SOME PAPERS Given in by the COMMISSIONERS of the PARLIAMENT of SCOTLAND, To the Honourable HOUSES of the Parliament of ENGLAND: In Answer to their VOTES of the 24. of September 1646. CONCERNING The disposing of His MAJESTY'S PERSON.  
EDINBURGH: Printed by Evan Tyler, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majesty. 1646.   

HAving received the Votes of both Houses, dated the 24 of September, concerning the disposing of the King's Person as both Houses of Parliament shall think fit. Although we judge (as in charity we ought) that it is not the meaning and intention of the Honourable Houses, to claim or assume to themselves the whole and sole power to dispose of his Majesty's Person, which is known to be a matter, as of high, so of common and equal concernment to both Kingdoms: Yet lest by our silence the right and interest of the Kingdom of Scotland should be prejudiced; and lest that sense of those Votes, which many have apprehended and expressed, should minister occasion of misunderstanding and difference between the Kingdoms, according to the desires and hopes of our common enemies; We have judged it necessary, with that freedom, candour, and plainness which becometh Brethren, to represent our thoughts concerning this great business, to both Houses.  
We do acknowledge, that as Positively the Houses of Parliament have as much power in disposing of the King's Person as any one Parliament hath or can have, to dispose of a King who hath more free Kingdoms then one; So Negatively none ought or may dispose of his Majesty's Person, without, or against their consent. The like we suppose, will be mutually acknowledged in reference to the Parliament of Scotland, It being a fundamental Right and Liberty of either Kingdom, That none can justly (without their own consent) impede or restrain the Person of their King from coming amongst them, and doing the duties of a King unto them: And in both these Senses we acquiesce in the Vote of the Honourable Houses.  
But if the Vote should be meant or made use of as restrictive to the Parliament of England, and exclusive of the Parliament of Scotland; Or, as if the two Houses were to dispose of the Person of the King, by their single and sole authority, without the consent and concurrence of the Kingdom of Scotland; We trust this sense is as far from the thoughts of both Houses, as it is from justice and equity: the Parliament of Scotland having as much interest in the Person of the King of Scotland, as the Parliament of England hath in the Person of the King of England; and the Person being but one, both Kingdoms must needs share equally in that joint interest. Neither hath the Parliament of England any more power to dispose of the person of this King of Scotland being in England, than the Parliament of Scotland hath to dispose of the Person of this King of England if he were in Scotland: And as the Parliament of England might justly conceive their interest and power to be greatly prejudiced, if the Parliament of Scotland should claim the sole power to dispose of His Majesty's Person being in Scotland (and consequently if they shall so think fit to restrain his Person from coming to his Houses of Parliament when the necessary affairs of this Kingdom require his presence) So we cannot but in justice expect to be dealt with by the Honourable Houses, as they would have us in like cases to deal with them.  
Although what we have now expressed might be sufficient, as to our sense of the Vote; Yet it shall not be superfluous but very expedient, that we further clear ourselves and our real intentions, in that which we first offered in our Paper of the 11. of August, Concerning a joint consultation and resolution of both Kingdoms, what is next to be done in reference to the King. Which motion we now resume to be still insisted upon: For the question is not, whether the Houses of Parliament, or the Scots Army shall dispose of the person of the King in England. Our Army claimeth no power to dispose of his Majesty's Person. And as they could not refuse to receive him when he came amongst them; So they are ready to obey and submit to the joint resolutions of both Kingdoms concerning his Majesty. Neither is the question, which of the two Kingdoms shall trust the other with the present residence of the King's Person, till he be disposed of by the consent and agreement of both. Let it be far from both Kingdoms, that the former mutual confidence, should now turn to a mutual diffidence: And let not a blessing from heaven be expected upon either of the Nations, which continueth not faithful to the other, according to the Covenant; Our confidence in the Wisdom, Justice, Loyalty, and Faithfulness of the Honourable Houses is such, that whensoever the King shall be willing to return unto them, and they willing to receive him, we shall not make the least impediment, but give our cheerful consent. Lest of all is the question concerning any Privilege or Power of the Parliament of England, or any Law, Liberty, or practise of this Kingdom, to dispose of their King. It is not our meaning to controvert what in that kind they may do, or at any time have done according to their Laws (which are best known to themselves) for their good and safety, without the least shadow of any dependency upon another Kingdom. But withal we desire it may be remembered, that this is to be transferred equally to the power and privilege of the Parliament of Scotland. We do not meddle with any of the single or proper Rights, Privileges, or Laws of this Nation, more than we would have our Brethren to meddle with ours. It is one thing what the Parliament of England might have done in another Cause or War, before their engagements by the Covenant and Treaties with the Kingdom of Scotland: It is another thing what ought to be done after such conditions and ties imposed by neither Kingdom upon the other, but by both jointly upon themselves, and as mutual Obligations, both to God, and each to other: Although we might also go further back than to the Covenant and Treaties, and plead the common and equal interest of the Kingdoms, in their common Head and Sovereign, ever since they were so united, as may sufficiently appear, even by some instances in his Majesty's time who now reigns over us. It may be remembered (as to the interest of Scotland) that when his Majesty was first invited and desired to come into that Kingdom to be Crowned, It was represented by the Lords of his Majesty's Privy Council in England, that the great affairs of this Kingdom could hardly dispense with his Majesty's going to Scotland: And therefore that either he might receive his Crown of Scotland by a Vicegerent there, or that it might be sent hither unto him. Likeas, this present Parliament when the King went last into Scotland, to settle the Peace of that Kingdom, did earnestly desire and press, that He might not go, but that he might stay here for the urgent affairs of this Kingdom. But both in the one case and in the other, the interest of the Kingdom of Scotland was preserved: And as it was most necessary, that His Majesty should go into that Kingdom for receiving that Crown, so His Majesty found it expedient to go thither for the settling of Peace. It may also be remembered (as to the interest of England) that the English Nobility both at the Birks Anno 1639, and at York 1640 (whose letters to that purpose are yet extant and to be seen) And this Parliament Anno 1641 did claim an interest to see and know our demands proposed to the King, that neither His Majesty nor themselves might be hereby prejudiced.  
But the present question needeth not go so fare upon a back trade: Whatsoever the joint interest of the Kingdoms was formerly, it is without controversy now much more conjoined. And unless we lay aside the Covenant, Treaties, Declaration of both Kingdoms, and three years' conjunction in this war, Neither the one Kingdom nor the other, must now look back what they might have done singly before such a strict Union; but look forward, what is fittest to be done by both jointly for the common good of both, and for the ends of the Covenant, which both are obliged jointly to prosecute and promote. So that the true and proper question in this conjuncture of affairs, is, whether both Kingdoms have not a joint and common interest, in disposing of the King of both, for the good of both, and that His Majesty's Person ought not to be disposed of by either Kingdom singly. Much might be said for this joint way, and against a divided way, from the nature of all associations, and the common rules of equity observed between persons, societies, or nations, which have a joint interest in the same Person, Parent, Master, Servant, Or in the same thing, inheritance, lands, house, stock, or the like. In which cases, one of the parties associated, may not without the consent of the other, dispose of that which is common, especially if it be a common Person, and least of all if it be a Person of chiefest eminency or concernment: For although a common thing may be divided, and to each party his proper share assigned, yet one individual Person doth not admit of a partition, and so requireth the greater Union and conjunction of Counsels in the disposal of it. And as reasons may be drawn from the nature of all associations; so especially from the nature of ours in the solemn League and Covenant, the Title, Narrative, Articles and conclusion of it, do all along link together the interest of the Kingdoms, in this common cause so much concerning the glory of God, their own safety Union and Peace, and the honour and happiness of the King and his posterity; which ends of the Covenant, both Parliaments aswell as other Subjects of both Kingdoms, have obliged themselves jointly and mutually to promote, according to their power, and to continue zealously and constantly therein all the days of their lives, against all opposition; And to assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant in the maintaining and pursuing thereof, and never suffer themselves to be divided directly or indirectly from this blessed Union and conjunction. So that the ends of the Covenant (upon which the disposal of the King must needs have a strong influence) are not to be prosecuted by the two Kingdoms, as by two distinct bodies acting singly, but they were united by solemn Covenant made to Almighty God and by League each to other, as one entire body to prosecute this cause; Which was the expression used by the honourable Houses in their Declaration of the 5 of August 1645, to the Lords States General of the United Provinces of the Low Countries. In which Declaration this notable instance was given, which deserveth also to be remembered, That by the Covenant both Houses of Parliament and many thousands of other His Majesty's Subjects of England and Ireland, stand bound aswell as we, to hinder the setting up of the Church government by Bishops in the Kingdom of Scotland, And that we aswell as they stand bound to endeavour the extirpation thereof in England and Ireland. And as by the Covenant, the Kingdoms are fast linked together in the whole prosecution of this cause; so particularly both are obliged to endeavour mutually to preserve and defend the King's Majesty's Person and Authority, in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and liberties of the Kingdoms, That the world may bear witness with our consciences of our loyalty, And that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesty's just power and greatness.  
From the Treaty the same thing doth further appear, it being thereby manifest, that as our Army was to be levied for the common good of both Kingdoms in the pursuance of the ends expressed in the Covenant, And not as, Auxiliaries for the single good of this Kingdom; So they are not tied to be subject to the resolutions, and directions of either Kingdom singly, but of both jointly. Also by the 8th. article, no Cessation, Pacification nor Agreement for Peace whatsoever, is to be made by either Kingdom, without the mutual advice and consent of both. So that if the disposal of the King's Person mentioned in the vote of both Houses, be intended for the good, Peace, and security of both Kingdoms, than it should not be done without the mutual advice and consent of both; But, if intended for the Peace and security of this Kingdom within itself singly, this were to settle the Peace of the one Kingdom, not only without the council and consent, but before the setlement of the other, and so the more inconsistent with the plain scope of that Article. Moreover by the 9th. Article of the same Treaty, all matters of difference arising between the Subjects of the two Nations, are to be resolved and determined by the mutual advice and consent of both, which hath ever been the usual way in such cases: Neither know we any other way for healing of differences between two free Nations, which are as Brethren and equals, and neither of them subordinate to the other. If therefore any difference should arise (which God forbidden) between the two Parliaments or any others of the Subjects of the two Nations, concerning the disposing of His Majesty's Person, than the question cannot be otherwise resolved and determined, but by the mutual advice and consent of both. How much better is it (according to the 6fh. Article of the Covenant) to consult how to prevent all differences which are like to arise between us or our posterities?  
The honourable Houses in their wisdom did think fir that in the managing of this war, there should be a conjunction of the Counsels of both Kingdom's reference to the English aswel as to the Scottish forces. How much more may we expect a conjunction of Counsels in disposing of His Majesty's Person, wherein the one Kingdom is as much interested, as the other.  
If more need to be said in this business, we hope it is not forgotten, how the Declarations of both Houses and their Commissioners sent into Scotland, to desire their assistance and engagement in this War, did invite, solicit and persuade that Nation upon principles of common interest, And in regard the one Kingdom cannot enjoy a firm and durable peace, while the other is in war: We were also put in mind of the affection and duty which becometh brethren. And as we did upon these and the like considerations, espouse our brethren's quarrel; So it cannot be offensive that we desire from them an improvement of the very same principles: And that the same measure of the Conjunction of interests be given to us, which was got from us. God forbidden, that ways of separating the interests of the Kingdoms should now be studied, as much as ways of Uniting them were before endeavoured. We cannot but expect better things from our Brethren, then in their prosperity to desert us, who did engage and Join with them in their greatest affliction; Or to think of securing their own Peace without us, while the troubles of our Kingdom continue.  
Wherefore, we cannot choose but obtest by the common good of both Kingdoms; by the conjunction and parity of interests; by the love of Brethren; by Declarations of both Houses; by former precedents; by the Treaty between the Kingdoms; by the solemn League and Covenant: yea, by the very law of Nations and rules of common equity, that there may be a conjunction of the Counsels and resolutions of both Kingdoms, in disposing of that royal Person who is King of both, and that all lawful and possible means (of which this is one and a chief one) may be used, which may preserve His Majesty's Person, honour, and happiness according to the Covenant; Monarchical government according to the fundamental laws of both Kingdoms: Together with a firm and happy Union between the Kingdoms.  
These principles we desire still to go upon, And therefore if the vote of both Houses communicated unto us, be understood as a material demand of His Majesty's Person to be delivered unto them, to be disposed of as they shall think fit: This as it doth not necessarily follow from the words of the vote nor doth agree with that sense of the vote, which in charity we are most willing to entertain, so there are just and great reasons against it. We acknowledge that we are not to presume the worst, but the best concerning the intentions of the honourable Houses towards the King. But we do not doubt it will be mutually acknowledged that for preventing of differences afterwards, it is most fit and necessary, that there be a clear and distinct understanding between the two Kingdoms, in a business of this nature and consequence. And that it is not to be expected from private persons (though under jurisdiction) much less from another Kingdom, that they should pass from their interest or just security, because they have to do with such, as they judge to be honest and faithful. To speak therefore to the nature of the thing in itself, if the Scots Army should deliver up His Majesty's Person without his own consent, and that upon the vote communicated unto us, which (although it may suffer a benign interpretation and be understood of the disposing of the King's Person favourably and honourably, yet) as the words stand, is comprehensive and capacious of more than is fit to be expressed: This Act of the Army were not agreeable to their Oath of Allegiance (obliging them to defend his Majesty's person from all harms and prejudices) nor to the Solemn League and Covenant, which was not intended to weaken, but to strengthen our Allegiance, and to wipe off the calumny and aspersion of Rebellion: For which end, before our engagement in this War, it was mutually covenanted between the Kingdoms, to preserve the King's Majesty's Person and Authority, in the preservation of the Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms; Thereby holding forth to the world, that the preservation and defence of Religion and Liberties, may well consist and was intended to consist with the preservation of his Majesty's Person and Authority, whom therefore our Army cannot deliver, to be disposed of by any others, at pleasure. This delivery were also inconsistent that joint, equal, and common interest of both Kingdoms in the disposal of his Majesty's Person, which we have before asserted; And, were upon the matter a passing from the right and interest of the Kingdom of Scotland in't that business. It were also contrary to his Majesty's power of residence in any of his Kingdoms, and to the free exercising of the duties of his place and acts of personal government, such as the hearing and redressing of the grievances of his Subjects in Parliament, and his concurring to the making of Laws. Neither could it stand with the Commissions given to the Committee of Estates and general Officers of our Army, or with their Military Oath, to deliver up their King without his own consent, and without warrant from the Parliament of Scotland, to be disposed of by another Nation: Even as it were not to be expected, that the Army under the command of Sir Thomas Fairfax if they were in Scotland for our assistance there, in the like cause, and under the like engagements, in a recess of the Parliament of England, and without their warrant, would upon the like demand deliver up the King (having cast himself in their hands) to be disposed of by the Parliament of Scotland. Finally, if it be contrary to the Law and common practice of Nations, to deliver up the meanest Subject fled to them, though it be for the greatest crimes (for which cause the Parliament of England in the 4. of King James, as likewise in the large Treaty, refused a general Act of remanding between the two Kingdoms, unless they should be united into one) how much more would the world abroad condemn our Army for a base and dishonourable act, if they should deliver up their Head and Sovereign (having cast himself into their hands) to be disposed of at the arbitrement of another Nation.  
And now we hope it will not be tedious, that we further enlarge ourselves, upon this great subject, by adding satisfactory Answers to such Objections, as have been, or may be made against our desires and Principles in this business.  
Object. 1. That the Scottish Army is an auxiliary Army of England, and under their pay, and therefore aught to deliver up the King, to be disposed of by both Houses as they shall think fit.  
Answ. It is sufficiently known, that the Scottish Army came not into this Kingdom in the nature of Auxiliaries: For when it was desired by the Parliament of England that the Kingdom of Scotland should send an auxiliary Army into this Kingdom, to be subject to the directions and resolutions of both Houses, It was absolutely refused, as may appear by the several Papers about that purpose yet extant. The Kingdom of Scotland did foresee and consider, how prejudicial it was to forsake their own Peace, and what infinite troubles, losses, and unavoidable danger their engagement with the Parliament of England against so powerful and prevailing an Enemy, would bring upon the Kingdom of Scotland: And as they regarded not the large offers, nor the threats of the other side for all their prosperity; so there was no offer of pay or other worldly advantage whatsoever from the Houses of Parliament, which could have induced them to undertake so hazardous and desperate a War. It was the good of Religion, King, and Kingdoms, they set before their eyes, in order to which end, they accounted nothing too dear unto them: And having resolved to engage in this Cause for assistance of their Brethren therein, they did not stand upon conditions, But without respect to the season of the year, the great strength of the Enemy, and other discouragements; They did in a short time levy an Army at their own charge: And because of the many burdens then lying upon this Kingdom, were content for the present to accept of a sum toward the Monthly entertainment of that Army, amounting to little more than half pay, and to supersede all further recommence, till the War should be at an end. And seeing the Kingdom of Scotland was to quite their own Peace, and equally with England to undergo the hazard of the War, it was found reasonable, that the prosecution thereof, and the making of the conditions of Peace after the War, should be with joint advice and consent of both Kingdoms. And according to these grounds, a Covenant was agreed upon for the Reformation of Religion, and for preservation of the Liberties of the Kingdoms, and of the King's Person and Authority: together with a Treaty, wherein it is declared that the Scottish Army shall be commanded by a General appointed by the Estates of Scotland, and shall be subject to such resolutions and directions, as are and shall be mutually agreed upon and concluded between the Kingdoms, or their Committees in that behalf appointed for pursuance of the ends of the Covenant: of which, one is to defend and preserve his Majesty's Person.  
Object. 2. That the King is in England, and therefore to be disposed of by both Houses of Parliament, and cannot be disposed of by the Scottish Army: And though the Kingdom of Scotland may pretend to an interest and power in the disposing of the King, yet they can have no exercise of that power in England: And albeit the Scottish Army, according to the Treaty between the Kingdoms be only subject to such resolutions, as are mutually agreed upon by both Kingdoms, or their Committees appointed in that behalf, yet this is only to be understood in ordering and regulating of the Scottish Forces for prosecuting the war, and the Treaty extends no further.  
Answ. Although His Majesty's riding one day's journey, might wholly subvert the grounds of this objection; Yet we shall not insist upon this answer, because we conceive it toucheth not the true state of the question. It hath been already cleared what is not, and what is the state of the question, which being remembered we do assert, that the King coming voluntarily to the Scottish Army, they cannot in duty deliver him against his will to the Houses of Parliament without consent of the Kingdom of Scotland: For the being in England takes not away the relation between the King and His Subjects of the Kingdom of Scotland, nor ought it to impede the performance of the mutual duties founded upon that relation: For alledgeance hath no limitation of place being grounded upon the Law of Nature aswell as the law Municipal, and so is rather universal then local. The difference of plate takes not away the relation and mutual duties between parents and children, And it is not the place but the relation which gives interest to the disposing of the Person of the King. As his being in England takes not away the relation between him and his Subjects of Scotland, so it doth not infringe the mutual obligations and solemn engagements between the Kingdoms, for joint counsels in prosecution of the War and settling of the peace: The Kings coming to the Scottish Army, being an emergency of our joint war, and the right disposal of his Person, the only mean (for the present) of our joint security and peace. Neither can the Kings being in England, prejudge any right or privilege of either Kingdom. It is the fundamental right and privilege of the Parliament of Scotland, and the liberty of that Kingdom (as we acknowledge it to be the right and privilege of the Kingdom of England) that the person of their King ought not to be disposed of, but with their advice and consent. The place of the King's residence (as was answered to us, when in the large Treaty it was desired His Majesty might sometimes reside in Scotland) is at his own election, in either of the Kingdoms as the exigence of affairs shall require and he shall think fit, Or else must be determined by the mutual advice and consent of both Kingdoms. From all which grounds it is apparent, that the Kingdom where he resides for the time, may do no Act which may hinder His Majesty to perform the office and duty of a King, to the Kingdom, from which he is absent in Person, Nor impede him to repair to that Kingdom, when the affairs thereof shall necessarily require it. Otherwise, if the Kingdom where His Majesty resides hath the sole interest and right to dispose of His Person, the Estates of the Parliament of Scotland might upon former occasions and may now, in case the King and Prince shall repair to Scotland, lawfully detain them there, and make it the place of the ordinary residence of them and their posterity, without the consent of the Kingdom of England: Which we acknowledge could not be done without a manifest prejudice and injury to this Kingdom. Wherefore we cannot but conclude that wheresoever the King be, in Scotland or England, he being the King of both, aught to be disposed of for the good and with the consent of both Kingdoms. And if it be considered that the Scottish Army was invited and called into this Kingdom by both Houses in a Treaty for prosecuting the ends of a solemn League and Covenant, whereof one is to preserve and defend His Majesty's Person, there can remain no doubt concerning the exercise of that right and interest in this Kingdom: And therefore it seems very strange, that when upon invitation they are come into England, as for other ends, So to defend His Majesty's Person, their being in England should be made use of, as an argument why they should deliver up the Person of their King to be disposed of, as both Houses shall think fit. Whereas it is alleged, that the Treaty extends no further than to the ordering and regulating of the Scottish Forces in relation to the war: Although this be really answered from the nature of the thing, the Kings coming to the Scottish Army being an emergency of the war, and so the delivering of His Person comes under the regulation and direction of both Kingdoms or their Committees, as an Act of the Scottish Army; Yet that all doubt may be removed, we further add, that it is clear from the third Article of the Treaty, that the Scottish Army is to receive the Directions of both Kingdoms or of their Committees, in all things which may concern the pursuance of the ends of the Covenant and Treaty, whether in relation to Peace or War. In the 8th Article of the Treaty, no Cessation, Pacification, or agreement for Peace whatsoever, is to be made by either Kingdom, or the Army of either Kingdom, without the advice and consent of both Kingdoms. And in the 9th Article, all differences arising between the Subjects of the two Nations are to be resolved and determined by the mutual advice and consent of both Kingdoms.  
Object. 3. That the Scottish Army did carry away the King from the Leaguer before Newark when there was a Committee of both Houses there, without seeking their consent; and that they have since disposed of him without consent of the Houses of Parliament, whereas by the Treaty they ought to do nothing without a joint resolution of both Kingdoms or their Committees.  
Answ. No sooner did the King come into the Scottish Army, but the very same day the Committee of Estates of Scotland, residing with that Army, did acquaint the Commissioners of both Houses therewith: And not satisfying themselves with this, the day following they wrote a Letter to the Committee of Scotland residing at Edinburgh, and another to the Committee of both Kingdoms here (which was communicated to both Houses) desiring the advice of this Kingdom, as in a matter of common interest, and declaring they would obey the joint resolutions of both Kingdoms: Yet no answer or advice was returned unto them, either from the Houses or their Commissioners. But immediately after the surrender of Newark, they received information that five thousand Horse and Dragoons from Sir Thomas Fairfax his Army were upon their March towards them Northward (which the honourable House of Peers was pleased to give order to stop) there being no Enemy in those parts to be opposed: Upon consideration whereof, the Quarters wherein they had stayed during the siege of Newark, being extremely exhausted, and the Service for which they came thither being performed, for preventing mistakes or new troubles between the Kingdoms, They, removed into Tork shire, and the King as he came unto them of his own accord, did voluntarily March along with them. Upon several occasions afterwards, They and we did earnestly desire the honourable Houses to send a Committee, to join and cooperate with the Committee of Estates there upon the place, in all things according to the Treaty: But no answer was returned. And from time to time the Houses were acquainted with the proceed in that Army; which, were according to the Covenant, and the known resolutions of both Kingdoms, to debar all such of both or either Kingdoms as had been in Arms against the Parliament, from coming into their Quarters, or to the Court, or to the King's Person, according to the desire of the House of Peers. And whereas it is affirmed, That by the Treaty the Scottish Army ought to do nothing without a joint resolution of both Kingdoms or their Committees, There is no such Clause in the Treaty, but they are to be subject to such resolutions as are and shall be agreed upon, and concluded mutually between the Kingdoms or their Committees, as by Ordinance of Parliament, the Army under the command of the Earl of Essex, or of Sir Thomas Fairfax, was to receive and observe the Directions of the Committee of both Kingdoms sitting at Westminster; But in case no new Directions were sent unto them, they were left to former Orders (if any were) or otherwise to their own judgement and discrection. There was never any such resolution agreed upon between the Kingdoms or their Committees, as that the Scottish Army should not receive the King if he came unto them, but it is an agreement between the Kingdoms (in the Covenant) that they should preserve and defend his Majesty's person; And (in the Declarations of both Kingdoms) to rescue him from the common Enemy: So that the Scottish Army having often desired to know the direction and advice of the Houses of Parliament, concerning the King, and no new Directions being signified unto them; According to the Treaty they were to observe the Directions and Resolutions formerly agreed upon between the Kingdoms. And as the Scottish Army do and will ever acknowledge that they claim no power to dispose of the King's Person, but are subject to, and shall be ready to follow low whatsoever both Kingdoms shall agree upon, as best for the King and Kingdoms: so their keeping and preserving his Majesty's Person (as they would do to any person of his eminency and relation in an Army or Garrison Town) without the least thought of hindering his voluntary return to his Parliament, cannot be reputed or called a disposing of his person.  
Object. 4. If any Peer of England go to the Scottish Army and desire their Protection, can he not be disposed of without the consent of the Committee of Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland residing with that Army?  
Answ. There is a wide and manifest difference betwixt the relation the Scottish Army hath to any Subject of England, and the relation they have to their King: which are sufficiently distinguished in the third and fourth Articles of the Covenant: for by the one they are mutually obliged to preserve and defend his Majesty's Person, and by the other they are mutually obliged to endeavour, that all Incendiaries and dividers betwixt the King and his people, or betwixt the Kingdoms, be brought to trial and condign punishment before the supreme Judicatories of the Kingdoms respectively, And the Kingdom of Scotland hath equal right and interest with the Kingdom of England in the disposal of the Person of the King, which they cannot pretend unto concerning the Person of any Subject of England.  
Object. 5. That seeing it is alleged by us, that the disposing of the King's Person comes in place of a Peace, than the receiving of the King into the Scottish Army without consent of the Houses, is equivalent to the making of a Peace, without consent of the Kingdom of England, contrary to the eighth Article of the Treaty.  
Answ. It hath been sufficiently answered before, that the Scottish Army neither hath nor will take upon them to dispose of the King. He came unto them without Capitulation or Treaty, his residence with them is voluntary and free, and they do nothing which may hinder him to come to his Houses of Parliament. But if the kingdom of Scotland should consent to the desire of the Houses, that they may have the sole disposal of the Person of the King, It being that which comes in the place of the Peace and security of both kingdoms, They will really quite the right and interest they have by the eighth Article of the Treaty, concerning the making of a Peace; for which soever of the kingdoms is acknowledged to have the sole disposal of the King, may without the other make Peace with him, when, how, and in what terms they please.  
Object. 6. That England is a free Nation, and in former times it was in the power of the Parliament of England to dispose of their Kings, And if one Kingdom pretend to a joint right of disposing of the King, while he is in the other, it is to entrench upon the former liberty of that Kingdom. That the Kingdom of Scotland have no reason to distrust the Houses of Parliament, who when the King shall be in their power, will not dispose of him otherwise then may consist with their duty, according to the Covenant and Treaty between the Kingdoms.  
Answ. We will not dispute what power the Houses of Parliament formerly had to dispose of the Person of their King; but whatsoever power or right they have, the like is due to the Parliament of Scotland, And so the Person of the King being common to both and indivisible, cannot be disposed of, but by consent of both kingdoms. It were another question indeed if it were as in former times, if we had different Kings, if there were not an Union of the kingdoms under one head and Monarch, if there were neither Covenant nor Treaty between the kingdoms; But since all these are, and that the peace and security of both kingdoms, is so much concerned in the disposal of the King; not any one of them without the other, can justly pretend to the sole judgement and right, to determine what is best and most expedient for the safety and security of both. Nor can it in reason be made an argument that the one Kingdom distrusts the other, because the one will not renounce and resign all right and interest they have in the person of the King, and matter of their own security and peace, to the judgement and determination of the other; otherwise, according to this Argument, where there is any trust, there should be no contract between person and person, nor Treaty between Nations; Or if there be any Treaty or agreement, the performance or not performance of it, is to be left to arbitrement. But we cannot see that this doth argue any diffidence or distrust trust more than when private persons lending money to the Public, desire security, and will not depend upon pleasure. And therefore, though it is not to be questioned, but the houses of Parliament would dispose of the Person of the King so as might consist with their duty, in performing the Covenant and Treaty; Yet, this can be no argument why the Scottish Army should neglect their duty, or the kingdom of Scotland quite the interest and right they have in the person of the King.  
Object. 7. That the King is in the possession of the Scottish Army, and though a joint advice and consent of both Kingdoms be urged for his disposal, Yet if the Houses of Parliament agree not to what Scotland shall desire, the King doth still remain in the power of the Scots Army, and so the Parliament of England hath no consent.  
Answ. If this argument were turned over, the strength or weakness of it may the more easily appear: Suppose the King were here at Westminster, it may be upon the same grounds urged, that the kingdom of Scotland would have no consent in his disposal, And so much the more that the Houses claim the sole interest and judgement to dispose upon the King's Person, which we desire may be done jointly, as may be best for the security and safety of both kingdoms. And we see no reason, why it may not now be determined when he is in the Scottish Army (who are entrusted by both, and subject to the resolution of both kingdoms) as well as hereafter, since he came thither of his own accord, and his residence there is voluntary. And if his Majesty shall think fit to repair hither to his Houses of Parliament, they shall do no act which may either hinder or dissuade him, but cannot constrain him, or deliver him to the Houses to be disposed of as they shall think fit.  
It may now abundantly appear from the grounds and considerations before expressed, that the Scottish Army may not deliver up his Majesty's Person, to be disposed of by the one Kingdom, without the consent of the other; Upon supposition whereof, we shall in the next place (without presuming to prescribe ways, or impose conditions) express ourselves concerning some expedients, which in reference to his Majesty, deserve to be looked upon, considered of, and compared together; where we shall only premise this much, That whatever way shall be taken, if the right end be looked at, his Majesty's Person ought to be so disposed of, as may serve most for the safety and happiness of the King himself, and for the common Peace and security of the Kingdoms, United in this Cause by the solemn League and Covenant; And, as may best agree with their duty, Covenant, and Treaties.  
These ends being before our eyes, although it be most eligible and best of all, that His Majesty should without further delay, forthwith give satisfaction in the Propositions of Peace (which hath been with all instancy pressed, not only by us, but by all the judicatories of the Kingdom of Scotland) and so return fully reconciled to His Houses of Parliament; Yet, since (to our unspeakable grief) this this hath not been as yet obtained; We do propose that His Majesty's coming to London, or to some of his houses near London, with safety, freedom and honour (which is desired by himself, that he may be heard, And that upon the clearing of his doubts, he may knowingly give a satisfactory answer to the Propositions) is much better than the other ways which may be expected in case this His Majesty's desire be not agreed unto. As for His Majesty's going to Ireland or otherwhere beyond Sea, It could not be the way to a present peace now so much desired; but would certainly prognosticate new troubles. Lastly, His Majesty's coming hither, or near this place, is a more probable and hopeful way to preserve the Union of the Kingdoms, because the Enemy being still in Arms in Scotland and expecting supplies from Ireland, and the Kingdom disabled by their great sufferings to entertain an Army for suppressing the malignant party, It were much more easy to raise new Forces there to the disturbance of the peace of this Kingdom; than it could be here, where (by the blessing of God) all the Forces and Garrisons of the Enemy are subdued, and where it will not be so difficult to hinder delinquents from access to His Majesty. The dangers and inconveniencies of any of these other ways, do so much preponderate, and the present condition of affairs doth so much differ from that time, when both Houses with our concurrence did disagree from His Majesty's desire of coming to London (at which time he had both Garrisons and field Forces unreduced) that it may be conceived not only safe, but (as things stand) most convenient, to agree to His Majesty's coming to London or near it, upon such conditions and assurances from him, as shall be by joint resolution found necessary for preventing the access of delinquents to His Majesty, or any intestine commotion, or foreign invasion, to the disturbance of the peace of either Kingdom. We trust it might accelerate a happy peace, bring the present differences to an end, and be no grief of heart afterwards, if upon such terms and conditions, both Houses should be pleased to revive and renew such an invitation and assurance upon their part, as was contained in their answer to His Majesty's Message of the 11. of Septemb. 1642. where, after mention made of their chief grievance; it was added. All this notwithstanding, as we never gave your Majesty any just cause of withdrawing yourself from your great Council, So it hath ever been and shall ever be fare from us to give any impediment to your return, or to neglect any proper means of curing the distempers of the Kingdom, and closing the dangerous breaches betwixt your Majesty and your Parliament, according to the great trust which lies upon us. And if your Majesty shall now be pleased to come back to your Parliament without your Forces, we shall be ready to secure your royal Person, Crown, and dignity with out lives and fortunes; Your presence in this great Council, being the only means of any Treaty betwixt your Majesty and them with hope of success. Divers such passages there are in the Declarations of both Houses which we shall not need to mention.  
But if the Houses of Parliament shall not agree to His Majesty's desire of coming hither with safety, freedom, and honour; We offer to be considered in the next place; whether it be not expedient, that once again Commissioners be sent to His Majesty in name of both Kingdoms, with power to hear his desires, and to endeavour the satisfaction of doubts and scruples; with intimation also, That if His Majesty shall not give satisfaction in the Propositions, both Kingdom's will without any more such applications, consult and jointly resolve upon other ways of their safety and security. And upon the other part, that if His Majesty will be now at last graciously pleased, to satisfy the desires of both Kingdoms, His Majesty's Throne with his just power and greatness, shall be established, aswel as the peace and security of his Subjects.  
All which we do propound in a brotherly freedom, not being peremtorily wedded or addicted to any expedient that we have offered; but, if the honourable Houses in their wisdom, shall be pleased to think of any other expedient, which shall be for the good, safety, and honour of the King and Kingdoms, We shall be most willing and ready to agree unto it, when it shall be made known unto us, not doubting but that in the faithful and conscionable use of all good and possible means, which may prevent differences between the Kingdoms, there will be at last a sweet and brotherly agreement in such a conclusion, as shall be good in God's eyes, and wherein both Kingdoms shall find greatest comfort and happiness.  
By command of the Commissioners for the Parliament of Scotland. Jo. Cheislie.  
FINIS.