THE JUSTIFICATION OF A safe and wel-grounded ANSWER To the Scottish Papers, Printed under the name of Master Chaloner HIS SPEECH: WHICH, (VVhatsoever the Animadvertor affirmes) doth maintaine the Honour of the PARLIAMENT, and Interest of the Kingdome of ENGLAND.

Appointed to be printed, according to an Order of the House of Commons.

LONDON, Printed by A. Griffin. 1646.

The Justification of a safe and wel-grounded Answer to the Scotch Papers, Printed under the name of Mr. Chaloners Speech; Which, (whatsoever the Animadvertor affirmes) doth maintaine the Honour of the Parliament, and Interest of the Kingdome of England.

I Need not aske much who this Animadvertor is; for by his Text he seemes to be a malig­nant Divine, by his scraps of Greeke and Latine some Peda­gogue, by his stile no Eng­lishman, and by the whole scope of his discourse an In­cendiary. His Text is Prov. 28.2. For the transgres­sions of a Land many are the Princes thereof. By Prin­ces, it is commonly thought, that he meanes the Members of Parliament; but therein certainly he is much mistaken in the sence of the Text: For if they be Princes, it was never the transgression of the Land, but the transgression of the Prince of the Land, which made them Princes. And if they be [Page 2] Princes, they are very poore ones, and by his orde­ring but of a very short continuance; for he hath no sooner begun his Sermon, but he forgets his Text, and speakes of the Parliaments former low con­dition; whereas never any made it solow as him­selfe: for if a Member of Parliament could not be answered within doores, there was never any one so bold untill this present, that durst answer him without; and the Parliament is low indeed, when a Member thereof cannot assert the Votes of both Houses, but he must be called to an account by every unknowne person. But let him consi­der; if hereby hee have not opened a doore for every Pamphleter to come in at, whereby some late printed Speeches will hardly goe Scotfree; for if a Principall cannot escape, what then will become of a Deputy?

For the Gentleman that made this Speech (though he neither ownes the printing nor Title page, yet) the matter of it hee must justifie, unlesse hee will deeline the interest of this Kingdome; But he be­ing of that great Councell the Parliament, can spend his time better there, both for his credit, and service of his Countrey, then by answering of every mans impertinencies. And therefore give me leave, as unknowne a person as this Animadver­tor is, yet a better English man, to tell him how inconsiderately he contradicts himselfe in the very beginning of his discourse, when he assures you he wil not presume to intermeddle with any thing spo­ken within the wals; and yet he presently tels you of [Page 3] something spoken there, (as hee saith) different from the Originall; whereby at the first dash hee proves himselfe a notable Incendiary, and would set jealousies and devisions betwixt the Members of the house of Commons, as if there were Spies amongst them, and such who to maintaine the In­terest of another Kingdome, were so vile and base as to be content to betray their owne.

But I hasten to his Animadversions, where Go­liah like he presents himselfe a Champion to con­found (if he could) not the Army, but the asser­tions of both houses of Parliament. And first hee saith, that the Argument which the Gentleman makes is mistaken, because hee joyneth not the Covenant, Treaty, and the Law of Nations with the interest which the Kingdome of Scotland pretends unto the King; whereas these particulars are severally han­dled in the Scottish Papers, and therefore must be answered severally; and the Gentleman hath so sufficienly by many Arguments cleared in the first place, that by the Law of Nations the King­dome of Scotland hath nothing at all to doe to dis­pose of the Person of the King, he being now in England, as I am confident he will never be able to disprove any part thereof whilst he lives.

The next exception which this Animadvertor takes, is against the distinction of a King in abstracto, and concreto, and that Persona is not Concretum. Hereby you may see how he is contented to passe [Page 4] over such things of most substance, which he cannot answer, and to set up men of straw (to use his owne words) for himselfe to buffet.

This distinction of Abstractum & Concretum is as ancient as Logicke it selfe; but if hee will be­lieve no Logicke but his owne, let him looke upon an elaborate Booke written by one very neere and deere to some of the Scottish Commissioners, cal­led Lex & Rex, in the 29 question, page 265. and there he shall finde these very words, This is an evident and sencible distinction, the King in Con­creto, the man who is King; and the King in ab­stracto, the Royall office of the King. And whereas it is affirmed that the honourable Houses doe state the question not upon the Authority of the King, but upon his Person, so doth the Gentleman like­wise; and he concludes against any thing which hath been yet said to the contrary, that neither by Law nor Covenant the Scots have any Inte­rest to dispose of the Kings Person, he being now in England.

Thirdly he objects, that if the Kings Person be to be disposed of by the power of that Countrey where hee happens to abide, then if hee were in Scotland hee must be disposed of by the power of that Countrey. This is confessed to be true. And if hee were now in Scotland, as hee is an England, they had then the sole power of disposing him. And I doubt not but they would dispose of him for the equall good of both Kingdoms; wherein I should be so farre [Page 5] from envying of their felicity, as I should wish much good might he doe them. But notwithstan­ding all this the assertion stands good, that they have no authority to dispose of him, (as they now doe) in England.

In the fourth Animadvertion hee makes the Gentleman speake what he doth not; for the Gentleman doth say, that England is as distinct a Kingdome from Scotland, as Spaine; but he saith not it is as distinct in Interest, as the Animadvertor affirmes. Yet, by his favour, the Interests are so distinct, that neither the unity of one Religion, one Covenant, one King, one Cause, or one Warre, can confound them. It is no longer then Philip and Maries daies, that England and Spaine had all the said Inte­rests, (the Covenant excepted;) but yet no English man upon paine of death, for all that, could saile into the Indies, neither enjoy other priviledges of Spaine, no more then a Spa­niard could doe in England. And for Scot­lands entring into confederacy with For­raigne Nations without the approbation of Eng­land, the Treaty betwixt the Kingdomes must judge of that; but neither any Treaty or Co­venant yet made doth give them interest either in governing of our Militia, making of our Lawes, or setling of our Church-government, as it was once aymed at. In all which they have liberty to advise, as also how the Kings [Page 6] Person may be disposed of for the equall good of both Kingdomes; but the English onely are to be sole Judges thereof, and to act thereupon as they themselves shall thinke fitting. And so I thinke the Gentleman hath well provided for the Inte­rest of England.

But now this Animadvertor begins to be so full of contradiction, that he seemes to be the very abstract of it; and thereupon cannot en­dure the word concrete, and brings it in here once againe, and would have an Ambassadour onely protected by the Law of Nations, and is angry with the Gentleman because he affirmes that the Lawes of England doe protect him: What the Law of Nations is, other then cer­taine generall principles of Justice which nature hath infused into all men, I see not; for I am sure, that all Nations did never yet meet toge­ther to make these Lawes, neither doe they ever meet to punish them when they are bro­ken; but give mee leave to tell this Animad­vertor, that if the Law of England did not concur with the Law of Nations in punishing such as might violate the Priviledge of an Am­bassadour, I know not to what Tribunall that Ambassadour could appeale; for the Gentle­man faith truely in the fourteenth page, That the English Nation being not subordinate to any power on Earth, there is no power under heaven can judge them.

[Page 7] Neither hath an Ambassador any priviledge by the law of Nations, farther then the particular or muni­ficall law of that Nation unto whom hee is adressed will allow of.

For if an Ambassador will adventure to enter into a Country or State, with whom his Master or Prince is either in actuall Warre, or hath not contracted withal any confedracy, that Ambassador, is so far from being alowed any priviledge of an Embassador as he may justly be imprisoned and adjudged as a Spie, at least an enemy, and therefore no Ambassador of one Prince not in unity or confedracy with another, can with safety enter into the other Princes Dominions, without leave being first demanded and obtained, from whence it followeth that what priviledge soever an Ambassador may pretend unto, it is not the law of Nations, but only the particular contract, confedracy and agreement, betwixt his Master and that Prince or State, unto whom he is sent that can protect and defend him.

And whereas from the Gentlemans affirmation that no King can command any Subject of his being out of his Kingdome, this Animadvertor will con­clude, that by the same reason the Parliament here cannot Command their Commissioners which they may send into Scotland; but they must solely be disposed of by the supream power of that Kingdom.

In answere whereunto, It is not to be doubted, but that the supreame power in Scotland hath the Ge­nerall power in disposing of all persons whatsoever and their estates there according to the Lawes and [Page 8] customes of that Country, yet not so neither, but that particularly every man by leave of those Lawes and customes may command his owne Servant in his pri­vate affaires, and dispose of his Estate as he shall think convenient, provided that such command and dispo­sall be not contrary to the said Lawes and customes, so the Parliament of England sending Commissoners into Scotland have power to command them in their affaires, as well as any Master there can command his servant; and further as any treaty or contract made, or to be made betwixt both the Kingdomes, hath or may hereafter ad or deminish from the said power.

Then he objects that if a King of Scotland comming into England before the union should bee a Subject of England. By the same reason the Prince of Wales is now a Subject of France, and then his person is solely to be disposed of by the power of France, and neither King nor Parliament have power to recal him. To this I Answer as before that the Prince is now lo­cally and pro tempore a Subiect of France and if he will not come home or the state of France will not suffer him so to doe, we have no Authority to compell him.

Now he argueth from Analogie, that if no man can be Rex but in Regno, then cannot the Parliament of England be acknowledged a Parliament but in Eng­land. This is such a wild Argument that I can hardly catch it, For if all the Members and Speakers of both Houses should go out of England, nay if they went but from Westminster to Lambeth without a Legall ad­journment thither, certainly their meeting there maks it no Parliament. But as long as they meet at Westmin­ster [Page 9] without disolution or adiournment to any other place, their Commissioners in any other Kingdome or state, are capable and may bee admitted to pro­pound, declare, Treat, or conclude in the name of both Houses. But as if the Parl [...]ament should go into Spaine it is no Parliament there nor can give no lawes to them, no more then it can give them Lawes whilst it resides here in England, so a King of England being in Spaine, though he reteine his dignity, yet he hath no authority either to establish their lawes, or stampe their Coyne, no more then if he were in England: And as other Nations may acknowledge the Parliament of England to be a Parliament, though none of their Parliament, so they may acknowledge a King of England to be a King (live where he list) but none of their King, and as to them in way of protection and subiection (which only makes a King) no King at all.

In the 9 Animadversion he would faine incorpo­rate our Brerhren of Scotland into our Parliament of England by making them our Fellowes. But there be divers kinds of Fellowes besides fellowes at Football, I acknowledge the Scotts to be our Fellowes and e­qualls, but not in making of Lawes in England, nor of Iudging or executing of those Lawes after they are made, and so they can no more dipose of the King in England then come to our Parliaments in England.

Now for the story of King Iohn, it will appeare that the argument which the Gentl. holds forth from the summons of King Iohn to answer in France is very materiall and proves apparently, that a King hath no [Page 10] power to recall any of His Subjects, they being out of his Kingdom: for King Iohn not being summoned as King of England, but as Duke of Normandy, a Subject of France, so was his summons adjudged voyd, not because he was King of England, but because hee was in England, and not in France at the time of his sum­mons. Neither can any man see how this narration doth strengthen the Scotish Papers, because the King of Engl. who is the person here summoned, is at this time at Newcastle in Engl. which place (though some of the Army there date their Letters from Newcastle in Scotland) yet it was ingeniously confessed by the Scottish Commissioners as I am informed at the con­ference, that it was as much English ground as Isling­ton. And therefore he being at this time Infra juris­dictionem Regni Angliae, and extra jurisdictionem Regni Scotiae, the assertion is still made good, and the state of Scotland, nothing at all to doe with disposall of the Kings person.

And whereas the Animadvertor saith, that the case is not alike, King Iohn being King of one King­dome and Subject of another, and the person now in question, being King of two Kingdomes: under fa­vour though hee have two Kingdomes, yet hee is not here as King of Scotland, but as King of England: For if he were here in the Capacity of a King of Scotland he were a Subject, and then you might know well enough what should become of the King of Scotland, as you have formerly done of some of them, who yet have plotted lesse then others have acted.

[Page 11] And whereas the Gentleman saith, That these Kingdoms seeme to contend not so much who should have the Kings Person, as who should not have it. It must needs be a great griefe to both Kingdomes, that the Kings heart is yet so farre from being reconciled to either people, that they neither can have any joy or safety in his presence. But whereas both Houses of Parliament have Voted the disposall of the Kings person to be onely belonging unto them, they did wisly and uprightly in it: for as they did therein uprightly because of right and Iustice it doth belong unto them, for they did noe lesse wisly, because they now see by deere experience that his being where hee is hath beene so litle for there Intrest, as since his be­ing there he hath made peace with the Irish Rebells, sent his Sonne the prince into France, maintained strong Intelligence with other Countries a­gainst them, and is dayly flocked unto by Delinquents and Incendiaries, insomuch as they receive litle iesse damage thereby, then if he were at the head of an Ar­my of Cavaliers.

In the last place this Animadvertor when he can­not answer the Gentleman, then he will slander him, and saith he doth this out of some Ancient discontent of his against the King, certainly if he had not beene discontented with the Kings Actions long agoe, hee could hardly have beene an honest man now: for with out doubt all these warrs, troubles and turmoyles which the Parliament and kingdome have felt these five yeares last past have beene occasioned from the [Page 12] many and Just discontents at the Kings evill Govern­ment: And if this man be alone contented, when all the kingdome hath such cause of discontent, it is more then probable that he is and hath beene one of the procurers thereof. It is a hard case that a Member of Parliament cannot vindicate the Intrest which the people of this kingdome have in the person of their King, or desire that great Counsell to have a care of the safety of the Common wealth, but it must bee attributed to former discontents, and whereas he Re­cons up so many Oathes, Protestations, Declarations and Covenants, made by the Parliament for the safety of the Kings person, but never any mention at all of the safety of the Common-wealth, it seems too much to savour of Malignity, and of some late diipersed papers.

But as I could wish that this Animadvertor would remember how Kings are made by, & for the people, but not the people either by or for the Kings, so hee would consider that the end of Government, is for the weale and safety of the people and not of the King, further then his safety may be conducible to the other. And if the Scots Commissioners did plainely affirme to the Committees of both Houses at the Conference that they could not admit of the Kings presence in Scotland because of the divisions and trou­bles of that Kingdome which hee might make such use of as to raise forces both against them and us, what could this imply but that notwithstanding his person might be in safety in Scotland, yet Scotland could [Page 13] not be in safety whilest his person was there. And if they positively affirme it on their part, may not we make a question of it on ours? And now I have an­swered all that this Animadverter can say, to the main of his Animadversions, I will not give him over, until I see an end of what he can say besides. And first how the Scotts may like the Gent. Speach for the matter of it, it being as he saith so malliable, I wonder no better a Hammer was put to it: And if the Intelli­gent reader (as hee saith) be of the opinion that this speech (which was delivered but upon once hearing of the Scottish papers read) doth notwithstanding very much fortifie the said papers, how much more will the House of Commons fortifie them when they deliver in their Answer thereunto, after due conside­ration had of every word and sillable. And whereas he doubts whether it will have a favourable aspect from the Parliament, either for the matter or expres­sion. For the matter since the Gent. doth but As­sert their Votes they would be very forgetfull of their owne interest if they should be offended thereat, For the Acrimonious expressions I know of none, but could have wished, that in divers late printed papers some expressions and prejudgements, how that dispo­sing may be deposing or worse, might have beene al­together omitted, since the constant indulgence of the English Nation to their Kings, farre above some of their Neighbours never merited to be dishonou­red, by such an unworthy conceit, and as the very stirring of this Question tends to debates and diffe­rences, [Page 14] so will such provoking language but increase and foment it.

Now to take my leave of this Animadvertor if he be a Divine, I shall desire him to follow his preaching and give over States matters, ill becomming [...]hat pro­fession: If he be a Paedagogue that hee will Lash his Boyes and not Parliaments If he be an Alien, hee will go home to his Country since we have Incendi­aries enough of our owne, from whom, and from all treacherous and underm ineing designers. I will con­clude with his owne Letany,

Good Lord deliver us.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.