AN ANSWER TO THE Scotch Papers.  
Delivered In the House of Commons in Reply to the Votes of both Houses of the PARLIAMENT of England, Concerning the disposal of the King's Person, As it was spoken when the said Papers were read in the House.  
By Thomas Chaloner Esquire, A Member of the House of Commons.  
London, Printed by Francis Leach, 1646.   

A Speech made in the House of Commons the 26th day of October 1646. (upon the Reading of the Scotish Papers the same day, In Reply to the Votes of both Houses of Parliament of the 24th. of Sept. concerning the disposal of the King's Person,) spoken by Thomas Chaloner, esquire, a Member of the said House.  
Mr. SPEAKER,  
YOu have just now heard two Papers Read before you from the Commissioners of Scotland, the first concerning the disposal of the King's Person, the other touching the distractions of the North, by reason (as they say) of the nonpayment of their Army: I shall speak nothing to the latter, because it hath been so sufficiently answered by divers knowing Members of this House. To the first I shall wholly apply myself, because little or nothing hath been said to that point.  
The question then before you is, about the disposeall of the King's person, you say that, he is to be disposed of as both Houses of Parliament shall think fitting, but your Brethren of Scotland say he is to be disposed of as both kingdoms shall think fitting, And they fortify their affirmation with these reasons.  
They say that he is not only King of England, but also King of Scotland, and as you have an interest in him, he being King of England, so have they no less interest in him he being KING of Scotland. And as they have not the sole interest in him, he being KING of Scotland, because they acknowledge with all, that he is King of England, so have not you the sole interest in him, he being King of England, because they desire you to remember, that he is also King of Scotland: so as neither Nation having a sole, but a joint Interest in his person, they ought jointly to dispose of it for the weal and benefit of both kingdoms:  
This I take to be the whole scope of their Argument which they have represented unto you under so many disguises, and as it were by multiplying glasses, Insomuch as the bare relating of it takes up three large sheets of paper.  
But while they debate this great question with you, touching the disposal of the King's Person, and while they positively affirm, that he is to be disposed of by the joint consent of both Nations. Give me leave to remember you that in the mean time, they dispose wholly of him themselves, and so have done for these six months, and may for six months longer, for any thing I can gather out of these Papers.  
Their Argument runs thus. 
Wheresoever the kingdom of Scotland hath an Interest in there King, there they may dispose of him.  
But the kingdom of Scotland hath an Interest in their King, he being in England.  
Therefore in England they may dispose of him.   
Sir, This may seem at the first to some to be a fair and specious Argument, but let it be well considered, it will prove erroneous and Fallacious. For in the Major Proposition they understand one thing by the word King, and in the minor Proposition they understand another thing by the word King, and so here is a conclusion inferred, which the premises will not warrant.  
For the clearing whereof, I pray Sir, remember that this word King is of a various signification, sometimes it is taken in abstracto, that is for the royal power, Function, and office of a King, sometimes it is taken in Concreto, that is for the man or person whom we call King.  
If their Major Proposition be taken in the first sense, we shall never deny it them, nay we shall acknowledge that the King of Scotland being taken in abstracto, we have nothing to do with him at all, he is solely and totally theirs; God forbid that a King of Scotland going out of his kingdom, should either make Scotland cease to be a kingdom, or give any participation of interest to that country where he doth reside, Let his person reside in the furthest parts of the earth; yet the royal Office and Capacity of the King resideth still in Scotland, They have his sword to do justice by, they have his sceptre to show mercy by, they have his seal to confirm what they please by: And they have his laws to govern by; And in this sense it is only meant that the King is never under years, never dies, cannot be deceived, can neither do wrong, nor take wrong, of anybody; And in this sense we fight for King and Parliament, though the person of the King be in opposition to both, and in this sense the returns and tests of the King's Writs are, Coram me ipso apud westmonasterium, and teste meipso apud westmonasterium, let the Person of the King at the same time be in France, or the remotest Country of the world; but a King of Scotland taken in this sense is never out of Scotland, and therefore whereas they say in the minor Proposition. That the kingdom of Scotland, hath an interest in their King, he being in England, this must needs be meant of a King in Conereto, that is only of the person of their King, and not of his royal Capacity, And in this sense we must deny that they have any thing at all to do with him. For though the royal Office of the King of Scotland is solely to be disposed of by the State of Scotland: Yet it is not so with his Person. For Persona sequitur locum; and his person must be disposed of by the supreme power of that Country wheresoever he shall happen to abide. Suppose a King of Scotland should be in Spain, will they say, they have as great an interest to dispose of his Person there as in Scotland, I think they will not say so▪ and yet they did affirm last day at the Conference, that they had as good right to dispose of his person at Westminster, as they had at Edinburgh. But under their favour England is as distinct a kingdom from Scotland as Spain: It is as distinct in laws, distinct in privileges, distinct in interest, it is neither subordinate, nor dependent of Scotland, and they can no more dispose of a King of Scotland's person, he being in England, then if he were in Spain.  
I shall take this as granted for good Law, that let the person of any Nation under the sun, which is in amity with England, happen to come into England, that person is forthwith a subject of ENGLAND  
For he being protected by the laws of England, he becomes thereby subject to those laws, it being most certain that Protectio trahit subjectionem, & subjectio protectionem, they being relatives, the one cannot stand without the other, and as no man can be said to be a father that hath no son, nor no man a husband, that hath no wife, so no man can be said to be protected, that is not withal thereby subjected. And since without such protection every man may kill him, and destroy him. It seems to stand with no proportion of Justice, that a man should be protected in Life, limb, or estate by any law that will not subject himself to that Law.  
It cannot be denied, but that there is a twofold subjection legal, and local, the legal subjection is due from every subject to his natural Prince, the local from any foreigner to that Prince or State where his person doth reside. And this, though it be only pro tempore, and the other, during life: Yet it doth for the time totally obstruct the operation of the other subjection: So that no King can command any subject of his, living out of his kingdom, but such subject of his, is to be disposed of, by the sole Authority of that supreme power, where he makes his Residence: And since the question is only about the person of a King of Scotland, for I conceive they will not take upon them any Authority to dispose of the Person of a King of England, I do affirm that if a King of Scotland should have come into ENGLAND, before the Union of both these kingdoms, he had been instantly a subject of England and his person to be disposed of by the sole Authority of the laws of England.  
For either we must take him as a King or a Subject, since betwixt them two there is no medium, as a King we cannot take him, unless we should commit Treason against our natural Prince, and subject ourselves to any but to him, it being most certain, that there is the same relation betwixt the King and his Subjects, as betwixt the husband and his wife, and as no man can be said to be a husband but to his own Wife; So no man can be said to be a King but to his own subjects, and therefore we cannot admit of any Regality in the person of a King of Scotland coming into England, unless at the same time, to the same person we should confess subjection. For that it is most true, that as none can be said to be Rex sine Regno, so no man can be said to be Rex but in Regno: Therefore if a King of Scotland coming as afore said into England, if against the laws of England he do offend, by those Laws of England he must be tried, and by none other, For ubi quis delinquit, ibi punietur, And it is most sure, that we have disposed of the persons of Kings of Scotland coming into England both living and dead. And if we may dispose of the person of a King of Scotland without the consent of the kingdom of SCOTLAND, much more may we dispose of the person of a King of ENGLAND, he being now in England without their privity or advice. But if they have any power to dispose of him, it is because they are either our Masters or our Fellows: if they be our Masters, let them show the time when they conquered us, or the price for which we were sold unto them: If they be our Fellows, why come they not to our Parliaments, why contribute they not to our necessities? But as it is apparent that they being two distinct kingdoms, governed by two distinct laws: so they ought not to intermeddle one with another's interest; but to content themselves with what doth naturally appertain to each of them severally.  
There is no doubt to be made, but that every Husband hath as great an interest in the person of his wife, as any Subject hath in the person of his sovereign; and yet a man may lose that interest by some act of his Wives, as if she commit Felony, Murder, or Treason, the Law disposeth of her person, and her husband cannot claim any right, so much as to her dead body: so fareth it with a King, who by going out of his kingdom, or by being taken prisoner by his enemies, his Subjects lose the interest they had in him, and he is at the disposal of his enemies Iure belli. John King of England was cited to appear at Paris to answer for the death of Arthur Plantagenet Duke of Britain whom he had murdered; the State of England would not let him go, as holding it a great indignity and incongruity that a King of England should answer for any thing at Paris right or wrong; The French answered that they cited him not as King of England, but as Duke of Normandy; as King of England they acknowledged to have nothing to do with him, he was in that respect without them and beyond them; but as Duke of Normandy which he held in fee of the Crown of France, he owed fealty and allegiance for the same to the crown of France, and therefore ought to answer. The English replied, that if the Duke of Normandy did go, the King of England must go; and if the Duke of Normandy were beheaded, they knew well enough what would become of the King of England; Upon large debate hereof by all the Lawyers in France it was resolved that if John had been in Normandy at the time of his summons, he ought to have appeared; but he being Extra jurisdictionem Regni Franciae at the time of his summons, and insra jurisdictionem Regni Angliae, though legally he were a subject of France, yet loeally he being in England, his summons was void, and he forfeied nothing by his non-appearance.  
I will only urge one argument more deduced from a known maxim of the Law, not of England but of Scotland also, which the Commissioners of Scotland the other day at the Conference did cite themselves, in my opinion much against themselves, and that is this, Quando Duo I●●a, into Duo Begna (Saith a great Lawyer) concurrant in unae persona, aequum est ac si essent in diversis, which is no more than this, when two kingdoms held by two distinct Titles do concur in one and the same person, it is all one as if they were in two distinct persons. I suppose here is our very case, here are two kingdoms, England and Scotland, held by two distinct Titles, which do both concur in one Person, in the person of King CHARLES; it is all one saith this rule and maxim of the Law, as if they were under two several persons; why then put the case, that there were one King of England and another of Scotland, should the State of Scotland have any thing to do to dispose of the person of a King of England, he being in England? I think you will say they could not.  
Sir, I am sorry that our brethren have moved this question at this time; for all questions make debates, and debates differences; and this were a time for brothers to reconcile differences rather than to make them; we have now lived 44 years, both under two Princes, and in all this time this question was never stirred in, till now; had it been stirred in, no question but it had been rejected. The people of England would have held it very strange that they could not have disposed of the person of their own King, or that a King of England could not have gone from Whitehall to Richmond or Hampton-court without the will and appointment of the council of Scotland: they would have thought they had made an evil bargain by such a union. For before the union they might have disposed of the person of their Prince; but after, not. And since they conceived that by the addition of Scotland there was an addition of charge, they would have been very sorry withal to have had an addition of servility.  
Since the beginning of the World there was never before such a contention about the person of a King. The greeks and Trojans did contend for a long time in fight about the dead body of Partroclus which of them should have it. But here is not a contention about the dead body of a private man, but about the living body of a King; neither do we contend as they did, who should have his person, but here you do contend (as far as I conceive) who should not have it. Your brethren of Scotland say positively they will not have the King's person upon any conditions whatsoever. It is now above six months' past that you voted in this House the demanding of the King's person, but the Lords refused to join with ye; ever since until this present you yourself did Acquiesce as if you had repented of your former vote; Now he must be put upon you, and with such terms as his present guardians please to allow of.  
Truly it seems strange to me, that an Army of Scots in pay of the kingdom of England, which by the Treaty ought to be governed by the joint consent of the Committees of both kingdoms upon the place, should in England take a King of England without the privity of the English Committee, and convey him to Newcastle a town likewise of England, and should there keep him for six whole months without the consent of both Houses of Parliament. And when they find it not convenient for them to keep him any longer, than they will capitulate with you upon what conditions you must receive his person.  
I never thought to have found a King of England his person being in England, under any other protection but that of the laws of England; but now I find him under the protection of a Scottish Army, whether they say he is fled for shelter, and that they cannot render him up in Honour.  
Sir, if that Army of theirs be come into this kingdom as brethren, friends, and confederates (as we hope they are) then is every person of that Army during the time of his stay here locally a subject of England, and such children as are borne to them here are not Aliens but denizens, and not only local but legal Subjects of this kingdom. And therefore they having gotten the King into their hands, they ought no more to capitulate upon what terms he should be delivered into yours, then if the Army of Sir Thomas Fairfax were in possession thereof, who if they should deny the surrendering of the King unto you, but upon condition, no question but it were capital.  
They say, that by virtue of the Covenant they are obliged to defend his Person and Authority. What his Authority is in Scotland themselves best know; but you only are to judge of it in England, since being not subordinate to any power on Earth, there is no power under Heaven can judge you. The Covenant ties you to maintain in the first place the Rights of Parliament, and the liberties of the kingdom; and in the second place the King's Person and Authority; and that only in defence of the former, and not otherwise. And whereas they expect the King should be received by you with Honour, safety, and freedom, I beseech you, Sir, consider whether (as the case now stands) his Reception with Honour can stand with the Honour of the kingdom, whether his safety be not incompatible with the safety of the commonwealth, and whether his freedom be not inconsistent with the freedom of the people.  
I pray (Sir) take heed lest that bringing him in with Honour you do not dishonour your self, and question the very justice of all your Actions; be wary that in receiving him with safety you do not thereby endanger and hazard the commonwealth; be advised least in bringing him home with freedom, you do not thereby lead the people of England in thraldom.  
I pray (Sir) first settle the honour, safety and freedom of the commonwealth, and then the honour, safety, and freedom of the King, so far as the latter may stand with the former, and not otherwise  
Wherefore I shall conclude with my humble desire that you would adhere to your former vote that is, that the King be disposed of as both Houses of Parliament shall think fitting; and that you enter into no Treaty either with the King or your brethren of Scotland, lest otherwise thereby you retard the going home of their Army out of England.  
FINIS.