At length the question of their being obliged to conform to any of the rules below came to a formal judgment.  In the trial of Dr. Sacheverell, March 10th, 1709, the Lord Nottingham “desired their Lordships’ opinion, whether he might propose a question to the Judges here [in Westminster Hall].  Thereupon the Lords, being moved to adjourn, adjourned to the House of Lords, and on debate,” as appears by a note, “it was agreed that the question should be proposed in Westminster Hall."[6] Accordingly, when the Lords returned the same day into the Hall, the question was put by Lord Nottingham, and stated to the Judges by the Lord Chancellor:  “Whether, by the law of England, and constant practice in all prosecutions by indictment and information for crimes and misdemeanors by writing or speaking, the particular words supposed to be written or spoken must not be expressly specified in the indictment or information?” On this question the Judges, seriatim, and in open court, delivered their opinion:  the substance of which was, “That, by the laws of England, and the constant practice in Westminster Hall, the words ought to be expressly specified in the indictment or information.”  Then the Lords adjourned, and did not come into the Hall until the 20th.  In the intermediate time they came to resolutions on the matter of the question put to the Judges.  Dr. Sacheverell, being found guilty, moved in arrest of judgment upon two points.  The first, which he grounded on the opinion of the Judges, and which your Committee thinks most to the present purpose, was, “That no entire clause, or sentence, or expression, in either of his sermons or dedications, is particularly set forth in his impeachment, which he has already heard the Judges declare to be necessary in all cases of indictments or informations."[7] On this head of objection, the Lord Chancellor, on the 23d of March, agreeably to the resolutions of the Lords of the 14th and 16th of March, acquainted Dr. Sacheverell, “That, on occasion of the question before put to the Judges in Westminster Hall, and their answer thereto, their Lordships had fully debated and considered of that matter, and had come to the following resolution:  ’That this House will proceed to the determination of the impeachment of Dr. Henry Sacheverell, according to the law of the land, and the law and usage of Parliament.’  And afterwards to this resolution:  ’That, by the law and usage of Parliament in prosecutions for high crimes and misdemeanors by writing or speaking, the particular words supposed to be criminal are not necessary to be expressly specified in such impeachment.’  So that, in their Lordships’ opinion, the law and usage of the High Court of Parliament being a part of the law of the land, and that usage not requiring that words should be exactly specified in impeachments, the answer of the Judges, which related only to the course of indictments and informations, does not in the least affect your case."[8]