Talk:William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield

Member of Parliament

In 1747, he helped Lord Hardwicke write and pass an act to abolish the old hereditary positions in Scotland. 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).

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

Lord Mansfields Rule

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)

Why not edit out or rephrase just the parts you object to rather than reverting the whole thing? BRD does not seem to be appropriate here, as the the BRD article says:

When to use: Editing a particular page has too many editors stuck discussing endlessly with little to no progress being made. An editor's concerns are not addressed on the talkpage when attempts to raise them recieve no reaction after a reasonable amount of time.

That is clearly not the situation here. The BRD article also suggests "make what you currently believe to be the optimal change." I hope you don't want to exclude Lord Mansfield's Rule from the article entirely. "Lord Mansfield's Rule" is an important section of the article, it is probably what Lord Mansfield is best known for in the US.

You say: "...we do it by providing a reliable and verifiable source that says 'actually, the commonly accepted trope is wrong'" Primary sources are not excluded by policy, they just must be used carefully. In this case the primary source is reliable and verifiable without any need for original research or synthesis. The OR policy states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

If you read the decision (it's very short), the principal factual points are clearly stated in the first paragraph. The opening sentence of the decision is: "General declarations, or the answer of a parent in Chancery, are good evidence, after the death of such parent, to prove that a child was born before marriage; but not, to prove that a child born in wedlock is a bastard. " Also in the first paragraph:

"And the only question in the cause was, whether the lessor of the plaintiff was the legitimate son of Francis arid Mary Stevens; or was born of Mary before their marriage.-For the plaintiff, the register of the marriage of Francis Stevens and Mary Packer, dated November 2d, 1703, and the register of the birth of the lessor of the plaintiff, in tha[sic] following words, "Christenings 1704, Samuel son of Francis and Mary Stevens baptized July 3d," were produced. It was insisted, on the part of the defendant, "that the lessor of the plaintiff was born and privately baptized before the marriage, and that there was a public baptism after the marriage," which accounted for the register."

From the end of the third and beginning of the fourth paragraph:

Mr. Howarth and Mr. Jones now shewed cause, and insisted, that though the testimony of parents in their life-time, or their declarations after their decease, might be admissible in cases where proof of the marriage waa presumptive only, as by cohabitation, or general reputation; yet neither their declarations, nor their personal testimony could be admitted to bastardize their issue; where, as in this case, the fact of the marriage was actually proved. If so, the evidence offered was rightly rejected. In support of this position they cited the following authorities. Rex v. Inhabitants of Reading, Mich. 8 Geo. 2, B. E. Cases temp. Lord Hardwicke, 79. Hex versus Rook, Mich. 26 Geo. 2, B. E. 1 Wils. 340. Rex v. Inhabitants of St. Peter's Worcester, Bur. Set. Cas. 25. Eex v. Inhabitants of Stockland, Bur. Set. Cas. 506. 8 Mod. 180. Code, lib. 2, tit. 4, lex, 26. Lib. 8, tit. 47, lex, 6, 9, 10. Dig. lib. 5, tit. 2, 27. Lib. 22, tit. 3, 29.

Lord Mansfield.--All the cases cited, are cases relative to children born in wedlock : and the law of England is clear, that the declarations of a father or mother, cannot be admitted to bastardize the issue born after marriage. But here the evidence offered is only to prove the time when the issue was born; and to shew, whether it was before the marriage or after.

And the final sentence of Mansfield's opinion: "Therefore I am of opinion, that as part of the evidence, which was material in this case, and which ought to have been admitted, was rejected; there must be a new trial." (This is followed only by the brief concurrences of the other two judges.)

Now here is the section that I added :

"Lord Mansfield's name is frequently mentioned in modern legal settings as the originator of "Lord Mansfield's Rule", in his own words: "...the law of England is clear, that the declarations of a father or mother, cannot be admitted to bastardize the issue born after marriage." [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]

In fact, Mansfield's appellate decision in Goodright v. Moss describes this principle as long established and cites several cases to this effect[65], while making it clear that it did not apply to the case at hand, in which the parents were deceased and the subject of the proffered evidence regarded whether the child was actually born before the marriage, rather than any question about the identity or marital access of the father. Despite the second-hand nature of the testimony regarding what the parents had allegedly said when they were alive regarding the irregular timing of the birth, and that testimony's conflict with the dates on the records the marriage and of the child's christening, Mansfield ruled to admit the testimony against the child's legitimacy and grant a new trial.[65]

Ironically, "Lord Mansfield's Rule" is often used to denote the principle still applied in several jurisdictions[71] that marriage creates a conclusive presumption of a husband's paternity of his wife's child.[72]

I assume you have no objection to my first paragraph as it is backed by secondary sources, and no objection to the third paragraph aside from perhaps the first word as it is also backed by secondary sources. Regarding the second paragraph, the very first sentence of the decision clearly supports my general description of the issue and holdings of the case, and this is reinforced by other clear material which is also understandable by any educated non-lawyer reading the decision. I'm open to rewording and tightening up to make it more straightforwardly a simple restatement of what the decision said. If you have a proposed rewording I'd be glad to work with you on it, and if you can find further secondary sources which actually engage with the decision itself rather than merely the legal tradition that has grown up around it that would also be be very helpful.

Nevertheless, the best is the enemy of the good, particularly on the first draft. The section I added is notable, factual and more than adequately sourced in comparison with nearly all Wikipedia articles. The quality and completeness of the article is ill-served by deleting it. Enon (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You make a fair argument. How's this:

• Re-add the first paragraph in its entirety;
• Re-add the second paragraph, but alter the format; instead of us saying "in fact, this is the case", "Lord Mansfield noted in the case that existing case law..." yadda, yadda, ideally in the form of a quote so there aren't any issues of reformatting the text of a primary source.
• Remove "Ironically", merge the third paragraph into the (now hopefully shortened) second paragraph to avoid loose sentences
• I'll go through and standardise the citation styles and doublecheck everything works - if there are issues, I'll give you a poke here on the talkpage and leave the article be until they're resolved one way or another.

Sound like it should work? Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I did it slightly differently than your proposal, but I think even more conservatively as a single paragraph. Direct quotes in the former second paragraph don't seem to flow well, or at least I can't make them fit without making it less clear. The formatting of the references will undoubtedly need some tweaking; since you are more familiar with the preferred style in this article I hope you will fix them. I tried adding a proposed revision here on the talk page, but it looks ugly with the references nowiki-ed and would be a bit more trouble for you to edit, so I have just added the proposed revision to the article itself. Thanks, Enon (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Zong additions

Why were [these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

Well, it added one citation halfway through an entire paragraph of text, and that doesn't justify the whole chunk. Ironholds (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The cited source supports everything added to the paragraph. The place where the views are attributed to the author of he source seemed the most logical place to insert a reference, hence it's position. --92.41.14.116 (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. So, our position is to add citations after each statement that could be queried or requires verification: these citations should be as precise as possible (to specific pages rather than the journal article or book as a whole, for example). If you can point out which bit is referenced to which I'm happy to re-add it, or (if you're comfortable with editing) you can add it again, and I'll go through and make necessary tweaks after you're done. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

New portrait

Portrait by Jean-Baptiste van Loo

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)

Slavery in England and slave trade different matters

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)

Claim he treated his niece Dido Belle as a slave

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)

Attribution

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 omission2A00:23C7:5A0B:8601:40F4:1779:EEDE:FD3D (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)