THE JUSTIFICATION OF A safe and wel-grounded ANSWER To the Scottish Papers, Printed under the name of Master Chaloner HIS SPEECH: WHICH, (Whatsoever the Animadvertor affirms) doth maintain the Honour of the PARLIAMENT, and Interest of the Kingdom of ENGLAND.  

Novemb. 23.1646.  
Appointed to be printed, according to an Order of the House of Commons.   
LONDON, Printed by A. Griffin. 1646.   

The Justification of a safe and wel-grounded Answer to the Scotch Papers, Printed under the name of Mr. Chaloners Speech; Which, (whatsoever the Animadvertor affirms) doth maintain the Honour of the Parliament, and Interest of the Kingdom of England.  
I Need not ask much who this Animadvertor is; for by his Text he seems to be a malignant Divine, by his scraps of Greek and Latin some Pedagogue, by his stile no Englishman, and by the whole scope of his discourse an Incendiary. His Text is Prov. 28.2. For the transgressions of a Land many are the Princes thereof. By Princes, it is commonly thought, that he means the Members of Parliament; but therein certainly he is much mistaken in the sense of the Text: For if they be Princes, it was never the transgression of the Land, but the transgression of the Prince of the Land, which made them Princes. And if they be Princes, they are very poor ones, and by his ordering but of a very short continuance; for he hath no sooner begun his Sermon, but he forgets his Text, and speaks of the Parliaments former low condition; whereas never any made it follow as himself: for if a Member of Parliament could not be answered within doors, there was never any one so bold until this present, that durst answer him without; and the Parliament is low indeed, when a Member thereof cannot assert the Votes of both Houses, but he must be called to an account by every unknown person. But let him consider; if hereby he have not opened a door for every Pamphleter to come in at, whereby some late printed Speeches will hardly go Scotfree; for if a Principal cannot escape, what then will become of a Deputy?  
For the Gentleman that made this Speech (though he neither owns the printing nor Title page, yet) the matter of it he must justify, unless he will deeline the interest of this Kingdom; But he being of that great Council the Parliament, can spend his time better there, both for his credit, and service of his Country, then by answering of every man's impertinencies. And therefore give me leave, as unknown a person as this Animadvertor is, yet a better English man, to tell him how inconsiderately he contradicts himself in the very beginning of his discourse, when he assures you he will not presume to intermeddle with any thing spoken within the walls; and yet he presently tells you of something spoken there, (as he saith) different from the Original; whereby at the first dash he proves himself a notable Incendiary, and would set jealousies and devisions betwixt the Members of the house of Commons, as if there were Spies amongst them, and such who to maintain the Interest of another Kingdom, were so vile and base as to be content to betray their own.  
But I hasten to his Animadversions, where Goliath like he presents himself a Champion to confound (if he could) not the Army, but the assertions of both houses of Parliament. And first he saith, that the Argument which the Gentleman makes is mistaken, because he joineth not the Covenant, Treaty, and the Law of Nations with the interest which the Kingdom of Scotland pretends unto the King; whereas these particulars are severally handled in the Scottish Papers, and therefore must be answered severally; and the Gentleman hath so sufficiently by many Arguments cleared in the first place, that by the Law of Nations the Kingdom of Scotland hath nothing at all to do to dispose of the Person of the King, he being now in England, as I am confident he will never be able to disprove any part thereof whilst he lives.  
The next exception which this Animadvertor takes, is against the distinction of a King in abstracto, and concreto, and that Persona is not Concretum. Hereby you may see how he is contented to pass over such things of most substance, which he cannot answer, and to set up men of straw (to use his own words) for himself to buffet.  
This distinction of Abstractum & Concretum is as ancient as Logic itself; but if he will believe no Logic but his own, let him look upon an elaborate Book written by one very near and dear to some of the Scottish Commissioners, called Lex & Rex, in the 29 question, page 265. and there he shall find these very words, This is an evident and sensible distinction, the King in Concreto, the man who is King; and the King in abstracto, the Royal office of the King. And whereas it is affirmed that the honourable Houses do state the question not upon the Authority of the King, but upon his Person, so doth the Gentleman likewise; and he concludes against any thing which hath been yet said to the contrary, that neither by Law nor Covenant the Scots have any Interest to dispose of the King's Person, he being now in England.  
Thirdly he objects, that if the King's Person be to be disposed of by the power of that Country where he happens to abide, then if he were in Scotland he must be disposed of by the power of that Country. This is confessed to be true. And if he were now in Scotland, as he is an England, they had then the sole power of disposing him. And I doubt not but they would dispose of him for the equal good of both Kingdoms; wherein I should be so fare from envying of their felicity, as I should wish much good might he do them. But notwithstanding all this the assertion stands good, that they have no authority to dispose of him, (as they now do) in England.  
In the fourth Animadvertion he makes the Gentleman speak what he doth not; for the Gentleman doth say, that England is as distinct a Kingdom from Scotland, as Spain; but he saith not it is as distinct in Interest, as the Animadvertor affirms. Yet, by his favour, the Interests are so distinct, that neither the unity of one Religion, one Covenant, one King, one Cause, or one War, can confound them. It is no longer than Philip and Mary's days, that England and Spain had all the said Interests, (the Covenant excepted;) but yet no English man upon pain of death, for all that, could sail into the Indies, neither enjoy other privileges of Spain, no more than a Spaniard could do in England. And for Scotland's entering into confederacy with Foreign Nations without the approbation of England, the Treaty betwixt the Kingdoms must judge of that; but neither any Treaty or Covenant yet made doth give them interest either in governing of our Militia, making of our Laws, or settling of our Church-government, as it was once aimed at. In all which they have liberty to advise, as also how the King's Person may be disposed of for the equal good of both Kingdoms; but the English only are to be sole Judges thereof, and to act thereupon as they themselves shall think fitting. And so I think the Gentleman hath well provided for the Interest of England.  
But now this Animadvertor gins to be so full of contradiction, that he seems to be the very abstract of it; and thereupon cannot endure the word concrete, and brings it in here once again, and would have an Ambassador only protected by the Law of Nations, and is angry with the Gentleman because he affirms that the Laws of England do protect him: What the Law of Nations is, other then certain general principles of Justice which nature hath infused into all men, I see not; for I am sure, that all Nations did never yet meet together to make these Laws, neither do they ever meet to punish them when they are broken; but give me leave to tell this Animadvertor, that if the Law of England did not concur with the Law of Nations in punishing such as might violate the Privilege of an Ambassador, I know not to what Tribunal that Ambassador could appeal; for the Gentleman faith truly in the fourteenth page, That the English Nation being not subordinate to any power on Earth, there is no power under heaven can judge them.  
Neither hath an Ambassador any privilege by the law of Nations, farther than the particular or munificall law of that Nation unto whom he is addressed will allow of.  
For if an Ambassador will adventure to enter into a Country or State, with whom his Master or Prince is either in actual War, or hath not contracted withal any confederacy, that Ambassador, is so far from being allowed any privilege of an Ambassador as he may justly be imprisoned and adjudged as a Spy, at least an enemy, and therefore no Ambassador of one Prince not in unity or confederacy with another, can with safety enter into the other Prince's Dominions, without leave being first demanded and obtained, from whence it followeth that what privilege soever an Ambassador may pretend unto, it is not the law of Nations, but only the particular contract, confederacy and agreement, betwixt his Master and that Prince or State, unto whom he is sent that can protect and defend him.  
And whereas from the Gentleman's affirmation that no King can command any Subject of his being out of his Kingdom, this Animadvertor will conclude, that by the same reason the Parliament here cannot Command their Commissioners which they may send into Scotland; but they must solely be disposed of by the supreme power of that Kingdom.  
In answer whereunto, It is not to be doubted, but that the supreme power in Scotland hath the General power in disposing of all persons whatsoever and their estates there according to the Laws and customs of that Country, yet not so neither, but that particularly every man by leave of those Laws and customs may command his own Servant in his private affairs, and dispose of his Estate as he shall think convenient, provided that such command and disposal be not contrary to the said Laws and customs, so the Parliament of England sending Commissioners into Scotland have power to command them in their affairs, as well as any Master there can command his servant; and further as any treaty or contract made, or to be made betwixt both the Kingdoms, hath or may hereafter add or diminish from the said power.  
Then he objects that if a King of Scotland coming into England before the union should be a Subject of England. By the same reason the Prince of Wales is now a Subject of France, and then his person is solely to be disposed of by the power of France, and neither King nor Parliament have power to recall him. To this I Answer as before that the Prince is now locally and pro tempore a Subject of France and if he will not come home or the state of France will not suffer him so to do, we have no Authority to compel him.  
Now he argueth from Analogy, that if no man can be Rex but in Regno, then cannot the Parliament of England be acknowledged a Parliament but in England. This is such a wild Argument that I can hardly catch it, For if all the Members and Speakers of both Houses should go out of England, nay if they went but from Westminster to Lambeth without a Legal adjournment thither, certainly their meeting there makes it no Parliament. But as long as they meet at Westminster without dissolution or adiournment to any other place, their Commissioners in any other Kingdom or state, are capable and may be admitted to propound, declare, Treat, or conclude in the name of both Houses. But as if the Parliament should go into Spain it is no Parliament there nor can give no laws to them, no more than it can give them Laws whilst it resides here in England, so a King of England being in Spain, though he retain his dignity, yet he hath no authority either to establish their laws, or stamp their Coin, no more than if he were in England: And as other Nations may acknowledge the Parliament of England to be a Parliament, though none of their Parliament, so they may acknowledge a King of England to be a King (live where he list) but none of their King, and as to them in way of protection and subjection (which only makes a King) no King at all.  
In the 9 Animadversion he would feign incorporate our Brerhrens of Scotland into our Parliament of England by making them our Fellows. But there be divers kinds of Fellows besides fellows at Football, I acknowledge the Scots to be our Fellows and equals, but not in making of Laws in England, nor of judging or executing of those Laws after they are made, and so they can no more dipose of the King in England then come to our Parliaments in England.  
Now for the story of King john, it will appear that the argument which the Gentl. holds forth from the summons of King john to answer in France is very material and proves apparently, that a King hath no power to recall any of His Subjects, they being out of his Kingdom: for King john not being summoned as King of England, but as Duke of Normandy, a Subject of France, so was his summons adjudged void, not because he was King of England, but because he was in England, and not in France at the time of his summons. Neither can any man see how this narration doth strengthen the Scotish Papers, because the King of Engl. who is the person here summoned, is at this time at Newcastle in Engl. which place (though some of the Army there date their Letters from Newcastle in Scotland) yet it was ingeniously confessed by the Scottish Commissioners as I am informed at the conference, that it was as much English ground as Islington. And therefore he being at this time Infra jurisdictionem Regni Angliae, and extra jurisdictionem Regni Scotiae, the assertion is still made good, and the state of Scotland, nothing at all to do with disposal of the King's person.  
And whereas the Animadvertor saith, that the case is not alike, King john being King of one Kingdom and Subject of another, and the person now in question, being King of two Kingdoms: under favour though he have two Kingdoms, yet he is not here as King of Scotland, but as King of England: For if he were here in the Capacity of a King of Scotland he were a Subject, and then you might know well enough what should become of the King of Scotland, as you have formerly done of some of them, who yet have plotted less than others have acted.  
And whereas the Gentleman saith, That these Kingdoms seem to contend not so much who should have the King's Person, as who should not have it. It must needs be a great grief to both Kingdoms, that the King's heart is yet so fare from being reconciled to either people, that they neither can have any joy or safety in his presence. But whereas both Houses of Parliament have Voted the disposal of the King's person to be only belonging unto them, they did wise and uprightly in it: for as they did therein uprightly because of right and justice it doth belong unto them, for they did no less wise, because they now see by dear experience that his being where he is hath been so little for there Interest, as since his being there he hath made peace with the Irish Rebels, sent his Son the prince into France, maintained strong Intelligence with other Countries against them, and is daily flocked unto by Delinquents and Incendiaries, insomuch as they receive little jesse damage thereby, then if he were at the head of an Army of Cavaliers.  
In the last place this Animadvertor when he cannot answer the Gentleman, than he will slander him, and saith he doth this out of some Ancient discontent of his against the King, certainly if he had not been discontented with the King's Actions long ago, he could hardly have been an honest man now: for with out doubt all these wars, troubles and turmoils which the Parliament and kingdom have felt these five years last passed have been occasioned from the many and Just discontents at the King's evil Government: And if this man be alone contented, when all the kingdom hath such cause of discontent, it is more than probable that he is and hath been one of the procurers thereof. It is a hard case that a Member of Parliament cannot vindicate the Interest which the people of this kingdom have in the person of their King, or desire that great Counsel to have a care of the safety of the Common wealth, but it must be attributed to former discontents, and whereas he Recons up so many Oaths, Protestations, Declarations and Covenants, made by the Parliament for the safety of the King's person, but never any mention at all of the safety of the Commonwealth, it seems too much to savour of Malignity, and of some late diipersed papers.  
But as I could wish that this Animadvertor would remember how Kings are made by, & for the people, but not the people either by or for the Kings, so he would consider that the end of Government, is for the weal and safety of the people and not of the King, further than his safety may be conducible to the other. And if the Scots Commissioners did plainly affirm to the Committees of both Houses at the Conference that they could not admit of the King's presence in Scotland because of the divisions and troubles of that Kingdom which he might make such use of as to raise forces both against them and us, what could this imply but that notwithstanding his person might be in safety in Scotland, yet Scotland could not be in safety whilst his person was there. And if they positively affirm it on their part, may not we make a question of it on ours? And now I have answered all that this Animadverter can say, to the main of his Animadversions, I will not give him over, until I see an end of what he can say besides. And first how the Scots may like the Gent. Speech for the matter of it, it being as he saith so malleable, I wonder no better a Hammer was put to it: And if the Intelligent reader (as he saith) be of the opinion that this speech (which was delivered but upon once hearing of the Scottish papers read) doth notwithstanding very much fortify the said papers, how much more will the House of Commons fortify them when they deliver in their Answer thereunto, after due consideration had of every word and syllable. And whereas he doubts whether it will have a favourable aspect from the Parliament, either for the matter or expression. For the matter since the Gent. doth but Assert their Votes they would be very forgetful of their own interest if they should be offended thereat, For the Acrimonious expressions I know of none, but could have wished, that in divers late printed papers some expressions and prejudgements, how that disposing may be deposing or worse, might have been altogether omitted, since the constant indulgence of the English Nation to their Kings, fare above some of their Neighbours never merited to be dishonoured, by such an unworthy conceit, and as the very stirring of this Question tends to debates and differences, so will such provoking language but increase and foment it.  
Now to take my leave of this Animadvertor if he be a Divine, I shall desire him to follow his preaching and give over States matters, ill becoming ●hat profession: If he be a Pedagogue that he will Lash his Boys and not Parliaments If he be an Alien, he will go home to his Country since we have Incendiaries enough of our own, from whom, and from all treacherous and underm ineing designers. I will conclude with his own Litany,  
Good Lord deliver us.  
FINIS: