Talk:Outlawries Bill

A fact from Outlawries Bill appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 June 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Outlawries Bill has been read in the British House of Commons nearly every year since 1727?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/June.

Wikipedia

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Could use mention/discussion of the content of the bill itself.

Why was it not used those two years?[edit]

OK, so what...[edit]

...is the exactly meaning/import of the bill? That old English is unintelligble to me, and I'm wondering what its content is that makes it symbolic of the Legislature's ability to run contrary to the monarch... 68.39.174.238 05:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content is not important at all: the point is that the House debates what it want to talk about before it talks about what the Queen has just said, symbolising the fact that the House is not a creature of the Crown. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the Select Vestries Bill is important enough to be explained there, so what does this mass of almost foreign-sounding English mean in a legal sense? 68.39.174.238 06:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to be saying that it is an offence to proclaim a person as an outlaw without sending the proclamation to the person's local sheriff, and there is another offence if the sheriff does not follow "the directions of the Act made in the thirty-first year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth" (presumably someont to do with publicising the outlawry). Hence, an act to prevent people being secretly (clandesinely) made an outlaw. Not all that archaic. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, there we go. 68.39.174.238 06:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spaces[edit]

What are the spaces for? --Leifern 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first is for a date; the second and last for a sum of money; and the third presumably for the precise form of the necessary Proclamation(s). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content section[edit]

Given the contents of Canadian Bills C-1 and S-1 having nothing to do with railways or oaths of office, is it reasonable in the first place to assume that the Outlawries Bill for the UK would contain anything to do with outlawry at all? I doubt it. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]