ABSTRACT Much of the nineteenth century is well-known to have been a period in which fundamental principles of English private law first came to be subjected to scientific treatment. Such was the significance of this period that it was assigned the epithet ‘classical’. Among the principles to have first been subjected to such treatment were those specifically concerned with the recovery of civil damages in actions at common law. This article systematically traces the process by which modern private law’s most controversial civil recovery principle – that of punishment in tort – came to be treated scientifically during this classical period. In doing so, it sheds new light on how a substantive common ‘law’ of punitive damages first actually arose.

ABSTRACT The paper examines jurisdictional boundaries in late thirteenth-century town laws from Denmark and Norway, and the agents defining them. Danish towns were distinctly delineated physically and legally, while Norwegian towns had more flexible boundaries, with blurred physical demarcations. The border between burghers and other groups remained porous. Town laws, often overlooked, are analysed as normative frameworks within overlapping systems. The study nuances conventional jurisdictional narratives, highlighting the interaction of territory and people in shaping legal boundaries. By comparing urban jurisdiction in Denmark and Norway, variations in definition and administration are identified. The focus on legal actors illuminates distinctions within urban populations and complexities within towns. The study underscores the dynamic and performative nature of territorial jurisdiction, suggesting divergences may stem from legal actors’ interests, geographical disparities, and population patterns rather than differing legal ideologies or royal power.

ABSTRACT Between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, a variety of legal actors became involved in disputes regarding the right of criminals condemned to death to access religious comforts such as sacraments, Christian burial, and the possibility to make bequests pro anima. These debates centred around important questions such as: which authorities held the right to grant or deny spiritual assistance to executed criminals? What normative bases could be invoked to support these claims? This paper argues that, in the period c.1250–1320, lay and religious authorities reiterated norms deriving from a multiplicity of pre-existing systems (canon law, Roman law, theological principles) to answer these questions. The underlying agenda of these debates, however, was a struggle for power regarding whose ultimate authority it was to decide who could be considered a member of the community and to what extent. In time, this struggle contributed to a gradual separation between the political community and a previously all-encompassing Ecclesia.

ABSTRACT This article explores a facet of the relationship between trade marks and the criminal law in the UK in the interwar era, a pivotal period of transition in UK economic policy from free trade to a more managed economy. Drawing together insights from legal, business and economic history, we show that, in the interwar years, the context of domestic politics and wider international trade policy, produced a greater focus on the relationship between trade marks and market-place understandings of the national origin of manufactured products. This context included the passage of the Merchandise Marks Act 1926, a criminal law statute that stipulated the circumstances in which imported goods were to be marked with an indication of national origin, and included a criminal offence regulating trade marks enforced by prosecutions brought by the Board of Trade. We argue that the criminal law regulating trade marks became entwined with ‘soft’ trade policy, i.e. a means of protecting the domestic/Empire market falling short of tariff protection. Drawing on substantial original archival research, we explore the problems that confronted the Board of Trade when it enforced the 1926 Act in view of market realities.

ABSTRACT For some seventy years, rulings made by judges sitting at nisi prius were regularly reported, despite those reports being held in low esteem by the legal profession and such rulings being regarded as of little value as precedents. This article considers why those rulings, at least on matters of substantive law, were rejected as authorities, and sets out the reasons why they were nevertheless reported and cited. The article explains that the principal purposes of these reports were to introduce new members of the profession to the practicalities of preparing cases for trial, and to provide some authority, however slight, to cite in court. The article also explains that, while nisi prius rulings on substantive law were cited by nineteenth century judges, they were used differently to decisions of courts in banc. The greater authority of such rulings on points of evidence, at least up to the mid-nineteenth century, is also explored. The article concludes by examining the tendency of more recent judges to ascribe greater weight to nisi prius rulings than their nineteenth century counterparts, due to the modern profession’s ignorance of the former difference in the treatment of nisi prius rulings and the decisions of courts in banc.

ABSTRACT The connection between theatre and the law has been much explored, and especially the theatricality of the courtroom, which developed in the late Georgian era. This article seeks to look beyond the law to a wider culture of dispute settlement, of which legal proceedings were only a single subset, and in some ways a deeply unpopular one. The business of theatre provides a window onto this culture, not least because theatre proprietors were extremely disputatious, both due to their personality and for a range of structural and legal reasons, including the monopolistic regime of theatre patents. The resolution of disputes was often performative, requiring a repertoire including legal threats and suits, but mediation and arbitration might provide cheaper and quicker resolution, with less reputational damage. Indeed, arbitration was so familiar to theatre folk that it featured in plays, which explored its wider cultural meaning. Managing theatre arbitrations was also politically charged, because of the political language used, the involvement of the political and aristocratic elite, and the immediate need to resolve disputes with audiences and even pacify riots. This article thus seeks to affirm the importance of arbitration in the interconnected areas of Georgian theatre, law, business and politics.