AN ANSWER TO A PAMPHLET, entitled, A Declaration of the Commons of England in Parliament assembled, expressing their Reasons and Grounds of passing the late Resolutions touching no further address or Application to be made to the KING.  
CR  
HONI SOIT x MAL Y PENSE  
DIEV ET MON DROIT   royal blazon or coat of arms 
Printed in the year, 1648.   

An ANSWER to a Pamphlet, entitled, [A DECLARATION of the Commons of England in Parliament assembled, expressing their Reasons and Grounds of passing the late Resolutions touching no farther address or Application to be made to the KING.]  
I Believe that it was never heard of until now, that heavy Imputations were laid on any Man (I speak not, now, of KINGS, which I confess makes the Case, yet, more strange and unjust) and He not permitted to see, much less to Answer them: but so it is now with the KING: which does (though silently) yet subject Him to as great an Imputation, as there is any in the said Declaration; for those who know no better, may think that He cannot, because He does not, Answer it: Wherefore I hold it my Duty (knowing these things better than every ordinary Man) to do my best, that the KING should not be injured, by the ignorance of His People; and albeit, I (lying under Persecution, for my Conscience, and Love to regal Authority) have not the means, in every thing, to make full Probations; yet, I am confident, in all the most material Points, so to make the Truth, of the King's Innocency, appear; that I shall satisfy any impartial judicious Reader.  
What the Issue of former Addresses to the KING hath been, is most certainly known to all the World; but, where the Fault rests, whereby Peace hath not ensued, bare Asseverations, without proofs, cannot, I am sure, satisfy any Judicious Reader. And indeed, it seems to me, that the Penner of this, seeks more to take the ears of the Ignorant Multitude, with big Words, and bold Assertions, then to satisfy rational Men with real Proofs or true Arguments. For, at the very first, he begs the Question; tak●ng it for granted, that the KING could ease the sighs and groans, dry the tears, and staunch the Blood of His distressed Subjects: Alas! Is it He, that keeps Armies on foot, when there is none to oppose? Is it He, that will not lay down Excise, Taxation, and free-Quarterings? But, it is He indeed, who was so far from Power, even at that time, (being far worse since) that, in most things, He wanted the Liberty of any freeborn Man: It is He, who never refused to ease His People of their Grievances; witness more Acts of Grace passed in His reign, than (to speak within my compass) in any five Kings or Queen's Times, that ever were before Him: Moreover, It is He, who, to settle the present unhappy Distractions, and (as the best means to it) to obtain a personal Treaty, hath offered so much; that (to say Truth) during His own Time, He hath left Himself little more than the Title of a KING; as it plainly appears by His Message from the Isle of Wight, concerning the Militia, and choosing the Officers of State, and privy-counselors; besides other points of compliance, which is needless here to mention.  
Good God are these Offers, unfit for them to receive? have they tendered such Propositions, that might occasion the World to judge that they have yielded up, not only their Wills and Affections, but their Reasons also, and Judgements, for obtaining a true Peace or good Accommodation? It is true, that if they can show, what, Reasonably, they could have asked more; or, wherein the KING'S Offers were deficient (either in Point of Security, or, by withholding, from any of His Subjects, a jot of their just privileges) then, they said somewhat, to challenge Belief: But, bare Asseverations, even against what a Man sees, will not get credit with any, but such who abandon their judgements to an Implicit Faith: Nor can the Determinations of all the parliaments in the World, make a thing Just or Necessary, if it be not so of itself: And can it be imagined, that any, who were ever acquainted with the Passages at the Treaties, of Oxford and Uxbridge, will believe (though it be said) That the Propositions tendered at Newcastle, were the same in effect, which had been presented to the King before, in the midst of all His Strength and Forces? Indeed methinks such gross slips as these, should, at least, make a Man be wary, how to believe such things, for which he sees no Proofs; And yet it should seem, that a Man must either take their Words, for good Payment, or remain unsatisfied; for a little after, it is said, That the Kings strange, unexpected, and conditional Answers or Denials might justly have made them consider some other course for settling the kingdom in Peace and Safety, without any farther Application; but never shows, wherein the strangeness of His Answers or Denials consists: And I should think, that those Reasons, upon which the laying by of a King's Authority is grounded (for it is no less) ought to be particularly mentioned, for the world's satisfaction, and not involved in general big Words: for it thereby seems, that it is their Force of arms, more than that of Reason, which they trust to, for procuring of Obedience to their Determinations, or Belief to what they say: otherways, can it be imagined, that their saying, That their last Propositions were to be qualified, that (where it might stand with the public safety) the wonted Scruples and Objections were prevented or removed, can give satisfaction to any rational Man, who hath seen all their former Propositions? for, it is most evident, that their Demands have always increased with their good Fortune.  
And for their great condescension to a Personal Treaty (which, under favour, can scarcely be called so; for the KING, though He had granted what was desired, was not to come, neither to nor near London, but to stay in the Isle of Wight, and there to Treat with Commissioners) upon Signing the Four bills; Surely, they incurred therein, but little danger; for it is most evident, that they contain the very substance of the most essential parts of their Demands; which being once granted, the KING would neither have had Power to Deny, nor any thing left worth the refusing; for after He had confessed, that He had taken up arms, to invade the liberty of his People, (whereas it was only for the Defence of His own Rights) and had likewise Condemned all those, who had faithfully served Him, of Rebellion; and that He had totally devested Himself, his heirs, and successors for ever, of the Power of the Sword; whereby the Protection of His Subjects (which is one of the most essential and necessary Rights belonging to regal Authority) is totally torn away from the Crown: and that by a silent Confession, He had done Himself and successors, an irreparable prejudice concerning the Great Seal (I speak not of the other two Bills, neither of which are of little importance) what was there more for Him to grant (worth the insisting upon) after such Concessions? or, indeed, what Power was left Him to deny any thing? So that the KING'S necessity of giving the Answer He did (for it was no absolute refusal) is most evident; unless, He had resolved to have lived in quiet, without Honour; and to have given His People Peace, without Safety; by Abandoning them to an Arbitrary and unlimited Power of the Two Houses, for ever, concerning the Levying of Land or Sea Forces, without stinting of Numbers, or distinction of Persons; and for Payments, to levy such sums of moneys, in such sort, and by such ways and means, as they shall think fit and appoint. And now, I cannot but ask; Is this the Militia, that the KING contends for? or, did ever any King of England pretend to, or seek for, such a Power? surely no: But, this is a new Militia, and take heed, lest this should prove like the Roman Praetorian Cohorts, that what they did in choosing and changing Emperors, these do not to this Government; by moulding and altering it according to their Fancies. Now, my eagerness to clear this Point concerning the four Bills, had almost made me forget, a most material Question: I wonder much wherein the Danger consists of a personal Treaty with the KING, ever since He was last at Newcastle? Surely He cannot bring Forces along with Him, to awe His Two Houses of parliament: and it is as well known that He hath not money to raise an Army: and truly, there is as little fear, that the Eloquence of His Tongue should work Miracles; but on the Contrary, if He were so ill a Man, as you describe Him to be, whatsoever He shall say or write, must more prejudice Him then You: for let Him never flatter Himself; it must be clear, not doubtful, Reason, that can prevail against that great visible prevailing Power, which now opposes Him: nor do I say, it will; but certainly, less cannot do it: Where is then, the Danger? Believe it, Reason will hardly maintain those who are afraid of her.  
After this, it is said, That they had Cause enough to remember, that the KING sometimes denied to receive their humble Petitions: but, they neither tell, where, nor when; which, I am most confident, they cannot: but I am certain, that the KING hath sent divers Messages of Peace to them, unto which, He hath yet, had no Answer; namely, His last from Oxford of the 15. Jan. 1645. and all the rest since: As for the Fight at Brainceford, whosoever will read the Collection of the Declarations in Print, upon that subject, will clearly find, that the KING hath more Reason to complain, that they under colour of Treaty, sought to environ Him with their Forces; then they, for what He then did; and His Retreat was neither for fear, nor with Shame; for the appearing of the Enemy made Him retard, not hasten His Orders for retiring, which divers hours (before their appearing) He had given: which He did without any loss at all, but (on the contrary) Retreated with more arms, Eleven Colours, and fifteen pieces of Ordnance (beside good store of Ammunition) than He had before: and for Cruelty; there was not a drop of blood shed, but in the heat of the Fight, for I saw above five hundred Prisoners, who (only promising, never after, to bear arms against the KING) were freely Released.  
Again, they seem to have good Memories, saying, That the King once sent them a specious Message of renewing a Treaty, when at the same time, His Messenger was instructed how to manage that bloody Massacre in London, which was then designed by virtue of the King's Commission, since published: And hath the KING sent but one Message, for the renewing of a Treaty? Then what was that from Tavestock in Aug. 1644. and 
* 5. 15. 26. 29. of Decemb. and 15. of Jan. 1645.  five others from Oxford the next year? But indeed this, that is here mentioned, they knew not how to Answer (for at that time, they knew not the way of Silence) but by this forged Accusation against the Messenger; who, I dare say, knew nothing of that, which might have been (at that time) intended for the KING'S service, by some who had more zeal than judgement: But, that there was a Massacre intended, or, that any Commission from the KING, should countenance such a design, is a most notorious slander. As for the KING'S mentioned Letter to the Queen; I am confident that any judicious Reader, will find the gloss made upon it, very much wrested: And certainly, after-Ages will think these Times very Barbarous, wherein private Letters betwixt Man and Wife are published to open view: and in other Countries, there is such Respect carried to private Letters of Princes, that (to my knowledge) the last Emperor in the greatest heat of the Bohemian war, having intercepted a Packet, wherein were private Letters to King JAMES of blessed Memory (who was then known, no great Friend to the Emperor) from His only Daughter, then, avowedly the Emperor's greatest Enemy; yet He sent them to the KING, without the least offer of violence to the Scales.  
And now I come to their Determination upon the whole Matter, what Course they have resolved to take with the KING: their words are; But notwithstanding this and other former Tenders, we have now received such a denial that we are in despair of any good by Addresses to the KING; neither must we be so injurious to the People in further delaying their settlement, as any more to press His Consent to these, or any other Propositions: Besides, it is Resolved upon the Question: That they will receive no more any Message from the King; and do enjoin, That no Persons do presume, to receive or bring any Message from the King to both or either Houses of parliament or to any other Person. Thus you see, that the KING is laid by; but, that is not all; for, He must, neither justify His Innocency against Calumny, nor is there any way left Him to mend any error, that He may have committed: Is this a Just way of proceeding? when Truth, though offered, must not be heard; and that no way must be left to recant an Error? And why all this Severity? Because (as I have already shown you) the KING will not injure His Conscience or Honour, nor suffer His People to be oppressed; to which they give the term of such a denial, though really it was none. But since they thus seek to hoodwink the People; it is no great Wonder, that they forbid the KING to repent Him of those Faults, which He never committed: and I believe all Indifferent Men, will easily judge of the KING'S Innocency, even by their way of Accusation: for, those who will lay such High Crimes to His charge, as the breach of Oaths, Vows, Protestations, and Imprecations; would not spare to bring their Proofs if they had any: But on the Contrary it is known to all the World, that He had not suffered, as He has done, if He would have dispensed with that part of His Coronation Oath, which He made to the Clergy; which is no great sign that He makes slight of His Engagements: of which it is so universally known, that He has been so Religiously careful, as I hold it a wrong to His Innocency, to seek to clear Him of such slanders, for which there are no Proofs alleged; for, Malice being once detected, is best Answered, with Neglect and Silence: And was there ever greater, or more apparent, Malice, then to offer to put the horrid slander of parricide upon Him, who was eminently known to be as obedient and loving a Son to His blessed Father, as any History can make mention of? But indeed the loss of Rochel doth fitly follow; to show, how Malice, when it is at the height, is ordinarily accompanied; for there are none, but ignorant or forgetful Men, who know not that it was merely the want of Assistance, from the Two Houses of parliament (contrary to their public general Engagement) that lost Rochel: and there is nothing more clear (to any who hath known French Occurrences) then, that real Assistance, which the KING, to the uttermost of His Power, gave to those of the Religion, at that time, made the Cardinal of Richelieu an irreconcilable enemy to the KING; wherefore I cannot but say, that it is a strange forgetful boldness to charge the KING with that which was evidently other men's faults.  
There are also other things, that, to any knowing Man, will rather seem Jeers, than Acusations; as the German Horse, and Spanish Fleet in the year 1639. But my Affection shall not so blind me, as to say, that the KING never erred; yet, as when a just Debt is paid, Bonds ought to be canceled; so Grievances, be they never so just, being once redressed, ought no more to be objected as errors. And it is no Paradox, to affirm; that Truths, this way told, are no better than slanders; and such are the Catalogue of Grievances here enumerated; which, when they are well examined, every one of them, will not be found such as here they are described to be.  
Now as concerning those Discourses which mention the Beginnings of these Troubles, (which are in Two several places of this Declaration) I will only say this; that what the KING did, upon those Occasions, was merely to defend the Rights of His Crown, which were and are evidently sought to be torn from Him; nor can I acknowledge all those Relations to be true, such as Private Levies, of Men; by Popish Agents; Arming of Papists in the North, Calling in of Danish Forces, and the like: And as for the stale slander of calling up the Northern Army, now renewed; it is well known, that the Two Houses (even at that time) were not so partial to the KING, as to have concealed a practice of that kind, if they could have got it sufficiently proved.  
But, if the Irish Rebellion can be justly charged upon the KING, than I shall not blame any for believing all the rest of the Allegations against Him; only I protest against all rebel's testimony, as good proof; it being most certain by experience; that they, who make no Conscience of Rebelling, will make less of Lying, when it is for their Advantage. And, it is no little wonder, that, so grave an Assembly as the House of Commons, should so slightly examine a business of that Great Weight, as to allege, that the Scots Great seal, did countenance the Irish Rebellion, when I know it can be proved, by Witnesses without exception, that, for many months before, until the now Lord chancellor had the Keeping of it, there was nothing at all Sealed by it: Nor concerning this Great Point will I only say, that the KING is Innocent, and bid them prove (which, to most Accusations, is a sufficient Answer) but, I can prove, that if the KING had been obeyed in the Irish affairs before He went last into Scotland, there had been no Irish Rebellion; and, after it was begun, it had, in few Months, been subpressed, if His Directions had been observed; For if the KING had been suffered to have performed His Engagements to the Irish Agents; and, had disposed of the discontented Irish Army, beyond Sea (according to His Contracts with the French and Spanish ambassadors) there is nothing more clear, then that there could have been no Rebellion in Ireland; because, they had wanted both Pretence and means, to have made one: Then, when it was broken forth, if those vigorous courses had been pursued, which the KING proposed, (first to the Scots, then, to the English parliament) doubtless that Rebellion had been soon suppressed. But what He proposed took so little effect, that in many months after, there was nothing sent into Ireland, but what the KING himself sent (assisted by the Duke of Richmond) before He came from Scotland, unto Sir Rob: Steward; which, though it were little, will be found to have done much service, as may be seen by the said Sir Roberts voluntary Testimony, given in writing to the parliament Commissioners then attending the KING at Stoak. And certainly, a greater Evidence for Constancy in Religion there cannot be, than the KING showed in His Irish Treaty; for, in the time that He most needed Assistance, it was in His Power to have made that kingdom Declare unanimously for Him, and have had the whole Forces thereof employed in His Service, if He would have granted their Demand in Points of Religion, they not insisting in any thing of civil Government, which His Majesty might not have granted, without prejudice to Regal Authority; and this can be clearly proved, by the marquess of Ormond's Treaties with the Irish, not without very good Evidence by some of the KING's Letters to the Queen, which were taken at Naseby that are purposely concealed, lest they should too plainly discover the KING'S detestation of that Rebellion, and His rigid firmness to the Protestant Profession: Nor can I end this Point, without remarking with Wonder, that Men should have so ill Memories, as again to renew that old Slander, of the King's giving Passes, to divers Papists, and Persons of Quality, who headed the Rebels; of which He so cleared himself, that He demanded Reparation for it, but could not have it, albeit no show of Proof could be produced, for that Allegation: as is most plainly to be seen in the first book of the Collection of all Remonstrances, Declarations, &c. fol. 69. & 70.  
Thus having given a particular Answer to the most material Points in this Declaration, the rest are such frivolous, malicious, and many of them groundless Calumnies, that Contempt is the Best Answer for them. Yet, one thing more, I must observe, that they not only endeavour to make Fables pass for currant coin, but likewise seek to blind men's Judgements, with false Inferences upon some Truths: for Example; It is true, that the KING hath said in some of His Speeches or Declarations; That He oweth an account of His Actions to none but God alone; and That the Houses of parliament joint or separate have no Power, either to make or Declare any Law; But, that this is a fit foundation for all tyranny, I must utterly Deny; indeed if it had been said, that the King, without the Two Houses of parliament, could make or Declare laws, than there might be some strength in the Argument; but, before this parliament, it was never, so much as Pretended, that either or both Houses, without the KING, could make or Declare any Law, and certainly HIS MAJESTY is not the first (and I hope will not be the last) King of England, that hath not held Himself accountable to any Earthly Power; besides it will be found, that this HIS MAJESTY'S Position is most agreeable to all Divine and human laws; so far it is, from being Destructive to a kingdom, or a Foundation for tyranny. To conclude, I appeal to GOD, and the World, whether it can be paralleled by example, or warranted by Justice, that any Man should be slandered, yet denied the sight thereof; and so far from being permitted to Answer, that if He have erred, there is no way left Him to acknowledge or mend it: and yet this is the KING'S present Condition; who is, at this time, laid aside; Because He will not consent that the old fundamental laws of this Land be changed, regal Power destroyed, nor, His People submitted, to a new Arbitrary tyrannical Government.   

In page 4. line 4. for to be qualified, read so qualified.  
FINIS.