Humanities desk
< October 9	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 10[edit]

Why were the jury boxes made too small?[edit]

Why were the jury boxes in the Queen's Building at the Royal Courts of Justice built too small? DuncanHill (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion in our article is unsourced. I did some Googling and found that in times gone by "a jury-box was too often measured out to give the smallest possible space into which twelve men could be squeezed." It could just be that modern fatties can't fit. But that's speculation. Without a good source, we should remove it. I'm pretty sure they've had juries in the jury box at the Royal Courts of Justice. This source seems to support both assertions I've made. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it's because fatties are untrustworthy and nonconforming? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to our articles, when they started building the Royal Courts of Justice in 1873, Seattle's population was 1,000. Astonishing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I bet those 1,000 weren't so fat in 1873. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

spat my coffee. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough to get one all quite flustered. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not much of a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales very rarely sits with a jury and the Court of Appeal of England and Wales never does. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the question because our article says "The next new building was the Queen's Building, opened in 1968, providing a further 12 courts. This building also contains cells in the basement. It was intended that these courts could be used for criminal matters; however, as the jury boxes can hold only 10 people they are not suitable for such use and are now primarily used for family proceedings." - So, I'm not asking for speculation or eve references about people being fat, I'm not asking for people to tell me that most civil cases don't have a jury, or that some civil cases do. I'm asking why, if the courts in the Queen's Building were intended for criminal cases, were the jury boxes built too small for a criminal jury? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who designed them, dwarves?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for our previous inept answers. A thorough Google search has found nothing except a tantalising "snippet view" from The Legal Executive, Volume 6 (1968) p. 187, part of a report on the opening of the building by the Queen on 1 October that year. It says (comparing it with the old building) "...in the equivalent cubic footage, twice the number of courts are fitted into the new building". So it may be that the architect was under pressure to squeeze in as many courts as possible into a finite space and thought it would be fine as long as everybody breathed in a bit. I wasn't able to find who the architect was, or even find conformation that the jury boxes are too small. The London Encyclopaedia (p. 717) says: "...a number of criminal trials are held in the Queen's Building". Alansplodge (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Brenda was too bothered (if she happened to have her tape-measure with her), as she is exempt from Jury Service. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda? Alansplodge (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, especially to Brian. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Duncan, I answered your question right at the top of the thread. We should remove the unsourced assertion from the article. There is evidence that jury boxes were traditionally built very small and there is evidence of juries sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice. I provided RS for each. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the claim now. The whole article is very poorly sourced. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, you didn't answer the question. You quite specifically didn't answer it. I did not ask "have juries ever sat at the RCJ". I did not ask "what size were jury boxes traditionally made". I asked about the jury boxes in one specific part of the RCJ, which were said to be intended for a specific type of jury trial, yet built too small for that. So thanks but no thanks. I'd rather you didn't bother "trying" to answer my questions if all you can come up with is irrelevancies followed by gaslighting.

Alansplodge, thanks for your efforts, they are appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did France's invasion of Algiers make it easier for King Charles X to get overthrown in 1830?[edit]

I heard speculation on another site that France's invasion of Algiers in 1830 made it easier for French King Charles X to get overthrown later that same year due to the fact that this caused a lot of French troops to be in North Africa rather than in France where they could have propped up Charles X's rule.

Anyway, is there any truth to this speculation? Specifically, would French King Charles X have been more likely to remain in power in 1830 had he not sent off a lot of French troops and sailors to Algiers earlier that year?

Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's unlikely. Charles X was massively unpopular and his régime was dysfunctional and getting more authoritarian by the day. He had some troops willing to fight, but not enough, but that's because there were not that many garrisoned around Paris (after all, this was supposed to be a popular régime based on a Charter, not an absolute monarchy, so why would it need to mass troops in the capital). The real problem was that the popular unrest escalated extremely rapidly, and by the time the king realized his throne was in danger, it was already too late. It took all of three days to upend the régime. See July Revolution. --Xuxl (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're suggesting that the French forces that were sent to Algiers were probably no more willing to fight to protect Charles X's throne than the French forces who remained in France were? Futurist110 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the Bourbon Restoration was not really a popular monarchy as the term is meant to be understood, the July Monarchy certainly was. The 1814-1830 Bourbon monarchy had the Charter of 1814, which was a fairly illiberal constitution, as constitutions go. The restoration was heavily influenced by the conservative Congress of Vienna and Klemens von Metternich. The 19th century Bourbon monarchy was a constitutional monarchy, only because it literally had a constitution, but one that granted sweeping powers to the monarch, and was highly reactionary. The reason the July revolution happened was largely as a liberal reaction to it; (ironically, an even more liberal revolution would overthrow it 18 years later). The Charter of 1830, which curtailed the King's power to initiate legislation, elimination of hereditary peerage, and guarantee of freedom of press was far more liberal. Regarding why Charles X was overthrown, as with most revolutions, the strength of the state military has little to do with the success or failure of a revolution; rather the relative support the state has with its people, its military, and its own ministers has MUCH more to do with that. Charles became massively unpopular fairly quickly because he was staunchly anti-French Revolution and Napoleon; back in 1814-1815, some aspects of the revolutionary period were kept around (like the Code Napoleon), and Louis XVIII took a position of rapprochement over retribution. His brother Charles was less conciliatory, quickly enacting unpopular legislation like the formal restoration granted to anyone who was an "enemy of the revolution", a symbolic act which made it clear that he opposed everything the Revolution had stood for. He also undermined what little civil rights the 1814 Constitution had guaranteed, especially with regards to religious freedom, and he introduced legislation to eliminate other freedoms, like freedom of the press and the like. His entire rule was basically an effort to re-establish absolutism to the Monarchy, and for that he was very unpopular, even among his own military. The Address of the 221 made it clear his own legislature would not support him, and without them he had no vehicle to rule. He dissolved parliament and issued the July Ordinances, which basically attempted to return France to the state it was in in the 1780s, and that was the last straw. Even without the military off on foreign excursions as in Algiers, it is unlikely he would have even had their support in the face of his highly unpopular actions. --Jayron 32 23:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent post, Jayron32! I already knew some of this stuff, but the various details here are new to me. Futurist110 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Among other controversial decisions, Charles X had disbanded the National Guard (due to anti-monarchist sentiments within the Guard), but allowed its members to keep their weapons. Several of the former Guardsmen were involved in the July Revolution, and the Guard's weapons were used to arm the rebels. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting! Futurist110 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...with the ADVICE and consent of the Senate"[edit]

The United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, talks of advice and consent. In practice, does the modern-day U.S. Senate have any "advice" role?

Like, if the President is tossing up between two or more candidates for a given position, does he ever send a request to the relevant Senate committee asking "which candidate would you be more supportive of"?

Or, in any other fashion, does the modern-day Senate EVER "advise" the President? Or has the "advice" bit fallen into disuse?

What about in earlier eras - did the Senate, in any fashion, ever tell the President "here's our advice for you"? Eliyohub (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In practice there are such consultations but it's informal (Senators from a state suggest candidates for e.g. federal judges from that state). More formally there's a blue slip#Senate procedure after the nominee is chosen. When the president and senate are from opposite parties there's more of a negotiation: both of Clinton's SCOTUS nominees (Breyer and Ginsberg) were run by (or maybe suggested by) Orrin Hatch before being nominated, and Reagan showed a list of possible nominees to Joe Biden and Biden said Anthony Kennedy could probably get confirmed, so Reagan nominated Kennedy. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of pages of La violence et le sacré[edit]

Hello, I'd like to know how many pages the original French edition of René Girard's Violence and the Sacred, published in 1972 as La violence et le sacré, has. More generally, it would be helpful if anyone could point out to me a way of finding information such as this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up on AbeBooks and specified that I wished to see the first edition. According to the book seller, there are 451 pages. Because it's a commercial site with content copy/pasted and user-generated, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard of a reliable source, but book buyers and sellers are notoriously finicky and AbeBooks has an excellent reputation for holding sellers accountable for their content (for example, if you browse other copies, you'll see specific notes if the cover is from the edition being sold or is stock). Matt Deres (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the book's entry in the Bibliothèque nationale de France's online catalogue. [1] It states that the book has 455 pages. --Xuxl (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, search on WorldCat, click "View all formats and languages" and find the edition you want. There may be multiple records because combining different libraries' catalogues is too fuzzy to fully automate. Some records give different page counts; the most trustworthy where available are those like "xliii, 343 pages" which give separate counts for a roman-numbered preface and the arabic-number main text. jnestorius^(talk)