and foundation of encouragement for the Credit which was to be given in order to the raising of the said monies and did accordingly effect it Secondly The Parliament could not without this be in any secure condition to make provision for the repayment of the said money so to be raised in regard that through defect of such an Act the Parliament might be in continual danger to be untimely dissolved and by the clear scope of the Act 't is accounted an untimely dissolution if dissolved before the said provision be made therefore the dissolution of the said Parliament before such provision made for repayment of the said monies which is not yet done is expresly contrary to the true meaning and intention of this Act. And if this Act were made purposely to prevent the untimely dissolution of the Parliament as it stands express in the Title then it cannot but have respect to the Kings Death as well as to any other means of untimely dissolution The Parliament well knowing the Kings life was as uncertain yea in some respects more uncertain than the life of other men And therefore could not choose but so understand it if they intended this Act to be any security for the monies borrowed or to be borrowed upon their Credit Secondly In the substance and body of the Act 't is delivered in express terms That this present Parliament shall not be dissolved but by an Act of Parliament Whence it follows that if not dissolvable unless by an Act of Parliament then it is exclusive to all other waies and means of dissolution as the interruption by armed violence the forcible omission of daies of adjournment the violent or natural death of the King or whatsoever else might be done or have happened legally to dissolve it had not this Act been made or constituted Thirdly and lastly To make all clear without any exception in the close of the said Act it is expressed That all and every thing and things whatsoever done or to be done for the adjourning proroguing or dissolving of this present Parliament contrary to this Act shall be utterly void and of none effect Which clause you see looks backward and forwards in reference to whatsoever had a legal power and tendency before this Act to dissolve the Parliament Against which this Act hath now fully provided that neither what hath been done for the time past nor whatsoever shall be done for time to come shall dissolve this Parliament excepting an Act of the said Parliament Whence I argue That all those things that otherwise legally would or might have dissolved this Parliament had not this Act been made have no force or efficacy to dissolve this but only an Act of this present Parliament All other Parliaments having no legal capacity till this be legally dissolved unless it be granted that two Parliaments may have both of them legal capacity at one and the same time Which I beleeve there are none so absurd as to aver no more then that two Kings may have a legal capacity at one time in the same Kingdom But because there are divers objections that seem to oppose the premises and the legal being and capacity of the said Parliament I shall endeavour to answer them as strongly and yet as briefly as I may to every ordinary Readers understanding The first and grand Objection of all is the death of the late King that summoned this Parliament in the year 1640. and is argued by Mr. Wil. Prin. Because saith he it hath been frequently resolved by Parliaments themselves the reverend Judges and our Law Books by King Charles his own Declaration and his Judges and Council that the deposition and death of the King doth actually dissolve the Parliament c. To which I answer by way of Concession that the Death of the King doth legally or according to Custome dissolve a Parliament that is only call'd and constituted by the Kings Writ but not a Parliament constituted and confirmed by an Act of the three Estates Let Mr. Prin or any other Lawyer shew me any Law or president to that purpose and I will presently yield the Cause If Mr. Prin would have spoken home to this Case he should have made it appear where or when it had been resolved by Parliament the Judges and our Law Books c. that in case of an Act of Parliament made for the Session and continuance of a Parliament till they should dissolve themselves by an Act that such a Parliament hath been or shall nevertheless be dissolved by the Kings death which it is believed he will find a very hard task to prove Secondly He objects the Parliament is no standing Court sitting at certain seasons by positive Laws but summoned and constituted by the Kings Writ of Summons and Royal Prerogative when and where he pleaseth and adjourned prorogued and dissolved by his Writ alone in point of Law c. I answer again by way of Concession that Parliaments according to their wonted and by-past Customes were no certain Courts sitting at certain seasons by positive Laws But yet may be made such by Act of the three Estates Witness the Triennial Parliament And further By an extraordinary grant of his late Majesty this Parliament was made a standing Court to sit constantly by a positive Law till they should please to dissolve themselves He having been pleased by the said grant for the better security of his Subjects to wave his Royal Prerogative and power of dissolution and to give his consent for the nulling of all other means tending thereunto And for what Mr. Prin intimates further in the said Objection That because all Writs of Summons are actually abated by the Kings death as well as all other Commissions and Patents of all Judges Justices c. That therefore this Parliament must needs be dissolved I answer That doth not at all follow till he can make it appear that there is no more validity in an Act of Parliament of the three Estates than there is in a meer Writ of Summons or a Commission or Patent granted only by the King For though this Parliament was summoned by the King Writ yet 't is manifest its continuance and confirmation did not at all depend upon that for then he might still have dissolved it when he pleâ—sed but upon the Act of the three Estates who had established it by Law and so was now no more dissolvable by the Kings Death than any other Statute Law or Act of Parliament whatsoever And therefore is not depending on so fickle a thing as a Writ of Summons or a Patent or Commission given the Judges and which the King may take away and repeal again at his own pleasure And to illustrate this more by an instance I shall desire to aske Mr. Prin this Question Put case that there are certain urgent necessities as before specified in the Act that the Parliament hath of great Sums of Money for preserving the Peace of the
the Parliament by special Act and Order authorizing and impowring any three persons joyntly to sell Land give Livery and seisin execute any Commission c. and that in case any of them die the two survivers joyntly or severally can do nothing because their authority and trust was joynt and not several c. Applying this to the Parliament which being as he now expresseth it a Corporation compacted joyntly of the King Lords and Commons House and three Estates that therefore the Death of the King necessarily dissolves it notwithstanding this Act. I answer This doth no more prove it than any of his former Arguments For this similitude doth not hold proportion nor come up to our present Case For we have not here to do with one Estate or more that hath absolute power in it self and intends to execute it to constitute other persons for any office or trust as a single person c. that makes a Will or Deed doth constitute three or more persons in trust for the execution of his Will or Deed whose joynt power being exprest in the said Will or Deed it necessarily failes upon the death of any one of them because joyntly and not severally intrusted But with a Parliament Who have voluntarily engaged themselves upon a trust and Credit received from the people for their security with the consent of the King making a Law to preserve their Session and establish their own Authority against all means of their untimely dissolution till they had honourably discharged their trust and given security and satisfaction to those that gave them Credit Which nothing concerns any Power or Authority to be given to others whether three or more persons according to Mr. Prins instance to be executed joyntly wherein a failer may be through any one of their deaths But because there seems something still to be unanswered to this Objection in reference to the conjunctive power of the Parliament consisting of three Estates Therefore this also is fully resolved in the following answer to what Mr. Prin intimates concerning the Kings being a part of the Parliament Who saith That because the King is a part of the Parliament Therefore if the King dies the Parliament must needs be dissolved To which I answer That the King is rather a part of the Parliament in his Politick than in his personal capacity which is alwaies subject to death but his Politick never With this agrees that famous Lawyer Sir Edward Cook see the third part of his Institutes Chapter the first where speaking of the High Court of Parliament and of what persons it consisteth saith in the first place and in express words That it consists of the Kings Majesty sitting there as in his Royal Politick capacity c. And if so then the Parliament dies not in all cases when the King dies and if this holds good in any case then surely in case of an Act to that purpose For though his person be dead yet his Royal Authority lives as is sufficiently evident by the Force and Authority of all our Laws till repealed by Act of Parliament But besides it may thus farther be argued clearly The Members of the two Houses of Parliament though many of them die as oft times it comes to pass and 't is possible they may all die by degrees before the Parliament rise yet the Parliament is not dissolved because they are not now the very same individual persons that were chosen first by the Kings Writs of Summons 'T is sufficient that there have been new Writs issued forth from that House or Estate of Parliament whereof they were Members whereby new Elections c. have been made and so other Members returned to supply the places of the dead ones And if this be good in the case of the two Houses of Parliament c. which no man that understands Law and the usage of Parliaments will deny then it is much more good in the case of the Kings Majesties Person Whose Royal Estate and Authority is so evident that it is a declared undeniable Maxime in our Laws He never dies So that what new Writs do legally for supply of the places of the dead Members to continue the Estate and Authority of the two Houses of Parliament that and much more eminently the Kings immediate succession to the Crown after his Fathers or Predecessors death doth do by vertue of his Royal birth-right and Title of Inheritance There being this grand difference between Members of Parliament dying and the King They so die that their Authority cannot be revived but by new Electâ—ons or Writs of Summons But the King so dies that his Authority still lives by immediate succession Whence it is that the Royal Seat is never vacant that there should be a failer to make good the Royal Actions of the Predecessor And thus the third Estate in Parliament always Living the joynt power still continues and so there is no necessity the Parliament should dissolve as Mr. Prin affirms due circumstances and actions being weighed and the necessities of the Kingdom well considered Fifthly Therefore by what hath been said already Mr. Prins fifth and last Argument must needs be out of doors which is this That because the end of Parliaments is to enact new Laws and repeal others c. which cannot be done but by the Kings assent And this Parliament being to be dissolved by an Act and an Act being now impossible to be made by that King for the dissolution of it he being dead therefore his Death must needs dissolve the Parliament notwithstanding this Act. I answer in the Negative In no wise For though he be dead as aforesaid in his personal which Mr. Prin seems to answer too weakly in his following objection yet not in his Politick capacity And therefore if the dead King cannot enact Laws by the Parliament yet his Successor can who comes immediately to the Crown after his Fathers death And as hath been shewed 't is no waies inconvenient but may many waies be advantageous to the Publike That should the King chance any waies untimely to be taken away the Parliament should continue after the Kings death Whose death if it should necessarily as Mr. Prin affirms dissolve the Parliament so untimely a dissolution as the case might stand might prove very dangerous and pernicious to the Kingdom Besides The Act doth not limit the Parliaments dissolution as lawful only if it be done by an Act of that King then living when the Act was made But in the general it limits it to an Act of Parliament that it shall not be dissolved but by an Act of Parliament And why the Predecessors authority and consent should not be as binding to his Successor in this case till so dissolved as in case of any other Law made with his consent I would very gladly know a solid reason for it Being that to all intents and purposes an Act for confirmation or dissolution may be as virtual and efficacious
without any prejudice by the consent and authority of the Successor as of the Father And further the Act is also herein express that by no other way or means but by an Act of Parliament it shall be dissolved Which being it cannot be done by the dead King but may be done by the Successor it ought so to be dissolved or else it must and doth by vertue of this Act still remain legally in full being and authority Sixthly As to what may be objected concerning the dissolution of this Parliament by an Act when the secluded Members were lately admitted The Argument is so weak that I thought wholly to have omitted the least mention of it Yet in regard it is objected by some who seem to receive satisfaction by it and there to acquiesce I shall give this answer in brief to it First That at the best that was but an Act so called of the House of Commons and so consequently far short of the authority of an Act of Parliament or any legal pretence of it which only consists of King Lords and Commons And therefore by any such appellative Act this Parliament can no waies be dissolvable And further The utmost authority that the House of Commons hath given them by the foresaid Act for the continuation of this Parliament till they dissolve themselves by an Act is but to adjourn themselves by an Order of their own House as is express in the said Act. By which 't is evident they have no power to dissolve themselves much less by any Act they can do to dissolve the Parliament And here it is worth the observing before I pass over this Act of the House of Commons whereby it was endeavoured to dissolve the Parliament That in their judgements and consciences there was need of an Act to dissolve the Parliament And therefore by this Act of theirs they did implicitly grant that before the passing of the said Act the Parliament was not then dissolved and so consequently did acknowledge it not to be dissolved by the Kings Death which happened many years before and if not dissolved by the Kings Death then much less by the said Act of the House of Commons which carries not the least shadow of legal Authority with it as aforesaid for the dissolution of it and therefore by the judgement of the said House rightly understood 't is still legally in force and being But because some do Object that in regard the Lords spiritual to wit the Bishops were oured the House of Peers before the passing this Act for continuation of the Parliament whereby their Votes and Consents were never had in the Case that therefore it was an illegal Act and so fell void in it seâ—f I answer briefly That the Abbots and Priors 29. in number who were formerly Lords of Parliament and held per Baroniam from the King and had their Seats and Votes in the House of Peers as well as the Temporal Lords were dissolved in the Reign of King Henry the 8th And yet all Parliaments since with all their Acts have been held for Legal and Authentick without the least question or contradiction of their Authority and therefore is as little to be scrupled here in our present Case which is the same The Bishops Priviledge and right to sit in Parliament being also null and made void as well as theirs by Act of Parliament Whereunto much more might here be said to this purpose but that I would not be tedious Seventhly I have but one word more which answers most fully and unquestionably all Mr. Prins Objections at once or what else may be said for the dissolution of this Parliament by the Kings Death And that is taken from the supream legislative authority under God that the three Estates viz. King Lords and Commons legally called have over all persons and Causes in the whole Nation By vertue whereof they have power to do the highest actions the Nation is capable of though it be even to the dismembring of the Parliament it self and dissolving a considerable part of it or altering any other Fundamental Constitutions they please so they see it necessary for the publike good as particularly in the Case of the Bishops call'd the spiritual Lords and by some affirmed to be the third Estate in Parliament who nevertheless have been excluded by an Act of the King Lords and Commons from their ancient right of sitting and voting in Parliament when in their wisdoms their Session there appeared hurtful to Church and State For who may question or controul the Actions of a lawful Parliament while none in the Kingdom can so much as pretend to be above them And if their authority be of so large an extent even in matters of greatest weight and moment then much more in things of far inferiour and much less concernment as is the confirmation of a Parliament to continue after the Kings death who call'd it if the three Estates shall see good to pass an Act as now they have done to that purpose implicitely though not in express terms the King hapning to die before it hath been dissolved by an Act of Parliament as by the three Estates hath been firmly enacted it should be so dissolved and no otherwise By this time it may be hoped the legal being and Authority of the Long Parliament is sufficiently evident The truth whereof being so clearly proved both by Law and Reason how much doth it unfold to us the sad and dangerous estate of the Kingdom whilest under the Constitution of such powers as neither in Estate Liberty or Life though otherwise of good Inclinations to the Publick can give the Nation any legal security For though many excellent things have been done by the singular wisdome of this present Parliament now sitting that are of special tendency in themselves for the good and safety of the Nation through his Majesties most gracious condiscention for which we have infinite cause to bless God Yet herein the great unhappiness That whilest their Authority is not legally founded the Nation can promise themselves no assurance for the lasting enjoyment of those benefits and securities they have given it being 't is to be feared and too justly they fall void of themselves by vertue of the said Parliaments illegal Policy and Constitution Therefore how much were it to be wished that the Supream Legislative Authority of the Nation might again revert into that Channel by which the Peace and Settlement of the Nation through His Majesties most Gracious Influence might durably and without question be provided for and preserved In reference to which I shall humbly take the boldness to offer it as a weighty and serious consideration to this present Parliament now sitting whether they should not do well for their own safety as well as the Nations to advise his Majesty in this particular They only having the priviledge and opportunity now effectually to do it their case in point of safety or danger being the