A Reply to a nameleſſe Pamphlet, intituled an Anſwer To a Speech without Doores, &c.

I Had thought M. Chaloners ſpeech ſhould not ſooner have been publiſhed then received, the joy of our Nation for ſo knowing a man of it, his gallant ſayings did not tend to the advance of himſelf, but his Countrey, not to deſtroy the King (as ſome will have it) but to let him know hee was Prince of a People that know their priviledges, and his juſt autho­rity, which they would not have queſtioned by ſervants and hirelings, but preſerved by Freemen and Maſters: but the bad people of our Nati­on, that had rather be ſlaves to ſtrangers, then live in neceſſary ſubjection under the Government of their Countrymen, muſt ſtretch their little proportion of wit to a defence of the Scoriſhmens intereſt in the diſpo­ſition of the Engliſh affairs. For allow them a right in the diſpoſall of the King in England, and that of the Kingdom muſt needs follow: but the undertaker of this muſt be ſuch anone whoſe expreſſions of himſelfe in Greek may perſwade a man of the excellency of the Engliſh intended to put a Blur on this Worthy of Iſrael: But to leave this prefacing (as he terms it) I ſhall diſcover the weakneſſe of this Malignant imagined confutation.

And firſt (God not permitting him in this to lye) he admires Maſter Chaloner comming forth as a Goliah, and being unable to meet him in the field of Truth, which M. Chaloner had ſtated in few lines (making the Scotchmans much appear little, which are whereſoever the King of Scotland hath an intereſt in their King they may diſpoſe of him.

But he will have it altered from the Truth, and ſayth, thus it ought to be.

I confeſſe, for a principle for him to ground his argument on thus. It ought to be, But whereas he urges Covenant, Treaty, and the Law of Nations to be the ground the Scots work upon to prove their intereſt in the diſpoſing of the perſon of the King he being in England, if it were as well proved, as it is by him urged, it might appear rationall, but not true enough for rationall Engliſhmen to believe it. For as no preſident can be brought to prove the King of England was ever in his Kingdom of England diſpoſed of by the greateſt forreigne Prince, I hope wee are not grown ſo effeminate to let him be diſpoſed of, or we ſubjected by one of the meaneſt people.

Page 3, he ſayth the Scotch Papers do ſtate the queſtion not upon the authority, power and office of the King, but upon the perſon of the King.

When a queſtion is put to have judgement given on it, if it be not right put, it cannot be rightly judged: And the caſe between us and the Scots is not how it is put, but how it ought to be.

He hath an ill tongue that cannot tell a good tale for himſelf, the Scots make the perſon of the King the only thing of diſpute, but wee are by Covenant oblieged to mayntayn as well the Law of the Land, as the perſon of the King, therefore they leaving that out hath made the caſe imperfect.

But imagine the perſon of the King to be the only thing now in di­ſpute, yet hath the Parliament of England the ſole diſpoſing of it in England.

The caſe is thus, both the Kingdomes have voted, the Kings perſon ought to be diſpoſed of, and therefore it ought, to be ſo beyond diſpute; ſo that now the queſtion is whether the Parliament of England ſhall diſpoſe of him in England, or the Scots and Parliament. Now as it is a great prejudice to the honour of the Engliſh Nation to have any other people to diſpoſe of their King in their own Country ſingly, or joyntly, ſo it ought to be looked into whether they have a right to do it, if they have a right, it muſt be by cuſtome, or an Act of Parliament: And if they can ſhew neither Preſident nor Law, God forbid that the Parlia­ment that ſitteth to make us free, and preſerve the priviledge of the En­gliſh Nation ſhould conſent to this that will ſo much deſtroy it.

Page 3, he alſo ſayth, That the honour, perſon, and juſt priviledges of the King ought by Covenant to be mayntained, wherefore they be­ing joyned in it, they are bound to mayntain it.

We will allow that they ought, and when they finde that the Par­liament doth take away the juſt priviledges, or wrong his perſon, then let them endevour to defend it: and if the Parliament cannot ju­ſtifie their actions by their priviledges they will be blameable.

Page 4, he ſayth, the paper ſayth, Perſona ſequitur locum, and his per­ſon muſt be diſpoſed of by the ſupreme power of that Countrey where­ſoever he ſhall hap to abide. By which principle ſayth he, the perſon of the King of England, if he were in Scotland muſt be diſpoſed of by the ſupream power of that Countrey: And was not this well pleaded for the intereſt of the Parliament of England.

There is nothing can be ſayd to juſtifie the juſt ſpirit of M. Chaloner more then this noble expreſſion, for as hee would have no inchroach­ment on the priviledge of the Engliſh Nation by the Scots, ſo he is equal­ly4 juſt in defending the priviledges of the Scots againſt the Engliſh.

He ſayth in Page 9 of M. Chalenors Speech, he reades that what per­ſon ſoever commeth into the Kingdom of England, hee is forthwith a ſubject of England, for being protected by the Laws, hee becomes ſub­ject to the Laws. On which hee concludeth that when an Embaſſadour comming from an other Countrey into England, can receive no prote­ction in England, and further inferres that the honour of the Parliament and Kingdome are blemiſhed by this with forreigners.

As the Laws of all Nations are made poſitive to all people reſiding under the protection of them without exception of Embaſſadours, yet the condition of Embaſſadours is ſo welcome to a Kingdom or Common wealth (that always comming to make peace, or continue it) that they have from the beginning had the priviledge to be protected in all Coun­treys where they ſhall happen to be, and our Laws of England are ſo agreeable to the Civill Law, that the ſubjection an Embaſſadour is in by them, is agreeable to that Law of Nations that maintaineth their freedome, wherefore although they are not excepted from it, yet are they not liable to prejudice by it, therefore any reaſonable creature may judge whether the honour of the Kingdom and Parliament can for this be brought in queſtion by Forreigners. This civill protection to Com­miſſioners or Embaſſadours is in Scotland as well as England, and al­though he will have the contrary, yet will the Parliament of Englands Commiſſioners reſiding in Scotland, claime as their Jus, the ſame pro­tection and priviledge there, as they and other Embaſſadours enjoy in England, and will beyond all peradventure have it.

But in page 5 on theſe words of Maſter Chaloners. That if a King of Scotland had come into England before the union, his perſon might have been diſpoſed of by the ſole authority of the Laws of England.

He inſinuates, that by this principle the Prince of Wales, his perſon is to be diſpoſed of by the authority of the Laws of France, and the King and Parliament, have no authority to recall him and is not this a good ſalve for the honour of the Parliament? ſayth he.

This is a further diſcovery of his quibling and little ability to judge on ſuch things for want of knowledge in the proceedings of former ages in ſuch caſes. He needed not have gone further for preſidents then his own Countrey (if he be an Engliſh man) in this caſe, for the taking priſoner of Richard the firſt King of England by the Duke of Auſtria, as he paſſed through his Countrey at his return from the termed Holy5 Warre, notwithſtanding they were both ingaged in it, and the ſecuring of the perſon of Mary Queen of Scots in the Reigne of Queen Eliza­beth. But if any ſhall ſay they were both enemies to England, as well the Queen of Scots as the Duke of Auſtria, and therefore to take all ad­vantages againſt each other. It is moſt ſure that the King of England and the Duke of Auſtria wereboth in amity and kept good correſpon­dencie, as was neceſſary for Princes whoſe Countreys lay ſo far diſtant one from the other, and the Queen of Scots had ſeverall Ties on the Queen of England that might obliege her friendſhip to her, as that of kinred, the leaving out of her Coat the Armes of England, which the Kingdom of France had adjudged her a right to beare, and aſſurance from the Queen Elizabeth of her welcome and ſafety in England, had ſhee ſtaid in her own Countrey till it came into her hand, and as there was no certain peace, ſo there was no war between them. Wherefore if the Prince of Wales is gone into France, without aſſurance from that Kingdom of his ſafety there, and liberty to return, he may, for ought I know, have the ſame fortune that theſe Princes had, and as his going was without the conſent of the Parliament, ſo if it ſhould happen he ſhould ſuffer there, they are free from blame of his misfortune.

A little further he ſayth Maſter Chaloner hath it thus. No man can be ſayd to be Rex but in Regno, wherefore ſayth he, by juſt Analogy the Parliament of England cannot be acknowledged a Parliament, but in England only, Neyther can there Commiſſioners in any other Kingdom or State being admitted to propound, declare, treat, or conclude in name of both Houſes; Theſe are fine Oxford Inferences for as a King of Eng­land by being in France loſeth not his Title of King of England, he gaineth not the Title of King of France, And they may take him as Sub­ject of France and King of England as we know they have done thoſe Kings as have been Dukes of Normandy. And if they will admit the King of England his Title of England, he being in France, Maſter Cha­loner only denying Forreign King, the Title of that Countrey where he ſhall happen to comeunto and not the Title of his own that he brought with him they will admit whom he appoint his Meſſengers or Agents as ſervant of the King of England, when they ſhall reſide there from him, and the Parliament when they ſend their Commiſſioners thither, or to any other Countrey, deſireth not the title of the Parliament of that Countrey, nor their Commiſſioners to be ſo accepted: But thoſe that will allow them the title and power of the Parliament of England in6 England, may accept of their Commiſſioners in any other Countrey, as ſervants to the Parliament of England without prejudice of the Parlia­ment of that Countrey where their Commiſſioners ſhall ſo reſide. And although in England we would not admit of Mary as Queen of Eng­land, yet was ſhee acknowledged Queen of Scots at her being here.

A few lines further Maſter Chalenor, ſayth he, in his pag. 9, telleth us, If the Scots be our fellows why come they not to our Parliaments, on which, ſayth he, if it can be made to appear that they be our fellows, equals and brethren, they may come to our Parliaments and ſee how the priviledges of Parliament is mainteined, doth it make a breach of privi­viledge of Parliament to doe juſtice in it? And when the Scots can make it appear that they are in that capacity, that M. Chalenor and all the Kingdom knoweth them to want, God forbid but they ſhould have right, and then how could that be againſt the honour of the Parliament?

On what M. Chaloner ſayth of John King pf England, in his Speech in this Anſwerers pag. 6. he will have it much to ſtrengthen the Scotch papers, for ſayth he, if the King of England muſt be diſpoſed of by the ſole authority of both Houſes of Parliament, what ſhall become of the perſon of the King of Scotland? There is no more cauſe of doubt in them of that, then we ought to make of their diſpoſing of the King of England, whom they have in their cuſtody, and as he is in England they are unjuſt in deteining him, but if they ſhall get him into Scotland, as they have no right in him in England, we could pertein as little to him, he being in Scotland, and though M. Chaloner pleadeth for a ſole power in both Hou­ſes to diſpoſe of him in England, yet doth he not plead for it out of Eng­land, as their ſuggeſtion will have it, which diſcovers this Anſwer of a falſe calumner, and that he hath an inſight into his diſability to anſwer other mens, and therefore he will make queſtions of his own.

This pretended Anſwer to M. Chaloners Speech is no better then that of this Anſwerers fellow Collegian, where telling a ſheepherd, he was a ſheep and he would prove him ſo, the ſhepherd deſiring to know how, he replyed, That the ſheepherd had a head, and a ſheep had a head, ergo he was a ſheep.

The reſt that commeth from this Subtiliſt is no anſwer, but a mali­cious aſperſion on M. Chaloner, and the honourable Parliament, and as he endeth ſo do I, with my deſire of God, that from ſuch Apoſtates from their native Country and Countrymen he would deliver us.