THE Speech without doors defended without reason. OR, A Vindication of the Parliaments honour: IN A rejoinder to three Pamphlets published in Defence of M. Chaloners' Speech.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Aeschines Epist. 11. Senatui Populoque Atheniensi. For I hear that some incite you to new things Alexander being dead: but I would advise you those things which are fit for the future. 
I Did before give a sufficient account of myself, and of my faithfulness to the Parliament; and I must now say, that the Authors of these Pamphlets have been extremely mistaken, and very unhappy in their Auguries concerning me. The Scripture which was prefixed in the Title of my Animadversions, For the transgrassion of a Land, many are the Princes thereof, Prov. 28.2. was not intended against the Parliament, and the Pamphlet which hath put this notion in the heads of people, hath done but a disservice to the Parliament: For my part, I am no such Guifted Brother, as to draw from 〈◊〉 what is not in it, neither did I make any other use of my Text (as he calls it) than any Minister of H. M. his Ordination may do: But it was intended against change of Government, which the Speech without Doors did (and the defences of it do) too too much drive at. Amongst other Judgements which came upon a Land for the transgression thereof, one and a chief one is the change of Government, or Governors in a State, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, said Xenophon, All changes of Governvernment are mortiferous. And what more dangerous or deadly, than an alteration of the fundamental Government of this Kingdom by the King, and both Houses of Parliament? Nor doth it want its own danger, to have many voided places in Parliament, and so a frequent succession of many new Members, or to have the chief Officers Civil and Military put into many new hands, if the persons entrusted be not extraordinary well principled.  
The state of the Question between the Speech without Doors, and my Animadversions upon it, doth not concern the maintaining of the Law of the Land, which one of the Pamphlets would now draw into the Dispute. I will (according to my power) maintain the Law of the Land as much as any, and am obliged so to do, though not upon the reason given in that Pamphlet, because We are by Covenant obliged to maintain as well the Law of the Land, as the Person of the King. It seems this man is not well acquainted with the Covenant, read it again, find this in it, Et Phyllida solus habeto. Neither yet is our Question, whethet His Majesty's Person is to be disposed of solely and singly by the Houses of Parliament; I said not a word against M. Chaloners result or conclusion, (which his defenders chief speak to) or in defence of the Scotch Papers, of which I say still, let them speak for themselves. My Dispute was and is against that Speech, for arguing against the Scotch Papers, from such principles as are inconsistent with, and destructive to the honour of the Parliament, and interest of England. When M. chaloner shall bring convincing reasons to prove his conclusion, I shall therein join with him, mean while my exceptions against his Speech ought not to be challenged as exception against the Votes of Parliament, concerning their right to dispose of the King's Person. And whereas it is pleaded in the justification of the Speech, pag. 13. That since the Gentleman doth but assert their (the Parliaments) Votos, they would be very forgetful of their own interest, if they should be offendod thereat. This is a most presumptuous and unsufferably injurious imputation to the Parliament, as if their Interest did engage them to approve of every Speech or Pamphlet which undertaketh to assert their Votes, without examining the principles and arguments of such an Assertion, whether they be good or bad, true or false, consistent or inconsistent with their Honours. He that will tell a notorious lie, if so be he do it to assert the Votes of Parliament, may by this rule have an easy excuse.  
But the Speech without Doors holdeth forth to the world not only a ridiculous Assertion, but a ridiculous sense of those Votes of Parliament: For the Kingdoms are contending (said M. chaloner) about the King's Person, not who shall have it, but who shall not have it; which inferreth by consequence, that the Parliament either did not wisely, or not uprightly in that Vote, that the Person of the King is to be disposed of as both Houses shall think fit. He that writes the justification of M. Challoners' Speech (pardon me if this expression be identical) doth indeed confute M. chaloner, while he goeth about to prove, that the Parliament did both uprightly and wisely in that Vote: Sure, if the Parliament voted wisely, M. chaloner spoke not wisely; when he did upon the matter deliver (I will not say, he did intent) this sense of the Vote, That both Houses are to dispose, as they shall think fit, of a Person whom they desire not to have in their Power, nor in the Kingdom.  
If therefore, any hurt hath or shall come to that Vote of the Honourable Houses, it cometh by the dangerous Arguments for it, and the ridiculous sense of it, first delivered, and now defended in M. chaloners Speech; for my part, I have said nothing against their Vote, but vindicated their Honour. This premised, and the Question stated, as before, I will speak so much the more freely what I think, because none of these Pamphlets have dared to avouch against me that M. Challoners' Speech was printed as it was spoken in the House, (which was before pretended in the Title Page) yea the Justification of his Speech tells me, that the Gentleman neither owns the printing, nor the Title-page, whereby he hath so far justified me, as that I have not presumed to examine any thing spoken within Doors; neither did I in professing this at first, contradict myself (as I am now charged) by reporting somewhat spoken by M. chaloner in the House, but not printed. 'Tis one thing to intermeddle by examining, another thing to make a simple Narration; I hope all words spoken within those walls are not unlawful to be uttered again. Well, the Speech which was out, is not yet in; we are still without Doors, and now also without the Lines of Communication: where at the first view I find him who digged for me the ditch of selfe-contradiction, fallen into it himself; For pag. 9 he holds, that the King of one Kingdom being in another Kingdom, is still a King, Rex though not in Regno. Yet pag. 10. he will not admit the King of Scotland being in England, to be any more than a Subject.  
Now if I were resolved to defend the Scotch Papers (as I am not) there is no need of it; for there is not so much as one of our brethren's Arguments repeated, touched, or answered, either in the Speech, or in the Defences of it: So that whereas the Author of one of the Pamphlets observeth, that my Answer did but catch at parts, and instances of the Speech, the Reader may observe, that my Answer catched at much more of the Speech, then either that Pamphlet catched of my Answer, or the Speech catched of the Scotch Papers: but we shall see anon whether he and his fellows have not catched M. Challonor instead of me. The Penman of that Pamphlet, which I mentioned last, is a pretender to be one of the State Wits, but he accounts it a pedantike confinement for wisemen in discourses of State to speak properly, and his own language is suitable to his rule, when he calls his Defence of M. Challoners' Speech A indiffexent Censure of it. He would gladly have the Author of Lex Rex (by him much mistaken to my best information) to speak as improperly as M. Challonor, and another of these Pamphlets strikes upon the same string, although the Author of that Book without maintaining the propriety of the terms of that distinction, doth only open the sense and meaning of it in other and better expressions; neither will all this quibbling of the Adiaphorist (for so his Title of A indifferent Censure pretendeth) make Persona to be Vox Concreta, or if it be, prithee what's Personatus?  
In the next place, he would take off my exception against that most certain truth (as he calls it) in the Speech, that the Person either of Prince or private man, being in a Foreign State, is at the sole dispose of that State, where he resides, and to be ruled by their Laws: Look you here what a fallacious diversion this is, he knew well that the Commissioners from both Houses of Parliament are neither Princes nor private men, and so he would be sure to exempt the Commissioners of Parliament from subjection to the Laws and Jurisdiction of another State. Concerning which, I find a strange descrepance between the wit and the will of him that wrote the last and largest Justification of M. Challoners' Speech, pag. 7.8. his will is to decline that inference, that the Commissioners of Parliament being in Scotland must be at the sole dispose of that State, and subject to their Laws, and Jurisdiction: yet this wit is such, as doth upon the matter yield the same thing which he declineth, leaving more Authority to the Parliament over their Commissioners being in Scotland, than a Master dwelling in Scotland, hath over his servants, (which cannot sure exempt them from being ruled by the Law of that Land) and at most no more than is provided by Treaty or Contract between the Kingdoms, which will amount to as much as nothing; For I dare say, there never was nor never will be any such Treaty or Contract between these Kingdoms, that the Ambassadors or Commissioners sent from the one Kingdom, shall not be subject to the Laws, nor at the sole dispose of the other Kingdom: The Law of Nations was never yet so fare doubted of, as to Minister the least occasion for such a Proviso. But good now, how shall M. Challonors' principles be made good, unless the Commissioners of Parliament being in Scotland, be at the sole dispose of that State, and be ruled by their Laws, not by the Orders or Commands of both Houses? For his Speech, pag. 6, 7. saith, That the local subjection for the time, doth totally obstruct the operation of the other subjection: and that any Subject coming from another Kingdom, is to be disposed of by the sole Authority of that Supreme Power where he makes his residence.  
Hence chief grow mistakes in these debates, because men would give unto others such measure as they will not be content to receive to themselves.  
I do not know how happy the man that wrote the Indifferent censure may be in defending M. chaloner; But I am sure he is no good defender of the Authority of King and Parliament. He thinks no sober man will deny that Prince Charles is solely at the dispose of the State of France, and that he cannot be recalled by King and Parliament. If he mean de facto, he is as wide from the thing in dispute as none-sense is from sense: But if he mean de jure (which was the only thing in debate) or that King and Parliament have not an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or lawful and just Authority to recall Prince Charles, but that by right and good reason he is at the sole dispose of the State of France, than he hath spoken high Treason, let him answer it as he can. Sure his words do more than lean this way, when he addeth; That Princes who by misfortune, have been cast upon other Prince's Countries, may be detained without imputation of Tyranny for taking that advantage. Where (by the way) he had done as well for the honour of the Nation to have spared the two Instances of that King in England, and to have sought his instances somewhere else, the Law of God provided better entertainment for afflicted strangers, then to add grief to their sorrow. If it must far so ill with strangers (whether Princes or Parliament men) me thinks it were a good motion to revive the Law of the old Aedui, that it be not lawful for the Magistrate to go without his own territories.  
As for my instance of Ambassadors which I brought against M. chaloner, all three pamphlets say somewhat of the Protection and safety which Ambassadors ought to have, but nothing to the defence of M. chaloners principles, admitting of no protection to Ambassadors in England, without their subjection to the Laws of England.  
Here, Here is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yea a new light, which cannot be found amongst all the Books of the learned Politicians, who are by these more learned Pamphleteers put in a marvellous great mistake for holding that Ambassadors, however subject unto and obliged by the Laws of God, Nature and Nations, (against which when they do grossly trespass, the Prince or State where they are resident doth usually make Remonstrance thereof to the Prince or State that sent them, and so demanded Justice in such cases from those to whom it properly belongeth to judge or punish them) yet they are not subjected to the Government, Jurisdiction or municipal Laws of that State, unto which they were sent. Surely he that holdeth the contrary leaves the safety of Ambassadors in a most lubricous posture, by subjecting them to two Princes or States, whose ends, Counsels, opinions, interests and Laws are usually different and not seldom inconsistent. So that Jus Legatorum, which the Nations have accounted sacred and inviolable, shall be more exposed to danger then Jus Subditorum, and an Ambassador qui incolumis vel inter hostium tela versari possit (as Tully saith) shall be of all other men in least safety. And if it be true which the Justifier of M. Challoners' Speech saith, That it is not the Law of Nations (which by the way he confoundeth with the Law of Nature infused into all men, and will acknowledge no Law by the consent of Nations; until it be ratified forsooth by an Occumenicall Parliament.) But only the particular Contract, confederacy and Agreement betwixt his (the Ambassadors) Master, and that Prince or State, unto whom he is sent that can protect and defend him; Then we must bid farewell to that of Livius (generally approved by Politicians) concerning the Ambassadors of King Tarqvinius, inviolable with the Romans by the Law of Nations, even when they were upon designs and practices against that State, having corrupted many of their young Nobility against them. Quanquam visisunt (Legati) comisisse ut hostium loco essent, jus tamen Gentium valuit.  
The instance of King John who was also Duke of Normandy I must still laugh at, For M. Challenor and his Defenders take hold of the resolution of the Lawyers in France; This peradventure might have seemed somewhat against the Scotch Papers; If M. Challenor had not told withal, what the State of England at that time pleaded against the State of France. The English pleaded that although the Duke of Normandy be a Subject of France, yet the French ought not so much as dispose of the person of that Subject of theirs, because in so doing they should dispose of the person of the King of England, which they held to be a great indignity to the Kingdom of England, just so do our Brethren of Scotland plead (I am now but stating matter of Fact) that it were an indignity to that free Kingdom, if the Parliament here should singly and without the advice and consent of the Parliament of Scotland, dispose of the person of this Individual King of England, because in so doing they should dispose of the person of the King of Scotland. If M. Challenor will say that in the debate about King John, the French were in the right and the English in the wrong, let him speak out, I have another Answer for him: But if he hold that the English were in the right against the French; Then how will he make the very same Argument, (in point of right or wrong) to be good in the mouths of the English, and bad in the mouths of the Scotch.  
Whereas I touched as to the mutual interest of two Kingdoms, and in reference to that resolution of the Lawyers in France concerning the Duke of Normandy, the vast disproportion between him who is a King of one Kingdom, and Subject of another, and him who is King of more Kingdoms than one, this is yielded to me; But withal I am told that I am out in another kind; For there is also a vast disproportion between a King of two Kingdoms ruling in peace and Justice, and one who hath been in war against his Kingdoms. Now see him that makes this Objection here put out by himself; For I shall only answer him in his own words, the debate is not come so far yet, as to question how the King's Person shall be disposed of, but by whom. If the question were how to dispose of him, I admit that disproportion which is objected: But it is neither here nor there, when the debate is by whom, by both Kingdoms, or by England singly.  
The Close of the indifferent censure saith, That the effects of the King's shelter in the Scotch Army have been already very sad, as by Jealousies here to keep so many Armies at a needless charge, and hinder the relief of poor Ireland: But sigh the effect could not be without the Cause, say truth now; Whether had the Armies been yet kept up, although his Majesty had come to London, when he went to the Scotch Army? If they had, and you Sir know they had, than you dealt not fairly nor faithfully in this Observation.  
However (if you will) let the King and the Scotch be put to it, and offer made that the Parliaments Army in this Kingdom shall be forthwith disbanded or sent into Ireland, upon his Majesty's returning to his great Council the Parliament, and upon our brethren's rendering of the Garrisons, and marching away with their Army. See whether upon such an offer or assurance his Majesty will not give a satisfactory Answer to the Propositions of peace, and he return to London, and our Brethren home again, and then the Author of the Pamphlet who gins to doubt whether Newcastle be in Scotland, (for I never heard it doubted by another) will be soon put out of doubt, or if he will he may desire to have it presently resolved upon the Question, that Newcastle is in England.  
I have yet somewhat to add concerning that Pamphlet which ends with the bleating of sheepish Logic, but gins in the Title page with a pretence to answer all moderate men: 'tis well that he makes not himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet as violent and injurious as he is, he hath said more for me then against me. (If there be any thing material in him it is already touched, I shall only take hold of his acknowledgements) I had said that M. Challoners' Speech without Doors presented him Goliah-like, coming forth for the Parliament, but stumbling woefully. My Replier tells me that God did not permit me in this to lie, I thank him for his observation: He acknowledgeth pag. 3. That the Scots are bound to maintain the King's person, if the Parliament should wrong his person; And is not Mr. chaloners Speech here well defended? much good may this defence do him.  
Amongst other inferences I had drawn this from Mr. Challenors' Speech, That 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, which I presume was far from M. Challenors' meaning to admit: for speaking of the Scots, he said, I conceive they will not take upon them any Authority to dispose of the Person of a King of England, yet my inference is yielded by the Replier in M. Challenors' name, who also in the Close saith, That if the Scots shall get the King into Scotland, as they have no right in him, in England we could pertain as little to him he being in Scotland. My Inference is also confessed to be true, by the Author of the largest Pamphlet pag. 4. And who is the Malignant now, he that maintains or they that yield up the Privilege of Parliament and interest of England.  
No man can be said to be Rex, but in Regno, said M. Challenor, Then by just Analogy (said I) The Parliament of England cannot be acknowledged a Parliament, but in England only. The Replyer tells me that M. Challenor only denyeth a foreign King the Title of that Country he shall happen to come unto, and not the Title of his own that he brought with him. And that although in England we would not admit of Marie as Queen of England, yet was she acknowledged Queen of Scotch at her being here. I confess this is more than had been acknowledged in Scotland if she had been there at that time: But however I do not see how it agreeth with M. chaloners Speech without doors, admitting of no regality in the person of a King of Scotland coming into England before the Union, and affirming that he must be taken as a Subject, not as a King: and I know as little, who have ever affirmed or were to be contradicted for affirming, That the King of one Kingdom coming by some accident into another Kingdom, doth thereby become King of that Kingdom, which he happeneth to come into. But to pass that, I shall be glad to have this riddle opened, how these two things (which the Replier holds in Mr. Challenors' name) can hang together, that a King of England being in Scotland doth not lose his interest in England, but is still King of England, and yet his Subjects of England during his being in Scotland do not pertain to him, but lose their interest and right in him. I shall at last observe that one part of the Speech without doors is disclaimed (peradventure it shall far so with other parts of it:) 'tis alleged that the Gentleman said not that England is as distinct in Interests from Scotland as Spain, but that England is as distinct a Kingdom from Scotland as Spain. Yet I find in that part of the Speech, the words as distinst repeated, and referred not to the Kingdoms, but to Laws, Privileges, Interests; It was this latter clause which I animadverted, but since he passeth from it so do I; And now to conclude, I acknowledge one Error in my Animadversions, which none of the three Repliers have Animadverted, and that was the putting of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Printers mistake. I am not yet convinced by my Antagonists, and if I had been as apt to take fire as they were to give it, my discourse had broken forth in a hot flame. But I intent not oleum camino. What ever some men drive at, I trust the honourable Houses, and all true hearted Englishmen (and none more than myself) shall endeavour the preservation of Union between the Kingdoms, together with a sincere, constant and real pursuance of all the other ends expressed in the solemn League and Covenant.  
FINIS.   

Printed in the Year 1646.