[1][2] One charge under this heading alleged that de la Pole broke a promise to Parliament to follow the advice of a committee regarding improvement of the kingdom.
The 1450 impeachment of William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk, a descendant of Michael, was the next to allege charges under this title.
[3][2] In 1640, at the beginning of the Long Parliament, Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford, was impeached for "high misdemeanours" regarding his conduct in Ireland.
[5] In this case, he abused his position in the Privy Council to make profits for himself; as Treasurer of the Navy he embezzled funds; and as Admiral of the Fleet he got a commission for the pirate William Kidd.
The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.'
With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.
"[10] The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and convicting in the Senate is complex, made to be the balance against efforts to remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office.
Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.
The House's primary charge against Johnson was with violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress the previous year.
During the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1999, White House Counsel Charles Ruff described a "narrow" interpretation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as requiring "a standard that the framers intentionally set at this extraordinarily high level to ensure that only the most serious offenses and in particular those that subverted our system of government would justify overturning a popular election".