^{page 153 note 1} Trans. R. Hist. Soc., 4th ser., xxiv. 47–71.

^{page 154 note 1} The statutes mentioned by Clarke, M. V., Fourteenth Century Studies (1937), p. 246Google Scholar, do not agree, and do not always succeed in giving an exhaustive list of lawful procedures; the expression ‘due process’ in some of them may be an attempt to meet this deficiency by using a general term to cover those omitted.

^{page 154 note 2} Constitutional History (1875), ii. 430Google Scholar.

^{page 154 note 3} History of Criminal Law, i. 148.

^{page 154 note 4} History of English Law (1922), i. 380Google Scholar.

^{page 154 note 5} Fourteenth Century Studies, p. 242.

^{page 154 note 6} History of Pleas of the Crown, ii. 150.

^{page 155 note 1} Studies in Constitutional History, p. 82.

^{page 155 note 2} Chapters in Administrative History, iii. 286 ff.

^{page 155 note 3} Richard II, pp. 23 ff.

^{page 155 note 4} Chronicon Angliae (R.S. no. 64), pp. 68 ff., 391 ff.

^{page 155 note 5} Edited by V. H. Galbraith (19,27).

^{page 155 note 6} Rotuli Parliamentorum, ii. 321 (1–8).

^{page 155 note 7} Ibid., ii. 322 (9). This must not be taken as evidence that supply preceded redress.

^{page 155 note 8} Ibid., ii. 322 (io)–323 (14).

^{page 155 note 9} Ibid., ii. 323 (15)–330 (47).

^{page 155 note 10} Ibid., ii. 331 (52)–360 (212).

^{page 156 note 1} One would like to have seen that book; there is no statute on the subject, although the commons did petition in 1373 for the staple to be at Calais—to which the king gave an evasive reply: Rot. Pad., ii. 318 (17). See ProfessorGalbraith's, note in Anonimalle Chronicle, p. 183Google Scholar.

^{page 156 note 2} Ibid. p. 88.

^{page 156 note 3} Ibid., p. 89.

^{page 157 note 1} Ibid., p. 90.

^{page 157 note 2} Ibid., pp. 90–1.

^{page 157 note 3} Rot. Parl., ii. 322–3.

^{page 157 note 4} Baldwin, J. F., The King's Council, p. 120Google Scholar.

^{page 158 note 1} Anonimnalle Chronicle, p. 93.

^{page 159 note 1} As early as Glanvill, xiv. 1, a traitor could be taken, although there were no certain accuser; his trial would then be-by inquisition and ordeal.

^{page 160 note 1} In his defence, Rot. Parl., ii. 326a, Larimer answers that ‘bill’, but makes no allusion to any other. There seems no room, therefore, for the supposition that [written] petitions had become a [written] indictment. The impeachment as a whole was not embodied in a document; if it had been, the parliament roll would certainly have taken the easy course of reproducing it, instead of compiling a narrative of the lengthy proceedings.

^{page 160 note 2} There is an excellent history of ‘accroaching’ in Clarke, , Fourteenth Century Studies, p. 247Google Scholar. On the continent the idea was as old as 1066: Kern, F., Kingship and Law (tr. Chrimes, S. B.), p. 93Google Scholar.

^{page 161 note 1} Trans. R. Hist. Soc., 4th sen, xxiv. 65–7.

^{page 163 note 1} The same situation arose in Nevill's case when a witness in parliament did not maintain what he had previously said the day before to some of the commons; he was committed to prison.