HAving received the Votes of both Houses, dated the 24. of September, concerning the disposing of the Kings Person as both Houses of Parliament shall think fit. Although we judge (as in charity we ought) that it is nor the meaning and intention of the Honourable Houses, to claime or assume to themselves the whole and sole power to dispose of his Majesties Person, which is known to be a matter, as of high, so of common and equall 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 mis-understanding and difference between the Kingdoms, according to the desires and hopes of our common enemies, We have judged it necessary, with that freedom, candor, and plainnesse which becometh Brethren, to represent our thoughts concerning this great busines to both Houses.
We do acknowledge, that as Positively the Houses of Parliament have as much power in disposing of the Kings 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 Majesties Person, without, or against their consent. The like we suppose, will be mutually acknowledged in reference to the Parliament of Scotland, It being a fundamentall Right and Liberty of either Kingdom, That none can justly [Page 2](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 o [...] the Parliament of Scotland; Or, as if the two Houses wer [...] to dispose of the Person of the King, by their single an [...] sole authority, without the consent and concurrence o [...] 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 of the Person of the King of England; and the Person being but one, both Kingdoms must needs share equally in that joynt interest. Neither hath the Parliament of England any more power to dispose of the person of this King of Scotland being in England, then 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 inrest and power to be greatly prejudiced, if the Parliament of Scotland should claim the sole power to dispose of His Majesties 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 [Page 3]superfluous but very expedient, that we further clear our selves and our reall intentions, in that which we first offered in our Paper of the 11. of August, Concerning a joynt 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 Majesties 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 joynt resolutions of both Kingdoms concerning his Majestie. Neither is the question, which of the two Kingdoms shall trust the other with the present residence of the Kings Person, till he be disposed of by the consent and agreement of both. Let it be far from both Kingdoms, that the former mutuall confidence, should now turn to a mutuall diffidence: And let not a blessing from heaven be expected upon either of the Nations, which continued not faithfull to the other, according to the Covenant; Our confidence in the Wisdom, Justice, Loyaltie, and Faithfulnesse 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 cheerfull consent. Least of all is the question concerning any Priviledge 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 kinde 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 [Page 4]of any dependencie upon another Kingdom. But withall we desire it may be remembred, that this is to be transferred equally to the power and priviledge of the Parliament of Scotland. We do not meddle with any of the single or proper Rights, Priviledges, or Laws of this Nation, more then 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 Warre, before their engagement by the Covenant and Treaties with the Kingdom of Scotland: It is another thing what ought to be done after such conditions and tyes imposed by neither Kingdom upon the other, but by both joyntly upon themselves, and as mutuall 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 equall interest of the Kingdoms, in their common Head and Soveraign, ever since they were so united; as may sufficiently appear, even by some instances in his Majesties time who now reigns over us. It may be remembred (as to the interest of Scotland) that when his Majestie was first invited and desired to come into that Kingdome to be Crowned, It was represented by the Lords of his Majesties Privie Councell in England, that the great affairs of this Kingdom could hardly dispence with his Majesties 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. Like as, this present Parliament when the King went last into Scotland, to settle the Peace of that Kingdom, did earnestly desire and presse, that Hee might not goe, but that hee might stay here for the urgent affairs of this Kingdome. But both in the one case and in the other, the [Page 5]interest of the Kingdom of Scotland was preserved: And as it was most necessary, that His Majestie should go into that Kingdom for reciving that Crown, so His Majesty found it expedient to goe thither for the setling of Peace. It may also be remembred (as to the interest of England) that the English Nobility both at the Berks Anno 1639, and at York 1640 (whose letters to that purpose are yet extant and to be seen) And this Parliament Anno 1641 did claime 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 farre upon a back trade: whatsoever the joynt interest of the Kingdoms was formerly, it is without controversie now much more conioyned. And unlesse we lay aside the Covenant, Treaties, Declaration of both Kingdomes, and three years conjunction in this warre, 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 joyntly for the common good of both, and for the ends of the Covenant, which both are obliged joyntly to prosecute and promote. So that the true and proper question in this conjuncture of affairs, is, whether both Kingdoms have not a joynt and common interest, in disposing of the King of both, for the good of both, and that His Majesties Person ought not to be disposed of by either Kingdom singly. Much might be said for this joynt 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 joynt interest in the same Person, Parent, Master, Servant, Or in the same thing [Page 6]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 individuall Person doth not admit of a partition, and so requireth the greater Union and conjunction of Councels in the disposall 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 along linke together the interest of the Kingdomes, in this common cause so much concerning the glory of God, their own safety, Union and Peace, and the honour and happinesse of the King and his posterity; which ends of the Covenant, both Parliaments aswel as other Subjects of both Kingdoms, have oblieged themselves joyntly and mutually to promote, according to their power, and to continue zealously and constantly therein all the dayes 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 disposall 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 intire body to prosecute this cause; which was the expression used by the Honourable Houses in their [Page 7]Declaration of the 5 of August 1645, to the Lords States Generall of the United Provinces of the Low Countries. In which Declaration this notable instance was given, which deserveth also to be remembred, That by the Covenant both Houses of Parliament, and many thousands of other His Majesties Subjects of England and Ireland, stand bound as well as we, to hinder the setting up of the Church government by Bishops in the Kingdome of Scotland, And that we as well as they stand bound to endeavour the extirpation thereof in England and Ireland. And as by the Covenant, the Kingdomes are fast linked together in the whole prosecution of this cause; so particularly both are obliged to endeavour mutually to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority, in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and liberties of the Kingdomes, That the world may bear witnesse with our consciences of our loyalty, And that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his Majesties just power and greatnesse.
From the Treaty the same thing doth further appear, it being thereby manifest, that as our Army was to be leavied for the common good of both Kingdomes, in the pursuance of the ends exprest 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 Kingdome singly, but of both jointly. Also by the 8th. article, no Cessation, Pacification nor Agreement for Peace, whatsoever is to be made by either Kingdome, without the mutuall advice and consent of both. So that if the disposall of the Kings Person, mentioned in the Vote of both Houses, be intended for the good, Peace, and security of both Kingdomes, then it [Page 8]should not be done without the mutuall advice and consent of both; But, if intended for the Peace and security of this Kingdome within it self singly, this were to settle the Peace of the one Kingdome, not onely without the counsell and consent, but before the settlement 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 matter of difference arising between the Subjects of the two Nations, are to be resolved and determined by the mutuall advice and consent of both, which hath ever been the usuall way in such cases: Neither know we any other way for healing of differences between two free Nations, which are as Brethren and equalities, and neither of them subordinat to the other. If therefore any difference should arise (which God forbid) between the two Parliaments or any others of the Subjects of the two Nations, concerning the disposing of His Majesties Person, then the question cannot be otherwise resolved and determined, but by the mutuall advcie and consent of both. How much better is it (according to the 6th. 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 wisdome did think fit that in the managing of this War there should be a conjunction of the Councels of both Kingdoms in reference to the English aswell as to the Scottish forces. How much more may we expect a conjunction of Councels in disposing of His Majesties Person, wherein the one Kingdome is as much interested as the other.
If more need to be said in this businesse, we hope it is not forgotten, how the Declarations of both Houses and [Page 9]their Commissioners sent into Scotland, to desire their assistance and engagement in this Warre, did invite, solicite and perswade that Nation upon principles of common interest, And in regard the one Kingdome cannot enjoy a firme and durable peace, while the other is in warre: Wee 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 brethrens quarrell; 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 forbid, that wayes of separating the interests of the Kingdoms should now be studied, as much as ways of Uniting them were before indeavoured. We cannot but expect beter things from our Brethren, then in their posterity to desert us, who did engage and joyn with them in their greatest affliction; Or to think of securing their own Peace without us, while the troubles of our Kingdome continue.
Wherefore, wee cannot choose but obtest by the common good of both Kingdomes; by the conjunction and parity of interests; by the love of Brethren; by Declaration of both Houses; by former presidents; 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 Counsells and resolutions of both Kingdomes, in disposing of that royall Person who is King of both, and that all lawfull and possible means (of which is one and a cheife one) may be used, which may preserve His Majesties Person, honour, and hapinesse according to the Covenant; Monarchicall government according to the [Page 10]fundamentall lawes of both Kingdoms: Together with a firme 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 materiall demand of his Majesties 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 & great reasons against it. We acknowledge that wee are not to presume the worst, but the best concerning the intentions of the honorable Houses towards the King. But we do not doubt it will be mutually acknowledged that for preventing of differences afterward it is most fit and necessary, that there be a cleere and distinct understanding between the two Kingdomes, in a businesse of this nature and consequence. And that it is not to be expected from private persons (though under jurisdiction) much lesse from another Kingdome, that they should passe from their interest or just security, because they have to do with such, as they judge to be honest and faithfull. To speake therefore to the nature of the thing in it self, if the Scotch army should deliver up His Majesties Person without his owne 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 Kings Person favorably and honorably, yet) as the words stand, is comprehensive and capacious of more then is fit to be expressed: This Act of the Army were not agreeable to their Oath of Allegeance (obliging them to defend his Majesties person from all harms and prejudices) nor to the Solemne League and [Page 11]Covenant, which was not intended to weaken, but to strengthen our Allegeance, and to wipe off the calumny and aspersion of Rebellion: For which end, before our engagement in this Warre, it was mutually covenanted between the Kingdoms, to preserve the Kings Majesties 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 Majesties Person and Authority, whom therefore our Army cannot deliver, to be disposed of by any others at pleasure. This delivery were also inconsistent with that joint, equall, and common interest of both Kingdomes in the disposall of his Majesties Person, which we have before asserted; And, were upon the matter a passing from the right & interest of the Kingdom of Scotland in that businesse. It were also contrary to his Majesties power of residence in any of his Kingdoms, and to the free exercising of the duties of his place and acts of personall 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 Ki [...] 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 ingagement, in a recesse of the Parliament of England, and without their warrant, would upon the [Page 12]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 generall Act of remanding between the two Kingdomes, unlesse 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 Soveraign (having cast himself into their hands) to be disposed of at the arbitrement of another Nation.
And now wee hope it will not be tedious, that we further inlarge our selves 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 businesse.
Object. 1. That the Scottish Army is an Auxiliary Armie of England, and under their pay, and therefore ought 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 Kingdome in the nature of Auxiliaries. For when it was desired by the Parliament of England, that the Kingdome 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 severall Papers about that purpose yet extant. The Kingdom of Scotland did foresee and consider how prejudiciall it was to forsake their own Peace, and what infinite troubles, losses, and unavoidable [Page 13]danger their engagement with the Parliament of England against so powerfull 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 Kingdomes, they set before their eyes, in order to which end, they accounted nothing too deer unto them: And having resolved to engage in this Cause for assistance of their Brethren therin, they did not stand upon conditions, but without respect to the season of the yeer, the great strength of the Enemy, and other discouragements, They did in a short time leavy 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 then half pay, and to supersede all further recompence till the War should be at an end. And seeing the Kingdome of Scotland was to quit 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 Kingdomes. 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 Kings Person and Authority: together with a Treaty, wherein it is declared, that the Scottish Army shall be commanded by a Generall appointed by the Estates of Scotland, and shall be [Page 14]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 Majesties 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 Kingdome 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 Kingdomes be onely subject to such resolutions as are mutually agreed upon by both Kingdomes, or their Committees appointed in that behalf, yet this is onely to be understood in ordering and regulating of the Scottish Forces for prosecuting the warre, and the Treaty extends no further.
Answ. Although His Majesties riding one dayes 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 cleered what is not, and what is the state of the question, which being remembred, wee doe 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 Kingdome of Scotland: For the being in England takes not away the relation between the King and His Subjects of the Kingdome of Scotland, nor ought it to impede the performance of the mutuall duties founded upon that relation: For Allegeance hath no limitation of place, being grounded upon the Law of Nature, aswell as the law Municipall, and so is rather universall then locall. The [Page 15]difference of place takes not away the relation and mutuall duties betweene 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 Kingdomes, for joynt counsells in prosecution of the War and setling of the peace: The Kings comming to the Scottish Army, being an emergency of our joynt War, and the right disposall of his Person, the onely meane (for the present) of our joynt security and peace. Neither can the Kings being in England, prejudice any right or priviledge of either Kingdome. It is the Fundamentall right and priviledge of the Parliament of Scotland, and the liberty of that Kingdome (as we acknowledge it to be the right and priviledge of the Kingdome of England) that the person of their King ought not to be disposed of, but with their advice and consent. The place of the Kings residence (as was answered to us, when in the large Treaty it was desired His Majestie might sometimes reside in Scotland) is at his owne election, in either of the Kingdomes as the exigence of affairs shall require and he shall think fit, Or else must be determined by the mutuall advice and consent of both Kingdomes. From all which grounds it is apparent, that the Kingdom where he resides for the time, may doe no Act which may hinder His Majesty to performe the office and dutie of a King, to the Kingdome from which he is absent in Person, Nor impede him to repair to that Kingdome, when the affairs thereof shall necessarily require it. Otherwise, if the Kingdom where His Majesty resides hath the sole interest and right to dispose [Page 16]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 Kindome of England. Which we acknowledge could not be done without a manifest prejudice & injury to this Kingdome. Wherefore we cannot but conclude that wheresoever the King be, in Scotland or England, he being the King of both, ought to be disposed of for the good and with the consent of both Kingdomes. 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 Majesties Person, there can remaine 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 Majesties Person, their being in England should be made use of, as an argament why they should deliver up the Person of their King to be disposed of, as both Houses shall think fit. Whereas it is alledged, that the Treaty extends no further then to the ordering and regulating of the Scottish Forces in relation to the warre: Although this be really answered from the nature of the thing, the Kings comming to the Scottish Army being an emergency of the warre, 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, wee further adde, that it is cleere from the third Article of the Treaty, that the [Page 17]Scottish Army is to receive the Directions of both Kingdomes or of their Committees, in all things which may concerne the pursuance of the ends of the Covenant and Treaty, whether in relation to Peace or Warre. In the 8th Article of the Treaty, no Cessation, Pacification, or agreement for Peace whatsoever, is to be made by either kingdome, or the Army of either kingdom, without the advice and consent of both kingdomes. And in the 9th Article, all differences arising between the Subjects of the two Nations are to be resolved and determined by the mutuall advice and consent of both kingdomes.
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 joynt 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 kingdomes here (which was communicated to both Houses) desiring the advice of this kingdome, as in a matter of common interest, and declaring they would obey the joynt resolutions of both kingdomes: Yet no answer or advice was returned unto them, either from the Houses or their Commissioners. But immediatly after the surrender of Newark, they received information that five thousand [Page 18]Horse and Dragoones 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 extreamly exhausted, and the Service for which they came thither being performed, for preventing mistakes or new troubles between the Kingdomes, They removed into Yorkshire, & the King as he came unto them of his owne accord, did voluntarily march along with them. Upon severall occasions afterwards, They and we did earnestly desire the Honourable Houses to send a Committee, to joyn and co-operate 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 proceedings in that Army; which, were according to the Covenant, and the known resolutions of both Kingdoms, to debarre all such of both or either Kingdoms as had been in Arms against the Parliament, from comming into their Quarters, or to the Court, or to the Kings 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 joynt resolution of both Kingdomes 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 and 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 [Page 19]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 discretion. 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 Kingdomes (in the Covenant) that they should preserve and defend his Majesties Person; And (in the Declarations of both Kingdomes) to rescue him from the common Enemy: So that the Scottish Armie 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 betweene the Kingdoms. And as the Scottish Army do and will ever acknowledge, that they claime no power to dispose of the Kings Person, but are subject to, and shall be ready to follow whatsoever both Kingdoms shall agree upon, as best for the King and Kingdoms: so their keeping and preserving his Majesties 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 Armie 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 [Page 20]of England, and the relation they have to their King: which are sufficiently distinguished in the third & fourth Articles of the Covenant: for by the one they are mutually obliged to preserve and defend his Majesties 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 Kingdomes, be brought to tryall and condigne punishment before the supream Judicatories of the Kingdoms respectively, and the Kingdom of Scotland hath equall 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 alleadged by us, that the disposing of the Kings Person comes in place of a Peace, then the receiving of the King into the Scottish Army without consent of the Houses, is aequivalent to the making of a Peace, without consent of the Kingdome of England, contrary to the eight 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 kingdome of Scotland should consent to the desire of the Houses, that they may have the sole disposall 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 eight Article of the Treaty, concerning the making of a Peace; for which soever of the kingdomes is acknowledged to have the sole [Page 21]disposall of the King, may without the other make Peace with him, when, how, and in what tearmes 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 Kingdome pretend to a joynt right of disposing of the King, while he is in the other, it is to entrench upon the former liberty of that Kingdome. 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 kindomes. 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 & Monarch, if there were neither Covenant nor Treaty between the kingdomes; But since all these are, and that the peace and security of both kingdoms, is so much concerned in the disposall 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 & security of both. Nor can it in reason be made an argument that the one kingdome distrusts the other, because the one will not renounce and resigne 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, [Page 22]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 more then when private persons lending money to the Publike, 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 dutie, in performing the Covenant and Treaty; Yet, this can be no Argument why the Scottish Army should neglect their dutie, 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 Armie, and though a joynt advice and consent of both Kingdoms be urged for his disposall; Yet if the Houses of Parliament agree not to what Scotland shall desire, the King doth still remaine 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 weakenesse of it may the more easily appeare: 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 disposall; And so much the more that the Houses claime the sole Interest and judgement to dispose upon the Kings Person, which we desire may be done joyntly, as may be best for the security and safety of both Kingdomes. And we see no reason, why it may not now be determined when he is in the Scottish Army (who are intrusted by both, and subject to the resolution of both Kingdoms) as well as hereafter, since he came [Page 23]thither of his owne accord, and his residence there is voluntarie. And if his Majesty shall think fit to repair hither to his Houses of Parliament, they shall doe no act which may either hinder or disswade him, but cannot constraine him, or deliver him to the Houses to be disposed of as they shall think fit.
It may now abundantly appeare from the grounds and considerations before expressed, that the Scottish armie may not deliver up his Majesties Person, to be disposed of by the one Kingdome, without the consent of the other; Upon supposition whereof, we shall in the next place (without presuming to prescribe wayes, or impose conditions) expresse our selves concerning some expedients, which in reference to his Majesty, deserve to be looked upon, considered of, and compared together; where wee shall onely premise this much, That whatever way shall be taken, if the right end be looked at, his Majesties person ought to be so disposed of, as may serve most for the safety and happinesse of the King himselfe, and for the common Peace and security of the Kingdomes, United in this Cause by the solemne League and Covenant; and, as may best agree with their dutie, 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 returne fully reconciled to His Houses of Parliament; Yet since (to our unspeakable griefe) this hath not been as yet obtained: We doe propose that His Majesties coming to London, or to some of his houses near London, with safety, freedome and honour (which [Page 24]is desired by himself, that he may be heard, And that upon the clearing of his doubts, he may knowingly give a satisfactorie answer to the Propositions) is much better then the other wayes, which may be expected in case this His Majesties desire be not agreed unto. As for His Majesties going to Ireland, or other-where beyond Sea, It could not be the way to a present peace now so much desired; but would certainly prognosticate new troubles. Lastly, his Majesties comming hither, or neare this place, is a more probable and hopefull way to preserve the Union of the Kingdomes, because the enemy being still in armes in Scotland, and expecting supplies from Ireland, and the kingdome disabled by their great sufferings to entertaine an army for suppressing the Malignant party, It were much more easie to raise new Forces there to the disturbance of the peace of this kingdome, then 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 accesse to his Majesty. The dangers and inconveniencies of any of these other wayes, doe so much preponderate, and the present condition of affaires doth so much differ from that time, when both Houses with our concurrence did disagree from his Majesties desire of comming to London (at which time he had both Garrisons and field Forces unreduced) that it may be conceived not onely safe, but (as things stand) most convenient, to agree to His Majesties coming to London or near it, upon such conditions & assurances from him, as shall be by joynt resolution found necessary for preventing the access of delinquēts to His Majestie, or an intestine commotion, or forraine invasion, to the disturbance of the peace of either Kingdome. [Page 25]We trust it might accelerate a happy peace, bring the present differences to an end, and be no griefe of heart afterwards, if upon such termes 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 Majesties 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 Majestie any just cause of withdrawing your selfe from your great Councell, So it hath ever been and shall ever be far from us to give any impediment to your returne, or to neglect any proper meanes of curing the distempers of the Kingdome, and closing the dangerous breaches betwixt your Majestie and your Parliament, according to the great trust which lies upon us. And if your Majestie shall now be pleased to come back to your Parliament without your Forces, we shall be ready to secure your Royall Person, Crown, and dignitie with our lives and fortunes; Your presence in this great Councell, being the onely meanes of any Treaty betwixt your Majesty and them with hope of successe. 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 Majesties desire of comming hither with safety, freedome, and honour: We offered 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 Kingdomes, with power to heare 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 Kingdomes will without any more such applications, consult and joyntly resolve upon other wayes of their safety and security. And upon the other [Page 26]part, that if His Majesty will be now at last graciously pleased, to satisfie the desires of both Kingdoms, His Majesties Throne, with his just power and greatnesse, shall be established, aswel as the peace and security of his Subjects.
All which we doe propound in a brotherly freedome, not being peremtorily wedded or addicted to any expedient that we have offered; but, if the honourable Houses in their wisedom, shall be pleased to think of any other expedient, which shall be for the good, safety, and honour of the King and Kingdomes, 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 faithfull and conscionable use of all good and possible meanes, which may prevent differences between the Kingdomes, there will be at last a sweet and brotherly agreement in such a conclusion, as shall be good in Gods eyes, and wherein both Kingdomes shall finde greatest comfort and happinesse.