¹ Gardiner, S.R., History of England from the accession of James I to the outbreak of the Civil War, 1 (London, 1883), 167–70Google Scholar; Tanner, J.R., English Constitutional Documents of the Reign of fames I (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 201–17Google Scholar; Elton, G.R., The Tudor Constitution (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 259–60Google Scholar; Kenyon, J P., The Stuart Constitution (Cambridge, 1966), p. 27Google Scholar. I am most grateful to Profs. Elton and J. H. Plumb for their kind advice on this subject.

² See, for example, SirSpelman, John, A View of a Printed Book (Oxford, 1643), sig. Fv.Google Scholar

³ SirNeale, John, Elizabeth I and her Parliaments 1584–1601 (London, 1957), pp. 184–7Google Scholar;Elton, , Tudor Constitution, pp. 259–60.Google Scholar

⁴ A Compleat Journal of the Votes, Speeches and Debates, both of the House of Lords and House of Commons throughout the whole Reign of Queen Elizabeth, ed. SirD'Ewes, S. (2nd ed., London, 1693), PP. 393–9.Google Scholar

⁵ Gardiner, , History of England, 1, 168.Google Scholar

⁶ PRO SP 14/7/2; BM Stowe MS 145, fo. 148; The Egerton Papers, ed. Collier, J.P. (Camden Soc. XII, 1840), 386, 388.Google Scholar

⁷ Elton, , Tudor Constitution, p. 259.Google Scholar

⁸ James contended that there were ‘Two Powers; permanent and transitory. Chancery a confidentiary Court to the Use of the Parliament during the Time ’ (Commons Journals, 1, 944)Google Scholar. This passage is ambiguous, and Notestein believed that the statement was made by Bacon on behalf of the House. If Notestein's interpretation is correct, then the matter becomes even more remarkable, for the House would be admitting that Chancery had an undisputed role before the parliamentary session commenced (Notestein, W., The House of Commons 1604-1610 (New Haven and London, 1971), pp. 76–7)Google Scholar. Even the outspoken Henry Yelverton did not explicitly deny this, merely setting privilege generally against the king's efforts, without raising the issue of when that privilege began. C.J. 1, 939.Google ScholarPubMed

⁹ D'Ewes, , Compleat Journal, p. 396.Google Scholar

¹⁰ It is arguable that the compromise itself entailed a breach of privilege, for the ban on Fortescue and Goodwin standing again for the constituency ran counter to the principle of free election. The committee appointed to consider the 1586 Norfolk dispute had then considered what was thought to be a similar move to be ‘ perilous for the time to come, in respect that it appointed two others to be Chosen ’, ibid.

¹¹ The Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer, 1606–1607, ed. Willson, D.H. (Minneapolis, 1931) P. 15.Google Scholar

¹² Glanville, J., Reports of Certain Cases (London, 1775), pp. 126–7Google Scholar. Glanville's account suggests that he still felt the need to argue a case: relating the 1624 affair (the election for Cumberland) to 1604, ‘ it was now declared, by some who were of that parliament, that divers of the judges did indeed deliver… that they thought [Goodwin] not fit to serve, being outlawed; howbeit, after good debate thereof in the commons house, to whom it belongeth properly to judge in cases concerning their privileges; it was there resolved …that Sir Francis Goodwyn was eligible, his outlawry notwithstanding; though, for better satisfaction to his Majesty, some direction, or intimation, was given, that he should reverse his outlawry, which was performed accordingly ’ (my italics). The fact of the reversal of the outlawry of course left the principle of outlawry and membership unclear, and later still, in 1628, Buckingham's henchman, Sir James Bagg, was urging him to have Sir John Eliot, Sir Bevil Grenville and John Arundel outlawed and put out of the House, so news does not seem to have been getting through wholly effectively. Cal.S.P.Dom. 1628–1629, p. 24.Google Scholar

¹³ Bodl. MS Rawl. D. 918, fo. 35.

¹⁴ BM Stowe MS 168, fo. I8IV.; Historical Manuscripts Commission, 13th Report, Appdx. Part VII(Lonsdale MSS), p. 21.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Gloucester City Library MS no. 1451 (Corporation Minute Book 1565–1632), fo. 201; PRO Star Cha. 8/288/30/17.

¹⁶ Farnham, E., ‘ The Somerset Election of 1614 ’, English Historical Review, XLVI (1931), 593n.5, 596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ SirNeale, John, The Elizabethan House of Commons (London, 1949), p. 142.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Wentworth Woodhouse Muniments in the Sheffield City Libraries, WWM phot. 2/d. I am grateful to the Earl Fitzwilliam, the trustees of the Wentworth Woodhouse Estate and the Sheffield city librarian for permission to consult these MSS. For the restoration of Pontefract generally, see Fletcher, A.J., ‘Sir Thomas Wentworth and the Restoration of Pontefract as a Parliamentary Borough,’ Northern History, vi (1971), 88–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conversely, the House iteslf was dealing with an apparently identical case, that of Botley, Hants, in 1604, before the Buckinghamshire issue was decided. C.J 1, 935.Google ScholarPubMed

¹⁹ See Villiers, E.de, ‘ Parliamentary Boroughs Restored by the House of Commons 1621–1641 ’, English Historical Review, LXVII (1952), 175–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ Cal.S.P.Dom. 1640, p. 10.Google Scholar

²¹ 0BM Harl. MS 6799, fo. 335V.

²² Northamptonshire Record Office MSS, FH 50, fo. 19V.; Wiltshire Record Office MSS, Charles Hayward's Parliamentary Note Book for 1621 and 1624, fo. 180; also BM Add. MS 18597, fos. 53V.-54, and Glanville, , Reports, pp. 84–6Google Scholar. Despite the Committee's pronouncements, Sir Henry Spelman collected affidavits on the Long Parliament election for Cambridge University; but they do not seem to have come before the House. BM Add. MS 34601, fos. 31–31 v.

²³ Neale, , House of Commons, esp. p. 79Google Scholar. As evidence of the delays to be encountered in Star Chamber, see, for example, the case of Rutland below, n. 25.

²⁴ D'Ewes, , Compleat Journal, pp. 434–5, 554.Google Scholar

²⁵ The three were: the Rutland election of 1601, still before the court in 1604, and dealt with at length by Neale, (House of Commons, pp. 129–39)Google Scholar; Gloucester 1604 (PRO Star Cha. 8/207/25); Worcestershire 1604 (Star Cha. 8/201/17). The others were Hampshire 1614 (Star Cha. 8/293/n); Huntingdonshire 1620 (Star Cha. 8/47/7); Radnorshire 1620 (Star Cha. 8/288/9); Somerset 1628 (PRO SP 16/153/54; SP 16/232/43; Rushworth, J., Historical Collections (London, 1680–1701), III, App., 26–7Google Scholar: I am indebted to Prof. T. G. Barnes for the first two references, and to Mr J. D. Walter for the third).

²⁶ The two which did not yield riot or assault charges were Hampshire and Huntingdonshire, although in the latter the election was only one element, albeit the most important, of a composite complaint (another case like this was that of Gloucester).

²⁷ See Seddon, P.R., ‘; A Parliamentary Election at East Retford, 1624 ’, Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire, LXXVI (1972), 26–34.Google Scholar

²⁸ Commons Debates in 1621, ed. Notestein, W., Relf, F.H. and Simpson, H. (New Haven, 1935). v.172–3.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid, in, 285–6, and v, 172–3; PRO Star Cha. 8/288/9. The readiness of Star Chamber to give way was remarkable: it was reported in the Commons that ‘ the Starr chamber hath made a reference to the house to take it in to ther hands if theay please ’ (CD 1621, III, 285)Google Scholar. This readiness is unlikely to have been conditioned by a reluctance to infringe the general privilege of a member's freedom from actions in another court during session, for that would only have delayed business to the close of the session, and not stopped it entirely.

³⁰ Nottingham University Library, Clifton MSS, Cl.C.378.

³¹ The Court and Times of James I, ed. Birch, T. (London, 1848), 1, 308.Google Scholar

³² Gruenfelder, J.K., ‘ The Parliamentary Election at Chester 1621 ’, Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, cxx (1968), 43–4; and BM Harl. MS 2105, fo. 283.Google Scholar

³³ The sole case that apparently did not involve charges that a candidate's votes were invalid was the 1628 Somerset election, where Sir Robert Phelips caused Sir John Stawell to be impleaded ‘ for assaulting and giveing ill language to the Sherife ’ at the election, PRO SP 16/32/43.

³⁴ See my 1973 Cambridge Ph.D. thesis, ‘ Elections and the Electorate in England 1603–42 ’, ch. 11 and pp. 239–41.Google Scholar

³⁵ The 1620 Caernarvonshire election led to plans for a suit while parliament was in session (Calendar of Wynn (of Gwydir) Papers, ed. Ballinger, J. (Cardiff, 1926), 149)Google Scholar; there were allegations that those challenging the franchise in Warwick in the same year had been threatened (The Black Book of Warwick, ed. Kemp, T. (Warwick, 1898), 410–11)Google Scholar; Wentworth seems to have contemplated taking action against an unnamed mayor at an unnamed date - in all probability, that of Pontefract in 1624 (BM Add. MS 24475, fo. 97v); both sides at East Retford were threatening each other with Star Chamber in 1624 (Nottingham U.L., Cl.L.P.51: I am indebted to Mr P. R. Seddon for this reference); the Privy Council appears to have been initiating proceedings over the 1626 Chichester election (Acts of the Privy Council 1626, p. 256); and Star Chamber was used as a threat at the Long Parliament election for Sudbury (BM Harl. MS 541, fo. 109V). A bill to regulate elections introduced in the Short Parliament was said to have threatened Privy Council or aristocratic manipulators of elections with Star Chamber. The Diary of Henry Townshend of Elmley Lovett, ed. Bund, J.W.Willis (Worcestershire Historical Society, 1920), 1, 14.Google Scholar

³⁶ Court and Times of James I, 1, 310.Google Scholar

³⁷ C.J. 1, 804; Coughton Court, Warwicks., Throckmorton MSS, box 60, folder of correspondence 1629–52, letter of 3 Dec. 1640, Richard Betham to Robert Throckmorton (I am indebted to Sir Robert Throckmorton, Bt., and the National Trust custodian, for permission to consult these MSS).

³⁸ C.J. I, 149, 166, 934, 937, 941, 942, 457Google Scholar. Moore was also retained in the preliminary stages of Chester corporation's complaint in 1621. Gruenfelder, , ‘ Election at Chester ’, pp. 175–8.Google Scholar

³⁹ C.J. 1, 939.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ de Villiers, , ‘ Parliamentary Boroughs ’, pp. 175–8.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Farnham, , ‘ Somerset Election of 1614 ’, p. 598Google Scholar; the Privy Council also punished excesses and insults at the 1625 Somerset election. Somerset Record Office, DD/PH/216/12; Hist. MSS. Comtn. 13^th Report Appdx. IV (Dovaston MSS), p. 260.Google Scholar

⁴³ Cal.S.P.Dom. 1640, pp. 25, 107, 121, 143, 164–5Google Scholar; Cal.S.P.Dom. 1640–1641, p. 299.Google Scholar

⁴³ BM Egerton MS 2644, fo. 149V.; Court and Times of Charles I ed. Williams, R.F. (London, 1848), 1, 332Google Scholar; Hist. MSS. Comm. 12th Report Appdx. Pt. I (Earl Cowper's MSS), 1, 356Google Scholar; C.J. 1, 873–4.Google ScholarPubMed

⁴⁴ Cal.S.P.Dom. 1619–1623, p. 190Google Scholar; Proceedings in Parliament 1610, ed. Foster, E.R. (New Haven, 1966), II, 260;Google Scholar BM Harl. MS 7000, fo. 41.

⁴⁵ The lord high steward, the earl of Arundel, suggested that members whose returns were questioned should not be admitted to the House, ‘ but it was not observed ’. Cambridge University Library MS Kk.6.38, fo. 2.

⁴⁶ Strafforde's Letters and Dispatches, 1, 10.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Quintrell, B.W., ‘The Government of the County of Essex, 1603-42 ’ (unpublished London Ph.D. thesis, 1965), pp. 33–4Google Scholar; also, Acts of the Privy Council 1627–1628, p. 350; Court and Times of Charles I, 1, 332–3Google Scholar Similarly, Sir James Bagg in 1628 urged Buckingham to set up acommission of inquiry to investigate the Cornwall election, although this came to nothing, the House intervening instead. Cal.S.P.Dom 1628–1629, p.24.

⁴⁸ PRO SP 14/49/26.