No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
page ix note 1 Among the Stanford MSS. there is a thin folio book on procedure in the House of Lords. It could not have been written later than the sixteenforties for it refers to the presiding officer in the House as the Lord Keeper. It is obviously written after 1621. The section on “Proceedings in Judicature” is the best evidence we have on the position assumed by the Lords in that period.
“Proceedings in Judicature.
“The Accusation maye be by the Comons.
“By Informacion ex parte domini Regis.
“By Complaints of Private Persons.
“The Accusation of the Commons ought to be by the Commons alone, the Lords are not to joyne therein, for such hath ben adiudged erroneous.
“If the Commons exhibite no Articles in writing, nor by word of mouth by their Speaker at the barr, then it is only a Complaint, and the proceedings therein are left to the Lords and they cause it to be proceeded therein ex parte domini Regis: but in Capitall Cases, the Commons are to be acquainted with the Cause.
“The Informacion ex parte domini Regis is by the Kings Attorney and others of his majesties learned Counsell, ether in writing or by word of mouth.
“The Complaints of private persons is ever by Peticion or Articles in writinge.
“Answeres. In all Cases Capitall, the partie accused is to answere as a Prisoner, and in misdemeanours, anciently like a Freeman. Noe Councell allowd to the parties accused in Cases Capitall per legem terre. In Cases of misdemeanors they are to be allowed Counsell, and the answere maye be delivered in writinge, or by word of mouth, as he please; but in Cases Capitall by word of mouth only.
“Examinacions. Exam[inations] are to be taken by the Lords only, or such as they shall appointe. The Commons can examine none upon oath.
“Judgment. All Judgments in parlement belonge to the Lords, and the Commons Judge no man. In Cases of misdemeanour, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal are the Judges, but the Temporall Lords only in Cases Capitall. When the Lords debate what Judgment the partie accused deserves, the King is not present, nether in Cases Capitall nor misdemeanours. The Lords are to Judge according to the Lawe of the Lande. The Kings Fyne is to be named in their Judgments, and afterwards qualifyed upon the delinquents Peticion, if their Lordships see cause. In Judgments of misdemeanours, the Lords put on their roabes, and the Commons (if they be the accusors) are sent for, who come with their Speaker to the Barr, and the Lord Keeper doth openly pronounce the Sentence. Note that in Cases Capitall, no Judgment for death can be given untill his Majestie agree thereunto.
“Fynes. All fines at the ende of the parlement are extracted into the C[h]ancery, and from there into the Exchequer, and there Ievyed.“
page x note 1 The Jurisdiction of the Lords House of Parliament, considered according to antient records, by Lord Chief Justice Hale, to which is prefixed by the editor, Francis Hargrave, Esq., an Introductory Preface including a narrative of the same jurisdiction from the accession of James the First. London, 1796.
page x note 2 Ibid., p. v.
page xi note 1 Ibid., p. xiv.
page xi note 2 Ibid., p. xv.
page xii note 1 Baldwin, J. F., The King's Council in England during the Middle Ages (1913), pp. 326–43.Google Scholar
page xii note 2 Professor Pollard points out that the term “High Court of Parliament” was first used in the reign of Richard II when the House of Lords asserted its claim to have peers tried in parliament. The Evolution of Parliament (2nd Ed., 1926), p. 430.Google Scholar
page xiii note 1 Sir Edward Nicholas, Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons, 1620, 1621 (1766), 1:103.Google Scholar
page xiv note 1 Nicholas, 1:109.
page xiv note 2 L.J., 3:33.
page xiv note 3 Nicholas, 1:124.
page xv note 1 Harl., 7207, ff. 239–42.
page xv note 2 Barrington Diary, Bk. 2, f. 62V.
page xv note 3 Pym Diary, f. 115.
page xv note 4 C.J., 1:604.
page xv note 5 Nicholas, 1:375.
page xv note 6 Ibid., 371.
page xvi note 1 Nicholas, 1:371, 373.
page xvi note 2 Barrington, Bk. 3, f. 4.
page xvi note 3 Ibid., f. 6.
page xvii note 1 Ibid., f. 15.
page xvii note 2 Ibid., 4:4V.
page xvii note 3 Ibid., f. 6.
page xvii note 4 Nicholas, 2:21.
page xvii note 5 Harl., 7208, f. 59.
page xvii note 6 Cranfield. “But this will concern the Lords and I doubt not but that many members in this house have heard that we shall in likelyhood be opposed” Barrington, 3:13V.
page xviii note 1 Lords' Debates in 1621, p. 66.Google Scholar
page xviii note 2 “Mr. Noie. To have it putt in the forme of a Judicature and to be drawne presently, and not in the words of Question in it, but positively as Judgments are.” Barrington, 4:8.
page xviii note 3 Ibid., 3:28.
page xviii note 4 Lords' Debates in 1621, p. 67.Google Scholar
page xviii note 5 Nicholas, 2:57–58.
page xviii note 6 Hale, Jurisdiction of the Lords, etc., p. xix.Google Scholar
page xix note 1 C.J., 1:457.
page xix note 2 Nicholas, 1:75.
page xix note 3 Ibid., p. 89.
page xx note 1 L.J., 3:88.
page xx note 2 Ibid., pp. 101–102.
page xx note 3 Lords' Debates in 1621, p. 41.Google Scholar
page xx note 4 L.J., 3:102.
page xx note 5 Ibid., p. 131.
page xx note 6 Ibid., p. 141.
page xx note 7 Ibid., p. 151.
page xxi note 1 This list was made on or after December 10, 1621, and is to be found among the House of Lords manuscripts.
page xxi note 2 L.J., 3:157.
page xxi note 3 Ibid., p. 165.
page xxi note 4 Ibid., p. 174.
page xxi note 5 Ibid., pp. 157–58.
page xxi note 6 Ibid., p. 174.
page xxii note 1 L.J., 3:179.
page xxii note 2 For this debate see Lords' Debates in 1621, pp. 106–109.Google Scholar
page xxii note 3 L.J., 3:189.
page xxiii note 1 Hale, , Jurisdiction of the Lords, etc., p. xxvii.Google Scholar
page xxiii note 2 L.J., 3:179.
page xxiii note 3 Elsing's list referred to above, p. xxi, n. 1.
page xxiii note 4 L.J., 3:253.
page xxiii note 5 Ibid., p. 296.
page xxiv note 1 L.J., 3:296.
page xxiv note 2 Ibid., p. 303.
page xxiv note 3 Ibid., p. 363.
page xxiv note 4 Ibid., p. 413.
page xxiv note 5 Ibid., p. 415.
page xxv note 1 Ibid., p. 500.
page xxv note 2 Lords' Debates, 1624 and 1626, p. 113.Google Scholar
page xxv note 3 L.J., 3:509.
page xxv note 4 Ibid., p. 511.
page xxv note 5 Ibid., p. 513.
page xxvi note 1 L.J. 3:529–31.
page xxvi note 2 Ibid., pp. 532, 538.
page xxvi note 3 Ibid., p. 532.
page xxvi note 4 Ibid., pp. 532–33. Waterhouse vs. Ingram.
page xxvi note 5 Cope vs. Ewer. L.J., 3:546.
page xxvi note 6 Ibid., p. 630.
page xxvii note 1 Ibid., p. 537.
page xxvii note 2 Grigson vs. Everard.
page xxvii note 3 L.J., 3:680.
page xxvii note 4 Cf. L.J., 3:500, 689, 694.
page xxvii note 5 L.J., 3:700.
page xxviii note 1 See below, p. 77 n.
page xxviii note 2 See below, p. 66.
page xxviii note 3 L.J., 3:700.
page xxviii note 4 Ibid., p. 708.
page xxviii note 5 Ibid., p. 710.
page xxviii note 6 Ibid., p. 831.
page xxix note 1 “An Act for the reversing of a decree, made in the Court at Whitehall commonly called the Court of Requests, between John Edwards, the Elder, Esquire, complainant, and John Edwards the Younger ” L.J., 3:402.
page xxix note 2 Ibid., pp. 408, 414.
page xxix note 3 Ibid., p. 650.
page xxix note 4 Ibid., p. 778.
page xxix note 5 Ibid., p. 794.
page xxix note 6 Ibid., p. 824.
page xxix note 7 Ibid., p. 829.
page xxix note 8 See below, p. 209.
page xxix note 9 Bristol on April 22. See below, p. 130.
page xxix note 10 L.J., 4:20, 39.
page xxx note 1 See below, p. 72.
page xxx note 2 L.J., 3:833.
page xxx note 3 L.J., 4:20.
page xxxi note 1 See below, p. 98 n.
page xxxi note 2 See the statements made by Sir Edward Coke in the conferences between the two houses:
“The subject hath in this case sued for remedy in the King's Bench by Habeas Corpus, and found none: Therefore it is necessary to be cleared in Parliament.” L.J., 3:731.
“He put your Lordships in mind that you had the greatest cause in hand that ever came in the Hall of Westminster.” Ibid., p. 763.