EXTRACTS FROM Mr. PRYNNE'S Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva, Printed in 1662, and dedicated to King CHARLES II. WITH SOME Occaſional Remarks concerning the Neceſſity, as well as the Means, of promoting a more equal Repreſentation of the Com⯑mons in Parliament.

MR. PRYNNE informs us, in p. 175, ‘that in ſundry coun⯑ties the elections of knights, citizens, and burgeſſes, were antiently made all together, in the county-court of the [8]ſhire, on the ſame day, and all retorned together in and by one indenture, be⯑tween the ſheriffs and their electors; which I ſhall exemplifie,’ (ſays he,) ‘by theſe enſuing preſidents, inſtead of ſundry others, which I ſhall re⯑member or recite in the enſuing ſec⯑tions, in due place.’

"I ſhall begin," (ſays Mr. Prynne,) ‘with the indenture for Cumberland and Karliſle, anno 2 Hen. V.’ And he cites the form of the indenture at length, but it is not here copied, be⯑cauſe the example is not ſo full to the point as ſome others, in pages 176, 177, and 178: Viz.

[10] ‘The like indenture, for Kent, I find’ (ſays Mr. Prynne) ‘in 2 H. V. — Haec indentura facta apud Rou⯑cheſtre," &c. reciting it at length; after which he remarks as follows: "In theſe two indentures and others, the knights of Kent and citizens of Can⯑terbury [11]and Rocheſter were all elected and retorned together in the county-court by the ſame electors and indentures.’

"To theſe I ſhall add" (ſays Mr. Prynne) "this indenture of the ſheriff "of Wiltes, anno 1 Hen. V.

‘^* Haec indentura facta apud Wylton IN PLENO COM. WILTES TENTO die [12]Martis proximo ante feſtum Matthei apoſtoli anno regni regis Henrici Quin⯑ti poſt conqueſtum primo inter Eliam de la Mire vic. com. praedict. ex parte una, et Thomam Bonham, Willum Daungens,’ (and twenty-four more,) ‘ex altera parte teſtatur, quod praedict. Thomas Bonham, et omnes alii ſu⯑perius nominati ad diem et locum ſu⯑pradict, exiſtentes et per praedictum [13]vic. virtute brevis domini regis eidem vic. direct. et huic indenturae conſut. ſingulariter examinati, eligerunt Wil⯑lum Molyns, chlr. et Walterum Hunger⯑ford, MILITES pro communitate COM. PRAED. et ſimiliter eligerunt Waltum Shirle et Johm Beckot, CIVES pro com⯑munitate CIVITATIS NOVAE SARUM, Johem Valeys ſeniorem, et Jobem Har⯑leſton, BURGENSES pro communitate BURGI de WILLTON, Thomam Co⯑vintre, et Robtum Smyth, burgenſes pro communitate BURGI DE DEVISES, Johem Charleton et Johem Randolph, burgenſes pro communitate BURGI DE MALMESBURY, Thomam Hatheway et Willum Alclyff, BURGENSES pro com⯑munitate BURGI DE MARLEBURGH, Robtum Salman et Robtum Ronde, BUR⯑GENSES pro communitate BURGI DE CALNE, Robtum Lany et Willum Cheſ⯑terton, BURGENSES pro communitate [14]BURGI VETERIS SARUM in com. prae⯑dicto, ad omnia et ſingula juxta teno⯑rem brevis praedict. in parliamento dicti domini regis apud LEICESTRE, ultimo die Aprilis prox. futur. aſſignat. ſimul cum aliis communicand. trac⯑tand. faciend. ſimiliter et terminand. prout praedictum breve exigit et re⯑quirit. In cujus rei teſtimonium,’ &c.

"There is the like indenture" (ſays Mr. Prynne) ‘for Wiltſhire, where the knights, citizens, and burgeſſes, are joyntly elected and retorned together. An. 2 Hen. V.’

ANNUAL PARLIAMENTS, The ANCIENT and MOST SALUTARY RIGHT OF THE COMMONS of GREAT-BRITAIN.

—THE authority of the no⯑minal Legiſlature in 1650 was entirely il⯑legal, as well as that in 1653, both of them having been ſet up and maintained by the ſame unconſtitutional arbitrary power; and both of them totally void of the indiſpenſable Repreſentation of the people: for though the wretched remains of the Long-Parliament in 1650 (being [40]about 80 Repreſentatives or Members, inſtead of 513 that had been elected at the beginning of that Parliament) were indeed choſen by a ſmall part of the people of England, yet the legal Repre⯑ſentation, even of that ſmall part, was out of date and void, from the length of time that the ſaid Repreſentation had continued without Re-election, which was about ten years; whereas it is well known that the due effect, or virtue, of popular Repreſentation, was formerly ſuppoſed to be incapable (like ſome an⯑nual fruits) of being ſo long preſerved in uſeful purity, without a ſeaſonable re⯑newal, from time to time; ſo that our more prudent Anceſtors (imitating na⯑ture) required alſo an annual renewal of their parliamentary Repreſentation, as be⯑ing neceſſary for the maintenance of public virtue.

Sir Edw. Coke, in his 4th Inſt. p. 9, ſpeaking of "the matters of parliament," [41]informs us of the reaſons uſually expreſ⯑ſed in the writs for calling a new Parlia⯑ment, as ‘pro quibuſdam arduis urgen⯑tibus negotiis, nos ſtatum, et defen⯑ſionem regni noſtri Angliae, et Eccle⯑ſiae Anglicanae concernentibus quod⯑dam parliamentum noſtrum, &c. teneri ordinavimus,’ &c. And he adds, in the next paragraph, ‘Now, for as much’ (ſays he) ‘as divers Laws and Statutes have been enacted and provided for theſe ends aforeſaid, and that divers miſchiefs in particular, and that divers miſchiefs in particular, and divers grievances in general, con⯑cerning the honour and ſafety of the King, the State, and Defence of the Kingdome, and of the Church of Eng⯑land, might be prevented, an excellent Law was made, anno 36 Edw. III. c. 10. which, being applied to the ſaid Writs of Parliament, doth, in a few and ef⯑fectual words, ſet down the true ſub⯑ject of a Parliament in theſe words: [42] For the maintenance of the ſaid articles, and ſtatutes, and redreſs of divers miſ⯑chiefs and grievances, which daily hap⯑pen, A PARLIAMENT SHALL BE HOL⯑DEN EVERY YEAR, as another time was ordained by a ſtatute.’ Which Statute, here referred to, was made in the 4th year of the ſame reign, cap. 14. ‘Item, it is accorded, that a Parliament ſhall be holden EVERY YEAR ONCE, and more often if need be.’ But Sir William Blackſtone ſuppoſes that the King never was ‘obliged, by theſe Statutes, to call a new Parliament eve⯑ry year; but only to permit a Parlia⯑ment to ſit annually for the redreſs of grievances, and diſpatch of buſineſs, if need be.’ (1 Com. c. 2, p. 153.)

It is too true, indeed, that our Kings, in general, did not think themſelves "obliged, by theſe Statutes," (as they ought in conſcience to have been, for the ſafety of their ſouls,) ‘to call a new [43]Parliament every year:’ nay, it is certain that many of them would never have called a Parliament at all, had they not been "obliged" by neceſſity and the circumſtances of the times. But by what authority could a repreſentative in one Parliament take his ſeat in the next an⯑nual Parliament, without re-election, before any laws were made for lengthen⯑ing the duration of Parliaments? And beſides, if the King did ‘only permit a Parliament to ſit annually,’ &c. by what authority could the Parliament be convened at all, under ſuch a circum⯑ſtance, ſeeing that a mere permiſſion to ſit excludes the idea of a prorogation from year to year? However, the learned commentator himſelf very juſtly obſerves, in a preceding page, (150,) concerning "the manner and time of aſſembling," that the ‘Parliament is regularly to be ſummoned by the King's Writ, or Letter, iſſued out of Chancery.’ And [44]it is well known that theſe Writs are not addreſſed to the knights, citizens, and burgeſſes, elected for any former Parlia⯑ment, but to the Sheriffs alone, to cauſe Knights, Citizens, &c. to be elected; for, when the ſaid Acts were made, ſuch an abſurdity in politics had never been con⯑ceived in England, as that of truſting the Repreſentation of the people, for a term of years, (as at preſent,) to the perſons elected! On the contrary, when the buſineſs of each Seſſion was finiſhed, the Parliament, of courſe, was at an end; and therefore Lord Coke did not ſpeak in vain, when he mentioned "the excellent Law" (viz. the Act for annual Parliaments) ‘being applied to the ſaid Writs of Parliament,’ &c. before recited.

A man of ſo much good ſenſe, learn⯑ing, and judgement, as Sir William Blackſtone is maſter of, muſt be well a⯑ware of the pernicious effects of inveſting [45]the Repreſentatives of the people with a legiſlative power, beyond the conſtituti⯑onal term of A SINGLE SESSION, without Re-election; and therefore I cannot but be ſurprized at the unguarded manner in which he has expreſſed himſelf in his Comment on the two excellent Statutes of Edward III. for annual Parliaments; viz. that the King is not, ‘or ever was, o⯑bliged by theſe Statutes to call a new Parliament every year,’ &c. He has cauſed the word new to be printed in Ita⯑lics, as if he meant thereby to inſinuate, that the Legiſlatures of thoſe early times were not unacquainted with our modern idea of conferring on the popular Repre⯑ſentation a kind of continued ſenatorial dignity, without Re-election, for ſeveral years together; whereas he certainly muſt have known that this corrupt modern practice has produced a new order of men amongſt us, a moſt dangerous increaſe of ariſtocratical power, which was entirely [46]unknown to our Anceſtors in the glorious reign of Edward III. If he could ſhew that there ever was a Parliament, in thoſe times, that was not a NEW Parlia⯑ment, his Comment might be juſtified! But it is notorious that Writs were iſſued to the Sheriffs, for new Elections, almoſt every year during that whole reign: The Writs, for the moſt part, are ſtill preſer⯑ved with the Returns upon them. In the catalogue of Election-Writs, which Prynne has given in his Brevia Parlia⯑mentaria Rediviva, p. 4 to 6, there is an account of Writs iſſued for new Elections in every year of that King's reign, be⯑tween his 34th (when the laſt Act for annual Parliaments was made) and his 50th year, except 3, viz. the 40th, 41ſt, and 48th, years; in which years the Records of Summons to the Prelates and Lords of Parliament are alſo wanting, as appears by Sir William Dugdale's ‘per⯑fect [47]Copy of Summons to Parliament of the Nobility,’ &c.

And yet this affords no abſolute proof that Parliaments were not holden in thoſe very years for which the Writs are want⯑ing; becauſe the bundles of Writs for the ſaid years may have been loſt or miſlaid. The only wonder is, that more have not been loſt, when we conſider the very little care that had been taken of them; for Prynne found many of theſe Writs diſperſed among a vaſt miſcellane⯑ous heap of other records on various ſub⯑jects, (as he himſelf relates in his Epiſtle-Dedicatory to King Charles II. of his Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva,) cal⯑ling the ſaid heap a ‘confuſed Chaos, under corrding putrifying cobwebs, duſt, and filth, in the darkeſt corner of Caeſar's Chapel in the White Tow⯑er, as mere uſeleſs Reliques not worthy to be calendred,’ &c. And, in page 103 of that ſame work, he ſpeaks of 117 [48]Bundles of Writs, whereof 97 had only been then lately diſcovered, filed, and bundled, by himſelf: ‘But many of theſe 117 Bundles’ (ſays he) ‘are not compleat, above half or three parts of the Writs being either rotted, con⯑ſumed, maymed, torn, or utterly loſt, through careleſſneſs, wet, cankers, or other caſualties; and ſome of them have not above two, three, or four Writs, and one or two but one Writ and Retorn remaining.’

But that there were really Writs for Parliaments, even in thoſe three years, which appear to be wanting, at leaſt in two of them, is very certain; becauſe it was in the 40th year of this reign, as Sir Edward Coke informs us, (4 Inſt. p. 13,) that the Pope demanded homage for the kingdoms of England and Ireland, and the arrears of revenue granted by King John to Pope Innocent III. ‘whereupon the King, in the ſame [49]year, calleth his Court of Parliament,’ ^* &c. as Sir Edward Coke proves from the Parliament-Rolls of that year, N^o 8, remarking, at the ſame time, that the Act then made was "never yet printed." See the margin, 4th Inſt. p. 13.

And it appears that a Parliament was held alſo in the 48th year of this reign, becauſe ſupplies were in that year granted to the King by Parliament, as related by Sir Richard Baker, in his Chronicle, p. 173, viz. ‘in his eight and fortieth year, IN A PARLIAMENT, is granted [50]him a 10th of the Clergy, and a 15th of the Laity.’ So that there is but one year, out of ſo many, in which we cannot trace the meeting of the annual Parliaments: And annual Writs for new Elections were regularly iſſued for the firſt 18 years of the following reign, (as appears by Prynne's ‘2d part of a brief Regiſter and Survey of the ſeveral kinds and forms of parliamentary Writs,’ pages 116 and 117,) till Rich⯑ard II. (that wretched perjured monarch) had rendered himſelf abſolute. ^*

After conſidering theſe unqueſtionable evidences of the iſſuing Writs annualy for new Elections, it will be difficult to comprehend the meaning of Sir William Blackſtone's Comment on the ſaid two [51]Acts for annual Parliaments: ‘Not that he (the King) is, or ever was, obliged by theſe Statutes to call a new Parlia⯑ment every year; but only to permit a Parliament to ſit annually for the re⯑dreſs of grievances and diſpatch of bu⯑ſineſs, if need be. — Theſe laſt words’ (ſays he) ‘are ſo looſe and vague, that ſuch of our monarchs, as were incli⯑ned to govern without Parliaments, neglected the convoking them, ſome⯑times for a conſiderable period, under pretence that there was no need of them,’ &c.

But "theſe laſt words" are not ‘ſo looſe and vague’ as either to juſtify his own explanation of the ſaid Statues, (viz. not ‘to call a new Parliament every year, but only to permit a Parliament to ſit,’ &c.) or to excuſe, in the leaſt degree, the criminal neglects of thoſe de⯑praved monarchs who were inclined to govern without them: for the words, [52] "if need be," cannot, according to the moſt obvious ſenſe of the Act wherein they are found, be applied to the main purpoſe of the Act, (the holding annual Parliaments,) but merely to the remain⯑ing part of the ſentence, viz. ‘and more often:’ that is, ‘and more often, if need be.’ The Order, ‘that a Par⯑liament ſhall be holden EVERY YEAR ONCE,’ is abſolute; and the diſcretio⯑nary power, expreſſed in the words ‘if need be,’ relates apparently to the cal⯑ling Parliaments "more often:" for, if the ſaid diſcretionary words, "if need be," could, with any propriety, be applied to the whole ſentence, the Act itſelf would have been nugatory; which could never be the intention of the Legiſlature: but the true meaning and ſenſe of the Legiſla⯑ture is very clearly proved by the hiſtories of thoſe times: for it is manifeſt, not only that new Repreſentatives were elected e⯑very year (with only one exception) for a [53]conſiderable number of years after the laſt of the ſaid Acts was made, (which confirms the main purpoſe of the Acts, viz. the holding annual Parliaments,) but it is alſo manifeſt, that Parliaments were frequently holden "more often" than once a year; ^* which amply confirms al⯑ſo what I have before ſaid, concerning the meaning of the diſcretionary power, expreſſed in the ſaid Act, by the words "if need be."

Theſe very frequent Elections (ſome⯑times two, three, and four, times IN ONE YEAR) ſufficiently prove that the power, delegated by the people to their Repreſentatives, continued no longer in force than during the Seſſion of the par⯑ticular Parliament to which they were [54]ſummoned; which being ‘once determi⯑ned,’ (ſays Prynne, iſt part of Brief Regiſter, &c. of Parl. Writs, p. 334.) ‘they preſently ceaſed to be Knights, Citi⯑zens, Burgeſſes, Barons, in any ſucceed⯑ing Parliaments or Councils, unleſs newly elected and retorned to ſerve in them, by the King's NEW Writs, as our Law-Books’ (referring to 4 Ed. IV. f. 44. Brook, Officer, 25.34 Hen. VIII. c. 24.) "and experience reſolve," &c. And therefore Judge Blackſtone's inſi⯑nuation, againſt the calling of a new Par⯑liament, has no real foundation: for, if it was the intention of the Legiſlature, in the two Acts abovementioned, that the King ſhould ever ſummon any Parlia⯑ment at all, they muſt neceſſarily be un⯑derſtood to mean a new Parliament on all occaſions; i. e. not only that the regu⯑lar Parliaments, which they ordained ‘to be holden every year once,’ ſhould be new Parliaments, but alſo thoſe that [55]ſhould be ſummoned upon any extraordi⯑nary unforeſeen occaſions; which is ſuf⯑ficiently expreſſed in the 1ſt of the ſaid Acts, by the words, ‘and more often, if need be.’ The meaning of the Act is unqueſtionably proved by the actual iſſuing of writs, to the Sheriffs, for electing Knights, Citizens, &c. for two, three, and ſometimes four, new Parliaments, in one year, as mentioned above: And if any perſon ſhould object, that ſuch very fre⯑quent Elections muſt be attended with in⯑ſuperable difficulties and inconveniences, we may quote the experience of all an⯑cient times, as affording ample and ſuffi⯑cient proofs to the contrary; ‘there be⯑ing not above two or three caſes of e⯑lections queſtioned, or complained of, from 49 Hen. III. till 22 Edw IV.’ (that is, more than 200 years,) ‘for ought that appears by the Retornes or Parliament-Rolls, and NOT SO MUCH [56]AS ONE DOUBLE RETORNE or IN⯑DENTURE, wherewith all the late Bun⯑dles, or Writs, are ſtored, and the Houſe of Commons, and late Com⯑mittees of Privileges peſtered, perplex⯑ed, to the great retarding of the more weighty public affairs of the King and Kingdom.’ Prynne, Brevia Parl. Re⯑div. p. 137. This enormous evil, the retardment of buſineſs, by undue Re⯑turns, will not (I may venture, without the ſpirit of prophecy, to aſſert) be reme⯑died by the new Regulation for that pur⯑poſe. The Commons were never (in ancient times of Freedom) eſteemed the proper Judges of their own Elec⯑tions, but the King alone, that is, in his limited judicial capacity, by his Juſtices and his ſworn Juries, in the Courts of Common-Law. If my countrymen will ſeriouſly conſider all theſe points, they muſt be convinced that the only ſure method of healing the alarming diſtem⯑pers [57]of our political Conſtitution ^* is to reſtore to the people their ancient and juſt Right to elect a new Parliament, ‘every year once, and more often if need be.’

No Parliament could have any right to deprive the people of this ineſtimable Law, unleſs the Repreſentatives had ex⯑preſſly conſulted their reſpective conſti⯑tuents upon it; as the alteration was of too much moment to be intruſted to the diſcretion of any Repreſentatives or Depu⯑ties whatſoever, being infinitely more important than ‘any new device, moved on the King's behalf, in Parliament, for his aid, or the like;’ for the moſt [58]eſſential and fundamental Right of the whole body of the Commons (I mean the Principals, not the Deputies or Agents) was materially injured by the fatal change, and the people's power of controul, for the general good of the kingdom, was thereby apparently diminiſhed! ſo that, if it is the duty of Repreſentatives (even in "any new device" of mere ‘aid, or the like’) to conſult their Conſtituents, how much more, upon the propoſal of ſo material an alteration in the Conſtitu⯑tion, ought they to have anſwered, that, ‘in this new device, they DARE NOT AGREE WITHOUT CONFE⯑RENCE WITH THEIR COUN⯑TRIES!’ Theſe are the words of Lord Coke, who mentions them as the proper anſwer, ^* ‘when any new device is moved,’ &c. and he adds, ‘whereby it appeareth’ (ſays he) ‘that SUCH [59]CONFERENCE is warrantable by th law and cuſtome of Parliament,’ 4th Inſt. p. 14; ſo that no Repreſentative can be juſtified (according to ‘the Law and Cuſtome of Parliament’) who re⯑fuſes to receive the Inſtructions of his Conſtituents, notwithſtanding that ſeve⯑ral very ſenſible, worthy, and (I believe) ſincerely patriotic, gentlemen have lately declared themſelves to be of a contrary opinion; but, when they peruſe the ſeve⯑ral authorities which I have cited, con⯑cerning the abſolute neceſſity of a very frequent appeal to the ſenſe of the whole body of the people, I truſt, in their can⯑dour and love of truth, that they will alter their ſentiments.