an independent Ireland siding against them with the French resulted in the decision to unite the two countries. This was brought about by legislation in the parliaments of both kingdoms and came into effect on 1 January 1801; the Irish had been led to believe by the British that their loss of legislative independence would be compensated with Catholic emancipation, that is, by the removal of civil disabilities placed upon Roman Catholics in both Great Britain and Ireland. However, King George III was bitterly opposed to any such Emancipation and succeeded in defeating his government's attempts to introduce it. During the War of the Second Coalition, Britain occupied most of the French and Dutch overseas possessions, the Netherlands having become a satellite state of France in 1796, but tropical diseases claimed the lives of over 40,000 troops; when the Treaty of Amiens ended the war, Britain agreed to return most of the territories it had seized. The peace settlement was in effect only a ceasefire, Napoleon continued to provoke the British by attempting a trade embargo on the country and by occupying the city of Hanover, capital of the Electorate, a German-speaking duchy, in a personal union with the United Kingdom.
In May 1803, war was declared again. Napoleon's plans to invade Great Britain failed, chiefly due to the inferiority of his navy, in 1805 a Royal Navy fleet led by Nelson decisively defeated the French and Spanish at Trafalgar, the last significant naval action of the Napoleonic Wars. In 1806, Napoleon issued the series of Berlin Decrees, which brought into effect the Continental System; this policy aimed to eliminate the threat from the British by closing French-controlled territory to foreign trade. The British Army remained a minimal threat to France. Although the Royal Navy disrupted France's extra-continental trade—both by seizing and threatening French shipping and by seizing French colonial possessions—it could do nothing about France's trade with the major continental economies and posed little threat to French territory in Europe. France's population and agricultural capacity far outstripped that of the British Isles, but it was smaller in terms of industry, mercantile marine and naval strength.
Napoleon expected that cutting Britain off from the European mainland would end its economic hegemony. On the contrary Britain possessed the greatest industrial capacity in the world, its mastery of the seas allowed it to build up considerable economic strength through trade to its possessions and the United States; the Spanish uprising in 1808 at last permitted Britain to gain a foothold on the Continent. The Duke of Wellington pushed the French out of Spain, in early 1814, as Napoleon was being driven back in the east by the Prussians and Russians, Wellington invaded southern France. After Napoleon's surrender and exile to the island of Elba, peace appeared to have returned. Napoleon reappeared in 1815; the Allies united and the armies of Wellington and Blücher defeated Napoleon once and for all at Waterloo. To defeat France, Britain put heavy pressure on the Americans