ANIMADVERSION.

From these Statutes the substance of what the Author argues is; That if the King be obliged by Law to hold a Parliament once every yeer, then he ought to call a new one every yeer. And if so, then he cannot Prorogue one Par­liament above the Term of a yeer. But the last Prorogation [Page 11] of this present Parliament having been for Fifteen Months, which is Three Months beyond what the ancient Law and Custom allows for one Parliaments sitting: Therefore that Prorogation being contrary to those Statutes, the Parlia­ment it Self must needs die, and can continue no longer to act as a Parliament, being by Law extinct and Dissolved. This is the Sum of what the Faction alledges to destroy this Parliament.

Lord! what a Thing is Pedantism in every Profession! The shame and reproach of every Science and Sort of Learning; especially of this of the Law; and more espe­cially of that part of it which concerns the Constitution of the Crown and Kingdom, to the prejudice whereof no Construction of Law whatsoever ought to be made, or will be made by any wise and weighty man. But there are a sort of little Pedants, whose shallow Brains want Line and Plummet to sound the depth of matters; whose Skulls are too narrow to comprehend the utmost Scope of Law: these are a sort of Creatures that are wont to be carried away with mere Sounds of words; are too apt to be Captivated by Phansie, and mistake it to be Understan­ding, as 'tis the manner of the profane Vulgar of this and every Profession; and so not being fit to get Publike em­ployment from a King, are of little use but to torment the Law, by wresting it for the service of such as are Fa­ctious and Seditious in his Kingdom. But now for an An­swer to their Argument, take notice in the first place; That in all the Books lately printed by this sort of men, to pervert the People's opinion against the legal continu­ance of this Parliament, they are very careful to tickle them with frequent mentions of ancient Laws, the good old Laws and ancient Customs of England, and the like Phra­ses; which make a noise, and great Noises usually take the weaker sort of people; yea, and engage them too, [Page 12] they believing of course that where most Clamour is, there must needs be most Right, especially if it be thought that the wisdom of our Fore-fathers, and their practice, be concerned in the Case. As for the Antiquity of Politick Con­stitutions, I believe our Predecessors acted as far as they understood; and perhaps they understood what was con­venient in their time and state of affairs to be done; but certainly they could not be so unwise as to do it eo animo, with an intent to tie up Posterity to the same Rules as were then used, it being utterly impossible in matters which re­late to administration of Government; because in the Torrent of Time there flow down innumerable Accidents both among our Selves and our Neighbour Nations, which induce unavoidable Alterations in every Age, and those must of necessity introduce new Counsels and Rules and Forms of managing a Government, suitable to the Season, that is to say, to the present posture and condition of the People. For as in the preservation of mens private bodies, so this Verse following holds to be a Rule absolute in ordering the Publike Body.

As new disorders in State arise and alter its former Tem­per, so there must be variation in the method and means of Remedy, or else all runs to Ruine. And for this End Parliaments themselves were first ordained, that Princes, in such Cases, might advise with them when they shall need their Advice, about the making of new Laws, or altering old Laws and Customs, as they shall see occasion.

Secondly, we find by old Records, that our Forefathers, in conformity to this Reason, many times varied the For­malities of Parliament, both as to its time of Meeting, its Number, its Manner of sitting, and time of Continuance, [Page 13] and other Circumstances; yet we nowhere find them in any wise condemned for it, it being to be supposed they did what, in their times, was for the then publike Conve­nience. For both before and after the Conquest Parlia­ments were held Three times a year, viz. at Easter, Whitsun­tide, and Christmas, but for continuance no longer than the space of Eight days for each time: but that Custom continued not any considerable time after the Conquest, but received many Variations all along to the time of King Edward the Third, in whose days the fore-cited Statutes were made which give Occasion to our present Disputes.

The Book call'd The Mirrour of Justice saith, Cap. 1. Sect. 3. that sometimes those Parliaments departed from that frequencie, and were held Twice a yeer: and in those days there was no such thing as a House of Commons, as 'tis noted in Print, for that the Parliament consisted then onely of King and Lords; so that it were better for our Admirers of old Statutes and Customs, in some Cases to bury some of them, rather than let their Brains run a madding up towards the Conquest and beyond, to revive them to give Rules for us to proceed by. Thus it was some time of old as to the quality of Parliament-members: and then as to their manner of Sitting, my Lord Coke, In­stit. Par. 4. cap. 1. tells us, that in Edw. the First's Reign, the Commons had no distinct House to sit in, and no Speaker, as it appears in the Treatise de Modo tenendi Parliamen­tum. And in 6 of Edw. 3. in divers places it appeareth, that the Lords and Commons sat together, and had then no continual Speaker. And then as to the nature of the Power of the Commons House, it would tend to little edification, to describe and measure it by the Report of Ancient Records, Customs, and Proceedings; and the People would get nothing by it but this, even a discove­ry of the slenderness of those Priviledges which they had [Page 14] of old, in comparison of those that by the Favour and In­dulgence of succeeding Kings they have enjoyed to this day.

But thirdly, if Customs and Precedents of time past be of such esteem with this Author and the rest of his Fellow-Scriblers, in their Printed Books, then let them tell me a reason why a Prince may not in his time make use of a Precedent made by a former Prince in a Business of the same nature, and for which that Prince was never found fault with after, till this Captious quarrelsome Age that we now live in. For this Author confesses, that Queen Eli­zabeth, in the Fifth yeer of her Reign Prorogued the Par­liament from the second of October to the fifth of October of the yeer following, which was three days above a yeer, and in strictness of Law, this Prorogation lately made Anno 1675. for Fifteen Months, which is three Months a­bove a year, is as good and valid in Law as that; (they are his very words) wherein he is so far in the right, be­cause three days or three months can, as to point of Law, make no difference in the Case, either of them being a lapse of time beyond what this man and his Fellows do suppose as limited by those Statutes for a Parliament's sit­ting, and consequently for its Proroguing; because if a Parliament cannot legally sit longer than a yeer, it cannot be Prorogued to a longer time than the Law gives it a Be­ing: But that a Parliament may sit and act with full force and vigor longer than a yeer, there is no Law to be found that contradicts; and therefore 'tis to be supposed that an Argument drawn from those two Statutes of Edw. 3. be­ing an Argument ex Consequenti, that is, an Argument grounded upon Consequence, the Consequence if good ought to be derived from a right interpretation of those Statutes. Now the decision of the matter rests onely up­on this, Which of the two Parties Judgements you will [Page 15] rely upon as most likely to make right interpretation of the Statutes; whether upon our Author's Judgment and his Fellows, who appear to be parties concerned in a pre­sent Factious designe and season; or upon the Judgment of the Queen's Parliament, which sat in a more Happie Season, who doubtless could not be ignorant of those Sta­tutes: but neither they, nor any Parliament or Person since that yeer of the Queen, ever found fault with her Prorogation as illegal; which, it's to be believed would have been done before this time, if that Parliament, or any succeeding Parliament, or Lawyer, or other person, before the time of the late Prorogation, had apprehended the Queen to be faulty in hers. Therefore 'tis to be sup­posed, that this Precedent of Prorogation made by that most excellent Princess is a good one; and that the Inter­pretation of those Statutes made by this Author and his Fellows, to serve a Faction, towards the ruine of this Par­liament, is the wrong.

Moreover, if the sence of those Statutes be taken as they would have it, viz. That no Parliament ought to sit above a yeer, but a new one to be called within the yeer, why were not those Statutes made use of before in Fifteen yeers time, to condemn the sitting of this? It is strange that no notable Lawyer should in all that time affirm the illegality of it: But that onely some few Scarabees of the Law should now, to bolster up a Faction, be scribling their sence upon the Statutes, when the ablest have been, and are silent, is ridiculous.

Besides, Fourthly, consider, that when his Majesty now Regnant did in the 16 yeer of his Reign, Enact, That the Triennial Act passed by his Royal Father in his 16th yeer, should be Repealed, for Reasons in that Act of Repeal ex­pressed: yet upon the humble Supplication of the Lords and Commons He did Declare, That hereafter the sitting [Page 16] and holding of Parliaments shall not be intermitted or dis­continued above three yeers at the most: And that within three yeers after the determination of this present Parlia­ment, and so from time to time within three yeers after the determination of any other Parliament or Parliaments, or if there be occasion, more often, your Majestie, your Heirs and Successors, do issue out your Writs for calling, assem­bling, and holding of another Parliament, to the end there may be a frequent calling, assembling, and holding of Par­liaments once in three yeers at the least. From which I collect these ensuing Particulars.

1. That by the word Three yeers after the determina­tion of this present Parliament, it is implied by the Act, that the duration of this Parliament shall not be compre­hended within any determinate time; and there was rea­son for it, because they had a tedious work to do, to re­pair the Ruines of three Kingdoms wasted and unsetled by a long Civil War.

2. This appears farther by the subsequent words, which shew that the determinate Course of Parliaments set by the Act is meant onely for the future after the Dissolution of this.

3. The Parliament had been sitting four yeers when they form'd this Act: and therefore though they in the Act made mention of the two old Statutes of Edward the Third for holding a Parliament every yeer, yet it seems they did not then in their virgin-days conceive them­selves to be within the breach of those Statutes for sitting above a yeer, because they were upon the making of this Act: which doubtless so many learned men as are in these honourable Houses would never have presumed to do, if their Sitting had by Law been limited to but a yeers time, for then they could not but have apprehended that the Laws they made in the three yeers before, must have been [Page 17] null and void for want of legal power to make them, as well as all the Laws that they should make afterward till this day. And what must the miserable Consequence of that have been? even to demolish all the new Founda­tions which had been or were to be laid for the Restaura­tion and Establishment of the Crown, Church, and State, in case the validity of their former Sitting and Acting had been questionable, as they would have been by such bold Interpreters of Law, as I shall further make them appear to be, who presume to advance their own Understandings above the Judgement of whole Bodies of Parliaments; which these men have done, and do, by Printed Books scattered like Wild-fire about the three Nations to set all in Combustion.

But Fifthly, what if it should appear a more consider­able Question to be put, Whether those two Old Statutes of Edward the Third be not of most force for the King? And truely there appears good reason to conclude in the Affirmative. The two Statutes may stand as de­clarative Memorials of the Judgement of Parliament in time past for the Peoples having a right to a frequencie of Parliaments, if need require, and no farther; but it is not to be believed, that so Victorious and Potent a King as Edward the Third, ever would have passed those two Acts, if his Parliaments meaning had been to cut off that main Point of his Prerogative Royal, viz. the power of judging when 'tis fit or needful to call a Parliament, and when not: Nor is it at all likely that it was the Opinion of that Age, that the King had done so in passing those Acts; but 'tis rather to be supposed, that that Parliament meant no more than this, That those Statutes were inten­ded to be declarative of the Common Law, and of the Peo­ple's having Right by antient Custom to Parliaments, and that as they had been, so they should also be yeerly in the [Page 18] future, if judged necessary. For I would know of any man of an impartial Judgment, how it is possible to skrue out of those Statutes any other Meaning, seeing the words [if need be] are words Hypothetical or Conditional, viz. supposing there be need, or upon Condition there be need. Hereby 'tis implied, that if in a yeers time there be no need, there is no obligation by Law from hence for the calling a Parliament always within the yeer. The Sum of all then is this; That if no need be, he need not call one. And who (I pray you) ought to be judge of this need, but the King, who is to Call? But what saith our Author of the Considerations to this? He hereupon turns Statute-Expositor and Objector, as followeth.

ANIMADVERSION.

This sort of men are always up with a great Noise a­bout Property, Right, and Liberty of the People, because most men are wont to be taken with the mention of those matters wherein their Good and well-being is concerned, and the Projecting Faction would be supposed to be the onely Advocates for them; but alas, this is the Faction's [Page 19] old main Engine to catch Proselytes among the injudici­ous part of the World, which are always much the major Part of Mankinde, who in the mean time are not able to judge whether Discourses be made rationally or not, till the Sophisms or Cheats of such Crafty Writers be disco­vered. And verily I believe this Penman himself, if he had pleased, might have saved me the labour of discove­ry; for he writes more like a Lawyer than any of his Fel­lows: And therefore he could have told you, that the Law of England is as careful for the Prerogative of the King, as it is for the Liberty of the Subject; and whereas the Government of England hath in all Times, even from utmost Antiquity been for a Monarchy, the Laws have not left it destitute of Powers to preserve it Self in that Con­dition; and the People ought to be as zealous for the Conservation of it by maintaining the Rights of the Crown, as they are for their own, because those also were Ordained for Publike good, and are as necessary as the other; and accordingly the eye of the Law hath been as tender of them as of the other, because our Ancestors in framing the Constitution of this Kingdom conceived the end of Government, which is Peace, publike Convenience, and Safety, could not well be attained without it. There­fore that in this the wisdom of the Law was great of old, and ought greatly to be admired, is most evident, because by late Experience we have found since 1641, that in pul­ling the Feathers of Monarchy, the People did put none in their own Caps but what made them look like Bedlams, and become really such by running at last into Anarchy, mere Confusion. It were endless to bring in here a citation of manifold Provisions made by Law to preserve the Prero­gative; for, they are known to all men that have studied the Law, and to most men that have not. And therefore in making Interpretations of Law about Government, we [Page 20] are when we write, to carry an even hand betwixt what is Right for the King, and what is Right for the Subject; and not draw Conclusions on one side out of literal Ex­pressions and particular Sentences, but rather to derive them from the general Sence and Scope of all our Laws on both sides compared one with another: and so should this Considerator and his Fellows have done, if they had honest Intentions.

Next, as to what he saith of the Peoples Rights and Li­berties being bound up in Annual Parliaments, 'tis so ridi­culous, that his Masters of the Faction in 1641 would not understand it so: They before all things proclaimed to the World, that the onely way to preserve the Rights and Liberties was, to have a Parliament of length sufficient to sit and dispatch the Publike affairs; that is to say, they who pretended themselves to be the great Patrons of the Peoples Rights, were so far from thinking those Rights were bound up in yeerly Parliaments, that they would not be satisfied till they had an Act passed to impower them to sit as many yeers as they pleased; which they never could with any face have demanded, if the opinion of Lawyers, or of the People of that time had been, that all our Rights had been so bound up in those two Statutes, that to part with yeerly Parliaments had been to part with our Rights and Liberties. For it would then have savoured of too rank Hypocrisie before the Multitude, and have raised their Jealousie against them, had they imagined, or should any body have told them, that their Rights and Liberties were at Stake by such proceeding of their Patrons.

Moreover, consider this present Parliament's proceed­ing in those days when but few men offer'd to finde fault with them: For when in the Sixteenth yeer of His now Majestie they passed that Act to prevent long intermission [Page 21] of Parliaments, it is plain that they were of another opi­nion than the Considerator and his Fellows: For, the words and scope of the Act shew they were exceeding tender of our Rights and Liberties; yet determined the time of Parliamentary Meetings to once in three yeers: which 'tis reason to believe they never would have done, if they had not understood our Rights and Liberties would have been better provided for by their Triennial than by yeerly Meetings. But now adays it is a small matter with our Factious Leguleian Scriblers to form up Opinions upon forged Interpretations of Law, and prefer them before the Opinions of whole Parliamentary Bodies; whose Wisdom ought to be reverenced as, and as it is, the Wisdom of the whole Nation.

In the next place consider how slily the Considerator shuffles in his transcribing one of the two controverted Statutes: The first saith a Parliament shall be holden eve­ry yeer once, AND oftner if need be; but he writes OR oftner if need be, in stead of AND. It is not out of any inclination I have to Pedantick Niceties, or that I think it becomes any man to mingle Points of Philologie with dis­course about matters of Politie, that I now begin to play the Grammaticaster: but when I perceive there is a crafty purpose in altering such a small Particle, when one is pla­ced in a sentence in stead of the other, I suppose it be­comes me not to neglect it, especially when it perverts the whole meaning of a Law. I dare appeal to the Ferula of Dr. Busby, the Prince of Grammarians, whether there be not a material difference in signification betwixt AND and OR, the former being a Copulative, the later a Disjunctive. Now the present Dispute betwixt the Considerator and me being this, Whether the words [IF NEED BE] do refer onely to the later part of the Sentence, or to the whole Sentence, as he a few lines after expresseth, and would [Page] have those words to refer to the later part onely, and therefore would by foisting in the Conjunction Disjunctive OR in stead of the Conjunction Copulative AND, dis-joyn the said words [IF NEED BE] from the first part of the Sentence, give me leave to say that he hereby would put upon us a most partial Artifice of Delusion, and mere Jug­gle: for by the word OR there may be some colour for his Construction of the Law, that the King is Judge onely whether a Parliament shall be held oftner than once a yeer; whereas the Conjunction [AND] couples and joyns the sence of the words [IF NEED BE] to the former part of the sentence, and so the Statute speaks plain for the King's being Sole Judge, whether there be need of calling Parlia­ments once a year, as well as whether there be need of calling them oftner than once a yeer: So that 'tis evident the Noble King Edward the Third, and his Parliament, meant no such matter as the Considerator and his Fellows, and as some other Professors of the Law have hitherto misunderstood, contrary to the General sence of Law in that part of our Laws which concerns the Establishment of the Prerogative of our Kings, a very principal flower whereof is the Power of Calling and Dissolving Parlia­ments as often as they shall judge there is need: and the Practice of other Nations in all the World hath justified this, that it is the common Birth-right of Hereditary Kings to be sole Judges of this Question, Whether there be need, or no need, at all times, of Calling or of Dismissing the Supreme Assemblies, unless they limit themselves; but (you see) here is reason absolute to conclude our King Edward did not intend to limit himself to yeerly Parlia­ments, by the said Statutes.

And to make further proof of this, see again what is said by the Considerator.

ANIMADVERSION.

Here he is pleased to acknowledge what cannot be de­nied, that the Kings of England have not observed those Statutes ever since their making: which shews, that our succeeding Kings never thought themselves obliged by them, or that King Edward intended it so, unless they should see need, or at any time judge it necessary to call a Parliament. Besides, we do not read of any Parlia­mentary Complaint about the omitting of YEERLY Par­liaments, till our Presbyterian Masters of the Faction in their Grand Remonstrance 1641. charged it as a fault upon his Majesties Father, under pretence of those Statutes. And doubtless some of the foregoing Parliaments would have made complaint about Yeerly Omission, had they believed Kings bound to Yeerly Parliaments: But that King Ed­ward and his Parliament which passed the Law, never in­tended or understood it in the Considerator's sence, is to be concluded from this most undeniably; That from the Fifth yeer of the said King to the Eighth yeer, no Parliament was called; the reason was, because he judged there was no need. Nor doth it appear that he did afterward ob­serve any such certain Puncto of time in calling his Parlia­ments: but doubtless 'tis in reason to be thought he would have been so tender of his own Law as to have observed it within the fifth or sixth yeer, and not so soon have broken [Page 24] it, if he had thought himself obliged absolutely to a yeer, because it was but in the fourth year that he passed it.

ANIMADVERSION.

That the Obligation to a Yeerly Parliament lies no fur­ther upon the King than if in prudence he see there be need, is already proved from a Right Construction of the words of the Statutes; and that this prudential power and part of the Kings Prerogative in Judging the expedience of cal­ling Parliaments at this or that time, as Affairs shall in His Judgement require, did remain undiminished by the said Statutes: And they intended onely this, which was enough, That seeing the People had an ancient Right by Custom to have frequent Parliaments, the King accordingly should oblige himself to call Parliaments so often as every yeer, or oftner if there should be need: Whereupon it is obser­vable, that seeing in the interval of Parliament there nei­ther ought nor can be any Judge of the necessity but the King, these two Laws left the power of judging it in the Prerogative-Royal as they found it; and the then▪Parlia­ment gained this great Advantage for the People, that whereas they before had a Right by Custom and Common [Page 25] Law, they now obtain a right by Statute-Law too: which certainly so wise a King as Edw. 3. would never have gran­ted without a Salvo put in for his Prerogative, by the words IF NEED BE.

Moreover consider, if those Statutes should be other­wise understood, viz. that the King ex debito were bound every yeer to call a Parliament, whether it would not have been a great Mischief rather than Benefit to the People: For in those days they that served Members in Parliament were wont to take Wages for their Service; and that would have layn heavie upon every poor Burrough to have been bound to pay Wages due once a yeer, sometimes oftner, to their Burgesses, it being recoverable by Law against them; which peradventure would amount to more than their share of payment of Subsidies. Again consider, as this would empty their Purses, so it would lade them with innumerable Laws, which are as grievous almost as to have none, as it hath been found in many Nations by experi­ence; and therefore it is that Justinian hath been every­where praised for so excellent an Emperour, because when all the Nations under the Roman Empire were even over-laid with multitudes of Laws, and groaned more under this Yoak than that of Taxes & Tributes, he took care how to deliver the people from that vexatious Burthen, by cutting off the major unnecessary part of the Imperial Statutes, and Digesting the rest into a tolerable Body. Therefore should such yeerly Parliaments be imposed on us by Law, the Statutes would soon swell to the like into­lerable pass, and tire the people out of fondness after so frequent Meetings as these Writers plead for, and would force Us to admit even against all Sense and Reason. Therefore we have abundant cause to praise the Wisdom of His Majestie and this His Parliament, that in the 16th yeer of his Reign they framed that most prudent Triennial [Page 26] Law, which placeth a golden Mediocrity betwixt the ha­ving too frequent Parliaments, and too long delay of them; and I must needs say His Majestie hath therein ap­peared, by limiting himself to call Parliaments hereafter, at Three yeers time after the determination of this, and after the determination of every succeeding Parliament, to be beyond all our Kings, and most gracious in condescend­ing, and Indulgence towards his people; that as the Fa­ction, which set on work this Considerator and his Fellows to delude the Subjects, and beget in them an Opinion as if His Majestie intended to deprive them of their Old Laws and Rights to Parliaments, do appear now to be most un­grateful towards Him: so I suppose their mouthes will henceforth be stopped, seeing they are secured by that new Triennial Act, in which they ought to bury all such Disputes for the future: which they must needs do, if they will cast an eye upon the said Act before they fall to disputing, and perverting His Subjects.

One Objection more give me leave to answer, because it will be but in short; 'tis this: That though the words [if need be] be in the first Statute, yet they are not ex­pressed in the Second, which being passed Thirty two yeers after, must be understood therefore to be absolute. But this I say, though the words be not there in terminis, yet other words are there which make those to be necessarily understood; and they are these: [AS ANOTHER TIME WAS ORDAINED BY STATƲTE.] The Statute meant here is the former of the two, which is of the Fourth of Edward the Third. The Issue then is this: That this later Statute, which is of the 36 of Edward the Third, referring, (as by the word AS appears) to the former Statute, no­thing more is Ordained here, but what was, and AS it was Ordained in the former; and so it can bear no other In­terpretation than what is proper to the former, and is [Page 27] onely a Second Confirmation by Statute-Law of the Right by ancient Custom which the People had before to Parlia­ments, as often as they should be needful; as it is inten­ded by the first of the said Statutes.

So I have done with the Considerator: His Fellows, who do but steal out of him, shall be handled in the next place. One of them entitles his Book, THE LONG PAR­LIAMENT DISSOLVED: But under that Title he means this Parliament, because they have sat Fourteen or Fifteen yeers, by reason of the world of work they have had be­fore them, to repair the large Breaches made within these Nations by a tedious Civil War: which they might have finished before now, had not many impediments been cast upon them by the Malice and Cunning of a restless im­placable Faction; whose glory it would be, above all o­ther things attainable in the World, if they could any way dissolve this Parliament, or contrive how to make it End with disgrace, re infectâ, that they may not have the honour of finishing that glorious Establishment of Church and State which they designe; but that themselves (viz. the Faction) and the Forlorn Hope of their Party, might once more have the opportunity to play the Game they have prepared against the good time of trying their For­tune at New Elections. In the mean while, their Plot is laid every way to backbite this present House of Commons, and by odious Reflections upon the King and House of Peers, to make as many of the People as they can out of love with our ancient Monarchical Constitution of Parlia­ments, that they may introduce the New Model of their own. For this is certain, the Spiritual Drivers which they make use of, and must, will neither go nor drive (as the Proverb saith) unless the whole Civil Frame be form'd to a cleverly comportment with the Geneva-Patern; but will [Page 28] rather flie off and curse them, in stead of Meroz, and all their Undertakings, as the Scotch General Assembly did Duke Hamilton, when by an Authority of Parliament there, he presumed, without their Blessing, to enter Eng­land, Anno 1648. to have restored His Majestie's Fa­ther.

No Temporal Lordships must look to thrive by trink­ling with them, unless they will truckle to 'em too, and comply with their eternal Pride and Ambition in all Se­natical as well as Classical Concernments; as those un­happie Lords and leading Commons who staid in the Hou­ses to act along with them, were fain to do in the yeers 1644, 1645, 1646. 'Tis worth the remembring how the Spiritual Assembly sat and dictated Decrees to the Secu­lar, which the poor Senate always very tamely obeyed, and shaped into Ordinances as fast as might be, to be hang'd about the necks of the People, who had e'n as good have been hang'd out of the way, as to have suffer'd the Intail­ment of such a Slavery upon their Posterity; the End whereof must have been, and, if we look not now about us, may, and must be again, to bring King and Parliament to the same truckling condition; which King James once most sadly experienced in Scotland, and in his wisdom saw, after he came to the Crown of England, would cer­tainly return upon Him and His People here, if ever that Faction got afoot again, or a horsback; forasmuch as 'tis the onely Faction that cannot be mended or put into a consistence with Monarchy. By which you may see what is to be gotten by crying down Bishops; which their Op­posites of late have most studiously done, both in Prints and by long Speeches: and what those few Lords and o­thers must bring upon us at last, though perhaps they in­tend it not, if ever to compass their own Ends they make use of that Malignant Faction: And know, that use them [Page 29] they must, and be ruled by 'em too, if they weaken the Re­putation, legal Power, and Reverence due to Bishops; the doing whereof will necessarily make way for the other, and give them the opportunities, for which they have, a­bove these hundred yeers, been sowing of Tares, and plan­ting and watering them in England and Scotland. Oh, that I had leisure in this place to give a particular Account of them, what a Thorn they have been in the sides of Princes and People in both the Kingdoms! The preven­tion of the like is to be expected onely from His Majesty, and this present Parliament, who are sure to Him and the Government by Law established: And that is the reason why this Dissolving Pamphleter, and his Fellows, are so hot for a Dissolution of them, having set their Dice to make us undergo Hap-hazard by a New one; which must needs have less Ability, Experience, and Knowledge, than these that have been long practised, to promote and ma­nage what is proper Parliamentary work in this difficult season, to heal our Breaches, secure the Government, com­pose and ease the People. But a new raw one (quoth the Faction) would be more fit for us to practise upon and tu­tour.

The Author of this Book may be called the Dissolver, because he would Dissolve all immediatly: But having little of a Lawyer in him, he goes another way to work, and in stead of Reasoning, he chiefly betakes himself to Oratory, to try what that will do among the People, with the help of fine Flashes of Wit. Therefore I shall make but short work in dispatching him, as he does to dispatch this Parliament out of the way.

ANIMADVERSION.

I cannot but note this Dissolver to be a mere Shifter. He shifts that Statute of 4 Edw. 3. out of the way, as a thing too hot for him to handle, because of the words IF NEED BE. And as he lays that aside; so next he turns Statute-clipper, cuts off the main Clause, which qualisies the Sence of the Second Statute of the 36 of Edw. 3. The words of the Clause are, As at another time WAS OR­DAINED BY STATƲTE: Now that other Statute here mentioned is the first Statute of Edw. 3. which ordained, that Parliaments shall be holden once a yeer if need be, and more often if need be; that is to say, we shall have frequent Parliaments, and as frequent as heart can wish, IF NEED require. Just so much and no more was Ordai­ned by the former Statute. But who shall be Judge of this need, or who can be but the King, in whom the Law hath trusted the Calling of Parliaments? Therefore 'tis in Law to be supposed it may be inconvenient for Him to call a Parliament so often as every yeer, when in his Judgment He concludes it not needful so to do. So much for Clip­ping the Statute; a Crime as bad as Clipping the King's Coyn, if not worse. But any thing must be done to serve the turn of Dissolution.

ANIMADVERSION.

A Share of Ruling as well as being Ruled! 'Tis very fine (ye men of Shaftsbury) this is so like the language of the Old Levellers, who were all for Ruling by Turns, that one might almost swear a small Friend of yours was at the Penning it. He is always for Ʋp and Ride, and Rule, and Rule alone, and so is the whole Faction; and that is the Reason why they are for a Tumbling-Cast to the pre­sent Rulers of Church and State. But what Gentry are those who hanker after Rule? If to sit and serve in Parliament be to Rule, this the Law never understood in England; and the Writ of Summons to Parliament saith no such thing; the Rule and Empire being vested in the King and those that are by Law deputed under Him for that purpose. It was never otherwise understood till that fatal Parliament in FORTY ONE, when they wrest­ed the Rule out of the hand of the King and His inferiour Magistrates. There were then such a Sort of Gentry got into the House, though but few in comparison of the whole number, that in order to the gaining of all Rule into their own hands, from their Fellow-Members as well as the King, first placed it in the hands of London-Pren­tices, [Page 32] till by Tumults and Tumultuous Voting they drave away the rest of the Gentry as well as the King and the majority of the Lords, and never left till themselves be­came the onely Lords of Mis-rule. Such Gentry as those were, are they that now reckon of Ruling in Parliament one day or other, if they can but be rid of this, and per­swade the People to chuse 'em, having to that end a great confidence in the strength of the Tongues and Lungs of their Ambulatory Chaplains. The rest of the Gentry un­derstand them well enough and all their Windings, and do very well know and are satisfied, that here is a full Par­liament, all places of Members having been fill'd up by Election of new ones as fast as they were vacant; and that a convenient duration of this Assembly of the Peo­ples Representatives (as he calls them) is the only Expe­dient to prevent the Designe of that restless Faction, in whose Service this Dissolver and his Scribling Companions are listed. And now to do the Feat, he ventures at mat­ter of Law too: and his Arguments are all summ'd up in what follows.

ANIMADVERSION.

Such small Faggots of Argumentation as these are now bound up in Books to fire the Nation if it be possible! They first make false Constructions of the two Statutes of Edw. 3. telling the world the King is by them bound to hold a Parliament once within every yeer; and if we could grant that to be the Statutes meaning, then they might have some shadow of Reason to make Conclusions to their own mindes. But I have already made evident, that they either misunderstand the Statutes, or craftily wrest the sence of them: There is no intent in the Sta­tutes, that Parliaments be call'd yeerly ex absoluto, but they contain a clear Hypothesis, as a Salvo for the un­doubted legal Prerogative of the King, in the words IF NEED BE; so that 'tis supposed in the Statutes the King hath, by his Prerogative-Royal, a Right of Judging the time when it is needful to call a Parliament, because He, and none but He can Call. Therefore 'tis to be admir'd there should so many words be made about so plain a bu­siness: For, were I never so much a Conspirator in forming Devices for the Destruction of this Parliament, I would finde out some more solid Basis to build my Arguments upon than a manifest Contradiction, or else certainly I [Page 34] would for shame be silent: The two Statutes say, we shall have frequent Parliaments, and so frequent as once a yeer if there be need: But the Factious Dissolver main­tains the sence of them to be, that we shall have Parlia­ments once a yeer though there be no need; so that you see upon what a wretched Bottom he and the rest of them do build their Argumentations, and the high-flown flou­rishes of discourse which they so diligently Print and spread abroad, to deceive the weaker unwary People, and intoxicate them with disaffection to this Parliament, and to the lawful Prerogative and Government of His Majesty. But if they can make no better Squibs than this to blow up a Parliament, they had best give it over: for, the King not being bound up by Law within a yeer, he is at liber­ty to Prorogue beyond the limit of a yeer, and so the Fifteen Months Prorogation was and is good, though it hath been seldom that there have been so long Proroga­tions: For, that is no Argument against the Wisdom and Power of the King to exceed some days or months, if He seeth in prudence it be pro bono Publico, and that urgent Reasons of State do require it: and there is nothing in all our Law that speaks a syllable to the contrary, if right­ly consider'd.

Therefore to unwinde the Bottom which the Dissolver hath entangled, let me with assurance determine this Point, which is the Standard by which you may measure all that they have said or can say. If those two Statutes did not confine the Parliament's sitting to Twelve months, then the Kings Proroguing His Parliament to Fifteen months was no violation of the said Statutes: If no Sta­tute be thereby violated, then the Prorogation was and is good. If so, then the Parliament is as firm in Being as ever any Prorogued Parliament was or can be, and con­sequently the Laws which they have made or shall make [Page 35] after the Prorogation are as perfect and obligatory upon us as any other Laws that ever were made in this Nation: And 'tis (no question) a Crime little less than an en­deavour at the Subversion of Parliament, for any persons by Speeches or Prints, in or out of the Houses, to carry on a Designe of arguing a Dissolution of this, thereby to perswade the People against Obedience and Submission to it. Nor can this Assertion of mine be construed, as if I maintained any thing in derogation of that Freedom of speech which ought to be had in Parliament, and which I count absolutely necessary for the Debate and the Dis­patch of the Grand Affairs. But then that freedom of speech ought to be qualified with so much Modesty and Reverence, as not to run to such licentious discourse as the Laws make Criminal: for, next to downright Treasonous discourse, none can be worse than that which tends to the Violent Dissolution of a Parliament; that is to say, with­out the King's consent, or against His will. What then do they deserve who have been such busie Speech-makers both in and out of Parliament, to bring that End about against the King's consent, and against the Laws? Or that shall presume to do it hereafter; seeing the two Houses have given their Judgment in the Case, contrary to the interpretation of all Factious Penmen and Talkers?

But the Dissolver goes further than this, and takes up­on himself the person of the People of England, and in their Name falls to downright threatning of both Houses of Parliament, in the following words.

ANIMADVERSION.

What need this phrentick impertinent Clause here at last, seeing that no man affirms those two Statutes to be Repealed? Let them stand for ever as Laws, to shew that as we had and have a Right to a frequencie of Parliaments, so also that the King hath a Right of Prerogative to judge whether there be need of having them so often as every yeer. And thus much is to be understood also by the tenour of the new Triennial Act, passed by this Parlia­ment, to prevent Inconveniences hapning by the long inter­mission of Parliaments; for they name the two Statutes of Edward the Third, but make no mention of a Right to Parliaments once every yeer, the words of the Act referring to those Statutes, being these onely [because by them Parli­aments are to be held very often] which is the very same that I grant and affirm to be the meaning of the said Sta­tutes: and their not affirming a jot more than I do, im­plieth, [Page 37] that they understood them no otherwise than I do, in general terms for a Declarative Frequencie; but whe­ther within a yeer or oftner, they say not a word: touch­ing which it is to be presumed they would not have been silent, if they had understood it to be the Right of the People to have had certain Parliaments yeerly, whenas the Statutes declare not absolutely, but onely with condi­tion IF NEED BE.

And because all mouthes should be stopped, and no room left for an Objection which ill-minded heads, or jea­lous, may make, and is made use of by these our Factious Book-makers, viz. that our having of Parliaments is by this means left to the King's pleasure, when he please to judge them needful; behold, there is no reason for such objecting, because the nature of His power to judge I maintain not to be absolute, whether we shall have Parlia­ments or not; but whether it be needful to have one, or more, so oft as within every yeer. Therefore the high Wisdom of this present Parliament is to be magnisied in contriving that new Triennial Act in such a manner, as prevents all the frivolous Objections that may be made by any other persons. For in the later end of the Act, they pray in these words: [That it may be Declared and En­acted, And be it Declared and Enacted by the Authority a­foresaid, That hereafter the Sitting and Holding of Par­liaments shall not be intermitted or discontinued above Three years at the most; but that within Three yeers after the determination of this present Parliament, and so from time to time within Three yeers after the determination of any other Parliament or Parliaments, OR IF THERE BE OCCASION MORE OFTEN, your Majestie, your Heirs and Successors, do issue out your Writs for Calling, Assembling, and Holding of another Parliament; to the end there may be a frequent Calling, Assembling, and Holding of Parlia­ments, [Page 38] once in Three yeers at the least.] What can be de­sired more than this Act hath provided for? We have by it secured a Parliament every Three years after this is en­ded; which is more than ever you had before. And if you will not be contented with my Sence in expounding the Two Statutes of Edward the Third, take here the sence and judgment of the whole Parliament; They have Pro­vided also for yeerly Parliaments or oftner, in these words, IF THERE BE OCCASION, as fully as Edward the Third did by the words IF NEED BE in those ancient Statutes, the Prerogative of the King being left here entire, to judge whether there be OCCASION, as it was in the former Sta­tutes to judge whether there be NEED of Parliaments every yeer or not: And so you see 'tis the sence of this Parliament declared in their First days of Sitting many yeers ago, that no more than this was meant by the Par­liament of King Edward.

Behold also how great the Wisdom, Concession, and Tenderness of His Majestie hath been towards us in this Particular, that to remove all Fears and Jealousies which Seditious men plant and nourish in the mindes of weak people, about His possible Delaying of Parliaments long, He did so graciously concur with his Parliament in the said Triennial Act to secure us in the Golden mean (as I once be­fore told you) betwixt the having too frequent or too few Parliaments in time to come! Most ungrateful then are they, and most malicious, and the Peoples greatest Ene­mies, who by their dark desperate Contrivances, have so many yeers been casting Rubs in the way of this Parlia­ment, to interrupt and impede the Noble Work of Settle­ment, which is most likely to be done by them, or by none; and had not the Faction hindred, it had been done long ago; so that we might ere now have seen Parliaments in motion upon this fair Wheel of a well-ordered Succession. [Page 39] Judge then I pray you how little cause this Clamorous unreasonable Dissolver hath to revile this most Loyal ho­nourable House of Commons, or impute to them a sacrifi­cing of our Rights and Liberties, which every days trans­action shews, when they are sitting, they do most studi­ously maintain: Whereas if he and his Fellow-Dissolvers might have their Ends to put an end to their Sitting be­fore they have done their Work, it would by experience be soon found the onely way to run us out into Anarchy, and that they have been the onely Bank that kept out the great Floud of endless Contests and Confusions which un­avoidably would follow a present Dissolution. I could, without the help of a spirit of Prophecie, give an account of all beforehand, had I time or room to tell you the Story.

But now 'tis time to behold the DISSOLVER's Threat­nings. He tells the House The whole Nation will strictly observe every man among them, that, to sit a little longer, doth sacrifice to the late Prorogation made in 1675. But this is not all: He proceeds further in more plain terms, as followeth, page 10 and 16.

ANIMADVERSION.

Hold, hold, SIR! what d'ye mean? you'll crack the Strings by and by which should hang Us. What shall we have next! A Switzerland-Reformation! Must the No­bility and Gentry of this Parliament all to the Pot when these Reformers can get a New one? And for no other cause but sitting longer than those our New Masters that wou'd be would have 'em? See how furiously the Fa­ction would ride if they could get into the Saddle: but they do well to tell us so before they have got a foot in the Stirrup.

Me thinks, ye men of Shaftsbury, I see in this Book a Print of the Noble hand that wrote it, and of his heart too, which plainly threatens that he would, if he could, furnish us with a Precedent, to teach Posterity that One Parliament may hang another. What then would a Parlia­ment quickly do with such a DISSOLVER as this, [Page 41] if they knew where to finde him out? But the singer of God (which he talks of) may ere long point him out in a stupendious manner, before he can bring about his brave intended DISSOLƲTION.

In the rest of his Book to the very end, he goes raving on at the like rate, telling Stories of time past about the hanging of two Lord Chief Justices, and a Lawyer that was one of the Kings learned Counsel; and of three Judges, and of forty Judges more, and of Empson and Dudley, in the Reigns of King Alfred, Edward the Third, Richard the Second, and Henry the Eighth. But to what end is all this reckon'd up, unless it be to flush the Phantsies of the Rab­ble, right or wrong, against the good time of DISSOL­VING, which is as much long'd-for by the Faction, as the Jews long for the day of their yet-expected Mes­siah.

At length he comes to conclude with an Exhortation to the People, of Disobedience to the Acts of this Parlia­ment; That in the mean time they refuse to pay Taxes, or obey any other of their Acts, without first trying their validity by due process of Law. And he exhorts also the Juries, that upon Tryals they should not finde against their neighbours. So here is the Trumpet blown outright for Rebellion. But seeing he hath been so plentiful in Stories out of our Chronicles about Examples of Hanging, he should have been also on the Peoples side so charitable, as to inform them, how we nowhere in our Chronicle can finde a Rebelling against payment of Taxes, but it always ended in Hanging the Jack Cades, the Wat Tylers, and Captain Mendals, with all the like Predecessors of this Leading Dissolver. But not a word of the Pudding: He is so tender of the People, that he will not fright 'em, his Business being to draw in as many and as fast as he can. Mutiny, mutiny, my dear Country-men, (said a Rebel in a [Page 42] Stage-play) or else I shall be hang'd, &c. So there is an End of the DISSOLVER, and his Threatnings.

The next Seditious Pamphlet that came abroad, ap­peared with the Title of A Seasonable Question and an Ʋseful Answer, &c. I have view'd this Author very well: but after a strict impartial Search of him all over, I finde that as to matter of Law he writes little, yea nothing at all, but what hath been said in other words by the two foregoing Writers: yet because he hath interwoven ma­ny subtil insinuations under pretence of Law, and many Scandalous Additions; I am constrained to take him also in pieces, and more effectually dissolve him, than he can the Parliament, the designe of this Pamphleter being the same with his fellows.

And I am the more willing to tire my self out at this Work, that His Majesties good Subjects may be throughly informed of all that the Faction is able to alledge against the Legal existence and duration of this present Parlia­ment; and then the better judge of the unreasonableness of these mens Suggestions, which they scatter all over the Land to impoison the mindes of men, and prepare them for the old pious work of Rebelling, after the mode of FORTY ONE. For, as it was in the days of Solomon, so all the Designes they are now upon, do well agree with the Text, There is nothing new under the sun. You shall see the old Game of Covenanting, Sequestring, Slaughter­ing, Plundering, Committees, increase of Taxes, with all the shapes of Metamorphosis in Governments, and miseries Acted over again, if these men may prevail. They are likely to give us nothing New but a New Parliament, and that shall be a Swinger, as the DISSOLVER hath promi­sed us, and told us he hath taken care for the New Ele­ctions: so that the House shall appear New in its Out-side; [Page 43] but in its In-side as like the Old one as one Nut is like another.

Here perhaps some captious man of malice may be wil­ling to mistake me, as if I did declaim against New Par­liaments. But that I may prevent those that lie at Catch, let them know I plead not against them; but the having of any other Parliament brought on by Factious Cla­mours and Outcries, in Print or otherwise, till this Par­liament hath finish'd the Work now in their hands, for Setling the Nation with sure Laws and Provisions against Renting and Tearing of it by manifold Factions. But to proceed.

This Book which I am now to Dissect, is grounded up­on mere Fiction. It supposeth a Letter from a person new­ly chosen to sit a Member of this Parliament; one that, before he would make so great a Journey to London, de­sires a Friend of his, a Bencher of the Temple, because there hath been a great noise in the Country, that by Law Parliaments are to be held once a yeer, and that whereas this Parliament was Prorogued to three months above the term of a year, the Prorogation being thereby illegal, the Parliament must needs be null and in Law Dissolved. And therefore he would be loth to come up two hundred miles to put his neck in a Noose by sitting here as a Member, unless his friend the Bencher would satisfie him of the truth of the matter, and advise him to come. This is the sum of the Question: and the Fable is so laid, forsooth, that the pretended Bencher undertakes to give him his Resolution upon the Point.

ANIMADVERSION.

It is indeed a Question of the greatest, and withal of the slightest moment that ever was in England: slight in the nature of it, but greatest in the Consequence; and I will shew you how. That in its nature 'tis but slight and idle, appears most abundantly by what I have already given you in the former part of these Animadversions. To which give me leave to adde also, that it had never been brought under Question, if one man in a corner had not failed in all other Tricks to bring about an untimely Dis­solution of the Parliament. For, as soon as ever he was lifted out of the Court, the former PACQƲET shew'd how bravely he plaid his Game in Parliament, by imbar­quing both Houses in Disputes about Priviledges, which raised so many Broils to hinder them from dispatch of Bu­siness, that all good endeavours were made vain, the Par­liament it self became a while useless to the King, and un­able to do any thing to relieve the pressing Necessities of the Kingdom; that so by tiring out the patience and ex­pectations of Prince and people, there might have fol­low'd a willingness on all sides, to admit of an Argument for this Parliaments Dissolution, and the calling of his Plot­ted New one.

[Page 45] But the effect of these his Artificial Contrivances ha­ving been prevented by the Wisdom of His Majestie and His Two Houses, then he had recourse to this last Device of picking a Hole, if possible, in this point of the Proro­gation, which, with the assistance of a few Disaffected Lawyers and others, was presently done, by false Expo­sitions and Glosses upon old Statutes; and from hence sprang the Original of this frivolous Question about the legality of this Parliament's longer Sitting; which they with more Impudence than Conscience determine in the Negative, as hath been manifested unto you; so that who­ever shall concur with them, must obstinately offer vio­lence to his own Reason, and all the known Rules of Ar­gument, if after due Consideration he shall adhere to their Opinion.

Moreover, though the Question in it self be but slight, yet as to the Consequence I agree it may be of exceed­ing moment, as the Devisers thereof intended it. For, they meant to delude the people into a misunderstanding of the Laws, a Jealousie of their Liberties, and a disposi­tion to Tumults, to the hazard of their Peace, their Lives and Fortunes, by new Commotions. Their Designe is, by raising the dust about this Question, to put it in your eyes, that you may not discern Right from Wrong. Their Bu­siness is to get themselves; by the help of a Popular Ʋproar, into a Governing posture; and to this end they compass Sea and Land to make Proselytes, to carry on a general Crucifixion of the present Governours; Cares and Sor­rows, that is, a Crown of Thorns, they prepare for the head of the King, Scandals for his Ministers, a Level for the Nobility, a Pitfal for the Bishops, a Yoke for the Gentry, and a Fools Coat for all the Commons that they can seduce into their Party; in which they have leisure to repent, and once more pay Taxes to fellow-Subjects, who (as ye [Page 46] may remember) do know how to ride you, being ready Booted and Spurr'd, if you please once more to set them on horseback; till you sigh and confess what a Poet said of old,

As for the two Statutes of Edward the third, you know I have granted, that the Triennial Act of Charles the se­cond doth not at all infringe their force; and I have told you I wish they may for ever stand to preserve the Right of the King in calling frequent Parliaments when he judg­eth them necessary, as well as to maintain the Rights of the People in having them.

ANIMADVERSION.

First, you have onely Grafton's word that the Duke of Gloucester said so. And suppose the Duke did say so, you have onely the Duke's saying for it; and he doth not name the time of that old Statute's making: for, no such Sta­tute was in being till the time of Richard's Grandfather, [Page 47] viz. King Edward the third; and then that short succes­sion of time from him could not make any such Statute an old one. But I grant there had been an ancient Cu­stom of yeerly Parliaments, till at length the people grew weary of it; which (no doubt) was the reason why the House of Commons in Edward the third's time, agreed to pass those Statutes, not to have them so frequent unless the King should see need. For, this sence is clearly im­plied in the very words of the first of the two Statutes, as I have shewn before. Besides, I once again assure you, No such Statute is to be found that saith any thing about the matter, in the times elder than Edward; onely there had been a Custom, which the people held as lauda­ble till they saw reason to alter it in that King Edward's days.

As for yeerly Parliaments to redress delays in Suits of Law, and end difficult Cases, there is no such Statute which he mentions to be found; nor is it likely that the Commons should be called to such kinde of work of de­termining such Suits, they having never had jurisdiction so to do. Nor could it have been a Parliament, after the manner of the Parliamentary Constitution then in being, if the Lords had assembled alone to end Suits. Therefore it is in no wise likely that there ever was any Intention to make such a Statute about the Calling of Parliaments yeerly to end such Law-suits. Nor are such difficult Suits as pass the skill of the Judges, or so many of them, hap­pening constantly in a yeers time, as to need a Parliament to end them.

ANIMADVERSION.

Here learned Mr. Bencher shews his Reading. So the old Britains went naked before Christ's time, and many odd fashions came up in the times of the Saxons, the Danes, and Normans, both in Cloaths and Government. Doth this oblige us to the like now? To what end then is this old thred-bare stuff brought hither to stuff his Pamphlet? I have granted over and over, that Parliaments of old were so frequent as he saith: but I suppose it would do the people of England little service to tell them what a sort of Parliaments they were, and how composed of Lords Spiritual and Temporal, &c. I suppose we should be loth to have such Parliaments now. And yet according to Mr. Bencher's learned way of Arguing, if we be obliged to one Circumstance of Example, we are also as much bound to observe the other. If to the timing of Parliaments as of old, then also to the form and manner of them. But Time and Law having provided better things for the people, his Worship's way of arguing Us into old Fashi­ons again is as pertinent, as if he would prove John a Nokes should be bound to make all good that was devised by his sixteen hundred and tenth great-great-great-Grand­father, whose name was John-a-Stiles, if the Writings of the Devise were to be found in Dunwallo.

ANIMADVERSION.

Who are they that are so weak-headed as to say they are Musty and Obsolete? Neither his Majestie nor his Par­liament will give 'em thanks for saying so: nor doth the Prorogation need such an Allegation to maintain it good. I have sufficiently shewn, that the sence of the two Sta­tutes, if entirely taken, makes fully for the Right of the King to judge whether Parliaments Annually be needful or not: and that within Forty yeers time two Parlia­ments have confirm'd their Frequencie, and so frequent as every yeer, or oftner, if his Majestie see Occasion shall re­quire their Assembling so often. Therefore he hath much more reason to defend them, than the Faction hath to make such ado about them, unless they could get more Credit to their own Cause by a Rational Construction of them.

ANIMADVERSION.

It seems the Reason for having constant yeerly Parlia­ments did fail in Edward the Third's time, or else his Par­liament [Page 50] had never devised those two Statutes, and put in the words IF NEED BE, so far to change the ancient Custom of their frequencie, as not to hold them so often, unless Need require; and of that Necessity who can be a Judge but the King, whom our Laws have Hereditarily invested with all the Rights of Government, of which this sort of Judicatory power is a principal? Wherefore, the Reason of the ancient frequencie being out of date long since, it was well done by this Parliament, upon new Rea­son more suitable to the Condition and Temper of this Age, to ascertain us of holding Parliaments in the future with frequencie more convenient for us.

However, 'tis worth the observation what his Master-ship doth grant, that Non-user may antiquate Acts of Par­liament, and make them lose their Force, if the Reason of them fail, or if by change of time they become a Publike Mischief. As for the Reason of King Edward's Act, I have shewn already that his Parliament had nothing in their Reason of making them, that savours of the Old Custom of yeerly frequencie, otherwise than with Condition there shall be need: nor do they contain any sence that gives us cause to plead that they are antiquated, or to desire an antiquation of them; because to Repeal them would be an Injury to the King. But next let me adde this, that in the two late Triennial Acts it is implied, that in these days things are alter'd to such a pass, that there was high Reason to be no longer bound to the ancient Custom of that Annual frequencie which his Mastership pleads for; and thereby you have the Determination of two whole Parliaments, the FORTY ONE Parliament and this Par­liament, that the Reason of the said Custom at Common law fails, and that publike Inconveniences, if not publike Mischief, would follow, if it were practised in our time, or else 'tis in reason to be supposed they never would [Page 51] have alter'd it. Therefore, seeing his Mastership doth ad­mit what I have made evident in the foregoing part of this Discourse, that there hath been a Non-user of King Edward's two Statutes, in any such sence as he and his fel­lows do impose, they having never been so put in practice by Edward himself, or by any succeeding King to this day, we with all assurance conclude, that a pleading of Non-user is a good Plea against the two Statute's being in force for such an absolute yeerly frequencie, as the Faction doth in­sinuate into the mindes of the people: Especially when two Parliaments before-nam'd have judged, that Reason of publike Good and Convenience now lies against having them so frequent as within a yeer, and that the time of Three yeers is soon enough, unless there be need.

Nothing then but a spirit of Sedition or Treason would have fixed such a Construction as these men have lately made upon the said Statutes, with a mighty Clamour, as if Noise would carry it among reasonable men. But their Constru­ction being every way proved naught, all the Arguments founded upon that Bottom do necessarily fall; and Master Bencher and the rest of the Disputants ought to be tried before a Bench of Academian Sophisters, that they may be brought under Correction for that wretched Beggery, A Begging of the Question.

A way then with the Questions with which he stuffs up all the rest of his Book, because they are grounded upon the same sad account of Petitio Principii, and so are alto­gether impertinent to the Point in hand, till they can bet­ter prove their own Construction of the two Statutes to be a right one, or that those Statutes were at any time since their making put in use and practice, upon supposal of any such absolute Meaning as he and his Fellow-writers would fasten upon them. His Questions follow.

ANIMADVERSION.

Who are those some that say so? If any did, they talkt as idly as Master Bencher writes, and as little to the pur­pose: for his Mastership hereupon starts up an invidious Question, Whether the King may dispence with Laws and Statutes?

I rather suppose the SOME that say so never were men of God's making, but mere men of straw set up by Master Bencher, for a Tryal of his own Skill in Confutation and Conquest, and to entertain his Majesties subjects with Sup­posals that there is strange Doctrine at Court in matter of Law; that so himself may take occasion to lug in a long discourse to prove the Negative, that his Majestie cannot dispence. But know once for all, that there is none under heaven who can be more tender of the cur­rencie of Law and Legal Constitutions than the King Himself is, especially such as are Parliamentary: and it would be the joy of the Faction if they could really finde Him otherwise; or if they could by any Tricks of State, (such as were shewn in several Sessions of Parliament be­fore last February-Session) play in upon Him the necessity of having recourse to that Supreme Law, the Idol of the FORTY ONE Parliament (Salus Populi suprema lex) to save Himself and his People from such Confusions and Destructions as the Counsels of the Faction, if they pro­ceed, [Page 53] will bring upon us. I may well call it the Idol of that Parliament, considering how they abused that Ma­xime in a causless using it against his Majesties Father, per­fidiously pleading the Safety of the People to justifie what­soever they did, as confidently as if the People could have been saved no other way, if they had kept within the Bounds of Ordinary law. But the ordinary path of Law is that which his Majestie desires to walk in; and to prove the Truth of this, we need onely to recollect the past Provocations given Him by the late extravagances of some men, which would have provoked any Prince less patient, to other Courses than he hath taken, to secure Himself, his Affairs, his Friends, and the Interest of his Crown. And as to that point of the Prorogation, he did not thereby assume to Himself any power to dispence with the Laws relating to the Course of Parliament, but kept within the Bound of Law, as is abundantly proved: Therefore the dragging in this Question of yours must needs be very impertinent, as well as maliciously meant, good Master Bencher; and so are all the vile Inferences that you have made thereupon to catch the People.

ANIMADVERSION.

So, so; All is out now. The main Point they drive at [Page 54] is, to Dissolve the Parliament against the Will of the King: but what pretence hath the Bencher for declaring it Dis­solved? Not a tittle more than what was alledged by the DISSOLVER. He said, Dismission of a Parliament sine Die amounts to a Dissolution. But how comes it, that the Fifteenth of February, the day to which the Par­liament was prorogued or dismissed, is reckoned to be No day? They prove this as fast as Hops, because it is to be reckoned No day in construction of Law, in regard it ex­ceeded three months beyond the term of Twelve, and be­yond Twelve no Parliament can by Law live; and dying at the yeers end, it cannot be made alive again by Proro­gation. This is a very fine and quick dispatch: but 'tis to be answer'd too as fast as Hops now, that King Edward and his Statutes meant no such quick Births and sudden Deaths of Parliaments as these men would perswade us: so that not­withstanding all the Clouds that some persons raised a­bout it, the 15th of February appear'd a fair day in Law, and to all other intents and purposes; and it gave us day-light enough to discern the vanity and folly of the Faction, and its chiefest Advocates, with their matchless Confi­dence, grounded upon the Construction of no better Law­yers than Master Bencher himself and his fellows appear to be, viz. pitiful Logicians, Lack-learning Lawyers: for, they are his own words, which in pag. 22. he frankly bestows upon all Gentlemen of the long Robe, that are of less ma­lice and more understanding. Therefore his Friend the new-elected Member may come up to Town if he please; for the Body to which he belongs is yet alive, and like to continue in good Health, notwithstanding all the endea­vours that have been used to put it out of temper.

Thus far I have been giving you the utmost that hath been argued by all the Three books which the Projecting Faction have hitherto proclaimed to be unanswerable: [Page 55] But now you see, a very little Learning in Law, they ha­ving no Law on their side, goes a great way with them: They are better at Ʋp-cry, and Out-cry, and Down-cry, and just so much Construction of Law and Gospel as will serve to beat up Drums in the Pulpit; for, that is the way of doing their work, without Wit or Reason. And therefore I was willing to spend the more time about those Books, that I might not omit any one thing in them that is consi­derable; that so the World may see how small cause they have for all their Clamour; and that the Parliament did Justice, when they condemned so many of these Prints as came to their hands, to be fired by the hand of the Hang-man.

The next Pamphlet that comes to hand is a Thing that pretends to little of Argument, but takes occasion from the Imprisonment of the Four Lords to rail at and revile and scandalize the whole Government most sufficiently, e­specially the Parliament in the most odious terms that could be invented.

It is Intituled, A Narrative of the cause and manner of the Imprisonment of the Lords, now close Prisoners in the Tower of London. And it is intended to walk abroad among the People, to perswade them that their Lordships suffer Martyrdom for maintaining the Nation's Rights and Liberties: whereas the very Truth is, they are but one mans Martyrs, being misled by him. 'Tis a little leven that leveneth the whole lump. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindles! Can a man take fire into his bosome and not be burnt? Nay, though it be but a small Squib, it will do the Feat if it be not well put out, especially on the return of Gunpowder-Treason-days. Therefore I will be so charitable, as not to think that all the Four Lords had a hand in this malicious work. My reason is, It can hard­ly [Page 56] consist with a Man of Honour, unless he be one that hath often forfeited it, to be petitioning his Prince, and at the same time to be plotting a Libel against Him. It was about the time that the Petition was deliver'd to the King at Newmarket in April last, that this Printed Narrative came to my hand; and after perusal, finding it was full fraught with Revenges and Falsities, it proved the occasi­on of my now taking Pen in hand, to cure all the Tetters of State that are to be cured with Ink; of which none is so virulent and Corrosive as this. We expect to see it more openly published, as soon as the Faction shall finde the lucky day they hope for: but in the mean while the Books are kept in and ready dormant all, except those which they craftily convey in private, to inflame their Party in City and Country against this Parliament. It begins thus.

ANIMADVERSION.

There was little difference betwixt the number of peo­ple at the opening of that February-Session, and the num­ber that went to be at the Opening of other Sessions of Parliament. But how weak soever this Narrator's Me­mory [Page 57] be, I and Thousands more can remember, and the Citie of London can, and will remember, what they got by it, when it began to be Flowing water of Rebellion with the same Faction in 1641, what a mighty Inundation of the Multitude they sent down to Westminster to fill that Hall, and besides the Lobbies, Court of R [...]quests, Court of Wards, and Painted Chamber, that whole Citie, White-hall, the Strand and All, was filled with a Mad Crew, crying out upon King, Evil Counsellors, Bishops, French and Eng­lish Popery, Fears, Jealousies, and Grievances. And as Cats are let blood in the Ear many times by old women to cure the Shingles, so the whole Posse of Sermoning Matrons (the chief Garison of the Presbyterian Clergie) made a Sally out o'th' Citie, and went down also to bleed Straf­ford and Canterbury, as the onely means to cure all our Evils.

I should not mention these things, but that I am forced with grief of heart to it, now that I see the same Humours would be preached about anew by the same impenitent restless Faction, if they could but cheat the Old men again, who saw and cannot forget these things so easily; but the Faction now delude the Younger men, who never saw yet a Bleeding, nor the sport of Bear-baiting the King's Mi­nisters and Privie Counsellers, in whom lies all His Safety at such a season. I remember what some of the Leaders then said, Have we got him to part with Strafford? Then he must deny us nothing; the rest at Court, being frighted, will fall in with us to save themselves: and so it proved too true of too many of them, that for their childrens sakes I forbear the naming. But by this means those Lea­ders got the Foot-ball before 'em, and the King was fain to run for it, but could never recover it.

And then what got the Nation by it? I think we all know: but that the young men of the Citie may have [Page 58] an Account of the Gains of their Predecessors, take it as follows, it having been drawn up by one that was in those days a Member of Parliament. Some concern the Citie alone, and some were charged upon both Citie and Country.

1. A Tax called the Royal Subsidie of Three hundred thousand pounds. (I think it was the Tax they got the King to pass, to pay the Scotch Presbyterian Army, which themselves had brought a little before into this Kingdom to compass their Ends.)

2. Poll-money.

3. The Free Loans and Contributions upon the Publike Faith, of Money, Plate, Thimbles, Bodkins, Horse, Arms, &c. amounting to a vast incredible sum. (I remember, and mine eyes saw at Guild-hall, Plate brought in out of the Citizens houses, and heaped up like huge Wood­piles.)

4. The Irish Adventure money (most out of this Citie) for purchase of lands in Ireland (which the King's Father called a dividing of the Bears skin before they had conque­red him.)

5. The Weekly Meal-money; (that is to say, the Citizens spared a Meal out of their own bellies, converting the value of it into Cash, to be presented after their Plate.)

6. The Citie loan, after the rate of fifty Subsidies.

7. The Assesment of Money to bring on a Presbyterian Army of Scots a second time.

8. The Fifth and Twentieth part of men's estates.

9. The Weekly Assesment for the Lord General Essex his Army.

10. The Weekly (or Monthly) Assesment for Sir Tho­mas Fairfax 's Army.

11. The Weekly Assesment for the second Scotch Presby­terian Army after it had entered England.

[Page 59] 12. The Weekly Assesment for the British Army in Ire­land.

13. The Weekly Assesment for my Lord of Manchester 's Army.

14. Free Quarter connived at by the Rulers.

15. Sequestrations of the King's, Queen's, and Prince's Revenue.

16. Sequestrations and Plunders by Committees.

17. Excise upon all things.

Whereupon the Gentleman who drew up this Account wrote thus: [By these several Ways and Taxes, about For­ty Millions in Money and Money's worth were milked out of the Nation, the most part out of this Citie; and that Par­liament (as the Pope did once) might well have called England Puteum inexhaustum. A vast Treasure it was! such a one as nothing but a long Peace could have impor­ted; and nothing but pious Frauds, many Follies, and a Mad War could dissipate. And yet all this prodigious Sum was drained away and spent before the yeer 1647. in but six years; so that we do not reckon the vast Sums fetcht out of the Citie and Kingdom, to carry on the suc­ceeding Wars which sprang out of this, in England, Scot­land, and Ireland, betwixt 1647 and 1654. amounting to another vast Sum of Moneys, of which I am not able to give any Account.

I might reckon also the many Tuns of Tears and Blood that were drawn out of the eyes and sides of these three Nations, which the Presbyterian Faction can never wash off without Tears of Repentance. But let it not be the Repentance of Judas; such a one as they made in 1648. when they saw the Ball of Empire caught out of their hands into the hands of Cromwel; and mourned for that, not for the completed Ruine of the King and his Family; which themselves first began, and carried on as far as they [Page 60] could. And they must look to have it mention'd, till they leave off reviving their old Tricks of undermining the Government, and embroiling the Nation. But this may serve at present, to let the Young men as well as the old see what the Citie and Kingdom got by being led by the Nose to Westminster for a Crying down and shifting of Governours and State-Ministers under the King; of whose Faults they knew nothing but what they took up upon the Credit of pretended Patriots, but really crafty designing publike Enemies, as they afterwards appeared to be.

And you perceive also how false this Narrator is, when he tells you, that in the memory of man there never was before February last, such a flocking of people to West­minster at the opening of a Session of Parliament.

But what went the people out to see? They went to see a Reed shaken with the wind. But the Wind brought on a Storm upon those that would have shaken the Foundation of both Houses; which seeing they could not do, a Reso­lution is resolved on in mere spight, that 'tis now no Par­liament, but a Convention; which certainly deserves a se­vere Animadversion of State upon such as would turn up the Foundation upon which we stand.

[Page 61]ANIMADVERSION.

But he is as false here also, as he was before in the other: for I finde neither of those Speeches inclosed in this Print. He will be wary enough of printing them, because they are worthy to be often read and consider'd by all the people, in order to their satisfaction touching the justice, prudence and candour of his Majestie's Government: therefore I must needs give you short Heads of the Kings Speech, that the sinister intents and boisterous invective discourses of some men may be the better understood.

The King in his Speech of the 15 of February told his Lords, and the Gentlemen of the House of Commons: That he had called them together again after a long Proroga­tion, that they might have an opportunity to repair the Mis­fortunes of the foregoing Session, and to recover and re­store the right use and end of Parliaments.

That he was resolved to let the World see, that it should not be his fault if they be not made happie by their Consul­tations in Parliament.

That he plainly declared he came prepared to give them all satisfaction and security in the great concerns of the Protestant Religion, as it is established in the Church of Eng­land, that can consist with reason and Christian prudence.

And that he declared as freely, that he is ready to grant a further securing of our Liberties and Properties, by as ma­ny good Laws as they shall propose, and can consist with the Government; without which there will be neither Liberty nor Property left to any man.

That he would have all men judge, who is most for Ar­bitrary Government, they that foment such differences as tend to dissolve all Parliaments, or He, that would preserve this and all Parliaments from being made useless by such Dissentions.

[Page 62] That if these good Ends should happen to be disappoin­ted, He calls God and men to witness, that the misfortune of that disappointment shall not lie at his dore.

What can be more desired from a gracious King? But 'tis not the mode, nor agreeable to the temper and business of some men in the world, to rest as men satisfied with Reason, though perhaps they be. These are they at whose dore the guilt of Parliamentary Constitutions must lie, if ever God for our sins should permit them to proceed. For, they of the Faction cannot fish in the waters of Mo­narchy; they would have a Senate with Oligarchs over it, in stead of a Monarch. For the Narrator saith we ought not to use the word Parliament now; but the word Con­vention is better.

Nor is it any part of the Faction's business to be content with the Established Religion, or Liberty and Property; these are words which they know how to make use of, by sprin­kling them as flowers of Rhetorick in all their Writings and Discourses: they work upon the People with them, as Witches do with Charms, Characters, and Spells, to be­witch the Multitude with an opinion against the Court, and that all is in danger that way, and that themselves are the onely Patrons and Patriots, when in the mean time they onely tickle them like Trouts with these things, to catch them, and enslave them to their own designes and humours, for pulling the Government in pieces; which is the only Bulwark of Religion, Liberty, and Property: For, as the King well saith before, without this there will be neither Religion, Liberty, Property nor Safety left to any man. The Truth whereof we found by woful experience, which ensued after the very same Witchcrafts had bereaved the people of their Senses in FORTY ONE to run headlong into Civil Wars, which lasted so long, till Twenty yeers Suffering under loss of Religion, Liberty, Property, Safety, [Page 63] Government, and all, made them long and sigh after their Soveraign Lord again as the onely Restorer.

Look back then once again upon those short Heads of His Majesties Speech with an impartial eye, and you have in view so many demonstrations of Wisdom, Moderation, Tenderness for this Parliament, and the future being of Parliaments in their ancient Legal state; as also of Love and Kindness towards his People, that more cannot be ut­ter'd by Man to cast out the devil of Jealousie, and keep it from haunting the Houses of this people any more.

His Majestie in one of the Heads saith to this effect; That without keeping within the compass of the Govern­ment, as the Laws have stated every part of it, viz. in a delicate Medium betwixt the Regal Prerogative and the Parliamentary Right and Liberty of the people, so as both may be preserved entire, unto Kings and unto Parliaments, in their several Stations, neither Religion, Liberty, Pro­perty, nor Safety, nor Parliaments, can be maintain'd. The Reason is plain, because the Law of the land, which is the Band that ties all together, being once broken by any one of the Parties, they immediately fall asunder, and will easi­ly be cleft into a thousand pieces, and the Parliamentary Constitution not easily be restored, as it appeared upon the FORTY ONE Divisions, for Twenty yeers together. Experience (saith the Proverb) is the Mistress of Fools. Must we always then be Fooling for new Experiments of our old Foolery? One would think we should have been wiser by this time, than to suffer the same Faction to in­chant us any more.

But because a better Description of Kingly and Parlia­mentary Interest of Government cannot be had than what was described by the Pen of His Majesties Royal Father, in His Answer to the Nineteen Propositions, presented to him by that Parliament of the Faction, anno 1642. June 2. [Page 64] let me here set it down, in regard it will be the best Infor­mer of posterity what to do in like Cases, to prevent fu­ture Troubles that may arise again, through mens acting old Cheats over and over. His words are these: [There being Three kindes of Government among men; Absolute Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, and all these ha­ving particular inconveniences, the experience and wisdom of our Ancestors hath so moulded our Government in Eng­land, out of a Mixture of all Three, as to give this King­dom (so far as Humane wisdom can provide) the Conveni­encies of the Three, without the Inconveniencies of any One, as long as the Balance hangs even between the Three Estates, and while they run joyntly on in their proper Chanels, (be­getting verdure and fertility in the Meadows on both sides) and while there is no overflowing of either on either side, to raise a Deluge or Inundation.

In this Kingdom the Laws are joyntly made by a King, by a House of Peers, and by a House of Commons chosen by the People, all having free Votes and particular Priviled­ges. The Government according to our Laws, is trusted to the King, with power of Treaties of War and Peace, of ma­king Peers, of chusing Officers and Counsellers for State, Judges for Law, Commanders for Forts and Castles, giving Commissions for raising men to make War abroad, or to pro­vide against Invasions or Insurrections at home, Benefit of Confiscations, power of Pardoning, and some more of the like kinde, are placed in the King. And this Monarchy thus regulated, having this power to preserve that Authority without which it would be disabled to preserve the Laws in their force, and the Subjects in their Liberties and Proper­ties, is intended to draw to him such a Respect and Relation from the Great Ones, as may hinder the Ills of Division and Faction, and procure such a Fear and Reverence from the People, as may hinder Tumults, Violence, and Licentious­ness.

[Page 65] Again, that the Prince may not make use of this high and perpetual Power to the hurt of those for whose good he hath it, and make use of the name of Publike Necessity for the gain of his private Favourites and Followers, to the detri­ment of his People, the House of Commons (an excellent Conserver of Liberty, but never intended for any Share in the Government, or for the chusing of them that should go­vern) is soly intrusted with the first Proposition concern­ing levies of Moneys, which are the sinews of Peace as well as War, and with the Impeaching of those, who for their own ends, though countenanced by any surreptitiously got­ten Command of the King, have violated that Law, which he is bound (when he knoweth it) to protect, and to the pro­tection of which they were bound to Advise him, at least not to serve him in the contrary. And the Lords being trusted with a Judiciary power, are an excellent Skreen and Bank between the Prince and the People, to assist each against any Incroachments of the other, and by just Judge­ments to preserve that law, which ought to be the Rule of e­very one of the Three.]

I would not have transcribed this, but that I conceive it impossible to make a more excellent Delineation of the several Concerns of the King and his Subjects in the Con­stitution of our English Government, that every one may understand what is their due by Law, and how Monstrous the Demands were in those Nineteen Propositions, the first of which was: [That those Lords and others of your Ma­jesties Privie Council, and such great Officers and Ministers of State, either at home or beyond the Seas, may be put from your Privie Council, and from those Offices and Employ­ments, excepting such as shall be approved of by both Houses of Parliament, &c.] The rest of the Demands were a­greeable to this. But what answer'd the King to these things? [These (said he) being passed, We may be waited [Page 66] on bare-headed, We may have Our hand kiss'd; the Stile of Majestie continued to Ʋs; and the King's Authority de­clared by both Houses of Parliament may be still the Stile of your Commands: We may have Swords and Maces car­ried before Ʋs, and please our Self with the sight of a Sword and Scepter, (and yet even these Twigs would not long flourish, after the Stock upon which they grew becomes dead) but as to true and real Power We should remain but the out-side, but the Picture, but the Signe of a King. We were e­ver willing that Our Parliament should debate, resolve and transact such matters as are proper for them, as far as they are proper for them, and We heartily wish that they would be careful, not to extend their Debates and Resolutions be­yond what is proper to them, &c.] But alas, instead of hearkening to this, they without reason carried all before them like a mighty Stream, and so the fatal Wars came on, because the King would not be unking'd, by giving away the Flowers of his Crown: If he would not part with 'em by such fair means, they resolved to have 'em by foul. But remember this, that God suffer'd not any of the first Hot­spurs and Beginners, to reap any Comfort by the Business: which (as all Histories will shew us) is the common Fate of such Undertakers. And it were well, if I had room here to make a Stand, to give you a Relation of ours here in England. But 'tis time now to return to the Narrator, and tell him, all this kinde of doings was at Westminster with­in the memory of man.

ANIMADVERSION.

The sum of that Speech (as the Narrator hath printed it) amounts but to two pages: I have a written Copie of it by me, and could Animadvert upon it; but I would not strip one of the finest Courtiers of the world for leap­ing aside out of his proper Element. I am tender of him in many Respects; but 'tis both my trouble and my won­der, that the Narrator prints him among the Martyrs that suffer for the sake of a FACTION; who persecuted the Illustrious Duke his Lordships father, both in and out of Parliament, till he fell their Sacrifice by the hand of Felton, and left him the Inheriter of all those Honours and For­tunes, which flow'd from the Bounty of our Kings. Re­turn, return, Noble Lord, (if it may be) by the way of Pe­nitence, and take Noble Salisbury along with you well prepared, whose wise Grandfather was the great Instru­ment, in making way for that happie Succession, which u­nited both these Kingdoms under the old name of Great Britain. I have here (my Lord Duke) taken some pains to convince you and all the World; and I hope I have done it. If any thing more could be done for you, I would do it, in hope of your Penitence: and I hope I do not in vain perswade you, because I think your Consci­ence is not made of the same metal with a man's, that (as St. Paul saith) hath been seared with a red-hot Iron. Think not that I court you; or that I think your fault (as Circumstances were when you committed it) hath left you capable of pardon from any but the most merciful of [Page 68] Kings, and the extreme commiseration of your Peers, un­less I could think the Destruction of such a Parliament as this a small matter, (for, this a quick Dissolution would in probability amount to). I would not have a tittle to say for you, if I did not believe who it was that drew you in to the Business: which whether REASON of STATE can excuse, is a weighty Question. If there were any thing in the Arguments of your Speech, more than what was said in other words by the Considerator, and the Dissolver, I would give you the satisfaction of handling it; but it seems to me to be but a mere REHEARSAL, which hath in it onely more of Wit, and of a Gentleman, than of the Reason of Law and a Lawyer.

ANIMADVERSION.

This Narrator presumes to name many more Lords that spake pro, and some few con, that is, against the opinion of the Dissolution. But he saith the Lord Chancellor at length undertook to answer all the Arguments that were or should be for a Dissolution. If so, then it was no wonder that the House was soon satisfied, and concluded (as the Narrator saith) that the Question should be laid aside.

But I would have told you before, that he saith the Earl of Shaftsbury, upon the Motion of calling the Duke to the Bar, said, that it would be the taking away all freedom of speech in Parliament. That would be troublesome indeed to his Lordship, who hath been a very free speaker in Parlia­ment, if we may believe the printed Letter to a friend in the Country, and those Speeches that went abroad in print under his name. But no more of that. I would have some­what in me now of the Lion, and do pass him by. His Lordship may see by these Animadversions how little rea­son [Page 69] he had in Law for so great Confidence in the Speech which the Narrator saith he made also upon the Statutes of Edw. 3. about yeerly Parliaments. I hope he did not sit a Dictator in the Council of these Printed Dissolvers. If he did, 'tis but reason the FACTION, or some-body else, should pay him his Fees.

But before I part with his Lordship, I must needs shew him his Errour about the point of freedom of speech in Par­liament: and 'tis absolutely necessary that I do it, because 'tis become a villanous Insinuation used by the Narrator, and the rest of the scandalous Faction round the Town, that the Imprisonment of the four Lords is done contrary to the ancient Priviledge of Parliament, which is to have a liberty of speech in all Debates. As for this Lord, he need not complain; he had enough given him, or rather he took it, if the Speeches printed, with his name to them, be his. Doth freedom of speech extend so far as to make odious Insinuations and Reflections upon the King, upon the Crown and its Rights, upon the Succession of it, upon the Honour of the House of Peers, upon the Bishops, upon the whole Church, with the Canons, the Homilies, the 39 Arti­cles, and her Doctrine, as it relates either to God, Religion, or the Civil obedience due to the King, and the whole Government of State, and the Security of all these by an Oath of Allegeance? If his Lordship thought that the Law allowed either Peers or Commons such a liberty of speech, why did he bustle so diligently and briskly (as I have been told) to promote a Bill, not long since, against the ancient way of Tryal of Peers? Every body then smelt a Rat in the Case, and smiled at his Lordships wise Provi­dence, and his secret intent of speaking and acting beyond Compass upon the open Stage: and therefore I did not won­der, when I did read afterwards in the Pamphlet intituled, Debates and Arguments for Dissolving this Parliament, &c. [Page 70] (which was reported to be his) that his Lordship was very angry at the House of Commons for throwing out the said Bill of Trial when it was sent down to them; and tells the Commons, p. 6. They certainly were grown very high in their own opinion, and had a very low esteem for the Lords, when they neglected their best friends in the House of Peers, and did almost with scorn refuse that Bill, intituled, For the more fair and equal Tryal of Peers. I never saw the Bill yet, therefore can say nothing more of it; onely I cannot but take notice, that in the same page, and in many other parts of that Print, a through-revenge is plentifully bestow­ed upon the Honour of the House of Commons. Nothing would then serve the Turn but they must be turned out of doors, Dissolved, and a new one presently call'd; an instance clear enough for discovery out of whose Quiver this Ar­row of Dissolution was first shot, and of great probability who set on the Writers since against the Prorogation, to break the neck of this Parliament, and in it all the hopes of the Loyal part of the Nation. And if that aforenamed were the Print of his Lordship, I might reckon up out of it, and another Print stitcht to the tail of it, the most viru­lent Scandals that could be raked together to prepare that House for the rage of the Rabble. But the Narrator ha­ving sum'd up in few words the sence of the Author, I leave him here, because the Narrative it self will give the House that short Cut by and by.

In the mean while, if freedom of speaking in Parlia­ment, and after that, of Printing All and more than All; that is, of more perhaps than was spoken, be to be constru­ed and extended at this rate, know that the old Customs and Laws Parliamentary in England know no such matter. A freedom of speech in Debate is that which every Speaker by ancient Custom, after the House of Commons hath cho­sen him, and presented him to the King, doth petition for [Page 71] to the King on the behalf of all the Members of that House; and it was never yet denied by any of our Kings. The Lords also in their House do claim it by Birthright: for, to what end do they meet, if they may not freely debate mat­ters, without which 'tis impossible to come to any Resoluti­on about them? May his hand rot off then that shall write a word against it. But withal we are to understand, there are Bounds, Rules and Laws of speaking in either House of Parliament: for, the Law of Parliaments ever supposeth, that the Members ought to keep within the compass of those Bounds, and observe those Rules, both as to the mat­ter spoken and the manner of speaking. Every Member hath a Right to be heard, and heard out what he hath to say; but then when he hath done, the House to which he belongs hath power to judge, whether he hath spoken ill or not; and if ill, then they are the proper Judges to dispose of him to punishment according to his desert: And this the Law supposeth they will always do, they being intere­sted and intrusted with such Necessary Power and Privi­ledge, for the good of the King and Kingdom.

Now this is the Case of the most Noble House of Peers. They have as to the committing of the Four Lords to the Tower, not done it because they spake; (for they heard out with great patience what they had to say) but be­cause they judged what their Lordships had spoken a­gainst the Being of this Parliament, was of most pernici­ous Consequence, against the Safety and Good of the King and Kingdom. And to say no more of this, the House was so unanimous in concurring to their Commit­ment, after a debate and consideration of the matter (as will appear upon search of the Books of that House) that it was with great odds of number carried by the Temporal Lords alone, without reckoning in the Bishops, or the number of Proxies. And the Narrator himself confesseth [Page 72] this was agreed on after a full Hearing of all that could be said by the four Lords themselves, or their few Friends; only he mingles many ill-favour'd Reflections and false Insinuations in his Relation.

ANIMADVERSION.

All Reverence be given to the Judges in due time and place. This was an arduous Point of a Superlative Na­ture, touching the very Life and Being of a Parliament, in a conspiring Factious Season, infinitely above those ordinary points of Law, touching which that House is wont sometimes to consult my Lords the Judges, when their Lordships conceive they have need to consult them. But this was so plain a Case to their Lordships, that having the Judicatory right and power in their own hands, and in so transcendent an Occasion, it had been a strange thing to have yeelded to such a Motion, merely to gratifie those whom they had judged Offenders. Nor was it to be supposed, that the Judges would have undertaken to opinionate about so Supreme a Question, wherein the Safety of all the Concerns of Crown and State were involved, fit onely for the Supreme Judicature to consider.

ANIMADVERSION.

Whether those Debates were the same or not, let the world judge, when as the Narrator himself confesses, it was only about the Forms of the Writs that summoned the [Page 73] Parliament that the Question in those days was: But this Question made now was, about the validity of a Proro­gation, and the very being of a Parliament after it. I do not finde in my Lord Cook's Treatise about the High Court of Parliament, that the length of a Prorogation beyond a Years time can dissolve it; or that a small flaw in the Form of the Writ of Summons can invalidate a Parliament. But if it were so that it could, yet that is not within the Case of this Parliament, whose Writ of Summons was never question'd; nor could the Proro­gation have been at all disputed, but that the Faction would be so bold and mischievous as to do it; and with how slight a colour of Reason, you have already seen in these past Discourses. And now their last Clamour is, that the House of Peers hath condemned the four Lords to Prison, for presuming to argue a Nullity of the Parliament: And what follows? The Dissolver told us in his Pamphlet, that a New Parliament is to come that shall call this to account, and leave a new precedent to the world; That one Parliament may hang another. And who knows, but that this sort of Pen-men, with their Patrons, are continually of Counsel with the desperate FACTION?

The rest of this Writers Pamphlet contains nothing, but a partial Relation of Circumstances and Ceremonies, which passed in calling the Four Lords to the Bar, and about the manner of their Commitment: and then he closeth all with a few odious Reflections upon the Lords both Spi­ritual and Temporal, and the House of Commons; which here follow.

ANIMADVERSION.

What, a Petition in one hand, and at the same time a Po­niard in the other? Must it be so carried, a Petition to the King, and the same time a Stab given to his Ministers, great Officers, Bishops, and all the rest of the Nobility of the House of Peers that concurred with them to preserve the Government? I would be loth to call the Four Lords, and those few that concurred with them on the other side (the Allies of the FACTION,) A New Triple League; nor will I; let other men think what they please. This Jeer sounds like the Witticism of one of them, that uses to take care to print all his witty Sayings and Jests, as fast as he speaks them; especially those against the Court and the Bishops, and Ministers of State, whom he always dresses with this kinde of Flowers, to be offer'd in Sacri­fice to his own New Parliament, as the old Heathen Sacri­ficers were wont to dress their Beasts to be offer'd up to their Idols: therefore if the word Thorow-stitch were the Word at Court, what would become of him and his Triple League, if this old Parliament should proceed as round­ly as his intended New one would do, if we believe the DISSOLVER?

Then for the Bishops in particular, he proceeds thus:

[Page 75]ANIMADVERSION.

This is a Fire-ball with a witness, made up of the most dangerous, but falsest Ingredients; why then should I be long in extinguishing it? For the Bishops of England, and their Doctrine, Discipline and Government, will be found the surest Fence against the coming in of Popery, as well as against the Invasion of the FACTION, and the Slavery of their Discipline. Can a greater Provocation be given to the House of Peers and the Bishops? The Forming of this Bill was committed to such a Committee of Lords and Bishops, that all our world knows them to be Noble and true, and as firm as a Rock against the Ro­man Religion; and they took the greatest care that men in prudence possibly could do, to secure us from it at pre­sent and in future. And whatsoever the father of lyes may invent, and the FACTION spread abroad to the contrary, to exasperate and increase their own Party, more could hardly be invented for our Religion's security. Sure I am, it was thought so by the Papists themselves; and to be so severe, that they dreaded nothing more than the Con­sequence of its passing both Houses; insomuch that some Lords of that Religion opposed it what they could, and spared not to say, that after this they expected nothing but Fire and Fagot.

ANIMADVERSION.

But why French Pensioners, &c.? How then came the Major part to be for an Alliance with the Dutch, as [Page 76] appeared by the late Votes and the Address thereupon to his Majesty? May not then the other side with as much reason from thence make the like ungentile and un­christian Conclusion, that there are Dutch Pensioners too? 'Tis a miserable pass the world is come to, when men shall take up Scandals from Malice, Phant'sie, or Jealousie, to dart at one another; and at this rate there can be no end, till we have railed our selves round before the eyes of all the Nations of the world, and painted out our selves with the vilest Characters, to become a sub­ject for their Scorn and Derision.

It were again to scandalize those worthy Members of the Commons that he aims at; for any man to undertake to vindicate them, against the foul Imputations of a mad unconscionable sort of desperate Boutefeus. 'Tis to be hoped the Lords and Gentlemen of both Houses will take heed of these Spirits, and by the severest ANIMAD­VERSIONS of Authority and Justice, make their own Vindication.