A Seasonable QUESTION, AND AN Useful ANSWER, CONTAINED  
In an Exchange of a LETTER between a Parliament-Man in Cornwell, and a Bencher of the Temple, London.  
Printed in the Year, 1676.   

as we can, we shall yield up to the King's pleasure all the Laws whereby the Rights and Inheritances of the King and Subjects, aught to be distinguished and determined.  
Truly Sir, these are edged Tools, not to be played with, I would not come 200 miles to put my Neck in a noose. An honest Old Cavalire whispered t'other day to me, That he supposed this prorogation came from French Counsels, not only to prevent the Parliament from stopping in time the French Kings increase of power at Sea and Land, but to lead his Majesty in obscure, undifcerned paths to the mount of absolute power. The French knowing too well, that whensoever the English People shall discover their Liberties and Laws to be invaded, such fires will be kindled as they may run away in the smoke, and weshall not be able to contest with them either the power of the Sea, or the equality of trade. But whosoever advised the prorogation, Pray Sir, let me know whether it be a Dissolution. You may perhaps save me a scurvy winter Journey, and Money in my Pocket, and I assure you we are all very poor, and I do not expect to be paid for secret serviec, I know you can resolve this question as well (at least) as my Lord Chancellor. If it be but a doubtful point, I should think I had best stay at home, none but an undoubted parliament being able lawfully to decide the case, His Majesty out of parliament is no competent Judge for himself in this point; and if we should declare ourselves to be a parliament legally continued by the Prorogation, according to the King's will though not according to the Laws, I should tremble to be assistant in such a sad doom of England, that the meeting of our Parliament, and the benefit of our laws, are of the king's Grace, and not of right to be enjoyed; only when, & as he pleaseth. Neither should I think such a resolution to be of any authority, because we should be parties, and Judges, and give sentence to continve ourselves in power.  
You must not, Sir, deny me your whole thoughts of this great affair, I have come to parliament twice or thrice, to provide against the multitude of mischiefs and grievancs that threaten our ruin, but did but verify the proverb, That I came ninescore miles to suck a Bull, you know we have not been suffeerd to do anything of moment for several Sessions; but I shall fool myself more, if I should now come 200 miles to sit gravely, and prepare myself for the Gallows, when soever the subjects shall demand right against us, or the Crown shall descend to any whose interest shall lead him to call in question what we shall do.  
You know, Sir, you and I were Confessors of old under his Majesty's father, and narroly escaped being Martyred for the Protestant Religion, the Laws of the land, and the Privileges of Parliaments, as we belived, we carried as many of those Declarations in our Pockets, as we had shillings of his Coining, whilst we fought under his Banner, and should not I (Sir,) be an impudent Knave, if I should now come and sit in parliament, to declare, that his majesty may of right take away from his subjects the benefit of their principle fundamental Laws, about their meeting in Parliament, when and as long as he pleaseth, and if he will never suffer a Parliament to sit to claim one of the privileges we swore to maintain. I long for your Opinion (Sir) upon the whole matter, I would neither disobey any lawful command of his Majesty, nor diminish the just English regal Power. I would not crop a leaf of any flower of the Crown, yet I make as much conscience not to betray my Country, or easily yield up the Ancient laws and Government of England, by parliament, to the kings Will, to make English freemen tenants at will to the king, of their laws, their parliaments, their liberties and lives. I am resolved to be an honest man, and thy faithful friend and hearty servant.   

The Bencher's ANSWER.  
SIR,  
YOu demand my Opinion in a Question of the greatest moment, that ever was moved since England was established under civil Government; the absolute ruin for our age or the safety of all the ancient English liberties and excellent Laws depend upon the right resolving your Question. Whether this Parliament be actually Dissouled by the last Prorogation for 15 months? He that will clearly answer you, ought first to consider whether a prorogation ordered and continued beyond a year, can be made to agree with our laws and statutes concerning holding of parliaments (which, by the way are the birthright of English men) It seems you have been told of two statutes which enact, That a Parliament shall be holden every year; doutbless they in ended those printed statutes of the 4. of Ed 3. Cap. 14. and that of the 36. Ed. 3. Cap. 10. where it is enacted, That for maintenance of the statutes, and redress of divers mischiefs and grievances which daily happen, a parliament shall be holden every year, as an other time was ordained. These are most taken notice of because they are printed, and were reinforced by that notable Act of the 16 of the late King: which provided effectually for the summoning and electing a parliament every 3 year, without the Kings concurent asent, if he neglected or refused two years together to summon a parliament according to those statutes of Edw. 3. And although this parliament hath repealed that statute and taken from the people that excellent means to secure their right of parliaments yet they have left us to the force of the ancient laws in the case, and in the same Act of repeal 16 Car. 2. they have declared and acknowleged those laws of Ed. 3 to be still the laws and statutes of this Realm; and they have enacted no clause or article that derogates from them, or abates their force. Those latter clauses of that Act which seem to be enacting being (as my brethren of the robe speak) nugatory and insignificant, only praying the King not to intermit the holding of parliaments above 3 years at the most, but to call them as often as there shall be occasion, which in plainer English is an humble motion that he would not neglect his duty, to put the laws in execution longer than two years, but that he would call parliaments as oft as occasion did require, and that Act was to commence from the end of this parliament, what ever was intended by that Act, it doth neither weaken the force of those two ancient printed statutes, nor of any other unprinted for annual parliaments, this Act being only affirmative and consistent with the other. And I ought to tell you that there are 4 more at least to thesame purpose. That of the 1. Ri. 2. number 95. in the Rolls relates to the Jurisdicttive power of parliaments which is often very necessary, as well as the legislative. It enacts, That a Parliament be yearly holden to redress delays in suits, and to end such cases as the Judges doubt, the 5. of Ed. 2. n. 9 and 13. and the 2. R. 1. 2. n. 73. and in the 50. Ed. 3. n. 177. In the parliament called, the good Parliament, the same thing was enacted and confirmed; and in the opening the parliament, in the 2. Ric. 2. n. 4. the Lord Chancellor in showing the causes of calling that parliament gives for the second reason of it, That it was enasted that a Parliament should be yearly holden. And the message sent from the parliament to the King in the 9 Ric. 2. by the Duke of Gloster, tells that King, That one old statute and laudable custom is approved, which no man can deny, that the King once in a year do summon his high Court of parliament, there to consult with the wise men, and so you may read in Grafton, Page 3. 48. It seems the course of holding yearly parliaments than passed not only for statute law wherein that King's Ancestors had joined with his kingdom to ordain it, but as the most undoubted Custom of England, that is the Common law de-declared in and by the statutes, they claiming it as their most unquestionable inheritance, being the only Root of all their Liberties and Properties, and the only politic means of their defence and safeguard, and no doubt our Ancestors had reason sufficient to claim their yearly parliaments as the custom or common law of England, seeing no Antiquary nor record can show the original of that usuage, having its beginning with the Government itself. Certain times for Parliament meeting are in truth of the essence of the English government: Parliaments were the first appointers or creators of all other Offices, Jurisdictions, Powers and Prerogatives in the Government, Don Wallo writing of the British laws tells us of Parliaments annual or oftener amongst them above 400 years before Christ. And the Mirror of Justice tells us that king Alfred ordained it for a perpetual usuage, That twice in the year, or oftener, they should assemble at London to treat in Parliament of the Government of the People. So it was in the Saxon's time, and continued in the Normans, being admitted by Duke William, called the Conqueror, as the Custom of England, as appears by that ancient Treatise called, Modus antiquus tenendo Parliamenti, And after great contest between the king of that Race and the people, it was settled by Statutes often renewed, That Parliaments should be yearly, as the Statutes show.  
Upon the whole, I think it beyond dispute, that by the Laws and Statutes of our Realm, a Parliament ought to be holden every year: And surely it is as certain, that the last prorogation beyond a year, being persisted in by the king till the year is passed over, did prevent and defeat the execution of those Laws, and is in direct opposition to them.  
The sense of what the Lord Chancellor said to prorogue the parliament, was a plain contradiction to these laws. He tells them It was his Majesty's Will that there should be no Parliament holden for one whole year and some months next following. Then the question will be (if it be any) Whether the king's Will and Word in the Law, or his Word in the Lord Chancellor's mouth is most potent? The whole Kingdom in Parliament, and all the Books of the Law, have always judged the Law to be the king's Superior, to judge of the validity of all his Grants, Orders, Commissions, Patents under Great and Little Seal, and every Court in Westminster-Hall, have always thought its Authority sufficient to Judge His Grants under Seal, or any thing he hath done, void, if they did not agree with the Law. 'Tis a Civility and honour that our Laws pay to the king, that they will not suppose him to will any thing otherwise than as the Laws direct or allow him; and thence it was received as a Maxim, That the King can do no wrong; Indeed all he does contrary to Law, is doing nothing; 'tis to be holden for nothing by Magna Charta itself, therefore if the last Prorogation do not agree with the Laws, it is a mere Nullity.  
It is worth your remembering, that in the 38 Chap. of the Great Charter it is ordained, That no King should devise or invent any thing to infringe or weaken the Liberties and Laws. And if either King or Subject, should seek out any thing against them, it should be of no value, and holden for nought. If the Prorogation were a device or trick sought out to weaken the Laws for holding Parliaments every year, 'tis judged to be nought, or no Prorogation by 30 or 40 Parliaments, which have confirmed and re-enacted the same Charter.  
But I ought to acquaint you that there are great endeavours to support the Prorogation, some alleging with noise enough, That many Kings have intermitted Parliaments not only for more than a year, but for many years; But these seem not to understand the Question, which is of the validity in Law of what the king hath done to the Parliament. 'Tis not now enquired, what Remedies there are if Kings shall leave undone what the Law and their Trust require in calling parliaments; all the positive exercises, of power by the king, may and aught to be judicially sentenced, and approved for good, if agreeable to the Laws, or holden for none if they be contrary to the Law. And this hath been the uninterrupted usuage of England in all Ages; They have sentenced all his Charters, Grants. yea his very Pardons, that seem to come so singly from his Sovereign power or prerorogative; and the Prorogation ought upon the same reason to be tried by the Law, and judged void, if so it be by the Rules of the Law. But the king's omission to put the Laws in execution in calling Parliaments at the times limited by the Statutes, or in appointing sufficient Guards for the Seas, or in issuing out Commissions to the Judges, or any the like, These, I say, cannot be brought into Question Judicially, there being no possible relief for the People in such cases, but by supplimentary laws to be made in Parliament, in case of such Omissions, as was done by the parliament 1641. 'Tis well for the People that the law hath provided, that whatever the king shall do contrary to law, shall go for nought, though they suffer by his neglect, their right and laws remain to them, and such Omissions of the king as are before mentioned, have always been esteemed by Parliaments and People, Failers or breaches of the kings high and sacred trust, and 'tis a pitiful Argument to prove that the kings might of right, or by the laws omit to do what the law hath trusted to their care, because they have sometimes broke their Trust.  
His late Majesty in his Declaration of the 12 of August, 1642, when the unhappy War began to rage, freely confessed, That it was upon his Prospect the unhappy State of the kingdom, and of the inconveniencies and mischiefs that had grown by the long intermission of Parliaments, and by the parting too much from the known Rule of the law to an arbitrary Power, that induced him to consent freely to that Act in 1641, called vulgarly, The Triennal Act, which was in truth for Annual Parliaments, re-enacting those very Acts of Edw. 3. before mentioned. He said, he was willing in Justice and Favour to his Subjects, to make them Reparations for their Sufferings they had undergon by him in omitting Parliaments. I remember this chiefly to show, that his late Majesty, when his Subjects were in Arms against him, freely acknowledged the wrong he had formerly done them, by failing to summon Parliaments as the Law required: And professed that he had the year before, freely and heartily consented to that Act which re-enacted those Ancient laws of Edw. 3. which are conceived amongst others, to make the Prorogation void. Yet I must tell you there are those that affirm, all the laws for Annual Parliaments, to be Musty absolete Statutes whose strength and life are devoured by time; But it is enough to stop their mouths, that they have been declared by two Parliaments within 40 years' last passed, to be the laws of our Realm, and indeed they are laws of such a nature, as cannot be weakened by any neglect of their due execution, being declarative of the common law, and a most essential part of the constitution of the English Government, which altogether lives and subsists in and by the certainty of Parliaments meeting. If it were admitted for Truth, That neither the Common-Law, nor the Statutes did indispensably oblige the Calling of Parliaments, at any certain times, but that their Meetings were only at the Wills of the kings, than the kings did no wrong if they commanded the people, as was once done in a kingdom, by Proclamation, Never to mention parliaments more. If these laws be dead of Age, the Ancient Famous English-Liberty is dead with them, the English must never more claim the Name of A Free People, if they have no share by right in the Government of themselves, by their certain rightful times of Parliaments. But my Lord Cook, part 1. of Instit. pag. 81. concludes rightly, That no Act of prlaiament can lose its force, or be antiquated by non user. unless the Reason of it fail, and the Use of it is impossible, and by change of time becomes a public mischief; but not those especially which are made to bind the Kings themselves for the Common good, for such are the Laws for parliaments. Yet he that observes in our English law books and Histories in the time of king John, Hen. 8. Ed. 1. and Ed. 2. How the Nobles and Freeholders' claimed their right by the Common law to meet in Parliament before these Statutes were made, and how often they compelled their kings, (I do not say how lawful such compulsion was) when need required to call parliaments, and if he observes also how constant these statutes for Annual parliaments were executed in many whole kings reigns succeeding each other next after their making, and if he considers how slowly and slily this Grand Right of the peoples was invaded and stolen upon in latter Ages, he will have little reason to pretend a non user of those Statutes yet if some neglects and defaults have been committed against the laws, it concerns his Majesty in Conscience, and the people in Interest much more, not to permit it hereafter, least patient sufferánce of the wrong, become an argument against the people's Right.  
Pray Sir, read the sense of our Ancestors upon the kings neglect of executing a law against the Pope, whom they then adored, 'tis the Statute of Provisors of the 25 of Ed. 3. These are the words, The king seeing the damages and mischiefs before mentioned, and having regard to the said statute, etc. Which statute holdeth its force, and was never defeated, repealed, nor annulled; and by so much he is bounden by his Oath to cause the same to be kept as the law of the realm, though that by sufferance and negligence, it hath been sithence attempted to the contrary.  
Truly Sir, these seem to be honest, plain, old English words, and if the Statutes about parliaments were put in the front or preface, they would sound well from his Majesty's mouth in a New Statute. But some there are, Sir, who find softer Cushions in a Parliament Seat than you do, who to avoid the nullity of the prorogation, assert, That the Statutes for yearly Parliaments, may be dispensed with by the king's Sovereign power and prerogative, being (say they) only Councils and Advices to the king, and not obligatory.  
This is boldly said, if it could be as sound proved, it would put all questions between the king and his Subjects to everlasting silence; if he can legally or of right dispense, or absolve himself from all the bonds of the Law, for holding parliaments, by whom the Laws are to be maintained, and the highest transgressors punished, he may dispense with the laws whereby all other Courts sit, and then he is loose from all laws, and nothing of right can be claimed of him by the subject. To dispute with statutes of this nature by the king without limitation of time or other rule than his Will, is the same in other words, as to repeal or annul these statutes, and revive them again when he pleaseth; and that is to assume to the Crown, singly, the legislative power which consists as much in anulling as in making laws. And if that be the king's rightful power, than all the laws are absolutely dependant upon the Will of the king. I have read that an attempt of the same kind was made by king Rich. 2. in setting up a Phantatick opinion (as the Parliament than called it) saying, that the laws of the Realm were in his head and in his breast; but it cost the people very dear, both in blood and treasure, to confute it: and the poor king lost his Crown, and life for that fancy. I will not trouble you or myself with the Common (yet dangerous) Doctrine of my Tribe, about the king's Power to dispense with penal laws, by his non obstante: I am only to inquire in this case, what dispensing pour the king hath, over the statutes made and declared only to bind and limit the kings themselves, in the execution of their Trust about the Government, such as are in their prime true intent, sacred Pacts, or Arguments between the king and People, though in honuor to the king, there could not be aded to them the sanction of a penalty upon the king Judicialy. These statutes that I now discourse of, are the Foundations of our Government, and declarative only, showing what our Government is, that is, by king and Parliament, and how far the Crown is trusted with the power of caling Parliaments; that is, as often as there should be occasion within every year, and not otherwise. Our government was never originally founded upon such ridiculous folly by our wise Ancestars, as to intend themselves to be a Free People, to make and alter their own laws, for their Government with their kings, and he to call them to parliament to that intent, and to leave it absolutely to the kings Will, even lawfully, or of right by their Fundamental laws, to defeat their meeting in Parliament for ever. If our Government were so founded, and doth so continue, our English Crown is of right, or by law, in no kind restrained, limited or bounded in the exercise of the Regal power unless it please, and if the kings shall condescend to consult with Parliaments, and agree to some Statutes to limit themselves, there is no more done than was by the men of Gotham, that made a Hedge for the Coockows.  
These Reasons, Sir, are not urged to show any defects in our Government, which may or aught to be amended, but to prove, that our Government was founded upon such certain laws and Customs, that the kings never had absolute power, but that the power of Parliaments, and their certain Meetings, were of right, and as much a part of our Government as the kings themselves. And I think itself evident from the nature and manner of the English Government, owned in all Ages, to be qualified by laws, binding both King and People, that the king cannot more dispense with the Laws which limit the times wherein parliaments ought to be holden, than with the laws that preserve our lives and estates from being subject to this Will. Parliaments are of the Essence of our Government, and must have the times of their assembling indispensible; and if it be not of right by law, that they are to be held within cercain Circles of time, as Custom and law have appointed, then there's no necessity in law that they should be held at any time if the king please, and by consequence, they are none of the Essentials of our Government, but the Government may be without them. If the kings may of right dispense with the times appointed for holding Parliaments, they may break all the bonds of other laws, no other power daring to question them, all but parliaments deriving their power from them. Charles the seventh, and Lewis the eleventh of France, first subverted the liberty of the French, and all their ancient Customs and laws by usurping that pretended prerogative, of dispensing with the certain times of the meetings of their assembly of Estates, by that means they suffered them to meet very seldom, and their immediate Successors proceeded to arrogate to themselves more power over those Assemblies, until they have in fact (perhaps not in right) abolished almost the memory of them, and reduced the people to a miserable slavery, the people having no other fence of their liberty. Dear Sir, to deal plainly, I believe the opinion that the King might dispense with Parliaments meeting notwithstanding the statutes, or prorogue them as long as he pleaseth, is built upon that gross vulgar Error, That Parliaments are the Creatures of the kings Will, because they are summoned by his Writs, and dissolved also when he thinks sit.  
I wish our Government were better understood both by our Lords and Commons, they ought to know that the Writts of Summons for a Parliament once a year, are to be issued by the king in obedience to the laws, and if there be occasion for calling them oftener, the Writts' issue in performance of the kings Trust and Oath, to remove by Parliaments, the mischiefs that afflict the People.  
The Statute of Provisors 25 Edw 3. speaks this plainly, viz. The Commons pray the King, that sith the right of the Crown of England, and the Law of the said Realm is such that upon the mischiefs and damages which happen to his Realm, he ought and is bound by his Oath, with the accord of his People in Parliament, thereof to make remedy and Law. This king and people agreed, that it was the English Constitution, and King's Duty to Call Parliaments as the Laws required; and if any mischiefs happened, he was bound by his Oath then to call them and to join in accord with them to remove the mischiefs and damages, before they were dissolved; else by the declaration in this law he saved not his Oath by calling them. And as the law binds the king upon Oath, to send out the summons for parliaments, so it provides the very form of the Writ which must be sent, the king must summon them in no other form than the law hath appointed, The law hath not trusted the king to add to, leave out, or alter one word in the writ of summons; an Act of parliament only can vary one tittle of it. The law hath also prescribed to parliaments their business in general, which are the matters that concern the king, the state, and the defence of the Realm. These are words so large, that there seems to be nothing that concerns the welfare of king or people, which doth not fall under their consultations. But, Pray Sir observe, that 'tis not the kings will that empowers your brethren, that's no more than a Command of the law by the king ex Officio, that the people do empower such as they elect they are to authorise them as the writ declares, to do and consent to what shall by the Common Council of the kingdom be then ordained; Ita quod (saith the Writ) pro defestu potestatis hujusmodi, etc. So that for want of such power, the foresaid business may not remain undone. The Parliament derives not any power from his Majesty, but from the first Root of Government, the People's Choice, according to the laws: For that reason, Indentures are, and aught to be sealed between the People and the Elected, and then they are immediately invested with a share of the legislative power, for that time, which is the greatest and highest power and therefore in its own nature independent, every estate having share in the legislative power, for the Proportion it hath therein, hath its independency of the other two and of its proper right, as founded in the fabric and fram of the policy and government, not derived from the grace of the king by grant or Commission. I have said too much I doubt against the power of the king to despense with the statutes for yearly parliaments, and yet I must add this one thing more, That parliaments are by many statutes as well as by the Common law, our highest Court of Judicature, before whom comes writts of error, And the last appeals in all cases. And that Ancient Mirror of Justice tells us that their Judicature was intended to hear and determine the complaints of the wrongful Acts of the king, the Queen, and their Children, and of those persons against whom the subjects otherwise could not have common Justice; now if the king can of right dispense with the certain appointed sitting of this Judicature, he can lawfully say the wrongs that I and my great Ministers (too big for other Courts,) shall do to the people, shall never be heard or Judged but at my will; their complaints shall not be admitted once in 50. years, nor till domes day, unless I please.  
If our men of the Robe will maintain such a dispensing Power in the king with the statutes in question, they must say, that the king may by law prevent and defeat the last results of Justice, and null the highest Court of Judicature, founded on the common law, and let them tell me, why he may not, by the same right and reason, despence with the laws whereby all the inferior Courts of Judicature now fits, or adnull the Courts themselves, and throw all things into a confused Chaos, where the strongest shall enjoy every thing, Upon these Premises, I may dare to conclude, That the laws for holding a Parliament every year, stand firm and immutable, until an undobted parliament shall repeal them by some express words, and that the prorogation can never be reconciled to those laws; or be helped by any power of the kings to despence with them, but must be Judged inconsistent with the laws, that are of the essence of our government; having actually defeated the execution of them, and therefore aught to be holden for nothing, and the day appointed for your meeting to be no day, for that purpose, in the sense of our law.  
Supposing then, that I having hitherto rightly concluded, the question will be, Whether the king's dismission of the parliament, without any day set for their return and their continuing so beyond the year, be a dissolution?  
Ill, tell you, Sir, the method of my thoughts upon this Question, that I might not be cozened with words, nor entangled in trifling disputes about them I first consider, whether dissolving a Parliament were a term of art in our law, and aught to have some peculir sense gained by the use of it in the law; But finding it used only in its vuilgar sense. I perceived it signified to break off, or put an end to a Parliament, and all their business and authority; so that a dissolution may be made, without the king or Lord Chancellors, saying, you are hereby dissolved, The force of the law or custom of England, may put an end to a Parliament. Of old, the finishing the business of the people, for which they were called, did dissolve them. See the ancient Modus tenendi Parliamt. The custom was that when all the petitions for relief against grievances were dispacthed, proclamation was made, demanding if any petition were yet unanswered, and if there was none, the parliament forth with departed, this was the natural death or dissolution of a parliament, but if the king did command the Lords, and Commons to depart before they had sufficiently consulted about the state; and defence of the king and Kingdom, and set up-day for their return, that was the voilent death of a Parliament, and I doubt a violence to the king's conscience.  
But it was usual for the kings to dissolve Parliaments either by leave or command given them to depart, fixing no day for their return; so testify the Ancient Rolls of the 37. Ed. 3. n. 38. and 38. Ed. 3. n. 31. 40, Ed. 3. n. 16. 45. Ed. 3. n. 13. 50. 'tis by force of law that the writ of sumons to Parliament abates or becomes void by the king's natural death, and the Parliament, is thereby dissolved. Upon the same reason a failer of some circumstance, as the naming such a time as the law allows, to which it is adjourned, the holding and continuing a parliament, if Judged necessary by the law, for preserving both the form and substance of the Government, I say such a fayler in time only, may by Act of law, dissolve a parliament even against the will of the king, and if such a failer happens, if the king should step out of the form of the law to revive a parliament, it would alter the whole Government by owning a power in the king to vest in such as he please the legislative power out of the form of the law. In making a parliament, the king hath his power from the law to summons, and the form wherein only he can exert that power: And the Elected have their power from the people by the writ of the law, what to do and consent to on their behalf at the time and place then mentioned (as the writ says, tunc & jbidem) and these powers must by the law be strictly and punctually pursued, and nothing less than an Act of parliament can help any defect or failer in persuance of these powers; if the Parliament then meet as the law requires, if they fail to be continued in the form of the law, then by the Act of law, they are dissolved, not being able to create to themselves a day or time which will not agree with the returns to the writ of summons, by which their Masters empowered them to consent on their behalf. Neither is this a nicety or quirk in law, but a form essentialy necessary to preserve our liberties. If the representatives, trusted for the people, to do and consent for them at the time and place mentioned, in the lawful writ, after a fayler of continving their trust, as the law directs, pceede to Act as a parliament, they must do it without any appointment or power given them from the people, in any form of law, and in the appearance and Judgement of the law, without any Authority, and if they might do it after fayler of a legal continuance one year, they may do it after 20 years; and because they were once commissioned by the people to represent them in one parliament, they should therefore make themselves Lords of the people, and of their Laws Lives and Liberties for ever; and admit whom they please (as some have done heretofore) into their society, and if it should be admitted, that any number of men, might exercise a share of the legislative power, without evidence in law, upon record, that they were thereunto first sufficiently authorized and therein legally continued, it would give a fatal stroke to the Ancient English government and all its laws and liberties, Sir from these principles I tell you freely my opinion, That the parliament is dissolved, having been dismissed, or commanded to depart, without a day to return within the time that the Laws require a Parliament to be holden, and that time also lapsed since their dismission; I think it not material in the case, what words the Lord Chancellor said when he dismissed them; If he said, you are prorogued, or you are dismissed, or you are sent home, or you must be gone, 'tis all one; I mind what was really done; you were in substance and sense of the words commanded to dissolve your Assembly, and you were told that all the business before you was at an end, as if it had not been; and that you must not assemble again or hold Parliament for above a year then following; and you did separate yourselves, and never held Parliament within the year, and this by the act and judgement of the Law hath Dissolved you; there hath been a failer of any such act in law as could continue you in the Commission and Authority whereunto the People hath chosen you, in the Form that the laws hath prescribed: The King declaring, under the name of proroguing you that all the 〈◊〉 you had begun should be void, and that you should not meet in parliament the next ensuing year (as the law required, I say that declartion of the kings could not in any construction of law, be an Act of continuance of your power and commission, you had from the people, the execution whereof was thereby wholly defeated; likewise there was no Act of your own, by adjournment of your house, to continue you, and therefore your Authority was wholly superseded, and discontinued. I know nothing that can be pretended to prevent your discontinuance, but the king's will that you should sit again 3 months after the year expired; but his prevention of your sitting for above a year, having contrary to the law and his trust, first discontinved you, his Will cannot give, or renew, those Parliamentary powers, that the people gave you in return of the legal writ; The Lord Cook saith 3. Part. Instis. Chap. Parl If you sit again, you are a several Parliament from what you were, (if you be a Parliament) every distinct session, being in law a several Parliament. And your former Authorities being Ceased by a failer of continuance, you can have none but what the kings will vest in you, and I need not tell you, that the king cannot choose for the people their Representatives. To me it seems plain, that the king having not continued you, nor you continued yourselves, nor having set or held Parliament for above a year, the law hath dissolved you, and Judged you for none.  
I have not time to write you all the talks of the Town upon this question; some have invented a new fashion prorogation, for the king to prorogue without day, and call the Parliament again by proclamation; but their mouths must be stopped, if they be only told, That such a practice or use of prorogation, hath no foundation in any Statute, Custom usage, or Reason of Law, and the king cannot change the laws and customs or introduce new. I take a prorogation, Sine die, if any such be made, to be as void in law, as a writ of summons of a Parliament would be, that named no day for their sitting.  
And there can be no pretence of Antiquity for such prorogations, the words of Adjornment and Prorogation, having been used in differently for the same thing about 400. years, if not more They were so taken in the state of 13. E. 4. n. 42. and how long after I cannot find; but it would have been a plain contradiction in terms, to have said, than the Parliament is adjourned, Sine die, that is, it was appointed to meet at another day, without a day. It's a sign that men are sore pinched, when they will assert contradictions rather than submit to truth.  
I ought to tell you one thing more that is said in this case; they pretend a precedent, that the king hath prorogued above a year, they say, that in the great plague, in the 7. of Eli. that Parliament was prorogued for a year and three days, what then? say they therefore the king might do it now. Such arguers show themselves pitiful Logicians, lack-lerning lawyers, and degenerate English men; Is it a logical arguments to say, that what ever any king of England hath once or oftener done, may be lawfully done by any other king. An English king; Rich. 2. by pretence of Royal authority cut many a worthy man's throat, and murdered his Uncle, the Duke of Gloster. An other king, john, sold this kingdom to the Pope May it therefore be lawfully sold? and have any lawyers learned so little, as not to know that there is no Precedent to be alleged against an express Statute? or not to know A Transgression of a statute, even by the king, if silently passed over, and never brought into Judgement, is not in the meaning of the law to be called apresident. There's no use of precedents, unless it be to show the usage where there is no statute in the case, or to serve the construction of a statute, where the meaning is doubtful; but where so many statutes are plain and express, as in this case, 'tis in vain to allege what hath been done, and connived at, without Questioning it, as a precedent to warrant the present breach of those statutes▪ or rather to annul them forever. And they must also as much degenerate from English men as from Logic and Law, who shall assert that the kings of England may acquire a right or power to themselves and their successors for ever, by their Ancestors transgressing any statute, made to bond the Regal power.  
All true English have always maintained with their blood, that our kings were limited by the laws and that they broke their oaths if they did not carefully see to the execution of them. And in days of yore, they have been so far from allowing the son and succesor of a king, to break any of the laws, because his father did so before him, they have rejected the father because he kept not within the limits of the law, and taken the son upon his promise not to walk by his father's Example.  
Sir, I have told you my thoughts upon the Question, being satisfied that the kings will being declared upon record, that you should not hold Parliament within the time limited by law, you were thereby dissolved, and the Authorities given you by the people, did thereby cease and return into the People; and the kings will that you should afterwards hold Parliament again, being not agreeable to law, could not revive your power. And in my poor opinion, if you now assume to yourselves to exercise Parliamentary powers, because the king will have ' it so, you must pass this fatal Judgement against the old English government, That the king may lawfully prorouge you for 40. years if he please, and may refuse for ever to hold a Parliament; and if such a Judgement, seemingly passed in Parliament against our Fundamental laws and liberties, shall ever be left to the interpretation of any successors to our gracious king, who shall intend a Tyranny, he shall claim by that record to be our absolute master, and neither Lords nor Commons, to have any right to provide in Common Counsel for the defence of the Realm, and their own good government and welfare, unless be please.  
In fine, our innocent babes shall hereafter read in that record, that you Judged yourselves and them to be perfect slaves, all prostitute to the will of the king. Doubtless if it be granted that the People have no right to parliaments, but at the kings will, we shall never have any king after this, that will tell us, as king james did, in his speech to the parliament held March. 19 1603. That he was not ashamed to confess it, his principle honour, to be the great servant of the Common wealth, and that he known himself to be ordained for the people, and not the people for him. I shall not advise you to come or stay I have herein delivered my one soul; as becomes  
Your Fithfull and Affestionate Friend▪ H. P.  
FINIS.