[496] Commons' Journals, page 155, etc.; Parl. Hist. 1028; Carte, 734.
[497] 1 Jac. i. c. 13.
[498] By one of these canons, all persons affirming any of the thirty-nine articles to be erroneous are excommunicated ipso facto; consequently become incapable of being witnesses, of suing for their debts, etc. Neal, 428. But the courts of law disregarded these ipso facto excommunications.
[499] Somers Tracts, ii. 14; Journals, 199, 235, 238; Parl. Hist. 1067. It is here said, that a bill restraining excommunications passed into a law, which does not appear to be true, though James himself had objected to their frequency. I cannot trace such a bill in the journals beyond the committee, nor is it in the statute-book. The fact is, that the king desired the house to confer on the subject with the convocation, which they justly deemed unprecedented, and derogatory to their privileges; but offered to confer with the bishops, as lords of parliament. Journals, 173.
[500] Bacon's Works, i. 624; Journals, 190, 215.
[501] Commons' Journals, 150, etc.
[502] Journals, 246.
[503] Journals, 230.
[504] Parl. Hist. 1030, from Petyt's Jus Parliamentarium, the earliest book, as far as I know, where this important document is preserved. The entry on the Journals, p. 243, contains only the first paragraph. Hume and Carte have been ignorant of it. It is just alluded to by Rapin.
It is remarked that the attendance of members in this session was more frequent than had ever been known, so that fresh seats were required. Journals, 141.