A PLEA FOR THE people's fundamental Liberties and Parliaments.  
Or, Eighteen QUESTIONS Questioned & Answered, Which QUESTIONS were lately propounded by Mr. Jeremy ives, pretending thereby to put the great Question between the Army and their dissenting Brethren in the PARLIAMENT of the commonwealth of England out of question.  
By Capt. WILLIAM BRAY.  Luke 3.14. 
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, but be content with your wages.  1 Cor. 11.16. 
But if ANY MAN seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.  
Entered according to Order.  
LONDON, Printed by John Clowes for the Author 1659.   

To the Reader.  
I Have given my thoughts in answer to these ensuing 18 Questions, that so I might give some satisfaction to those doubts that may arise in the minds of divers good men, affected to their country's Rights, and safeties, in these times of great anxiety, dangers, and animosities, one towards another, and that truth may take place, and all may endeavour to understand one the other, by a faithful approaching to, and asserting, their Native Rights, and may not be withdrawn from them upon any pretences whatsoever; without which standing for their Rights, there can be no true ground to expect Justice, Love, and Unity. It is true, Calamities in Nations do oftentimes fall out to be best discerned, when they are desperate and most incurable; But however, though the difficulty be great, to amend a distracted Nation, yet it is all our duties to extend our endeavours to save our country, and leave the success to the Almighty; and in so doing, the discharge of a good Conscience will offord great Comfort, whatsoever may fall out in this uncertain and transitory Life.  
W. B.   

Eighteen Questions propounded by Mr. Jeremy Ives. Questioned and Answered, by Capt. William Bray.  

Question. I.  
WHether a Free Parliament ought not by the laws and customs of this Nation, to be chosen by the general Consent of the People?   

Answer I.  
It is one of the ancient and known general descriptions of a free PARLIAMENT, according to the Laws, and Customs of this Nation to be elected by the general and free consent of the People (who are not legally made uncapable) and when it comes to begin its Session by the Ancient Law & Right of the Parliament a PROCLAMATION ought to be made in Westminster, That no man upon pain to lose all that he hath, shall during the PARLIAMENT in London, Westminster, or the Suburbs wear any privy Coat of Plate, or go armed, or that Games, or other plays of men, women, or children, or any other Pastimes or strange news should be used during the Parliament, and the Reason thereof was, that the High Court of Parliament should not be thereby disturbed, nor the Members thereof (which are to attend the arduous and urgent business of the commonwealth) withdrawn; And it is generally known by those whom it hath pleased God to save alive in our sad intestine wars, That the Parliament often declared themselves to be highly affected, and displeased with the nature and manner of the late KING CHARLES his demanding of the Lord Kimbolton, and the five Members, Mr. Pim, John Hampden, Denzil Hollis, Esqrs. Sir Arthur Haslerig & Mr. Strood 5 January 1641, It was than Voted and Declared a high breach of the Rights and privileges of Parliament, and inconsistent to the Liberty and freedom thereof, and by a Declaration they did declare that the King's Warlike manner therein was against the fundamental LIBERTIES of the People, and the RIGHTS of PARLIAMENT; And another part of freedom in the Election of Parliaments is, That there ought to be no corrupt dealing to give money, etc: to be elected, because it was to poison the fountain itself (from whom should proceed no Law contrary, but suitable to the fundamentals) Another principle maxim and end why Parliaments are to be assembled, and sit freely by the fundamental, and righteous, Constitution of England, is to redress grievances against corrupt and unjust Judges, and great or potent oppressors who have subverted the course of Law and Government, and destroyed the people's ordinary legal remedies. And no Parliament ought to be ended whilst any Petition remaineth undiscussed, or at least to which a determinate answer is not made, as may be seen in the fourth part of the Lord Cook's Institutes, treating of the high Court of PARLIAMENT.   

Question. II.  
Whether a Parliament so chosen ought not to do what they think best for the weal of the Nation that so chooseth them without the interruption of any party upon any pretence whatsoever?   

Answer. II.  
It is the Right of the People for their Parliament to be chosen in full freedom, and have also a free Session (after a free Election) without interruption of any party, yet they are bound (as most Incomparable Example of Law, Justice and Right to the whole Nation, and Executive Ministers whatsoever) by the Right unalterable Rule, the fundamental laws and Liberties of the People to do impartial Justice and Right to every party, and not to consider parties but the cause which wholly excludes an Arbitrary Power. And therefore upon full debate in full and free Parliament of the 42 Ed. 3. cap. 3. If any Statute shall be made against the Charter of our Liberties, it shall be void, as may be seen by the Lord Cook's Institutes, the first part, his Commentary upon Littleton, Lib. 2. cap. 4. Sest. 108. concerning which I have more fully treated in my late Plea for the people's good Old Cause, or the fundamental laws and liberties of England asserted, proved and acknowledged to be our Right, before the Conquest, and by above thirty Parliaments, and by the Declarations and Convictions of Conscience or public acknowledgements of the late King Charles, and by the Parliament and their Army in their several and particular straits and differences, and in answer to Mr. James Harrington his CXX political aphorisms sold by Francis Smith at the Elephant and Castle near temple-bar, wherein you will (as I conceive) upon your taking into consideration the Authors which I cite for my judgement) clearly see; that Acts or Statutes of Parliament that have been against the common laws, (though upon glorious and specious pretences) are called illegal and mischievous Acts of Parliament, shaking the fundamental Law. And at a Grand Committee of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England for the Government, Sept. 14. 1659. It was resolved that the supreme delegated Power residing in the people's trusties, is and aught to be limited in the exercise thereof by some fundamentals not to be dispensed with or subjected to alteration.   

Question, III.  
If any shall say a free Parliament ought not to be so elected, and so empowered; I demand then how they are a free Parliament in the sense that the People of this Nation according to Law and custom, do understand a free Parliament?   

Answer, III.  
I conceive I have answered this in the first and second answers; And I do further aver that a Parliament may be free in its election or original being, and operations or exercise, and to and in the end of its Session, yet they are bounded by the fundamental laws and Liberties of the Nation, and this doth not make them ever the more unfree, because the fundamental laws doth limit the delegated power, and hinder them from doing that which is ipso jure & ipso facto illegal in itself, viz: To destroy the fundamental laws, which is the salus populi, suprema lex, and according to all which any Statute is to be made. And therefore Parliaments I conceive will hardly give you thanks in making their Authority & power to be greater than is desirable, whereby to induce them to think they have no bounds, by which Cogitation they may do Acts that may prove a snare unto them; And the people have no reason to thank you, for if there be no fundamentals, and a limited Delegation in the supreme Legislative power, they might fear some danger to themselves in their election of their Parliamentary Conservators. But there being such Righteous fundamentals, and the people's Right to have Parliaments every year, or oftener, (if need be) the people need not fear Parliaments; but have much reason to love their CONSTITUTION.   

Question, IV.  
If it shall be answered in the Affirmative that a free Parliament ought to be so chosen, and so empowered as aforesaid, I demand as the Nation is now influenced by Priests, Lawyers, and Cavaliers, how the end of the good People can be answered by a Parliament so elected and empowered?   

Answer, IV.  
Although there may be danger in the having a free Parliament, considering our late intestine, civil wars, and animosities, and so it doth behoove those that have been faithful in the Cause of their Country, to seek, to save and defend themselves from destruction and Violence, and our Enemies might tax us, as well as our own hearts condemn us, with carelessness, and want of common ingenuity, if we should not have respect to our just preservation, yet consider this hath been the pretence for very many years to avoid our Rights, and it is the only way to continue perpetual animosities, and to manifest that we trust not in the Lord our God at all. And besides, consider danger is no argument against Right. Upon this and the like suitable suggestions of yours, the people may be for ever deprived of their fundamental and ancient laws and birth-rights, as they were for a time by that illegal mischievous Acts of Parliament, with a flattering Preamble of 11 H. 7. cap. 3. as that famous Lawyer the Lord Cook calls it in the fourth part of his Institutes. The colours (to make an Act good, or seem good if colours only can make an Act to be so) were as specious as these which you have given, or can be made to extend unto, to justify a force, or deny, or question Right. The said Illegal mischievous Act was pretended to be made to avoid divers mischiefs.  

1. To the displeasure of Almighty God.  
2. To the great let of the Common Law.  
3. The great let of the Wealth of the Land.   
Which were (I aver) as great, (or far greater) pretences as to tell us of influenced Lawyers, Priests and Cavaliers; For our Fundamental established laws, are so excellent and good in themselves, that no artificial rhetoric of influenced Lawyers, Priests, or Cavaliers, (your names of distinction) or indeed any other Faction as well as they you name, could yet ever subvert them, or raze them; and there may or can be given you a very great Catalogue (in convenient season) of the force of the Law, and the visible displeasure of God and good people, in very many Generations past, against such influenced persons, when by their acquired wit and interest they have done the Nation injury, in wilful acts and endeavours to subvert the public Fundamental laws; And I have read Cassiodor saith, Jura publica, certissima sunt vitae humanae solatia; infirmorum auxilia, impiorum fraena. The public Laws are the most certain Comforts of human life, they are the helps of the weak, and the Bridles of the Impious: Our public Fundamental Laws are the Bulwarks of our Nation in general, and of Families, and persons in particular; and if we can enjoy them, we have earthly happiness therein.   

Question V.  
If ever any Parliament could have answered the ends of the good people, I demand whether the last long Parliament were not once the most likely of any that went before them, or of any that can be expected to succeed them?   

Answer V.  
You need not publish a questioning or doubt of the ability of Parliaments to answer the ends of the good people for it doth too much tend to weaken & dissolve the people's love, & affection to their own Right of Parliaments, & indeed the long Parliament were most likely in our late times, (for many Reasons) to answer the expectations of the good people, because of the Power invested in them by Act of Parliament, not to be dissolved unless by Act of Parliament, or adjourned, unless by themselves or their own Order; And further, because of those high and Eminent Obligations they had upon them of their Faith and Promises, and of their Declarations, and invitations to the people in the case of the original of the war which hath caused much blood shed & expense of Treasure. And therefore sithence you and others had Commissions from the remainder of them (who were a declared refined party by the excellent pretences, and by power of some influencing Officers of the Army) your expectations were so much the more liklier and nearer to be answered you in a peaceable way of submission & obedience, rather than a violent way of interruption. Unlawful and determined Violence many times Causes sad and lamentable facts against the virtues of Justice, Temperance, Prudence and Fortitude, tending only to produce cares and fears innumerable, and only to leave place for great trouble and repentance, or the severe hand of God.   

Question VI.  
Notwithstanding the great hopes we had of them, Considering the good beginnings they made, and the fair opportunities they had to perfect what they had begun, I demand whether the most Considerable of the good things they did (viz) the taking away Kingship, and Peerage, and declaring this Nation a free State, were not rather the fruits and effects of that force, which was put upon them, when the Army garbled them, than the Votes and Results of a free Parliament?   

Answer VI.  
You take your opportunity to keep the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England out of their Right, supposing you are well backed by a great revolt or force. But yet you consider they made good beginnings as well as allege and aver that they had fair opportunities. But whether you do fairly to question whether the most considerable of the good things you cite and mention they did, were more the fruits and effects of a force of the Army then the Votes and Results of a free Parliament, I refer to the rational and unbiased, seeing no such Result did ever yet proceed from themselves; But yet by this method of yours, you acknowledge them friends to the Forcers, and you lay a ground (though I confess unwillingly by what appears) to invalid or weaken the Acts (as to any thing you declare and esteem as good) because the Law of England is a great enemy to unlawful force, and violence; maxim paci sunt contraria vis & injuria, Force and injury are contraries to peace, and it signifieth any thing that a man striketh or hurteth withal, as the Lord Cook in the first part of his Institutes his Commentaries upon Littleton. And you also by this your doubting, questioning, way, pass a censorious▪ judgement upon their minds and Consciences; upon all the intrinsical considerations they moved in their public affairs, and so you make yourself and others Examples, or precedents to devise and lay everlasting methods of private discontent or change to this or any future Parliament, upon your and their own accusations and judgement.   

Quest. VII.  
Whether the Parliament did not Act highest against the interest of the good People of this Nation when there was no force at all upon them?   

Answ. VII.  
No good man, or a man of good and sincere desires, will (upon due consideration and entering into the Closet of his heart) justify any action in the Parliament against the Interest of the good people before the force was upon them: so the good people ought not to do wrong or injustice to those whom they account evil, or worse than themselves; And it is very possible that any person or persons, who remain alive, and were in Parliament, may see their error in any thing you can justly charge; But however Generals are no method of satisfaction or conviction to any person, or charges in Law or Equity, against any person, by a Fundamental maxim and Rule of Law, and Reason. And the force being upon them, as you confess, and the pretended ground of the force used, being publicly declared to try whether things were so yea or no; if those persons that were the cause, and principle author's of the force had pleased; and if there declared aims and zeal had been for good people, they had time to manifest themselves by way of integrity to their pretences; But whether they did any thing legally in order thereunto, I appeal to God and the World. I forbear at present to cite particulars.   

Quest. VIII.  
Whether there was not a time when the Army, and divers others, were accounted the great Assertors of their country's Liberties when they refused to comply with the Votes of the then Free and uninterrupted Parliament?—  

Col. Rainsborough,  
Lieut. Col. John Lilburn,  
Capt. Bray.  
Cornet Joyce,  
Cornet Thomson,  
Mr. Richard Overton,  
Mr. William Walwin,  
Thomas Prince, &c.    

Answ. VIII.  
You need not question whether there was a time or not, when the Army or others, some of whom you are pleased particularly to name, were accounted Assertors of their country's Liberties; But you should have told particularly, in what they refused to comply with the then Free and uninterrupted Parliament; for it is a maxim in Law, and approved Reason, Dolosus versatur in generalibus, The crafty man lodges, and busies himself in generals, (they being vain and insignificant) And peradventure, if they or any of them did not comply, it might have appeared adissent in such thing or things as the whole Parliament may be well satisfied in their noncompliance. And I question not but divers of those Non-compliers, (as you call them) continue to the faithful affectionate asserting those principles, and malice itself, cannot in any lawful way, or means blemish their integrity. But if you think that it is their temper, disposition, or judgement, to refuse to comply with the Votes of a Free and uninterrupted Parliament, I believe you are much mistaken, unless you take them in this Legal sense, that they might be (in these times of division and Faction) in their peaceable, legal, judgement, and in Conscience, contrary to any thing that was particularly against the Fundamental Laws, Rights and Liberties of the People. And doubtless, or peradventure in the same sense they were, and have been LAWFUL NON-COMPLYERS WITH THE ARMY ALSO. But I suppose, you are deceived by your own heart, if you think to make yourself a legal or warrantable Accuser in this your apt opportunity, and blast them if you could, with their noncompliance as a Crime; For if in the days of MONARCHY an ACT of PARLIAMENT, against the Fundamental laws and Liberties, is void, and shall be held for an ERROR, and called a MISCHIEVOUS ILLEGAL ACT, and be comptrolled by the people's COMMON-LAWS, and LIBERTIES, as I conceive I have proved before: much more may Votes which are not drawn to an Act, and which may be changed or annulled, (upon clear conviction of Consciente, and Reason, and understanding in a Parliament itself (upon revising or reminding the Fundamental laws and Liberties before it comes to be Enacted) be consciensciously scrupled, or not complied with, without a blemish; but rather justified as a lawful AND COMMENDABLE noncompliance, both before God and man.   

Quest. ix.  
Whether there was not as much the hearts and spirits of all People, concurring to their interruption in 1653, as ever was to their Election?   

Answ. Ix..  
I suppose you presume too highly, and too far to imagine that the hearts and spirits of all People did concur to their Interruption, as ever to their Election. How can it be supposed you should know the hearts and spirits of all people in this matter? Surely you have not conversed with all People that were at the Elections. They did never tell you their judgement, and acquaint you with their hearts and spirits, if you made any such inquisition in the matter. And if your meaning by the words all the people, must be taken for the major part of the people, or the major part of the Electors, thereby you would have every man take you according to your meaning, and not your saying; But however this General Charge doth not accuse or concern any persons with any triumph, or concurrence of hearts or Spirits in the Fact, but your own, and those that did, or you know did, concur, it cannot reflect upon any other persons. For there were many who had been faithful in the public Cause, who received many and great injuries, and oppressions, by means of the influence and Power of the than General Crumwell, &c. yet their hearts did not concur in that violent fact in 1653, not only for that unlawful violence is not good in itself, but also because of the inevitable ill consequences thereof, they foresaw the sad ensuing evils and dangers which took effect, and had its suitable course (agreeable to the Cause) after the year 1653. And so I shall conclude this my Answer with the saying of Charron in his Book of Wisdom; Male cunsta minstrat impetus. Violence doth nothing well.   

Question X.  
Whether those men that last sat were not rather admitted to serve the present Exigency (as the best expedient that then could be thought on) rather then out of consciousness to their just Authority as a Free Parliament?   

Answer X.  
If you and others were engaged by terms in your Commission, to be obedient to such orders and directions as should be given from the men that last sat, you had then termed this your tenth Qustion in apt words. And for their being admitted to serve a then present exigency, I could never find that it was any published end. And if it was a secret intention, only it was not a mutual Compact, and so could not bind the publicly invited. But by this you do inevitably and Consequentially charge them that invited the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England (into possession of their interrupted Session) with Hypocrisy, as if they did not intend what they publicly and manifestly pretended. And that you may see your error, and inconsideration by Declaration of the 6th of April, 1656. divers Officers of the Army declared a Commemoration of what they had solemnly before declared not without appeals to God; And they complained therein that those which had been Enemies to that FAMOUS LONG PARLIAMENT had meetings and grew very insolent, to offer affronts and assaults to the friends thereof; That the FAMOUS ACTIONS of the Parliament were vilified and evil spoken of, And of persons daring to speak against the Authority of PARLIAMENTS, and to call their proceedings and such as acted in obedience to them illegal and unwarrantable, so that there was but a step (say they expressly) between the public CAUSE and the funeral thereof. And they bewailed their great failings and turnings aside, and desired wherein they had backslidden to take shame to themselves. The 6th. of May, after, they invited the Members of the Long Parliament from the year 1648, that continued sitting till the 20th of April 1653. And therein they called to mind and declared That the Long Parliament were EMINENT ASSERTORS of the Good Old Cause, and had a special PRESENCE of GOD with them, and were SIGNALLY BLESSED in that work, And they did judge it their DUTY to invite the said Members to the Exercise and discharge of the said TRUST. And they promised them that they should be ready in their places to yield them (as they said expressly did become them) their UTMOST ASSISTANCE to sit in safety as will appear by their public Declarations, not declaring and inviteing them to serve the then present Exigency, etc: as the best expedient, &c. And if they did not submit to them as a free Parliament, Consider who made them unfree, or in any sort of Bondage or Servitude; And therefore they themselves that were any Cause or colour of diminution to their just freedom have no Reason to make it any Argument or ground for any violent violation of their Liberty.   

Question XI.  
Whether there did not remain a Force upon them aell the time of the last Session in as much as the greatest part of their Members were secluded?   

Answer XI.  
If the Force did remain on them all the time of their last Session, you accuse the Forcers whom you seem to pretend to clear and justify; Consider who forced them? or who caused the Force to remain? If the greatest part of the Members were secluded. Consider they did not seclude themselves; And Albeit it is man's duty in general to deny to do that which is malum in se though under a force or terror & although in some Cases force may excuse in some measure, yet it is no argument that because one force was before acted, that therefore another must be done, no more than a second sin should be committed to justify a precedent on. And therefore the Querent had been better to have urged this question, or tendered this Case, and his Reasons in a peaceable humble manner to the Parliament of the Commonwealth, from whom he had his Commission in the time of their Session then justify the present Case of the Confusion and interruption.   

Question XII.  
If all Force Fetters and Shekles had been taken of, and they had enjoyed the free and accustomed Power, and privileges of the Parliament of England, I demand if ever Sir George Booth and Major general Brown, etc: had been voted traitors?   

Answer XII.  
You enter upon Judgement too far and before your time, for you know not what the Parliament would have done if Force Fetters and Shekles had been taken of, if they had enjoyed the Free and accustomed Power and privileges of Parliament. I think you cannot divine. I may say in the judgement of Charity, Peradventure they might have entered into a Righteous and equal consideration of things without respect of persons as in the sight of God and man. Therefore I suppose that place of Scripture, 7 Matt. 1. may be applied to you in this matter, Judge not, that ye be not judged. And if you have any thing to say to those Gentlemen you name, in a legal manner, or when the Law is open, and hath its legal free indifferent and impartial Course, you may have the Liberty to accuse, as they or any Englishman else ought to have the fullest liberty of defence, which the Righteous ancient fundamental laws and Liberties afford; And so I (who am not privy to their affairs) shall close this Answer in defence of our fundamental laws and Rights, with the sentences and wise sayings of the Town Clerk of Ephesus, 19 Acts 38, 39, 40. against the confusion and uproar raised by Demetrius. wherefore if Demetrius & the craftsmen which are with him have a m●tter against any man, the Law is— (or indeed ought to be) open, or the Court days kept, and there are Deputies let them implade one another: But if ye inquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a Lawful (or ordinary) Assembly. For we are in danger to be called in question for this days uproar. there being no cause, whereby we may give an Account of the Co●course, Verse 36. Seeing these things cannot be spoken against. ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.   

Quest. XIII.  
And whereas it is objected, That by an Act made by King, Lords, and Commons, that 40 of them should make a Quorum, and that they should not be dissolved till they dissolve themselves; and therefore being yet a Quorum, they are therefore a Free Parliament. I demand, whether by this Argument those which the Army secluded when they came to Hounsloe-Heath, may not as well call themselves a Parliament, seeing they were a Quorum, and kept their places in the House, when the rest went away to the Army, and were as truly forced out then as these were afterwards; and whether this very Argument would not make them a Parliament, if another Interest should prevail to take off that Interruption. Again the intent of that Act was not that any 40 whom the Sword should separate from the rest should make a Quorum, but rather, if by degrees some should die, and others by consent of the Major part should be Voted out as uncapable to sit, or that others should be absent by reason of any emergencies, that then and in such case 40 should make a quorum; and this is the Reason why a fixed number are appointed a quorum in all State Conventions; Therefore it remains, that the last Parliament were rather chosen and elected by the Army, in the capacity they stood since they were first garbled: then the people's Representatives, because the Army might have elected that number they forced out, as well as those they kept in, unto whom they might have subscribed obedience?   

Answ. XIII.  
I shall only (in brief) answer to this Question, (grounded upon a supposed Objection, which you have heard or made) If there is an Act that 40 of them should make a Quorum, and that they should not be dissolved till they dissolve themselves; This Act did invest them or any of them with a Legal Session against any illegal dissolution whatsoever, either by Army or any other. And the Law considers the Cause, the Common interest, and not parties, or Factions. I further enforce my answer (with submission) to the deep judgement of a Sage, Honourable Person, upon his going to the Army, (viz.) by the Declaration of William Lenthal Esq. Speaker, &c. (in the Book of the Declarations of the Army, Printed by special Order, by one Matthew Simmons 27 Sept. 1647. pag. 107, 108. wherein is set forth particularly, the violent acts against him) He demonstrateth in express terms That in 1647 The Votes then passed were all null and void, being extorted by force and violence, That the omission of a circumstance or some formalities in the adjournment of the House (when through force and violence, it cannot sit in any sort as a Parliament) cannot be any prejudice to the future meetings and proceedings thereof, when it may sit, and meet again, as a Free Parliament, it being well known, that nothing can dissolve this Parliament but an Act of Parliament?   

Quest. XIIII.  
I demand then, how any can cry Hosanna to the last Assembly, as to a just and Free Parliamentary Authority, and endeavour to restore them to the exercise thereof, upon that foot of account, unless they also endeavour to take off the first as well as the last interruption, which how safe that will be, I leave to the others to judge?   

Answ. XIIII.  
To this, I only Answer, That when you did accept of a Commission from the last Assembly, or their Delegates, I suppose you cried Hosanna, and not interrupt, or crucify, crucify them. But to conclude, this; I Judge any interruption, or seclusion of any party or parties, contrary to Justice or the Fundamental Laws of England, is void in Law, and destructive to Freedom, and lays a ground and method for animosities and perpetual Wars amongst the people, instead of love, quietness, and amendment of errors; And as for the latter part of your question, concerning the unsafeness to take of the first interruption, It is fit to be debated Legally and peaceably in a Parliamentary way; & that Justice be done in the case.   

Quest. XV.  
If we should assay to restore them upon a prudential account, than I query, what reason there is to believe such a thing will be effected, unless they will recede from their Votes, or the Army subject unto them, which how they can do with safety to themselves or the good people of this Land I leave others to judge?   

Answ. XV.  
If you should essay to restore them upon a Prudential account, you thereby would make yourself a Judge, so far as to put a limitation upon their Restitution, unless your prudential intentions therein, did relate to the Justice of it requirable in the present case: so likewise to oblige them without doors, (if it could legally be) to recede from their own Votes, would continue an apparent force upon them; and so it would not be so valid, as if they should after the interruption taken off, in a voluntary manner consider and recede. And then if there be no taking of the force (which hinders their Session) unless they will recede from their Votes, this continues their Bondage, and that cannot be safe for the people, to have their Parliaments in fear, or under Force or servitude, no more safe than it can be lawful or honourable for Parliaments (the supreme Conservators) to act above and contrary to the Righteous Fundamental, and unalterable, Laws and Liberties. But however the People do (I conceive) justly incline to have the face of a Civil Authority, rather than the Force of a Sword over them; which way of Force (in the Case) may produce innumerable evils, both at present and in future, peradventure greater than the chief Authors of this Force may either foresee, or aught upon due consideration to desire or aim at; and it may not only produce evil., but hinder that good, which no good man but would desire to be enjoyed; I mean our Fundamental Laws and Liberties.   

Quest. XVI.  
If it should be effested, and they should come to the exercise of their Authority; I demand, what reason there is, to believe they will answer the ends of the good people of the Land?   

Answ. XVI.  
If it should be effected that they should be restored, there might be reason in the judgement of charity, to hope or believe that they will answer the ends of the good people of the land. It is possible they may enter into a mature grave and pious consideration of things. It is much to me that you should seem to have so great a prejudice to them, for why should you judge so of your friends, that they should not make a good ending of their Session, as well as acknowledge as you do in your 6th. Question that they made good beginnings? Can it be supposed or justly expected they would Vote a Period to their own Session, as they did, and yet resolve to go forth without giving a sweet smell and savour, and taking into consideration all the blood and treasure and their own promises and solemn obligations, I must confess if they should not take those things into consideration; for my own particular, I who am a Member of the oppressed people for about eleven years should have no remedy unless I should obtain Justice from another, and succeeding Honourable and just council of Parliament.   

Quest. XVII.  
If their restoring cannot in reason be thought practicable, and if practicable not profitable; why should we labour in the fire of contention to effect it?   

Answ. XVII.  
I know no reason why it cannot be thought practicable or profitable, or why it should be accounted a labouring in the fire of contention to effect it. You make the difficulty greater than it is; For do you think the obligations upon them are of so light a nature or of so little value that they will end their Session with dishonour? Or do you think the obligations that are upon the Army or the Officers thereof to the Parliament are of so little moment, as that they can be in this way (of the sword or sire of contention) evaded, and dispensed withal.   

Quest. XVIII.  
If then this cannot be a Free Parliament upon their readmission considering the force that remained upon them, and that most of the eminent good things they did were by force squeezed from them, and therefore in Law cannot be the free Representatives of the People of England. I demand, whether some number of honest men chosen out to serve the present exigency, may not be as Lawful an Authority as they, and sooner answer the desire of all good people?   

Answ. XVIII.  
By any thing whatsoever I can see presented from you of reason in the present case, this Parliament may be free if their interrption be laid aside or the force discontinued, but if the force be upon them, their readmission (as you call it) may prove of little effect: And if your supposition be never so true, that most of the eminent good things you aver they did were by force squeezed from them, and therefore in law you say cannot be the free Representatives of the people of England, this is an Argument to take of the force. And besides it doth not appear by any Act of their own confession or public Declaration, that most of the eminent good things you aver they did were by force squeezed from them. Peradventure they on the other hand will say they had done far greater good things than they did, if the force had not been upon them; and likewise paradventure they will say they had not done or consented to such Acts, which (in the judgement of divers good and conscientious men even of destroyed or undone persons and families) were evil and contrary to the Laws and Liberties. And as to the last part of your question, what do you mean by some other number of honest men to serve a present exigency. If the Power by which an Election is created, is unlawful and usurped, it would be void, erroneous, or dangerous, both as to the Electors and Elected, and full of dsssatisfaction, in its being, introduce Innovations, and subvert our righteous Laws, and Liberties, for defence of which there hath been so much precious bloodshed, and Treasure consumed; And further, whether you mean that number of honest men should be a lawful FREE PARLIAMENT in its Election and Session? I know not: you leave it in doubt. And whether that any number of honest men can, and will, hazard themselves to serve an exigency, lest they should be served as others have been before, is questionable, not only because of the unlawfulness of the imposition of those your number of honest men (so called) upon us, but also because of the inconstancy of judgement, &c. and motions in these public affairs; For in some part of your Questions, you seem to be for a full and Free Parliament, Then in the 4th Question you account it dangerous to have one, for fear of influenced Lawyers, Priests and Cavaliers: Then in your 10th Question, you say or conclude strongly, That the men who sat last were rather admitted to serve a present exigency; which admittance (as you call it) was after the dissolution of another Assembly before them. And why may not the other number of honest men, which you drive at be also admitted to serve an exigency, or a danger foreseen? And where are our Laws and Liberties, Fundamental, uninterruptible, ancient and undoubted Rights all the while, the possession of which would be a lawful means to repair the wrongs, and intolerable burdens of the oppressed, and discover who are the friends of public Justice, Peace and Amity? Thus I have given my thoughts concerning these Questions, intendedly to manifest my affections: to the just LAWS and FREEDOMS of our country to Truth, and right reason, (I hope) in sober contrariety to rash and illegal Violence, without unjust respect or disrespect to parties and Factions; And I do apprehend, at present I shall displease none herein, except my particular enemies, who may rejoice in my wrongs, or such as are wilful oppressors, and resolved in their way.  
W. B.   
FINIS.   

The Printer to the Reader.  
Courteous Reader,  
HAving received the Copy of this Book divers weeks since from the Author, I thought it necessary to inform thee, that it should have been published the 22 of December last, it being a time more seasonable than at present, and agreeable to the intentions of the Author; but was interrupted by some persons, the Agents of the late Council of safety (so called) who preyed upon the written Copy, amongst other Papers, then ready to be published in vindication of the present Parliament; and the Laws and Liberties of England.