ANOTHER WORD TO PURPOSE Against The Long Parliament REVIVED.  
By C. C. of Gray's- Inn Esq;  
LONDON, Printed for Thomas Dring, at the George in Fleetstreet, 1660.   

Anno 17 Caroli Regis.  
An Act to prevent Inconveniences which may happen by the untimely Adjourning, Proroguing, or Dissolving of this present Parliament.  
WHereas great Sums of Money must of necessity be speedily advanced and provided for relief of His MAJESTY'S Army and People in the Northern parts of this Realm; and for preventing the imminent danger this Kingdom is in and for supply of other His Majesty's present and urgent occasions, which cannot be so timely effected as is requisite, without Credit for raising the said Moneys; which Credit cannot be obtained until such obstacles be first removed, as are occasioned by fears, jealousies, and apprehensions of divers of His Majesty's Loyal Subjects, that this present Parliament may be Adjourned, Prorogued, or Dissolved before justice shall be duly executed upon Delinquents, Public grievances redressed, a firm Peace between the two Nations of England and Scotland concluded, and before sufficient provision be made for the repayment of the said Moneys so to be raised. All which the Commons in this present Parliament assembled having duly considered, do therefore humbly beseech Your Most Excellent Majesty that it may be Declared and Enacted,  
And be it Declared and Enacted by the King our Sovereign Lord, with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, that this present Parliament now assembled shall not be dissolved, unless it be by Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose: Nor shall be at any time or times, duriug the continuance thereof, Prorogued, or Adjourned, unless it be by Act of Parliament, to be likewise passed for that purpose: And that the House of Peers shall not at any time or times during this present Parliament▪ be Adjourned, unless it be by themselves, or by their own Order: And in like manner, that the House of Commons shall not at any time or times, during this present Parliament, be Adjourned, unless it be by themselves, or by their own Order: And that all and every thing and things whatsoever, done, or to be done, for the Adjouruing Proroguing, or Dissolving of this present Parliament, contrary to this Act, shall be utterly void and of none effect.   

ANOTHER WORD TO PURPOSE Against The Long Parliament REVIVED.  
THat it is easy to Conjure up Spirits, but hard to Conjure them down again, we find it true; yet who would not have thought, that the very Name of King Charles the Second had been such a Charm as would have confounded the most Malevolent-spirit that ever traced English ground? yet so it is, That there is not only some dark Spirits which haunt corners, yet remaining with us; but in the face of the world here has (with brazen brow) appeared amongst us the most unexpectedly Pernicious, Damnable and Treasonable Find that Hell has to send forth, whose Errand is to Move for the Resurrection of the Long Parliament; which is in truth, That the Unparalleled Tragedy of the last 18. years mi●●t be Acted over again; Such a Tragedy, in comparison of which, that of Massenello in Naples; that of John of Leyden and Knipperdoling in Germany; that reported by Machiavelli in Florence, are but like the story of Tom Thumb, compared with St. George and the Dragon.  
Corruption is infectious; and lest this seditious Pamphlet should taint any ignorant or dis-affected persons, I thought good to accept the bold challenge of the Author, to demonstrate his seditious spirit, and to answer his invincible Arguments according to Law, which by other Arguments I did before in my Parthian Dart, which I suppose came not to his hands.  
The main foundation he builds upon, is the pretended Act made in 1640. for the Continuance of the Parliament without dissolution, but by an Act for the purpose, which is his high and mighty Bulwark, whereby he fortifies himself against all opposition; but I shall soon cast down all his works with few words.  
And in the first place, I do declare my opinion to be, That that Act was void in its Creation, so that the King was not obliged by it; but might immediately by virtue of his prerogative have broken up that Parliament, notwithstanding that Act: And this I hold upon these two Grounds. 1. In respect of the King. 2. In respect of the two Houses.  
1. In respect of the King; and for that I lay down this for Law, That the King by consenting to an Act (tendered him for that purpose) cannot grant away and sever from his Crown the inherent Privileges and prerogatives which (ab antiquo) have been and continue to that time attending and annexed to his Crown; as his power of commanding his subjects for public good, cannot be restrained neither in Th●si nor Hypothesi, but that the King by his Royal and inseparable prerogative may dispense with such restriction; for upon commandment of the King, and obedience of the subject, doth his Government consist.  
It is provided by the Statute of 23. H. 6. Cap. 8. That all Patents made to Sheriffs for yea●s, life, or in Fee, etc. are void, notwithstanding any clause of non obstante, etc. and the Patentee is thereby disabled to take the office; yet adjudged by all the Judges of England, in the Exchequer Chamber, 2 H. 7. 66. That the King was not bound by that Statute.  
Also the King may pardon Murder, and Treason, etc. with non obstante, vid. the Act 13 R. ●. Parli. 2. cap. 1.  
So the Statute of 4 H. 4. cap. 13. That no Welshman be Justice, etc. in Wales, binds not the King.  
So the Act of H. 3. de tallagio non concedendo, (vid, Rastal, tit. Purveyance) which would bar the King wholly of Purveyance, is void, and binds not the King.  
So the Statute of 8 R. 2. cap. 2. and 33. H. 6. That none shall be Justice of Assize in his own County, binds not the King, as is obvious by every day's experience: and many more like these.  
And the reasons of all these Cases, are, because the King has not power to assent to any Act, which shall endeavour to eradicate any of the Native precious Flowers of his Crown; and this holds not only in things Civil, but Ecclesiastical too, as appears by the resolution of the two chief Justices, and other the Judges at a Committee before the Lords in Parliament, Anno 8 Jacobi, where it was holden and declared by them all, That Canons made in a Convocation and confirmed by the Royal assent, could not be put in execution, if they were against the King's prerogative.  
King John in the 13th year of his timorous Reign, sent Ambassadors to Admiralius Murmelinus, 
Math. Paris. p. 9 233.  great Emperor of Turkey, to offer to be of his Religion, and to make his Kingdom Tributary to him; but that Heroic Infidel great Prince, as a thing unworthy of a King, to deny his Religion, and betray his Kingdom, utterly refused to accept. But this pusilanimous Prince of ours, by the threats and persuasions of Pandulphus the Popes Commissary, the next year (Cum conmuni Concilio Baronum) surrendered his Kingdoms of England and Ireland to Pope Innocent the III. and that he would hold his Crown from thenceforth as Fcodary to the Pope, paying for both his Kingdoms 1000 Marks per annum; which 1000 Ma●ks with the arrearages was demanded by the Pope of wise King Edw. the 3d in the 4th year of his Reign, who called a Parliament thereupon, whose resolution was, That the King could not do it without the consent of the Commons, as appears Rot. Parl. 40. E. 3. Numb. 8. an Act not yet Printed. And though it was then resolved, that it could not be done without the consent of the Commons, which was to defeat the Kings Grant with the greatest colour; yet it did not imply, that he might do it with the consent of the Commons; for in Rot. Parliamenti, 42. E. 3. numb. 7. upon further debate, It was declared by the Lords and Commons in full Parliament, That they could not assent to any thing in Parliament that tended to the disherison of the King & his Crown, whereunto they were sworn; which late precedent I bring to prove the second respect before mentioned of the two Houses.  
So than it follows, that this Act, this Idol, which has been so much worshipped, and which was the occasion of all our miseries, was void as to the King's Royal assent, and also as to the assent of the two Houses, provided I make it appear, that ealling and dissolving of Parliaments is such a flower of the Crown as cannot be severed.  
And for this I must acquaint you with the Antiquty of Parliaments, and the manner of them; I find many conceits of their antiquity, and many strains and conjectural inferences from dubious and incetain History of the antiquity of the Commons House: but according to the clearest and most allowed course of story, I affirm thus; That Parliaments are of very ancient standing before the conquest, but not such Parliaments as we have now; for those consisted only of the King and his Nobles, and not all the Nobles neither, but such as the King was pleased to call; and so it continued till the Reign of H. 1. in the 16th year of whose Reign was the first sitting of the Commons in Parliament, which was occasioned thus; H. the first was an Englishman, and therefore feared the revolt of the Normans from him, (for they favoured his Brother Robert Duke of Normandy) and he understanding that his own Countrymen had a kindness and affection for him, called the chief of them to his great Council, and did by that means settle himself sure in his Throne, (which I take for a good rule for other Kings).  
Yet this manner of assembling was not always continued since that time; for sometimes the chief of the Nobility were only Called, and they at the end of the Parliament imparted to the other Barons, and their Country, what was done in Parliament: afterwards King John ordained that all Barons of England should come in proper person to Parliament, being summoned, 20 Knights Fees, after 20 l. a Fee, going to the value of an entire County, and fifteen Knights Fe●s, making an entire Baron, by which they sat. But King Hen, 3d after he had smarted by the tumultuation of the Barons, their multitudes bringing confusion, ordained, that those Earls and Barons only to whom he directed his Writs, should come to Parliament, and none else. Afterwards his Son Edw. 1. (who indeed may be called the Founder of our civil Estate) called such of the Barons as he pleased, and omitted the rest, and appointed the Knights and Burgesses to be Elected (which is the first time that I read of Election for before that, when the Commons were called, it was only such of the chief of them as the King pleased) And as it was settled in Edward the First's time, it continued till Edward the Third (there being then in use a Writ, de Admitten do fide dignos ad colloquium) and so downwards, of the special Grace and Favour of wise, pious and Indulgent Kings, it has continued to this day.  
By this appears the extent of prerogative which attended our Kings in former days, in relation to Parliaments; and although latter times have by favour and indulgence won upon it; yet it cannot be doubted, but it is still, as it is at this day, a Flower of the Crown to Call Parliaments, and consequently to Dissolve Parliaments, which also is allowed by our Pamphleter, fol. 7. for, Quo aliquid constituitur dissolvitur; and my Lord Cook in several places affirms, That it is against Natural Equity to oppose that Rule, That that which Constitutes should not Dissolve; and no man will deny but an Act of Parliament against Natural Equity is void; and hear what Justice Dodderidge, (that learned man) says in his Treatise of Parliaments, That the King, jure Regio, as a Flower of his Crown, hath the Absolute power of Calling and Dissolving of Parliaments as oft as he pleaseth, which never yet was opposed.  
Then it will follow upon the Reasons before mentioned, That the King with the consent of the two Houses cannot grant it away; then if he grant it away it remained in him after the signing of that Act; so that That Act was not binding to him; and by this all our Pamphleteers Arguments are set a side.  
And the rather a●e we to make the best and favourablest construction in this case, because the signing of that Act was against his Royal Inclination, being indeed compelled (as it were) thereto by the violent, heady, inconsiderate and rash pressures of those turbulent spirits, which have so lately infested our Land, and ungracioussy disturbed the Religious peace thereof.  
But admitting that Act should be in its Creation obligatory, yet it is to be considered, 

First, How far it is binding:  
Secondly, How long it is binding.    
As to the first, The Law is clear, That an Act of Parliament may at its Creation bind generally, but by reason of some unexpected consequents and future Events, which inevitably or imminently import danger to the public, it may become of no force; and this may be in the Case of common persons; as the Statutes of Marlbridge and Gloucester, etc. against Tenants committing waste in Houses or Lands generally; yet in case of a fire in the neighbour's house, it is justifiable to pull down the house next; and in case of wars against the King's enemies, it is lawful to make Bulwarks upon the Lands; and many more Cases may be to this purpose; Then a fortiori, in the case of the King, who is bound to preserve the Public, and in whose safety, and in the just maintenance of whose Royal Native prerogative is lodged the entire Concern of the Commonwealth; and this is sadly demonstrated to us by his late Majesties waving the execution of this undoubted part of his Royal Prerogative for which I now labour, whereby we have sorely felt, and dearly undergone these unmatchable miseries, wherewith these three Kingdoms have been so long and tediously exercised; which is Argument enough to satisfy any reasonable and sober mind against the unreasonableness of it, and to persuade them in their conscience, That such an unheard of Precedent should not innovate so much upon prerogative, as to bind up the King's Hands (which should defend and preserve himself and his people) and to make him stand still while his Loyal Subjects are Murdered before his face, his own Throat cut before his Palace, and the most horrid confusions that ever was heard of, brought upon a Land (before that time) the most flourishing that ever was seen; and all this fell out upon supposition of that Act being in force, which the King might have waved; for in the case of Ship-money, though it was the better opinion that the King could not raise moneys but by Parliament generally; yet in case of apparent danger to the Kingdom, it was agreed by all the Judges of England that he might: But then admitting it binding in its Creation; the second thing is its duration, how long it binds; and for that, its clear it can bind him no longer than he lives; For that thus,  
The intent of the Lawmakers is to be observed in the exposition of the Laws. Now we know full well, that the makers of that Act never thought of the King's death (especially his Murder) at the time of the making of that Act; but that which was the moving cause of that Act from the Houses, was the remembrance of the Kings breaking up of several Parliaments before, whereby some of the Members were prevented to vent their malicious and cruel designs upon some of the King's loyal Favourites (whom for their preferment they emulated) as before on Buckingham, and after upon incomparable Strafford, by the Vanes, Father and Son, and this was under the notion of bringing Delinquents to punishment. Others indeed, more sober, might have an eye to substantial grievances to be redressed, and therefore desired that the King would not dissolve them till they were redressed.  
But good reason for the King's actions therein; for he was advised, of two Evils to choose the least; rather to dissolve twenty Parliaments, and leave some, particular Delinquents unpunished, some particular grievances unredressed, then by preserving one Parliament or more, to dissolve the foundations of the Kingdom. He was advised of the Jesuits plot which had been so long upon the Anvil against him, which made him loath to consent to this fatal act, which rendered him supposedly obnoxious to the fatal Axe; so that though he was compelled in prudence to himself, and policy to his Kingdoms, to break up those Parliaments, yet the profanum vulgus, the ruder people, and heady Commons, would not understand it right, but endeavoured to bind him up as sure as they could, and that was by this Act, which is the chief design signified in the preamble of that Act. What is mentioned beside in the same preamble, is of no weight, for his Majesty's Army there spoken of ceased to be his by their rebellion; his Majesty's urgent occasions there mentioned, were never intended to be satisfied; and as for the credit of raising money, surely an Act of Parliament might have raised money without borrowing, or giving their security, every one being thereby security for himself, as well as by engaging of their Public Faith; and that Act would have continued not only after dissolution, but after the King's death, without the help of this specious Act, and that might have been made in as short a time as this; so that the necessity of that Act, which our Author mentions, is like that of Don van Dosme, who told the Workmen of a necessity of removing the Chimney, because the fire burned his shinns. And as to the Conclusion of the Preamble, that it might not be dissolved before sufficient provision was raised for repayment of the money borrowed; if this should give a determination, sure it were at an end before now, there having been moneys enough to do that, raised by that desperate piece of Sacrilege, the Sale of Crown and Church-Lands, Customs, Excise, and abominable Taxes.  
But further to the Act itself. There is another rule, Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur; Laws are made for relief of Common and obvious Grievances, and to prevent the most probable and frequent accidents; such was, then, that of breaking up Parliaments before mentioned. And it cannot be intended, that an Act of Parliament should provide against a thing at such distance, should be introductory of a new Law, should confound prerogative, destroy the King, and undo the people; and all this by dubious and implicit words, by a strange and novel construction, the effects and consequents whereof are so incomparably dangerous and fatal to the Kingdom, as has been before shown and seen.  
Lastly, admitting further, That the King's death was intended by that Act; yet was the Act void as to that, and that upon this account.  
If an impossibility be Enacted; or if a thing which is possible at the time of the making of the Act, become impossible by the act of God, the Act ceases to be of force as to that.  
And therefore as to the first, If they had Enacted, That at the time of the making of the same Act, there was no King in England, that had been void, because impossible to be true, that that should be an Act, and that the King should not be at that time King, whereas his being at that time King made that an Act.  
As to the other, is our case; admitting it possible that the King's hands might be bound up, yet the hands of the Law can't be bound up; for the operation of Law upon the death of the King makes that impossible, which before was supposed possible; and therefore I am of opinion, with clearness, that if the Act had been, That the Lords and Commons should be a Parliament, to make Acts after the King's death, that it had been void and nonsense; for they might as well have Enacted, that Paul's Steeple should be Charing-Cross; for its impossible that an Act should be without the King's Royal assent, and his consent cannot be after his death; and there is no Clause that pretends to oblige his Successor to confirm or consent, which our Pamphleter would have our King to do voluntarily, and therefore tells out of my Lord Cooks 3d (which should be his 4th) Institutes, That the King sits in Parliament in his Politic Capacity, and in that capacity never dies; which is all true, for he never dies as to succession, to avoid an Interregnum, etc. But as to continuances of Writs and Commissions, etc. which by his death are determined, he dies.  
The King sits in the Court called the King's Bench, in his Politic Capacity; yet by his death, not only the Judge's Commissions in that Court, but all proceed there were originally determined, else had the Parliament in 1 Edw. 6. cap. 7. little to do to make an Act to salve discontinuances of process by the device of the death of the King; but I never heard of an Act to salve the determination of Writs and Commissions, or to oblige a succeeding King to confirm a Parliament called by his Predecessor; so that though perhaps he might confirm them, and then consent to an Act of Dissolution; yet our Gracious Sovereign knows them too well to call them together again, much less to confirm them; and then there is no need of an Act of Dissolution, they being dissolved of course for want of a King to own them.  
As to what out Author mentions that the coming in of the Secluded Members, and their making a pretended Act for Dissolution, employed their opinion that the Parliament had before a being: It is far otherwise, as the chief of them, Mr. Prynne, before declared; but it was in those furious days, to pacify, and to give some seeming satisfaction to such impertinent and unsettled Noddies as our Author, who otherwise might have made some disturbance, and occasioned some prejudice to the good that was then intended, and since accomplished.  
And whereas this bold fellow would persuade that the old Members might be recalled, what is it but to remove Newgate to Westminster; that the King should clap Rebel's on the back, and encourage Treason, that he should not only commend his Father's Murder, and the destruction of the Church and State, but to give them a Knife to kill Him too, and to make an end of all; Such a seditious piece of Nonsensical villainy was never broached before. But whilst I am harsh to the Long Parliament, I intent the Rump only, and not the Secluded Members, some of whom Our Sovereign is pleased to own in this Parliament and elsewhere; but for the other, I think they are well disposed of, being fit for a Dungeon then a : And so I leave them.  
This Impudent Pamphleter is not only content to endeavour to vindicate and revive evil, but would oppose and destroy the apparent good of this Nation, and would Affront (under the Notion of [Illegal]) this happy Parliament, that has renowned Itself in restoring our King to us, and us to ourselves:  
And this he endeavours 


First, As to the Lords.  
Secondly, As to the Commons.     
As to the Lords. 


First, They are not of age.  
Secondly, They are not called by Writs     
As to the Commons 


First, They are not called by ancient Writs.  
Secondly, They wanted the King's presence at their Meeting.     
And all this is said by Sir Edward Coke, in his fourth Institutes requisite to a Parliament rightly constitued  
As to the Lords,  
I agree they ought to be of full age to sit in Parliament, and so I presume they are that sit; I never heard otherwise by the Author or others.  
Secondly, My Lord Coke says that Dukes, etc. and Barons, etc. aught to have a Writ of Summons, Ex debito justitiae; his meaning is, That they ought not to be prohibited, but aught of common Justice to sit; but this denies not but that they may sit without Writ, if the King please: And therefore take this difference, where a Writ is necessary and of substance, and where 'tis a thing of course only; as if one be created Baron for life, Entail, or in Fee, etc. by Letters Patents, he is presently a Peer of the Realm before he sits in Parliament, and his Writ is a thing of Course, and may be sued out at any time after the sitting, as well as before. But where one holds per Baroniam only, whereby he is a Lord by Tenure, he must have a Writ, and must sit also by virtue of that Writ before he be a Peer, and there his Writ is substance, and a sine qua non, etc. This diversity was resolved in Parliament in King James' time in the case of the Lord Abergaveny, and is reported by my Lord Coke under his own hand; it is now in Print in a book called his Twelfth Report, fol. 70. by which the rest of the Books of my Lord Coke, viz. his First, Second and Fourth Institutes, which are not so clear, may be the better understood as to this Point.  
Now than if these Lords be so by Patent, their Writ is not of substance, but supplied by confirmation; if by Tenure, and have no Writs, 'tis more than I hear affirmed by any; however it belongs to the rest of that House to inquire of these things.  
As to the Commons.  
First, I agree they ought to have Writs of Election; the policy of that is to avoid the people's meeting and assembling together without the Licence of the King.  
I agree also, that the Writs ought to be in the ancient Forms, that is to avoid the King's single alteration of things anciently attending Parliaments, without the consent of the people. Now as to the first, this meeting of the people was with the King's Consent and Licence, witness Sir George Booths Contest, by the King's Order, for the same; so that there is no prejudice to the King on that side.  
As to the Form of the Writ, it was by consent of all, and so no prejudice or innovation upon the people on the other side; than it follows, Consensus tollit Errorem; if all parties concerned agree, who is to find fault?  
Further, a Parliament made up in substance according to the Laws of the Land, is a good Parliament, though it may be defective in the compliment of circumstances, witness the Parliament holden at Coventry, 6 H. 4. An. 1404. to the calling of which Parliament Writs went out; in which Writs was contained that no Lawyer should be chosen, which made the Writs victious, to abridge the people in their liberty to elect; yet there were some Acts made at the Parliament which continued in force, which proves that Circumstances (which are of right to be observed) are not fatal to Parliament proceed, though omitted. And under this head also comes that of the King's personal or representative presence in the being of a Parliament.  
But further, without doubt the King's consent to the Act for that purpose, has made all whole, and has made that Parliament from the beginning of their first meeting, though till that time they were not a legal Parliament, such Energy and strong relation has oftentimes the Acts of a King: like this case; Lords and Commons make an Ordinance, which naturaily can continue but during their sitting; then the King dissolves them, the Ordinance thereby is become of no force; yet if after the dissolution of the Parliament the King grants his Royal assent, it's now become revived and an Act; such an influence has the Royal assent upon Parliament-proceeding, and according to this it's adjudged in 29 Edw. 3. 4. b & 39 Edw. 3. 7. This I take to be a stronger case, that the Act of the King should revive that which was dead; that it should make good that which was absolutely void, and that in point of substance; then that it should confirm that which was but voidable at most, and that in a point of circumstance only.  
Besides, the legality of a Parliament is not to be disputed by subjects, if the King assents to it; it's to be tried only by itself, or a succeeding Parliament; and therefore in 33 Hen. 6. 17. An Act mentioning itself made by the consent of the King and the Commons (omitting the Lords) was holden by Fortescue chief Justice for the present, to be a good Act; for, (says he) we will be advised before we go about to Null an Act of Parliament; but it's best to refer it to the next Parliament.  
Besides, if we consider what great things a Parliament can do, with the King's assent, (provided it extend not to prerogative and such substantials) we cannot doubt of the legality of this; and whereas it's said that the forms of Writs etc.  be altered but by Parliament; this Parliament has salved that and all other Circumstantial, defects by the Act of Confirmation; which if otherwise, ought not to be questioned but in Parliament, their do there being to us, Phoebi or acula, vera & fixa.  
I shall conclude with a Case cited by my Lord Cook in his 4th Institutes, (a Book our Author is acquainted with) but I wonder he miss it: He tells there of a Parliament man, who for writing in dishonour of the Parliament, was committed to the Tower for six months, and fined 500 Marks.  
Now if a Parliament man (who has more liberty allowed then such whifflers as our Author) was fined so much for writing in dishonour, only; what shall be done with this seditious Desperado, that writes in destruction of the Parliament? but sub judice lis est.