I. Queries concerning the Peoples power of electing, re-calling, and puni [...]ing their Parliament-men.

WHether is it not the undoubted liberty of the Subject to choose their Parliament-men.

Whether have Parliament-men so chosen any power to [...]present or act for the People, further then they have commission from those that chose them?

Whether may Parliament-men so chosen, act, or go beyond the commissi­on which they received from those that chose them?

Whether are not all Parliament-men to be accountable to the respective Cou [...]ties and Corporations that chose them?

Whether may not all Parliament-men be found to have an unlimited power, even to destroy their respective Counties and Corporations, unlesse they were to be accountable unto the said Counties and Corporations?

Whether if any Parliament-men refuse, are negligent, or unable to dis­charge the great trust reposed in them; may not the respective Counties and Corporations recall them back again as often as they please, and send o­thers more honest, diligent, & better qualifi'd for discharging so great a trust?

Whether is any Parliament-men shall betray the trust reposed in them may not their respective Counties and Corporations proceed to punish them by fines, imprisonment, or death, according to the magnitude of their of­fences?

Whether would it ever a whit the more indanger the being of Parlia­ments, though never so many of the Members of both or either House were questioned and punished for their unjust breach of trust; then if so many corrupt Judges of the Courts at Westminster were executed for their inju­stice or bribery, and honest men chosen in their places?

II. Concerning Parliament-mens wages and rewards.

Whether doth it not onely concern the respective Counties and Corpo­rations to make allowance unto their respective Parliament-men for their ordinary expences, and reward them for the in extraordinary services?

Whether is it more in the power of Parliament-men to receive the King­domes moneyes, and distribute them amongst themselves, 5000. l. 10000. l. of [...]0000. l. apeec [...] [...]on whatsoever pretences; then it is for so many Ap­prentices or other servants to be their own carvers, to pick their masters pockets, and take the moneyes out of their masters cash-chests, dividing them amongst themselves, according to what proportion they please, for wages [...] reward?

[Page 3] Whether are not such Parliament-men as liable to be punished by the known Lawes of England, as Apprentices for fingering and disposing of their Masters moneyes without commission or consent?

Whether ought not all such moneys, weekly pensions, and pretended re­wards & considerations already received by any Parliament-men, be brought into a publike Treasury for paiment of the Kingdomes just debts; and not onely such as received them, but such also as so profusely gave them, be made exemplary by some note or other, for thus arbitrarily disposing of the King­domes stock?

III. Parliament proceedings.

Whether have not many of these present Parliament-men behaved them­selves towards the people more like domineering Masters and Tyrants, then Representatives and Servants?

Whether ought the high Court of Parliament to entertaine any causes, save such as could not elswhere find relief, or had been unduly sentenced in other Courts of Justice?

Whether in this present Parliament have not Petitions been chiefly admit­ted through favour, or rejected for want of friends?

Whether are not all Parliament-men censurable by their respective Coun­ties and Corporations, for refusing to receive, or acquaint the House with such Petitions as have been given them, by any one, or more members of their respective Counties and Corporations?

Whether ought not the debates, and all proceedings of Parliament, with their subordinate Committees, except some few, which may require secrecy be made more publike, if possible, then any of the Courts at Westminster?

Whether ought not the Records, or Books of either House, lie open and free for any one to peruse, with such restriction onely and over-sight, as may secure them from being perverted or defaced?

Whether ought not any Subject of England to have a copie of any Act, Ordinance, Order, or Vote of either House, at such cheapest rates, as may onely produce the Officers a livelihood?

Whether is it not requisite that a Parliament being once begun, no Mem­ber should absent himselfe without expresse leave, upon apparent danger of health; and in such case, another forthwith to be chosen in his place?

Whether is it not requisite, that nothing passe as voted in either House, without three quarters of an exact full House; that is, three quarters of so many Members as each House consists of.

Whether is it not requisite, that every particular Parliament-mans name be registred, with his respective Yes or No, unto each Vote, that each [Page 4] [...] [Page 5] [...] [Page 4] County, Corporation, or any particular man may see how they behave themselves upon all occasions?

IV. Power of Parliaments.

Whether were it not most unlawfull and irrationall, to suppose that Parliament-men or any other number of people may have an unquestion­able or unlimited power, to live how they list or doe what they list, without controule or being accountable?

Whether were not such an unlimited power in any number of people destructive is a Nation?

Whether is not such mens power to bee interpreted unlimited and boundlesse, as have no other rule for what they doe, besides their own will and pleasure?

V. The peoples power of electing Synod-men.

Whether have these present Parliament-men any Power or Commission besides their owne will and pleasure, to alter or set up a new Religion?

Whether if these Parliament-men have power to alter our Religion, may they not possibly reduce it unto Popery againe, or set up such a new one, as yet was never heard of or imagined?

Whether if they should set up Poperie, or any other new-fashioned Re­ligion, make new Creeds and Service-Bookes, must wee not either con­forme unto them, or say, they had no Commission for setting of them up?

Whether is there any knowne Law for enabling of a Parliament to ch [...] a Synod, in such manner as that now assembled at Westminster was chosen?

Whether is not the power in the people for choosing Synod-men, as wel [...] as Parliament-men?

Whether was it not an extraordinarie breach upon the Subjects Libert [...] for these present Parliament-men to take upon them the choosing Synod-men in such manner as they did?

Whether by that Act of choosing Synod-men, and reserving the last ap­pease of all Synod matters unto themselves, together [...]th their arbitr [...] proceedings in Civill matters, and their endeavouring to perpetuate bo [...] one and other, doth it not appeare, that these p [...]sen [...] Parliament-men in­tended to inthrall the whole Kingdome bot [...] in C [...]ll and Church-mat­ters unto themselves, their sons, kindred and alliance, un [...]o the worlds end?

VI. A perpetuall Parliament.

Whether a King of Monarch who is but one, if he should degenerate unto a Tyrant, be not easier to be suppressed then 500. Parliament-men, they turne Tyrants?

Whether hath not a perpetuall Parliament a capacity of preferring their [Page 5] sons kindred and alliance throughout the whole Kingdome to bee chosen Parliament-men instead of such as die or shall be voted out at pleasure for not being of their faction even to the worlds end?

Whether hath not a perpetuall Parliament a capacity of intrusting none with the Militia throughout the Kingdome, besides their sons, kindred and alliance, unto the worlds end?

Whether hath not a perpetuall Parliament a capacity of preferring their sons, kindred and alliance, to bee Committee-men throughout the whole Kingdome, unto the words end?

Whether hath not a perpetuall Parliament the like capacity of preferring their sons, kindred, and alliance, to be Judges, and Justices of the peace, and unto all Offices, both of repute and profit, throughout the whole King­dome unto the worlds end?

Whether hath not a perpetuall Parliament a capacity of preferring their sons, kindred and alliance, to have the sole command of the Navie unto the worlds end?

Whether this perpetuall Parliament, with their sons kindred and alli­ance, being the sole Committee-men, and having all Offices of repute and profit in their own hands, together with the sole command of the Militia, both by Sea and Land, have not a capacity of becoming, the most absolute Tyrants which this Kingdome, or any Nation under the cope of heaven, ever endured?

Since the Act for the Trienniall Parliament was passed in the [...] of King Charles, & that Act for not dissolving this present Parliament without [...] ­sent of both Houses, not till the 17▪ of K. Charles; Whether were it not a contradiction, and a meer nullifying of the first Act of the 16▪ of K. Charles, to intend that this present Parliament should not have had a convement end, even within three yeers, that the Trienniall Parliament might have had its due beginning according to the said first Act of the 16▪ of K. Charles?

Whether is not a perpetuall Parliament prejudiciall to every man besides these present Parliament-men, their sons, kindred, and alliance; who by this meanes, are bereft of the honour of serving their Country in Par­liament, when they should be called unto it?

Whether is not a perpetuall Parliament prejudiciall to the whose King­dome in generall, which hath no possibilitie of enjoying the [...] abili­ties, or talents of any others, besides such as are present Parliament-men, their sons, kindred or alliance?

Whether was it more in the Kings power to make a perpetuall Parlia­ment, then to cause that there should never be any Parliament again?

[Page 6] Whether was not the going about to establish a perpetuall Parliament the greatest breach of the Subjects Liberty, which was ever made upon them▪

Whether are not such as were most active in the Houses to contrive it, or advising of the King to passe it, with all others endeavouring to being about this perpetuall Parliament, guilty of highest Treason which ever was committed, and most worthy to be questioned and punished, as the most destructive of all Counsellours both against King and Parliament, un­lesse they can make their innocence appeare more clearely then hitherto it doth? and consequently,

Whether ought we not to be more jealous of a Hydra, a many-headed Tyranny, then of Monarchy, which having but one head, may easier be re­duced upon any occasion of exorbitancy? and lastly,

Whether are not both King and People obliged both towards their God and Countrey, for bending all their might and maine to breake on and put a period unto this perpetuall Parliament?

VII. The three Estates in Parliament.

Whether is it not the first fundamentall Law, or rather the corner-stone and ground-work of all the Lawes of England; that no old Law shall be re­pealed, nor new Law made without concurrence of all the three E­states in Parliament?

Whether are not these three Estates in Parliament, the King, the Lords, the Commons?

Whether may it not be presumed an extraordinary policie in our Ance­stors, to establish the foundation of all our Lawes and Government rather upon these three Estates, then upon two or one?

Whether according to the old Proverb, that it is better to have two strings to a bow then one, is it not more hazardous to have old Lawes re­pealed, or new Lawes made by one or two Estates only, then by all three Estates in Parliament?

Whether is not the deniall of a negative voyce to either of the three E­states in Parliament, a reducing of the three Estates, unto a lesser number?

Whether doe not such go about to overthrow the ground-work, of all the fundamentall Lawes, who endeavour to reduce the three Estates in Par­liament to two, or one?

Whether are not such to be questioned and proceeded against as Arch­traytors to their Country, who go about to overthrow the very ground-work of all the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome, and seek to intro­duce a Government more hazardous, or lesse politick, then what our Ance­stors had setled so long since, and prospered so well withall?

VIII. As Order or Ordinance of Parliament.

Whether is not in Act of Parliament, of more validity, and more bind­ing, then in Ordinance, or abate Proclamation or single Order of either House of Parliament?

Whether is the acting by a bare Ordinance as warrantable, as by an Act of all the three Estates in Parliament?

Whether according to the known Lawes of England, may not the three Estates in Parliament assembled, question, and even punish all such as have at any time acted by an Ordinance, or Order of either House of Parliament?

Whether then doth is not exceedingly concern the whole Kingdome, that an Act of oblition bepassed, for all such matters as have been transacted without the Royall assent, since the beginning of this Parliament?

IX. Parliament Protections.

Whether is there laity [...] that the Estates of Parliament-men, whether Lords or Commons, sh [...]ld be exempted from paying of their just debts; much lesse the Estates of their servants, or persons of whomsoever they pro­tect; and least of all, when a Parliament shall be spun out into such an ever­lastingnesse?

Whether the keeping Parliament-mens Estates, both of Lords and Com­mons, from being subject to pay debts, hath not likely been an effect of the tyrannous usurpation of Parliaments, rather then any just Law or practice?

Whether have not these Parliament-mens so long exempting their estates from paying debts, expressed them to be meer self-seekers, done them much hurt and discredit, and even dishonoured Parliaments, as much as any one act of theirs?

Whether may it is not to be supposed that no act hath so much alienated the minds of London from these present Parliament-men, as their not paying their private debts unto the Citizens, to whom so many of them, both Lords and Commons, are so much engaged?

Whether is it not probably to be judged, that many men have used in­direct meanes to get themselves chosen Parliament-men, that they might thereby exempt both their persons and estates from paying debts, and be at liberty to cozen their fellow-subjects by priviledge of Parliament?

Whether have not many men with their whole families, not only much suffered, but beene quite undone, through the death of so many Parliament-men, both Lords and Commons, during the over-growne Session of this everlasting Parliament?

Whether is it not most of all unreasonable and unjust, that such Lords as have not beene suffered to sit in the House of Peeres for their malignancy, [Page 8] should yet their estates protected by the same House, from paying of their debts; whilst such as were dismissed the House of Commo [...] for the same cause, became liable to payment of their [...]ebts▪ both in their [...] and estates? And lastly,

Whether if there had been any colourable Law or Custome formerly for freeing Parliament-mens estates from paying debts, were it not a most [...] ­centio [...] and unwarrantable Law or Custom [...].

X. The Parliament and Armies Case

By what know Law doth it appeare, that this present Parliament ha [...] any other rule or ground for levying of a war, and keeping Armies on foot; beside the extreame necessity there of, for preservation of the Kingdome, or their partie rather?

Whether hath not the Army under the command of Sir Thomas Fairfax, the selfe-same ground of extreamest necessity, not to disband, untill they see themselves and partie secured, by the settlement of the Kingdome?