(senescallus, compounded of the Saxon steda, i.e. "room" or "stead," and ward, "a ward" or "keeper"), an officer appointed in another's stead or place, and always taken for a principal officer within his jurisdiction. jurisdiction. Of these there are various kinds. The greatest officer under the crown is the lord high-steward of England, an office that was anciently the inheritance of the earls of Leicester, till forfeited by Simon de Montfort to King Henry III. But the power of this officer is so very great, that it has not been judged safe to trust it any longer in the hands of a subject, excepting only pro hac vice, occasionally: as to officiate at a coronation, at the arraignment of a nobleman for treason, or the like. During his office, the steward bears a white staff in his hand; and the trial, &c. ended, he breaks the staff, and with it his commission expires. There is likewise a lord-steward of the king's household, who is the chief officer of the king's court, has the care of the king's house, and authority over all the officers and servants of the household, except such as belong to the chapel, chamber, and stable.

officer in a ship of war, appointed by the purser to distribute the different species of provisions to the officers and crew; for which purpose he is furnished with a mate and proper assistants.

Court of the Lord High Steward of Great Britain, is a court instituted for the trial of peers indicted for treason or felony, or for misprision of either. The office of this great magistrate is very ancient, and was formerly hereditary, or at least held for life, or dum bene se gesserit; but now it is usually, and hath been for many centuries past, granted pro hac vice only; and it hath been the constant practice (and therefore seems now to have become necessary) to grant it to a lord of parliament, else he is incapable to try such delinquent peer. When such an indictment is therefore found by a grand jury of freeholders in the King's bench, or at the assizes before the justices of oyer and terminer, it is to be removed by a writ of certiorari into the court of the lord high-steward, which has the only power to determine it. A peer may plead a pardon before the court of King's bench, and the judges have power to allow it, in order to prevent the trouble of appointing an high-steward merely for the purpose of receiving such plea: but he may not plead in that inferior court any other plea, as guilty or not guilty of the indictment, but only in this court; because, in consequence of such plea, it is possible that judgment of death might be awarded against him. The king, therefore, in case a peer be indicted of treason, felony, or misprision, creates a lord high-steward pro hac vice by commission under the great seal; which recites the indictment so found, and gives his Grace power to receive and try it secundum legem et consuetudinem Anglie. Then when the indictment is regularly removed by writ of certiorari, commanding the inferior court to certify it up to him, the lord high-steward directs a precept to a sergeant at arms, to summon the lords to attend and try the indicted peer. This precept was formerly issued to summon only 18 or 20 selected from the body of the peers; then the number came to be indefinite; and the custom was for the lord high-steward to summon as many as he thought proper (but of late years not less than 23); and that those lords only should sit upon the trial; which threw a monstrous weight of power into the hands of the crown, and this its great officer, of selecting only such peers as the then predominant party should most approve of. And accordingly, when the earl of Clarendon fell into disgrace with Charles II, there was a design formed to prorogue the parliament, in order to try him by a select number of peers; it being doubted whether the whole house could be induced to fall in with the views of the court. But now, by statute 7 W. III. c. 3. upon all trials of peers for treason or misprision, all the peers who have a right to sit and vote in parliament shall be summoned at least 20 days before such trial, to appear and vote therein; and every lord appearing shall vote in the trial of such peer, first taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and subscribing the declaration against popery.

During the session of parliament, the trial of an indicted peer is not properly in the court of the lord high-steward, but before the court last mentioned of our lord the king in parliament. It is true, a lord high-steward is always appointed in that case to regulate and add weight to the proceedings: but he is rather in the nature of a speaker pro tempore, or chairman of the court, than the judge of it; for the collective body of the peers are therein the judges both of law and fact, and the high-steward has a vote with the rest in right of his peerage. But in the court of the lord high-steward, which is held in the recess of parliament, he is the sole judge of matters of law, as the lords triers are in matters of fact; and as they may not interfere with him in regulating the proceedings of the court, so he has no right to intermix with them in giving any vote upon the trial. Therefore, upon the conviction and attainder of a peer for murder in full parliament, it hath been holden by the judges, that in case the day appointed in the judgment for execution should lapse before execution done, a new time of execution may be appointed by either the high court of parliament during its sitting, though no high-steward be existing, or, in the recess of parliament, by the court of King's-bench, the record being removed into that court.

It has been a point of some controversy, whether the bishops have now a right to sit in the court of the lord high-steward to try indictments of treason and misprision. Some incline to imagine them included under the general words of the statute of King William "all peers who have a right to sit and vote in parliament;" but the expression had been much clearer, if it had been "all lords," and not "all peers;" for though bishops, on account of the baronies annexed to their bishoprics, are clearly lords of parliament, yet their blood not being ennobled, they are not universally allowed to be peers with the temporal nobility: and perhaps this word might be inserted purposely with a view to exclude them. However, there is no instance of their sitting on trials for capital offences, even upon impeachments or indictments in full parliament, much less in the court we are now treating of; for indeed they usually withdraw voluntarily, but enter a protest, declaring their right to stay. It is observable, that in the 11th chapter of the constitutions of Clarendon, made in parliament 11th Henry II. they are expressly excused, rather than excluded, from sitting and voting in trials, which concern life or limb: episcopi, sunt exteri barones, debent interesse judicium cum baronibus, quosque pervenerint ad diminutionem membrorum vel ad mortem. And Becket's quarrel with the king hereupon was not on account of the exception (which was agreeable to the canon law), but of the general rule, that compelled the bishops to attend at all. And the determination of the house of lords Steward, lords in the earl of Danby's cafe, which hath ever since been adhered to, is consonant to these constitutions; "that the lords spiritual have a right to stay and fit in court in capital cases, till the court proceeds to the vote of guilty or not guilty." It must be noted, that this resolution extends only to trials in full parliament; for to the court of the lord high-steward (in which no vote can be given, but merely that of guilty or not guilty), no bishop, as such, ever was or could be summoned: and though the statute of King William regulates the proceedings in that court, as well as in the court of parliament, yet it never intended to new-model or alter its constitution; and consequently does not give the lords spiritual any right, in cases of blood, which they had not before. And what makes their exclusion more reasonable is, that they have no right to be tried themselves in the court of the lord high-steward, and therefore surely ought not to be judges there. For the privilege of being thus tried depends upon nobility of blood rather than a seat in the house, as appears from the trials of the popish lords, of lords under age, and (since the union) of the Scotch nobility, though not in the number of the sixteen; and from the trials of females, such as the queen consort or dowager, and of all peerses by birth; and peerses by marriage also, unless they have, when dowagers, disparaged themselves by taking a commoner to their second husband.