REASON'S why we should admit the King to a personal Treaty In PARLIAMENT, and not Treat by Commissioners.  
Printed in the Year 1647.   

Reasons why we should admit the King to a Personal Treaty in Parliament, and not to treat by Commissioners.  
FIrst, in respect of the Writ, whereby the Lords are summoned, the Knights, & Burgesses elected, & sent to Parliament, in which Writ the King declares, that by the advice of his Counsel for certain difficult and argent affairs concerning himself, his Realm of England, and the English Church, he hath apppointed to hold a Parliament at Westminster, 3. November following, and there to have conference and treaty with his Barons, and therefore enjoins every Baron upon his Allegiance to be Personally there to handle and give advice upon the said urgent affairs, etc. wherein consider the things to be handled and advised on. First, touching himself, the safety of his Person; then of the Kingdom, the peace and government: Lastly of the Church, the settlement of Religion, and 〈◊〉 of the Clergy; surely these are inter ardua Regni, and for which he called the Parliament to have conference with his Barons about them, and to advice with them, and not to resolve without them: Let us remember that the King doth not pass any Bill touching the most trivial matter against his meanest Subject, before he hath had (if he desired it) personal conference and advice from his Barons, and shall we in these matters, touching his own Person, the peace and welfare of his whole Kingdom, the settlement of Religion and maintenance of God's Ministers, shall we in these difficult and urgent affairs, (not to use a worse word) press him to consent to, and settle these weighty businesses (Rege inconsulto) without conference with his Parliament, only with a few Commissioners a way not consonant to the Writ, nor warranted by precedents.  
The King may under his great Seal make Commissioners to give in Parliament his consent to any Bill. But what Law gives the two Houses power to make Commissioners to take his Majesty's consent out of Parliament, if none, then what can be the success of Commissionary treaties, but burdensome and destructive delays?  
By Law the King cannot be debarred in Parliament the conference and advice of any one Baron, and shall we in Parliament at once deny him the conference and advice of his whole Baronage, and that in matters of the highest nature? Let us remember that we Knights and Burgesses are but representative persons. Attorneys for our several Counties and Burrowes, and cannot exceed the power celegated to us by the persons represented, which by the writ and return of our Election appears to be to act and consent to such things as shall there (in Parliament) happen to be ordained, etc. but gives us no power to act or consent to things or dained or concluded by Commissioners at Uxbridge or elsewhere out of Parliament, we must therefore with safety pursue our power according to the usage of former Parliaments for innovations, and new precedents, as this may be dangerous to us, hurtful to our Posterity.  
Secondly, let the King treat in Person, that we may avoid the scandal that otherwise will be thrown upon us out of our own Votes. Petitions, Replications, Declarations, etc. as in our Vote 16. Mar. 1641. Resolved upon the Question, that those persons that advise the King to absent himself from his Parliament are enemies to the peace of the Kingdom, and Causers of the Rebellion in Ireland; for surely it those that advise his absence from Parliament be enemies to the peace of the Kingdom, they that force his absence from Parliament, when his Majesty offers, and hath so often desired to come to his Parliament, are (in a higher degree) enemies to the peace of the Kingdom, especially when his presence in Parliament, might as is hoped, give an end to our taxes, loans, billettings, etc.  
Next in our Petition of the 16 of July. 1642. We beseech his Majesty to draw nearer to his Parliament: His Majesty in his answer offers to come to his Parliament to any place but Westminster, where, in respect of the Tumults (and those unpunished) his Person could not be safe, which was the cause his Majesty departed thence.  
In our Replication, 26 of Jul. 1642 to that answer we continue our desires, To have his Majesty come to his Parliament to the usual place (Westminster) as the place of safety for his Royal Person, considering the assurance the Parliament hath of the Loyalty and Fidelity of the City of London to his Majesty, and the care the Parliament will have to prevent dangers, his Majesty may justly apprehend, besides the manifold conveniencies to be had there beyond other parts of the Kingdom: Now when his Majesty offers to come as we desired to the usual place, as the place of safety for his Royal Person (lately endangered) to the place where the Parliament (because nigh) may the better prevent all dangers apprehended by his Majesty, to the place where manifold conveniencies are to be had beyond other Parts of the Kingdom.  
We will not admit him to come to his Parliament, but will treat with him by Commissioners, a new way, at a place not usual (it may be) not safe for His Royal Person, perhaps at a place where the Parliament cannot (in respect of the distance) prevent the dangers justly apprehended by his Majesty, and at a place short of the manifold conveniencies to be had at Westminster: and will not all the world then believe that our ends and intents are other than our Petitions and Declarations pretend?  
Let the King treat in Person even to avoid the mischief threatened by Commissionary treaties, which (by miserable experience) are branded as insuccesfull and tedious, and thereby continuing the Army unpaid, increasing our taxes, lones, and insupportable payments, expelling trade and commerce both for the importing foreign, and exporting home Commodities, decaying our shipping the strength of our Nation, inviting the attendants of Civil War, Dearth and Famine, to perfect the ruin of our made miserable Nation: for while the Houses are instructing their Commissioners, their Commissioners certifying the Houses, the Houses in a personal treaty might have concluded with the King, paid and disbanded the Army, eased our taxes, freed us of billeting Soldiers, and so meet in Diameter what we seem to hunt in circumference.  
Lastly, it is considerable that all treaties, all concessions and grants made by the King while at distance from the Parliament, and under a kind of restraint (being tied to consent, and sign Bills before admitted to come to Parliament) are in themselves void and null in Law, as Acts obtained by force and durance, and then the Subject relying on such Acts for oblivion, etc. may be hanged with his pardon about his neck, for the sworn Judge must judge according to Law, not the intents of the King and Houses. But all Acts, Grants, and Concessions made by the King in open and free Parliament without any conditions or respects of former treaties are in themselves most honourable, most just, and most firm, most valide in Law and conscience, which will be had by a Personal Treaty, and doubtless render a wished safety to the Subject, a blessed and lasting peace to the Kingdom, which God in his mercy send us.  
FINIS.