"Governing by the Rule of Law" Topic

'If you accept the post Blackstone theory then I think you would be hard put to prove that Napoleon governed by rule of law.'

In my view, and I'm not a lawyer, it would be hard to prove the opposite. To prove that theory, you'd have to study all of the Codes including the French criminal codes which did allow arbitrary arrest and many times the legal assumption was guilty until proven innocent as two examples), plus all of the laws passed from 1789 forward to 1815. That is a monumental task.

Then you'll have to take into account what the executive was allowed to do by French law, including what in the US is called an executive order, and what was then known as a Decree, Consular or Imperial.

Lastly, judging Napoleon by early 21st century standards is ludicrous. And you'd also have to judge his fellow heads of state by the same standards, which hasn't been done in these conversations. You cannot judge Napoleon in a vacuum, which has been done here too many times.

And many historians agree, such as JC Herold, that Napoleon did govern by the rule of law.

By the way, isn't Blackstone on English law and not French law? They are quite different in many categories. For instance, the British penal code during the Napoleonic period was much harsher than its French equivalent.

B

Well amongst my talents, I am a lawyer. I prefer Archbold to Blackstones, but when it comes to pleadings this thread wouldn't give rise to a Galbraith submission lol

Blackstone was first published in 1765 – which is prior to the Napoleonic period.

Blackstone was English, but wrote in the context of 18th century legal commentary – which included German, French, Spanish and Italian commentators. I think your point on French law and English law differing is actually a question of civil versus common law. Notwithstanding, lawyers in the 18th century were conversant in both disciplines. The differences are somewhat more subtle than the "just measure of pain" to which you allude.

I believe Herold was by profession an editor and not a lawyer. I suppose he is permitted his opinion on legal matters, but I doubt he was ever going to be appointed to an appeals bench.

Archbold. Now there is a grand old chestnut. I have fond memories of reading Ejectments in 2nd year.

I didn't think they still taught Archbold anymore. Such a shame. Once upon a time I argued a matter that turned on a judgement from a fence-viewer. Archbold was the only authority on the jurisdiction. It was a brilliant summary of the law.

I'm retired now, but recall the old Galbraith 1 and indeed 2 on no case to answer! This thread is glorious reading, long may it continue.

I don't think Mr. Kiley could understand a Galbraith argument and its applicability to his thoughts.

Retired? Where I practice no one retires – one just gets punted out as a puisne-something-or-other.

I see from your bio that you may have some familiarity with the parades commission and its findings. What a spot of bother.

Don't talk to me about governing by the rule of law :-)

De minimis non curat lex.

Peeler,

One of the best and most unusual reactions that a German in the UK can get is to be told that he has made a Brit chuckle.

We really do have a sense of humour; it is just that it is a very small one.

Jurgen

'I believe Herold was by profession an editor and not a lawyer. I suppose he is permitted his opinion on legal matters, but I doubt he was ever going to be appointed to an appeals bench.'

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the law, and you can understand, not being a lawyer what to govern by the rule of law means, as well as what a lawgiver is.

And being a lawyer doesn't require one to be a genius, or even real smart. I've met both types-some I'm impressed with, others not-just like any other profession. There are attorneys, lawyers, and ambulance chasers-good and bad, excellent and incompetent.

B

'I don't think Mr. Kiley could understand a Galbraith argument and its applicability to his thoughts.'

Don't judge others by your own low standards or believe that other may act the way you do.

B

Flecktarn – what the duce! A German, here, in Blighty!!

I shall notify the authorities at once Sir, at once, I tell you :)

Peeler,

No, not the duce; he was the fat Italian who was partly responsible for you not losing WW2.

I do assure you that the authorities know that I am here and that I mean no harm to your pleasant country; however, my grandfather would have been a somewhat different matter.

I do like the food here although I do not like nasty soggy chips, I like mine crisp and light brown.

Jurgen

Brechtel, Kevin, 10thMarines, B, M or K (whichever you are this time),

Do you not think that the "Don't judge others by your own low standards" line is wearing rather thin? It seems to be your standard lame response to anyone who points out your failings.

By the way, your 10th Marines ID is interesting to me; if it refers to the 10th Marine Regiment, I met some of them in Afghanistan a couple of years ago.

Jurgen

No, I believe the response is quite appropriate at time, such as my use of it here.

'your 10th Marines ID is interesting to me; if it refers to the 10th Marine Regiment'

What other regiment would it refer to? There's only one of that number and designation. The 10th Marines was one of the artillery regiments in which I served a long time ago.

Sincerely,
M

I'm glad that finally some others are pointing out the issue of following who is who as nicknames change, especially if you are not in the little clique that mainly partakes in these … er .. discussions.

To his credit, Kevin always used to sign every message with something like "regards, Kevin". Though in more recent times he seems to have favoured signing off with the initial of his nickname. However, even without his signature, he is easy to identify by his unique style of argument and his memes (eg "excellent"; "both ….. ,and …."; "in short").

Others are harder to pin down. There are people on both sides of this debate with nicknames I've only seen pop up relatively recently, whereas some oldtime nicknames don't appear any more. I strongly suspect some are the same people, but don't know for sure.

The funny thing is THEY seem to usually recognise each other even if the nickname changes midway through a discussion.

Brechtel,

Why do you sign as "M"?

Are you not capable of replying to a question in a decent manner? I ask you if your ID refers to the 10th Marine Regiment and you come back with a snappish response.

Jurgen

Okay, I'm persuaded, Napoleon did govern by the rule of law.

Another thing that would be helpful is to use the @ symbol and nickname if addressing your response to a particular person's posting. Some people already do this, which is great. But others don't, and that makes it hard to see which of the previous posters they're specifically replying to.

Also good would be more use of 'q' quote tags, rather than the sometimes hard-to-follow-follow speech marks when quoting more than one paragraph.

Whilst this may all sound pedantic, it would help readability …

'Are you not capable of replying to a question in a decent manner? I ask you if your ID refers to the 10th Marine Regiment and you come back with a snappish response.'

You reap what you sow, laddie. Perhaps if you were to approach questions and subjects a little less pointedly and accusatory, you'd be treated the same way.

Why don't you try that for a pleasant change?

Sincerely,
M

'Blackstone was first published in 1765 – which is prior to the Napoleonic period. Blackstone was English, but wrote in the context of 18th century legal commentary – which included German, French, Spanish and Italian commentators. I think your point on French law and English law differing is actually a question of civil versus common law. Notwithstanding, lawyers in the 18th century were conversant in both disciplines. The differences are somewhat more subtle than the "just measure of pain" to which you allude.'

Blackstone's works have to do with English law, more importantly English common law, which is also applicable to the United States as American law naturally comes from English common law.

And Blackstone died before the French Revolution and the immense social, legal, and governmental changes and reforms that marked it and the Napoleonic period following.

However, I don't believe that Blackstone wrote on French law, and if he did, it would be before the Revolution, not during it or the Consulate or Empire.

So, it seems that the point is moot and definitely out of context and not part of the subject.

A few of Balckstone's significant legal texts are:
-Commentaries on the Laws of England (four volumes, 1766, 1768, 1770).

-An Analysis of the Laws of England (1756)

-A Discourse on the Study of Law (1758)

- The Great Charter and the Charter of the Forest, with other authentic Instruments (1759)

-A Treatise on the Law of Descents in Fee Simple (1759)

I would be most interested in any reference that Blackstone had an influence over French law in general and Napoleon's Civil Code, and the other Napoleonic law codes in general.
As a matter of fact, I'd be very interested if Blackstone had influence on the Continent at all.

I submit that French law, especially the complete revamping and reform that took place under Napoleon and at his direction is different than English common law and while there are similarities, the system is entirely different, especially after Napoleon was finished with his reforms.

B

Brechtel (or M or whatever),

Enough of you; you really do seem to think that everybody else is the problem and not you. Try looking in a mirror occasionally!

Jurgen

I'm undecided again, did he govern by the rule of law or didn't he. Hands up who thinks we should roll a D6.

By the way Bretchel, the Blackstone's that I was dealing with is a criminal practitioner's text book published annually. I've met some pretty dumb lawyers in my time and some pretty dumb artillerymen too. Keep it going on all threads, it's great stuff. A Galbraith submission is that there is insufficient evidence for the case to go before the jury, in reference to you it was actually a compliment on your sterling services on TMP.

ColonelToffeeApple,

Surely we should roll a D3 because then we could get results of yes, no or maybe; much more interesting.

Jurgen (a colonel but not a toffee apple)

Hadn't thought of that Jurgen, good point.

German ingenuity:).

Jurgen

Jurgen, we could always adopt the SWAG method, military classic.

I have to say that I have never come across the SWAG method, but I suspect that it matches what I would translate into English as "see which way the fart goes and choose that one".

Jurgen

Scientific Wide Arsed Guess, so you were spot on Jurgen.

I never expected to contribute to this thread, and really want to avoid being seen as partisan. FWIW I'm an admirer of many of Napoleon's achievements and always play French when I get the opportunity…..

But I've just being reading through some of the previous contributions, not having paid much attention as this thread has been rumbling on. To be honest, reading the Susan Howard's Napoleon Series post (linked by Chouan 17 Jul 1222), the point seems to me to have been pretty clearly proved way back then.

The post shows numerous primary examples of rule- not by law but by diktat- and indeed often secret diktat.
Preceding events and subsequent outcomes aren't really the issue. The point is that Napoleon's orders in most of these cases demand unambiguously that extra-judicial action be taken against individuals or groups.

In fairness, in the very last example (which orders action following some legal proceedings) there is a reference to the constitution allowing extraordinary measures in extraordinary circumstances. But all the other examples, there is no suggestion of any source of authority for the prescribed actions other than Napoleon's personal will.

What the background to the case was, whether Napoleon's orders were carried out, or whether there are other examples of him referring cases to the courts and scrupulously avoiding any attempt to influence the process or outcome- makes no real difference. There is quite enough in the examples given to show a tendency towards arbitrary behaviour which I find impossible to reconcile with the rule of law. To my eyes at least, there's really no two ways about this.

Napoleon's achievements in the field of legislation are indeed impressive and have benefitted Europe for two centuries. But we should definitely not confuse that with how Napoleon frequently sought to exercise his authority.

I think we should all meet up for beer & non soggy crisp chips.

Chouan

You having an MA does not 'get up my nose'. Been there, seen it, got the t-shirt. In other words, I have one, plus two BA (Hons) degrees. I think the truth is my not being impressed by you having one gets up your nose. I suggest you get over it and move on!

But what does get up my nose is your claim to be an expert because you have done what THOUSANDS of others have done – gained a degree and written a dissertation. Whoopie! Clever you.

And really, come on, members can go to where you made your claim and read it for themselves. It is still there – you can't escape what you wrote.

I do have great admiration for people doing MA's and further qualifications because I am aware of the amount of reading and research required. And I have been considering doing a PhD myself in the not too distant future. Research does make the student more knowledgeable. But it does not necessarily make them experts, so one should not really go around claiming to be one.

Just apologise for making such a silly claim and we can all move on.

Chouan

Forgot to mention. Sam Mustafa has two identities on this website – Who let the trout drive & The Traveling Turk. He seems to change his titles quite often – not sure why?

And the real names of some members are not always shown in the membership details, which I disagree with – but it is not my website, so that is the way it is.

By the way what is the topic of your PhD? (genuine interest, as I'm interested in knowing what can or can't be done for future reference)

This is a forum about military stuff, there can be more degrees than there are on a compass but still not the brains of a chocolate frog. Now did Napoleon govern by the rule of law or didn't he?

I would recommend that both sides of this seemingly interminable argument acquire and read Thompson's 'Letters of Napoleon'. Published in 1934, it is a secondary source in that the Napoleon's words have been translated, but nevertheless provides an insight into the man's mind. It will be noted that in his early correspondences, Napoleon signed himself both 'Bounaparte' and 'Bonaparte', which suggests that he was 'disrespecting' himself according to some posters…

Available on Amazon.

link

Just bought it at a very good price on Amazon UK, thank you for the recommendation, but getting back to the issue, can somebody tell me why it matters if Napoleon governed by the rule of law or not? The major posters can't possibly leave this cliff hanger!

Arteis,

I don't think Mr. Kiley could understand a Galbraith argument and its applicability to his thoughts.

That was rude. Ya can't say stuff like that and claim the high ground at any point.

Another thing that would be helpful is to use the @ symbol and nickname if addressing your response to a particular person's posting.

Also good would be more use of 'q' quote tags, rather than the sometimes hard-to-follow-follow speech marks when quoting more than one paragraph.

Very much agreed.

The funny thing is THEY seem to usually recognise each other even if the nickname changes midway through a discussion.

Yes, I have noticed that and I wonder how they manage to do it so consistently!

Kevin,

What other regiment would it refer to? There's only one of that number and designation.

That was also rude.

And being a lawyer doesn't require one to be a genius, or even real smart. I've met both types-some I'm impressed with, others not-just like any other profession. There are attorneys, lawyers, and ambulance chasers-good and bad, excellent and incompetent.

Agreed. Michelle Bachmann has a law degree and I *think* passed the Bar examine somewhere or another. Regardless of what one might think of her politics, her ability to remember and recant historical facts accurately is… poor… and one would think that would be a strong suit for someone with a law degree.

Cheers,

The Bandit

@Bandit:

Arteis,

I don't think Mr. Kiley could understand a Galbraith argument and its applicability to his thoughts.

That was rude. Ya can't say stuff like that and claim the high ground at any point.

Er, I didn't say that, Bandit. I myself haven't got the faintest what a Galbraith argument is either! You've confused me with Amherst.

Col. TA, Jurgen,

Very good posts. I agree – who cares. I remember a good book called the Napoleon Myth, can't quite recall the author, last ten years though, exploring how Napoleon came to be associated with a idealistic egalitarian and democratic politics in France… The myth was useful in pushing France torwards liberal democracy, but maybe it is that myth rather than the reality of the times that makes him so attractive in the modern day?

Meanwhile, Joe Root is on his way to a double century and all is good in the world.

James

Arteis,

My bad, I apologize.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I'm undecided again, did he govern by the rule of law or didn't he. Hands up who thinks we should roll a D6.

I agree with ToffeeApple. What modifiers are we going to use?

Telestic Warrior/James Drozdz, BSc Hons (Biology) & MSc (Environmental Management), Marechal de l'Empire. Ok, the last ones not true.

But I agree with Flecktarn about the D3, now I can't make up my mind on a D6 or D3, maybe a simple decimal dice with some sort of modifier? Any views?

Here's an online dice roller: link

It allows you to create dice with any number of sides – so I'm sure we can find a conclusive answer.

Sweet.

Like a toffee apple pudding with sugar on & a side order of toffee.

A friend took me to Lords today to watch the cricket. While trying to stay awake, it struck me that cricket could provide a good way to solve this conundrum concerning Napoleon and the rule of law; proponents of the two sides could be forced to watch a day of cricket and the view of the last one to die of boredom will be the one that will prevail. If they expire simultaneously, then it is still undecided.

I am not sure if cricket explains everything about the character of the English or if the character of the English explains everything about cricket.

The Champions League final was far more interesting and exciting:).

Jurgen

The problem with watching cricket, and, to an extent, rugby, is that if you haven't played it it's hard to see what all the fuss is about. Cricket is an immensely complicated game, but most of the complexity isn't apparent to the spectator. For example, this morning, should England have declared early on? Should they have played longer to build up their score even more? To the afficionado these are important questions, to the uninformed these are questions that won't even have arisen.
Peter (Mate, Foreign Going)

Flecktarn,

Most of us would not need to be forced :)
hmm well cricket is popular elsewhere too. So perhaps Indians / Pakistanis / Bangledeshis / South Africans / us Aussies and Kiwis share similar characteristics.

Anyway one day is never enough – you need to watch the whole 5 days :)

Cricket only seems to be popular in former British colonies; for some curious reason it has never spread to the rest of the world in any meaningful way. I cannot imagine why!

It also seems that cricket is not a very popular sport in Scotland, which makes me see the Scots in a new and rather more sympathetic light.

Any game that lasts 5 days seems inherently wrong.

Jurgen