{"title":"谈判莫卧儿法律:一个跨越三个印度帝国的地主家庭","authors":"Elizabeth Lhost","doi":"10.1080/2049677X.2022.2131535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"(218). Where such terms were preserved, Fletcher finds some interesting examples of enforcement, although he concludes that ‘[t]he main function of the regality court in relation to labour services was advertisement rather than the punishment of non-performing tenants’ (219). Given the tumultuous political history of the period, the fact that ‘the quasi military services of watching, warding, hosting, and hunting’ (221) are among the most notable duties on tenants is perhaps unsurprising. Fletcher’s conclusion, chapter nine, attempts to redeem heritable jurisdictions as being ‘a vibrant local legal culture’ (227) in contrast to their more damning popular image. Attendance at court enabled the social elite to have ‘an active role in a local legal, political, and economic jurisdiction’, while the courts also ‘offered legal protections for all members of rural society’ (227). Interestingly, both the court’s territorial limit and its competence speak to ‘a relaxed or pragmatic attitude to jurisdiction amongst landowners, far removed from the precision we often expect from the legal system’ (229). Potentially this also suggests that ‘the theoretical powers of jurisdiction holders mattered less in practice than the local circumstances which shaped procedures in each jurisdiction’ (230). Fletcher’s book concludes with the abolition of heritable jurisdictions in 1747, after which aspects of the regality court’s jurisdiction was absorbed by other local courts and office holders. Overall, Fletcher has in this book presented the results of a highly detailed study of the court records which adds to our understanding of both legal and social history. He often provides a more nuanced interpretation of jurisdictional questions than has previously been achieved, thereby increasing the subtlety of our understanding through careful case-study. However, as Fletcher himself identifies in several passages in the book, there appear to be important differences between regality courts across Scotland. His book therefore presents a powerful analysis of one regality court, against which the practice of other franchisal courts can be tested.","PeriodicalId":53815,"journal":{"name":"Comparative Legal History","volume":"10 1","pages":"221 - 227"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Negotiating Mughal law: a family of landlords across three Indian empires\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Lhost\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2049677X.2022.2131535\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"(218). Where such terms were preserved, Fletcher finds some interesting examples of enforcement, although he concludes that ‘[t]he main function of the regality court in relation to labour services was advertisement rather than the punishment of non-performing tenants’ (219). Given the tumultuous political history of the period, the fact that ‘the quasi military services of watching, warding, hosting, and hunting’ (221) are among the most notable duties on tenants is perhaps unsurprising. Fletcher’s conclusion, chapter nine, attempts to redeem heritable jurisdictions as being ‘a vibrant local legal culture’ (227) in contrast to their more damning popular image. Attendance at court enabled the social elite to have ‘an active role in a local legal, political, and economic jurisdiction’, while the courts also ‘offered legal protections for all members of rural society’ (227). Interestingly, both the court’s territorial limit and its competence speak to ‘a relaxed or pragmatic attitude to jurisdiction amongst landowners, far removed from the precision we often expect from the legal system’ (229). Potentially this also suggests that ‘the theoretical powers of jurisdiction holders mattered less in practice than the local circumstances which shaped procedures in each jurisdiction’ (230). Fletcher’s book concludes with the abolition of heritable jurisdictions in 1747, after which aspects of the regality court’s jurisdiction was absorbed by other local courts and office holders. Overall, Fletcher has in this book presented the results of a highly detailed study of the court records which adds to our understanding of both legal and social history. He often provides a more nuanced interpretation of jurisdictional questions than has previously been achieved, thereby increasing the subtlety of our understanding through careful case-study. However, as Fletcher himself identifies in several passages in the book, there appear to be important differences between regality courts across Scotland. His book therefore presents a powerful analysis of one regality court, against which the practice of other franchisal courts can be tested.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative Legal History\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"221 - 227\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative Legal History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2022.2131535\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative Legal History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2049677X.2022.2131535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Negotiating Mughal law: a family of landlords across three Indian empires
(218). Where such terms were preserved, Fletcher finds some interesting examples of enforcement, although he concludes that ‘[t]he main function of the regality court in relation to labour services was advertisement rather than the punishment of non-performing tenants’ (219). Given the tumultuous political history of the period, the fact that ‘the quasi military services of watching, warding, hosting, and hunting’ (221) are among the most notable duties on tenants is perhaps unsurprising. Fletcher’s conclusion, chapter nine, attempts to redeem heritable jurisdictions as being ‘a vibrant local legal culture’ (227) in contrast to their more damning popular image. Attendance at court enabled the social elite to have ‘an active role in a local legal, political, and economic jurisdiction’, while the courts also ‘offered legal protections for all members of rural society’ (227). Interestingly, both the court’s territorial limit and its competence speak to ‘a relaxed or pragmatic attitude to jurisdiction amongst landowners, far removed from the precision we often expect from the legal system’ (229). Potentially this also suggests that ‘the theoretical powers of jurisdiction holders mattered less in practice than the local circumstances which shaped procedures in each jurisdiction’ (230). Fletcher’s book concludes with the abolition of heritable jurisdictions in 1747, after which aspects of the regality court’s jurisdiction was absorbed by other local courts and office holders. Overall, Fletcher has in this book presented the results of a highly detailed study of the court records which adds to our understanding of both legal and social history. He often provides a more nuanced interpretation of jurisdictional questions than has previously been achieved, thereby increasing the subtlety of our understanding through careful case-study. However, as Fletcher himself identifies in several passages in the book, there appear to be important differences between regality courts across Scotland. His book therefore presents a powerful analysis of one regality court, against which the practice of other franchisal courts can be tested.
期刊介绍:
Comparative Legal History is an international and comparative review of law and history. Articles will explore both ''internal'' legal history (doctrinal and disciplinary developments in the law) and ''external'' legal history (legal ideas and institutions in wider contexts). Rooted in the complexity of the various Western legal traditions worldwide, the journal will also investigate other laws and customs from around the globe. Comparisons may be either temporal or geographical and both legal and other law-like normative traditions will be considered. Scholarship on comparative and trans-national historiography, including trans-disciplinary approaches, is particularly welcome.