I Have often troubled your Lordships with my Dis­course in this House, but I confess I never did it with more trouble to my self than I do at this time; For I scarse know how I should begin what I have to say to your Lordships.

On the one side, I am afraid of being thought an Unqui­et and a Pragmatical Man; for in this Age every man that cannot bear every thing, is called Unquiet, and he who does but ask Questions, tho' about those matters for which he ought to be most concern'd, is look'd upon as Pragmatical.

On the other side, I am more afraid of being thought a Dishonest Man, and of all men, I am most afraid of being thought so by my self; for every one is best Judge of the integrity of his own Intentions. And though it does not al­wayes follow, that he is Pragmatical, whom others take to be so, yet this never failes to be true, That he is most certain­ly a Knave, who takes himself to be so.

No body is answerable for more Understanding than God Almighty has given him; and therefore though I should be in the wrong, if I tell your Lordships plainly and [Page 4] truly what I am really convinced of, I shall behave my self like an Honest Man; For it is my Duty, as long as I have the Honour to Sit in this House, to hide nothing from your Lordships, which I think may concern either his Ma­jesties Service, your Lordships Interest, or the Good and Quiet of the People of England.

The Question, which in my Opinion does now lie before your Lordships, Is not what we are to do, but, Whether at this time we can do any thing as a Parliament? It being ve­ry clear to me, That the Parliament is Dissolved. And if in this Opinion I have the misfortune to be mistaken, I have another misfortune joyned to it, A desire to maintain this Argument with all the Judges and Lawyers in England, and leave it afterwards to your Lordships to decide, Whether I am in the Right or no. This, my Lords, I speak not out of Arrogance, but in my own Justification. Because if I were not througly convinced, that what I have now to urge, were grounded upon the Fundamental Laws of England, and that the not pressing it at this time, might prove to be of a most dangerous consequence, both to his Majesty and the whole Nation, I should have been loath to start a Notion, which perhaps may not be very agreeable to some People. And yet, my Lords, when I consider where I am, who I now speak to, and what was spoken in this Place about the time of the last Prorogation, I can hardly believe that what I have to say, will be distastful to your Lordships.

I remember very well how your Lordships were then dis­pleased with the House of Commons, and I remember too as well, what Reasons they gave you to be so. It is not so long since, but that I suppose your Lordships may easily call to mind, that after several odd passages between us, your Lord­ships were so incensed, that a motion was made here, for to address to his Majesty, about the Dissolution of this Parlia­ment. And tho it fail'd of being carried in the Affirmative by two or three Voices, yet this in the Debate was remark­able, [Page 5] That it prevail'd with much the Major part of your Lordships that were here present, and was only over-power'd by the Proxies of those Lords who never heard the Arguments. What Change there has been since either in their Behaviour, or in the state of our Affairs, that should make your Lordships change your Opinion, I have not yet heard. And therefore if I can make it appear (as I presume I shall) that by Law the Parliament is Dissolved, I presume your Lordships ought not to be offended at me for it.

I have often wondred how it should come to pass, that this House of Commons, in which there are so many Ho­nest, and so many worthy Gentlemen, should yet be less re­spectful to your Lordships, as certainly they have been, than any House of Commons that ever were chosen in England; and yet if the matter be a little enquired into, the reason of it will plainly appear. For my Lords, the very nature of the House of Commons is changed▪ They do not think now that they are an Assembly that are to return to their own homes, and become Private men again (as by the Laws of the Land and the Antient Constitution of Parliaments they ought to be) but they look upon themselves as a stand­ing Senate, and as a number of men pickt out to be Legisla­tors for the rest of their whole Lives. And if that be the case my Lords, they have reason to believe themselves our Equals.

But, my Lords, it is a dangerous thing to try new Experi­ments in a Government; Men do not foresee the ill Conse­quences that must happen when they go about to alter those essential parts of it, upon which the whole Frame of the Go­vernment depends, as now in our Case, the Customs and Constitutions of Parliament. For all Governments are ar­tificial things; and every part of them has a dependance one upon another. And as in Clocks and Watches, if you should put Great VVheeles in the place of Little ones, and [...] [Page 6] Little VVheels in the place of Great ones, all the Fabrick would stand still: So we cannot alter any one part of a Go­vernment without prejudicing the motions of the whole. If this, my Lords, were well considered, people would be more cautious how they went out of the old, honest, English way and method of proceedings. But it is not my business to find Faults, and therefore if your Lordships will give me leave, I shall go on to shew you, why, in my opinion, we are no Parliament.

The Ground of this Opinion of mine is taken from the antient and unquestionable Statutes of this Realm, and give me leave to tell your Lordships by the way, That Statutes are not like VVomen, for they are not one jot the worse for being Old. The first Statute I shall take notice off is, That in the fourth year of Edvvard the Third, Chap. 14, thus set down in the printed Book;

Item, It is accorded, That a Parliament shall be holden every year once, and more often if need be. Now though these words be as plain as a Pike-Staff, and that no man li­ving that is not a Scholar could possibly mistake the meaning of them, yet the Grammarians of those dayes did make a shift to explain, that the words, If need be, did relate as well to the words Every year once, as to the words more often; and so by this Grammaticall Whimsey of theirs, had made this Sta­tute to signify just nothing at all. For this Reason, my Lords, in the 36th. year of the same Kings Reign, a New Act of Parliament was made, in which these unfortunate words, If need be, were left out, and that Act of Parliament is printed thus; relating to Magna Charta, and other Statutes made for publick Good:

Item, For maintenance of these Articles and Statutes, and the redress of divers Mischiefs and Grievances vvhich daily happen, A Parliament, shall be holden every year: as ano­ther time vvas Ordained by another Statute.

Here now, my Lords, there is not left the least Colour or [Page 7] Shadow for any further mistake, for it is plainly declared, That the Kings of England must Call a Parliament once with­in a Year: And the Reasons why they are bound to do so, are as plainly set down, Namely, For the maintainance of Magna Charta, and other Statutes of the same Import­ance, and for preventing the Mischiefs and Grievances which daily happen.

The Question then remaineth, Whether these Statutes have been since Repealed by any other Statutes or no?

The only Statutes I ever heard mentioned for that, are the two Triennall Bills, the one made in the last Kings, and the other in this Kings Reign.

The Triannal Bill in the last Kings Reign, was made for the Confirmation of the two mentioned Statutes of Edvv. 3. For Parliaments having been omitted to be Called every year according to those Statutes. A Statute was made in the last Kings Reign to this purpose▪ That if the King should fail of Calling a Parliament, according to those Statutes of Edw. 3. Then the Third year the People should Meet of them­selves vvithout any Writts at all, and Choose their Parliament-Men.

This way of the Peoples Choosing Parliament-Men of themselves, being thought disrespectful to the King, A Sta­tute was made by this last Parliament, which Repealed the Triennal Bill; And after the Repealing Clause (which took notice only of the Triennal Bill made in the last Kings Reign) There was in this Statute a Paragraph to this purpose: That because by the Antient Statutes of this Realm, made in the Reign of Edw. 3. Parliaments are to be held very often, It should be Enacted, That vvithin three years after the Deter­mination of that present Parliament, Parliaments should not be discontinued above three years at most, and should be holden oftener if need required.

There have been several half kind of Arguments drawn out of these Triennal Bills against the Statutes of Edvv. 3. [Page 8] which I confess I could never remember, nor indeed those that urged them to me ever durst own; For they alwayes laid their faults upon some body else, like ugly offish Children, which because of their Deformity and want of wit, the Parents are ashamed of, and so turn them out to the Parish. But, My Lords, let the Arguments be what they will, I have this short Answer to all that can be wrested out of these Triennal Bills. That the first Triennal Bill vvas Re­pealed before the matter novv disputed of vvas in Question, and the last Triennal Bill vvill not be in force till the Question be Decided, that is, till this Parliament is Dissolved.

The whole matter therefore, My Lords, is reduced to this short Dilemma, Either the Kings of England are bound by the Acts mentioned of Edvv. 3. or else the whole Govern­ment of England by Parliaments, and by Law is absolutely at an End. For if the Kings of England have Power by an Order of theirs to invalidate an Act made for the maintein­ance of Magna Charta, they have also Power by an Order of theirs to invalidate Magna Charta it self; And if they have Power by an Order of theirs to invalidate an Act made for the maintenance of the Statute, De Tallagio non concedendo, they have also Power when they please, by an Order of theirs to invalidate the Statute itself De Tallagio non concedendo; and then they may not only without the help of a Parliament, raise Money when they please, but also take away any man's Estate when they please, and deprive every one of his Liber­ty or Life as they please.

This, My Lords, I think is a Power that no Judge nor Lawyer will pretend the Kings of England have, and yet this Power must be allowed them, or else we that are Met here this Day cannot Act as a Patliament. For we are now met by virtue of the last Prorogation, and that Prorogation is an Order of the King's point blanck contrary to the two Acts of Edvv. 3. For the Acts say, That a Parliament shall be holden once vvithin a year; And the Prorogation saith, [Page 9] A Parliament shall not be held vvithin a year, but some mo­neths after, and this (I conceive) is a plain contradiction, and consequently that the Prorogation is void. Now if we cannot Act as a Parliament, by virtue of the last Proroga­tion, I beseech your Lordships by virtue of what else can we Act? Shall we Act by virtue of the Kings Proclamation? Pray, my Lords, How so? Is a Proclamation of more force than a Prorogation? Or, if a thing that hath been Ordered the first time be not Valid, Doth the Ordering it the second time make it good in Law? I have heard indeed, that two Negatives make an Affirmative, but I never heard before, that two nothings ever made any thing. Well, But how then do we meet? Is it by our own Adjournment? I suppose no body has the confidence to say that: Which way then is it? Do we meet here by accident? That I think might be granted, but an accidental Meeting can no more make a Parliament, than an accidental clapping a Crown upon a Mans Head, can make a King. There is a great deal of Ceremony required, to give a matter of that moment a legal Sanction.

The Laws have reposed so great a Trust, and so great a Power in the hands of a Parliament, that every Circum­stance relating to the manner of their Electing, Meeting and Proceeding, is look'd after with the nicest Circumspection imaginable.

For this reason the Kings Writts about the Summons of Parliament, are to be issued out verbatim according to the Form prescribed by the Law, or else that Parliament is void and null. For the same reason, if a Parliament Summoned by the Kings Writ, does not meet at the very same day it is summoned to meet upon, that Parliament is void and null: And by the same Reason, if Parliaments be not Legally Ad­journed De die in diem, those Parliaments must also be void and null.

Oh, but some say, There is nothing in the two Acts of [Page 10] Edvv. 3. to take away the Kings power in Prorogation, and therefore the Prorogation is good. My Lords, under favour that is a very gross mistake; for pray examine the words of the Acts: The Acts say, A Parliament shall be holden once a year; Now to whom can these words be directed, but to them that are to Call a Parliament? And who are they but the Kings of England? It is very true, that this does not take away the Kings power of proroguing Parliaments; but it most certainly limits it to be within a year.

Well then, but it is said again, If that Prorogation be null and void, then things are just as they were before, and there­fore the Parliament is still in being.

My Lords, I confess there would be some weight in this but for one thing, which is, that not one word of it is true; for if when the King had Prorogued us, we had taken no notice of the Prorogation, but had gon on like a Parliament, and had Adjourn'd our selves De die in diem; then I confess things had been just as they were before: But since upon the Prorogation we went away, and took no care our selves for our Meeting again, if we cannot meet and Act by virtue of that Prorogation, there is an impossibility of our meeting and acting any other way. One may as properly say, that a man who is kill'd by Assault is still alive, because he was kil­led Unlawfully; as that the Parliament is still alive, because the Prorogation was Unlawful.

The next Argument that those are reduc'd to who would maintain this to be yet a Parliament, is, that the Parliament is Prorogued Sine die, and therefore the King may Call them again by a Proclamation.

In the first part of this Proposition, I shall not only agree with them, but also do them the favour to prove that it is so in the eye of the Law, which I never heard they have yet done. For the Statutes say, That a Parliament shall be holden once vvithin a year; and the Prorogation having put them off till a day without the year, and consequently excepted against [Page 11] by the Law; that day in the eye of the Law is no day at all, that is, Sine die; and the Prorogation might as well have put them off till so many months after Dooms-day; and then I think no body would have doubted, but that it had been a very sufficient Dissolution.

Besides, My Lords, I shall desire your Lordships to take notice, that in former times the usual way of Dissolving Par­liaments was to Dismiss them Sine die; For the King when he Dissolved them, used to say no more, but that he desired them to go home, till he sent for them again, which is a Dis­mission Sine die.

Now if there were forty ways of Dissolving Parliaments, if I can prove this Parliament has been Dissolved by any one of them, I suppose there is no great need of the other thirty nine.

Another thing which they much insist upon is, that they have found out a President in Queen Elizabeth's time, when a Parliament was once Prorogued three days beyond a year▪ In which I cannot chuse but observe, That it is a very great confirmation of the Value and Esteem all people ever had of the forementioned Acts of Edvvard the Third, since from that time to this, there can but one President be found for the Proroguing a Parliament above a year, and that was but for three days neither.

Besides, my Lords, This President is of a very Odd kind of nature; For it was in the time of a very great Plague, when every Body of a suddain was forced to run away one from another, and so being in haste, had not lei­sure to calculate well the time of the Prorogation, though the appointing it to be within three days of the year is an Argu­ment to me, that their Design was to keep within the Bounds of the Acts of Parliament. And if the mistake had been taken notice of in Queen Elizabeth's time, I make no question but She would have given a lawfull Remedy to it.

[Page 12]Now I beseech your Lordships, what more can be drawn from the shewing this President, but only that because once upon a time a thing was done illegally, therefore your Lordships should do so again now: Tho' My Lords, un­der favour, Ours is a very different Case from theirs; for this President they mention was never taken notice off; and all Lawyers will tell you, that a President that passes Sub Si­lentio, is of no Validity at all, and will never be admitted in any Judicial Court where 'tis Pleaded.

Nay, Judge Vaughan saies, in his Reports, That in Cases vvhich depend upon Fundamental Principles, from vvhich De­monstrations may be dravvn, Millions of Presidents are to no purpose.

Oh but say they, you must think prudentially of the Incon­veniencies which will follow upon it: For if this be allowed all those Acts which were made in that Sessions of Parlia­ment, will be then Void.

Whether that be so or no, I shall not now examine; But this I will pretend to say, That no man ought to pass for a prudential person, who only takes notice of the Inconveni­encies of one side; it is the part of a wise man to examine the Inconveniences of both sides, to weigh which are the greatest, and to be sure to avoid them. And, My Lords, to that kind of Examination I willingly submit this Cause; for I presume it will be easie for your Lordships to judge, which of these two will be of the most dangerous con­sequence to the Nation, either to allow, that the Statutes made in that particular Sessions in Queen Elizabeth's time are Void, (which may be easily confirmed at any time by a lawful Parliament) Or to lay it down for a Maxime, That the Kings of England by a particular Order of theirs, have Povver to break all the Lavvs of England vvhen they please.

And, My Lords, with all the Duty we owe his Majesty, it is no disrespect to him to say, That his Majesty is bound up by the Lavvs of England; For the Great King of Hea­ven [Page 13] and Earth, God Almighty himself is bound by his own Decrees: And what is an Act of Parliament but a Decree of the Kings made in the most Solemn manner it is possible for him to make it, that is, with the consent of the Lords and Commons.

It is plain then in my Opinion, that we are no more a Parliament, and I humbly conceive, your Lordships ought to give God thanks for it, since it has pleased him thus by his Providence to take you out of a condition, wherein you must have been entirely useless to his Majesty, to your selves, and the whole Nation: For, I do beseech your Lordships, if no­thing of this I have urged were true, what honourable Ex­cuse could we find for our acting again with this House of Commons? Except we could pretend to such an exquisite art of forgetfulness as to avoid calling to mind all that pas­sed between us the last Sessions, and unless we could have also a faculty of teaching the same Art to the whole Nation; What opinion could they have of us, if it should happen that the very same men, who were so earnest the last Sessions, for having this House of Commons Dissolved, when there was no question of their lawful sitting, should be now willing to joyn with them again, when without question they are Dis­solved.

Nothing can be more dangerous to a King or a People, than that Laws should be made by an Assembly, of which there can be a doubt Whether they have power to make Laws or no: And it would be in us so much the more un­excusable, if we should overlook this Danger, since there is for it so easie a Remedy; A Remedy which the Lavv re­quires, and which all the Nation longs for,