The Levelers Leveled

THE LEVELLERS LEVELLED.

I T was the Apostle Paul's Doctrine; and that he likewise gave in special charge to Titus c. 3. 1. Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and Powers, to obey Magistrates, to be ready to every good work: But this Doctrine now is little less then Heresy, and mere Arbitrary Tyranny, in the opinion of a New Generation of Levellers, and seditious Sectaries, sprung up among us since the Wars; the very persons of whom Peter prophesied in the latter times; Who despise Dominion; presumptuous, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of Dignities, and the things that they understand not, and shall perish in their own corruption. How active and industrious these Fire-brands of Sedition have been by writing and petitioning to extirpate Monarchy and Magistracy, Nobility and Gentry; and how they move every stone to pull down the House of Peers, and level the Lord's to the Commoners, by bringing them down into the Commons-House to sit and vote together with them as one, or else not to sit or vote at all, is visible to most; and how many thousands of ignorant simple people they have engaged to confederate with them in this pernicious design, hath been already discovered in part to the Houses; the false suggestions and dangerous consequences whereupon it is grounded, I shall succinctly discover, to undeceive the seduced people, and take them off from such a desperate attempt, which will prove destructive both to the Parliament, and themselves too in conclusion.

These Lilburnists and Levellers pretend, that it is not fit the Lord's should fit and vote in a distinct House by themselves, as they have done of latter times, but that they and the Commons should now sit all together in one House, (to wit, the House of Commons, the ONELY SOVERAIGNE POWER OF THIS KINGDOME, as they style it) as they did of old at first, and be new molded into a single House; that so Bills, Ordinances, Votes, and businesses of Parliament might pass with more expedition upon one Debate and Vote, and not stay the Debates and Votes of two distinct Houses ere they be consummate. And because the Lord's are but few in number, the sons of Conquest, not of election, representing only themselves, but not the Commons of England, represented only by the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses chosen and entrusted by them; therefore it is just and reasonable the Lord's should be levelled and brought down to the Commons House to sit and Vote with them; and not enjoy any distinct or negative Votes among themselves, as now they do.

To answer these pretences, I shall not insist upon the Lord's ancient and undoubted Right to sit and Vote in Parliaments long before the Conquest, from the first beginning of Parliaments to this present: Nor on their activity and readiness in all ages, to oppose with the loss and hazard of their estates, heads, lives, the encroachments of our Kings upon the Subjects Liberties, and vindicate the people's freedoms, in the Reigns of King John, Henry the 3. Edward 2. Richard 2. and other oppressive Princes, against whose invasions of the Kingdoms Laws and Rights they have ever been the principal Bulwarks; and of late the chief procurers of this present Parliament, and undertakers of our defensive war against the King, wherein the Earl of Essex, Lord Brook, Lord Willoughby, and others of them first appeared; Nor yet to debate their ancient and undoubted power and right of Judicature in civil and criminal cases of Commoners as well as Peers, in all times and Ages since there were Parliaments, of which there are infinite presidents in Histories, Parliament Rols and Journalls, and sundry disclaimers of the whole House of Commons of being Judges in Parliament, as in 1. R. 2. Rot. Parl. n. 38, 39, 40. 1 H. 7. Rot. Parl. n. 79. and Plac. Coronae. nu. 11. to 17. and other Rolls: I shall wholly address myself to answer such Allegations as are most pertinent, touching the point of reducing both Houses into one, in such manner as is projected.

First then I answer, what though it be probable by Modus tenendi Parliamentum, that the King, Lord's and Commons anciently sat in one room, and went in at one common door in King Edwards the Confessors time; yet it follows not, they all sat and voted together, as one entire house: no more then it follows; all the Judges and Officers of the Kings Courts of Chancery, Kings Bench and Common Pleas sit in one common Room, and go in at one door, at Westminster Hall: therefore they all sit, judge and hear causes together, and are or ought to be reduced to one Court; and do not judge, and hear causes severally, nor ought to do it: there being no one Author or record of credit extant, which proves directly, that the Lord's and Commons did ever sit, vote, or act together as one entire house, and pass Billes, Judgments, Ordinances, Orders, by one undivided and united Vote; the thing which should be proved.

Secondly, when, by whom, and upon what occasion the Houses first came to be divided, is altogether uncertain, for ought appears by history or records. Sir Edward Cook conceives, that both houses sat together in 5. & 6. Ed. 3. and that about that ime, or a little after, they were first divided, when the Commons first chose a Speaker. But the Records of these Parliaments do not necessarily warrant his conjecture herein; since they speak only of the meeting together of the three Estates in Parliament, (as now they oft times do, on the first and last day of the Parliament, at conferences, passing Bills, and upon other occasions) not of their sitting and voting together. For my part, I conceive the division of the Houses far more ancient, for this reason, because our historians writing of our ancientest Parliaments, as well before as after the Conquest, do many times make mention only of our Kings, Archbishops, Bishops, Earls and Barons present in them, not of any Elders of the people, Senators, Knights or Commons to represent the people, (which at other times they speak of) as present in our Parliaments, and Councils: occasioned only as I conceive, by the distinction of their sitting places and debates. unless it be granted, that many of our ancient Parliaments were held without Commons, Knights, and Burgesses, (as some affirm) but never without Peers & Lord's; which would much invalid the Commons authority, and that supreme jurisdiction of theirs which the Levellers now plead for. But admit they sat together in one room in Edward the third his reign, yet it is cleart o me, their debates, votes, judgment, were long before distinct as now they are, by that memorable passage in Stephanides (transcribed out of him by Master Selden; concerning the jugdment given in Parliament at Northampton against Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury, in the eleventh year of King Henry the second, Anno Domini 1165. Where the Bishops, Earls, and all the Barons of England, resolving upon the Kings motion there, that Becket refusing to appear in Parliament, upon summons to answer the complaint against him, being neither hindered by sickness, nor sending any reasonable excuse for his not appearing, should forseit all his moveable goods, and be at the Kings mercy: thereupon there arose a difference between the Bishops, and Barons, which of them should pronounce the judgment: the Barons alleged, that the Bishops ought to pronounce it, because he was a Bishop, and they but Laymen; the Bishops Ecclesiastical persons, and his fellow Priests, and Bishops. To which one of the Bishops answered; it belonged to the Barons and not to them, because it was no Ecclesiastical but Secular judgment; that they sat there as Barons, not as Bishops: you are Barons, and we are Barons: here we are Peers. But you insist in vain upon the reason of our Order: for if you regard in us our Ordination, you ought likewise to consider the same in him: Now in this that we are Bishops, we cannot judge our Archbishop and Lord. The King hearing this controversy about pronouncing the judgment, was moved, & thereupon this controversy ceased: and the Bishop of Winchester, (then Henry de Bloys) being at last enjoined to give the judgment, pronounced it against his will. There being no mention, speech, or inter locution of the Commons in this whole Parliamentary debate or censure, but only of the King, Bishops and Barons; it makes it more then probable to me, that even then the Houses were divided; at least, that they sat and voted not together but distinctly: and if the Commons were present, yet it is most clear, the Barons only were the Judges, and gave and pronounced the sentence in Parliament, even without the Commons. Of which more in some other Treatise.

Thirdly; admit, the division of the Houses no ancienter then King Edw. the third, yet their division being made at first upon good grounds, to prevent confusion and delays, and to pass things with more mature advise and deliberation upon double debates, and second cogitations, and continued constantly ever since upon good grounds, without any alteration oropposition. And this division of them being ratified and approved by the Law and custom of Parliament, The Parl. Rolls, and Journalls, yea confirmed by sundry Acts of Parliament, and among others by 31. H. 8. c. 10. 33. H. 8. c. 21. 3. Jac. c. 1. it can be no way just, nor safe, nor convenient, nor honorable, to confound them both together now, in the manner propounded, yea a clear dissolving of the Parliament being contrary to the Act for its continuance, & a breach of the solemn League, Covenant, and all engagements, to obey and defend BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT; and a great dishonor to to the Lord's, who cannot without apparent perjury and ignominy submit thereto: without whose full and free consents, and the Kings too by special act of Parliament, it is no ways feasible, if by it,

Fourthly, it will introduce a world of contradictions, confusions, absurdities, and inconveniences, as these particulars evidence. First, both these houses, as they are now divided, have, (and always since their divisions have had) their several distinct Speakers, and one chief cause of the division (as Sir Edward Cook conceives) was the Commons choosing of a continual Speaker. If then you will unite both Houses into one; you must have either these two Speakers in that one house (which would breed confusion and disturbance, and be like two heads upon one man's neck;) Or but one, both for Lord's & Commons, who then cannot debate nor Vote distinctly, but jointly with the Commons. If but one, then which of the two shall be the man? Not the Commons Speaker, because they had no Speaker at all before the Houses were divided, & so can claim none when reunited. And the Lord's Speaker being of greatest antiquity, Dignity, and Superior to the Commons in place and degree, ought of right to be preferred, and enjoy the Speakers place upon the reducement. And how a Peer; who is not elected either a Member or Speaker by the Commons, can by the Law of the Land, or custom of Parliament be Speaker of, and for the Commons, as their mouth and representative; or a mere Commoner, a Speaker to the Lord's to represent them, transcends my Law and skill; and will require 7 years time to settle and resolve. Secondly, if the Houses be united, then how and where shall the Lord's, and their assistants sit, and how and where the Commons? If all promiscuously, this would unlord, unpeere them, and make the meanest Commoner their equal: If distinct, then why not in distinct Houses still, as well as Classes and Seats? Or shall the Lord's sit covered and the Commons sit bare, as now they doat meetings and conferences of both Houses? This would be but ill Physic for the Commons this winter season, and too great a penance to such of them who have crazy heads, and weak legs, to stand bare so long, and some of their spirits (especially those who are the Levellers best friends) I doubt are so high, they would hardly brook such a penance and daily observance. Thirdly, If the Houses be reduced into one, then their manner of voting and dividing being distinct and different, as all know: the one by a general Ay, and No; the other by a particular Content and not content, beginning at the puny Lord: the one determined by dividing the House, to take the Poll; the other without dividing: the one having no power to enter a Protestation of dissent, the other enjoying it: the one power to vote by Proxy, the other only in person without proxy: then whether shall both retain these their differences still in voting, which will bring absolute confusion, and much delay: or else the Lord's vote as the Commons do, or the Commons as the Lord's? If the Lord's only as Cōmoners, that were a disparagement and disadvantage to them, and a means to deprive them of their privileges and votes as Peers, the Commons now having above twenty to one for number. If the Commons shall vote as Lord's, that would make them Peers; and make each Vote if given particularly by the poll, & the entering of protestations, sp • nd above half their time. Fourthly, if both houses should be mingled together, then the Lord's alone must be judges, and give Oaths and judgment as now they do, in writs of Error and other causes, with which the Commons are not to intermddle; or the Lord's and Commons jointly. If the Lord's alone, then why should both Houses be united, or they the only Judges in the Commons House, or presence, which their greatness doubtless would not well digest? If Lord's and Commons jointly, this would subvert and alter the ancient proceedings and judgments of Parliament, and give the Commons a new power of Judicature and giving Oaths, and reversing errors, they never claimed nor enjoyed.

Fifthly, if the Houses be thus confounded, then what will become of their distinct Servants, Officers, Clerks, Doorekeepers, &c? Shall both continue? that were a superfluity and needless charge: Shall one of them be discharged? then whether the Lord's on Commons? and whether the black Rod will not be quite casheered with the Lord's house? will be a great question, and require much time to resolve. Sixthly, if both Houses be new-modelled into one, then what will become of all the Assistants of the Lord's house? they certainly must be cashiered, especially such who are only employed as Messengers to the Commons House, of which there will be no use at all when they sit together. Eighthly, what will become of the form of endorsing all Bills sent from the Commons to the Lord's: Soit bail all Seignieurs: les Seigneurs ont assentus: and the old form of reading Bills thrice in both Houses ere they can pass them; and so of our Acts of Parliament? In respect therefore of all these several contradictions and inconveniencies which can hardly be reconciled, and no ways altered, but by special Act of Parliament (if by it) without dissolving the present Parliament, to please a company of seditious ignorant Lovellers and Sehismaticks, who never pondered all these particulars; it can neither be convenient nor safe to confound both Houses together into one, as is endeavored and desired.

Fifthly, the Act of 16. Caroli Regis, entitled▪ An Act for the preventing of incōveniences, happening by the long intermissions of Parliaments; (made with abundance of care and pains this Parliament, before the King's departure) distinguesheth the house of Commons from the house of Lord's; prescribes an oath in haec verba, to the Lord Chancel our, Lord Keeper, and Commissioners of the great Seal of England, You shall swear, that you shall truly and faithfully issue out, and send abroad all Writs of Summons to Parliament FOR BOTH HOUSES. And in default thereof, enacts, That THE PEERS of this Realm shall be enabled and ENJOYNED to meet in the old Palace of Westminster, AT THE USUALL PLACE THERE, on the third Monday on November: and that they, or any twelve or more of them THEN AND THERE ASSEMBLED shall issue out Writs in usual form, under the hands and seals of twelve or more of them, to the respective Sheriffs, and other Officers, for the electing of Knights, Citizens and Burgesses of Parliament. That on the third Monday in January, and second Tuesday in March, ALL AND EVERY THE PEERS OF THE REALM shall make their appearance and assembly at THE PALLACE aforesaid; and shall EACH OF THEM be liable unto such pains and censures for his and their NOT APPEARING AND SERVING then and THERE in Parliament, as if be or they had been summoned by Writ under the great Seal of England, and had not appeared and served, and to such further pains and censures as BY THE REST OF THE PEERS in Parliament assembled THEY SHALL BE JUDGED UNTO: And that the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses assembled IN THE COMMONS HOUSE of Parliament, shall be liable to such pains and censures as he or they shall be adjudged unto.

After w ^ch it enacts, That neither the HOUSE OF PEERS nor THE HOUSE OF COMMONS shall be adjourned within fifty days at least, after the meeting thereof, unless it be by the free consent OF EVERY THE SAID HOUSES RESPECTIVELY: And that the PEERS assembled in Parliament, may FROM TIME TO TIME choose and declare such person TO BE SPEAKER FOR THE SAID PEERS as they shall think fit: And that the said Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, shall and may FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THEIR ASSEMBLY IN PARLIAMENT, choose and declare one of themselves to be SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, as they shall think fit: Which said SPEAKERS, as well for the said PEERS as HOUSE OF COMMONS RESPECTIVELY, shall be perfect and conpleat Speakers FOR THE SAID HOVSES RESPECTIVELY, and shall have as full and large power, jurisdiction and privileges, to all intents and purposes, as any SPEAKER OR SPEAKERS OF EITHER OF THE SAID HOUSES RESPECTIVELY heretofore have had and enjoyed. Therefore the levelling and reducing of both Houses into one, or abolishing the Lord's House and Peerage, will utterly null and repeal this Act, (the best that was ever yet made for the Kingdoms safety, and Parliaments advantage) and deprive both Parliament, Kingdom and people of all future benefit by it, (which I wish our Levellers and Lilburnists seriously to consider) and likewise null and repeal the Act to prevent Inconveniences which may happen by the untimely adjourning, proroguing or dissolving of this present Parliam. An. 17. Car. which enacts, That THE HOUSE OF PEERS shall not at any time or times be adjourned during the present Parliament, unless it be BY THEMSELVES OR THEIR OWN ORDER: And in like manner, that THE HOUSE OF COMMONS shall not at any time or times during this Parliament, be adjourned, unless it be BY THEMSELVES, OR BY THEIR OWN ORDER. Which I hope both Houses, as they desire their own continuance, and being of the Parliament, will well advise of; and all those whom Lilburn or his Emissaries have seduced to engage against the House of Lord's, or level them to the Commons.

Sixthly, admit the Houses might without any inevitable mischiefs and contradictions, be modeled, and united into one, yet to bring down the Lord's into the Commons House, to sit and Vote like Commons with them, is no ways tolerable, or to be thought on but with indignation, for these reasons. First, because the whole Commons House it self▪ when they present their Speaker to the King and Lord's (which will be abolished by this union) or when any Bills are to be passed by the Royal Assent, upon the beginning and ending of every Parliament, and upon some other special occasions have always used to go up and wait upon the House of Lord's in person, yea to stand bare at their Barre, and to send their Members in person up to the Lord's upon any Message, Cōference, or other occasion; but never did the whole House of 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Peers in any age come down in person to the Commons House, or any Peers of late bring Messages to them, but only send them by some Assistants, as Judges, Masters of Chancery, &c. Therefore now to talk of bringing down the House of Peers to sit with the Commons in their House, (all one, as to reduce a Noble man's Dining-room to his Hall or Kitchen, and level the roof and upper rooms of a house with the lowermost floor) is such a dishonor and affront to the Lord's, that none but degenerate and ignoble spirits can so much as hear or think of it with patience, nor no Peer resent it but with just scorn and contempt, and rather die then consent unto it, without whose consents it cannot be done without both Houses ruin: And to bring up the House of Commons to sit and Vote jointly with the Peers, would be to advance the Commons▪ above their degree, not level the Lord's; to make some men Lord's before they are Gentlemen, & every Commoner no less then a Lord, which would too much puff and bladder them with pride, and make them slight those whom they represent▪ who being but Commoners, cannot be represented by Peers, or any sitting and Voting in the House of Peers, by the true fundamental Law and Custom of Parliaments, as Sir Edward Cook resolves. Secondly, if the Lord's should be brought down into the Commons House, (which is much like the reducing of the head and shoulders of the natural body, into the belly or legs, which would make a Monster and destroy the man) there would be no room for them, their Officers and Assistants, unless enlarged and metamorphosed into another form. Thirdly, If the Lord's must be brought down into the Commons House, then the King and Prince as well as they, or else they must be totally excluded the Parliament, or sit alone by themselves in the House of Lord's, without any Lord's to attend them▪ An indignity which no King or Prince can brook, and no modest Commoner seriously think of but with detestation; nor Lord, nor King consent to, but by force and violence; and without their voluntary consents it will not be valid, but destructive.

Seventhly, The false pretext for it, of expediting Bills, Ordinances, and Votes, is an absurd and ignorant fancy of overhasty spirits, who would act all things in a hurry without good deliberation: For first, nothing ought to be done in Parliament but upon full and mature debate and deliberation of all the circumstances and probable consequences of it in future time (a thing now seldom considered:) Diu deliberandum quod semel statuendum, &, Festina lente, are safe rules in Parliament, especially in passing public Acts and Ordinances, in making War or Peace, or any National Leagues and Agreements. Secondly, Hasty Dogs bring forth blind Whelps: and hasty Votes, over sudden Councils and Motions, lame, blind, contradictory, unjust, and inconsiderate Orders, Ordinances, Acts, which must either be corrected, supplied, or repealed by Additionals, of which we have had too many experiments since this Parliament; which in many Votes, Ordinances, Orders, and Impeachments hath made more haste then good speed; and Voted sometimes both absurdities and impossibilities (witness the Commons Votes, for the Trial of Mac-Guire and Mac-Mohun in the Kings-Bench, the very first day of the Terme, before any Indictment drawn, found, or any Jury summoned to find it; for the Trial of Judge Jenkins in the Kings-Bench, by a short day, for Treason alleged to be committed in Wales, before any Indictment found in the Country, or removed into Court, and the like;) which I only mention to satisfy and answer the Objectors, nor to defame the House or Houses, whose Honors and Reputations have been much blemished, through the inconsiderate rashness of some ignorant Members, who posted on such Votes and Impeachments. Thirdly, this dividng the Houses will breed infinite disorder and confusion, not expedition, in their proceedings, as the premises manifest, and destroy their very forms and method; upon which ground Sir Edward Cook writes they were first divided. Fourthly, it will be a great retarding and obstruction to public Justice, especially in Writs of Error, and all such things which the Lord's may dispatch or judge without the Commons House; where many hundreds of Petitions and businesses heard and Voted above seven years since, do yet stick without report, or transmission to the Lord's (to the great dishonor and scandal of their proceedings and speedy justice) which had been dispatched and ended many years past, had they first petitioned to the Lord's for redress. So as the Lord's House is clearly no cause of delay, but the Commons rather, through their long debates or want of method, which debates would be increased and lengthened by adding of the Lord's unto them, who can now debate and determine things apart, and resolve two or three things, or more, whiles the Commons are debating one: And therefore, if delay be the only cause of reducing the Lord's House to the Commons, the Commons certainly are rather to be reduced then the Lord's, and may be better spared of the two (even by Lilburnes and his Confederates Libells and Petitions ) their delays being not a quarter to one so many, nor one quarter so long as the Commons, as themselves must and do acknowledge. Eighthly, this whole design is a direct breach of the solemn League and Covenant, a subversion of the Law and Custom of Parliaments, a device to destroy both Houses, under pretext of reducing them into one; an engine to dissolve this present, and all future Parliaments; to alter the fundamental Laws and Government of this Kingdom, to unking the King, unprince the Prince, unlord the Lord's, and quite destroy their House (almost effected by expulsions, and impeachments of most of their Members by degrees, who have scarce enough left to make up an house, which it is high time for them & the Commons to observe;) yea, a project to extirpate Monarchy and Nobility, and set up a popular Anarchy and Polarchy: And therefore whoever hath plotted and fomented it, is more guilty of high Treason then Strafford, Canterbury, or the Gun-powder Traitors, and deserves a severer punishment then they underwent, even by the hands of the Parliament itself, and all that are well-wishers to Parliaments or Kingdom, though no friends to Peers.

Ninthly, this division of the Houses is; First, a great honor to the Parliament and Houses, savouring of greater Majesty, State, and Order, then their joining into one, and giving every estate its du • place and rank. Secondly, a great ease and benefit to the Subject, who may make his Addresses and Petitions to either at his election for relief. Thirdly, a great dispatch and expedition to all public affairs, one House fitting and preparing them for the Debat, & concurrence of the other, at one and the same time, as Committees of each House prepare and expedite businesses for the whole House. Fourthly, a means of more speedy justice, by the Commons preparing of Articles and evidence for complaints and impeachments, presented by them to the Lord's, whiles they are dispatching other businesses; and their hearing Writs of Error, and other causes, whiles the Commons are upon other debates; which they could not do in one house, but jointly together, and successively, not with so quick dispatch, and such good order as now. Fifthly, a thing very necessary and advantageous to the Kingdom and people, and safest for the Parliament, in that the Lord's upon their second debates and conferences with the Judges and others, many times amend and rectify divers errors, imperfections, and mistakes in the over-hasty Votes, yea & deliberate Orders, Ordinances, Bills and Declarations of the Commons, which the Commons acknowledge by their assents unto their amendments; and oft times the Commons stay some Votes, Orders, Bills, Ordinance, sent down to them by the Lord's; and their several amendments and dislikes, with the conferences and debates occasioned thereupon, and second considerations of Businesses, Votes, Ordinances, Orders, Bills, Declarations, and the like, make them more profitable, complete and valid, and less liable to exceptions and evasions then else they would have been. In all which respects, this division of the Houses, and the Lord's and Kings negative voices rightly considered and used, are not only convenient, but expedient and absolutely necessary for the public good, whatever Lilburn and his ignorant Levellers fancy to the contrary.

I shall therefore close up this with that wholesome and seasonable advice of Solomon, Prov. 24. 21, 22. My son fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with those WHO ARE GIVEN TO CHANGE; For their calamity shall rise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruin of them both?

There is only one Objection to be removed, wherewith I shall arm the Levellers, that so I may leave nothing unanswered, that may be hereafter insisted on. And that is, this passage in Modus tenendi Parliamentum, We must know, that for the granting of such help and aid (to the King) it hehooveth THAT ALL THE PEERS OF THE PARLIAMENT AGREE: And we must understand, that two Knights which come to the Parliament for the Shiers and Countries out of which they come, have a greater voice in Parliament TO GRANT, then THE GREATEST EARL in England: And after the same manner the Procters for the Clergy, or Clerks of the Convocation-house for one Bishopric, have a greater voice in Parliament, if they all agree, then the Bishop himself: And this is true in all things which ought to be granted or denied to the party, or are to be done therein. And this is manifest, BECAUSE THE KING MAY HOLD A PARLIAMENT WITH THE COMMOMALTY AND COMMONS OF THE KINGDOM WITHOUT BISHOPS, EARLS AND BARONS; yet so, as they be summoned to the Parliament, although no Bishop, Earl or Baron come according to their summons: BECAUSE IN TIMES PAST, NEITHER WAS THERE BISHOP, EARL OR BARON; and yet EVEN THEN KINGS KEPT THEIR PARLIAMENT. But it is far otherwise on the other side; for though the Commonalty, to wit, Laity and Clergy were summoned to the Parliament (as of right they ought to be) yet for some certain causes they would not come; as if they did pretend, that the King did not govern them as he ought, and in speciality point out the Articles in which he misgoverned them, as he ought; TUNC PARLIAMENTUM NULLUM EST OMNINO; then there is no Parliament at all, though all the Archbibishops, Bishops, Earls and Barons, and and all the Peers should be present with the King: And therefore it behooveth that all things which ought to be affirmed or informed, granted or done by the Parliament, should be granted by the Commonalty of the Parliament; which consists of three degrees or kinds assembled in Parliament, to wit, of the Practors of the Clergy, the Knights of the Shires, the Citizens and Burgesses, who represent the whole Commonalty of England, and not of Noble men; because everyone of them is for his own proper person present at the Parliament, and for no other: Which Master John Vowel in his Order and Usage how to keep a Parliament; seconds in these words:

If the King in due order have summoned all his Lord's and Barons, and they will not come; or if they come, they will not yet appear; or if they come and appear, and will not do no • yield to any things THEN THE KING WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COMMONS MAY ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH ANY ACTS OR LAWS WHICH ARE AS GOOD, SUFFICIENT AND EFFECTUALL, AS IF THE LORD'S HAD GIVEN THEIR CONSENTS. But on the contrary, if the Commons be summoned, and will not come; or coming will not appear, or appearing will not consent to do anything, alleging some just, weighty or great cause, the King in those cases cannot with the Lord's devise, make or establish any Law. The reasons are these; When Parliaments were first began and ordained, there were no Prelates or Barons of the Parliament, and the temporal Lord's were very few or none, and then the King and his Commons did make a full Parliament; which authority was NEVER YET ABRIDGED. Again, every Baron in Parliament doth represent his own person, and speaketh in the behalf of himself alone; but in the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, are represented the Commons of the whole Realm; and every of these giveth consent, not only for himself, but for all those also for whom he is sent: And the King with the consent of the Commons, HAD EVER A SUFFICIENT AND FULL AUTHORITY TO MAKE, ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH GOOD AND WHOLSOME LAWS FOR THE COMMON-WEALTH OF THE REALM: Wherefore the Lord's being lawfully summoned, and yet refusing to come, sit or consent in Parliament, CANNOT BY THEIR FOLLY ABRIDGE THE KING OR THE COMMONS OF THEIR LAWFULL PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT. So he.

From which two passages it may be probably inferred; first, that a Parliament may now be held, and Acts and Laws made by the King and Commons alone, without the Lord's; but not by the King and Lord's without the Commons; and so their sitting in Parliament is not simply necessary, so as they may quite be taken away and reduced to the Commons house. Secondly, that they have no negative voice, but ought to assent to whatever the Commons shall vote to be good and necessary for the Commonwealth.

To which I answer; first, that the compiler of the first Treatise, is both unknown, & the time whē it was first compiled, not so ancient as is imagined by some hundreds of years: It is said in the preface, it was first composed in Edward the Confessor's time, and shown to William the Conqueror, & approved and used by him: but he that made this Preface to it (adds) That it was used IN THE TIMES OF HIS SUCCESSORS KINGS OF ENGLAND, and therefore lived long after the Conquerors time) and so writes but at random, not of his own knowledge, there being no History nor Record to warrant any such thing: and by his Discourse touching the Members places and sitting in Parliament, manner of Marshalling the Bishops and others, and by other passages, it should seem, a great part of this Treatise is but of late composure: As for its exemplification by King Henry the second, and his sending it into Ireland, and King Henry the second, and his sending it into Ireland, and King Henry the fourth his exemplification of it there, I find no warrant for it, but Sir Edward Cooks assertion, and that grounded upon a bare report from another: these exemplifications (for ought I can learn) being neither of them extant, nor yet so much as once mentioned by Master Richard Bolton (a great Antiquary) in his Collection of the Statutes of Ireland: Besides, the election of two Knights to serve for every County, two Citizens for every City, and two Burgesses for every Burrough, and the Procurators of the Clergy, cannot be proved by any History or Records extant, to be formally chosen by Writ, and sent to the Parliament, in Edward the Confessors reign; nor that all those assistants w ^ch this Treatise mentions did then sit or were present in Parliaments, in such manner & form as is expressed in this Treatise: Yea, the very objected passage, & reason therein rendered, proves itself to be of pun • er date then the Confessors or Conquerors days. Secondly, admit it as ancient as the Confessor or Conqueror, then it is apparent, that even in those times the Houses either sat not, at least voted not both together, as is pretended: For first, this Treatise distinguisheth the Bishops, Earls and Barons, as distinct ranks and degrees of Parliament, both from Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, throughout the Treatise: Secondly, it distinguisheth them in the times and days of their calling in the beginning of the Parliament, and in their fines for not appearing: Thirdly, in the charge the King gives to them: Fourthly, in the places and manner of their sitting, all the several orders of Peers, and Assistants of the Lord's house being mentioned, as sitting together, without any Knights, Citizens or Burgesses sitting among them. And he adds, that between the Bishops, Earls, Barons, all must keep their places, and the Steward of England is to look to this, THAT NONE SIT BUT AMONG HIS PEERS AND EQUALS: Fifthly, he subjoins, That the Justices of England are no Justices in Parliament, unless so far forth as new power shall be assigned and given them then by the KING AND THE PEERS of the Parliament: That the Peers of the Parliament are to examine Petitions BY THEMSEVES: That the King shall assign five skillful Clerks of the Parliament: the first whereof shall be Minister to serve the Bishops; the second, the Procters of the Clergy; the third, the Earls and Barons; the fourth, the Knights of the Shire; the fifth, the Citizens and Burgesses: who shall write and register their several answers and doubts to the King; that all doubtful cases are to be put in writing, and delivered to the Clerk of every degree; that so every DEGREE BY IT SELF MAY GOE THERE BY IT SELFE AND DEBATE IT, and then bring their ANSWER AND ADVICE IN WRITING; and if any discord arise, that the business be handled and amended by all the Peers of the Kingdom: And that none of all the Peers may depart from Parliament, unless he have obtained leave OF THE KING, and of ALL HIS PEERS. All which proves the devision and distinction of the Houses in that Age, in Votes and Debates.

Thirdly, both these Writers grant; First, that the Commons can do or conclude nothing without the Kings prefence and consent: Secondly, that all the Lord's ought to be summoned to the Parliament, and if they appear not, that they shall be amerced: Thirdly, that ALL PEERS OF THE REALME OUGHT TO AGREE TO WHAT IS GRANTED OR PASSED IN PARLIAMENT; so are their words: Therefore if all the Peers, or the major part of them disagree, no aid can be granted nor Act passed, by their own confessions: and by the same reason they affirm, that the King and Lord's, or either of them alone, without the Commons, can grant or enact nothing that is firm or stable; nor yet the Commons themselves without the Kings assent; they must of necessity grant, that the King and Commons without the Lord's can do nothing, that is binding to the Kingdom, the Lord's assent being as requisite as theirs, and they entrusted by the Laws, Statutes and Custom of the Realm, to consent and dissent in the granting of aids, and making Laws as well as the King and Commons, and have a share inboth as well as they.

Fourthly, the holding of a Parliament, granting of aids and making Laws by the King and Commons, without the Lord's, is only in one special case of obstinacy and extremity in the Lord's; which never yet fell out, nor is likely to happen: To wit, when the Lord's are all summoned to Parliament, and yet willfully refuse to appear, sit or agree to anything propounded by the King and Commons jointly, without giving a sufficient reason for their so doing: To conclude therefore from such a remote possibility of a case which never yet fell out, nor is likely to do, the necessity of the Lord's reducement at this present, or in future times to the House of Commons, or the abolition of the House of Peers, or their negative voice, is as great nonsense and frenzy, as to argue; that all the Lord's and Commons ought presently to be sent to Bedlam, because one of our Parliaments was styled, Insanum Parliamen • um, The mad Parliament, and they may possibly prove now as mad as the Parliament was then reputed; as they will do in good earnest, if they should go about to level the Lord's, and detrude them to the Commons house, as these mad Sectaries and Levellers would persuade them.

Fifthly, neither of these Writers were good Lawyers, Historians or Antiquaries versed in Parliament Records: for first, our Law-books are express in point, That no Law nor Act of Parliament can be made by the King and Commons without the Lord's concurrent assent, no more then by the King and Lord's without the Commons: And Sir Edward Cook (the greatest Lawyer in this latter age) is positive, in his 4. Inst. c. 1. (where he writes particularly of Parliaments) f. 25. There is NO ACT OF PARLIAMENT BUT MUST HAVE CONSENT OF THE LORD'S, the Commons, and royal assent of the King, as appeareth by RECORDS AND OUR LAW-BOOKS: Therefore this fancy of theirs, that the King and Commons may make Laws without the Lord's, is a clear mistake even in point of Law; which the very form and penning of all our Statutes ( Be it enacted by the King, &c. THE LORD'S SPIRITUALL AND TEMPORALL, and Commons in this present Parliament assemblea; and the like) refutes: Secondly, all our Historians and Antiquaries concur herein, That there can be no Parliament, nor ever was in any age since Parliaments were in England, held by the King and Commons alone without the Lord's; there being no such Parliament ever heard or read of, neither do these Authors instance in any one President; therefore this ground of their opinion, That in times past our Kings kept their Parliaments, when & before there were any B • shops or temporal Lord's, is a mere groundless assertion, contradicted by all our Antiquaries and Historians; which always make mention of Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Dukes, Princes, Earls, Lord's and Barons in our ancientest Parliaments, but no mention at all of any Knights of Shires, Citizens and Burgesses: Thirdly, all our Parliament Rolls contradict this fancy, that there can be no Act nor Ordinance of Parliament without the Lord's consent as well as the Commons; as is evident by the penning of all our printed Acts, and by 6 Edw. 3. Rot. Parl. n. 5. 17 E. 3. n. 59, 60. 43 E. 3. n. 3, & 10. 14 R. 2. n. 14, 15. 13 H. 4. n. 25. with many more: yea, the Lord's presence in Parliament hath at all times be • n so absolutely necessary and expedient; that our Parliaments from time to time have been adjourned from the day that they were first appointed to sit, till some few days after; upon this very reason, That ALL THE LORD'S ( by reason of the foul weather, shortness of summons, or some other occasion) were not yet come up to the Parliament, OR SOME OF THE LORD'S NOT COME; and the Declaration of the causes of calling the Parliament by the Lord Chancellor, or chief Justice, and all Parliamentary business deferred till their coming, (as well as because some of the Knights and Burgesses were not come, nor all the Writs for their elections returned:) upon which reason, and the absence of some Lord's, the first day of the Parliaments sitting, hath been oft adjourned, as the Parliament Rolls of 6 E. 3. nu. 1. 6 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 5, 6, 8, 9. 13 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 4. 15 E. 3. n. 5. 17 E. 3. n. 2. 6. 18 E. 3. n. 1, 2, 5. 20 E. 3. n. 5. 21 E. 3. n. 4. 22 E. 3. n. 1. 25 E. 3. n. 1. 29 E. 3. n. 4. 36 E. 3. n. 1. 37 E. 3. n. 1. 42 E. 3. n. 1. 50 E. 3. n. 1. 51 E. 3. n. 3. 1 R. 2. n. 1, 2 R. 2. n. 1. 3 R. 2. n. 1. 4 R. 2. n. 1. 5 R. 2. Parl. 1. n. 1. & Parl. 2. n. 1. 6 R. 2. Parl. 1. n. 1. & Parl. 2. n. 1. abundantly manifest, it being the custom of all former Parliaments to Debate, Vote and determine nothing but in FULL PARLIAMENT, when all, or the most part of the Members of both Houses were present, and not in a thin or empty House, when above half or three parts were absent: an innovation of dangerous consequence, brought in of later times, and fit to be redressed, for which some Parliaments and Parliamentary proceedings have been repealed and judged void by Parliament; especially when accompanied with any armed forces and violence, over-awing the Houses or their Members: to prevent which in former ages, by the ancient law and custom of Parliament, a Proclamation usually was and ought to be made at Westminster in the beginning of every Parliament THAT NO MAN, UPON PAIN TO LOSE ALL THAT HE HAD, SHOULD DURING THE PARLIAMENT, in London or Westminster, or the Suburbs, &c. wear any privy coat of Plate, OR GOE ARMED, or use any Games, Plays, Justs, and other pastimes, or showing Shewes during the Parliament: The reason whereof was, That the high Court of Parliament should not thereby be disturbed, nor the Members thereof (which are TO ATTEND the arduous and urgent business of the Church and Common-wealth) be thereby WITHDRAWN OR FORCED AWAY: as is apparent by 5 E. 3. nu. 5. 6 E. 3. nu. 2, 3. 6 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 2. 6 E. 3. Parl. 4. n. 4, 5. 13 E. 3. n. 1. 14 E. 3. n. 1. 14 E. 3. Parl. 21. n. 2. 15 E. 3. n. 2. 17 E. 3. n. 3. 20 E. 3. n. 1. 24 E. 3. n. 1. 25 E. 3. n. 5, 8. & Stat. 2. n. 4. A law and custom now fit to be revived. Fourthly, the very Writs of Summons for the Lord's, and of election of Knights, Citizens and Burgesses, refutes this gross mistake, requiring them all to appear personally in Parliament, on such a day, at such a place, and there to treat of the great and urgent affairs of the Realm, not only with the King himself, but cum Praelatis, MAGNATIBUS ET PROCERIBUS dicti Regni nostri; with the Prelates, Noblemen and Lord's of our said Realm: And therefore to dream of holding a Parliament, or making Laws without the Lord's, is a sign of an intoxicated brain. Fifthly, I find in 21 E. 3. nu. 58. 21 E. 3. n. 60. 37 E. 3. n. 12, 34. 50 E. 3. n. 12, 13. and the year-book of 39 E. 3. 7. b. that the King and Lord's in Parliament have made binding laws without the Commons, in some cases, but not the King and Commons without the Lord's: And in the Parliament of 6 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 7. the Commons had license to depart the parliament, but the Lord's were commanded to attend the King the next morning, to advise him: So that there is far more color in point of Presidents to prove, that the King and Lord's may make Laws and grants of aids, (as the Lord's did by and for themselves, 3 E. 3. n. 4, 5. & Parl. 2. 13 E. 3. n. 7.) without the Commons, then the King and Commons without the Lord's.

Sixthly, to this, that the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses in parliament, have a greater voice then the greatest Earl in parliament, because they represent the Countries, Cities and Burroughs from whence they come, and the Earl but himself.

I answer, first, that the reason holds not; for if this were true then every Knight, Citizen and Burgess that serves for the greatest Counties, Cities and Burroughs, should have a greater voice and power in the Commons house, then those that serve for lesser, and the smallest, because they represent, and assent, and vote for more Freeholders, Citizens and Burgessers then they; and by the same reason, the lesser and poorer Peers should have a lesser voice in the Peers house then the greatest and richest; which we know is false and absurd. Secondly, many Peers are of greater worth, value, estate and interest in relation to the Kingdom, then many poor Burroughs; and therefore by this reason their voices should be greater then both Burgesses serving for them. Thirdly, every Peer votes not only for himself, but for all the Nobility and whole State and Kingdom whereof he is a member, as well and as much as any Commoner; and therefore his voice is as great as theirs.

As to the Lord's negative voice in Parliament, I answer, first, the King, common Laws and Statutes of England, have ever allowed and acknowledged it in all Ages: Secondly, to deny them this Privilege, is to make the whole house of Peers meaner then the meanest Burgess, who hath a negative voice in all debates and votes that pass the Commons house; yea, to deny them to be freemen, and make them worse then the Philistine Lord's, who had a negative voice, 1 Sam. 29. 2, to 12 And to make them give their cōsents to whatever the Commons shall carry by their plurality of Votes (though it be but by one or two) is to set up Popish blind obedience, and implicit faith, yea, to destroy that liberty of conscience and judgment which the Objectors, Levellers and Army do pretend they fight, and so earnestly contest for. Thirdly, there are sundry presidents in our Parliament Rolls, of the Lord's negative voices in Parliaments; I shall instance only in two or three, The first in print, in the Statute of Marlbridge, 20 H. 3. c. 3. The Bishops and Clergy importuned the Lord's, that they would consent, that all such as were born afore Matrimony should be legitimate, as well as those who were born within Matrimony, as to the succession of Inheritance, for so much as the Church accepteth such for legitimate. And ALL THE EARLS AND BARONS WITH ONE VOICE answered, NOLUMUS, &c. WE WILL NOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF THE REALM which hither to have been used and approved. Here the Lord's negative voice hindered the alteration of the common Law, against the Bishops and Clergies importunate Vote to change it. So in the Parliament of 28 E. 3. nu. 25. the Commons desired, that any man attainted upon a writ of Oyer and Terminer, might bring his Attaint hanging the suits against the other. To this the answer on the Roll is, THE LORD'S WILL NOT ALTER THE ORDER OF THE LAW. The like negative answer you may read in 21 E. 3. n. 12, 29. 1 R. 2. n. 34, 69, 111. 2 R. 2. n. 57, 58. Parl. 1. & Parl. 2. n. 48. and sundry other Rols. Therefore to infer anything from these erroneous passages against the Lord's Louse, Votes, Judicature or negative voice, is but the blind following of the blind, and contradict all Parliament Records, History, Antiquity and Law itself, and approve and establish their authority, judicature and distinction from the Commoners.

Finally, it is evident by the Parliament Rols of 6 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 3. 13 E. 3. Par. 2. n. 7, 8. 15 E. 3. n. 6, 7, 9, 17, 18, 35, 37. 17 E. 3. n. 9, 11, 12, 59. 18 E. 3. n. 10. 21 E. 3. n. 4, 5, 70. 22 E. 3. n. 3, 4, 29. 22 E. 3. Parl. 2. n. 6, 7. 27 E. 3. n. 4. 29 E. 3. n. 10. 36 E. 3. n. 6, 7. 40 E. 3. n. 8. 42 E. 3. n. 7. 47 E. 3. n. 5, 6, 12. 50 E. • . n. 3, 8, 9, 10 14. 51 E. 3. n. 18, 19. 1 R. 2. n. 12, 13. 2 R. 2. n. 10, 23, to 29. 2 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 6. 4 R. 2. n. 9, to 16. 5 R. 2. n. 13, to 31. 6 R. 2. n. 9, 10, 1 • . 6 R. 2. parl. 2. n. 14, 15. 6 R. 2. parl. 3. n. 8, 9. 7 R. 2. n. 11. 7 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 10, 11. 13 R. 2. n. 6. 15 R. 2 n. 15. 16 R. 2. n. 6. 17 R. 2. n. 6, 17, 18 20 R. 2. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17. 21 R. 2. n. 8, 9, 16, to 21. That the Lord's and Commons in the Parliaments of King Edward the third, and Richard the second, were distinct both in their debates, con • ultations, councils, p • titions, votes, and places of sitting too, 50 E. 3. n. 3, 8. Sir John Knevet Chancellor of England, having declared the causes of calling that Parliament before the King, Lord's and Commons, willed them to go together, THE LORD'S BY THEMSELVES, AND THE COMMOS BY THEMSELVES, and speedily to consult and give answer. After which the Commons were willed to d • part TO THEIR ACCUSTOMED PLACE, b • ing the Chapter house of the Abbot of Westminster, whither they went. In which place they likewise sat, 2 R. 2. n. 10. & 4 R. 2. n. 9. And in 15 E. 3. n. 17. 47 E. 3. n. 5, 6. 50 E. 3. n. 8. 9. 51 E. 3. n. 18, 19. 1 R. 2. n. 12, 13, 14. 5 R. 2. n. 14. 6 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 15. 7 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 10, 11. The Commons came to THE LORD'S HOUSE, and required that certain of the Lord's, there named, WOULD VOUCHSAFE TO CONFER WITH THE COMMONS; whereupon they went to the Chamberlains chamber to confer with the Commons: And at other times they were appointed to go and consult with the Commons at some other place by the Lord's order. In 2 R. 2. Parl. 1. n. 23. the Commons required, that some five or six of the Lord's might be appointed to come and discourse with them; THE LORD'S DENIED THAT, saying, The same was the guise of two or three Parliaments before. But the use was, That the Lord's should among themselves choose a certain number, and the Commons the like, and that they should confer together, which they would do: for if the Commons would not dissever themselves, neither would they the Lord's: To the which order the Commons agreed. And 4 H. 4. n. 10. The Commons desiring the King that certain special Lord's might be assigned to treat with them about affairs for the common benefit of the Realm: It was condescended unto, with this protestation specially entered by the Kings command, that it ought not to be done of right OR CUSTOME, BUT ONELY OUT OF THE KINGS SPECIALL GRACE; which the Commons then acknowledged.

A pregnant evidence both of their distinct Houses and consultations, except only at private Committees and Conferences; Yea, the Commons had anciently such an high esteem of the Lord's fidelity, wisdom, abilities, council and experience, that in 15 E. 3. n. 17. The Commons pray that unto the Wednesday then next ensuing, the Articles they then presented to the King, might be committed to certain Earls, Barons, Bishops and other WISE MEN there named by them, TO BE AMENDED: which t •• e King granted. And in 13 E. 3. Parl. 1. n. 11. 21 E. 3. n. 5. 7 R. 2. Parl. 2. n. 19, 20. 17 R. 2. n. 17. and sundry other Rolls, The Commons profess THEIR INABILITY AND INSUFFICIENCY TO ADVISE THE KING in some MATTERS OF PEACE, WARRE, and safeguard of the Seas, for that THEY PASSED THEIR CAPACITY, AND UNDERSTOOD NOT THE TERMS OF THE CIVILL LAW, and some words in Truces: and therefore WHOLLY REFERRED THEMSELVES in these things to THE KING AND THE LORD'S, AND THE KINGS COUNSELL, to do therein as they should seem meet, being men of greater wisdom and experience in State-affairs of this nature, then themselves, in which they had little or no insight. And in 2 H. 4. n. 11. The whole house of Commons claim, and the King grants and confirms; and in 9 H. 4. n. 21. (entitled, The indemnity of the Lord's and Commons) The Lord's and Commons seriously claim this as a special ancient privilege belonging to both the Houses, to sit and debate upon things in Parliament severally by themselves in their distinct Houses, in the Kings absence (whose presence might over-awe them, and hinder their free debates;) which they both claimed, and the king confirmed to them IN ALL TIMES TO COME, and that no report should be made to the King of any debate, vote or aid granted, till the Lord's and Commons be all agreed, and that by THE SPEAKERS MOUTHES. Which ancient privilege so long since claimed, granted, confirmed and enjoyed ever since, not only proves the ancient distinction of both houses, but utterly subverts the Levellers project, who would strip both Houses at once of this great privilege, which the Commons deemed their greatest immunity (seeing they durst speak their minds, and vote more freely among themselves, then in the presence of the King and Lord's, for fear of incurring their displeasures) by reducing both houses into one. The serious consideration whereof, and of the premises, will I trust forever take them off from their dangerous absurd design of Levelling and reducing the Lord's House to the Commons, and lay the ignorant, illiterate prosecutors of it, level with the dust: the rather, because the King and Lord's in Parliament, have not only jointly and severally judged Commoners themselves in Parliament for such Treasons, & other misdemeanors as are properly triable in Parliament, not at the common Law, as is evident by infinite Presidents; but even Knights of the Shire, and other Members of the Commons House itself, in point of misdemeanors, undue Elections, and privileges of Parliament; as is apparēt by 16 R. 2. n. 6, 13, 14. S ^r Phillip Courtney's case, returned one of the Knights for the County of Devon, 17 R. 2. n. 23. Roger de Swinerton's case, 5 • . 4. n. 38. Thomas Thorp. his case, elected knight for the County of Rotland, whose election was heard, examined and adjudged by the Lord's in Parliament to be good, at the Commons request; and 31 H. 6. n. 25, to 30. Baron Thorp's case, Speaker of the Commons house, whose privilege was solemnly debated before, and adjudged against him by the Lord's in Parliament; who thereupon by the King's direction, commanded the Commons to choose and present a new Speaker; which they accordingly did the next day. Yea, the whole House of Commons in the Parliament of 1 H. 4. n. 79. Remonstrated to the King, and voluntarily confessed. That THE JUDGMENTS IN PARLIAMENT APPERTAIN ONELY TO THE KING AND TO THE LORD'S, and NOT UNTO THE COMMONS; and that THE KING AND LORD'S EVER HAD IN ALL TIMES, AND SHALL HAVE OF RIGHT THE JUDGEMENTS IN PARLIAMENT: And the King then declared to the Commons, that this Order shall be observed and kept IN ALL TIMES TO COME, and that in cases of Commoners and Members of the Commons house itself, as well as of Peers; as is clear by Thorp's case forecited, and by 5 H. 4. n. 71, 78. the printed Statute of 5 H. 4. c. 6. Richard Chedders case, and 4 H. 8. c. 8. Richard Strode his case, Burgess for Plimton in the County of Devon; where the King and Lord's at the Prayer and Petition of the Commons, provide remedies against the breaches of the privileges of the Commons themselves and their servants, which themselves alone had no sufficient power r • right and determine; the power of judicature being not in them, but in the King, Lord's and houses of Peers alone; who long before the Conquest had the power of Judicature, as is evident by Brampton, and Master Selden, in the case of Earl Goodwin, in a Parliament held in the year 1052. wherein Edward the Confessor appealed to THE EARLS AND BARONS against this Earl, for the murder of his Brother Alfred in these words, Domini COMITES & BARONES terrae, &c. Volo quod inter Nos in ista appellatione RECTUM JUDICIUM DECERNETIS & DEBITAM JUSTITIAM FACIATIS. And therefore it is the very extremity of injustice to deny them this their ancient Heredetary right, and privilege now, and transfer it to the Commons house, who never enjoyed it in any former Age, and can make no right, nor lawful claim unto it at this present.

Errata.

Page 3. line 1. H. 7. read H. 4.