our answer to the first objection, do prove the use of the Commons House to examine veritatem facti in elections and returns, and have not been tied peremptorily to allow the return ..

...

[April 5]. Mr Speaker, by a private commandment, attended the King this morning at 8 a clock and there stayed till 10 ... Mr Speaker bringeth message from his Majesty to this effect: ... His Majesty protested. . . he had as great a desire to maintain their privileges as ever any prince had, or as they themselves. He had seen and considered of the manner and the matter: he had heard his judges and his council; and that he was now distracted in judgment. Therefore, for his further satisfaction, he desired and commanded, as an absolute king, that there might be a conference between the House and the Judges; and that for that purpose there might be a select committee of grave and learned persons out of the House: that his council might be present, not as umpires to determine, but to report indifferently on both sides.

Upon this unexpected message there grew some amazement and silence. But at last one stood up and said, The prince's command is like a thunder-bolt; his command upon our allegiance like the roaring of a lion. To his command there is no contradiction; but how or in what manner we should now proceed to perform obedience, that will be the question. Another answered, Let us petition to his Majesty that he will be pleased to be present, to hear, moderate and judge the case himself. Whereupon Mr Speaker proceeded to this question: Q. Whether to confer with the judges in the presence of the King and council? Which was resolved in the affirmative, and a select committee presently named for the conference . . .

[April 11.] Upon adjournment . . . Sir Francis Bacon reporteth what had passed in conference in the presence of his Majesty and council. The King said... that our privileges were not in question: that it was private jealousies without any kernel or substance. He granted it was a court of record and a judge of returns. He moved, That neither Sir J. Fortescue nor Sir F. Goodwin might have place. Sir John losing place, his Majesty did meet us half-way..

Upon this report. . . the question was presently made;

Q. Whether Sir J. Fortescue and Sir F. Goodwin shall both be secluded, and a warrant for a new writ directed? And upon the question, resolved, That a writ should issue for a new choice; and a warrant directed accordingly.

[April 13]... The warrant for a new election of a knight for Bucks read and allowed in this form :

Whereas the Right Hon. Sir John Fortescue knight, Chancellor of his Majesty's Duchy of Lancaster, and Sir Francis Goodwin knight have been severally elected and returned knights of the shire for the county of Bucks, to serve in this present parliament: upon deliberate consultation, and for some special causes moving the Commons House of Parliament, it is this day ordered and required by the said House, That a writ be forthwith awarded for a new election of another knight for the said shire; and this shall be your warrant. Directed, To my very loving friend, Sir George Coppin knight, clerk of the crown in his Majesty's high court of Chancery.

Commons' Journals, I. pp. 149-171.

(b) Elections for Cardigan and Shrewsbury, 1604.

Die Veneris, viz. 13o die Aprilis, 1604. . . Mr Serjeant Snig maketh report of a case referred to the Committee for Returns and Privileges, viz. touching a difference in the election of a burgess for the town of Cardigan in Wales, and first reciteth the effect of the statutes directing the form of choosing a burgess for Parliament in every shire in Wales. [Portions of statutes 23 Hen. VI. 18, and 35 Hen. VIII. 26 are recited.]

The Case. Sir Richard Price knight, sheriff of the county of Cardigan, . . . after the receipt of the King's writ for the choice of a knight for the shire and burgess for the town of Cardigan, made forth his precept to the mayor of Cardigan, being mayor of the shire town, who according to these statutes made proclamation.

The sheriff of the shire, minding to make choice of a friend of his, notwithstanding this his precept, proceeds to the election of another in Aberystwith, one of the contributory towns, and receives the return of the indentures made between him and the mayor of Aberystwith and others having voices in the said. election, this being in the sheriff's county then held in Aberyst

with, by which indentures Ricard Delabere esquire is returned burgess elected for Cardigan.

The mayor of Cardigan, being mayor of the shire town, returns his election, lawfully made according to the said statutes, by indenture, wherein William Bradshawe esquire, resident within the town of Cardigan, is elected. The sheriff eturns both the indentures.

This being the truth of the case and debated by the Committees, the reporter said they were clearly of opinion that Mr Bradshawe was lawfully elected, returned, and ought to be sworn, and the sheriff to be censured, according to the course of the House in such cases of offence of sheriffs.

Whereupon Mr Speaker requiring the opinion of the House, they assented, and Mr Bradshawe was sworn and admitted. And besides it was ordered, That Mr Speaker should direct his warrant to the serjeant of the House for attaching the body of the said sheriff, as in like cases is usual: which was accordingly done...

The manner of the election and return of the burgesses for the town of Shrewsbury falling into question between Mr Serjeant Harris the younger and Mr Barker, the case was opened to the House by Mr Tate and argued pro et contra by sundry members of the House. The case being this, That upon the first writ of election choice was made of Mr Barker, and an indenture returned and delivered by Mr Barker himself to the clerk of the crown; the sheriff afterwards procureth Mr Serjeant Harris to be chosen, and returneth and justifieth another indenture made between the electors and himself which is not according to the statute of election of 23 Eliz.' So as hereupon, after great dispute, sundry questions were agreed on and made:

1. Whether the first indenture between the sheriff [sic] and bailiffs, and 2. Whether the indenture between the sheriff and the electors shall be accepted by the House?

And resolved, upon these questions, that neither ought to be accepted, and so both the returns damned. A third question was made: 3. Whether a warrant shall issue for a new writ? 4. Whether the sheriff shall be sent for by warrant directed to 1 It does not appear what statute is referred to.

the serjeant of the House? And both questions resolved in the affirmative.

The warrant for a new writ was in this form:

Whereas two several indentures have been lately made concerning the election of burgesses for the town of Shrewsbury, one between the bailiffs and burgesses of the said town, and the other between the sheriff of the county and sundry the burgesses of the said town; the first whereof, being not returned by the sheriff but disavowed by his deputy, the other returned by him, are both by the Commons House of Parliament conceived and adjudged to be insufficient: It is therefore required on behalf of the said House that a new writ be forthwith awarded for a new election of burgesses to be made for the said town. And this shall be your warrant.

Directed:

Edward Phelips, Speaker.

To my very loving friend Sir Geo. Coppin knight, Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Commons' Journals, I. pp. 170-171.

(c) Election for Cambridge, 1621.

[22 March, 1620]... Sir Ro. Phillippes: That the mayor of Cambridge, Mr Foxton, hath returned himself. Upon question, Mr Foxton, being mayor at the time of his election, to be removed, and a new writ: [resolved] without one negative. Commons' Journals, I. p. 569.

3. RIGHT OF EXPULSION.

[House of Commons, 21 March, 1621]... Sir Edw. Coke, from the Committee for grievances. The patent for dispensing with pedlars [&c.] ruled . . . to be a patent of grievance . . . The last, for wills engrossing, the worst of all . . . The subject hath liberty by the law to engross his own will... Now every one of these must come to Sir R. Floyde: he [hath] the sole engrossing of all wills and inventories.

[After debate] Upon question, Sir R. Floyde to be removed. out of the House, for being a projector and maintainer of this patent. . . Sir R. Floyde called to the bar.... Mr Speaker pronounceth this sentence: That he is to be no longer any

member of this House, but to be removed; and that his patent a grievance in the original. Commons' Journals, I. pp. 565-7

4. JUDICATURE OF PARLIAMENT.

(a) Impeachment of Lord Bacon, 1621.

[House of Commons] Jovis, 150 Martii, 18° Jacobi... Sir Ro. Phillippes reporteth from the Committee for Courts of Justice three parts: person against whom, the matter, and opinion of the Committee, with desire of further direction. The person, the Lord Chancellor . . . The matter, corruption: the parties accusing, Aubrey and Egerton.

[17 March]... [After further report from the Committee a debate took place, in which] Sir Edw. Coke moveth, ... that the witnesses that can testify this, not of the House, may testify this to the Lords, when cause. That we must go to the Lords according to precedents... Upon question, resolved, That the complaints of Aubrey and Egerton against the Lord Chancellor and the Bishop [of Llandaff] for corruption, for the 100l. and 400l. and the recognisance, shall be presented to the Lords from this House, without prejudice or opinion.

[19 March]... Mr Secretary, from the King... That the King taking notice of the accusations against the Lord Chancellor. . . will, if shall be thought fit here, grant out a commission... to examine all upon oath, all that can speak in this business. The commissioners, six of the Upper House to be chosen by them, and twelve here to be chosen.

Sir Edw. Coke. That this gracious message taketh not away our parliamentary proceeding. To go on with our message: then to deliberate upon this....

Sir Edw. Sackville. To have no divorce between the Lords and us...

[Thanks having been voted to the King for his message] Mr Secretary, from the King, That he acquainted the King with the thanks of the House . . . and that the House desireth he will be pleased to send a message to the Lords about the commission, and receive their answer, that so they and this House may proceed with an unanimous assent, as hitherto they have done.