THE DUKE OF Buckingham's SPEECH; Spoken in the House of LORDS, FEB. 15 th'. 1676. Proving that the PARLIAMENT is DISSOLVED.  
Whose Suffering Sweet, since Honour doth Adorn it;  
Who Slights Revenge; not that he Fears, but Scorns it.  
Amsterdam, 1677.   

THE DUKE OF Buckingham's SPEECH, etc.  
My Lords,  
I Have often troubled your Lordships with my Discourse in this House, but I confess I never did it with more trouble to myself than I do at this time; For I scarce know how I should begin what I have to say to your Lordships.  
On the one side, I am afraid of being thought an Unquiet and a Pragmatical Man; for in this Age every man that cannot bear every thing, is called Unquiet, and he who does but ask Questions, tho' about those matters for which he ought to be most concerned, is looked upon as Pragmatical.  
On the other side, I am more afraid of being thought a Dishonest Man, and of all men, I am most afraid of being thought so by myself; for every one is best Judge of the integrity of his own Intentions. And though it does not always follow, that he is Pragmatical, whom others take to be so, yet this never fails to be true, That he is most certainly a Knave, who takes himself to be so.  
No body is answerable for more Understanding than God Almighty has given him; and therefore though I should be in the wrong, if I tell your Lordships plainly and truly what I am really convinced of, I shall behave myself like an Honest Man; For it is my Duty, as long as I have the Honour to Sat in this House, to hide nothing from your Lordships, which I think may concern either his Majesty's Service, your Lordship's Interest, or the Good and Quiet of the People of England.  
The Question, which in my Opinion does now lie before your Lordships, Is not what we are to do, but, Whether at this time we can do any thing as a Parliament? It being very clear to me, That the Parliament is Dissolved. And if in this Opinion I have the misfortune to be mistaken, I have another misfortune joined to it, A desire to maintain this Argument with all the Judges and Lawyers in England, and leave it afterwards to your Lordships to decide, Whether I am in the Right or no. This, my Lords, I speak not out of Arrogance, but in my own Justification. Because if I were not thoroughly convinced, that what I have now to urge, were grounded upon the Fundamental Laws of England, and that the not pressing it at this time, might prove to be of a most dangerous consequence, both to his Majesty and the whole Nation, I should have been loath to start a Notion, which perhaps may not be very agreeable to some People. And yet, my Lords, when I consider where I am, who I now speak to, and what was spoken in this Place about the time of the last Prorogation, I can hardly believe that what I have to say, will be distasteful to your Lordships.  
I remember very well how your Lordships were then displeased with the House of Commons, and I remember too as well, what Reasons they gave you to be so. It is not so long since, but that I suppose your Lordships may easily call to mind, that after several odd passages between us, your Lordships were so incensed, that a motion was made here, for to address to his Majesty, about the Dissolution of this Parliament. And though it failed of being carried in the Affirmative by two or three Voices, yet this in the Debate was remarkable, That it prevailed with much the Major part of your Lordships that were here present, and was only overpowered by the Proxies of those Lords who never heard the Arguments. What Change there has been since either in their Behaviour, or in the state of our Affairs, that should make your Lordship's change your Opinion, I have not yet heard. And therefore if I can make it appear (as I presume I shall) that by Law the Parliament is Dissolved, I presume your Lordships ought not to be offended at me for it.  
I have often wondered how it should come to pass, that this House of Commons, in which there are so many Honest, and so many worthy Gentlemen, should yet be less respectful to your Lordships, as certainly they have been, than any House of Commons that ever were chosen in England; and yet if the matter be a little enquired into, the reason of it will plainly appear. For my Lords, the very nature of the House of Commons is changed▪ They do not think now that they are an Assembly that are to return to their own homes, and become Private men again (as by the Laws of the Land and the Ancient Constitution of Parliaments they ought to be) but they look upon themselves as a standing Senate, and as a number of men picked out to be Legislators for the rest of their whole Lives. And if that be the case my Lords, they have reason to believe themselves our Equals.  
But, my Lords, it is a dangerous thing to try new Experiments in a Government; Men do not foresee the ill Consequences that must happen when they go about to alter those essential parts of it, upon which the whole Frame of the Government depends, as now in our Case, the Customs and Constitutions of Parliament. For all Governments are artificial things; and every part of them has a dependence one upon another. And as in Clocks and Watches, if you should put Great Wheels in the place of Little ones, and Little Wheels in the place of Great ones, all the Fabric would stand still: So we cannot alter any one part of a Government without prejudicing the motions of the whole. If this, my Lords, were well considered, people would be more cautious how they went out of the old, honest, English way and method of proceedings. But it is not my business to find Faults, and therefore if your Lordships will give me leave, I shall go on to show you, why, in my opinion, we are no Parliament.  
The Ground of this Opinion of mine is taken from the ancient and unquestionable Statutes of this Realm, and give me leave to tell your Lordships by the way, That Statutes are not like Women, for they are not one jot the worse for being Old. The first Statute I shall take notice off is, That in the fourth year of Edward the Third, Chap. 14, thus set down in the printed Book;  
Item, It is accorded, That a Parliament shall be holden every year once, and more often if need be. Now though these words be as plain as a Pike-Staff, and that no man living that is not a Scholar could possibly mistake the meaning of them, yet the Grammarians of those days did make a shift to explain, that the words, If need be, did relate as well to the words Every year once, as to the words more often; and so by this Grammatical Whimsy of theirs, had made this Statute to signify just nothing at all. For this Reason, my Lords, in the 36th. year of the same King's Reign, a New Act of Parliament was made, in which these unfortunate words, If need be, were left out, and that Act of Parliament is printed thus; relating to Magna Charta, and other Statutes made for public Good:  
Item, For maintenance of these Articles and Statutes, and the redress of divers Mischiefs and Grievances which daily happen, A Parliament, shall be holden every year: as another time was Ordained by another Statute.  
Here now, my Lords, there is not left the least Colour or Shadow for any further mistake, for it is plainly declared, That the Kings of England must Call a Parliament once within a Year: And the Reasons why they are bound to do so, are as plainly set down, Namely, For the maintenance of Magna Charta, and other Statutes of the same Importance, and for preventing the Mischiefs and Grievances which daily happen.  
The Question than remaineth, Whether these Statutes have been since Repealed by any other Statutes or no?  
The only Statutes I ever heard mentioned for that, are the two Triennall Bills, the one made in the last Kings, and the other in this King's Reign.  
The Triannal Bill in the last King's Reign, was made for the Confirmation of the two mentioned Statutes of Edw. 3. For Parliaments having been omitted to be Called every year according to those Statutes. A Statute was made in the last King's Reign to this purpose▪ That if the King should fail of Calling a Parliament, according to those Statutes of Edw. 3. Then the Third year the People should Meet of themselves without any Writts at all, and Choose their Parliament-Men.  
This way of the People's Choosing Parliament-Men of themselves, being thought disrespectful to the King, A Statute was made by this last Parliament, which Repealed the Triennal Bill; And after the Repealing Clause (which took notice only of the Triennal Bill made in the last King's Reign) There was in this Statute a Paragraph to this purpose: That because by the Ancient Statutes of this Realm, made in the Reign of Edw. 3. Parliaments are to be held very often, It should be Enacted, That within three years after the Determination of that present Parliament, Parliaments should not be discontinued above three years at most, and should be holden oftener if need required.  
There have been several half kind of Arguments drawn out of these Triennal Bills against the Statutes of Edw. 3. which I confess I could never remember, nor indeed those that urged them to me ever durst own; For they always laid their faults upon some body else, like ugly offish Children, which because of their Deformity and want of wit, the Parents are ashamed of, and so turn them out to the Parish. But, My Lords, let the Arguments be what they will, I have this short Answer to all that can be wrested out of these Triennal Bills. That the first Triennal Bill was Repealed before the matter now disputed of was in Question, and the last Triennal Bill will not be in force till the Question be Decided, that is, till this Parliament is Dissolved.  
The whole matter therefore, My Lords, is reduced to this short Dilemma, Either the Kings of England are bound by the Acts mentioned of Edw. 3. or else the whole Government of England by Parliaments, and by Law is absolutely at an End. For if the Kings of England have Power by an Order of theirs to invalidate an Act made for the maintenance of Magna Charta, they have also Power by an Order of theirs to invalidate Magna Charta itself; And if they have Power by an Order of theirs to invalidate an Act made for the maintenance of the Statute, De Tallagio non concedendo, they have also Power when they please, by an Order of theirs to invalidate the Statute itself De Tallagio non concedendo; and then they may not only without the help of a Parliament, raise Money when they please, but also take away any man's Estate when they please, and deprive every one of his Liberty or Life as they please.  
This, My Lords, I think is a Power that no Judge nor Lawyer will pretend the Kings of England have, and yet this Power must be allowed them, or else we that are Met here this Day cannot Act as a Patliament. For we are now met by virtue of the last Prorogation, and that Prorogation is an Order of the King's point blank contrary to the two Acts of Edw. 3. For the Acts say, That a Parliament shall be holden once within a year; And the Prorogation saith, A Parliament shall not be held within a year, but some months after, and this (I conceive) is a plain contradiction, and consequently that the Prorogation is void. Now if we cannot Act as a Parliament, by virtue of the last Prorogation, I beseech your Lordships by virtue of what else can we Act? Shall we Act by virtue of the King's Proclamation? Pray, my Lords, How so? Is a Proclamation of more force than a Prorogation? Or, if a thing that hath been Ordered the first time be not Valid, Doth the Ordering it the second time make it good in Law? I have heard indeed, that two Negatives make an Affirmative, but I never heard before, that two nothings ever made any thing. Well, But how then do we meet? Is it by our own Adjournment? I suppose no body has the confidence to say that: Which way then is it? Do we meet here by accident? That I think might be granted, but an accidental Meeting can no more make a Parliament, than an accidental clapping a Crown upon a Man's Head, can make a King. There is a great deal of Ceremony required, to give a matter of that moment a legal Sanction.  
The Laws have reposed so great a Trust, and so great a Power in the hands of a Parliament, that every Circumstance relating to the manner of their Electing, Meeting and Proceeding, is looked after with the nicest Circumspection imaginable.  
For this reason the King's Writts about the Summons of Parliament, are to be issued out verbatim according to the Form prescribed by the Law, or else that Parliament is void and null. For the same reason, if a Parliament Summoned by the King's Writ, does not meet at the very same day it is summoned to meet upon, that Parliament is void and null: And by the same Reason, if Parliaments be not Legally Adjourned De die in diem, those Parliaments must also be void and null.  
Oh, but some say, There is nothing in the two Acts of Edw. 3. to take away the King's power in Prorogation, and therefore the Prorogation is good. My Lords, under favour that is a very gross mistake; for pray examine the words of the Acts: The Acts say, A Parliament shall be holden once a year; Now to whom can these words be directed, but to them that are to Call a Parliament? And who are they but the Kings of England? It is very true, that this does not take away the King's power of proroguing Parliaments; but it most certainly limits it to be within a year.  
Well then, but it is said again, If that Prorogation be null and void, than things are just as they were before, and therefore the Parliament is still in being.  
My Lords, I confess there would be some weight in this but for one thing, which is, that not one word of it is true; for if when the King had Prorogued us, we had taken no notice of the Prorogation, but had gone on like a Parliament, and had Adjourned ourselves De die in diem; then I confess things had been just as they were before: But since upon the Prorogation we went away, and took no care ourselves for our Meeting again, if we cannot meet and Act by virtue of that Prorogation, there is an impossibility of our meeting and acting any other way. One may as properly say, that a man who is killed by Assault is still alive, because he was killed Unlawfully; as that the Parliament is still alive, because the Prorogation was Unlawful.  
The next Argument that those are reduced to who would maintain this to be yet a Parliament, is, that the Parliament is Prorogued Sine die, and therefore the King may Call them again by a Proclamation.  
In the first part of this Proposition, I shall not only agree with them, but also do them the favour to prove that it is so in the eye of the Law, which I never heard they have yet done. For the Statutes say, That a Parliament shall be holden once within a year; and the Prorogation having put them off till a day without the year, and consequently excepted against by the Law; that day in the eye of the Law is no day at all, that is, Sine die; and the Prorogation might as well have put them off till so many months after Doomsday; and then I think no body would have doubted, but that it had been a very sufficient Dissolution.  
Besides, My Lords, I shall desire your Lordships to take notice, that in former times the usual way of Dissolving Parliaments was to Dismiss them Sine die; For the King when he Dissolved them, used to say no more, but that he desired them to go home, till he sent for them again, which is a Dismission Sine die.  
Now if there were forty ways of Dissolving Parliaments, if I can prove this Parliament has been Dissolved by any one of them, I suppose there is no great need of the other thirty nine.  
Another thing which they much insist upon is, that they have found out a Precedent in Queen Elizabeth's time, when a Parliament was once Prorogued three days beyond a year▪ In which I cannot choose but observe, That it is a very great confirmation of the Value and Esteem all people ever had of the forementioned Acts of Edward the Third, since from that time to this, there can but one Precedent be found for the Proroguing a Parliament above a year, and that was but for three days neither.  
Besides, my Lords, This Precedent is of a very Odd kind of nature; For it was in the time of a very great Plague, when every Body of a sudden was forced to run away one from another, and so being in haste, had not leisure to calculate well the time of the Prorogation, though the appointing it to be within three days of the year is an Argument to me, that their Design was to keep within the Bounds of the Acts of Parliament. And if the mistake had been taken notice of in Queen Elizabeth's time, I make no question but She would have given a lawful Remedy to it.  
Now I beseech your Lordships, what more can be drawn from the showing this Precedent, but only that because once upon a time a thing was done illegally, therefore your Lordships should do so again now: Tho' My Lords, under favour, Ours is a very different Case from theirs; for this Precedent they mention was never taken notice off; and all Lawyers will tell you, that a Precedent that passes Sub Silentio, is of no Validity at all, and will never be admitted in any Judicial Court where 'tis Pleaded.  
Nay, Judge Vaughan says, in his Reports, That in Cases which depend upon Fundamental Principles, from which Demonstrations may be drawn, Millions of Precedents are to no purpose.  
Oh but say they, you must think prudentially of the Inconveniencies which will follow upon it: For if this be allowed all those Acts which were made in that Sessions of Parliament, will be then Void.  
Whether that be so or no, I shall not now examine; But this I will pretend to say, That no man ought to pass for a prudential person, who only takes notice of the Inconveniencies of one side; it is the part of a wise man to examine the Inconveniences of both sides, to weigh which are the greatest, and to be sure to avoid them. And, My Lords, to that kind of Examination I willingly submit this Cause; for I presume it will be easy for your Lordships to judge, which of these two will be of the most dangerous consequence to the Nation, either to allow, that the Statutes made in that particular Sessions in Queen Elizabeth's time are Void, (which may be easily confirmed at any time by a lawful Parliament) Or to lay it down for a Maxim, That the Kings of England by a particular Order of theirs, have Power to break all the Laws of England when they please.  
And, My Lords, with all the Duty we owe his Majesty, it is no disrespect to him to say, That his Majesty is bound up by the Laws of England; For the Great King of Heaven and Earth, God Almighty himself is bound by his own Decrees: And what is an Act of Parliament but a Decree of the Kings made in the most Solemn manner it is possible for him to make it, that is, with the consent of the Lords and Commons.  
It is plain then in my Opinion, that we are no more a Parliament, and I humbly conceive, your Lordships ought to give God thanks for it, since it has pleased him thus by his Providence to take you out of a condition, wherein you must have been entirely useless to his Majesty, to yourselves, and the whole Nation: For, I do beseech your Lordships, if nothing of this I have urged were true, what honourable Excuse could we find for our acting again with this House of Commons? Except we could pretend to such an exquisite art of forgetfulness as to avoid calling to mind all that passed between us the last Sessions, and unless we could have also a faculty of teaching the same Art to the whole Nation; What opinion could they have of us, if it should happen that the very same men, who were so earnest the last Sessions, for having this House of Commons Dissolved, when there was no question of their lawful sitting, should be now willing to join with them again, when without question they are Dissolved.  
Nothing can be more dangerous to a King or a People, than that Laws should be made by an Assembly, of which there can be a doubt Whether they have power to make Laws or no: And it would be in us so much the more unexcusable, if we should overlook this Danger, since there is for it so easy a Remedy; A Remedy which the Law requires, and which all the Nation longs for,  

The Calling of a New Parliament.  
It is That only can put his Majesty into a possibility of receiving Supplies; That can secure to your Lordships the Honour of Sitting in this House like Peers, and of being serviceable to your King and Country; and That can Restore to all the People of England their undoubted Rights of Choosing Men frequently to represent their Grievances in Parliament. Without this all we can do would be in vain; the Nation might languish a while, but must Perish at last: We should become a Burden to ourselves, and a Prey to our Neighbours.  
My Motion therefore to your Lordships shall be, that we humbly Address ourselves to his Majesty, and beg of him for his own sake, as well as for all the People's sakes to give us speedily a New Parliament. That so we may unanimously, before it is too late, use our utmost Endeavours for his Majesty's Service, and for the Safety, the Welfare, and the Glory of the English Nation.   
THE END.   

Whilst another Lord was speaking, the Duke took a Pen and wrote this syllogism: And then appealed to the Bishops, Weather it were not a True syllogism; And to the Judges, Whether the Propositions were not True in Law?  

The syllogism.  
IT is a Maxim in the Law of England, That the Kings of England are so bound up by all Statutes made pro bono Publico, that every Order or Direction of theirs contrary to the Scope and full Intent of any such Statute is Void and Null in Law  
But the last Prorogation of the Parliament was an Order of the King's contrary to an Act of Edward the Third, made for the greatest Common Good, Viz. The Maintenance of all the Statutes of England, and for the Prevention of the Mischiefs and Grievances, which daily happen.  
Wherefore the last Prorogation of the Parliament is Void and Null: Law.