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 Com­mons in Parliament.

MR. PRYNNE informs us, in p. 175, ‘that in sundry coun­ties the elections of knights, citizens, and burgesses, were antiently made all together, in the county-court of the [Page 8]shire, on the same day, and all retorned together in and by one indenture, be­tween the sheriffs and their electors; which I shall exemplifie,’ (says he,) ‘by these ensuing presidents, instead of sundry others, which I shall re­member or recite in the ensuing sec­tions, 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, be­cause the example is not so full to the point as some others, in pages 176, 177, and 178: Viz.

[Page 10] ‘The like indenture, for Kent, I find’ (says Mr. Prynne) ‘in 2 H. V. — Haec indentura facta apud Rou­chestre," &c. reciting it at length; after which he remarks as follows: "In these two indentures and others, the knights of Kent and citizens of Can­terbury [Page 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 [Page 12]Martis proximo ante festum Matthei apostoli anno regni regis Henrici Quin­ti 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 su­perius nominati ad diem et locum su­pradict, existentes et per praedictum [Page 13]vic. virtute brevis domini regis eidem vic. direct. et huic indenturae consut. singulariter examinati, eligerunt Wil­lum Molyns, chlr. et Walterum Hunger­ford, MILITES pro communitate COM. PRAED. et similiter eligerunt Waltum Shirle et Johm Beckot, CIVES pro com­munitate CIVITATIS NOVAE SARUM, Johem Valeys seniorem, et Jobem Har­leston, BURGENSES pro communitate BURGI de WILLTON, Thomam Co­vintre, 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 com­munitate BURGI DE MARLEBURGH, Robtum Salman et Robtum Ronde, BUR­GENSES pro communitate BURGI DE CALNE, Robtum Lany et Willum Ches­terton, BURGENSES pro communitate [Page 14]BURGI VETERIS SARUM in com. prae­dicto, ad omnia et singula juxta teno­rem brevis praedict. in parliamento dicti domini regis apud LEICESTRE, ultimo die Aprilis prox. futur. assignat. simul cum aliis communicand. trac­tand. faciend. similiter et terminand. prout praedictum breve exigit et re­quirit. 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 no­minal Legislature in 1650 was entirely il­legal, 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 [Page 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 Repre­sentation, 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 an­nual fruits) of being so long preserved in useful purity, without a seasonable re­newal, from time to time; so that our more prudent Ancestors (imitating na­ture) required also an annual renewal of their parliamentary Representation, as be­ing necessary for the maintenance of public virtue.

Sir Edw. Coke, in his 4th Inst. p. 9, speaking of "the matters of parliament," [Page 41]informs us of the reasons usually expres­sed in the writs for calling a new Parlia­ment, as ‘pro quibusdam arduis urgen­tibus negotiis, nos statum, et defen­sionem regni nostri Angliae, et Eccle­siae Anglicanae concernentibus quod­dam 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, con­cerning the honour and safety of the King, the State, and Defence of the Kingdome, and of the Church of Eng­land, 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 ef­fectual words, set down the true sub­ject of a Parliament in these words: [Page 42] For the maintenance of the said articles, and statutes, and redress of divers mis­chiefs and grievances, which daily hap­pen, A PARLIAMENT SHALL BE HOL­DEN 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 eve­ry year; but only to permit a Parlia­ment 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 [Page 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 an­nual Parliament, without re-election, before any laws were made for lengthen­ing 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 circum­stance, 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 [Page 44]it is well known that these Writs are not addressed to the knights, citizens, and burgesses, elected for any former Parlia­ment, 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 con­ceived 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, learn­ing, and judgement, as Sir William Blackstone is master of, must be well a­ware of the pernicious effects of investing [Page 45]the Representatives of the people with a legislative power, beyond the constituti­onal 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, o­bliged by these Statutes to call a new Parliament every year,’ &c. He has caused the word new to be printed in Ita­lics, 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 Repre­sentation 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 [Page 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 Parlia­ment, 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 preser­ved with the Returns upon them. In the catalogue of Election-Writs, which Prynne has given in his Brevia Parlia­mentaria Rediviva, p. 4 to 6, there is an account of Writs issued for new Elections in every year of that King's reign, be­tween 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 ‘per­fect [Page 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 want­ing; 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 miscellane­ous heap of other records on various sub­jects, (as he himself relates in his Epistle-Dedicatory to King Charles II. of his Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva,) cal­ling the said heap a ‘confused Chaos, under corrding putrifying cobwebs, dust, and filth, in the darkest corner of Caesar's Chapel in the White Tow­er, as mere useless Reliques not worthy to be calendred,’ &c. And, in page 103 of that same work, he speaks of 117 [Page 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, con­sumed, 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 [Page 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 [Page 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 Rich­ard 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 [Page 51]Acts for annual Parliaments: ‘Not that he (the King) is, or ever was, obliged by these Statutes to call a new Parlia­ment every year; but only to permit a Parliament to sit annually for the re­dress of grievances and dispatch of bu­siness, if need be. — These last words’ (says he) ‘are so loose and vague, that such of our monarchs, as were incli­ned to govern without Parliaments, neglected the convoking them, some­times 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 de­praved monarchs who were inclined to govern without them: for the words, [Page 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 remain­ing part of the sentence, viz. ‘and more often:’ that is, ‘and more often, if need be.’ The Order, ‘that a Par­liament shall be holden EVERY YEAR ONCE,’ is absolute; and the discretio­nary power, expressed in the words ‘if need be,’ relates apparently to the cal­ling 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 Legisla­ture is very clearly proved by the histories of those times: for it is manifest, not only that new Representatives were elected e­very year (with only one exception) for a [Page 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 al­so 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 (some­times 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 par­ticular Parliament to which they were [Page 54]summoned; which being ‘once determi­ned,’ (says Prynne, ist part of Brief Register, &c. of Parl. Writs, p. 334.) ‘they presently ceased to be Knights, Citi­zens, Burgesses, Barons, in any succeed­ing 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 insi­nuation, against the calling of a new Par­liament, 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 Parlia­ment at all, they must necessarily be un­derstood to mean a new Parliament on all occasions; i. e. not only that the regu­lar Parliaments, which they ordained ‘to be holden every year once,’ should be new Parliaments, but also those that [Page 55]should be summoned upon any extraordi­nary unforeseen occasions; which is suf­ficiently 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 fre­quent Elections must be attended with in­superable difficulties and inconveniences, we may quote the experience of all an­cient times, as affording ample and suffi­cient proofs to the contrary; ‘there be­ing not above two or three cases of e­lections 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 [Page 56]AS ONE DOUBLE RETORNE or IN­DENTURE, wherewith all the late Bun­dles, or Writs, are stored, and the House of Commons, and late Com­mittees of Privileges pestered, perplex­ed, to the great retarding of the more weighty public affairs of the King and Kingdom.’ Prynne, Brevia Parl. Re­div. p. 137. This enormous evil, the retardment of business, by undue Re­turns, will not (I may venture, without the spirit of prophecy, to assert) be reme­died by the new Regulation for that pur­pose. The Commons were never (in ancient times of Freedom) esteemed the proper Judges of their own Elec­tions, 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 distem­pers [Page 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 ex­pressly consulted their respective consti­tuents upon it; as the alteration was of too much moment to be intrusted to the discretion of any Representatives or Depu­ties 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 [Page 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 Constitu­tion, ought they to have answered, that, ‘in this new device, they DARE NOT AGREE WITHOUT CONFE­RENCE WITH THEIR COUN­TRIES!’ 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 [Page 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 re­fuses to receive the Instructions of his Constituents, notwithstanding that seve­ral very sensible, worthy, and (I believe) sincerely patriotic, gentlemen have lately declared themselves to be of a contrary opinion; but, when they peruse the seve­ral authorities which I have cited, con­cerning the absolute necessity of a very frequent appeal to the sense of the whole body of the people, I trust, in their can­dour and love of truth, that they will alter their sentiments.