Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Is the law really from 1743? I mean, it can make sense, but I would find it interesting if the law was really that old



1628, at least, and, with some help from Samuel Johnson,

> In 1738 the Commons fought back, declaring that it was a "high indignity and a notorious breach of privilege" to report what was said in the Chamber, even when it was in recess. [0]

[0] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp...


They have laws going back over 700 years:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Marlborough

“The chapters currently valid are c.1, c.4, and c.15 (often referred to as the Distress Act 1267),[10] which seek to govern the recovery of damages ("distresses") and make it illegal to obtain recompense for damages other than through the courts, and c.23 (the Waste Act 1267),[11] which seeks to prevent tenant farmers from "making waste" to land they are in tenancy of.”


British democracy is brilliant, moronic, childish and wise: Many laws are indeed that old


No I pulled that one out of my ass but surprisingly wasn’t that far off.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: