^{page 120 note 1} For a few references on this, see Plucknett, , Concise History of the Common Law (2nd edn.), 299.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 2} Richardson and Sayles, Rotuli Parliamentorum Inediti (Camden Series).

^{page 120 note 3} Gray, Influence of the Commons on Early Legislation.

^{page 120 note 4} Thornley, , “Treason Legislation of Henry VIII,” Transactions (1917), 61Google Scholar. For the drafting history of the Statute of Frauds (1677) see Holds-worth, , History of English Law, VI, 380–4.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 1} Stubbs, , Seventeen Lectures, 321.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 2} English Law and the Renaissance, 45 n. 11.

^{page 121 note 3} Holdsworth, , op. cit., IV, 572–86.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 1} The bill may not have intended to abolish the estates for life.

^{page 122 note 2} The text of the draft bill (calendared in Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, IV, 6043 no. 6) is in Holdsworth, IV, 572–4; the treaty (calendared ib., 6044) is printed in Holdsworth, IV, 574–7.

^{page 122 note 3} This may explain the signature of Audley (Speaker in 1529). A bill was to have been prepared on the basis of the treaty.

^{page 123 note 1} The law of scandalum magnatum may perhaps be added. The offence was unimportant until the Tudor statutes of 1554 and 1559 finally confirmed the existence of a special body of law protecting magnates from defamation. As late as 1571 peers claimed (but unsuccessfully) that they could not be committed for contempt in chancery, Holds worth, V, 228.

^{page 123 note 2} It can hardly be doubted that these are the projects alluded to by Chapuys (Letters and Papers, V, 762, 805, 989).

^{page 123 note 1} Cf. Pickthorn, , Henry VII, 73.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 2} See generally, Baldwin, F. E., Sumptuary Legislation (Baltimore, 1926)Google Scholar, and particularly, Hooper, , “Tudor Sumptuary Laws,” English Historical Review, XXX, 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 124 note 3} The acts are: 1 Henry VIII, c. 14 (1510); 6 Henry VIII, c. 1 (1514); 7 Henry VIII, c. 6 (1515); and 24 Henry VIII, c. 13 (1553).

^{page 124 note 4} 31 Henry VIII, c. 10 (1539).

^{page 124 note 5} Letters and Papers, IX, 725.

^{page 125 note 1} I Edw. VI, c. 12. Section 6 of the draft appended to this paper clearly depicts society as composed of the king, nobility, chivalry and craftsmen.

^{page 125 note 2} Letters and Papers, VII, 1611 (4); below, pp. 135 ff.

^{page 126 note 1} Blackstone, , Commentaries, III, 160.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 2} An action penal was very similar save that the statutory penalty accrued to the party who had been injured by the prohibited act.

^{page 126 note 3} Indeed, even when action was brought, it might be in fact a collusive proceeding by an offender's friend who had no intention of enforcing payment; the judgment however served to bar subsequent actions by less benevolent persons. See 4 Henry VII, c. 20 which vainly endeavoured to check the practice.

^{page 128 note 1} The draft alleges an act of 4 Henry VIII setting a limit of three years; the allusion is perhaps to 7 Henry VIII, c. 3 which set a limit of four years to the crown.

^{page 128 note 2} The title naturally suggests comparison with those “Serjeants of the Peace” to whom Mr. Stewart-Brown has just devoted a most interesting monograph. It seems unlikely that they had any influence upon this draft, being, for practical purposes, obsolete by the sixteenth century. 1 Jones, B. M., Henry Fielding, 198.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 2} The principal statutes are listed in Stephen, , History of Criminal Law, I, 499.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 1} English Law and the Renaissance, 71 n. 43.

^{page 130 note 2} Hudson, , Star Chamber, in Collectanea Juridica, II, 167Google Scholar (quoted by loldsworth, V, 180).

^{page 131 note 1} There were also means whereby they could convict on default (s. 19), another daring break with tradition.

^{page 131 note 2} 36 Edward III, st. 1, c. 9.

^{page 131 note 3} 3 Henry VII, c. I.

^{page 131 note 4} II Henry VII, c. 3.

^{page 132 note 1} For further material on the point, see Plucknett, , Concise History of the Common Law (2nd edn.), 164.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 1} S. 6.

^{page 133 note 2} 2 & 3 Edward VI, c. 24 explained, and abolished, the rule (1548).

^{page 133 note 3} 7 George IV, c. 64 (s. 13).

^{page 133 note 4} Admiralty jurisdiction was shortly after this draft defined and enlarged by 28 Henry VIII, c. 15 (1536).

^{page 133 note 5} The Welsh problem was also dealt with, even more promptly, by 26 Henry VIII, c. 6 (1534).

^{page 134 note 1} Stephen, , History of Criminal Law, III, 358 ffGoogle Scholar. For a typical modern criticism see Stallybrass, , Public Mischief, 49 Law Quarterly Review, 183–91.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 1} Interlined and then struck through.

^{page 141 note 1} Substituted for “writing.”