a tyrannic slavery brought upon us by fellowsubjects at home. Tyrannic slavery did I say? Some may call it so, when in a free state, where the whole legislative only has a power to set down what punishment shall be inflicted on the several transgressions that are committed, a part of it assumes a power to inflict one of the severest punishments; when a few who are chosen to be trustees and guardians of the people's liberties, bring the people under their absolute power, and compel them to that which is against the right of their freedom. To be free from such force is the only security men have of their preservation, and reason bids them to look on those as enemies to their preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; and so conclude that they have a will and design to take away every thing else, since that freedom is the foundation of all the rest. From what I have here delivered concerning the power of imprisoning in the lower house, it is evident, I think, that if petitioning, as the Kentish gentlemen did, had been an illegal act, and the punishment enjoined by the law had been imprisonment, yet it belonged not to them to inflict that punishment, but to make application (as they have always done heretofore) to have the law executed against them. But if what they did was strictly agreeable to law, this will make their commitment a greater violation of the rights of the community. That it was so, will appear, when we consider, or that the supreme power may hinder them. to pray for that which they have not a right to deprive them of? Wherever therefore any government is established, there the natural right which people had to secure what was their own, must be so far at least continued, as to allow them a liberty to petition for what they think their right, because this is a privilege which they could not give up when they entered into society. And where there has been no government but the prince's will, even there this right has seemed so natural and agreeable to reason, that it has not been denied. This might be seen in all the arbitrary governments of the world. In the Roman empire Julius Cæsar, when he was in the beight of his power, and made himself perpetual dictator, permitted the people to represent the hardships that were put upon them, and pray for redress. And in the reign of other princes who exercised a despotick power, whilst the lex regia prevailed, rescribere principi, to petition the prince, and set forth their grievances, was allowed their subjects as the natural right of mankind. If this right be natural, the people of England, who have lost as little by entering into society, as any others, must have as just and ample a claim to it as any nation in the world. That they have a right to represent their sufferings, and pray for a relaxation of them, is evident from the opinions of our sages of the law, from what our kings have permitted and declared, and what has been declared and enThe second thing proposed, the Subject's acted in parliament.-Our books are very clear Right of Petitioning. This right I take to be in this matter. My lord chief justice Hobbart as large and ample a one, and what will as tells * us, That it is lawful for any subject little bear controverting, as any thing that we to petition the king for redress in an humble can think of; since it is justified by the law of manner; for (says he) Access to the sovereign nature, the practice of all states in the world, must not be shut up, in case of the subject's and is allowed by the laws of this land. It is distress.' This right was fully proved by the certain that nothing can be more agreeable to learned counsel at the trial of the seven bishops, nature, and a plainer dictate of reason, than and allowed by the judges. It was one of the that those who apprehend themselves aggrieved crimes for which the Spencers were banished, be allowed a liberty to approach those by peti- that they hindered the king from receiving and tion who know their grievances, or perhaps are answering petitions from great men and others. the authors of them, and consequently able to And one article against the lord Stafford was, redress them. When men entered first into that he issued out a proclamation and warrant society and gave up that right which they had of restraint to inhibit the king's subjects to come to secure themselves in the state of nature, it is to the fountain, their sovereign, to deliver their manifest that they did it for the preservation complaints of wrongs, and oppressions.of property, which is the end of government. As the sages of the law have told us, that it is This necessarily supposes, and indeed requires, our undoubted right, so have our kings in all that people should have property, without which ages permitted us by petition to inform them of they must be supposed to lose that by entering our grievances. In the reign of king Edw. 2. into society, which was the end for which they and king Edw. 3. such petitions were frequent, entered into it. If men entered into society and then even Ireland was allowed to represent to preserve it, and therefore are so entitled their grievancest, and petition for a parliament. to it, that (as a very learned and ingeni--Dr. Burnet, the learned bishop of Salisbury, ous author tells us*) the supreme power informs us, that king Henry 8, told his subcannot take from any man any part of his projects, when in arms against him in Yorkshire, perty without his own consent:' can any ab- that they ought not to have rebelled, but to surdity be so gross, as to imagine that men gave up their right to pray for redress, if they thought themselves injured in their properties; * Wrenham's Case, vet Mag. Chart. Exil. Hugon. de Spencer. Claus. 10 E. 2. M. 28. pro communitate * The author of Two Treatises of Govern- Hiberniæ. ment, p. 277. Hist. Reformat. Part 1. p. 231. have applied themselves to him by petition. King James 1, by a proclamation published in the 11th year of his reign, begins thus: The complaints lately exhibited to us by certain noblemen and others of our kingdom of Ireland, suggesting disorders and abuses, as well in the proceedings of the late begun parliament, as in the martial and civil government of the kingdom, we did receive with all extraordinary grace and favour.' And by another proclamation he declares, that it was the Right of his Subjects to make their immediate Addresses to him by petition.' And in another + he tells his people, that his own, and the ears of his privy council did still continue open to the just complaints of his people, and that they were not confined to times and meetings in parliament, nor restrained to particular grievances.' It appears by the Lords Journals in the year 1640 that the house of lords both spiritual and temporal, nem. con. voted Thanks to those lords who petitioned the king at York to call a parliament and that king by his Declaration, 1644, declared his royal will and pleasure, that all his loving subjects, who have any just cause to present or complain of any Grievances or Oppressions, may freely address themselves by their humble Petitions to his sacred majesty, who will graciously hear their complaints. On the 27th Oct. 1680, it was resolved in the house of commons, nem. con. That it is and ever hath been the undoubted Right of the Subjects of England to Petition the king for the calling and sitting of parliaments, and redressing of grievances.' It was then likewise resolved, nem. con. That to traduce such Petitioning as a violation of duty, and to represent it to his majesty as tumultuous and seditious, is to betray the liberty of the subject, and contribute to the design of subverting the antient legal constitution of this kingdom, and introducing arbitrary power t. On the Friday following it appearing to the house upon the examination of several witnesses at the bar thereof, upon the evidence against sir Francis Withins, as well as upon his own confession, that he had presented an Address to his majesty, expressing an abhorrency to petition his majesty for the calling and sitting of parliaments; it was resolved, That sir Francis Withins by promoting and presenting to his majesty an Address, expressing his said Abhorrency, hath betrayed the undoubted rights of the subjects of England. It was moreover ordered, that he should be expelled the house, and that he should receive his sentence upon his knees. This Right of the subject to petition is farther confirmed by the statute law of this land, particularly in an act made in the 13th of Charles 2, the enacting part of which I will here at large set down, because it is a plain declaration of the subject's right in the case of the * Proclam. dat. 10 July, 19 Jac. Proclam. dat. 14 Febr. 20 Jac. See vol. iv. p. 1174. "Be Petition now under our consideration. it enacted, &c. That no person or persons whatsoever shall from and after the first of Aug. 1661, solicit, labour or procure the getting of hands, or other consent, of any persons above the number of 20 or more, to any petition, complaint, remonstrance, declaration, or other address to the king, or both, or either houses of parliament, for alteration of matters established by law in church or state, unless the matter thereof have first been consented to, and ordered by three or more justices of the county, or by the major part of the grand jury of the county, or division of the county, where the same shall arise, at their public assizes or general quarter sessions: or if arising in London, by the lord mayor, alderinen, or commons in common-council assembled: and that no person or persons whatsoever shall repair to his majesty, or both, or either houses of parliament, upon pretence of presenting, or delivering any petition, complaint, remonstrance, or declaration, or other addresses, accompanied with excessive numbers of people, not at any one time above the number of ten persons, upon pain of incurring a penalty not exceeding the sum of 100l. in money, and three months imprisonment. Provided always, that this Act, or any thing therein contained, shall not be construed to extend to debar or hinder any person or persons, not exceeding the number of ten aforesaid, to present any public or private grievance or complaint to any member or members of parliament, after his election, and during the continuance of the parliament, or to the king's majesty, for any remedy to be thereunto had." Concerning this statute we may observe four things: 1. That it allows, as Mr. serjeant Levins observed in the Trial of the seven bishops, and we are taught by several other good authorities †, that by the law of the land before, it was the settled and undoubted right of the subjects of England, to apply themselves to the king, or either, or both houses of parliament, by petition, to have their grievances redressed. 2. That where it limits this power of the subject, and requires that the petition shall be consented to, and ordered by three or more justices of the county, or by the major part of the grand jury of the county, or division of the county where the same matter shall arise, or by the lord mayor, aldermen, or commons in common council assembled, if it ari-e in London; it is only in a particular case where the address is for alteration of matters established by law in church or state. 3. That even in this case the concurrence of those persons is not required, unless it be where there are more than twenty hands to the petition. 4. That the act extends not to grievances or complaints either public or private, but that they may be presented to the king or parlia *Trials of the Bishops, p. 121. Vid. the Resolutions of the Law. Coke Jurisdiction of Courts. ment, without any of those previous formalities, provided that the petition or address be not presented by more than ten. of commons, and the present ministry to the people. These are the persons pointed at in the title of his book, which he calls, England's Enemies exposed, and its true Friends and Patriots defended. If he shew no better judg ment in discovering who deserve to be called the enemies, who the friends of England, than in laying the charge of babbling and nonsense, he will do as little service to England, in helping her to make any useful discovery of her real friends and enemies, as he has done to his friends by his poor, paltry, and palpable flatte and one who will not exceed his duty; that he represents the Speer as a person deserving the honourable character of an honest English gentleman, a champion for liberty, and a true patriot without disguise, collusion, or self-interest; that they whose long experience in public affairs gave them knowledge of the Having mentioned this Act, which (though made to limit and restrain the subject, and curtail his natural right of petitioning) is a full Declaration of the people's right to apply themselves to the king or parliament by Petition, for the redress of their grievances, and for obtaining such things as they apprehend necessary or beneficial to the safety or well-being of the nation,' I need not urge any other authorities, nor take notice even of that act passed sinceries. The prince of darkness when he goes up the Revolution, wherein the rights of the people and down to do mischief, and destroy the kingare contained, and that of petitioning is de- doms of the earth, as he turns himself into an clared to be one. It is evident to any reader angel of light, so has he emissaries qui nigra of the most ordinary capacity, that the Kentish in candida vertunt, little hirelings whose task Petition is warranted by the law of the land, it is to call evil good, and good evil,' to deand so plainly within the letter of that act, that ceive with false colours, that he may be the those men are forced to acknowledge it, who better able to destroy. To give people a little take a great deal of pains to justify all the pro- taste of this panegyrist's impositions, and the ceedings of the house of commons. Was it judgments he has made of men, I will only take not then illegal, and a notorious breach of the notice here that he commends the fair characliberty of the subject, and setting up a dispens-ter of Mr. J-n H--w, and calls him, who ing power in the house of commons, to impri- most certainly called the treaty made by the son men who were not their members, by noking a felonious conspiracy, a zealous patriot, proceedings but a vote of the house, and to continue them in custody sine die? A late pamphleteer tells us, that to say this is done by a single vote without other proceedings, is nere babbling and nonsense; for imprisonment is the first step in order to future proceedings, and practised by every single magistrate. What does this scribbler mean? Were not those peri-methods employed by France in former reigns tioners imprisoned by a vote of the house without any other proceedings? Was there any indictment or legal process to try whether they were guilty of any trespass against the law? For what reason does he tell us that imprison-purposes destructive to the nation; that if we ment is the first step in order to future punishment? Would he thereby insinuate that their crime was such as might be further punished by law? Their judges in St. Stephen's chapel knew very well it could not. If it could, why were they not proceeded against? Why were they kept in prison till the end of the session? If they could not, why should they be imprisoned at all, since it could be in order to no future proceedings? But he tells us that this is practised by every magistrate. It is true; they imprison, but it is to keep the peace, and in order to future punishment; and what they do is allowed and warranted by the law of the land. But to return from this digression to the From what I have already said in this discourse, matter in hand. Those who cannot deny that it will appear how absurd it would be to make the subject has a right to Petition, yet justify this an argument, for the commons having such the proceedings against those who delivered the a power as they have used in imprisoning those Petition, because of its reproaching the honourgentlemen. The design of this pamphleteer is ble house, and prescribing rules to our legislato throw all the dirt he can on the late minis-tors. The resolution of the house of commons try, to bring them under the odium of the nation, a work which the Jacobites, the French party, and Papists of England are now, and have been a great while very intent upon, and to recommend the proceedings of the house * England's Enemies exposed, and its true Friends and Patriots defended. to enslave Europe, are best able to prevent his designs in this; that tearing up our constitution by the roots, is the work of the late ministry; that they have betrayed the king, and carry on have a Porto Carero in the nation, it is he who has done his utmost to deliver us up to France, by investing the most Christian king with a power to seize us; that it is he (meaning l—d Hall-x) to whom French gold is given. Strange effrontery! Had sir Bar-w Sh---er spoken this, I should not wonder at it; he, we know, when the lords were voted guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours for the Treaty of Partition, and an impeachment was ordered, did not blush to say openly in the house that the news of it would be very unwelcome at Versailles. concerning it was, that it was scandalous, insolent, and seditious, tending to destroy the constitution of parliament, and to subvert the established government of this realm. Before I come to a particular examination of this Resolution, I must crave leave to make this remark upon it, that this very censure, and the severe treatment of the petitioners, shew us plainly into what hands we are fallen. We remember very well when it was that sir Edw. Seymour, then a privy counsellor, and some others now in power, learned the trick of giving hard names to petitions. What I here hint at I will endeavour to represent in the shortest view I can, because the matter will be pertinent to the subject I am treating of, and will give true Englishmen an opportunity of making some reflections, which will be useful to us in the present circumstances of our affairs. We cannot forget what great concern the commons of England above twenty years since shewed for the Protestant religion; that their zeal to preserve it was seen in four parliaments which were dissolved in a little more than the space of two years, by reason of their warmth in prosecuting popish conspirators, and labouring to exclude the duke of York, whose succession to the crown raised the hopes of Papists, and gave birth to all their plots. The first was the Long Parliament, which consisted of members so devoted to the crown, that they would have gratified it in any demand whatsoever, had not the measures taken to destroy Holland, the great friendship contracted with France, by the mediation of the duke of York, and the growth of popery, soured their tempers, and given their inclinations quite another bias. After their prorogation on the 28th of December, 1678, which was soon followed by a dissolution, the next parliament which begun at Westminster on the 6th of March, 1678-9, pursued the same measures to secure the religion and laws of England, and were for that reason prorogued on the 26th of May following.-The people of England alarmed at this, and growing into greater fears of the conspiracy which the parliament endeavoured to prevent, sent petitions to the king from several places, wherein they represented the grievances of the nation, and prayed for the sitting of the parliament to redress them. I shall take notice of the stile of one for all, viz. that of the city of London, wherein they set forth that there is a most damnable and hellish Popish plot, branched forth into the most horrid villanies, against his majesty's most sacred person, the Protestant religion, and the well established government of his realm, for which several of the principal conspirators stand impeached by parliament. Therefore in such a time when his majesty's royal person, as also the Protestant religion, and the government of the nation, are in most imminent danger, they most humbly and earnestly pray that the parliament which is prorogued until the 26th of January may then sit, to try the offenders, and to redress all the most important Grievances, no otherwise to be redressed.' This Petition, which was a roll of above 100 yards in length, was presented by sir Gilbert Gerrard, and eight other gentlemen of good note. They all failed of the desired effect, for the parliament was dissolved, and none other sat till October following. The men now in power have not, it seems, forgotten how they resented those Petitions at that time. Their measures then are the very precedents which they copy after now. Though it was then the subject's right to petition, as I have shewn it is now; though the petitioners took care to keep within the bounds of the law, yet a proclamation issued out on the 12th of Dec. 1679, to prohibit such illegal and tumultuous petitioning, as tending to sedition and rebellion. Besides, care was taken to prevail upon their friends to procure counter-addresses, wherein the subscribers express their abhorrence of petitioning. These measures that were taken to run down this right of the subject, and to subvert the constitution of parliament, together with the displeasure conceived against some men of great posts in the law, and figure in the civil state, for acting illegally, and giving pernicious counsel, as the commons were pleased to term it, to his majesty, occasioned very warm votes and resolutions in the next parliament, which, after many prorogations*, sat on the 21st of Oct. 1680, and continued sitting to the 10th of Jan. following.Within six days after their meeting, viz. Öct. 27th, immediately after they had agreed upon an Address to his majesty, wherein they expressed their Resolution to pursue with a strict and impartial enquiry the execrable Popish Plot,' they proceeded to Votes about Petitions. Then, as I observed before, it was Resolved nem. con. That it is, and ever hath been, the undoubted right of the subjects of England, to petition the king for the calling and sitting of parliaments and redressing grievances.' Resolved, That to traduce such petitioning as a violation of duty, and to represent it to his majesty as tumultuous and seditious, is to betray the liberty of the subject, and contributes to the design of subverting the ancient legal constitutions of this kingdom, and introducing arbitrary power.'-Ordered, That a committee be appointed to inquire of all such persons as have offended against these rights of the subjects.' The next day, Oct. 28, sir Francis Wythens, as I observed before, being found guilty in this particular, they voted him a betrayer of the undoubted rights of the subjects of England,' and ordered him to be expelled the house. The city of London, having petitioned the house against sir George Jefferys their Recorder, and it being referred to a committee, they passed this vote on 13th of November following: Resolved, That this committee is of opinion, that by the evidence given to this committee, it does appear that sir George Jefferys, recorder of the city of London, by traducing and ob *The former parliament being dissolved, writs were issued forth for another to sit at Westminster the 17th day of December, 1679, from thence prorogued to the 26th of January, from thence to the 15th of April, thence to the 17th of May, thence to the 1st of July, thence to the 22d of the same, thence to the 23d of August, thence to the 21st of October. to this purpose, Zuinglius set up his fanaticisms, and Calvin built on that blessed foundation: and to speak truth, all his disciples are seasoned with such a sharpness of spirit, that it much concerns magistrates to keep a streight hand over them; and now they are restless, amusing us with fears, and nothing will serve them but a parliament. For my part I know no representative of the nation but the king;† all power centers in him. It is true, he does intrust it with his ministers, but he is the sole structing petitioning for the sitting of this parliament, hath betrayed the rights of the subject. To which the house agreed, and it was ordered, 'That an humble address be made to his majesty to remove him out of all public offices. They further ordered likewise, that the committee should inquire into all such persons as had been advising or promoting of the late Proclamation, stiled a Proclamation against tumultuous petitioning.' The grand juries of the counties of Somerset and Devon having expressed their detestation of such peti-representatives; and in faith he has wisdom tioning, the house on the 19th of November, ordered that the two foremen of the said juries, and two others, should be sent for in custody of the serjeant at arms to answer for breach of privilege, as they called this abhorrence of petitioning, by them committed against the house. The next day they voted that one Thomas Herbert, esq. should be sent for in custody, for prosecuting John Arnold, esq. at the council table, for promoting a Petition, and procuring subscriptions. To them they added two others upon the same account, whom they called betrayers of the Liberties of the Subject.' On Wednesday the 5th of Jan. the commons ordered an impeachment against sir Francis North, chief justice of the common-pleas, sir Wm. Scroggs, chief justice of the king's-bench, sir Thomas Jones, one of the justices of the same bench, and sir Rd. Weston, one of the barons of the exchequer. Sir Francis North's crime was, that he (as appeared by the confession of the attorney general before the house, on Wednesday the 24th of November) was 'advising and assisting in drawing up and pass- | ing the proclamations against tumultuous Petitions.' Against sir Wm. Scroggs, and sir Thomas Jones, there were a great many complaints, which occasioned many Resolutions of the house, and Votes against them. One of the great complaints was, that when the grand jury which served for the hundred of Ossulston in the county of Middlesex, attended the king's bench with a petition, which they desired the court to present in their name to his majesty for the sitting of that parliament, the chief justice said he would dispatch them presently; that they took it ill to have a petition offered to alter the king's mind contrary to his proclamation: that when there were several presentments against Papists and other offenders, they discharged the grand jury four days before the end of the term, which was never done before. This act they voted arbitrary, illegal, and a high misdemeanor,' several days before this Impeachment was ordered. One of Mr. baron Weston's great crimes was, that, in an extraordinary kind of charge given the assizes before at Kingston (in the county of Surrey) he inveighed very much against Farel, Luther, Calvin, and Zuinglius, condemning them as authors of the Reformation, which was against their princes minds: and then adding Among which there was a bill against the duke of York for not coming to church. enough to intrust it no more in these men, who have given us such late examples of their wisdom and faithfulness.' These words (which were witnessed by several persons, some of whom put them immediately in writing) made the committee before whom they were proved come to this resolution, That the said expressions in the charge given by the said baron Weston, were a scandal to the Reformation, in derogation of the rights and privileges of parliament, and tending to raise discord between his majesty and his subjects.' Two days after that (Jan. 7) the commons agreed upon impeaching these great men of the law, who every one came under the public censure for appearing abhorrers of petitioning for the sitting of the parliament, they fell into other votes, which shewed what it was they wanted a parliament for. Upon a message sent to them from his majesty, they came to these several Resolutions following. "Resolved, 1. That it is the opinion of this house, that there is no security or safety for the protestant religion, the king's life, or the well constituted and established government of this kingdom, without passing a bill for disabling James duke of York to inherit the imperial crown of England and Ireland, and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging: And to rely upon any other means or remedies without such a bill, is not only insufficient but dangerous. 2. That his majesty in his last message having assured this house of his readiness to concur in all other means for the preservation of the protestant religion ‡, this house doth declare, that *We see the grand artifice then was to represent all who would not do what the courtiers then would have them, as fanatics. Nor did any of his kidney know any other in those days; but now, the king being changed, all power is made to center in the house of commons. we For the better understanding of this place, are to take notice, that his majesty in a speech which he made on the 15th of December, promised them (as he takes notice he had done before) to concur with them in any remedies for securing the protestant religion which might consist with preserving the succession in its due and legal course of descent. The commons in a long answer to this speech on the 18th of December tell him, That no interruption of that descent has been endeavoured by them, except only the descent upon the |