The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in England and Wales, legal aid, a court of criminal appeal, county courts and limits on the use of the death penalty were proposed as early as 1652 by the Hale Commission?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
I would personally use subsequent over successive in the lead.
Some of your sentences can get a bit confusing, such as They also suggested permitting prisoners access to lawyers in any case where the prosecution was permitted representation, allowing witnesses for the defence to give evidence under oath, and legal aid, although the rejection of a case where legal aid was given would result in the defendant being sent to a workhouse for a month and whipped.
In the Disestablishment section, I suggest John Hostettler, in his biography of Hale, has suggested that if the measures had been put into law immediately, "we would have been honouring such pioneers for their farsightedness in enhancing our legal system and the concept of justice". be moved to the subsequent section. The first speaks of results while the second is of commentary.
None of the Commission's recommendations ever made it into law under the Rump Parliament, though it produced 16 bills. It refers to what?
From 1702 on, defendants were allowed for the defence Uh, what?
The use of peine forte et dure was abolished until 1741, and the benefit of clergy in 1827. implies they returned. Do you perhaps mean was abolished in?
Three total sources seems a bit few, but the article is uncontroversial.
I'm concerned with Much debate has occurred over the effectiveness and strife within the Commission between its more moderate and radical members, and the general conclusion is that with the sheer volume of work produced and the vast proportion of moderate to radical members, it is unlikely that such strife existed. in the lead: a general conclusion from several sources smacks of original research.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
b (MoS): 
On hold
