Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/20

 lo J- F. Baldivin before proceeding to other business.' Of greater significance in the development of the council were the persistent efforts that were made to define its power against the common law. The tendency of the council to encroach upon the sphere of the common-law courts, to try cases between suitors, to summon parties by writs of privy seal, was ever a subject of grievance and petition. It was already law that no freeman should be compelled to answer for his freehold before the council.- In the first year of Richard II. it was conceded that no suits between parties should be ended before the council.^ To most of the petitions evasive answers were given. ^ So that all that was accomplished further is contained in one of the ordin- ances of 1390, that business touching the common law which came before the council should be sent to be determined before the jus- tices. This did not suffice, for the complaints and petitions still vainly continued." 8. It remains to test the effectiveness of the Parliamentary pro- gramme by the events of the mature years of Richard after 1389, when his personal government fairly began. For a while in cer- tain ways the council still bears the imprint of the influence of the previous regime. This influence is seen for a time among the older members, for in the thirteenth year as many as eight of them had been in one or another of the previous councils, while four were lords appellant.' The fear of impeachment is expressed when the council refused and could not be persuaded to accede to a request of the king, lest in the first Parliament it should be imputed to them that they had burdened the kingdom with a larger sum of money than was necessary or honest.' Their responsibility to Parliament was again acknowledged when the chancellor, treasurer, and coun- cillors oft'ered to resign their places, that charges might be brought against them.'' Again, the ordinances of 1390 for the governance of the council, whether they were passed by Parliament or not, were evidently forced upon the king by the Parliamentary party. The hand of the Gloucester faction in particular is seen in the re- quirement that no gift or grant to the decrease of the king's profit be made without the advice of the council and the consent in par- ticular of the dukes of Lancaster, York, and Gloucester and the chancellor, or two of them.'" On the other hand, a quite contrary influence in the manage- 1 Nicolas, Proceedings. I. 18 b. 'Rot. Pari., II. 228; Statutes of the Realm. I. 321. ^Ibid., III. 21. 'Nicolas. Proceedings. 1.. t"^^""- 5 Nicolas, Proceedings. I. 18 b. ^Rot. Pari, III. 258. ^Rot. Pari., III. 323, 446. '"Nicolas, Proceedings. I. 18 b.
 * Ibid., 44, 267. ^Ibid., 12 c, 17.