Representative Government and the Bible Commonwealth in Early Massachusetts

THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE may seem somewhat paradoxical, or at the very least to require some definition of terms. If the government of the colony of Massachusetts Bay in early New England was indeed a Bible Commonwealth, or even a theocracy, as it has also been characterized, is that not inconsistent with its being a representative government in any broad, or even literal sense? Alternatively, even if the government contained a recognizable representative element, was its voice so small, so insignificant, or so manipulated that it merely supported an entrenched religiously inspired oligarchy? The paradox, if there is one, can be resolved to some extent through an analysis of the degree to which the colony\u27s governmental structure, as well as its laws, represented the desires, claims and interests of its small group of founders and leaders, on the one hand, and of the inhabitants generally, on the other. Such an analysis, tentative though it may prove to be, can at least suggest avenues for future research leading towards a more accurate understanding of the evolution of the instruments of government, and, more particularly, of representative institutions, in the colony

The Matrix of the Common Law

Great men have admonished us never to forget the continuing relevance of history in the Anglo-American legal system. We are cautioned to remember that the highly individualistic character of much of our law is explained by its Germanic rather than its Roman roots and, further, that the Anglo-American system has built upon countervailing concepts of relationships which are feudal in origin, and to which rights and duties attach without regard to the will of individuals, which is the underlying principle of classical Roman law. Thus, in our law, powers, rights, and duties stem from relationships such as principal-agent, vendor-purchaser, landlord-tenant and the like. This article is concerned with history, but less from the standpoint of narrative than to illustrate the sources and functions of one of the most powerful of Anglo-American legal institutions, the common law. It is one of the major legal systems of the world, and it is the oldest body of law common to a whole kingdom and administered by central courts with a nation-wide competence. Its traditions and its principles have afforded refuge from greed, incompetence, hatred, violence, and the tyranny of special interests. Its great political importance is apparent in the survival of its principles in the face of formidable efforts to supersede or overthrow them, and those principles often seem to have become more firmly settled after each crisis. Its qualities of vitality and tenacity are part of its tradition, and its conveniences have been almost countless

The Matrix of the Common Law

Great men have admonished us never to forget the continuing relevance of history in the Anglo-American legal system. We are cautioned to remember that the highly individualistic character of much of our law is explained by its Germanic rather than its Roman roots and, further, that the Anglo-American system has built upon countervailing concepts of relationships which are feudal in origin, and to which rights and duties attach without regard to the will of individuals, which is the underlying principle of classical Roman law. Thus, in our law, powers, rights, and duties stem from relationships such as principal-agent, vendor-purchaser, landlord-tenant and the like. This article is concerned with history, but less from the standpoint of narrative than to illustrate the sources and functions of one of the most powerful of Anglo-American legal institutions, the common law. It is one of the major legal systems of the world, and it is the oldest body of law common to a whole kingdom and administered by central courts with a nation-wide competence. Its traditions and its principles have afforded refuge from greed, incompetence, hatred, violence, and the tyranny of special interests. Its great political importance is apparent in the survival of its principles in the face of formidable efforts to supersede or overthrow them, and those principles often seem to have become more firmly settled after each crisis. Its qualities of vitality and tenacity are part of its tradition, and its conveniences have been almost countless