<span> “</span>And thereupon the said lords spiritual
and temporal and commons . . . do . . . declare that the pretended power of
suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent
of parliament is illegal.
That levying money for
or to the use of the crown . . . without grant of parliament for longer time or
in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is illegal.
That it is the right of
the subjects to petition the king and all commitments and protections for such
petitioning are illegal.
That the raising or
keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace unless it be with
consent of parliament is against law. . . .
That election of
members of parliament ought to be free. . . .”
<span>The current thinking is around 200,000 years ago, but I would argue against this by saying that humans had not yet developed the same mental capacity that we have today, as some cognitive ability would have been needed in making art, which of course seems to have appeared around 70,000 years ago in its geometric form, where as the figurative animal paintings and carvings came to be around 40-35 thousand years ago. So, humans were physically definitely modern around 200ka, but mentally, this is unlikely. It is of course possible to argue that behavioural changes need not to be dictated by physiological or cognitive changes. Art could just be an invention</span>
The became engines because when ever the Europeans crossed ocean they wanted more land and started pushing native turfs and destroying the recourses but also not all hated Europeans
Most if then where for slavery but a few where against it
