Members, Montressor and Lord Bacon were im peached, and the Revolution in 1688, there are about 40 cases of impeachment. In the reigns of William III., Anne, and George I. there were 15, and in George II. only one (that of Lord Lovat, in 1746, for high treason). The last memorable cases are those of Warren Hastings, in 1788, and Lord Melville, in 1805. clerk's office and the lobby. moving for the committee are to ascertain whether the gentlemen they propose to name will attend. To every question asked of a witness, the name of the member who asks it is prefixed in the minutes of evidence laid before the house; and the names of the members present at each sitting, and, in the event of any division, the question proposed, the name of the proposer, and the votes of each member, are entered on the minutes and reported to the house. Trial of Election Petitions.-The mode of proceeding in contested elections is explained in the article ELECTION COMMITTEES. Impeachment.-Impeachment by the commons is a proceeding of great importance, involving the exercise of the highest judicial powers by parliament, and though in modern times it has rarely been resorted to, in former periods of our history it was of frequent occurrence. The earliest instance of impeachment by the commons at the bar of the house of lords was in the reign of Edward III. (1376). Before that time the lords appear to have tried both peers and commoners for great public offences, but not upon complaints addressed to them by the commons. During the next four reigns, cases of regular impeachment were frequent, but no instances occurred in the reigns of Edward IV., Henry VII., Henry VIII., Edward VI., Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth. The institution "had fallen into disuse," says Mr. Hallam, "partly from the loss of that control which the commons had obtained under Richard II and the Lancastrian kings, and partly tre the preference the Tudor princes had given to bills of attainder or of pains and penalties, when they wished to turn the arm of parliament against an obnoxious subject." Prosecutions also in the Star-chamber during that time were perpetually resorted to by the crown for the punishment of state offenders. In the reign of James I. the practice of impeachment was revived, and was used with great energy by the commons, both as an instrument of popular power and for the furtherance of public justice. Between the year 1620, when Sir Giles An outline of the forms observed in the conduct of impeachments may be briefly given. A member of the house of commous charges the accused of cer tain high crimes and misdemeanors, and moves that he be impeached. If the house agree to it, the member is ordered to go to the lords, and at their bar, in the name of the house of commons and of all the commons of the United Kingdom, to impeach the accused. A committee is then ordered to draw up articles of impeachment, which are reported to the house, and having been discussed and agreed upon, are engrossed and delivered to the lords. Further articles may be delivered from time to time. In the case of Warren Hastings the articles had been prepared before his impeachment at the bar of the house of lords. The accused sends answers to each article, which are communicated to the commnons by the lords; to these, replications are returned if necessary. After these preliminaries, the lords appoint a day for the trial. The commons desire the lords to summon the witnesses required to prove their charges and appoint managers to conduct the proceedings. Westminster Hall has been usually fitted up as the court, which is presided over by the lord high steward. The commons attend with the managers as a committee of the whole house. The accused remains in the custody of the usher of the black rod, to whom he is delivered, if a commoner, by the serjeant-at-arms attending the house of commons. The managers should confine themselves to charges contained in the articles of impeachment. Mr Warren Hastings complained of matters having been introduced which had not been originally laid to his charge, and the house resolved that certain words ought not to have been spoken by Mr. Burke. Persons impeached of high treason are entitled, by statute 20 | Geo. II. c. 30, to make their full defence by counsel, a privilege which is not denied to persons charged with high crimes and misdemeanors. When the managers have made their charges and adduced evidence in support of them, the accused answers them, and the managers have a right to reply. The lords then proceed to judgment in this manner :- -The lord high steward puts to each peer, beginning with the junior baron, the question upon the first article, whether the accused be guilty of the crimes charged therein. The peers in succession rise in their places when the question is put, and standing uncovered, and laying their right hands upon their breast, answer "guilty," or "not guilty," as the case may be, "upon my honour." Each article is proceeded with separately in the same manner, the lord high steward giving his own opinion the last. The numbers are then cast up, and being ascertained, are declared by the lord high steward to the lords, and the accused is acquainted with the result. 1819; General Indexes to Commons' Journals, 1547-1837; Trial of Henry Lord Viscount Melville, published by order of the House of Lords, fol., 1806; State Trials; Parliamentary History; Wynn's Argument upon the Jurisdiction of the Commons to commit, 1810; Hatsell's Precedents, new edit., 1818; A Treatise upon the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, by Thomas Erskine May, Esq., Barrister at Law, Assistant Librarian of the House of Commons. May 2nd, 1844.) PARLIAMENT OF IRELAND. In Ireland, as in England, from the con quest of the country by Henry II. in the latter part of the twelfth century, meetings of the barons were occasionally summoned to consult on public affairs, to which the old historians sometimes give the name of parliaments. But parliaments, in the modern sense, cannot be traced back in Ireland farther than to the latter end of the thirteenth century, or to a date about thirty years subsequent to that of the earliest parliament which is ascertained to have consisted both of lords and commons in England. Simon de Montfort's parliament, the first for which writs are extant summoning representatives of the counties and boroughs, met at Westminster in 1265, and the first Irish parliament to which, as far as is known, the sheriffs were directed to return two representatives for each county, was held in 1295. Representatives of boroughs in Ireland cannot be traced much farther back than to the middle of the fourteenth century. They first make their appearance in 1341, and in an act or ordinance of 1359 they are spoken of as forming an essential part of the parliament. (Coke's Fourth Institute, cap. 1; The Soveraigne Power of Parliaments, by W. Prynne, 1643; Parliamentary Writs, by W. Prynne, in four parts, 1659-1664; Privileges of the Baronage of England when they sit in Parliament, by John Selden, 12mo., 1642; Modus tenendi Parliamentum, by W. Hakewel, 1660; Lex Parliamentaria, by G. P., Esq., 12mo. 1690; Constitution of Parliaments in England, deduced from the time of King Edward the Second, by Sir John Pettus, 1680; Original Institution, Power, and Jurisdiction of Parliaments, by Sir M. Hale, 1707; republished by Hargrave, with preface, 1776; Antient Right of the Commons of England, by William At this time however and down to a Petyt, 1680; Parliamentary and Political much lower date it was only the small Tracts, written by Sir Robert Atkins, portion of Ireland occupied by the Eng 2nd edit., 1741; History of the Highlish settlers that was represented in the Court of Parliament, by T. Gurdon, legislature. Even in the reign of Edward 1731; Manner of holding Parliaments in III. only the province of Munster and a England, by Henry Elsynge, Cler. Parl., part of Leinster were considered as shire1768; Free Parliaments, by Roger Acher- land: they were divided into twelve ley, 1731; Blackstone's Comm., book 1st; counties. But in the course of the fif D'Ewes's Journal; Lords' Journals; teenth century the greater part of these Commons' Journals; General Indexes districts had become independent of the and Calendars to Lords' Journals, 1509- English crown; and in the reign of Henry | VII. the English dominion and the parliamentary representation were alike confined to the counties composing what was called the Pale, that is, to those of Dublin, Louth, Kildare, and Meath (then comprehending both East and West Meath), with a very few seaports beyond these limits. The vigorous measures taken under Henry VIII. and succeeding kings however gradually extended the authority of the English institutions and laws. The possessors of some of the original Irish peerages, after maintaining for centuries an independence as complete as that of the native chieftains themselves, were induced to attend the house of lords, and many new peerages were conferred, some on Englishmen or persons of English descent, some on the heads of the old Irish families. The twelve ancient counties were all reclaimed in the reign of Henry VIII., and others were added by Mary, Elizabeth, and James, till, in the time of the last-mentioned king, the whole island was divided | into thirty-two counties, as at present, each returning two representatives. Of these thirty-two counties however it is said there were seventeen in which there was not a single parliamentary borough, while in the remaining fifteen there were only about thirty. But either this account must be wrong or the common statement that James added only forty new boroughs must be an under statement, if, as appears, the entire number of the Irish commons in 1613 was 232. In this number however would be ineluded the two representatives of Trinity College, Dublin. Subsequent new charters to boroughs augmented the house by the year 1692 to 300, at which number it remained stationary. In 1634 the number of peers was 122, and more than 500 Irish peerages were created between that date and the Union. Some however also became extinct. It was only for a very short period of its existence that the Irish parliament was held to be a supreme legislature. Ireland being regarded as a conquered dependency, it was maintained that its parliament was in all respects subordinate to that of England, and subsequently to that of Great Britain, which might make laws to bind the people of the one country as well as of the other. The received legal doctrine used to be, that King John, in the twelfth year of his reign (A.D. 1210), ordained by letters-patent, in right of the dominion of conquest, that Ireland should be governed by the laws of England; in consequence of which both the common law of England and all English statutes enacted prior to that date were held to be of the same authority in Ireland as in England. With regard to English acts passed subsequently to that date, it was also held, in the first place, that Ireland was bound by all of them in which it was either specially named or included under general words. But further, inasmuch as one of the Irish acts called Poyning's Laws, passed in the tenth year of Henry VII. (A.D. 1495), in the lordlieutenancy of Sir Edward Poyning, or Poynings, declared that all statutes "lately "made in England should be deemed also good and effectual in Ireland, it was held that this established the authority in Ireland of all preceding English statutes whatsoever; making those enacted since the 12th of John of the same force with those enacted before that date. This however was admitted to be the last general imposition of the laws of England upon Ireland. Of the English statutes passed since the 10th of Henry VII., it was allowed that those only were binding upon Ireland in which that country was specially named or included under general words. The above-mentioned was only one of Poyning's laws. The substance of some others is given by Blackstone (1 Com., 102); which prevented any laws from being proposed, except only such as were drawn up before the parliament which should pass them was in being; but by the 3 & 4 Philip and Mary, c. 4, it was provided that any new propositions might be certified to England for approval, even after the summons and during the session of parliament. Still this left to the parliament of Ireland nothing more than merely the power of rejecting any law proposed to it; it could neither initiate a new law nor repeal an old one, nor even amend or alter that which was offered for its acceptance. In practice however, law from the reign of Charles I., and ap- On this the Irish House of Lords the letter of the statute was somewhat relaxed. Blackstone goes on to state that he practice in his day (some years after the middle of the last century) was, "that bills are often framed in either house, under the denomination of heads for a bill or bills,' and in that shape they are offered to the consideration of the lord-lieutenant and privy council, who, upon such parliamentary intimation, or otherwise upon the application of private persons, receive and transmit such heads, or reject them without any transmission to England." These heads of bills how-resolution was immediately met by an ever really differed in nothing from bills act of the British parliament, the 5 Geo. or acts of parliament, except that, instead I. c. 1, declaring that "the king's maof the words "Be it enacted," the formal jesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal of commencement of each paragraph or clause was, "We pray that it may be Great Britain in parliament assembled, enacted;" and the motion for presenting had, hath, and of right ought to have full them scarcely differed, except in form, power and authority to make laws and from the motion in the English House of statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the people and the kingdom of IreCommons for leave to bring in a bill, a motion necessary in all cases to be as- land; and that the House of Lords in sented to or carried in the affirmative be- Ireland have not nor of right ought to fore the actual bringing in of any bill. have any jurisdiction to judge of, reverse, or affirm any judgment, sentence, or deAnd as for the consent of the crown or cree given or made in any court within the government, which it was necessary the said kingdom; and that all proceedto obtain before either house of the Irish parliament could take up the considera- ings before the said House of Lords upon tion of any proposed law, with a view to any such judgment, sentence, or decree its enactment, that would in practice pro- are and are hereby declared to be utterly bably be found to operate much in the null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever." same way with the assent of the crown, which even in England was necessary to give validity to any bill after it had passed both houses. In the Irish as well as in the English parliament there was in fact an opportunity of discussing the proposition without the permission of the crown. An English as well as an Irish bill required the assent of the crown before it could become law. The practice of presenting heads of bills however was not introduced into the Irish parliament till after the Revolution of 1688. But the dependence of Ireland upon the English crown, and the consequent subordination of the Irish legislature, were held to go still farther than to the establishment of the principle that laws might be made by the parliament of England to bind Ireland. The Irish House of Lords had entertained writs of error upon judgments in the courts of common In this state the law remained till the In that year the statute 5 year 1782. Geo. I. c. 1, was repealed by the 22 Geo. III. c 53; and the following year the 23 Geo. III. c. 28, declared the exclusive authority of the Irish parliament and courts of justice in all matters of legislation and judicature for Ireland. Finally, in 1800, by the Act of Union, the 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 67, the Irish parliament was extinguished, and it was enacted that the United Kingdom should be represented in one and the same parliament, to be called the parliament of the United Kirgdom of Great Britain and Ireland. [PARLIAMENT.] The earliest Irish statutes on record are of the year 1310; but from that date there are none till the year 1429, from which time there is a regular series. The whole have been printed, and there are also abridgments by Bullingbroke and Belcher, Hunt, and others. (Lord Mountmorres's History of the Irish Parliament; Blackstone's Commentaries; Oldfield's Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland; Wakefield's Account of Ireland, Statistical and Political; Hallam's Constitutional History of England.) PAROCHIAL REGISTERS. [REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.] PAROL. This term, which signifies "a word," has been adopted from the Norman-French as a term of art in English law, to denote verbal or oral proceedings, as distinguished from matters which have been recorded in public tribunals or otherwise reduced to writing. Thus a parol contract is an agreement by word of mouth, as opposed to a contract by deed. Parol evidence is the testimony of witnesses given orally, as opposed to records or written instruments. This is the popular acceptation of parol, but, strictly speaking, everything, even in writing, is parol which is not under seal. The formal allegations of the parties to a suit in the common law courts, called pleadings, which are now made in writing, were formerly conducted orally at the bar, and in the year-books are commonly denominated the parol. Hence in certain actions brought by or against an infant, either party may suggest the fact of the infancy, and pray that the proceedings may be stayed; and where such a sug. gestion was complied with, the technical phrase was that the "parol demurred" (demoratus), that is, the pleadings were suspended until the infant had attained his full age. PARSON. [BENEFICE, p. 341.] PARTNERSHIP. If two or more persons join together their money, goods, labour, and skill, or any or all of them, for the purpose of buying and selling, and agree that the gain or loss shall be divided among them, that is a partnership. The object of the partnership may be any thing that is lawful. Any agreement of partnership for an unlawful object is no agreement. The English law of partnership is founded on the common law, the so-called law of merchants, and the Roman law. By the common law a partner has no power to bind his copartner by deed. By the law of merchants he has power to bind his copartner by a bill of exchange, and there is no survivorship in the partnership stock. From the Roman law is derived the principle that a partnership (societas) is terminated by the death of a partner. (Gaius, iii. 155.) No writing is necessary to constitute a partnership. The acts of the parties, when there is no partnership contract in writing, are the evidence of the contract. Partners may be either ostensible, nominal, or dormant. He whose name appears to the world as a partner is an ostensible partner. An ostensible partner may or may not have an interest in the concern; if he has no interest in the concern, but allows his name to appear as one of the firm, he is a nominal partner; if his name and transactions as a partner are purposely concealed from the world, he is a dormant partner. But if his name and transactions are actually unknown to the world, he is more properly termed a secret partner. Generally speaking, any number of persons may be partners, but there are some exceptions. [BANK; JOINTSTOCK COMPANY.] Any person of sound mind and not under any legal disability may be a partner. An infant may enter into this, as into any other trading contract which may possibly turn out to his advantage. It may however be avoided by him on coming of age, though the person with whom he contracts will be bound. An alien friend may be a trader and sue in personal actions, and may therefore be a partner. But an Englishman domiciled in a foreign country at war with England, or an alien enemy, cannot be a partner with a person in this country; at least he cannot sue in this country for a debt due to the firm. Married women are incapacitated from entering into the contract of partnership; and although they are sometimes entitled to shares in bankinghouses and other mercantile concerns, yet in these cases their husbands are entitled to such shares, and become partners. If parties share in the profit and |