 | 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:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Untitled
editCould use mention/discussion of the content of the bill itself.
Why was it not used those two years?
editOK, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Sweet, there we go. 68.39.174.238 06:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Spaces
editWhat are the spaces for? --Leifern 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
Content section
editGiven 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)