Stapylton Final Version

1 THE PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE OF FREEDOM FROM ARREST, 1603–1629 Keith A. T. Stapylton UCL Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2016 Page 2 DECLARATION I, Keith Anthony Thomas Stapylton, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed Page 3 ABSTRACT This thesis considers the English parliamentary privilege of freedom from arrest (and other legal processes), 1603-1629. Although it is under-represented in the historiography, the early Stuart Commons cherished this particular privilege as much as they valued freedom of speech. Previously one of the privileges requested from the monarch at the start of a parliament, by the seventeenth century freedom from arrest was increasingly claimed as an ‘ancient’, ‘undoubted’ right that secured the attendance of members, and safeguarded their honour, dignity, property, and ‘necessary’ servants. Uncertainty over the status and operation of the privilege was a major contemporary issue, and this prompted key questions for research. First, did ill definition of the constitutional relationship between the crown and its prerogatives, and parliament and its privileges, lead to tensions, increasingly polemical attitudes, and a questioning of the royal prerogative? Where did sovereignty now lie? Second, was it important to maximise the scope of the privilege, if parliament was to carry out its business properly? Did ad hoc management of individual privilege cases nevertheless have the cumulative effect of enhancing the authority and confidence of the Commons? Third, to what extent was the exploitation or abuse of privilege an unintended consequence of the strengthening of the Commons’ authority in matters of privilege? Such matters are not treated discretely, but are embedded within chapters that follow a thematic, broadly chronological approach. These include an outline of how the inter-relationship between privilege and the royal prerogative developed from the medieval period onwards, as well as analyses of significant cases. Drawing on key sources that include parliamentary and constitutional records, contemporary diaries, and edited collections from a wider period, the research supports a view that privilege matters imparted a striking distinctiveness, sophistication, and authority to the parliaments of the early Stuart period, especially the Commons. Page 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation of this thesis has depended on the support and assistance of many people, starting with Sheila Ephraim of the University of Reading, who encouraged me to take the first research steps. My principal supervisor, Professor Jason Peacey, has provided unfailingly positive comments as the work has progressed, from the initial proposal through to the final thesis. His constructive suggestions on ways in which various themes and strands might be pulled together and analysed have been particularly invaluable. I also wish to thank my second supervisor, Professor Julian Hoppit, other members of faculty, and the postgraduate research students at UCL for stimulating discussions on a range of topics and suggestions for lines of inquiry. I have valued the opportunities, provided through the seminars at the Institute of Historical Research on Parliaments, Politics and People, and Tudor and Stuart History, to meet fellow-researchers, to learn of the wide range of activities in which they are involved, and to receive their comments on my own work. The History of Parliament Trust kindly provided access to transcripts of the 1624 parliamentary diaries, which were originally prepared by the Center for British Studies at Yale University. Those working in the Trust on the biographies for 1604-29, particularly Dr Paul Hunneyball, have also helpfully suggested possible lines of research to pursue. The staff of all the libraries and archives that I have consulted have been unfailingly helpful and tolerant of my requests and questions. Those at the London Library have been particularly obliging in guiding me towards material that would contribute to my work. Lastly, I wish to thank friends and family who have encouraged me to proceed with the project, even if some have been bemused at the degree to which the workings of seventeenth-parliaments have caught and sustained my interest. Page 5 CONTENTS DECLARATION .......................................................................................................... 2 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... 4 CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 5 EDITORIAL NOTES ................................................................................................... 7 ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 8 I : INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 11 Key research questions .......................................................................... 16 Historiography ....................................................................................... 17 Methods and sources .............................................................................. 29 II : PRIVILEGES AND PREROGATIVES ................................................................. 43 Introduction ............................................................................................ 43 Parliamentary privileges ........................................................................ 45 Prerogative powers ................................................................................. 62 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 72 III : SIR THOMAS SHIRLEY’S CASE (1604) ........................................................... 75 Introduction ............................................................................................ 75 Sir Thomas Shirley ................................................................................ 79 Issues in the Shirley case ....................................................................... 82 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 109 IV : DEVELOPMENTS AND CASES 1603-1629 ................................................... 113 Introduction .......................................................................................... 113 Page 6 The early Stuart parliaments ................................................................ 115 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 159 V : EXPLOITATION OF PRIVILEGES .................................................................... 163 Introduction .......................................................................................... 163 Debt, outlawry and bankruptcy ............................................................ 164 Increasing exploitation of privilege ..................................................... 167 Privilege for servants ........................................................................... 176 Protections and the Lords ..................................................................... 188 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 194 VI : JOHN ROLLE’S CASE (1628-29) .................................................................... 199 Introduction .......................................................................................... 199 The parliament of 1628-29 in context .................................................. 205 John Rolle and the 1629 parliament ..................................................... 218 Key issues and themes ......................................................................... 240 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 244 VII : CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 249 Context ................................................................................................. 249 Key research findings .......................................................................... 250 Final observations ................................................................................ 257 APPENDIX 1 : SOME EARLIER PRIVILEGE CASES ........................................... 261 APPENDIX 2 : THE EARLY STUART PARLIAMENTS ......................................... 283 APPENDIX 3 : CHRONOLOGY OF THE SHIRLEY CASE .................................... 285 APPENDIX 4 : THE ARRESTED MEMBERS ......................................................... 289 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 303 Page 7 EDITORIAL NOTES The following conventions apply: 1. Where available, original spelling has largely been retained, but the long s (∫) and thorn/th (Y) have been given modern form. Where confusion about spelling or syntax might arise, a gloss has been inserted in square brackets, or modern spelling substituted. Unusual abbreviations in quotations have been

Load more