This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In 1747, he helped Lord Hardwicke write and pass an act to abolish the old hereditary positions in Scotland. [1] In 1751 he drafted the government response to an attempt by the King of Prussia to frustrate neutral shipping, which Lord Stowell called "the foundation of the modern law of neutrality", and Montesquieu described it as a "résponse sans réplique" (response without a reply). [2]
I believe that "résponse sans réplique" is better translated as "response without a peer" or a "peerless" or "unparalleled" response, but since the citation of the reference follows the published version, then the translation of "réplique" as "reply" may come from that original. For that reason I have not changed it, but someone with access to the cited source may be able to deal with this. Keepitshort ( talk) 14:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
References
I've reverted the inclusion of the "Lord Mansfield's Rule" section due to some concerns about [[WP:SYNTH]|synthesis]] and WP:OR. Of particular concern - we can challenge commonly accepted tropes or assumptions, that's fine, but we do it by providing a reliable and verifiable source that says "actually, the commonly accepted trope is wrong". Comparing-and-contrasting between secondary sources and the primary source of the judgment and concluding, having read through the judgment, that the secondary sources are wrong and we should note that they are wrong and can be discounted smacks very much of original research. Ironholds ( talk) 00:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sound like it should work? Ironholds ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Why were [these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=William_Murray,_1st_Earl_of_Mansfield&diff=501542357&oldid=501540498] reverted? It was cited to the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies which is clearly a reliable source, and there are plenty of other points in this article that are cited to a single source (e.g. Jeremy Krikler's theory that Mansfield decided the Zong as he did to avoid overcomplicating the law of maritime insurance). I don't see how the reverted additions are in any way different (and shouldn't Wikipedia be presenting the range of academic views rather than picking one?). Also, surely the addition of a citation to the report of Gregson v. Gilbert in the ER is as non-controversial as it gets? Why revert that? -- 92.40.106.58 ( talk) 15:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've just uploaded File:Jean-Baptiste van Loo - William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield - Google Art Project.jpg (see right), feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 23:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Mansfield did not find that slavery "was not binding law", therefore not enforceable in England. Even if he had, this had nothing to do with the slave trade overseas (both because it was outside English court jurisdiction, and because most slave traders were not English. Therefore the second part of the sentence "although this did not end slave trafficking altogether" is wrong.
The case has been almost universally misrepresented. As Mansfield himself said in the case of R v Inhabitants of Thames Ditton, "The determinations [in Somerset] go no further than that the master cannot by force compel him to go out of the kingdom". He did not find that slavery was not legal. Royalcourtier ( talk) 19:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made a subsequent referenced sentence, clarifying the issue, as you quite correctly pointed out that the Mansfield ruling only meant that a slave could not be forcibly transported out of England against his will. Mikesiva ( talk) 20:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Mansfield judgement highlighted that slavery did not exist as a concept in either common law or statutory law, and as such no one could be deemed a slave. In Thames Ditton he held that an unpaid servant couldn't be entitled to poor law relief as they were not hired, and he also refused the idea that they were a villein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.251.11.193 ( talk) 23:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There is an entirely incorrect claim that Mansfield treated Dido Belle as a slave. One of the cited sources makes no mention of Dido Belle at all (Siva) and I can't find a copy of the other. Every other sources claims she was raised as part of the family and some state she was Britain's first black aristocrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.24.203 ( talk) 20:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Text and references copied from Joseph Baena to Lord Mansfield. See former article for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It is now impossible to find any meaningful mention or online-accessible reference to the important (THOUGH NOW BELIEVED OBSOLETE) judgement of Mansfield in Walker v Witter, which had great importance in the late eighteenth century. Thw only available entions of it online seem to derive from US law. UK history doesn't depend on contemporary US law in any way. Please address this omission 2A00:23C7:5A0B:8601:40F4:1779:EEDE:FD3D ( talk) 17:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In 1747, he helped Lord Hardwicke write and pass an act to abolish the old hereditary positions in Scotland. [1] In 1751 he drafted the government response to an attempt by the King of Prussia to frustrate neutral shipping, which Lord Stowell called "the foundation of the modern law of neutrality", and Montesquieu described it as a "résponse sans réplique" (response without a reply). [2]
I believe that "résponse sans réplique" is better translated as "response without a peer" or a "peerless" or "unparalleled" response, but since the citation of the reference follows the published version, then the translation of "réplique" as "reply" may come from that original. For that reason I have not changed it, but someone with access to the cited source may be able to deal with this. Keepitshort ( talk) 14:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
References
I've reverted the inclusion of the "Lord Mansfield's Rule" section due to some concerns about [[WP:SYNTH]|synthesis]] and WP:OR. Of particular concern - we can challenge commonly accepted tropes or assumptions, that's fine, but we do it by providing a reliable and verifiable source that says "actually, the commonly accepted trope is wrong". Comparing-and-contrasting between secondary sources and the primary source of the judgment and concluding, having read through the judgment, that the secondary sources are wrong and we should note that they are wrong and can be discounted smacks very much of original research. Ironholds ( talk) 00:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Sound like it should work? Ironholds ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Why were [these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=William_Murray,_1st_Earl_of_Mansfield&diff=501542357&oldid=501540498] reverted? It was cited to the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies which is clearly a reliable source, and there are plenty of other points in this article that are cited to a single source (e.g. Jeremy Krikler's theory that Mansfield decided the Zong as he did to avoid overcomplicating the law of maritime insurance). I don't see how the reverted additions are in any way different (and shouldn't Wikipedia be presenting the range of academic views rather than picking one?). Also, surely the addition of a citation to the report of Gregson v. Gilbert in the ER is as non-controversial as it gets? Why revert that? -- 92.40.106.58 ( talk) 15:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I've just uploaded File:Jean-Baptiste van Loo - William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield - Google Art Project.jpg (see right), feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 23:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Mansfield did not find that slavery "was not binding law", therefore not enforceable in England. Even if he had, this had nothing to do with the slave trade overseas (both because it was outside English court jurisdiction, and because most slave traders were not English. Therefore the second part of the sentence "although this did not end slave trafficking altogether" is wrong.
The case has been almost universally misrepresented. As Mansfield himself said in the case of R v Inhabitants of Thames Ditton, "The determinations [in Somerset] go no further than that the master cannot by force compel him to go out of the kingdom". He did not find that slavery was not legal. Royalcourtier ( talk) 19:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made a subsequent referenced sentence, clarifying the issue, as you quite correctly pointed out that the Mansfield ruling only meant that a slave could not be forcibly transported out of England against his will. Mikesiva ( talk) 20:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Mansfield judgement highlighted that slavery did not exist as a concept in either common law or statutory law, and as such no one could be deemed a slave. In Thames Ditton he held that an unpaid servant couldn't be entitled to poor law relief as they were not hired, and he also refused the idea that they were a villein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.251.11.193 ( talk) 23:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
There is an entirely incorrect claim that Mansfield treated Dido Belle as a slave. One of the cited sources makes no mention of Dido Belle at all (Siva) and I can't find a copy of the other. Every other sources claims she was raised as part of the family and some state she was Britain's first black aristocrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.24.203 ( talk) 20:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Text and references copied from Joseph Baena to Lord Mansfield. See former article for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It is now impossible to find any meaningful mention or online-accessible reference to the important (THOUGH NOW BELIEVED OBSOLETE) judgement of Mansfield in Walker v Witter, which had great importance in the late eighteenth century. Thw only available entions of it online seem to derive from US law. UK history doesn't depend on contemporary US law in any way. Please address this omission 2A00:23C7:5A0B:8601:40F4:1779:EEDE:FD3D ( talk) 17:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)