[725] Lords' Journals, April 25; Parl. Hist. 1121, etc.
[726] Lords' Journals, May 9, 1679.
[727] Lords' Journals, May 10 and 11. After the former vote 50 peers, out of 107 who appear to have been present, entered their dissent; and another, the Earl of Leicester, is known to have voted with the minority. The unusual strength of opposition, no doubt, produced the change next day.
[728] May 13. Twenty-one peers were entered as dissentient. The Commons inquired whether it were intended by this that the bishops should vote on the pardon of Danby, which the upper house declined to answer, but said they could not vote on the trial of the five popish lords, May 15, 17, 27.
[729] See the report of a committee in Journals, May 26; or Hatsell's Precedents, iv. 374.
[730] 13 W. III. c. 2.
[731] Parl. Hist. vii. 283. Mr. Lechmere, a very ardent whig, then solicitor-general, and one of the managers on the impeachment, had most confidently denied this prerogative. Id. 233.
[732] Instead of the words in the order, "from the proceedings of any other court," the following are inserted, "or any other business wherein their lordships act as in a court of judicature, and not in their legislative capacity." The importance of this alteration as to the question of impeachment is obvious.
[733] Lords' Journals.
[734] Lords' Journals. Seventy-eight peers were present.