Context and question: When the act is assented to by the sovereign in person, or by empowered Royal Commissioners, royal assent is considered given at the moment when the assent is declared in the presence of both houses jointly assembled. When the procedure created by the Royal Assent Act 1967 is followed, assent is considered granted when the presiding officers of both houses, having received the letters patent from the king or queen signifying the assent, have notified their respective house of the grant of royal assent. Thus, if each presiding officer makes the announcement at a different time (for instance because one house is not sitting on a certain date), assent is regarded as effective when the second announcement is made. This is important because, under British Law, unless there is any provision to the contrary, an act takes effect on the date on which it receives royal assent and that date is not regarded as being the date when the letters patent are signed, or when they are delivered to the presiding officers of each house, but the date on which both houses have been formally acquainted of the assent.
An assent is considered granted when applying the Royal Assent Act 1967 when both presiding officers have done what?
Answer: notified their respective house of the grant of royal assent
Context and question: The Slavic autonym is reconstructed in Proto-Slavic as *Slověninъ, plural *Slověne. The oldest documents written in Old Church Slavonic and dating from the 9th century attest Словѣне Slověne to describe the Slavs. Other early Slavic attestations include Old East Slavic Словѣнѣ Slověně for "an East Slavic group near Novgorod." However, the earliest written references to the Slavs under this name are in other languages. In the 6th century AD Procopius, writing in Byzantine Greek, refers to the Σκλάβοι Sklaboi, Σκλαβηνοί Sklabēnoi, Σκλαυηνοί Sklauenoi, Σθλαβηνοί Sthlabenoi, or Σκλαβῖνοι Sklabinoi, while his contemporary Jordanes refers to the Sclaveni in Latin.
When did Procopius write in Latin about the Sclaveni?
Answer: unanswerable
Context and question: Soon after the passing of the 1931 Act, in the book published on the occasion of the Institute's centenary celebration in 1934, Harry Barnes, FRIBA, Chairman of the Registration Committee, mentioned that ARCUK could not be a rival of any architectural association, least of all the RIBA, given the way ARCUK was constituted. Barnes commented that the Act's purpose was not protecting the architectural profession, and that the legitimate interests of the profession were best served by the (then) architectural associations in which some 80 per cent of those practising architecture were to be found.
Who did Barnes believe was best able to advance the interests of architects?
Answer:
architectural associations