A REPLY, TO A Nameless PAMPHLET, Entitled, An Answer to a Speech without doors, etc. OR, A DEFENCE OF Master CHALONER'S Speech.  
WHEREIN The Question is rightly stated, The Interest of the Kingdom and Parliament vindicated, And all moderate men answered.  
By G. G a lover of his Country.  
Veritas Index sui & obliqui.  
Published according to Order.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Leybourn 1646.   

A Reply to a nameless Pamphlet, entitled an Answer To a Speech without Doors, etc.  
I Had thought M. Chaloners speech should not sooner have been published then received, the joy of our Nation for so knowing a man of it, his gallant say did not tend to the advance of himself, but his Country, not to destroy the King (as some will have it) but to let him know he was Prince of a People that know their privileges, and his just authority, which they would not have questioned by servants and hirelings, but preserved by Freemen and Masters: but the bad people of our Nation, that had rather be slaves to strangers, then live in necessary subjection under the Government of their Countrymen, must stretch their little proportion of wit to a defence of the Scorishmen interest in the disposition of the English affairs. For allow them a right in the disposal of the King in England, and that of the Kingdom must needs follow: but the undertaker of this must be such anon whose expressions of himself in Greek may persuade a man of the excellency of the English intended to put a Blur on this Worthy of Israel: But to leave this prefacing (as he terms it) I shall discover the weakness of this Malignant imagined confutation.  
And first (God not permitting him in this to lie) he admires Master Chaloner coming forth as a Goliath, and being unable to meet him in the field of Truth, which M. Chaloner had stated in few lines (making the Scotchmans' much appear little, which are wheresoever the King of Scotland hath an interest in their King 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. 
But he will have it altered from the Truth, and saith, thus it ought to be.  
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 mutual advice 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 be be disposed of, but by the mutual advice of both Kingdoms, for the good of both.  
I confess, for a principle for him to ground his argument on thus. It ought to be, But whereas he urges Covenant, Treaty, and the Law of Nations to be the ground the Scots work upon to prove their interest in the disposing of the person of the King he being in England, if it were as well proved, as it is by him urged, it might appear rational, but not true enough for rational Englishmen to believe it. For as no precedent can be brought to prove the King of England was ever in his Kingdom of England disposed of by the greatest foreign Prince, I hope we are not grown so effeminate to let him be disposed of, or we subjected by one of the meanest people.  
Page 3, he saith the Scotch Papers do state the question not upon the authority, power and office of the King, but upon the person of the King.  
When a question is put to have judgement given on it, if it be not right put, it cannot be rightly judged: And the case between us and the Scots is not how it is put, but how it ought to be.  
He hath an ill tongue that cannot tell a good tale for himself, the Scots make the person of the King the only thing of dispute, but we are by Covenant obliged to maintain as well the Law of the Land, as the person of the King, therefore they leaving that out hath made the case imperfect.  
But imagine the person of the King to be the only thing now in dispute, yet hath the Parliament of England the sole disposing of it in England.  
The case is thus, both the Kingdoms have voted, the King's person ought to be disposed of, and therefore it ought, to be so beyond dispute; so that now the question is whether the Parliament of England shall dispose of him in England, or the Scots and Parliament. Now as it is a great prejudice to the honour of the English Nation to have any other people to dispose of their King in their own Country singly, or jointly, so it ought to be looked into whether they have a right to do it, if they have a right, it must be by custom, or an Act of Parliament: And if they can show neither Precedent nor Law, God forbidden that the Parliament that sitteth to make us free, and preserve the privilege of the English Nation should consent to this that will so much destroy it.  
Page 3, he also saith, That the honour, person, and just privileges of the King ought by Covenant to be maintained, wherefore they being joined in it, they are bound to maintain it.  
We will allow that they ought, and when they find that the Parliament doth take away the just privileges, or wrong his person, then let them endeavour to defend it: and if the Parliament cannot justify their actions by their privileges they will be .  
Page 4, he saith, the paper saith, Persona sequitur locum, and his person must be disposed of by the supreme power of that Country wheresoever he shall hap to abide. By which principle saith he, the person of the King of England, if he were in Scotland must be disposed of by the supreme power of that Country: And was not this well pleaded for the interest of the Parliament of England.  
There is nothing can be said to justify the just spirit of M. Chaloner more than this noble expression, for as he would have no inchroachment on the privilege of the English Nation by the Scots, so he is equally just in defending the privileges of the Scots against the English.  
He saith in Page 9 of M. Chalenors' Speech, he reads that what person soever cometh into the Kingdom of England, he is forthwith a subject of England, for being protected by the Laws, he becomes subject to the Laws. On which he concludeth that when an Ambassador coming from an other Country into England, can receive no protection in England, and further infers that the honour of the Parliament and Kingdom are blemished by this with foreigners.  
As the Laws of all Nations are made positive to all people residing under the protection of them without exception of Ambassadors, yet the condition of Ambassadors is so welcome to a Kingdom or Common wealth (that always coming to make peace, or continue it) that they have from the beginning had the privilege to be protected in all Countries where they shall happen to be, and our Laws of England are so agreeable to the Civil Law, that the subjection an Ambassador is in by them, is agreeable to that Law of Nations that maintaineth their freedom, wherefore although they are not excepted from it, yet are they not liable to prejudice by it, therefore any reasonable creature may judge whether the honour of the Kingdom and Parliament can for this be brought in question by Foreigners. This civil protection to Commissioners or Ambassadors is in Scotland as well as England, and although he will have the contrary, yet will the Parliament of England's Commissioners residing in Scotland, claim as their Jus, the same protection and privilege there, as they and other Ambassadors enjoy in England, and will beyond all peradventure have it.  
But in page 5 on these words of Master Chaloners. That if a King of Scotland had come into England before the union, his person might have been disposed of by the sole authority of the Laws of England.  
He insinuates, that by this principle the Prince of Wales, his person is to be disposed of by the authority of the Laws of France, and the King and Parliament, have no authority to recall him and is not this a good salve for the honour of the Parliament? saith he.  
This is a further discovery of his quibbling and little ability to judge on such things for want of knowledge in the proceed of former ages in such cases. He needed not have gone further for precedents then his own Country (if he be an English man) in this case, for the taking prisoner of Richard the first King of England by the Duke of Austria, as he passed through his Country at his return from the termed Holy War, notwithstanding they were both engaged in it, and the securing of the person of Mary Queen of Scots in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. But if any shall say they were both enemies to England, as well the Queen of Scots as the Duke of Austria, and therefore to take all advantages against each other. It is most sure that the King of England and the Duke of Austria wereboth in amity and kept good correspondency, as was necessary for Princes whose Countries lay so far distant one from the other, and the Queen of Scots had several Ties on the Queen of England that might oblige her friendship to her, as that of kindred, the leaving out of her Coat the Arms of England, which the Kingdom of France had adjudged her a right to bear, and assurance from the Queen Elizabeth of her welcome and safety in England, had she stayed in her own Country till it came into her hand, and as there was no certain peace, so there was no war between them. Wherefore if the Prince of Wales is gone into France, without assurance from that Kingdom of his safety there, and liberty to return, he may, for aught I know, have the same fortune that these Princes had, and as his going was without the consent of the Parliament, so if it should happen he should suffer there, they are free from blame of his misfortune.  
A little further he saith Master Chaloner hath it thus. No man can be said to be Rex but in Regno, wherefore saith he, by just Analogy the Parliament of England cannot be acknowledged a Parliament, but in England only, Neither can there Commissioners in any other Kingdom or State being admitted to propound, declare, treat, or conclude in name of both Houses; These are fine Oxford Inferences for as a King of England by being in France loseth not his Title of King of England, he gaineth not the Title of King of France, And they may take him as Subject of France and King of England as we know they have done those Kings as have been Dukes of Normandy. And if they will admit the King of England his Title of England, he being in France, Master Chaloner only denying Foreign King, the Title of that Country where he shall happen to comeunto and not the Title of his own that he brought with him they will admit whom he appoint his Messengers or Agents as servant of the King of England, when they shall reside there from him, and the Parliament when they send their Commissioners thither, or to any other Country, desireth not the title of the Parliament of that Country, nor their Commissioners to be so accepted: But those that will allow them the title and power of the Parliament of England in England, may accept of their Commissioners in any other Country, as servants to the Parliament of England without prejudice of the Parliament of that Country where their Commissioners shall so reside. And although in England we would not admit of Mary as Queen of England, yet was she acknowledged Queen of Scots at her being here.  
A few lines further Master Chalenor, saith he, in his pag. 9, telleth us, If the Scots be our fellows why come they not to our Parliaments, on which, saith he, if it can be made to appear that they be our fellows, equals and brethren, they may come to our Parliaments and see how the privileges of Parliament is maintained, doth it make a breach of priviviledge of Parliament to do justice in it? And when the Scots can make it appear that they are in that capacity, that M. Chalenor and all the Kingdom knoweth them to want, God forbidden but they should have right, and then how could that be against the honour of the Parliament?  
On what M. Chaloner saith of John King of England, in his Speech in this Answerers pag. 6. he will have it much to strengthen the Scotch papers, for saith he, if the King of England must be disposed of by the sole authority of both Houses of Parliament, what shall become of the person of the King of Scotland? There is no more cause of doubt in them of that, than we ought to make of their disposing of the King of England, whom they have in their custody, and as he is in England they are unjust in detaining him, but if they shall get him into Scotland, as they have no right in him in England, we could pertain as little to him, he being in Scotland, and though M. Chaloner pleadeth for a sole power in both Houses to dispose of him in England, yet doth he not plead for it out of England, as their suggestion will have it, which discovers this Answer of a false calumner, and that he hath an insight into his disability to answer other men's, and therefore he will make questions of his own.  
This pretended Answer to M. Chaloners Speech is no better than that of this Answerers' fellow Collegian, where telling a shepherd, he was a sheep and he would prove him so, the shepherd desiring to know how, he replied, That the shepherd had a head, and a sheep had a head, ergo he was a sheep.  
The rest that cometh from this Subtilist is no answer, but a malicious aspersion on M. Chaloner, and the honourable Parliament, and as he endeth so do I, with my desire of God, that from such Apostates from their native Country and Countrymen he would deliver us.  
FINIS.