IT was the Apostle Pauls Doctrine; and that he likewise gave in speciall charge to Titus c. 3. 1. Put them in minde to be subject to prin­cipalities and Powers, to obey Magistrates, to bee ready to every good work: But this Doctrine now is little lesse then Heresie, and meere Arbitrary Tyranny, in the opinion of a New Generation of Levellers, and seditious Secta­ries, sprung up among us since the Warres; the very persons of whom Peter prophecyed in the latter times; 2 Pet. 2. 11. Who despise Dominion; presumptuous, selfe-willed, they are not afraid to speake evill of Dignities, and the things that they understand not, and shall perish in their owne corruption. How active and industrious these Fire-brands of Sedition have been by writing and petitioning to extirpate Monarchy and Magistracy, Nobility and Gentry; and how they move every stone to pull downe the House of Peeres, and levell the Lords to the Commoners, by bringing them downe into the Commons-House to sit and vote together with them as one, or else not to sit or vote at all, is visible to most; and how many thousands of ignorant simple people they have ingaged to confederate with them in this pernicious de­signe, hath been already discovered in part to the Houses; the false suggestions and dangerous consequencies whereupon it is grounded, I shall succinctly discover, to undeceive the sedu­ced [Page 2] people, and take them off from such a desperate attempt, which will prove destructive both to the Parliament, and themselves too in conclusion.

These Lilburnists and Levellers pretend, that it is not fit the Lords should fit and vote in a distinct House by themselves, as they have done of latter times, but that they and the Com­mons should now sit all together in one House, (to wit, the House of Commons, the Lilburns and Overtons Pe­titions, and late Letters. The agree­ment of the people. The remonstrance of many 1000 to their owne House of Co­mons, and o­thers. ONELY SOVERAIGNE POW­ER OF THIS KINGDOME, as they stile it) as they did of Methinkes these New Lights should not cry up and and revive old Presidents & Patterns, no more then old clothes, fashi­ons or Cere­monies. old at first, and be new moulded into a single House; that so Bills, Ordinances, Votes, and businesses of Parliament might passe with more expedition upon one Debate and Vote, and not stay the Debates and Votes of two distinct Houses ere they be consummate. And because the Lords are but few in number, the sonnes of Conquest, not of election, representing onely themselvs, but not the Commons of England, represented onely by the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses chosen and in­trusted by them; therefore it is just and reasonable the Lords should be levelled and brought down to the Commons House to sit and Vote with them; and not enjoy any distinct or nega­tive Votes among themselves, as now they doe.

To answer these pretences, I shall not insist upon the See Mr. Sel­dens Tit▪ of Hon. par. 2. c 5 Spelm. Concil. Tom. 1. Mr. Lamb. Archa. Modus tenendi Parliamen o­rum, Truth triumphing o­ver falsh [...]od, p. 56. to 76. Cooks 9. Report, The Preface, & 4. Inst c. 1. Lords ancient and undoubted Right to sit and Vote in Parliaments long before the Conquest, from the first beginning of Parliaments to this present: Nor on their activity and readinesse in all ages, to oppose with the losse and hazzard of their estates, heads, lives, the encroachments of our Kings upon the Subjects Liberties, and vindicate the peoples free­domes, in the See Mat. Pa. Mat. Westm. Walsingham, H [...]linshed, Speed, Graf. on Trussel, Daniel & The. 1▪ 2. 3. Par. of the Soveraign po­wer of Parlia­ments. Reigns of King John, Henry the 3. Edward 2. Ri­chard 2. and other oppressive Princes, against whose invasions of the Kingdomes Lawes and Rights they have ever beene the principall Bulwarkes; and of late the chiefe procurers of this present Par­liament, and undertakers of our defensive warre against the King, wherein the Earle of Essex, Lord Brook, Lord Willoughby, and others of them first appeared; Nor yet to debate their an­cient and undoubted power and right of Judicature in civill and criminall cases of Commoners as well as Peers, in all times and Ages since there were Parliaments, of which there are infinite presidents in Histories, Parliament Rols and Jour­nalls, and sundry disclaimers of the whole House of Com­mons of being Judges in Parliament, as in 1. R. 2. Rot. Parl. [Page 3] n. 38, 39, 40. 1 H. 7. Rot. Parl. n. 79. and Plac. Coronae. nu. 11. to 17. and other Rolls: I shall wholly addresse my selfe to answer such Allegations as are most pertinent, touching the point of redu­cing both Houses into one, in such manner as is projected.

First then I answer, what though it be probable by Modus te­nendi Parliamentum, that the King, Lords and Commons anci­ently sat in one roome, and went in at one common doore in King Edwards the Confessors time; yet it follows not, they all sat and voted together, as one intire house: no more then it fol­lows; all the Judges and Officers of the Kings Courts of Chan­cery, Kings Bench and Common Pleas sit in one common Room, and go in at one doore, at Westminster Hall: therefore they all sit, judge and heare causes together, and are or ought to be reduced to one Court; and do not judge, and heare causes severally, nor ought to do it: there being no one Author or re­cord of credit extant, which proves directly, that the Lords and Commons did ever sit, vote, or act together as one intire house, and passe Billes, Judgements, Ordinances, Orders, by one undivided and united Vote; the thing which should be proved.

Secondly, when, by whom, and upon what occasion the Houses first came to be divided, is altogether uncertain, for ought appeares by history or records. 4. Instit. p. 2. &. [...]n. Sir Edward Cook con­ceives, that both houses sat together in 5. & 6. Ed. 3. and that about that ime, or a little after, they were first divided, when the Commons first chose a Speaker. But the Records of these Parliaments do not ne­cessarily warrant his conjecture herein; since they speak only of the meeting together of the three Estates in Parliament, (as now they oft times do, on the first and last day of the Par­liament, at conferences, passing Bills, and upon other occasi­ons) not of their sitting and voting together. For my part, I conceive the division of the Houses farre more ancient, for this reason, because our historians writing of our ancientest Parliaments, as well before as after the Conquest, do many times make mention only of our See Spelman Concil. T [...]m. 1. Seldens titles of honour. par [...] 2 c. 5. Kings, Archbishops, Bishops, Earles and Barons present in them, not of any Elders of the people, Senators, Knights or Commons to represent the people, (which at other times they speak of) as present in our Parliaments, Truth trium­phing over falshood. p. 56. &c. and Councells: occasioned only as I conceive, by the distinction of their sitting places and debates. unlesse it be [Page 4] granted, that many of our ancient Parliaments were held without Commons, Knights, and Burgesses, (as some affirm) but never without Peers & Lords; which would much invalid the Commons authority, and that supream jurisdiction of theirs which the Levellers now plead for. But admit they sat to­gether in one roome in Edward the third his reigne, yet it is cleart o me, their debates, votes, judgement, were long before distinct as now they are, by that memorable passage in Stepha­nides (transcribed out of him by Titles of Honour, part 2. Chap. 5. p. 705. 706 Master Selden; concerning the jugdment given in Parliament at Northampton against Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, in the eleventh yeare of King Henry the second, Anno Domini 1165. Where the Bishops, Earles, and all the Barons of England, resolving upon the Kings motion there, that Becket refusing to appeare in Parliament, upon summons to an­swer the complaint against him, being neither hindered by sicknesse, nor sending any reasonable excuse for his not appearing, should forseit all his moveable goods, and be at the Kings mercy: thereupon there arose a difference between the Bishops, and Barons, which of them should pronounce the judgement: the Barons alleadged, that the Bi­shops ought to pronounce it, because he was a Bishop, and they but Lay­men; the Bishops Ecclesiasticall persons, and his fellow Priests, and Bishops. To which one of the Bishops answered; it belonged to the Barons and not to them, because it was no Ecclesiasticall but Secular judgement; that they sat there as See Petrus Blesensis.▪ De Inst [...]t Episcopi B [...]bl. Patrum Tom. 12. pors 2. p. 447. Barons, not as Bishops: you are Barons, and we are Barons: here we are Peeres. But you insist in vain upon the reason of our Order: for if you regard in us our Ordination, you ought likewise to consider the same in him: Now in this that we are Bishops, we cannot judge our Archbishop and Lord. The King hearing this con­troversie about pronouncing the judgement, was moved, & thereupon this controversie ceased: and the Bishop of Winchester, (then Hen­ry de Bloys) being at last enjoyned to give the judgement, pronounced it against his will. There being no mention, speech, or inter lo­cution of the Commons in this whole Parliamentary debate or censure, but onely of the King, Bishops and Barons; it makes it more then probable to me, that even then the Houses were divided; at least, that they sat and voted not together but distinctly: and if the Commons were present, yet it is most cleare, the Barons only were the Judges, and gave and pro­nounced the sentence in Parliament, even without the Com­mons. Of which more in some other Treatise.

[Page 5] Thirdly; admit, the division of the Houses no ancienter then King Edw. the third, yet their division being made at first up­on good grounds, to prevent confusion and delayes, and to passe things with more mature advise and deliberation upon double debates, and second cogitations, and continued con­stantly ever since upon good grounds, without any alteration oropposition. And this division of them being ratified and ap­proved by the Law and custome of Parliament, The Parl. Rolls, and Journalls, yea confirmed by sundry And the Act for Trienniall Parliament, made this Parliament. Acts of Parliament, and among others by 31. H. 8. c. 10. 33. H. 8. c. 21. 3. Jac. c. 1. it can be no way just, nor safe, nor convenient, nor honourable, to confound them both together now, in the manner propound­ed, yea a cleare dissolving of the Parliament being contrary to the Act for its continuance, & a breach of the solemn League, Covenant, and all engagements, to obey and defend BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT; and a great dishonour to to the Lords, who cannot without apparent perjury and ig­nominy submit thereto: without whose full and free con­sents, and the Kings too by speciall act of Parliament, it is no wayes feasible, if by it,

Fourthly, it will introduce a world of contradictions, con­fusions, absurdities, and inconveniences, as these particulars evidēce. First, both these houses, as they are now divided, have, (and alwayes since their divisions have had) their severall di­stinct Speakers, and one chief cause of the division (as Instit. 4. p▪ 2. Sir Edward Cook conceives) was the Commons chusing of a continuall Speaker. If then you will unite both Houses into one; you must have either these two Speakers in that one house (which would breed confusion and disturbance, and be like two heads upon one mans neck;) Or but one, both for Lords & Cōmons, who then cannot debate nor Vote distinctly, but joyntly with the Commons. If but one, then which of the two shall be the man? Not the Commons Speaker, because they had no Speaker at all before the Houses were divided, & so can claim none when reunited. And the Lords Speaker being of greatest antiquity, Dignity, and Superiour to the Cōmons in place and degree, ought of right to be preferred, and enjoy the Speakers place upon the reducement. And how a Peere; who is not Cook 4. In [...]stit. p. 8. 46. 47 e­lected either a Member or Speaker by the Commons, can by the Law of the Land, or custome of Parliament be Speaker of, [Page 6] and for the Commons, as their mouth and representative; or a meere Commoner, a Speaker to the Lords to represent them, transcends my Law and skill; and wil require 7 yeares time to settle and resolve. Secondly, if the Houses be united, then how and where shall the Lords, and their assistants sit, and how and where the Cōmons? If all promiscuously, this would unlord, unpeere them, and make the meanest Commoner their equall: If distinct, then why not in distinct Houses still, as well as Classes and Seats? Or shall the Lords sit covered and the Commons sit bare, as now they doat meetings and conferen­ces of both Houses? This would be but ill Physick for the Commons this winter season, and too great a penance to such of them who have crazy heads, and weak legges, to stand bare so long, and some of their spirits (especially those who are the Levellers best friends) I doubt are so high, they would hard­ly brook such a pennance and daily observance. Thirdly, If the Houses be reduced into one, then their Cook 4. Instit. p. 34. 35. manner of voting and dividing being distinct and different, as all know: the one by a generall Ay, and No; the other by a particular Content and not content, beginning at the puny Lord: the one determined by dividing the House, to take the Poll; the other without divi­ding: the one having no power to enter a Protestation of dis­sent, the other enjoying it: the one power to vote by Proxy, the other onely in person without proxy: then whether shall both retain these their differences still in voting, which will bring absolute confusion, and much delay: or else the Lords vote as the Commons do, or the Commons as the Lords? If the Lords only as Cōmoners, that were a disparagement and dis­advantage to them, and a meanes to deprive them of their pri­viledges and votes as Peers, the Commons now having above twenty to one for number. If the Cōmons shall vote as Lords, that would make them Peers; and make each Vote if given particularly by the poll, & the entring of protestations, sp [...]nd above half their time. Fourthly, if both houses should be min­gled together, then the Lords alone must be judges, and give Oathes and judgement as now they do, in writs of Error and other causes, with which the Commons are not to inter­mddle; or the Lords and Commons joyntly. If the Lords a­lone, then why should both Houses be united, or they the [Page 9] onely Judges in the Commons House, or presence, which their greatnesse doubtlesse would not well digest? If Lords and Commons joyntly, this would subvert and alter the ancient proceedings and judgements of Parliament, and give the Commons a new power of Judicature and giving Oathes, and reversing errours, they never claimed nor enjoyed.

Fifthly, if the Houses be thus confounded, then what will become of their distinct Servants, Officers, Clerkes, Doore­keepers, &c? Shall both continue? that were a superfluity and needlesse charge: Shall one of them be discharged? then whether the Lords on Commons? and whether the black Rod will not be quite casheered with the Lords house? will be a greate question, and require much time to resolve. Sixtly, if both Houses be new-modelled into one, then what will be­come of all the Assistants of the Lords house? they certainly must be cashiered, especially such who are onely employed as Messengers to the Commons House, of which there will be no use at all when they sit together. Eighthly, what will become of the forme of endorsing all Bils sent from the Com­mons to the Lords: Soit bayle al Seignieurs: les Seigneurs ont assentus: and the old forme of reading Bils thrice in both Houses ere they can passe them; and so of our Acts of Par­liament? In respect therefore of all these severall contradicti­ons and inconveniencies which can hardly be reconciled, and no wayes altered, but by speciall Act of Parliament (if by it) without dissolving the present Parliament, to please a com­pany of seditious ignorant Lovellers and Sehismaticks, who ne­ver pondered all these particulars; it can neither be conveni­ent nor safe to confound both Houses together into one, as is endeavoured and desired.

Fiftly, the Act of 16. Caroli Regis, entituled▪ An Act for the preventing of incōveniences, happening by the long intermissions of Par­liaments; (made with abundance of care and pains this Parlia­ment, before the King's departure) distinguesheth the house of Commons from the house of Lords; prescribes an oath in haec verba, to the Lord Chancell our, Lord Keeper, and Commissi­oners of the great Seal of England, You shall swear, that you shall truly and faithfully issue out, and send abroad all Writs [Page 10] of Summons to Parliament FOR BOTH HOUSES. And in default thereof, enacts, That THE PEERS of this Realm shall be enabled and ENJOYNED to meet in the old Pal­lace of Westminster, AT THE ƲSƲALL PLACE THERE, on the third Monday on November: and that they, or any twelve or more of them THEN AND THERE AS­SEMBLED shall issue out Writs in usuall form, under the hands and seals of twelve or more of them, to the respective Sheriffs, and other Officers, for the electing of Knights, Citizens and Burgesses of Parliament. That on the third Monday in January, and second Tuesday in March, ALL AND EVERY THE PEERS OF THE REALM shall make their appear­ance and assembly at THE PALLACE aforesaid; and shall EACH OF THEM be liable unto such pains and censures for his and their NOT APPEARING AND SER­VING then and THERE in Parliament, as if be or they had been summoned by Writ under the great Seal of England, and had not appeared and served, and to such further pains and censures as BY THE REST OF THE PEERS in Parliament assembled THEY SHALL BE JUDGED UN­TO: And that the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses assembled IN THE COMMONS HOUSE of Parliament, shall be liable to such pains and censures as he or they shall be adjudged unto.

After w ^ch it enacts, That neither the HOUSE OF PEERS nor THE HOUSE OF COMMONS shall be ad­journed within fifty dayes at least, after the meeting thereof, unlesse it be by the free consent OF EVERY THE SAID HOU­SES RESPECTIVELY: And that the PEERS assembled in Parliament, may FROM TIME TO TIME choose and declare such person TO BE SPEAKER FOR THE SAID PEERS as they shall think fit: And that the said Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, shall and may FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THEIR AS­SEMBLY IN PARLIAMENT, choose and declare one of themselves to be SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, as they shall think fit: VVhich said SPEAKERS, as well for the said PEERS as HOUSE OF COMMONS RESPECTIVELY, shall be [Page 11] perfect and conpleat Speakers FOR THE SAID HOVSES RE­SPECTIVELY, and shall have as full and large power, jurisdi­ction and priviledges, to all intents and purposes, as any SPEAKER OR SPEAKERS OF EITHER OF THE SAID HOU­SES RESPECTIVELY heretofore have had and enjoyed. There­fore the levelling and reducing of both Houses into one, or abolishing the Lords House and Peerage, will utterly null and repeal this Act, (the best that was ever yet made for the King­domes safety, and Parliaments advantage) and deprive both Parliament, Kingdome and people of all future benefit by it, (which I wish our Levellers and Lilburnists seriously to consider) and likewise null and repeal the Act to prevent Inconveniences which may happen by the untimely adjourning, proroguing or dissolving of this present Parliam. An. 17. Car. which enacts, That THE HOUSE OF PEERS shal not at any time or times be adjourned during the pre­sent Parliament, unlesse it be BY THEMSELVES OR THEIR OWN ORDER: And in like manner, that THE HOUSE OF COMMONS shall not at any time or times during this Parlia­ment, be adjourned, unlesse it be BY THEMSELVES, OR BY THEIR OWN ORDER. Which I hope both Houses, as they desire their own continuance, and being of the Parlia­ment, will well advise of; and all those whom Lilburn or his Emissaries have seduced to engage against the House of Lords, or levell them to the Commons.

Sixthly, admit the Houses might without any inevitable mischiefes and contradictions, be modeled, and united into one, yet to bring downe the Lords into the Commons House, to sit and Vote like Commons with them, is no wayes tolle­rable, or to be thought on but with indignation, for these reasons. First, because the whole Commons House it selfe▪ when they present their Speaker to the King and Lords (which will be abolished by this union) or when any Bills are to be passed by the Royall Assent, upon the Cook 4▪ Inst. p. 28. 33 H. 8. c. 21. 3 Jac. c. 1. beginning and ending of every Parliament, and upon some other speciall occasions have alwayes used to goe up and wait upon the House of Lords in person, yea to stand bare at their Barre, and to send their Members in person See 5. R. 2. n. 16. up to the Lords upon any Message, Cōference, or other occasion; but never did the whole House of [Page 10] [...] [Page 11] [...] [Page 12] Peeres in any age come downe in person to the Commons House, or any Peeres of late bring Messages to them, but one­ly send them by some Assistants, as Judges, Masters of Chancery, &c. Therefore now to talk of bringing down the House of Peeres to sit with the Commons in their House, (all one, as to re­duce a Noble mans Dining-roome to his Hall or Kitchin, and levell the roofe and upper roomes of a house with the lower­most floore) is such a dishonour and affront to the Lords, that none but degenerate and ignoble spirits can so much as heare or think of it with patience, nor no Peere resent it but with just scorne and contempt, and rather dye then consent unto it, without whose consents it cannot be done without both Houses ruine: And to bring up the House of Commons to sit and Vote joyntly with the Peeres, would be to advance the Cōmons▪ above their degree, not level the Lords; to make some men Lords before they are Gentlemen, & every Commoner no lesse then a Lord, which would too much puffe and bladder them with pride, and make them slight those whom they represent▪ who being but Commoners, cannot be represented by Peeres, or any sitting and Voting in the House of Peeres, by the true fundamental Law and Custome of Parliaments, as Sir Instit. 4. p. 8, 46, 47. Edward Cooke resolves. Secondly, if the Lords should bee brought downe into the Commons House, (which is much like the reducing of the head and shoulders of the naturall body, into the belly or legges, which would make a Monster and de­stroy the man) there would be no roome for them, their Of­ficers and Assistants, unlesse enlarged and metamorphosed in­to another forme. Thirdly, If the Lords must bee brought downe into the Commons House, then the See Cook▪ 4. Inst. p. 14, 15. King and Prince as well as they, or else they must be totally excluded the Par­liament, or sit alone by themselves in the House of Lords, without any Lords to attend them▪ An indignity which no King or Prince can brooke, and no modest Commoner seri­ously thinke of but with detestation; nor Lord, nor King consent to, but by force and violence; and without their vo­luntary consents it will not be valid, but destructive.

Seventhly, The false pretext for it, of expediting Bills, Or­dinances, and Votes, is an absurd and ignorant fancie of over­hasty [Page 13] spirits, who would act all things in a hurry without good deliberation: For first, nothing ought to bee done in Parliament but upon full and mature debate and deliberati­on of all the circumstances and probable consequences of it in future time (a thing now seldome considered:) Diu delibe­randum quod semel statuendum, &, Festina lente, are safe rules in Parliament, especially in passing publike Acts and Ordinan­ces, in making Warre or Peace, or any Nationall Leagues and Agreements. Secondly, Hasty Dogges bring forth blinde Whelpes: and hasty Votes, over sudden Councels and Motions, lame, blinde, contradictory, unjust, and inconsiderate Orders, Or­dinances, Acts, which must either be corrected, supplyed, or repealed by Additionals, of which we have had too many ex­periments since this Parliament; which in many Votes, Or­dinances, Orders, and Impeachments hath made more haste then good speed; and Voted sometimes both absurdities and impossibilities (witnesse the Commons Votes, for the Tryall of Mac-Guire and Mac-Mohun in the Kings-Bench, the very first day of the Terme, before any Indictment drawne, found, or any Jury summoned to finde it; for the Tryall of Judge Jenkins in the Kings-Bench, by a short day, for Treason aleaged to be com­mitted in Wales, before any Indictment found in the Country, or removed into Court, and the like;) which I only mention to satisfie and answer the Objectors, nor to defame the House or Houses, whose Honours and Reputations have beene much blemished, through the inconsiderate rashnesse of some igno­rant Members, who poasted on such Votes and Impeachments. Thirdly, this dividng the Houses will breed infinite disorder and confusion, 4. Instit. q. 2. not expedition, in their proceedings, as the premises manifest, and destroy their very formes and method; upon which ground Sir Witnesse Dr Levtons, Dr. Bastwicks, Mr Burtons, my own, Mr. Wal­kers, Mr. Fox­leys, the Che­sterwars and many others, about Ship­money, and o­ther grievan­ces. Edward Cooke writes they were first divided. Fourthly, it will be a great retarding and obstruction to publike Justice, especially in Writs of Errour, and all such things which the Lords may dispatch or judge without the Commons House; where many hundreds of Petitions and businesses heard and Voted above seven yeeres since, doe yet stick without re­port, or transmission to the Lords (to the great dishonour and scandall of their proceedings and speedy justice) which had [Page 14] been dispatched and ended many years past, had they first peti­tioned to the Lords for redresse. So as the Lords House is clear­ly no cause of delay, but the Commons rather, through their long debates or want of method, which debates would bee increased and lengthned by adding of the Lords unto them, who can now debate and determine things apart, and resolve two or three things, or more, whiles the Commons are deba­ting one: And therefore, if delay be the onely cause of redu­cing the Lords House to the Commons, the Commons cer­tainly are rather to be reduced then the Lords, and may bee better spared of the two (even by His letter to a friend, his letters to Hen­ry Martyn and Cromwel, In­nocency and Truth justifi­ed, Englands Birth-right, the late Peti­tion of many free-born peo­ple of England. Lilburnes and his Confede­rates Libells and Petitions) their delayes being not a quarter to one so many, nor one quarter so long as the Commons, as themselves must and do acknowledge. Eightly, this whole de­sign is a direct breach of the solemn League and Covenant, a subversion of the Law and Custome of Parliaments, a device to destroy both Houses, under pretext of reducing them into one; an engine to dissolve this present, and all future Parlia­ments; to alter the fundamentall Lawes and Government of this Kingdom, to unking the King, unprince the Prince, un­lord the Lords, and quite destroy their House (almost effected by expulsions, and impeachments of most of their Members by degrees, who have scarce enough left to make up an house, which it is high time for them & the Commons to observe;) yea, a project to extirpate Monarchy and Nobility, and set up a popular Anarchy and Polarchy: And therfore who ever hath plotted and fomented it, is more guilty of high Treason then Strafford, Canterbury, or the Gun-powder Traitors, and de­serves a severer punishment then they underwent, even by the hands of the Parliament it self, and all that are wel-wishers to Parliaments or Kingdom, though no friends to Peers.

Ninthly, this division of the Houses is; First, a great ho­nour to the Parliament and Houses, savouring of greater Ma­jesty, State, and Order, then their joyning into one, and giving every estate its 31 H. 8. [...]. 1 [...]. du [...] place and ranke. Secondly, a great ease and benefit to the Subject, who may make his Addresses and Petitions to either at his election for reliefe. Thirdly, a great dispatch and expedition to all publike affaires, one House fit­ting [Page 15] and preparing them for the Debat, & concurrence of the other, at one and the same time, as Committees of each House prepare and expedite businesses for the whole House. Fourthly, a means of more speedy justice, by the Commons preparing of Articles and evidence for complaints and im­peachments, presented by them to the Lords, whiles they are dispatching other businesses; and their hearing Writs of Er­rour, and other causes, whiles the Commons are upon other debates; which they could not do in one house, but joyntly together, and successively, not with so quick dispatch, and such good order as now. Fifthly, a thing very necessary and ad­vantagious to the Kingdom and people, and safest for the Par­liament, in that the Lords upon their second debates and con­ferences with the Judges and others, many times amend and rectifie divers errours, imperfections, and mistakes in the over-hasty Votes, yea & deliberate Orders, Ordinances, Bils and De­clarations of the Commons, which the Commons acknow­ledge by their assents unto their amendments; and oft times the Commons stay some Votes, Orders, Bils, Ordinance, sent down to them by the Lords; and their several amend­ments and dislikes, with the conferences and debates occasion­ed thereupon, and second considerations of Businesses, Votes, Ordinances, Orders, Bils, Declarations, and the like, make them more profitable, compleat and valid, and lesse liable to exceptions and evasions then else they would have been. In all which respects, this division of the Houses, and the Lords and Kings negative voyces rightly considered and used, are not onely convenient, but expedient and absolutely necessary for the publike good, whatever Lilburn and his ignorant Le­vellers fancy to the contrary.

I shall therefore close up this with that wholesome and sea­sonable advice of Solomon, Prov. 24. 21, 22. My sonne feare thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with those WHO ARE GI­VEN TO CHANGE; For their calamity shall rise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruine of them both?

There is onely one Objection to be removed, Object. wherewith I shall arme the Levellers, that so I may leave nothing unan­swered, [Page 16] that may be hereafter insisted on. And that is, this passage in Modus tenendi Parliamentum, We must know, that for the granting of such help and ayd (to the King) it hehooveth THAT ALL THE PEERS OF THE PARLIAMENT AGREE: And we must un­derstand, that two Knights which come to the Parliament for the Shiers and Countries out of which they come, have a greater voyce in Parlia­ment TO GRANT, then THE GREATEST EARL in England: And after the same manner the Procters for the Clergie, or Clerks of the Convocation-house for one Bishoprick, have a greater voyce in Parliament, if they all agree, then the Bishop himself: And this is true in all things which ought to be granted or denyed to the party, or are to be done therein. And this is manifest, BECAUSE THE KING MAY HOLD A PARLIAMENT WITH THE COMMOMALTY AND COMMONS OF THE KINGDOM WITHOUT BISHOPS, EARLS AND BARONS; yet so, as they be summoned to the Parliament, although no Bishop, Earl or Baron come according to their summons: BECAUSE IN TIMES PAST, NEITHER WAS THERE BISHOP, EARL OR BARON; and yet EVEN THEN KINGS KEPT THEIR PARLIA­MENT. But it is far otherwise on the other side; for though the Com­monalty, to wit, Laity and Clergie were summoned to the Parliament (as of right they ought to be) yet for some certain causes they would not come; as if they did pretend, that the King did not govern them as he ought, and in speciality point out the Articles in which he misgoverned them, as he ought; TUNC PARLIAMENTUM NULLUM EST OM­NINO; So the La­tin, the Eng­lish being non­sence, and mis­translated in many places. then there is no Parliament at all, though all the Archbi­bishops, Bishops, Earls and Barons, and and all the Peers should be present with the King: And therefore it behooveth that all things which ought to be affirmed or informed, granted or done by the Parliament, should be granted by the Commonalty of the Parliament; which consists of three degrees or kinds assembled in Parliament, to wit, of the Practors of the Clergie, the Knights of the Shires, the Citizens and Burgesses, who re­present the whole Commonalty of England, and not of Noble men; because every one of them is for his own proper person present at the Parliament, and for no other: Which Master Holinshead Chron. of Irel. p. 127, 128. John Vowel in his Order and Ʋ ­sage how to keep a Parliament; seconds in these words:

If the King in due order have summoned all his Lords and Barons, and they will not come; or if they come, they will not yet appear; or if they come and appear, and will not doe no [...] yeeld to any things THEN [Page 17] THE KING WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COMMONS MAY ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH ANY ACTS OR LAWS WHICH ARE AS GOOD, SƲFFICIENT AND EFFECTƲ ­ALL, AS IF THE LORDS HAD GIVEN THEIR CON­SENTS. But on the contrary, if the Commons be summoned, and will not come; or comming will not appear, or appearing will not consent to do any thing, alledging some just, weighty or great cause, the King in those cases cannot with the Lords devise, make or establish any Law. The reasons are these; When Parliaments were first began and or­dained, there were no Prelates or Barons of the Parliament, and the temporal Lords were very few or none, and then the In what age was there ever such a Parlia­ment of King and Commons onely? King and his Com­mons did make a full Parliament; which authority was NE­VER YET ABRIDGED. Again, every Baron in Parlia­ment doth represent his own person, and speaketh in the be­half of himself alone; but in the Knights, Citizens and Bur­gesses, are represented the Commons of the whole Realm; and every of these giveth consent, not onely for himself, but for all those also for whom he is sent: And the King with the consent of the Commons, A grosse mi­stake without president to warrant it. HAD EVER A SƲFFICI­ENT AND FƲLL AƲTHORITY TO MAKE, ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH GOOD AND WHOLSOME LAWS FOR THE COMMON-WEALTH OF THE REALM: Wherefore the Lords being lawfully summoned, and yet refusing to come, sit or consent in Parliament, CANNOT BY THEIR FOLLY ABRIDGE THE KING OR THE COMMONS OF THEIR LAWFƲLL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT. So he.

From which two passages it may be probably inferred; first, that a Parliament may now be held, and Acts and Laws made by the King and Commons alone, without the Lords; but not by the King and Lords without the Commons; and so their sitting in Parliament is not simply necessary, so as they may quite be taken away and reduced to the Commons house. Se­condly, that they have no negative voice, but ought to assent to whatever the Commons shall vote to be good and necessary for the Commonwealth.

To which I answer; Answer. first, that the compiler of the first Trea­tise, is both unknown, & the time whē it was first compiled, not [Page 18] so ancient as is imagined by some hundreds of yeers: It is said in the preface, it was first composed in Edward the Confessor's time, and shewed to William the Conquerour, & approved and used by him: but he that made this Preface to it (addes) That it was used IN THE TIMES OF HIS SƲCCESSORS KINGS OF ENGLAND, and therefore lived long after the Conquerours time) and so writes but at random, not of his own knowledge, there being no History nor Record to warrant any such thing: and by his Discourse touching the Members places and sitting in Parliament, manner of Marshalling the Bishops and others, and by other passages, it should seem, a great part of this Treatise is but of late composure: As for its exemplification by King Henry the second, and his sending it into Ireland, and King Henry the second, and his sending it into Ireland, and King Henry the fourth his exemplification of it there, I find no warrant for it, but Sir Instit. 4. p. 12. Edward Cooks assertion, and that grounded upon a bare report from another: these exemplifi­cations (for ought I can learn) being neither of them extant, nor yet so much as once mentioned by Master Richard Bolton (a great Antiquary) in his Collection of the Statutes of Ireland: Besides, the election of See the Free­holders grand Inquest. p. 5, 10 16. two Knights to serve for every Coun­ty, two Citizens for every City, and two Burgesses for every Burrough, and the Procurators of the Clergy, cannot be pro­ved by any History or Records extant, to be formally chosen by Writ, and sent to the Parliament, in Edward the Confessors reign; nor that all those assistants w ^ch this Treatise mentions did then sit or were present in Parliaments, in such manner & form as is expressed in this Treatise: Yea, the very objected passage, & reason therin rendered, proves it self to be of pun [...]er date then the Confessors or Conquerours dayes. Secondly, admit it as ancient as the Confessor or Conquerour, then it is apparent, that even in those times the Houses either sate not, at least voted not both together, as is pretended: For first, this Treatise distinguisheth the Bishops, Earls and Barons, as distinct ranks and degrees of Parliament, both from Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, throughout the Treatise: Secondly, it distinguisheth them in the times and dayes of their calling in the beginning of the Parliament, and in their fines for not appearing: Thirdly, in the charge the King gives to them: Fourthly, in the places and manner of their sitting, all the [Page 19] severall orders of Peers, and Assistants of the Lords house being menti­oned, as sitting together, without any Knights, Citizens or Burgesses sitting among them. And he addes, that between the Bishops, Earls, Barons, all must keep their places, and the Steward of England is to look to this, THAT NONE SIT BƲT AMONG HIS PEERS AND EQƲALS: Fiftly, he subjoyns, That the Justices of Eng­land are no Justices in Parliament, unlesse so far forth as new power shall be assigned and given them then by the KING AND THE PEERS of the Parliament: That the Peers of the Parliament are to examine Petitions BY THEMSEVES: That the King shall as­signe five skilfull Clerks of the Parliament: the first whereof shall be Mi­nister to serve the Bishops; the second, the Procters of the Clergie; the third, the Earls and Barons; the fourth, the Knights of the Shire; the fift, the Citizens and Burgesses: who shall write and register their seve­rall answers and doubts to the King; that all doubtfull cases are to be put in writing, and delivered to the Clerk of every degree; that so every DE­GREE BY IT SELF MAY GOE THERE BY IT SELFE AND DEBATE IT, and then bring their ANSWER AND AD­VICE IN WRITING; and if any discord arise, that the businesse be handled and amended by all the Peers of the Kingdom: And that none of all the Peers may depart from Parliament, unlesse he have obtained leave OF THE KING, and of ALL HIS PEERS. All which proves the devision and distinction of the Houses in that Age, in Votes and Debates.

Thirdly, both these Writers grant; First, that the Com­mons can doe or conclude nothing without the Kings pre­fence and consent: Secondly, that all the Lords ought to be summoned to the Parliament, and if they appear not, that they shall be amerced: Thirdly, that ALL PEERS OF THE REALME OƲGHT TO AGREE TO WHAT IS GRANTED OR PASSED IN PARLIAMENT; so are their words: Therefore if all the Peers, or the major part of them disagree, no ayde can be granted nor Act passed, by their own confessions: and by the same reason they affirm, that the King and Lords, or either of them alone, without the Com­mons, can grant or enact nothing that is firme or stable; nor yet the Commons themselves without the Kings assent; they must of necessity grant, that the King and Commons [Page 20] without the Lords can do nothing, that is binding to the Kingdom, the Lords assent being as requisite as theirs, and they entrusted by the Laws, Statutes and Custome of the Realm, to consent and dissent in the granting of aydes, and making Laws as well as the King and Commons, and have a share inboth as well as they.

Fourthly, the holding of a Parliament, granting of aydes and making Laws by the King and Commons, without the Lords, is onely in one speciall case of obstinacy and extremity in the Lords; which never yet fell out, nor is likely to happen: To wit, when the Lords are all summoned to Parliament, and yet wil­fully refuse to appear, sit or agree to any thing propounded by the King and Commons joyntly, without giving a sufficient reason for their so do­ing: To conclude therefore from such a remote possibility of a case which never yet fell out, nor is likely to do, the ne­cessity of the Lords reducement at this present, or in future times to the House of Commons, or the abolition of the House of Peers, or their negative voyce, is as great nonsence and fren­zy, as to argue; that all the Lords and Commons ought pre­sently to be sent to Bedlam, because one of our Parliaments was stiled, Insanum Parliamen [...]um, The mad Parliament, and they may possibly prove now as mad as the Parliamēt was then re­puted; as they will do in good earnest, if they should go about to levell the Lords, and detrude them to the Commons house, as these mad Sectaries and Levellers would perswade them.

Fiftly, neither of these Writers were good Lawyers, Histo­rians or Antiquaries versed in Parliament Records: for first, our 22 E. 3. 3. b. [...] H. 7. 14. 11 H 7. 27 B [...]. Parl. 107. Plowdens Cou [...]t. 79. Crompton's Ju­risdiction, f. 8. Fortescue, c. 18 f. 20. 4 H. 7. 6. [...]. Dy 92. Bro. 134, 39 E. 3. 7. Law-books are expresse in point, That no Law nor Act of Parliament can be made by the King and Commons without the Lords concurrent assent, no more then by the King and Lords without the Com­mons: And Sir Edward Cook (the greatest Lawyer in this latter age) is positive, in his 4. Inst. c. 1. (where he writes particularly of Parliaments) f. 25. There is NO ACT OF PARLIAMENT BƲT MƲST HAVE CONSENT OF THE LORDS, the Com­mons, and royall assent of the King, as appeareth by RECORDS AND OƲR LAW-BOOKS: Therefore this fancy of theirs, that the King and Commons may make Laws without the Lords, is a cleer mistake even in point of Law; which the very form and pen­ning [Page 21] of all our Statutes ( Be it enacted by the King, &c. THE LORDS SPIRITƲALL AND TEMPORALL, and Commons in this present Parliament assemblea; and the like) refutes: Secondly, all our Historians and Antiquaries concur herein, That there can be no Parliament, nor ever was in any age since Parlia­ments were in England, held by the King and Commons alone without the Lords; there being no such Parliament ever heard or read of, neither do these Authors instance in any one Presi­dent; therefore this ground of their opinion, That in times past our Kings kept their Parliaments, when & before there were any B [...]shops or temporall Lords, is a meer groundlesse assertion, contradicted by all our Antiquaries and Historians; which alwayes make mention of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Dukes, Princes, Earls, Lords and Barons in our ancientest Parliaments, but See Mr. Sel­dens Titles of Honour, part 2. c. 5. Spel­manni Concil. Tom. 1. Truth triumphing o­ver falshood, p 50, to 70. The grand In­quest, p. 8, to 16. no mention at all of any Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgesses: Thirdly, all our Parliament Rolls contradict this fancy, that there can be no Act nor Ordinance of Parliament without the Lords consent as well as the Commons; as is evi­dent by the penning of all our printed Acts, and by 6 Edw. 3. Rot. Parl. n. 5. 17 E. 3. n. 59, 60. 43 E. 3. n. 3, & 10. 14 R. 2. n. 14, 15. 13 H. 4. n. 25. with many more: yea, the Lords presence in Parliament hath at all times be [...]n so absolutely necessary and expedient; that our Parliaments from time to time have been adjourned from the day that they were first appointed to sit, till some few days after; upon this very reason, That ALL THE LORDS ( by reason of the foul weather, shortnesse of summons, or some other occasion) were not yet come up to the Parliament, OR SOME OF THE LORDS NOT COME; and the Declaration of the causes of calling the Parliament by the Lord Chancellour, or chief Justice, and all Parliamentary businesse deferred till their comming, (as well as because some of the Knights and Burgesses were not come, nor all the Writs for their elections returned:) upon which reason, and the absence of some Lords, the first day of the Par­liaments sitting, hath been oft adjourned, as the Parliament Rolls of 6 E. 3. nu. 1. 6 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 5, 6, 8, 9. 13 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 4. 15 E. 3. n. 5. 17 E. 3. n. 2. 6. 18 E. 3. n. 1, 2, 5. 20 E. 3. n. 5. 21 E. 3. n. 4. 22 E. 3. n. 1. 25 E. 3. n. 1. 29 E. 3. n. 4. 36 E. 3. n. 1. 37 E. 3. n. 1. 42 E. 3. n. 1. 50 E. 3. n. 1. 51 E. 3. n. 3. 1 R. 2. n. 1, 2 R. 2. n. 1. 3 R. 2. n. 1. 4 R. 2. n. 1. 5 R. 2. Parl. 1. n. 1. & Parl. 2. n. 1. 6 R. [Page 22] 2. Parl. 1. n. 1. & Parl. 2. n. 1. abundantly And 8 H. 4. n. 28, 30, 54. [...] H. 4. n. 1. 1; H. 4. n. 1. manifest, it being the custome of all former Parliaments to Debate, Vote and deter­mine nothing but in FƲLL PARLIAMENT, when all, or the most part of the Members of both Houses were present, and not in a thin or empty House, when above half or three parts were absent: an innovation of dangerous consequence, brought in of later times, and fit to be redressed, for which some Parlia­ments and Parliamentary proceedings have been See 31 F. [...]. n. 16. 1 H 4. Rot. Parl. 22, 25, 66. 39 H. 6. c. 1. Statutes of Ireland, 10 H 7. c. 23. 21 R. 2. c. 12. 31 H 6 c. 1. 17 E. 4. c. 7. repealed and judged voyd by Parliament; especially when accompanied with any armed forces and violence, over-awing the Houses or their Members: to prevent which in former ages, by the Cook 4 Inst. p. 14 & 2 E. 3. c. 3. an­cient law and custome of Parliament, a Proclamation usually was and ought to be made at Westminster in the beginning of every Parliament THAT NO MAN, ƲPON PAIN TO LOSE ALL THAT HE HAD, SHOƲLD DƲRING THE PARLIAMENT, in Lon­don or Westminster, or the Suburbs, &c. wear any privy coat of Plate, OR GOE ARMED, or use any Games, Playes, Justs, and other pastimes, or shewing Shewes during the Parliament: The reason whereof was, That the high Court of Parliament should not thereby be disturbed, nor the Members thereof (which are TO ATTEND the arduous and urgent businesse of the Church and Common-wealth) be thereby WITH­DRAWN OR FORCED AWAY: as is apparent by 5 E. 3. nu. 5. 6 E. 3. nu. 2, 3. 6 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 2. 6 E. 3. Parl. 4. n. 4, 5. 13 E. 3. n. 1. 14 E. 3. n. 1. 14 E. 3. Parl. 21. n. 2. 15 E. 3. n. 2. 17 E. 3. n. 3. 20 E. 3. n. 1. 24 E. 3. n. 1. 25 E. 3. n. 5, 8. & Stat. 2. n. 4. A law and custome now fit to be revived. Fourthly, the very Writs of Summons for the Lords, and of election of Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, refutes this grosse mistake, requiring them all to appear personally in Parliament, on such a day, at such a place, and there to treat of the great and urgent affairs of the Realm, not onely with the King himself, but cum Praelatis, MAGNATIBUS ET PROCERIBUS dicti Regni nostri; with the Prelates, No­blemen and Lords of our said Realm: And therefore to dream of holding a Parliament, or making Lawes without the Lords, is a sign of an intoxicated brain. Fiftly, I find in 21 E. 3. nu. 58. 21 E. 3. n. 60. 37 E. 3. n. 12, 34. 50 E. 3. n. 12, 13. and the yeer-book of 39 E. 3. 7. b. that the King and Lords in Parliament See the Free holders grand Inquest. have made binding laws without the Commons, in some cases, but not [Page 23] the King and Commons without the Lords: And in the Parliament of 6 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 7. the Commons had license to depart the parlia­ment, but the Lords were commanded to attend the King the next morn­ing, to advise him: So that there is far more colour in point of Presidents to prove, that the King and Lords may make Laws and grants of aydes, (as the Lords did by and for themselves, 3 E. 3. n. 4, 5. & Parl. 2. 13 E. 3. n. 7.) without the Commons, then the King and Commons without the Lords.

Sixtly, to this, that the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses in parlia­ment, have a greater voyce then the greatest Earl in parliament, because they represent the Countries, Cities and Burroughs from whence they come, and the Earl but himself.

I answer, first, that the reason holds not; for if this were true then every Knight, Citizen and Burgesse that serves for the greatest Counties, Cities and Burroughs, should have a great­er voyce and power in the Commons house, then those that serve for lesser, and the smallest, because they represent, and assent, and vote for more Freeholders, Citizens and Bur­gessers then they; and by the same reason, the lesser and poor­er Peers should have a lesser voyce in the Peers house then the greatest and richest; which we know is false and absurd. Se­condly, many Peers are of greater worth, value, estate and interest in relation to the Kingdom, then many poor Bur­roughs; and therefore by this reason their voices should be greater then both Burgesses serving for them. Thirdly, every Peer votes not onely for himself, but for all the Nobility and whole State and Kingdom whereof he is a member, as well and as much as any Commoner; and therefore his voyce is as great as theirs.

As to the Lords negative voice in Parliament, I answer, first, the King, common Laws and Statutes of England, have ever allowed and acknowledged it in all Ages: Secondly, to deny them this Priviledge, is to make the whole house of Peers meaner then the meanest Burgesse, who hath a negative voyce in all debates and votes that passe the Commons house; yea, to deny them to be freemen, and make them worse then the Philistine Lords, who had a negative voyce, 1 Sam. 29. 2, to 12 And to make them give their cōsents to whatever the Cōmons [Page 24] shall carry by their plurality of Votes (though it be but by one or two) is to set up Popish blind obedience, and implicit faith, yea, to destroy that liberty of conscience and judgement which the Objectors, Levellers and Army do pretend they fight, and so earnestly contest for. Thirdly, there are sundry presidents in our Parliament Rolls, of the Lords negative voyces in Parliaments; I shall instance onely in two or three, The first in print, in the Statute of Marlbridge, 20 H. 3. c. 3. The Bishops and Clergie importuned the Lords, that they would consent, that all such as were born afore Matrimony should be legitimate, as well as those who were born within Matrimony, as to the succession of Inheri­tance, for so much as the Church accepteth such for legitimate. And ALL THE EARLS AND BARONS WITH ONE VOICE answered, NOLUMUS, &c. WE WILL NOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF THE REALM which hither to have been used and approved. Here the Lords negative voyce hindered the alte­ration of the common Law, against the Bishops and Clergies importunate Vote to change it. So in the Parliament of 28 E. 3. nu. 25. the Commons desired, that any man attainted upon a writ of Oyer and Terminer, might bring his Attaint hanging the suits against the other. To this the answer on the Roll is, THE LORDS WILL NOT ALTER THE ORDER OF THE LAW. The like negative answer you may read in 21 E. 3. n. 12, 29. 1 R. 2. n. 34, 69, 111. 2 R. 2. n. 57, 58. Parl. 1. & Parl. 2. n. 48. and sun­dry other Rols. Therefore to inferre any thing from these erronious passages against the Lords Louse, Votes, Judicature or negative voyce, is but the blind following of the blind, and contradict all Parliament Records, History, Antiquity and Law it self, and approve and establish their authority, judica­ture and distinction from the Commoners.

Finally, it is evident by the Parliament Rols of 6 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 3. 13 E. 3. Par. 2. n. 7, 8. 15 E. 3. n. 6, 7, 9, 17, 18, 35, 37. 17 E. 3. n. 9, 11, 12, 59. 18 E. 3. n. 10. 21 E. 3. n. 4, 5, 70. 22 E. 3. n. 3, 4, 29. 22 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 6, 7. 27 E. 3. n. 4. 29 E. 3. n. 10. 36 E. 3. n. 6, 7. 40 E. 3. n. 8. 42 E. 3. n. 7. 47 E. 3. n. 5, 6, 12. 50 E. [...]. n. 3, 8, 9, 10 14. 51 E. 3. n. 18, 19. 1 R. 2. n. 12, 13. 2 R. 2. n. 10, 23, to 29. 2 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 6. 4 R. 2. n. 9, to 16. 5 R. 2. n. 13, to 31. 6 R. 2. n. 9, 10, 1 [...]. 6 R. 2. parl. 2. n. 14, 15. 6 R. 2. parl. 3. n. 8, 9. 7 R. 2. n. 11. [Page 25] 7 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 10, 11. 13 R. 2. n. 6. 15 R. 2 n. 15. 16 R. 2. n. 6. 17 R. 2. n. 6, 17, 18 20 R. 2. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17. 21 R. 2. n. 8, 9, 16, to 21. That the Lords and Commons in the Parliaments of King Edward the third, and Richard the second, were distinct both in their debates, con [...]ultations, councels, p [...]titions, votes, and pla­ces of sitting too, 50 E. 3. n. 3, 8. Sir John Knevet Chancellour of England, having declared the causes of calling that Parliament before the King, Lords and Commons, willed them to goe together, THE LORDS BY THEMSELVES, AND THE COMMOS BY THEMSELVES, and speedily to consult and give answer. After which the Commons were willed to d [...]part TO THEIR ACCUSTOMED PLACE, b [...]ing the Chapter house of the Abbot of Westminster, whither they went. In which place they likewise sate, 2 R. 2. n. 10. & 4 R. 2. n. 9. And in 15 E. 3. n. 17. 47 E. 3. n. 5, 6. 50 E. 3. n. 8. 9. 51 E. 3. n. 18, 19. 1 R. 2. n. 12, 13, 14. 5 R. 2. n. 14. 6 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 15. 7 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 10, 11. The Commons came to THE LORDS HOUSE, and required that certain of the Lords, there named, WOULD VOUCHSAFE TO CONFER WITH THE COM­MONS; whereupon they went to the Chamberlains chamber to confer with the Commons: And at other times they were appointed to goe and consult with the Commons at some other place by the Lords order. In 2 R. 2. Parl. 1. n. 23. the Commons required, that some five or six of the Lords might be appointed to come and discourse with them; THE LORDS DENIED THAT, saying, The same was the guise of two or three Parliaments before. But the use was, That the Lords should among themselves choose a certain number, and the Commons the like, and that they should confer together, which they would do: for if the Commons would not dissever themselves, neither would they the Lords: To the which order the Commons agreed. And 4 H. 4. n. 10. The Com­mons desiring the King that certain speciall Lords might be assigned to treat with them about affairs for the common benefit of the Realm: It was condescended unto, with this protestation specially entred by the Kings command, that it ought not to be done of right OR CUSTOME, BUT ONELY OUT OF THE KINGS SPECIALL GRACE; which the Commons then acknowledged.

A pregnant evidence both of their distinct Houses and con­sultations, except onely at private Committees and Confe­rences; [Page 26] Yea, the Commons had anciently such an high esteem of the Lords fidelity, wisdom, abilities, councel and experi­ence, that in 15 E. 3. n. 17. The Commons pray that unto the Wed­nesday then next ensuing, the Articles they then presented to the King, might be committed to certain Earls, Barons, Bishops and other WISE MEN there named by them, TO BE AMENDED: which t [...]e King granted. And in 13 E. 3. Parl. 1. n. 11. 21 E. 3. n. 5. 7 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 19, 20. 17 R. 2. n. 17. and sundry other Rolls, The Commons professe THEIR INABILITY AND INSUFFI­CIENCY TO ADVISE THE KING in some MATTERS OF PEACE, WARRE, and safeguard of the Seas, for that THEY PASSED THEIR CAPACITY, AND UNDER­STOOD NOT THE TERMS OF THE CIVILL LAW, and some words in Truces: and therefore WHOLLY RE­FERRED THEMSELVES in these things to THE KING AND THE LORDS, AND THE KINGS COUNSELL, to do therein as they should seem meet, being men of greater wisdom and experience in State-affairs of this nature, then themselves, in which they had little or no insight. And in 2 H. 4. n. 11. The whole house of Commons claim, and the King grants and confirms; and in 9 H. 4. n. 21. (entituled, The indempnity of the Lords and Commons) The Lords and Commons seriously claim this as a speciall ancient priviledge belonging to both the Houses, to sit and debate upon things in Parliament severally by themselves in their distinct Houses, in the Kings absence (whose presence might over-awe them, and hinder their free debates;) which they both claimed, and the king confirmed to them IN ALL TIMES TO COME, and that no report should be made to the King of any debate, vote or ayde granted, till the Lords and Commons be all agreed, and that by THE SPEAKERS MOUTHES. Which ancient priviledge so long since claimed, granted, confirmed and enjoyed ever since, not onely proves the ancient distinction of both houses, but utter­ly subverts the Levellers project, who would strip both Houses at once of this great priviledge, which the Commons deemed their greatest immunity (seeing they durst speak their mindes, and vote more freely among themselves, then in the presence of the King and Lords, for fear of incurring their displeasures) by reducing both houses into one. The serious consideration [Page 27] whereof, and of the premises, will I trust for ever take them off from their dangerous absurd designe of Levelling and re­ducing the Lords House to the Commons, and lay the igno­rant, illiterate prosecutors of it, levell with the dust: the ra­ther, because the King and Lords in Parliament, have not one­ly joyntly and severally judged Commoners themselves in Par­liament for such Treasons, & other misdemeanours as are pro­perly triable in Parliament, not at the common Law, as is evi­dent by 4 E. 3. n. 3, to 8. 21 E. 3. n. 65 50 E. 3. n. 15, to 38. 1 R▪ 2. n 35, to 44 4 R▪ 2. n. 17, to 25 7 R. 2. n. 15, to 26. &c. infinite Presidents; but even Knights of the Shire, and other Members of the Commons House it self, in point of misdemeanours, undue Elections, and priviledges of Parlia­ment; as is apparēt by 16 R. 2. n. 6, 13, 14. S ^r Phillip Courtney's case, returned one of the Knights for the County of Devon, 17 R. 2. n. 23. Roger de Swinerton's case, 5 [...]. 4. n. 38. Thomas Thorp. his case, elected knight for the County of Rotland, whose election was heard, examined and adjudged by the Lords in Parliament to be good, at the Commons request; and 31 H. 6. n. 25, to 30. Baron Thorp's case, Speaker of the Commons house, whose pri­viledge was solemnly debated before, and adjudged against him by the Lords in Parliament; who therupon by the King's direction, commanded the Commons to choose and present a new Speaker; which they accordingly did the next day. Yea, the whole House of Commons in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. n. 79. Remonstrated to the King, and voluntarily confessed. That THE JUDGMENTS IN PARLIAMENT APPERTAIN ONELY TO THE KING AND TO THE LORDS, and NOT UNTO THE COMMONS; and that THE KING AND LORDS EVER HAD IN ALL TIMES, AND SHALL HAVE OF RIGHT THE JUDGEMENTS IN PARLIAMENT: And the King then declared to the Com­mons, that this Order shall be observed and kept IN ALL TIMES TO COME, and that in cases of Commoners and Members of the Commons house it self, as well as of Peers; as is cleer by Thorp's case forecited, and by 5 H. 4. n. 71, 78. the printed Statute of 5 H. 4. c. 6. Richard Chedders case, and 4 H. 8. c. 8. Richard Strode his case, Burgesse for Plimton in the County of Devon; where the King and Lords at the Prayer and Petition of the Commons, provide remedies against the breaches of the priviledges of the [Page 28] Commons themselves and their servants, which themselves alone had no sufficient power r [...] right and determine; the power of judicature being not in them, but in the King, Lords and houses of Peers alone; who long before the Conquest had the power of Judicature, as is evident by Brampton, and Master Titles of Honour, part 2. c. 5. sect. 6. Selden, in the case of Earl Goodwin, in a Parliament held in the yeer 1052. wherein Ed­ward the Confessor appealed to THE EARLS AND BA­RONS against this Earl, for the murther of his Brother Alfred in these words, Domini COMITES & BARONES terrae, &c. Volo quod inter Nos in ista appellatione RECTUM JUDICIUM DECERNETIS & DEBITAM JUSTITIAM FACIATIS. And therfore it is the very extremity of injustice to deny them this their ancient Heredetary right, and priviledge now, and transfer it to the Commons house, who never enjoyed it in any former Age, and can make no right, nor lawfull claim unto it at this present.