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 not 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 businesse, 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 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 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 in­terest 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 continueth 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 engagements 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 hee 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 Kingdome, 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 goe into that Kingdome for receiving that Crown, so His Majesty found it expedient to goe thither for the settling of Peace. It may also be remembred (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 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 goe so farre upon a back trade: Whatsoever the joynt interest of the Kingdomes was formerly, it is without controversie now much more conjoyned. And unlesse we lay aside the Co­venant, Treaties, Declaration of both Kingdomes, and three years conjunction in this warre, Neither the one Kingdome 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 oblieged 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 Kingdome 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 all 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 aswell 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 Kingdomes, 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 Countrys. 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 aswell as wee, to hinder the setting up of the Church government by Bishops in the Kingdome of Scotland, And that wee aswell 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 oblieged 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 appeare, 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 tyed to be subject to the resolutions, and di­rections of either Kingdome singly, but of both joyntly. 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 only without the councell 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 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 equalls, and neither of them subordinate 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 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 wisdome did think fir that in the managing of this warre, there should be a con­junction of the Councells of both Kingdomes reference to the English aswel as to the Scottish forces. How much more may we expect a conjunction of Councells 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 bussinesse, 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, sollicite 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 minde of the affection and duety 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 wayes 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 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 Decla­rations of both Houses; by former presidents; by the Treaty between the Kingdomes; 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 Councells 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 this is one and a chiefe one) may be used, which may preserve His Majesties Person, honour, and happinesse according to the Covenant; Monarchicall government according to the [Page 10]fundamentall lawes of both Kingdomes: Together with a firme and happy Union between the Kingdomes.

These principles we desire still to goe 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 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 wee do not doubt it will be mutually ac­knowledged that for preventing of differences afterwards, 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 doe with such, as they judge to be honest and faithfull. To speak therefore to the nature of the thing in it self, if the Scots 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 benigne interpretation and be understood of the disposing of the Kings Person favourably and ho­nourably, 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 Alleageance (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 Alleageance, 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 that joynt, equall, and com­mon interest of both Kingdoms in the disposall of his Majesties Person, which we have before asserted; And, were upon the matter a passing from the right and interest of the Kingdom of Scotland int 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 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 ingagements, 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 practise 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 Kingdoms, unlesse they should be united into one) how much more would the world abroad condemne 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 we hope it will not be teadious, that we fur­ther enlarge 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 Armie is an Auxiliarie 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 Ar­mie 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 Auxi­liarie 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 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 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 Monethly entertain­ment of that Army, amounting to little more then 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 Warre, should be with joynt 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 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 only subject to such resolutions, as are mutually agreed upon by both Kingdomes, 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 warre, and the Treaty extends no further.

Answ. Although His Majesties riding one dayes journey, might wholly subvert the grounds of this ob­jection; Yet wee 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 comming voluntarily to the Scottish Army, they cannot in duety 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 dueties founded upon that relati­on: For alledgeance 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 plate takes not away the relation and mutu­all dueties 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 mutuall obligations and solemn engagements between the Kingdomes, for joynt counsells in prosecution of the War and settling of the peace: The Kings coming to the Scottish Army, being an emergency of our joynt warre, 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, prejudge 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 wee 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 Majesty might sometimes reside in Scotland) is at his own 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 duety of a King, to the Kingdom, 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 Kingdome where His Majestie 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 Kingdome of England: Which we acknowledge could not be done without a manifest prejudice and 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 Kingdome by both Houses in a Treaty for prosecuting the ends of a solemne 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 Kingdome: 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 argument 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 coming 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 Kingdomes 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 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 Warre. 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 mutuall advice and consent of both Kingdoms.

Object. 3. That the Scottish Armie 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 Treatie 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 King­doms 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 Kingdoms: 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 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 extreamly 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 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 coming 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 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 Earle 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 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 Majesties person; And (in the Declarations of both Kingdoms) 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 between the Kingdoms. And as the Scottish Army do and will ever acknowledge that they claim no power to dispose of the Kings 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 p [...]eser­ving 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 Peere 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 Armie hath to any Subject [Page 20]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 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 Kingdoms, 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 Armie without consent of the Houses, is aequivalent to the making of a Peace, without consent of the Kingdome of England, contrary to the eighth Article of the Treatie.

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 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 eighth Article of the Treaty, concerning the making of a Peace; for which so­ever of the kingdoms 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 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 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 Kingdome 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 duety, 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 kingdomes, 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 and 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 trust 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 Armie should neglect their dutie, or the kingdome 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 joint 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 remain in the power of the Scotts Armie, and so the Parlia­ment of England hath no consent.

Answ. If this argument were turned over, the strength or weaknesse 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 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 kingdoms. And we see no reason, why it may not now be determined when he is in the Scottish Armie (who are intrusted by both, and subject to the resolution of both kingdoms) as well as heereafter, since he came [Page 23]thither of his own accord, and his residence there is vo­luntary. And if his Majestie shall think fit to repair hi­ther to his Houses of Parliament, they shall do no act which may either hinder or disswade 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 Armie may not deliver up his Majesties 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 wayes, or impose con­ditions) expresse our selves concerning some expedients, which in reference to his Majestie, deserve to be looked upon, considered of, and compared together; where we 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 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 dutie, Covenant, and Treaties.

These ends being before our eyes, although it be most eligible and best of all, that His Majestie 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 grief) this this hath not been as yet obtained; Wee doe propose that His Majesties coming to London, or to some of his houses neer London, with safety, freedome and honour (which [Page 24]is desired by himself, that hee may be heard, And that upon the cleering of his doubts, he may knowingly give a satisfactory 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 coming hither, or neer 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 in­tertaine 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, 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 Majesties desire of comming 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 Maje­sties coming to London or neer it, upon such conditions and assurances from him, as shall be by joynt resolution found necessary for preventing the accesse of delinquents to His Majestie, or any 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 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 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 Majesty any just cause of withdrawing your selfe from your great Councell, So it hath ever been and shall ever be farre from us to give any impediment to your returne, 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 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 dignity with out lives and fortunes; Your presence in this great Councell, being the only means 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 coming hither with safety, freedome, 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 Kingdomes, with power to hear his desires, and to endeavour the satisfaction of doubts and scruples; with intimation also, That if His Majestie 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 wisdome, shall be pleased to think of any other ex­pedient, which shall bee 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 means, 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.