An VNHAPPIE GAME AT SCOTCH AND ENGLISH.
Scotch Papers. Pag. 2.
THe Parliament of England, hath no more power to diſpoſe of the perſon of the King of Scotland, being in England,Scotland. then the Parliament of Scotland hath to diſpoſe of the perſon of the King of England, if he were in Scotland.
Anſ. Brethren, you ſay very well: But the queſtion is,England. whether ſuch a diſpoſing may be either by the one or by the other? Whether the Armies of Scotland being in England, may diſpoſe of the King of England being in England or no, And ſo on the contrary? But indeed it needs not much to be diſputed, for in words you deny your ſelves of that power, when you tell us, (pag. ibid. ) that the Armies of Scotland have nothing to doe in the diſpoſe of the King of England, yet for all this, in deeds you do aſſume as much as that comes to, to your ſelves; for though you plead your Scotiſh intereſt in the King of Sotland to countenance the fact, yet behind the ſhadow of that Curtaine (thus drawn before our eyes) you keep the King of England from England, & ſo conſequently King it over England behind; which we are confident2 would by your ſelves be condemned in us, in caſe you ſhould be ſo dealt withall by the Armies of England, for we cannot judge that the Armies of Scotland would count i•lawfull for the armies of England, if they were in Scotland, for their aſſiſtance, to deny them the delivery of the King of Scotland: Becauſe being in England they refuſe to deliver him to England, according to the votes and deſires of the two Houſes of England. Therefore we judge, that Scotland would much more claime that priviledge in him, being in Scotland; for if they will claim it out of their bounds where they have no right of authority, they will much more claime it within the bounds of their dominions, where their power is intire to themſelves.
Therefore is is not well done of our deare brethren of Scotland, thus to caſt a Scotch miſt before the eyes of their Brethren of England: For though (as before) verbally they diſclaime all power in their armies, for his diſpoſall without the joynt conſent of the two Kingdomes, yet (as deare Brethren) their armies have received, entertained and kept him even in his perſon, and that before the joynt conſent of the two Kingdomes, and abſolutely againſt the will and deſires of ours. So that the King of England, and the King of Scotland is diſpoſed of by the armies of Scotland, without the conſent or advice of either Kingdome. We hope our deare Brethren will not ſay, their armies received advice and direction for his entertainment from the Kingdom of Scotland; for that were a capitulation with him, without the privity and conjuncture of England, which by them pag. 6. is diſavowed.
But in caſe our brethren might receive him without the mutuall conſent of both Kingdomes, then why doe they ſtand for a mutuall conſent for his delivery, for by the Lord Loudou's own argument (pa. 25.) contrariorum contraria ſunt conſequentia, contraries have contrary conſequents.
Therefore if they may not part with him, without the conſent and advice of the two Kingdomes, then ought they not to have received him without that conſent. If our deare brethren ſhould urge, that parting with him were a diſpoſing of him, and that they may not do without breach of Covenant3 and Treaty: the like we retort by their owne rule of contraries, concerning thei•receiving of him: for receiving is by the ſaid rule as much a diſpoſing as parting with him, ſo that if our deare brethren be men that are true to their owne rules and principles, we may conclude, that if they will not part with him without the conſent of the Kingdome of Scotland, that then they had the conſent of the Kingdome of Scotland to receive him, before they did receive him, but our deare brethren doe affirme the one, pag. 8. therefore from the truth and fidelity of our brethren, we may well conclude the other.
Oh! what ſhall we ſay or think now of our brethren? are they not of divine Covenanters, become cheating Juglers. For let any man judge, whether the keeping the Kings perſon at New-Caſtle without our conſent, be not as abſolute a diſpoſall, as afterwards the ſending of his perſon to White-Hall, Richmond-Houſe, Hampton-Court, or elſe where, by the joynt advice and conſent of the two Kingdomes. They would differ in manner indeed, but not in the nature of the thing, and the nature of the thing, is the matter in hand: The difference would be but in an Accident, na•uely the addition of our conſent; it is now without it, it could then be but with it, and both's a diſpoſall: Yea, though it ſhould be without this conſent either of yours of ours: For an accident may be wanting and the ſubject remaine.
But to colour this diſpoſall from the cenſure of their act, our brethren doe tell us, that
Anſ. It ſeemes, from hence you would inferre that the Act of that diſpoſing of his perſon is by himſelfe,England. and not by you. But for anſwer thereto, conſider your own grounds: By the Covenant and Treaty you urge, that his perſon is ſolely and intirely to be diſpoſed of by the parliament of both Kingdomes, and not ſingly, or by a third, but by the joynt advice and conſent of both: Therefore from this grant of yours, your Armie neither had nor hath any power individually to4 make or medle with his perſon, or in the leaſt wiſe to diſpoſ•of it, no, not for a minute, in this place or that place, for this or for that, or till things ſhould be ſo or ſo, therefore your Act of entertainment of his comming, was (by the juſt ſequell of your owne ground) an actuall diſpoſing of his perſon, pro tempore, even as well, and as really, as if you ſhould diſpoſe of it for ever, for the difference would only be in the protract of time, not in the nature of the thing.
Further, the thing betwixt the two Kingdomes by the Conant and Treaty, is not what he might doe, but what the two Kingdomes thereby are mutually bound to doe, for the Covenant and Treaty was not made with him, but betwixt the two Kingdomes: So that his voluntary Act was nothing to your nationall duty and obligation, for his perſonall will was no wiſe included in the condition thereof: Then was neither his perſonall aſſent nor diſſent required to the making either of the one or the other.
So that his voluntary comming or ſtaying, is neither here not there to your act: for this receiving and retaining (though voluntary by him) is as well an actuall diſpoſing of yours (though not in that aggravation) as if you had fet him, and continued him by force, or conſtraint as you call it: And therefore the act of your receiving and keeping his perſon without our conſent, is that againſt which we except: It is not about the manner how, whether by his will, or by your force, that our difference is ſtated, but about the definitive matter of diſpoſition it ſelfe; although with your manner how and the like, you would delude us, and divert us from the ſtate of the queſtion, reaſoning from the manner, and ſo concluding againſt us in the matter, when indeed you ſhould reaſon from the matter, and then it would be otherwiſe. Therefore your receiving and continuing, is an abſolute poſſeſſion and diſpoſing thereof, and ſo it is your act.
Beſides, he could neither enter nor continue, without your conſent. For can a well fortifyed City be entered by a ſingle man, without force, or there be continued, except the Citizens pleaſe, and is not your armie equivolent thereto? Therefore it is the act of your pleaſure, though his be added therto5 the addition whereof nothing diminiſhing there-from for by how much the more his pleaſure and your pleaſure agrees without ours, by ſo much the more is it dangerous and ſuſpitious; but the concord & conjunction thereof is to ſuch an high meaſure aſpired, that you are not aſhamed to tell us, that you will not have him delivered or diſpoſed of contrary to his will, which muſt needs be his perſonall will, for were it his leagall will, he then would be aſſenting to the Orders and determinations of his great Counſell, the two Houſes of Parliament, his legall will, wee are ſure it cannot bee, except from the Parliament he carried with him the Soveraign power of the land, & it hath journeyed with him ever ſince; and now with him he hath brought it to our dear Brethren of Scotland: If it be ſo, then truly our Brethren have (all this while of their concurrance with us againſt him) been Traytors and Rebels thereto as well as our ſelves; yet ſure our dear Brethren (if it be but for their credits) will not ſay ſo; and if they doe not, then what are our brethren now? It muſt needs be granted and concluded at firſt or at laſt: So that how to award our dear Brethren from Treaſon and Rebellion againſt the Soveraigne Power of this Land wee doe not ſee; therefore our dear Brethren might doe well with their next papers to ſend us a paire of Scotiſh-ſpectacles that are fit for our eyes, and their caractar, for by our Engliſh reading (printed by Evan Tyler at London) wee can read them no other as yet: Therefore in the meane time in our anſwer to the Will of the King, we muſt conſider that Will, as the Will of Charles Steuart, contrary to whoſe Will, you will not have him diſpoſed; ſo that in deed and in truth, you place the whole power of the diſpoſall of Charles Steuart, in the Will of Charles Steuart, and make that his perſonall Will, the Eſſence of that Diſpoſall; for the Will of Charles Steuart (if he muſt not be delivered without it) may contradict null, and make voide whatever gaineſaies: So that the advice and conſent of the two Houſes, &c. (which you ſo oft talke of in your papers) is but a ſhaddow without a ſubſtance caſt before our eyes; a Nut without a kernell, that you have given us to crack; a6 Bore without marrow, that you have thrown in amongſt us So that we can judge little better of our brethren in this, then of ſuch as carry water in one hand, and fire in another.
Scotch Papers page 4.
Our Armies are not tyed to be ſubject to the reſolutions and directions of either Kingdome,Scotland. but of both joyntly.
Anſwer.
If your Armies be ſo tyed and obliged,England. then how came they looſe and obſolved thereof in this your reception, and continuance of his perſon without their reſolutions? For as yet there hath been no joynt reſolve of both Kingdomes about it: and thus to put trickes upon us, you play faſt and looſe at your pleaſure.
When you plead for your ſelves,page. 2. you ſay, it is a fundamentall right and liberty &c. that none can without conſent, impede or reſtraine your King from comming amongſt you to performe the duties of a King, and with this you would cover over the act of your admiſſion and reception of his perſon.
And when you reaſon againſt the two Houſes, in oppoſition to their Votes, you tell us it is one thing what the Parliament of England might have done in another cauſe, and warre before their engagements by Covenant, it is another thing what ought to be done after ſuch conditions and tyes impoſed &c. whereby you would deprive the two Houſes of that which before you urge for your ſelves; namely, fundamentall Rights &c. and utterly debar them in this difference from all retrogradation beyond the Covenant; yet your ſelves will run in infinitum beyond it ▪ you can urge your fundamentall Rights and liberties for you your ſelves, in your reception of the King of Scotland, but will not permit them upon any termes (becauſe of the Covenant) from their fundamentall rights and liberties of the7 Kingdome of England, to Vote the diſpoſing of the King of England in England.
Therefore by your favour (dear Brethren of Scotland) ſince thus you play at boe-peepe with your Brethen of England, we will anſwer your firſt reaſon with your ſecond: It is one thing what you might have done before the Covenant, and another thing what you may doe after; but by the Covenant (even as your ſelves ſay) His perſon muſt be abſolutely, & wholy diſpoſed of by the joynt advice ctconſent of both Parliaments, ſo that by your Covenant you are bound not to medle at all ſingly in his diſpoſall; eitherof ſo much as receiving or entertaining him.
But let us a little expoſtulate with our deare brethen of Scotland: is this your dealing with us as becomes brethen? Is this your brotherly conference, to condemne that in us which you will allow in your ſelves, firſt to plead your fundamentall rights and freedomes &c. And then in the next page to tell us, wee doe not medle with any of our ſingle rights priviledges or Lawes of our Nation, &c. and a little after, unleſſe wee lay aſide the Covenant, Theaties, Declarations of both Kingdomes; and three yeares conjunction in this warre, neither the one Kingdome nor the other; muſt now look back what they might have done ſingly before ſuch a ſtrict union.
What ſhall wee thinke, or what ſhall wee eſteem of our deare brethren for this? Wee know not how to excuſe them of lying; but however this will wee boldly affirme to our Brethren of Scotland, that this latter argument utterly cuts off our Brethren from the refuge of what ever our Brethren might have pleaded before the Covenant, and ſtrictly teſtraines all their arguments, concerning the intereſt of the Kingdome of Scotland in the King of Scotland, and about their fundament all rights and liberties &c. for they all were before the Covenant, and ſo in this matter are quite out of date, and comes not into the compaſſe or nature of the diſpute, even by your own bounds and limits by your ſelves thereto affixed: which conſiderations, may ſerve as an anſwer to one great part of the papers: & therefore we may wel wonder at this your manner of reaſoning & cannot otherwiſe reaſonably judge, but it is to caſt a Scotiſhmiſt before the eyes of the free men of England, on purpoſe to delude them.
8Scotiſh Pap. page 4.
Scotland. The ends of the Covenant are not to be proſecuted by the two Kingdomes, as they are two diſtinct bodies acting ſingly: but they were united by ſolemne Covenant made to Almighty God, & by league each to other, as one intire body, to proſecute the cauſe.
Anſwer. As by this argument, you were not to meddle at all in the leaſt kind about the diſpoſing of his Perſon, not ſo much as to give him entertainment (that being an actuall diſpoſing pro tempore as aforeſaid) without the mutuall conſent and Order of both Kingdomes proceeding: So by this argument alſo a ſecond is abſolutely excluded from this (Covenanted) diſpoſall: for hereby there is an union of two Kingdomes in one for one end; and an vnite admits not of a ſecond or third, for then it is no more one, but two or three: So that it is as cleere as the Sun, that this unity of conſent betwixt the two Kingdomes admits of no addition or diviſion whatſoever; for ſo the property of that Bi-unity were loſt: If another were added to that vnity, then were it a Tri-unity, and not a Bi-unity: and if that unity ſhould be devided, then were it no unity, for pura unitas eſt indiviſibilis: Why therefore you ſhould bring in the Kings conſent betwixt the two Kingdomes, wee ſee not; except you meane to play faſt and looſe, and ſet open a doore to all forraigne Nations, to have a title to this conſent: for as well may you ſay, that France, Spaine, &c. muſt have their conſent in this buſineſſe as well as Charles Steuart himſelfe; for the Queſtion is not, what Mr. Steuart would doe with his perſon, or what France or Spaine &c. would doe with it, but what the two Kingdomes by this Covenant are bound to doe; therefore the bringing in the Kings conſent and will into the bargaine, is a meere nullity (as concerning this matter) to the Covenant; So that your repairing to his Will and conſent, is an abſolute departure from the joynt intereſt of the two Kingdomes, and from the Covenant obliging there to: for you will not deliver him, or doe any thing with him without his conſent: Therefore why doe you at all talke of the Covenant, or the intereſt of the two Kingdomes? Tell us no more of ſuch blew ſhadowes and Sculcaps; but tell us of the Will of Charles Steuart: And if we muſt needs diſpute, let that be the queſtion, whether the will of Charles Steuart be the Law of all Lawes, whereto Parliaments Covenants9 and Treates, Kingdoms muſt be ſubject? If you will deale with us upon that point, we ſhall not doubt but to make a reaſonable returne.
Scotiſh Papers, page 6.
Scotland: If the Scotch Army ſhould deliver up his Majeſties Perſon without his owne conſent &c. this act of the Army were not agreeable to the Oath of Allegeance, (obleiging them to defend his Majeſties Perſon from all harmes and prejudices) nor to the ſolemne League and Covenant, which was not intended to weaken but to ſtregthen our Allegeance &c.
— Whom therefore our Armies cannot deliver, to be diſpoſed of by any others at pleaſure:
Anſwer.
England: By this it ſeemes, that the Scotch Army, are obſolutely devoted to the will of his Perſon; for except he will, you ſay, that your Armies cannot (you might as wel have ſaid wil not) deliver him up to be diſpoſed of by any others; which ſaying excludes the whole world, except his Will: So that in effect by this you have as well excluded the pleaſure of your own Parliament, as the pleaſure of ours or any others.
Sure our deare Brethren of Scotland are not themſelves, to ſpeake thus they cannot tell what; one while to urge the conſent of their Parliament, and then by and by to deny themſelves of it againe.
Well, but you ſay it is againſt the Oath of Allegeance, and the Covenant, for the Armies to deliver him up againſt his WILL. And why ſo (deare Brethren we beſeech you) is the Oath of Allegeance and the Covenant confined to the dictates of his Perſonall Will? that what is contrary to his Will, is contrary thereto? For here you make his Will the very Axeltree upon which your argument turnes; and therefore by this your reaſoning, both Kingdomes are by the Oath of Allegeance and by the Covenant, obleiged and irrevocably bound (it being made to Almighty God) to be ſubjected to his Will; yea, and as much as in you lyes, you have thereby concluded and conform'd a title upon him, even from Almighty God, to Rule by his Arbitrary pleaſure; and made both Kingdomes Vaſſales to his Will. Is this the affection and duty which becomes Brethren that〈1 page missing〉105.) you tell us, you were put in mind of; That after you had eſpouſed your Brethrens quarrell (page ibid. ) by that eſpouſall to contract your brethren to his Arbitrary pleaſure? But as you in another caſe, ſo ſay wee in this wee cannot but expect better things from our Brethren (page ibid) Sure it is not our deare Brethren of Scotland that thus write: h•w ſhall ſuch a thing (as becommeth Brethren) enter into the hearts o•••r Brethren of Scotland? except ſince his Majeſties arrivall our deare Brethren are run quite beſides themſelves ▪ as aforeſaid,
Some indeed have ſtrange thoughts of our Brethren, and conclude them m•••knaves then ſooles, and that little better ever wa•to be expected from them, ſeeing now they are not aſhamed only to tell us (pag 7.) that the Scotiſh Army came not into this Kingdome in the nature of Auxiliaries (or helpers) and indeed they have proved as good as their words for what Auxiliaries or helpers have they been unto us, except to carry away our gudes, and to drive away our cattle &c) but alſo in plaine termes (to make all the blood that hath been ſhead but as water ſpilt upon the ground) to capitulate with us, about the Kings perſonall Will, whether his Will muſt rule the roaſt or no? By our conſent he ſhall firſt turne the ſpit, before his will ſhall rule the roaſt; our Lawes Lives and Liberlies are more pretious, then to be proſtitute to the exhorbitant boundleſſe will of any mortall Steuart under the Sun: And therefore both He and your revolted Armies may be content, for we will ſpend a little more of our blood before that come to paſſe; you may as well twerle up your Blew caps, and hurle them up at the Moone, as to expect Englands aſſent unto that: no, no, Deare Brethren, wee are neither ſuch fool•not ſuch cowards, or yet ſuch Traitors to our ſelves or to our poſterities, to our Lawes or to our Liberties, as after we by the blood of us and our children have gained a conqueſt over that Arbitrary faction ſo baſely to returne like Sowes to the mire, or Dogges to the vomit againe; no ſure deare Brethren wee have not been thromming of Caps all this while; and therefore that is not to be expected: wee are content that our Brethren of Scotland ſhould be our Brethren, but notonr Lords and our Kings, to ſnatch the Scepter of England out of our hands, and to make us their ſlaves and Uaſſailes: what care we for Charles Steuarts aſſurance thereof under his Hand and Seale: we will mainetaine our juſt Rights and Freedomes, in deſpite of Scot, King, or Key••r, though wee welter for it in our bloods; and be it11 knowne unto you, O yee men of Scotland, that the free-men of England ſcorne to be your ſlaves; and they have yet a reſerve of gallant blood in their veine•, which they will freely ſpend for their freedom. But to returne to the Game in hand.
Further. From the words of the forementioned clauſe of your papers, this you import, that you are by the Oath of Allegeance bound to keep•his perſon from all harme, and therefore your Armies will not deliver up his perſon to be diſpoſed of, as ▪ the two Houſes ſhall thinke fit: As if the two Houſes by that their vote, had intended miſchiefe to his perſon, or elſe why ſhould you urge that in competition with their vote, if thereby you did not plainly conclude that their vote was an abſolute intent of harme unto his perſon: But (good brethren) let us tell you, that though the two Houſes of England have voted the diſpoſall of the King of England as they ſhall think fit, it doth not therefore follow, that there is abſolute harm to his perſon therby intended in their vote, but you make a ſurmiſe, then take it for granted, and forthwith thereon build the ſtructure of your defence: But we hope it doth not therefore follow, becauſe our brethren ſurmiſe it, except the ſence of our Votes, our Orders and Ordinances of Parliament muſt follow the ſurmiſe of our brethren, that what ever their ſurmiſe is, that muſt be their Senſe and Intent and no other. And if as you ſay; you will not inforce any ſence or conſtruction upon their Votes, then why will not your armies deliver him upon their Votes for feare of harme to his perſon, as if they had plainly intended with Salomons ſword, by that their voted diſpoſall to have divided the King of England from the King of Scotland, and ſo give each kingdome their juſt portion in his perſon.
But why ſhould our deare brethren reaſon thus ſophiſtically and deceitfully with us, and conclude thus inconſequently againſt us? Sure they have better Covenant Logick then this, for the antecedent of that Argument doth nothing at all prove the conſequent thereof: Therefore if our deare brethren pleaſe (for the better diſcovery of their falcity) we ſhall caſt that their kind of Argument into a forme after its owne nature and kind, which is thus.
A Scotch Argument. The two Houſes of Parliament have voted the diſpoſall of the Kings perſon as they ſhall thinke fit.
Ergo. The Scotch Armies may not deliver up his perſon to the ſaid two Houſes, for feare of harme to his perſon.
Truly dear brethren, this Gear hangeth together like an old broken12 Pot Sheard: And wee deem, that you would be much diſpleaſed with your deare brethren of England, ſhould they returne the like reaſoning to their brethren of Scotland. But leaſt our deare brethren of Scotland ſhould judge us their brethren of England ingratefull, their brethren here ſend them a congratulatory pair of reaſons formed after the ſame or the like kind deſiring in their next papers, to be reſolved, whether ſuch reaſoning with them, be faire dealing or no? to wit.
1. Argument. My gude Lord Leſley, came to Montrevill (Embaſſador for France) reſiding at Southwell, there to commune with the King
Ergo. My gude Lord Leſley fell down on his knees, reſigned up his ſword, and laid it at the feet of the King, and then received it againe of the King.
2. Argument. My Lord of Northumberland, and Sebrant the French Agent looked through an hedge, and the one ſaw the other.
Ergo. They two are both nigh of a kindred.
Now having ſent you a paire of brave Scotified arguments, wee'l throw an Engliſh bone after them, for your armies to gnaw upon.
A ſcandalous perſon may chance to prove a good man.
But ſome of your armie, are full of Back-biters.
Ergo, your whole armie are ſcandalous perſons.
But now deare brethren, we cannot thinke that this will be judged faire reaſoning in us; but if you condemne it, then why doe you uſe it? untill you revoke, and renounce your errour therein: this our like reaſoning muſt not be condemned by you.
But by this we may plainly ſee, that you have ſome miſchievious deſigne againſt the two Houſes of Parliament, that you would inſinuate ſuch an opinion into the people of England, againſt their two Houſes of Parliament. And that upon ſuch high tearmes of conteſtation, to wit, that for that reaſon (to wit, harme) you will not deliver them their King upon their Vote, what may we judge by this, but that you intend deſtruction to them, thus to ſet the hearts of their people againſt them by your ſcandalous and ſeditious ſurmiſes and iealouſies ſowen amongſt the people of England, for abſolute truths: for if you give it not forth as a truth, why will you urge an argument from thence? Sure our Holy Brethren of Scotland, are not ſo voide of Conſcience and grace, as to make a Lye a foundation of their practice.
13We doe aſſert, that the King comming voluntarily to the Scotiſh Army, they cannot in duty deliver him againſt his will, to the two Houſes of Parliament, without conſent of the Kingdome of Scotland.
Anſ. Then it ſeemes if he had come againſt his will, you had been bound in duty to have delivered him againſt the ſame, to the two houſes of Parliament, without the conſent of the Kingdome of Scotland, for if his voluntary comming be the reaſon of the one, then his unvoluntary comming muſt needs be the reaſon of the other, for as your own paper Champion ſaith, contrariorum contraria ſunt conſequentia, therefore hereby you have brought the conſent of your own Parliament to be inferiour and ſubject to his will, the which notwithſtanding the ſaid Champion told him, they ſhould be forced to ſettle things without, in caſe he ſhould not aſſent. pag. 19. The which reaſonings, if they be not pro and con, be you your ſelves Iudges: and let the world judge, whether it be fair dealing ſo to reaſon in a matter ſo neerely concerning, the weale of the two Kingdomes, the lives and ſtates of thouſands and ten thouſands.
Scotch Papers. Ibid
The place of the Kings veſidence is at his own Election in either of the Kingdomes, as the exigency of affaires ſhall require, and he ſhall thinke fit, or elſe muſt be determined by the mutuall advice and conſent of both Kingdomes.
Anſ. What, more faſt and looſe ſtill? Sometimes with your conſent, and ſometimes without your conſent, ſometimes with the joynt advice of both Kingdomes, and ſometimes without it, ſometimes with his perſonall will, and ſometimes without his perſonall will, and now to make all indifferent! What is the meaning of our brethren in this? are they not in their witts, thus to jumble and jump forward and backward, and backward and forward againe, and then to lye all along betwixt both? For by this clauſe it ſeemes, that the diſpoſall of his perſon is indifferent, either at his will, or at the ioynt advice of the two Kingdomes. Ʋtrum horum mavis accipe, one of the twain, chuſe you whether, ſo that if his perſon be either wiſe diſpoſed, yet by this clauſe it is juſtified, the one as well as the other being aſſerted in that clauſe:〈1 page missing〉14then againe to adde to the number of thoſe jugling Huſteron-Proteron trickes, by the poſition of their order, they make the will of the King predominant to the conſent of the two Kingdomes; for if by locall poſition, we may judge of preheminence, according to our nationall cuſtome, the greater to take the wall of the leſſe, then the will of the King is thereby preferred before the conſent of the two Kingdomes, for it hath the precedency therein: How ever by that clauſe they are made of equallity, for they are not urged by the way of diſparity, but by the way of equallity therein. Therefore by that clauſe there is not a pin to chuſe betwixt them: So that which is firſt gone forth, whether his will, or the two Kingdomes conſent, that muſt ſtand irrevocable, and not to be moved by the other, for could it, then were it as nothing, a meere ſhadow without ſubſtance, for then the abſolute diſpoſing were only in one, becauſe if one may depoſe what the other diſpoſes, then that which diſpoſeth is all in all; and the other hath no will, vote; choice or conſent in the thing, but is wholy dependant, and muſt be ſubject to the power of the other, which may conclude, order, revoake, and reverſe at its pleaſure. Therefore from this reaſoning of our deare brethren, it followes thus.
1. That this preſent diſpoſall of his perſon (being as your ſelves ſay voluntary) is irrevocable by either or both Kingdomes, becauſe his will for that diſpoſall was firſt paſt forth; which for that matter (as is already proved) by this preſent ground of yours, is as unalterable as the Lawes of the Medes and Perſians: So that it is in vaine for the two Houſes of England to expect a delivery of the King of England from the Scotiſh Armies,; for by this (to make ſure worke of his perſon) they have put themſelves out of a capacitie of his delivery upon any tearmes whatſoever: And therefore we may bid our gude King, gude morrow my Leige for all the day, and for ever, Amen. Farewell froſt, if he never come more, nothing is loſt.
2. If by the ſentence and judgement of our dear brethren of Scotland, the Kings perſonall diſpoſall be at his owne Election and Will, and ſo inherent therein, then by the ſentence and judgement of our deare brethren of Scotland, the diſlocation of the Kings perſon by his perſonall will all this while from the two Houſes of Parliament of England, is juſtified, and our deare Brethren of Scotland thereby made confederate with him, in that act, and ſo conſequently guilty of all the rebellion made by his perſonall will againſt the two Houſes of Parliament and the People of England.
153. If by the Argument of our deare brethren of Scotland, the King according to the exegencie of affaires may diſpoſe of his perſon at his pleaſure, then by the Argument of our deare brethren of Scotland according to the exegencie of affaires, the King may depart from our deare brethren of Scotland at his pleaſure, when, or whether he pleaſeth, although his pleaſure ſhould be never ſo pernitious or perilous to our deare brethren of Scotland: for his pleaſure may only be knowne to himſelfe, and not at all to our deare brethren of Scotland, no moe then it was foreknown (as our deare brethren would make us believe) at his comming to them. Therefore if our deare brethren of Scotland will have him according to the exigency of affaires to be diſpoſed of at his pleaſure, then according to the exigency of affaires, our deare brethren of Scotland muſt run the hazard of his pleaſure.
But for be better deciding of the matter about his will, it is to be queſtioned, 1. Whether ſince the Covenant and Treaties, either England or Scotland may aſſert that the place of the Kings reſidence is at his owne Election; the which as the caſe ſince hath ſtood, may in no wiſe be honourably granted, for thereby in all reaſon it muſt be concluded, that the two Kingdomes tooke upon them, the ſole diſpoſall of his perſon, without the leaſt relation or reſpect to his perſonall wil: For ſhould that not be concluded, then his arbitrary diſpoſal of his perſon, ſo many times in open and actuall hoſtility againſt the Parliament and people of England were juſtifiable.
2. It is to be conſidered, that though before this his hoſtility againſt the Parliament and people, he might diſpoſe of his perſon from White-Hall, to Hampton Court or the like, without the joynt advice of the two Kingdomes, whether now the caſe be nor altered or no?
3. In regard he hath moſt properly leavied and made warre againſt the Parliament and People of England, and in regard the Scotch engagement was but in aſſiſtance of their brethren of England, Whether his perſon thereupon, is not moſt properly due to the two Houſes of Parliament ▪ and thereupon they might properly vote the diſpoſall thereof, notwithſtanding his King-ſhip of Scotland; by reaſon the Offence was properly againſt them, and a maine end of the war, was to reduce and recover his perſon unto the Cuſtody and power of the two Houſes?
But now whereas you urge his voluntary comming, as if it were only voluntary in him, and not like voluntary in you (which by Covenant16 compact and treatie, was not upon any termes or in any wiſe without our conſent to have been by you.) It is a plaine caſe, that there was a voluntary concurrance betwixt you, even of the Kingdome of Scotland with the King of England, before he had laid downe Arms taken up in Rebellion againſt the Soveraigne power of his Throne, the two Houſes of Parliament, and againſt the Free-People of England, and that abſolutely by you, without the joynt advice and conſent of the ſaid Houſes and Kingdome; for you foreknew of his intent, and were fore acquainted with his comming, before his arrivall at your Armie, and this is not only to be proved from the ſecret and trayto•rous Treatie betwixt you and the King, from the latter end of March laſt, 1646. Managed by the intervention of Montrevill the French Ambaſſador, and deſigned in France, but alſo by what was-open, manifeſt and undenyable. For to omit his foot-ſteps from Oxford, he came publickly into Southwell, foure miles diſtant from your Armie, and there was entertained by the ſaid Montrevill, who was deputed and provided to receive him, and forthwith he ſent unto your Armie, to informe you that he was come thither, then Leſley your Generall (Metrapolitan over all the Blew-Caps of Scotland) repaired unto him and with him entertained a Treatie; and ſo he came voluntary to your armie, and there voluntarily ever ſince doth continue, as you your ſelves doe confeſſe. Now let any reaſonable man judge, whether here were not a mutuall concurrence of voluntary conſent, before his enterance into your Armie without all advice and conſent of ours. And whether it is reaſonable to imagine, that the King ſhould caſt his perſon voluntarily into the hands of thoſe which were the firſt commoters and raiſer of troubles and warres, entring his dominions of England with open Hoſtillity, for which he proclaimed them Traitors and Rebells, and now again•ſtand Traytors and Rebells by his Proclamations and Declarations, and which are ſtill in Armes againſt him; and by ſolemne League and Covenant contracted and aſpouſed to the two Houſes of England, in their war-fare againſt him; without the fore knowledge conſent, compact & aſſurance of your armie and Kingdom; truly for our parts, conſidering all his politick, ſubtile, and craſty plots and proceedings, in all his Millitary deſignes, we cannot imagine him ſo inconſiderate and mad•as to run his perſon without all aſſurance, on ſuch a perillous hazard, or play ſuch a card as that at a vensure amongſt you, without a full fore ſurety from you, and a compact17 betwixt you under hand and ſeale, for his entertainment and ſucceſſe with you, and if we may judge the tree by its fruits, we are ſure it can be no other.
Beſides, had you not been concurrent in will with him (contrary to our privitie and conſent) he could not have entred, much leſſe continued in your armie, without your conſent and whether you would or no. So that indeed and in truth as the matter now ſtands, betwixt you and us, his comming muſt needs be reputed and concluded your ſingle act, and neither may we, nor can we eſteem it otherwiſe, for his will or his Action is nothing to the ſtate of the queſtion or difference betwixt England and Scotland in this matter; for you your ſelves ſay, (pag. 9.) that, it is cleere from the third Article of the Treaty, that the Scotiſh armie is to receive the directions of both Kingdomes, or of their Committees in ALL THINGS, which may concerne the purſuance of the ends of the Covenant and Treaty, whether in relation to PEACE or WARRE. In the eight Article, no ceſſation, pacification, or agreement for peace WHATSOEVER is to be made by either Kingdom or the armie of either Kingdome, without the advice and conſent of both Kingdomes. Now deare brethren, by theſe very words of the Treaty thus cited by your ſelves, you are by your ſelves exempted and denyed of all power of intermedling about any thing whatſoever concerning peace or warre, without the advice and conſent of the two Kingdomes: If ſo, then why have you attempted this act of reception and detaining of his perſon without the mutuall concurrent advice and conſent of the two Kingdomes, which ſo mightily concerneth our weale or our woe, our peace or our warre, for this your ſeaſure of his perſon in this manner, is of as high and great concernment about the matter of warre, as can be imagined, for it openly and apparently threatneth diviſion and warre betwixt the two Kingdomes; and thereby you your ſelves are the deviders and threatners, contrary to your old and preſent aſſeverations and abjurations: in your booke of former Intentions, thus you aſſert of your ſelves, we could iudge our ſelves the unworthieſt of all men,See intentions of the Armie of Scotland, pag. 3. and could looks for no leſſe then vengeance from the Righteous God, if we ſhould move hand or foot against that Nation, ſo comfortably repreſented to us, in that honourable meeting And pag. 10. Let them be accurſed, that ſhall not ſeeke the preſervatition of their neighbour Nation: and in your former Informations, Declarations and Remonſtrances, you have curſed all Nationall Invaſions,18 and Treacherie: And now in the Papers you cry, God forbid, that the wayes of ſeparating intereſts of the Kingdomes, ſhould now be ſtudied, pag. 5. And in the Lord Loudouns ſpeech in the Painted Chamber. pag. 21. That no man hath conſcience and honour, who will not remember our Solemne League and Covenant, as the ſtrongeſt bond under Heaven, between God and man, and between Nation and Nation, &c. Yet theſe aſſeverations and execrations, are now made as nothing, and theſe your ſtrongeſt bonds between God and man as you call them, are but as Sampſons cords to be burſt aſunder at your pleaſure, but God will deliver up your ſtrength, if by your timely repencance you doe not prevent the vengeance of Heaven which hangs over your head. For why will you thus fairly profeſſe with your tongnes unto us, and deale ſo treacherouſly with us in your hearts, why ſhould you receive and entertaine the King and yet proteſt againſt all ſole diſpoſall of his perſon? and why ſhould you tell us, that his Majeſties comming to your armie, is a more probable and hopefull way to preſerve the union of the two Kingdomes; when as your ſelves ſee, that it is the moſt unluckieſt meanes of diviſion, and of fomenting a war betwixt the two Nations, as Hell could broach: and though the Lord Londoun breath out your menaces about that diſpoſall, and openly thre•tneth us with forces from Scotland and Ireland, and with the aſſiiſtance of forraign Princes, yet all this you would make us beleeve, (were we but as the Horſe and the Mule, which have no underſtanding) is for the ſtricter and firmer union betwixt the two Kingdomes; but deare brethren we are not ſo undiſcerning and ſottiſh, ſo to be poſſeſſed and deluded. But further in the ſaid pag. you ſay, becauſe you came into England, for proſecuting of the ends of the Covenant, whereof one is to defend. His Majeſties perſon, you thinke it a ſtrange thing, that your being in England ſhould be urged as an argument, why you ſhould deliver up the perſon of the King, to be diſpoſed of, as the two Houſes ſhould thinke fit.
Anſ. For the matter of your being in England, we ſhall for the preſent referre you to Mr. Chalenros ſpeech: and only conſider the reaſon of this clauſe, which we conceive to be on this wiſe, that becauſe you are by the Covenant bound to defend His Majeſties perſon, that therefore you will not deliver up his perſon, to be diſpoſed of, as the two Houſes ſhall think fit: which is as much as to ſay, becauſe you are to defend his perſon, that therefore the two Houſes of Parliament are his19 enemies: which manner of reaſoning is as if we ſhould ſay, becauſe ther were dayly ſeecret whiſperings and wiſhings at our Queens Court in France, that the King might but get ſafe to the Scotts, and becauſe the day of his ſetting forth out of Oxford towards them was fore-known at her Court; That therefore Sehrant the French agent ran up into the Earle of Northumberlands Bed-Chamber, in the morning before he was up, and ſurreptitiouſly ſurpriſed in his Chamber window; a packet of Letters, (incloſed in a blanke paper ſuperſcribed (forſooth for their better conveyance to the Earle) and breake the ſame open, and ſaid they were his, and ſo the one peep'd at the other, and ſaw one another and away hied Sebrant as faſt as he could, and carryed with him the whole plat-forme of your — you know what!
Now Brethren, how like you your owne kind of reaſoning? Is not this a prittie, kind of Argument thinke you, neatly formed after that moſt hallowed pattern received from the Angel at Le font bl•u?
And therefore ſeeing our Brethren have ſo far diſcharged their truſt, as (after all their Proteſtations, Covenants and Oaths to Almighty God, their Solemne League, and Treaty with their Neighbour Nation of England) thus in the field to meet us in this free and brotherly conference with ſuch Solemn Covenant-Logick, we may have doubtleſs great boldneſs & confidence, with our dear brethren of Scotland, to pay them in their owne coyne, for current and good Silver, eſpecially conſidering whoſe Image and ſuperſcription it be•reth: So that upon the point (we wiſh it be not of the ſword) we are agreed with our gude Lord Loudoun, to give unto Caeſar the things that are Caeſars, &c pag 26.
But now ſince our brethren take upon them in their armies to defend his perſon, we deſire of our deare brethren to tell u•, againſt whom is this their defence? If againſt us and our armies, then we•e•ly, that if your Covenant now bind you thereto, then why did you not by this Covenant joyne armies with them before, in all his. H•••i•ity againſt the two Houſes, for by our ſ•••tility his perſon was endangered and ſubject to the ca•u••ity and execution of warre, himſelfe in perſon and in armes appearing againſt•u••?
Scotch Papers Pag. 9
And whereas it is affirmed by the Treaty ▪ the Scotch Armie ought to doe nothing without a joynt reſolution of both Kingmdomes20 or their Committees; there is no ſuch clauſe in the Treaty, but they are to be ſubject to ſuch reſolutions as are and ſhall be agreed upon, and concluded mutually between the Kingdomes and their Committees.
Anſ. By thit we may ſee how willing our brethren are to get a creep hole, and how they ſhufle and cut to ſtrugle themſelves out of the Btyers: But gude brother Jockie be content to ſtick here a while, for if to their Reſolutions (as you ſay) you muſt be ſubject, then you muſt not be ſubject to that which is contrary to their reſolutions: But your armies retaining of his perſon is contrary to the joynt advice and conſent of both Kingdomes, for as yet both parties are not agreed. Therefore this is a manifeſt breach of the Treaty; ſo that (if you wou'd have done as becommeth brethren) you ſhould have ſtayed firſt to have heard the joynt advice or conſent of both Kingdomes, before you had given him entertainment. For indeed, had there not been miſchiefe deſigned in the thing and intended againſt this Kingdome, the King (knowing the mutuall obligation, and ſolemne Vnion betwixt the two Kingdomes, and the mutuall relation he had to them both, and each mutually to him) would (if he had intended to lay down armes againſt this Kingdome) rather (in this emergency of War) have dſipoſed of his perſon (honoured by both Kingdomes with the title of the King of both Kingdomes) to the Committee of both Kingdomes, wherein the joynt military intereſt of both Kingdomes is repreſented, conferd and united, and both thereby incorporated into one deputative body, and as it were both made fleſh of each others fleſh, and bone of each others bone, that ſo in that, one act and at one time both Kingdomes equaliy and reſpectively would have received their King of each Kingdome, though preſented in one perſon, even England and Scotland have received and kept the King of England, and the King of Scotland in that their entertainment of his perſon for the bet•er diſpoſall thereof by the Parliaments and Eſtates of both Kingdoms (being conquered by the mutuall force & conjunction of their armies) for then neither Parliament, Kingdome nor Armie had acted ſingly or divided, but it would been abſolutely an act of both Kingdomes: This we ſay, he rather would have done, then in this factions divided neture to have thrown himſelfe upon one Kingdome unknown to the other, and without the others advice and conſent, had it not21 been on ſet purpoſe to have caſt a bone of diviſion betwixt them; that both He and your ſelves by joynt occaſioned faire opportunity might compaſſe your deſignes to ſubjugate the neckes of the Freemen of England to your Scotch Monarchicall Yoake of Bondage (in gendering ſtrife.) And you your ſelves, had your intentions to wards us been upright; ſhould rather have referred him to the ſaid Committee of both Kingdomes, then thus to have attempted the receivall of him by your own millitary power, which was a deſperate thing; however in caſe unawares he were received, yet you might ere this, knowing the mutuall and joynt intereſt of the two Kingdomes ſo well as you doe, and ſeeing it raiſeth-ſuch jealouſies, and is likely to occaſion ſuch a deſperate and bloody diviſion betwixt us, you might ere this have delivered, or at leaſt propoſed the reſignment of His perſon, if not to the two Houſes, yet to the cuſtody of the ſaid Committee; to whom indeed naturally and properly (as the caſe now ſtandes betwixt the two Kingdomes, he belongeth) (no joynt power of the two Kingdomes but that being extant) to be by them retained till the joynt conſent and determination of both Kingdomes.
You tell us that at the hearing of the martch of Sir Thomas Fairfax his Army marching Northward, you removed yours into York-ſhire, for preventing miſtakes or new troubles between the Kingdomes (page 9.) but were you ſo cautious thereof•s you pretend, you would not have thus highly erred in the maine, and then face us with trifles: brethren, we have been a little to much acquainted and cheated with ſuch guilded pretences as to reſt content with a flap in the mouth with a Fox-tayle: It is not you•candor freedome and plainneſſe as becomes brethren which you tell us of (page 1.) in words what will ſatisfie us, if in deeds you deny us; Wee know you tell us he came valuntarily and continues vluntarily, and you a•e not hinder him from comming to doe the duty of a King amongſt you: which words indeed deed beare a ſpetious ſhew; but Brethren we are not ſo undecerning and ignorant as to conclude all is gold that gliſters; but theſe your ſerpentine deluſions, puts us in mind of the trick you put upon us about Mr ▪ Aſhburnhams eſcape; for in a paper from the Commiſſianers dated 25, of May 1645 the Lords of the Committee of New-Caſtle tell us, that directly, nor indirectly they had no hand in Mr. Aſhburnhames eſcape; which by interpretation is as much as to ſay,22 that directly you had no hand in it, but indirectly you had; for after our Engliſh Ottography two negatives make an affirmative, and Nor and No are two negatives cupled to one verb, and therefore muſt needs make it affirmative: but we will returne from this quirke to the matter in hand.
Now though you ſay, there was not any ſuch reſolution between the Kingdomes or their Committees, as, that the Scotiſh Armie ſhould not receive the King if he came unto them: Our anſwer is, that it doth not therefore follow, that therein you may doe ſingly as you liſt; for you were obleiged in all things, whether in relation unto peace, or to warre, not to make any ceſſation, pacification, or agreement for peace whatſoever, without the advice and conſent of both Kingdomes: And you your ſelves ſay, your Armies are to be ſubject to ſuch reſolutions, as ARE and SHALL BE agreed and concluded upon mutually between the two Kingdomes and their Committees. So that although neither preſent or future reſolutions concerning unknowne matters to come be expreſſed (as indeed are impoſſible) yet therefore you have not the liberty to doe what you list, or to anticipate their reſolutions with yours, for then Agrement, compact, and Treaty, were to no purpoſe at all; but you were ſtrictly bound upon penalty of breach of Articles, firſt, to have knowne the joynt advice and conſent of the two Kingdomes, or their Committees in all things whatſoever, whether for peoce or for warre; eſpecially in a thing of ſo great and ſo high concernment, as to Treate with, Receive, and entertaine the Kings Perſon, though notwithſtanding he ſhould come voluntarily to you, for the matter is all one in the nature thereof, whether he come to you, or you goe to him: treating with, recieving and entertaining, without a joynt advice and conſent (let it by what other meanes ſoever it be) is the maine thing which thoſe Articles reſpect: for indeed that is, as abſolute treating, ceſſation, and pacification with the King on your behalfe as can poſſible be: and therefore whereas you ſay, that you were not to impede, or reſtraine the perſon of the King from comming and doing the duty of a King amongst you, and thereupon have anſwerably received him; thereby you hold forth, and confeſſe a compact and concluſion of peace with him: for if you receive him to doe the duties of a King amongſt you, and that without the joynt advice and conſent of the two Kingdomes or their Committees; what is this other then to pacificate with him without their joynt advice & conſent? but more of this by and by.
23Beſides if you will make an exception, becauſe it is un-expreſſed in the Treaty [that you ſhould not receive the Kings Perſon if he ſhould come voluntarily to you] then may you as well except againſt all the reſolves and reſults of the two Kingdomes and of their Committees, that therein are not expreſſed; and ſo confine all to the very letter of the Treaty, and utterly take away all liberty and power from the two Kingdomes and their Committees, of further adviſing, conſenting, o•reſolving.
Scotch papers page 10.
Scotland: The Scotch Army neither hath nor will take upon them to diſpoſe of the King, he came unto them without capitulation or Treaty: his reſidence with them is voluntary and free, and they doe nothing which may hinder him to come to the two Houſes of Parliament.
Anſwer.
England: Whither now Jockie? Hoyt — Hoe — Haufe — Ree — Gee — Hoe — Jockie: What? neither backwards nor forwards, one ſ•ide nor the other! Riddle me, Riddle me, what's this? You'l nether have him, nor be without him; neither keep him, nor deliver him: a pritty paredox! for you will not take upon you to diſpoſe of him, and yet you will keep him nor will hinder his comming to the two houſes of Parliament, and yet will not deliver Him: for his will in this matter of keeping and delivery is not at all reſpected in the Treaty and compact betwixt the two Kingdomes, but only the Act or Acts of the two Ringdomes, Therefore, what is this elſe but to ſay, you will, and you will not? you will neither receive him, nor will refuſe him; you will not deliver him, nor will you keep him.
Now whereas (as you ſay) you are ſo willing that he ſhould come of his own accord to the two Houſes, and you would not hinder him: Wee pray you tell us whether you would ſuffer him, provided his intent were unknown unto you? Or whether you would judge it ſutable to the intereſt of Scotland, that the two Houſes or their Armie ſhould receive him upon ſuch termes? Doubtleſſe you would hinder the one and condemne the other; for no reaſonable man can judge otherwiſe by your preſent practice and papers, you have received him without the conſent of the two Houſes and (as you would make's beleeve) without any fore knowledge of his intent at his comming, therefore are not your ſelves condemned by your ſelves? even juſtifyers of that in your ſelves, which you would condemne in others?
But you ſay, he came to you without capitulation: If ſo deare Brethren, then why did Montrevill goe before hand to Leſley's Army to take order for his reception there? And how came the King to have the faith and honour of the Scots engaged to him in the buſineſſe of the Militia? How came the information of Thomas Hanmer, June 12. 1646. (at the Committee for the Army, and after reported to the Houſe of Commons) ſince by experience to have been confirmed in the moſt perticulers thereof? wee could be much more inquiſitive with our Brethren about this matter, but it may be they have learned of Lieutenant Col. John Lilburne and Mr. Overton the two prerogative Archers of England, and of ſome others, not to anſwer24 to interrogatories concerning themſelves, and therfore we ſhall forbear at this time further to queſtion the faith and ſincerity of our Brethren in this particular, only wee ſhall deſire (becauſe our Brethren in their papers are verbally ſo tender over the Harraſed, oppreſſed, plundered North) wherefore beſides the extraordinary loſſes and charges thereof, their ordinary ceſſements where the forces are quartered are levied and paied after the rate of about 140000 pounds a month upon the whole County, which is twenty times ſo much as they ought to leary by the Ordinance of Parliament, as appeares by a Letter June 26. 1646. from ſundry of the Committee of Yorke to the Commicee of the Lords and Commons? Wee will aſſure you Brethren, that this dealing together with your ſeverall rapes, murthers, oppreſſions & abuſes which hath bin & are dayly acted upon the wel•aff•cted in thoſe parts, are farre from the firſt profeſſed intentions of the Scots Army at their firſt comming into England 1640. Where page 11. you doe declare that you would not take from jour friends and Brethren of England from a thread even to a ſhooe-latchet, ſo that our Brethren are not the ſame, or elſe they are much changed, for from the beginning it was not ſo; however, this will we ſay of our Brethern, that as (they tell〈◊〉page 6) that the Oath communicated to them for the diſpoſall of the Kings Perſon by the two Houſes may ſuffer a benigne interpretation, and be underſtood of the diſpoſing of the Kings perſon favourably and Honourably; yet as the words ſtands, they are comprehenſive and capatious of more then is fit to be expreſſed; ſo anſwer we our Brethren, that though their unreaſonable ceſſements, their dayly rapes and murthers, robberies, oppreſſions & inſufferable abuſes upon their dear Brethren and ſiſters in the North may out of a Brotherly conſtruction receive a benigne interpretation, and be underſtood but as eſcapes of their Armis, yet as the deeds ſo ſtand, they are comprehenſive and capatious of more then is fit to be done.
And therefore deare Brethren, we cannot but juſtly wonder why you ſhould be ſo unbrotherly and unkind to your Brethren of England, notwithſtanding theſ••great oppreſſions of yours upon them, now to capitulate with them for ſuch vaſt ſommes of money, and that upon ſuch high termes as not to ſurrender their Gariſons and quit their Kingdome of your Armies, without, 200000. pound downe in your hands: Indeed Brethren let us tell you, wee can judge it as yet, little beter then invaſion upon our Land, to capitulate with us upon termes, before you will reſigne us poſſeſſion of our owne Gariſons, Forts, Caſtles Countrys &c. for upon no termes whatſoever have you any right or property unto any of the Forts, Caſtles, Gariſons, or Countries of the Kingdome of England, or in any wiſe to attempt poſſeſſion therof, or upon any termes to refuſe there fignment thereof: for ſo long and ſo much are you invadors of our Land; for not an hare breadth of England nor a minute poſſeſſion thereof is yours by any legall, equall, or National Right, except you will ſay, that you our Brethren of Scotland are now become Kings of England; and indeed your actions and uſurpations are equivolent thereto, for as well, as to doe what you doe, you may poſſeſſe it for ever, and make invaſion upon the reſt of our Land, for protraction of time and increaſe of quantity cannot alter the equity of your title, it being as much to the whole Kingdome as to a part, and as well for ever as for a minute: But indeed and in truth it is neither in the one or yet in the other.
But you tell us, pag. 16. Reaſonable ſatisfaction muſt be firſt given to your Armies for their paines and charges, before you will ſurrender: Why, brethren, muſt you therefore take poſſeſſion of our Garriſons, Caſtles, &c. Becauſe in equity wee are bound to give reaſonable ſatisfaction to you, for your mercenary aſſiſtance? Our25 Garriſons, Caſtles, Forts, Countries, &c. were not put into the bargaine, neither were they ever as yet ſet over to you, as a pledge for your paiment, but notwithſtanding Covenant, Treaty, or any other obligation whatſoever betwixt us, they are ſtill the abſolute intereſt and propertie of England, which by this your refuſall, to quit them, is abſolutely invaded and uſurped: and your continuance of their poſſeſſion upon thoſe tearm••, is a continuance of be••tile invaſion and incurſion upon England. And is as much as if you had entred by force, (for Dolus an virtus qu•ts in hoſte requirit?) it is all one to the nature of the thing, whether by force or by politick dece•pt, for both can be but poſſeſſion, ſo that this your poſſesſion of our Countries, Caſtles, &c. under the colour of expectation of pay before you depart, is in the nature of the thing as abſolute invaſion and incurſion, as if you had entred and over run thoſe places by force of Armes. For though we be bound to give you reaſonable ſatisfaction, yet by that obligation, we are not bound to forfeit our Garriſons, Caſtles, Countries, &c. into your hands, till it be given: We will grant you that reaſonable ſatisfaction is due; but what is that? whether a certain ſumme of money, or elſe our Garriſons, Caſtles, Countries, & c? Your ſelves only make claime to the firſt, and therefore, and in reſpect of our owne incereſt, we will be ſo bold as not to diſclaime and yeeld up our right in the ſecond upon any pretence whaſoever. And in caſe reaſonable ſatisfaction ſhould be denyed, it could be but a falſitie and breach of faith, it would not therefore follow, that our Garriſons, Caſtles, Countries, &c were become forfeit into the hand of our brethren the Scotts: Or becauſe we ſhould doe evill, it doth not therefore follow that they ſhould doe evill for evill againe: for that were contrary to ſound doctrine and the power of Godlineſſe, a clauſe of the ſecond Article in the Covenane from which our brethren tell us, that no perſuaſion, terror, plot, ſugi•ſtion nor combination, ſhall never directly nor indirectly with draw them: and in this Covenant there is no ſuch clauſe expreſſed, intended or implyed, that in caſe we ſhould not give them ſatisfaction according to agreement, that then our Garriſons, Caſtles and Countries ſhould be forfeit to our brethren of Scotland. Therefore if you would but deale friendly and as becommeth brethren (whereof you make ſuch profeſſion) with us, you would not take advantage at your brethrens necesſitys, to deale thus unkindly and unbrotherly with them (as if they had entertained ſo many Turkes, Pagans and Infidells into their boſomes in ſtead of brethren) as to ſeaſe upon their poſſesſions, their Garriſons, Forts, Caſtles, Countries, &c. becauſe this reaſonable ſatisfaction cannot be provided as ſoon as you would have it, and as they deſire and endeavour it. This is not a doing as you would be done to, this is no brotherly bearing of one anothers infirmities, or of one anothers burthens; but in ſtead of a brotherly eaſing, this is a•unfriendly oppreſſing, beſides the great ſtandell it caſteth upon your brother Nation of England, as it the Parliament and People thereof, were ſo unfaithfull, unnaturall and falſe hearted, not to be truſted upon their faith and honour with their brethren of Scotland (with whom there is ſuch obligations of unity and brother-hood) for the palment of the ſaid ſum of money, with their utmoſt expedition, doubtleſſe we ſhould never have been ſo ungratefull and unfaithfull with our brethren as to have dealt unjuſtly with them therein.
But•e are afraid, that this money demand, was but a forraign invention to catch us upon the lurch, ſuppoſing by reaſon of the unreaſonableneſſe of the matter, and the invaſive manner thereof, the two Houſes would not aſſent thereunto and ſo by ſuch meanacing provoking rearmes, as the detaining of our Garriſons under the pretence of acquiring reaſonable ſatisfaction, to pick a quarrel with us, or elſe you would not the•s have demanded the ſame upon ſuch high provokating termes nor detaining of our Garriſons, Caſtles,26 Countries, &c. for to deliver them unto us, you will not till you have money.
Yea, you tell us, that if the 5000. l. at Nottingham already accounted unto you with ſome other competent portion of money be not ſent unto your Armie, you〈◊〉be forced (forſooth) to enlarge your Quarters for the eaſe of the countrie, ſo that we plainly ſee by this liberty of enlargement which you uſurp unto your ſelves,〈◊〉you intend that your inlargement of your Quarters ſhall be as large as our Bo•••in the caſe of procraſtination, and all under the colout (for ſooth) of eaſing the Country: Indeed brethren by that meanes you would eaſe us of all. But if in your heart you be intended to eaſe us, then why doe you not rather tell us that you will enlarge homewards, to your owne native Country, for that were indeed an eaſement, this〈◊〉but a further inlargement of our burthen, but we know your meaning by your g•p•••Gude brethren doe not thus take advantage at your brethrens necesſities; as〈◊◊〉brethren we tell you, it doth not become you to deale thus unkindly with you brethren: for it is an unnaturall, unbrotherly part, to make a prey of their extremi•••Yet here is not all they ſay of this matter, for they menacingly tell us, that in caſe,〈◊〉Thomas Fairfaxs Armie ſhall march Northwards, that their Scottiſh Armie ſhall en•••their Quarters Southward, whereby (they ſay) it is eaſily to be ſeen, that thoſe Kingdomes may unhappily be againe embroyled in new•••d greater troubles then yet〈◊〉have been. Now how can we judge this otherwiſe, but as a ſhaking of the ſword〈◊〉our heads? a dare, a threat even as much as to ſay to our Armies, come Norwa••••you dare. And if you doe, we will advance Southward, and then you may ex••••greater broyles and troubles then ever: but brethren, for the love of God, and〈◊〉peace of the Kingdomes, forbeare ſuch threatning language for the future, that〈◊〉may live together as brethren in love, peace and tranquillity: For brethren we〈◊〉aſſure you, that evill words corrupts good manners, tread on a worme and it will〈◊〉againe, and ſurely Engliſhm•n have as much courage•s wormes.
And now that you ſee that the two Houſes have conditioned to your demands you enter into diſpute with us about the diſpoſall of the perſon of the King, in ſuch a manner as is not posſibe in honour and juſtice for this Kingdome to accept off, and you propoſe wayes and meanes of delayes and protraction of time, as〈…〉commiſſioners againe unto the King in the name of both Kingdomes, with power to〈◊〉his deſires and the like, when as indeed the matter belongeth to them joy•dy to••viſe determine and conclude how they will diſpoſe of him, and what they will co•pell him to doe, being conquered and fallen into their hands, therefore ſending〈◊〉, or treating with him now, is beſide the matter in hand, ſo that thoſe various devi••of yours, give us great cauſe of ſuſpition and jealouſies of you, that theſe, are but wayes to beare us in hand for the better facilitation of your deſign. But we ſhould be glad to heare of your innocency of thoſe things, and ſhould be willing〈◊〉judge better of our brethren, but they muſt excuſe us if we judge the tree by its〈◊〉and may rather blame themſelves for bringing forth ſuch fruit, then us, for〈◊〉judging, when it is brought forth. Therefore to remove all ſcruple end different from betwixt us, we deſire them to let their good workes ſo ſhine before men that we may iuſtly ſay that God is in them indeed, and that they are our faithfull〈◊〉and friends who are reſolved to live and dye with us in the better ſenſe, th••gh•••are now iuſtly afraid of the Worſt.