affairs, particularly the imputed murder of the people's favourite, the Duke of Gloucester, provoked an attack upon her own creature, the Duke of Suffolk. In Suffolk's case the commons seem to have proceeded by bill of attainder. The folInstances of lowing are some of the most important instances of impeachment:— (a) JAMES I. important impeach ments. Mompesson. Mompesson, the holder of a patent obnoxious to the commons. Bacon. Earl of Lord Chancellor Bacon, for taking bribes. The Earl of Middlesex, lord treasurer, for systematic bribery. (b) CHARLES I. Buckingham Buckingham and Strafford, the latter for his and Strafford. Clarendon. Danby. conduct in Ireland. (c) CHARLES II. Clarendon, for maintaining a standing army, imprisoning beyond seas and other illegal acts. Danby. The impeachment of Earl Danby, who was Prime Minister under Charles II., took place in the year 1678, and requires more than a passing notice, as several important points arose at the trial. (1) The commons moved that the earl should be committed to the Tower, but the motion was negatived by the lords by a large majority. The refusal to commit on a charge of treason had created a dispute between the two houses in the instance of Lord Clarendon. In any future case it ought to be open to debate whether articles of impeachment pretending to contain a charge of high treason do substantially set forth overt acts of such a crime; and if the House of Lords shall be of opinion, either by consulting the judges or otherwise, that no treason is specially alleged, they shall, notwithstanding any technical words, treat the offence as a misdemeanour, and admit the prisoner to bail. (2) Two other points upon which there was much discussion were, whether the king could pardon upon a parliamentary impeachment, and whether the bishops had any right to vote on the question. With respect to the bishops it was decided that the lords spiritual had a right to sit and vote in parliament in capital cases until judgment had to be pronounced, and that they should then retire. With regard to the first and more important question, though it might be admitted that long usage had established the royal prerogative of granting pardons under the great seal, yet it could not be inferred that it extended to cases of impeachment. In ordinary criminal proceedings by indictment the crown prosecutes, the suit is in Fitzharris. the name of the sovereign who can at any time stay process by entering a noll. pros. ; and to pardon before or after judgment is clearly a branch of the royal prerogative, and is a great constitutional trust to be exercised at the discretion of the crown. On the other hand, when an accusation of felony is brought by the injured party or his next of blood, a proceeding wherein the king's name does not appear, it is undoubted that he cannot remit the capital sentence. The same principle seemed applicable to an impeachment at the suit of the commons of England. Though this question remained in suspense and was not settled in Danby's case, it was finally decided by the legislature in the Act of Settlement, which provides that no pardon under the great seal shall be pleadable to an impeachment by the commons in parliament. The right of the crown to grant a pardon after sentence seems to be admitted. (3) The third question which arose was whether the commons could continue an impeachment from one parliament to another. This was settled in the affirmative at the trial of Warren Hastings in 1791. Fitzharris. This impeachment gave rise to an important question concerning our law. The commons im peached Fitzharris for high treason, but the lords voted that he should be proceeded against at the common law. As a precedent for their refusal they had the protest of the lords in the case of Sir Simon de Bereford in the reign of Edward III., against hearing an impeachment against anyone not of their own order. On the other hand, there were several precedents in the reign of Richard II. of such impeachments for treason, and there had been more than one under Charles I. The point was not decided in this case, but after the Revolution, the commons having impeached Sir Adam Blair and some others for high treason, a committee was appointed to search for precedents on this subject; and, after full deliberation, the House of Lords came to the resolution that they would proceed on the impeachments. PART II. Privileges of Parliament and its later History. Freedom from Arrest-Summary of Cases-Freedom of Speech -Summary of Cases-Money Bills-Disputed ElectionsPunishing Members-Appropriation of Supplies - Commission of Public Accounts-Qualification of Electors7 Hen. IV. c. 15—8 Hen. VI.—First Disfranchising Statute on record-Growing Importance of the House of Commons -Members Paid up to Henry VIII.'s Reign-Number of the House, temp. Edward I. - Creation of Boroughs, temp. Edward VI.-Temp. Mary-Temp. Elizabeth-Newark last instance of Borough created by Royal Charter-In whom the Elective Franchise in Ancient Boroughs was vested Privilege of parliament. Freedom from arrest. Theories on the Subject-Number of Members composing the House of Lords-Judicial Power of the House of Lords -Skinner's Case-House of Lords establish their Right to Freedom from Arrest, temp. Charles I.-The Earl of Arundel's Case-Refusal of a Writ of Summons to the Earl of Bristol-Voting by Proxy-Recording Dissent in Journals of the House-Attempt to limit the Number of Peers-Constant additions to the House-Representative Peers of Scotland-Representative Peers of Ireland-Permission given to Irish Peers to sit in the House of Commons -Peerages of the United Kingdom-Summary of Creations -Antiquity of Peerage-Changes in the Composition of the Peerage-Its Representative Character-Extension of the Representative Principle-Disproportion between the Representative and Hereditary Peers Scottish Peers created Peers of Great Britain-Their Right to sit denied -Rights admitted-Present Position of Scottish Peerage— Fusion of the Peerages of the Three Kingdoms - Hereditary Character of Peerage-Reform Bill of 1832-Reform Bill of 1867-The Ballot Act-Table of Privileges of Parliament -Grenville's Act-Sir R. Peel's Act-The Act of 1868Government by Party-Publication of Debates. PRIVILEGE of parliament, an extensive and singular branch of our constitutional law, begins to attract attention under our Lancastrian princes. Probably one considerable immunity, namely, freedom from arrest for persons transacting the king's business in his national councils, was much older. But in those rude times members of parliament were not always respected by the officers executing legal process, and still less by the violators of the law. After several remonstrances, which the crown had evaded, the commons obtained the statute 11 Hen. VI. for the punishment of such as assault any members on their way to |