A DECLARATION AGAINST Prince Rupert, OR, An Argument, whereby it appears, that Prince RUPERT, and all that join with him in this unnatural War against the PARLIAMENT, are guilty of High-Treason, With an exposition of the Stat. of 11. HEN. 7. whereby it appears, that those who follow the advice and employment of the PARLIAMENT, are freed from Treason, or any other offence concerning their particular actions in that Service.  
By P.B. Gent.  
LONDON. Printed in the year 1642.   

A DECLARATION AGAINST Prince Rupert.  
THat all men may the better know their duty, and upon how sure a ground they go that follow the judgement of Parliament for their guide; let them judiciously consider the true meaning and ground of the Statute of 11. Hen. 7. cap. 1. This Statute provides, That none that shall attend upon the King, and do him true service shall be attainted, or forfeit any thing: What! was the scope of this Statute to provide, that men should not suffer as Traitors for serving the King in his Wars, according to the duty of their Allegiance? if this had been all, it had been a very needless and most ridiculous Statute: Was it then intended that they should be free from all crime and penalty that should follow the King, and serve him in Wars in any case whatsoever, whether it were for or against the Kingdom and the Laws thereof? that cannot be, for that could not stand with the duty of their Allegiance, which in the beginning of that Statute is expressed to be, so serve the King for the time being in his Wars, for the defence of Him and the Land; and therefore if it be against the Land (as it cannot be otherwise understood, if it be against the Parliament, who is the representative body of the Kingdom) it is a declining from the duty of Allegiance, which this Statute supposeth may be done, though men follow the King's person in War: otherwise there had been no need of such a proviso in the end of that Statute, that none should take benefit by that Statute that should decline their Allegiance: that therefore which is the principle verb in this Statute, is the serving of the King for the time being: which cannot be meant of a Perkin Warbeck, or any that should call himself King; but such a one, as what ever his Title might prove, either in himself, or in his Ancestors, should be received and acknowledged for such by the Kingdom, the consent whereof cannot be discerned but by Parliament; the Act whereof is the Act of the whole Kingdom, by the personal suffrage of the Peers, and the deligate consent of all the Commons of England: and Henry the seventh, a wise King, considering that what was the case of Richard the third his predecessor, might by chance of Battle be his own, and that he might at once by such a Statute as this, satisfy such as had served his predecessor in his Wars; and also secure those that should serve him, who might otherwise fear to serve him in the Wars, l●st by chance of battle that might happen to him also (if a Duke of York had set up a Title against him) which had happened to his predecessor: he procured this Statute to be made, That no man should be accounted a Traitor for serving the King in his Wars for the time being; that is, which was for the present allowed and received by the Parliament in behalf of the Kingdom; and as it is truly suggested in the preamble of that Statute. It is not agreeable to reason or conscience that it should be otherwise, seeing men should be put upon an impossibility of knowing their duty, if the judgement of the highest Court should not be a guide to them: Now if the judgement of that Court should be followed where the question is? W … King, (as it must be followed as appears by that Statute) much more than ought their judgement to be fo●●●●ed, when they declare, What is the best service of the ●●ng and Kingdoms, and therefore those that shall gui●● themselves by the judgement of Parliament, ought whatever happen, to be secure and free from all account and … ties, upon the ground and equity of this Statute of 11. 11. H. 7▪ ●ap. 1.  
Besides, ●t the Parliament (that made this Act in that eleventh year of Henry the seventh) had intended, that those that served the King in his wars, though never so unjustly begun, and though against the Kingdom and the Laws thereof, should nevertheless have been free from Treason, and not punishable, then had all the liberty of the Subject been inclusively given (by that Act) from the Subject to the King: For if that were a good construction, and the right intent of the Statute, than had Henry the seventh a lawful dispensation for his observing those Laws, by which our liberties were ever preserved; but that Parliament never intended so, as you may clearly discern by other wholesome Acts passed the same Parliament for the preservation of every man's liberty and propriety in his estate.  
Besides, how can any people be persuaded, that that Parliament would so much betray the Laws of the Land, and the trust reposed in them, when as they themselves had in their own particulars so great an interest of honour and estate: and whereas this present Parliament stands accused by some of desperate fortunes and lives of the same temper, of that very fault which that Parliament of Henry the seventh had been guilty, were the former construction rational, I hope it will gain little credit with any that have the least use of reason, that such as must have so great a share of the misery, should take so much pains in procuring thereof, and spend so much time, and run so many hazards for to make themselves slaves, and to destroy the property of their estates.  
And whereas some except against this Parliament for being the authors of their own precedents, and so varying from the course of former times; let them that urge this against the Parliament know, that if they have made any precedents this Parliament, they have made them for posterity; and upon the same or better reasons or law, than those were upon which their predecessors first made any for them: and as some precedents ought not to be rules for them to follow; so none can be limits to bond their proceed, which may and must vary according to the different condition of times: And whereas you look for precedents, to prove all the King's Army that are now with him to be Traitors, remember who were adjudged Traitors in Richard the seconds time; and if it were Treason in them for levying a war before a Parliament was called, and for keeping a Parliament from being called? shall it not be Treason in them that war against a Parliament when it is called? Were there ever such practices to poison the people with an ill apprehension of the Parliament? Were there ever such scandals and imputations laid upon the proceed of both Houses? Were there ever so many and so great breaches of the privilege of Parliament, as have been made this Parliament? Or were there ever so many and so desperate designs of force and violence against the Parliament, and the Members thereof? If the Parliament have done more than ever their ancestors have done, I am sure they have suffered more than ever they suffered; & yet in point of modesty or duty they need not yield to the best of former times: but they may safely put this in issue, whether the highest & most unwarrantable precedent of any of His Majesty's predecessors do not fall short and much below what hath been done to this Parliament? And on the other side, whether if they should make the highest precedents of other Parliaments their patterns, there would be cause to complain of want of modesty and duty in them, when they not so much as suffered such things to enter into their thoughts (as their Declarations tell me) which all the world knows their Predecessors have put in act.  
And whereas it seems a riddle to those that are with the King, that they should fight for the King, and by his command, and yet be Traitors to him; for if they be Traitors, the King himself hath done as much, being present with them, as they have done: and how can a King commit Treason against himself?  
To those let me answer, that what ever the King does he is not to be questioned, but yet that does not clear them, because the King himself doth countenance them by his personal presence, and by his Comissions: and that their consequence might fall to the ground, let them understand, that a King may commit Treason against himself, and so did King john in resigning of his Crown to the Pope: and Mr Brooke, who was Recorder of London, in his reading upon the Statute of Magna Charta, cap. 16. said, That if any to whom the Crown is committed by Act of Parliament, usurp it, or demean it in other manner than is expressed in the Act, it is high Treason: read the Statute of 35. Hen. 8. c. 1. And thus you see, that they which join with the King may be punished for Treason, though the King himself cannot.  
Besides, though they intent not hurt to the King's person, as we may guess by several circumstances, yet they may be Traitors: for 'tis true, that in some sense he is the only person against whom Treason can be committed, that is meant, as he is King: But yet that Treason which is against the Kingdom, is more against the King, then that which is against his person, because he is King; for that very Treason is not Treason as 'tis against him as a man, but as a man that is a King; and as he hath relation to the Kingdom, and stands as a person entrusted with the Kingdom, and discharging that trust: Now if that be true, as indeed it is, that Treason against the Kingdom is more Treason against the King, then that which is against the King's person; what shall become of the King's Army, which now levy War against the Parliament, which is the Kingdom? are they not all Traitors?  
But for Prince Rupert, some are content to make this excuse for him, that he is no liege man borne, and is not subject to our Laws, and therefore he is no Traitor, for he owes no Allegiance:  
The answer to them will be but shortly thus, that any man (and so consequently Prince Rupert) whilst he is in England, and in the King's dominions, is to yield a local ligeance and obedience to the King and the Laws, and in lieu of that he is to receive a local Protection from the King, and so is, Cook▪ lib. 7. Now the difference between strangers, that are both aliens, stands thus, if he be alien amy 'tis Treason for him to levy War against the Kingdom (that is) against the King, & so 'twas adjudged: But if he be an alien Enemy 'tis not Treason, but crimon lesae Majestatis, which is a thing of the same nature for the punishment, though not for the manner of the trial: Now Prince Rupert is an alien amy (and indeed hath more reason to be a friend to this Kingdom than an enemy, consideratis considerandis) so that his offence is as plainly discovered as the rest; and appears to be no less than High Treason against the Kingdom.  
FINIS.