Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-7lvjp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:55:08.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Procedure in the House of Lords During the Early Stuart Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Elizabeth Read Foster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On June 4, 1610, in an unusual joint session of Parliament, Henry, eldest son of James I, was created Prince of Wales. The King and lords, magnificent in medieval splendor, gathered in the ancient room of old Westminster Palace, known as the White Hall. The Lords' chamber, used at other times, would not suffice; for on this occasion, the commons, instead of standing crowded behind the bar, as they did at the opening and closing of Parliament, sat in seats especially provided, their Speaker and clerk with them. Observers noted that burgesses, fine in gold lace and velvet, were no less splendid than the lords. Special guests, noblemen's little sons, ambassadors who had jockeyed for the most honorable places, the Princess Elizabeth, and Charles, Duke of York, also gathered to honor the occasion — one of the great moments in James's reign. For all the King's shortcomings, already apparent, he brought one gift to the English people, which a far greater monarch, Elizabeth, had never bestowed: a safe succession, the Prince who would secure their realm from civil strife.

It was altogether fitting, the Earl of Salisbury had explained to the commons, that the Prince should be created in Parliament. So the most fortunate of medieval princes had been proclaimed. Others came to an evil end. Alas for these joyous predictions. Salisbury's own death in April 1612 saved him from the bitter knowledge that Henry would die a few months later in November, to be succeeded as heir by his younger brother, Charles.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , May 1966 , pp. 56 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The principal manuscript accounts of Parliament in 1610 are printed in Foster, Elizabeth Read (ed.), Proceedings in Parliament 1610 (New Haven, 1966)Google Scholar. The fullest report of the creation of the Prince is in the Earl of Huntingdon's journal. ibid., I, 95-97.

2. Salisbury spoke at a conference with the Commons on Feb. 15, 1610. There are many versions of his speech. See ibid., II, 9-27. The passage concerning creation of princes of Wales is in pp. 12-14.

3. Willson, David Harris (ed.), The Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer 1606-1607 (Minneapolis, 1931), p. 233Google Scholar. See also Elsyng, Henry, The Manner of Holding Parliaments in England (London, 1762), pp. 101–04Google Scholar. Probably Elsyng was using some of his uncle Bowyer's material on this point, as he did elsewhere. See ibid., p. 92.

4. Firth, Charles Harding, The House of Lords During the Civil War (London and New York, 1910)Google Scholar; Turberville, A. S., The House of Lords in the Reign of William III (Oxford, 1913)Google Scholar, and The House of Lords in the XVIIIth Century (Oxford, 1927)Google Scholar; Pike, Luke Owen, A Constitutional History of the House of Lords (London, 1894)Google Scholar; SirMay, Thomas Erskine, A Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (13th ed.; London, 1924)Google Scholar; Relf, Frances Helen (ed.), Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords Officially Taken by Robert Bowyer and Henry Elsing, Clerks of the Parliaments, A.D. 1621, 1625, 1628 [Camden Society; third series, XLII] (London, 1929)Google Scholar. See also Selden, John, The Priviledges of the Baronage of England, When They Sit in Parliament (London, 1642)Google Scholar; Lord Chief JusticeHale, , The jurisdiction of the Lords House of Parliament, ed. Hargrave, Francis (London, 1796)Google Scholar. I am now working on a full study of procedure in the upper House during the seventeenth century.

5. Gardiner, S. R. (ed.), Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords, Officially Taken by Henry Elsing … A.D. 1621 [Camden Society; first series, CIII] (London, 1870)Google Scholar, and Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords, Officially Taken by Henry Elsing … A.D. 1624 and 1626 [Camden Society; second series, XXIV] (London, 1879)Google Scholar; Relf, Notes of Debates in the House of Lords, 1621-28.

6. Bowyer's “scribbled book” for Feb.-May 1610 and some later fragments for the same Parliament are printed in Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 177–255Google Scholar. Bits of his “scribbled book” for 1614 are in manuscript at the Inner Temple Library, Petyt 537/8. For Bowyer's Commons diary, see Willson, Bowyer.

7. For Montagu, see H.M.C., MSS of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry (London, 1926), III, 222-25, 228-53, 265-304, 326-42, 386–414Google Scholar. Montagus notes and “separates” as a member of the House of Commons in 1604 and 1607 are published in the same volume. For Huntingdon's notes, see H.M.C., Hastings MSS (London, 1947), IV, 230–86Google Scholar; de Villiers, Lady (ed.), The Hastings Journal of the Parliament of 1621 [Camden Society; third series, LXXXIII] (London, 1953)Google Scholar.

8. If not summoned as a peer, the lord chancellor came ex officio. Pike, , Constitutional History, pp. 353–54Google Scholar. When there was no chancellor, the lord keeper presided. For the standing orders concerning the presiding officer, see H.M.C., Lords MSS 1712-1714, new series (London, 1953), X, 1Google Scholar. For some examples of Ellesmere's role, see Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 104, 113, 115, 129, 166, 167, 169, 177, 179, 180, 182-83, 185, 186, 191, 192, 193, 197, 204, 205, 207-08, 210, 211, 214-15, 237Google Scholar. In 1614, however, when Lord Rich raised a question concerning procedure, the Chancellor, replied, “My Lords, you may do what you will therefore determine as you please.” H.M.C., Hastings MSS, IV, 244Google Scholar. During this same Parliament, Ellesmere seems deliberately to have mistaken the intentions of the House in summing up debate of a committee of the whole House. Ibid., IV, 251-55.

9. Firth, , House of Lords During the Civil War, pp. 1–27Google Scholar; Turberville, , House of Lords in the Reign of William III, pp. 1–3Google Scholar.

10. Elsyng, , Manner of Holding Parliaments, p. 3Google Scholar.

11 The point was raised in 1610 (see Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 136–37Google Scholar) and also in 1621 (de Villiers, , Hastings Journal of 1621, p. 10Google Scholar). Selden, Priviledges of Baronage, pp. 154–55Google Scholar; Pike, , Constitutional History, pp. 164–65Google Scholar. See also, Selden, John, Of the Judicature in Parliaments (London, 1681), p. 4Google Scholar: in time of Parliament, spiritual lords may have trial by peers, at other times not.

12. For Bancroft's speech, see Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, II, 78–79.Google Scholar For Neile, see H.M.C., Hastings MSS, IV, 268 ff.Google Scholar; Moir, Thomas L., The Addled Parliament of 1614 (Oxford, 1958), pp. 117–33Google Scholar.

13. [Neville, Henry], Plato Redivivus, or a Dialogue concerning Government (2nd ed.; London, 1681), p. 142Google Scholar.

14. For some examples, see Willson, David Harris, The Privy Councillors in the House of Commons, 1604-1629 (Minneapolis, 1940), pp. 71, 73n, 75, 76, 77n, 79, 81Google Scholar. For the Elizabethan period, see Neale, J. E., The Elizabethan House of Commons (New Haven, 1950), passimGoogle Scholar. When the History of Parliament Trust has completed its volumes for the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there will be much more evidence on this point. Members of the House of Commons were concerned that pressure from above might limit freedom of election to the lower House; see the speech of Sir Edwin Sandys in 1614 in Journals of the House of Commons, I, 457.Google Scholar There are some undated notes to the same effect in BM, Add. MSS, 48102, fol. 109v: “Necessity of freedom in the elections … The voices of the lower House will be at the disposition of the upper whereby they shall have a power to dispose of such laws as they shall propose or may at their pleasure weaken or overthrow the liberties of the lower House.”

15. Aiken, William Appleton and Henning, Basil D. (eds.), Conflict in Stuart England (New York, 1960), pp. 60–62Google Scholar. Lords when originally called to the great feudal council were presumed to represent their tenants, a role abandoned when the commons were directed to elect their own representatives. Reports from the Lords Committee Touching the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm ([London], 1829), IIGoogle Scholar, Third Report, 19.

16. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 237.Google Scholar See also ibid., II, 40; Selden, John, Table Talk (London, 1906), ch. xxiiiGoogle Scholar.

17. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 92–93;Google Scholar II, 122-23. In 1621, on the other hand, Edward Alford objected to a conference with the lords, because “the young lawyers, members of this House, should be put to debate with learned judges there, and with the King's Attorney, who are no members of that House, but only assistants there.” Thompson, Faith, A Short History of Parliament (Minneapolis, 1953), p. 213Google Scholar.

18. de Villiers, , Hastings journal of 1621, p. vi.Google Scholar

19. Elsyng, , Manner of Holding Parliaments, p. 4Google Scholar.

20. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 56-60, 63-65, 199-204, 212–14Google Scholar.

21. Inner Temple, Petyt 537/8, fol. 285v; H.M.C., Hastings MSS, IV, 251–57Google Scholar; de Villiers, , Hastings Journal of 1621, p. 21 and nGoogle Scholar.

22. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 219;Google ScholarH.M.C., Hastings MSS, IV, 251Google Scholar.

23. In 1610, for instance, consideration of a bill for the King's safety was postponed because the judges were out on circuit. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 151, 250.Google Scholar For the Commons, see ibid., I, 154.

24. Elsyng, , Manner of Holding Parliaments, pp. 106–12Google Scholar. Milles, Thomas, The Catalogue of Honor (London, 1610), Bk. I, p. 67Google Scholar. King's counsel sat on the outside of the woolsacks, facing the earls. Inner Temple, Petyt 537/8, fol. 275v.

25. These days were marked “Convocation Day,” “Star Chamber Day,” in the Earl of Huntingdon's journal. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 3–173, passimGoogle Scholar; Elsyng, de Villiers, Hastings Journal of 1621, p. 8Google Scholar and n; Manner of Holding Parliaments, p. 118Google Scholar.

26. Pike, , Constitutional History, pp. 243–44Google Scholar; Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 208;Google ScholarH.M.C., Lords MSS, X, 8Google Scholar; Journals of the House of Lords, II, 401.Google Scholar

27. Inner Temple, Petyt 537/6, fols. 3, 111, 188.

28. Elsyng, , Manner of Holding Parliaments, pp. 119–36Google Scholar. Proxies are entered in the Lords Journal at the beginning of the session. See Lords Journals, II, 548Google Scholar, for example. For the standing order concerning proxies, see H.M.C., Lords MSS, X, 8Google Scholar. Vernon F. Snow has undertaken an important study of the whole question of proxies. See Snow, Vernon F., “The Evolution of Proctorial Representation in Medieval England,” American Journal of Legal History, VII (1963), 319–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Proxy Politics in the Early Stuart House of Lords,” to be published shortly; “The Arundel Case, 1626,” The Historian, XXVI (1964), 323–49Google Scholar.

29. For pictures of the House of Lords, see “Handlist of Paintings, Drawings and Engravings, etc., of the House of Lords and the House of Commons 1523-1900,” House of Lords Record Office Memorandum #26. “… every bishop's gown was made of scarlet cloth, made after the fashion of barons, and hoods of the same, lined with miniver, and hanging down behind them … Here were places fit for dukes: all whose parliament robes (a thing worth the noting) differed nothing from the barons, but that they wore the gardes upon their shoulders, three or four fold. For although all dukes, marquesses, and earls, in their creations are attired with garments of silk and velvet, which are called robes or garments of honor: yet in parliaments they use the same as barons do, made of scarlet, with certain differences of white fur, set as fringes or edgings on their shoulders: for that there they all sit by reason of their baronies, and according to their dignity take their places.” This account is from a description of the opening of Parliament in 1584 printed in Milles, , Catalogue of Honor, Bk. I, pp. 65–66Google Scholar. The judges also wore scarlet. See H.M.C., Hastings MSS, IV, 280Google Scholar.

30. Concerning voting, Bowyer wrote: “Content stand up bare. Not content set still covered. Hereupon one lord of each side did count them.” Inner Temple, May 23, 1614, Petyt 537/8, fol. 285v. See also Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 196.Google Scholar The standing orders, which date from 1621, state, “At votes the lowest, after the question is put by my Lord Chancellor, begins first, and every man in his turn rises uncovered, and only says, content, or, not content.” H.M.C., Lords MSS, X, 2Google Scholar. The earliest mention of a division in the Lords seems to be in 1691, though the House of Commons had developed the practice much earlier. ibid., X, xlv. In 1621 Montagu, Lord wrote, “In the report of that bill I noted this order of the House; that when a bill is reported from committee, all the Lords' committees stand up bare.” H.M.C., Buccleuch MSS, III, 222Google Scholar.

31. Statutes of the Realm (London, 1810–1828), I, 170Google Scholar and n: 7 Edward II (sometimes attributed to Edward I); see also Whitelocke, Bulstrode, Notes upon the King's Writ (London, 1766), II, 40–41Google Scholar (a reference I owe to Caroline Robbins). In 1621 the Earl of Southampton was questioned on this point: “Whether he had heard no motion made to wear swords in the upper House? Answer. Never: but he and others did observe, that swords were still worn there; and, when he saw everyone else do so, he did so too.” Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons in 1620 and 1621 (Oxford, 1766), IIGoogle Scholar, Appendix. See also de Villiers, , Hastings Journal of 1621, p. 19.Google Scholar

32. H.M.C., Lords MSS, X, 1–2Google Scholar.

33. Both terms were used in the seventeenth century. See Bond, Maurice F., “Clerks of the Parliaments, 1509-1953,” E.H.R., LXXIII (1958), 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the Tudor period the clerk wore ordinary clothes; but by the end of the sixteenth century he had assumed the costume of a barrister. Later in the seventeenth century he also wore the barrister's wig. House of Lords Record Office Memorandum # 32, p. 8.

34. Bond, Maurice F., “The Formation of the Archives of Parliament, 1497-1691,” Journal of the Society of Archivists, I (1957), 153–55Google Scholar. In May 1628 the clerk dropped the custom of checking off lords present, a fact which Jessie Stoddart drew to my attention. See Lords Journals, III, 781 ff.Google Scholar He began again in the next session, Jan. 1629, and continued to mark p. before the names of those present through May 5, 1640. Thereafter the lists of lords cease until Sep. 1643. At that time the clerk entered the names of those who actually attended, rather than the full list of those eligible. ibid., VI, 229.

35. ibid., II, 660-62, 625-28, 621-22.

36. Rogers, James E. Thorold (ed.), A Complete Collection of the Protests of the Lords with Historical Introductions (Oxford, 1875), I, 5–6Google Scholar. Pike traces the custom of “protesting with reasons” back to the reign of Edward III. Pike, , Constitutional History, pp. 245–46Google Scholar.

37. For a full discussion of the Journal of the House of Lords in 1610, see Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, xxi, xxvi-xxviiGoogle Scholar.

38. Bond, , “Formation of the Archives of Parliament,” Journal of the Society of Archivists, I, 154Google Scholar. A similar committee was not appointed in the Commons until 1607, when supervision was entrusted to the committee for privileges. Willson, , Bowyer, p. 344Google Scholar; Commons Journals, I, 385.Google Scholar

39. Pike, , Constitutional History, pp. 238, 240, 124–28Google Scholar; Elsyng, , Manner of Holding Parliaments, pp. 96–97Google Scholar; Lords Journals, II, 349-50, 362, 474, 549Google Scholar; Bond, , “Formation of the Archives of Parliament,” Journal of the Society of Archivists, I, 154–55Google Scholar. See also Hakewil, W[illiam], The Manner How Statutes Are Enacted in Parliament by Passing of Bills (London, 1659)Google Scholar, Preface.

40. Bond, , “Formation of the Archives of Parliament,” Journal of the Society of Archivists, I, 155Google Scholar; Inner Temple, Petyt 537/6, fol. 168.

41. Lords Journals, II, 267, 269, 385, 392.Google Scholar Bowyer tried in vain to reclaim bills in Bancroft's possession at the time of his death in 1610. Yale University, Collection of James M. Osborn, Braye MSS, “Miscellaneous”; House of Lords Record Office, Main Papers, H.L. 18 Oct., 1610.

42. Bond, , “Formation of the Archives of Parliament,” Journal of the Society of Archivists, I, 156Google Scholar. See also Hakewill, Manner How Statutes Are Enacted in Parliament, Preface.

43. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 231.Google Scholar

44. de Villiers, , Hastings Journal of 1621, p. 8.Google Scholar

45. Firth, , House of Lords During the Civil War, p. 39Google Scholar.

46. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 241.Google Scholar

47. ibid., I, 285.

48. House of Lords Record Office, Braye 62.

49. H.M.C., Lords MSS, X, 2Google Scholar. Bowyer observed: “Note it often happeneth that a bill is upon the second reading so well liked both for matter and form that it is ordered to be engrossed, and held needless to commit it, in which case it is not-withstanding free for any member of the House to speak against the bill at the third reading, and sometimes it falleth out that such bill at the 3 reading is dashed, by reason of some defect which might have been reformed if the bill at the 2d reading had been committed, and so the bill overthrown by the too earnest affection of the favorers speedily to pass it.” Inner Temple, Petyt 538/10, fol. 201v.

50. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 149.Google Scholar

51. See Lords Journals, II, 276, 315, 329, 372, 399, 400,Google Scholar for example. For the terra “first committee,” see House of Lords Record Office, Braye 61, fol. 26. By 1626 committees were allowed more leeway in making their own arrangements.

52. Lords journals, II, 385, 392.Google Scholar

53. House of Lords Record Office, Braye 61, fol. 16; H.M.C., Lords MSS, X, xlv; H.M.C., Buccleuch MSS, III, 222, 230Google Scholar.

54. Lords Journals, II, 360-61, 368, 407.Google Scholar When necessary, counsel was also heard in public bills. ibid., II, 276, 283, 320, 336.

55. ibid., II, 334, 396, 405, 598-99; House of Lords Record Office, Main Papers, H.L. 20 May, 1610. Similarly clothmakers, vintners, and plasterers were called. Lords Journals, II, 295, 410.Google Scholar

56. For examples, see Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 122, 137, 140, 193.Google Scholar

57. ibid., I, 236-37.

58. In 1606, a select committee of forty nine was named. “Agreed likewise that if any other lords of the benches desire to come to this committee, they may come accordingly, and have voice at the said committee.” Lords Journals, II, 413Google Scholar. In 1604, on a day when sixty lords were present in the House, a “great” committee of forty five had been named, with eight assistants. ibid., II, 277-78. For “great committees” in the House of Commons, see Neale, , Elizabethan House of Commons, pp. 377–79Google Scholar.

59. Lords Journals, II, 456–57Google Scholar. “To have more freedom of speech and that arguments may be used (pro and contra) committees are appointed … either of the whole House, or of particulars.” H.M.C., Lords MSS, X, 3Google Scholar.

60. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 253, 229-35, 199–205, 177nGoogle Scholar; II, 362-63; H.M.C., Lords MSS, X, 3Google Scholar.

61. Neale, , Elizabethan House of Commons, pp. 377-79, 382Google Scholar; Notestein, Wallace, “The Winning of the Initiative by the House of Commons,” Proceedings of the British Academy, XI (1924), 37Google Scholar.

62. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, II, 320.Google Scholar

63. Commons Journals, I, 326, 370, 371, 377, 378, 387–88Google Scholar.

64. de Villiers, , Hastings Journal of 1621, p. vi.Google Scholar

65. For some examples, see Lords Journals, II, 275, 279, 291, 586–88Google Scholar; Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 187.Google Scholar For Bancroft's case, see ibid., I, 236. Similarly Lord Scrope was reprimanded for not reporting that the Earl of Berkshire had jostled him, also an offense against the House, de Villiers, , Hastings Journal of 1621, p. 20.Google Scholar

66. Elsyng, , Manner of Holding Parliaments, pp. 192–242Google Scholar. See also Snow, , “The Arundel Case, 1626,” The Historian, XXVIGoogle Scholar. Except in certain cases, arrest of peers during time of Parliament was against the privilege of the House. H.M.C., Lords MSS, X, 9Google Scholar.

67. H.M.C., Hastings MSS, IV, 257Google Scholar. This was also true in the lower House.

68. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 248–49Google Scholar.

69. Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons in 1620 and 1621, II, Appendix. In May the King had said in the House, “but for your privileges you have them and your honor from me, though I can take no notice of what you say yet being a record I may.” de Villiers, , Hastings Journal of 1621, p. 34.Google Scholar

70. Firth, , House of Lords During the Civil War, pp. 45–47Google Scholar. Bristol and the Lords recognized that the King's charge of high treason could invalidate Bristol's testimony. Lords Journals, III, 576, 578.Google Scholar

71. H.M.C., Hastings MSS, IV, 271.Google Scholar

72. H.M.C., Lords MSS, X, 4.Google Scholar

73. Commons Journals, I, 154;Google ScholarFoster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, II, 134;Google Scholar see also H.M.C., Lords MSS, X, 4–5.Google Scholar

74. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, II, 122–23Google Scholar; Willson, , Privy Councillors in the House of Commons, pp. 124-25, 225–36Google Scholar; Willson, , Bowyer, pp. 234–35Google Scholar; BM, Cotton MSS, Titus F.IV, fol. 97v.

75. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 15, 91;Google ScholarH.M.C., Hastings MSS, IV, 258.Google Scholar

76. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, II, 133–34.Google Scholar

77. Proceedings and Debates of the House oi Commons in 1620 and 1621, II, Appendix. In 1610 Salisbury asked the Lords to keep information secret from the Commons. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 145.Google Scholar

78. Milles, , Catalogue of Honor, Bk. I, p. 67Google Scholar.

79. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, I, 14;Google ScholarH.M.C., Lords MSS, X, 12.Google Scholar

80. Willson, Privy Councillors in the House of Commons, passim. Nicholas Fuller complained that the Lords defeated important legislation. Foster, , Proceedings in Parliament 1610, II, 409–10Google Scholar. Lords could also complain of the Commons, who had rejected ecclesiastical bills drawn up by Bancroft and the bishops. Ibid., I, 221-22; Usher, Roland G., The Reconstruction of the English Church (New York and London, 1910), II, 331-35, 352–53.Google Scholar

81. Firth, House of Lords During the Civil War, ch. ii, passim. Newton, A. P., The Colonising Activities of ihe English Puritans (New Haven, 1914), pp. 42, 46, 59-79, 83-84, 240–47, ch. viiGoogle Scholar, passim. Hexter, J. H., The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1941), pp. 77–88.Google Scholar

82. “… as we are the right hand, the lower House the left, so must not we forget the King that is the head of the commonwealth” (1614). H.M.C., Hastings MSS, IV, 254.Google Scholar