AN ANSWER TO A Speech without Doors: OR, ANIMADVERSIONS Upon an unsafe and dangerous Answer to the Scotch-Papers, printed under the name of Mr. Challener his Speech, which while it offereth to reach a blow at the Scotch-Papers, doth indeed strike at the honour of the PARLIAMENT, and interest of the Kingdom of ENGLAND.  PROV. 28. 2. For the transgression of a Land, many are the Princes thereof. 
IF any shall ask, Who art thou and what meanest thou? I shall not make my Answer so wide as Di●g●nes did; I am not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yea, I will yet take me to a narrower compass. I am one who have adhered to the Parliament all along from the very beginning of the war, and I have served them faithfully in their lowest condition, resolving still to be for them, in that which is just and right, against any person or Nation in the world: And as to my meaning in this particular, 'tis not to write in defence of the Scotch Papers (let their Papers speak for themselves) if they can; and if they cannot, I have nothing to say for them, and however I will not ju●dre in illorum verb●, but I writ in defence of the Honour of the Parliament, and of the Interest of England, which have received a dangerous wound by this printed Paper, which comes abroad as a Speech spoken by Mr Challenor in the House of Commons. I do not presume to examine or at all to intermeddle in any thing spoken within those walls, I speak to the printed Paper, which for any thing I know may be supposititious, or at least different from the Original. Sure (if I mis-heard not) 'tis not printed as it was spoken in the House, (which yet is pretended in the Title Page) else what is become of the Dog that is not worth the whistling after? and what is become of that other passage concerning the debate at a Comedy in Oxford, concerning the fittest place for erecting the King's Throne? the determination whereof was so difficult, that some thought it best, not to erect it at all. Whatever was spoken in the House, I suppose 'tis no Privilege of a Member of Parliament to print what he list against the Honour of the Parliament and Interest of the Kingdom: neither can it be a breach of the Privilege of a Member, and much less the breach of a Privilege of Parliament, to vindicate the Honour and Interest of Parliament, which is my present work, and so I come to it, without further prefacing.  
My Animadversions upon the Paper are these. ●irst of all it presenteth to the view of the world, a champion coming forth Goliah-like for the Parliament; but stumbling woefully in the very beginning of his dispute. It draweth together three large sheets of the Scotch Papers into this syllogism.  
Wheresoever the Kingdom of Scotland hath an interest in their 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.  
The Paper runs along in answer to this Syllogism, and here is a man of straw set up to be buffeted. I will concur with Mr Challenor to deny this Argument, but all this while the Scotch Paper escapeth ; there is no such Argument in their Paper, neither for matter nor form: they do not say that either this Kingdom or their own may dispose of the King, but that it belongeth to both Kingdoms to dispose of him. And if there must needs be a Syllogistical arguing and answering, their Argument ought to have been stated thus.  
Whatsoever is by Covenant, Treaty, and the very Law of Nations of joint interest and common concernment to both Kingdoms, ought not to be disposed of but by the mutual advice and consent of both Kingdoms for the good of both.  
But the person of the King, whether in England or Scotland, is by Covenant, Treaty, and the very Law of Nations, of joint interest, and common concernment to both Kingdoms.  
Therefore the Person of the King, whether in England or Scotland, ought not to be disposed of, but by the mutual advice and consent of both Kingdoms, for the good of both.  
This is the sum of what the Scotch Papers say, as to this point which is there prosecuted and endeavoured, to be proved by parts: but whether it was for the Honour of the Parliament, that one of their Members should Answer what the Scotch say not, and not Answer what they say, let rational men judge.  
To no better purpose is that distinction, Pag. 4. 5. of the King in Abstracto, and the King in Concreto: which (beside that it maketh Persona to be Concretum, I know not by what rule of Logic) doth plainly beg from the Scotch what is in question. For the Scotch Papers do state the question (as the Vote of the honourable Houses, September 24. had done before them) not upon the Authority, Power, and Office of the King, but upon the Person of the King: and to this very purpose are all their Arguments brought, to prove a joint and equal interest of both Kingdoms in the Person of the King, which by Covenant they and we both are bound to defend and preserve, as well as his Authority and just Power. But this pretended Answer, in stead of answering or confuting their Arguments, denieth their Conclusion. Was this now for the Honour of the Parliament? Was it not?  
I, but saith the Paper, Person● sequitur locum, and his Person must be disposed of by the supreme Power of that Country, wheresoever he shall happen to abide. By this Principle forsooth the Person of the King of England, if he were in Scotland, must be disposed of by the supreme Power of that Country, without the advice and consent of the Parliament of England: And was not this well pleaded for the interest of the Parliament and Kingdom of England? I think not.  
Within a few lines after I find it said, That the Kingdom of England, is as distinct in interests from Scotland, as Spain: And is all our conjunction of interests in one Religion, one Covenant, one King, one Cause, one War, turned in end to no more but this? Then may Scotland make a Peace without the advice and consent of the Kingdom of England, as well as Spain may. Then also may Scotland enter into a Confederacy with a Foreign Kingdom, without ask advice or consent from this Kingdom, as well as Spain may. And was not this well provided for the interest of England? was it? or was it not?  
I turn over to Pag. 6. where I read thus, I shall take this as granted for good Law, that let the Person of any Nation (that were I confess Persona Concreta) 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, etc. Then must any Ambassador coming from another Kingdom or State, expect no sufficient protection in England by the Law of Nations, but by the Laws of England, without which protection (as this Paper saith) every man may kill him and destroy him, nor can he have such protection except he become withal a Subject of England. And was not the Honour of the Parliament and Kingdom of England in this well preserved? Sure Foreign Nations will not think so.  
It cannot be denied (saith the Paper) but there is a twofold subjection, Legal and Local:— 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. By which rule, (being at least equally applicable to any that are subject to the Parliament) when both Houses send Commissioners into Scotland; these Commissioners must not be subject to the Orders and Commands of the Houses of Parliament, but must be disposed of by the sole Authority of the supreme Power in that Kingdom. And is not this fine for the Honour of the Parliament? He that will make it stand with their Honour, Magnus mihi erit Apollo.  
But come on Pag. 7. 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. By which Principle, the Prince of Wales now in France, is become a Subject of France, and his Person to be disposed of by the sole Authority of the Laws of France; so that the King and Parliament have not Authority to recall him. And is not this a good salve for the Honour of the Parliament? O brave!  
Pag. 8. W● cannot admit of any regality in the Person of a King of Scotland coming into England. — No man can be said to be Rex but in Regno. And by just Analogy the Parliament of England, cannot be acknowledged a Parliament but in England only; neither can their Commissioners in any other Kingdom or State, be admitted to propound, declare, treat, or conclude in name of both Houses. And is not this well looked unto for the Honour of the Parliament? Is it not?  
Pag. 9 If they (the Scotch) be our fellows, why come they not to our Parliament? Therefore if it can be made to appear that they are our fellows, equals, and brethren, they may come to our Parliaments. Lo here, how well the Privilege of Parliament is preserved?  
Here follows also a Story of John King of England, cited as Duke of Normandy to appear at Paris: Whereunto 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. It was resolved by the Lawyers, that if John had been in Normandy at the time of his summons, he ought to have appeared, but not so, being in England. Where beside the vast disproportion of comparing the case of one who was King of one Kingdom and Subject of another, with his case who is a free Monarch of two free Kingdoms; the Narration doth also extremely strengthen the Scotch Paper, which it pretendeth to oppose; for they answer the English now, just as the English did then answer the French; that is, If this present King of England must be disposed of by the sole Authority of both Houses of Parliament, what shall then become of the Person of the King of Scotland? where is then the Scotch King in Concreto? If the notion of a King in Abstracto be sufficient against the Scotch in this debate; sure it was as strong against the English then. Behold, what a rational account is here given for the single and sole Authority of the Parliament of England, to dispose of the King of both Kingdoms! If this be well pleaded, I confess I have lost my judgement.  
Pag. 12. tells us the Kingdoms are now contending about the King's Person, not who should have it, but who should not have it: Which reflecteth strongly upon the Parliament, and will infer that forasmuch as they decline or shun to have the King's Person, either they did not wisely, or not uprightly, when they Voted that his Person is to be disposed of as both Houses shall think fit. And is not this much for the Honour of Parliament? Is it not?  
Pag. 14. 'Tis desired to be considered, whether (as the case now stands) The King's safety be not incompatible with the safety of the Commonwealth? I will not here relate what is vox populi concerning that Gentleman's old discontents at the King; but I bless myself to think where we now are, when after so many Oaths, Protestations, Declarations, and Covenants, as for other ends, so for the safety of the King's Person, 'tis notwithstanding endeavoured to make the world believe, that there is a great doubt made in Parliament, whether the King's safety is not incompatible with the safety of the Commonwealth. And is this now compatible with the Honour of Parliament?  
In fine, I do not know, whether the Scotch may like this Speech of Mr Challenor, for the matter of it, as being a malleable Answer; yea, such as in the opinion of Intelligent Readers, fortifieth their Papers not a little. But I much mistake, if it have a favourable aspect from the Parliament; either for the matter, or for divers acrimonious expressions in it, which as I cannot easily believe to have been spoken in that honourable Senate: so none (I think) will like well provoking Language, but those who desire to put the Kingdoms by the ears: from which misery, and from all the Plots both of Sectaries and Malignants, Good Lord deliver us, Amen.  
FINIS.