"
Before the parliament entered upon business, they were stopped by a
doubt concerning the legality of their meeting It had been enacted, by
an old law of Edward III., "That parliament should be held once every
year, or oftener, if need be." The last prorogation had been longer than
a year; and being supposed on that account illegal, it was pretended to
be equivalent to a dissolution. The consequence seems by no means just;
and besides, a later act, that which repealed the triennial law, had
determined, that it was necessary to hold parliaments only once in three
years. Such weight, however was put on this cavil, that Buckingham,
Shaftesbury, Salisbury, and Wharton, insisted strenuously in the house
of peers on the invalidity of the parliament, and the nullity of all its
future acts. For such dangerous positions they were sent to the Tower,
there to remain during the pleasure of his majesty and the house.
Buckingham, Salisbury, and Wharton made submissions, and were soon after
released. But Shaftesbury, more obstinate in his temper, and desirous of
distinguishing himself by his adherence to liberty, sought the remedy
of law; and being rejected by the judges, he was at last, after a
twelvemonth's imprisonment, obliged to make the same submissions; upon
which he was also released.
Pages:
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272