It is true, that by a ſtatute, 16 Car. I. c. 1. it was enacted, that if the king neglected to call a parliament for three years, the peers might aſſemble and iſſue out writs for the chooſing one; and, in caſe of neglect of the peers, the conſtituents might meet and elect one themſelves. But this, if ever put in practice, would have been liable to all the inconveniences I have juſt now ſtated; and the act itſelf was eſteemed ſo highly detrimental and injurious to the royal prerogative, that it was repealed by ſtatute 16 Car. II. c. 1. From thence therefore no precedent can be drawn.
It is alſo true, that the convention-parliament, which reſtored king Charles the ſecond, met above a month before his return; the lords by their own authority, and the commons in purſuance of writs iſſued in the name of the keepers of the liberty of England by authority of parliament: and that the ſaid parliament ſat till the twenty ninth of December, full ſeven months after the reſtoration; and enacted many laws, ſeveral of which are ſtill in force. But this was for the neceſſity of the thing, which ſuperſedes all law; for if they had not ſo met, it was morally impoſſible that the kingdom ſhould have been ſettled in peace. And the firſt thing done after the king’s return, was to paſs an act declaring this to be a good parliament, notwithſtanding the defect of the king’s writs[1]. So that, as the royal prerogative was chiefly wounded by their ſo meeting, and as the king himſelf, who alone had a right to object, conſented to wave the objection, this cannot be drawn into an example in prejudice of the rights of the crown. Beſides we ſhould alſo remember, that it was at that time a great doubt among the lawyers[2], whether even this healing act made it a good parliament; and held by very many in the negative: though it ſeems to have been too nice a ſcruple. And yet, out of abundant caution, it was thought neceſſary to confirm it’s acts in the next parliament, by ſtatute 13 Car. II. c. 7, & c. 14.
- ↑ Stat. 12 Car. II. c. 1.
- ↑ 1 Sid. 1.
