Basiliká the works of King Charles the martyr : with a collection of declarations, treaties, and other papers concerning the differences betwixt His said Majesty and his two houses of Parliament : with the history of his life : as also of his tryal and martyrdome.

II. An Answer to a Pamphlet entitled, A Declaration of the Commons of England in Par∣liament assembled, expressing their Reasons and Grounds of passing the late Resoluti∣ons touching no farther Address or Application to be made to the KING.

Published by His Majestie's appointment.

I Believe that it was never heard of until now, that heavy Imputations were laid on any man (I speak not now of Kings, which I confess makes the case yet more strange and unjust) and He not permitted to see, much less to answer them: but so it is now with the King; which does (though silently, yet) subject Him to as great an Imputati∣on as there is any in the said Declaration; for those who know no better, may think that He cannot, because He does not, answer it. Wherefore I hold it my Duty (knowing these things better than every ordinary man) to do my best that the King should not be injured by the Ignorance of His People: and albeit I (lying under Persecution for My Con∣science and love to Regal Authority) have not the means in every thing to make full Pro∣bations; yet I am confident in all the most material Points so to make the truth of the King's Innocency appear, that I shall satisfie any impartial judicious Reader.

What the Issue of former Addresses to the King hath been is most certainly known to all the World; but where the fault rests whereby Peace hath not ensued, bare Asseverati∣ons without Proofs cannot, I am sure, satisfie any judicious Reader. And indeed, it seems to me that the Penner of these seeks more to take the ears of the ignorant Multitude with big words and bold Assertions, than to satisfie Rational men with real proofs or true Argu∣ments. For at the very first he begs the Question, taking it for granted that the King could ease the Sighs and Groans, dry the Tears, and stanch the Blood of His distressed Subjects. Alas! Is it He that keeps Armies on foot when there is none to oppose? Is it He that will not lay down Excise, Taxations and Free-quarterings? But it is He indeed who was so far from Power, even at that time, (being far worse since) that in most things He wanted the Liberty of any free-born man: It is He who never refused to ease His People of their Grievances; witness more Acts of Grace passed in His Reign than (to speak within my compass) in any five Kings or Queens Times that ever were before Him: Moreover it is He who, to settle the present unhappy Distractions, and (as the best means to it) to obtain a Personal Treaty, hath offered so much, that (to say truth) during His own time He hath left Himself little more than the Title of a King; as it plainly appears by His Message from the Isle of Wight, concerning the Militia, and chusing the Officers of State and Privy-Coun∣sellours, besides other points of Compliance, which it is needless here to mention.

Good God! are these Offers unfit for them to receive? Have they tendred such Propositi∣ons, that might occasion the World to judge that they have yielded up not only their Wills and Af∣fections, but their Reasons also and Judgments, for obtaining a true Peace or good Accommodation? It is true, that if they can shew what reasonably they could have asked more, or wherein the King's Offers were deficient (either in Point of Security, or by with-holding from any His Subjects a jot of their just Priviledges) then they said somewhat to challenge Belief: But bare Asseverations, even against what a Man sees, will not get credit with any but such who abandon their Judgments to an implicite Faith: nor can the Determinations of all the Parliaments in the World make a thing Just or Necessary, if it be not so of it self. And can it be imagined, that any who were ever acquainted with the Passages at the Treaties of Oxford and Vxbridge will believe (though it be said) that the Propositions tendred at Newcastle were the same in effect which had been presented to the King before, in the midst of all His strength and Forces? Indeed methinks such gross slips as these should at least make a man be wary how to believe such things for which He sees no Proofs: And yet it should seem that a man must either take their words for good payment, or remain unsatisfied; for a little after it is said, that the Kings strange, unexpected and conditional Answers or Denials might justly have made them consider some other course for setling the Kingdom in Peace and Safe∣ty, without any farther Application; but never shewn wherein the strangeness of His An∣swers or Denials consists. And I should think that those Reasons upon which the laying by of a King's Authority is grounded (for it is no less) ought to be particularly mentioned for the Worlds satisfaction, and not involved in general big words: for it thereby seems that it is their force of Arms, more than that of Reason which they trust to, for procuring of obe∣dience to their Determinations, or belief to what they say: Otherways can it be imagined that their saying, that their last Propositions were so qualified, that (where it might stand with the publick Safety) the wonted Scruples and Objections were prevented or removed, can give satisfa∣ction to any rational man, who hath seen all their former Propositions? for it is most evi∣dent that their Demands have always encreased with their good Fortune.

And for their great Condescension to a Personal Treaty (which, under favour, can scarce∣ly

be called so; for the King, though He had granted what was desired, was not to come either to or near London, but to stay in the Isle of Wight, and there to Treat with Com∣missioners) upon signing the Four Bills; surely they incurred therein but little danger: for it is most evident that they contain the very substance of the most essential parts of their Demands; which being once granted, the King would neither have had power to deny, nor any thing left worth the refusing: for after He had confessed that He had ta∣ken up Arms to invade the Liberty of His People, (whereas it was only for the Defence of His own Rights) and had likewise condemned all those who had faithfully served Him, of Rebellion; and that He had totally devested Himself, His Heirs and Successors for ever, of the power of the Sword, whereby the Protection of His Subjects (which is one of the most essential and necessary Rights belonging to Regal Authority) is totally torn away from the Crown; and that by a silent Confession He had done Himself and Successors an irreparable prejudice concerning the great Seal (I speak not of the other two Bills, neither of which are of little importance) what was there more for Him to grant (worth the in∣sisting upon) after such Concessions? or, indeed, what power was left Him to deny any thing? So that the King's necessity of giving the Answer He did (for it was no absolute Refusal) is most evident; unless He had resolved to have lived in quiet without Honour, and to have given His People Peace without Safety, by abandoning them to an arbitrary and unlimited power of the two Houses for ever, concerning the levying of Land or Sea-Forces, without stinting of numbers or distinction of persons; and for Payments, to levy such summes of Monies, in such sort and by such ways and means, as they shall think fit and appoint. And now I cannot but ask, is this the Militia that the King contends for? or did ever any King of England pretend to or seek for such a Power? surely no; but this is a new Militia: and take heed lest this should prove like the Roman Praetorian Cohorts, that what they did in chusing and changing Emperours, these do not to this Government, by moulding and altering it according to their Fancies. Now my eagerness to clear this Point concerning the four Bills had almost made me forget a most material Question. I wonder much wherein the Danger consists of a Personal Treaty with the King ever since He was last at Newcastle. Surely He cannot bring Forces along with Him to awe His two Houses of Parliament; and it is as well known that He hath not Money to raise an Ar∣my; and truly there is as little fear that the Eloquence of His Tongue should work Mira∣cles: but on the contrary if He were so ill a man as you describe Him to be, whatsoever He shall say or write must more prejudice Him than You: for let Him never flatter Him∣self, it must be clear, not doubtful, Reason that can prevail against that great visible pre∣vailing Power which now opposes Him; nor do I say it will, but certainly less cannot do it. Where is then the Danger? Believe it, Reason will hardly maintain those who are afraid of her.

After this it is said, that they had cause enough to remember that the King sometimes denied to receive their humble Petitions: but they neither tell where nor when; which I am most confident they cannot: but I am certain that the King hath sent divers Messages of Peace to them, unto which He hath yet had no Answer; namely, His last from Oxford, of the 15. January 1645. and all the rest since. As for the Fight at Brainford, whosoever will read the Collection of the Declarations in print upon that subject, will clearly find that the King hath more reason to complain, that they under colour of Treaty sought to environ Him with their Forces, than they for what He then did: and His retreat was neither for Fear nor with Shame; for the appearing of the Enemy made Him retard, not hasten His orders for retiring, which divers hours before their appearing He had gi∣ven; which He did without any loss at all, but (on the contrary) retreated with more Arms, eleven Colours, and fifteen pieces of Ordnance (beside good store of Ammunition) than He had before. And for Cruelty, there was not a drop of Blood shed but in the heat of the Fight, for I saw above five hundred Prisoners who (only promising never after to bear Arms against the King) were freely released.

Again, they seem to have good Memories, saying, that the King once sent them a spe∣cious Message of renewing a Treaty, when at the same time His Messenger was instructed how to manage that bloody Massacre in London, which was then design'd by virtue of the King's Com∣mission since published. And hath the King sent but one Message for the renewing of a Treaty? Then what was that from Tavestock in August 1644. and* 1.1 five others from Ox∣ford the next year? But indeed this that is here mentioned they knew not how to answer (for at that time they knew not the way of silence) but by this forged Accusation against the Messenger; who, I dare say, knew nothing of that which might have been (at that time) intended for the King's service by some who had more Zeal than Judgment. But that there was a Massacre intended, or that any Commission from the King should counte∣nance such a Design, is a most notorious Slander. As for the King's mentioned Letter to

the Queen, I am confident that any judicious Reader will find the Gloss made upon it very much wrested. And certainly after-Ages will think these Times very barbarous, wherein private Letters betwixt Man and Wife are published to open view: and in other Coun∣tries there is such respect carried to private Letters of Princes, that (to my knowledge) the last Emperour, in the greatest heat of the Bohemian War, having intercepted a Packet wherein were private Letters to King JAMES of blessed Memory (who was then known no great Friend to the Emperour) from His only Daughter, then avowedly the Empe∣rour's greatest Enemy; yet He sent them to the King, without the least offer of violence to the Seals.

And now I come to their Determination upon the whole matter, what Course they have resolved to take with the King: their words are, But notwithstanding this and other former Tenders, we have now received such a Denial, that we are in Despair of any good by Ad∣dresses to the King; neither must we be so injurious to the People in further delaying their Set∣tlement, as any more to press His Consent to these or any other Propositions. Besides, it is Re∣solv̄ed upon the Question, That they will receive no more any Message from the King; and do enjoyn, That no persons do presume to receive or bring any Message from the King to both or ei∣ther Houses of Parliament, or to any other person. Thus you see that the King is laid by: but that is not all; for He must neither justifie His Innocency against Calumny, nor is there any way left Him to mend any Errour that He may have committed. Is this a Just way of proceeding, when Truth, though offered, must not be heard, and that no way must be left to recant an Errour? And why all this Severity? Because (as I have already shewn you) the King will not injure His Conscience or Honour, nor suffer His People to be oppressed; to which they give the Term of such a Denial, though really it was none. But since they thus seek to hoodwink the People, it is no great Wonder that they forbid the King to repent Him of those Faults which He never committed: and I believe all In∣different men will easily judge of the King's Innocency even by their way of accusation: for those who will lay such high Crimes to His charge, as the breach of Oaths, Vows, Pro∣testations and Imprecations, would not spare to bring their Proofs if they had any. But on the contrary it is known to all the World, that He had not suffer'd as He has done, if He would have dispensed with that part of His Coronation-Oath which He made to the Clergy; which is no great sign that He makes slight of His Engagements: of which it is so univer∣sally known that He has been so Religiously careful, as I hold it a wrong to His Innocen∣cy, to seek to clear Him of such Slanders for which there are no Proofs alledged; for Malice being once detected, is best answered with Neglect and Silence. And was there ever greater or more apparent Malice, than to offer to put the horrid slander of Parricide upon Him, who was eminently known to be as obedient and loving a Son to His blessed Father as any History can make mention of? But indeed the loss of Rochel doth fitly fol∣low; to shew how Malice, when it is at the height, is ordinarily accompanied: for there are none but ignorant or forgetful men, who know not that it was merely the want of As∣sistance from the Two Houses of Parliament (contrary to their Publick General Engage∣ment) that lost Rochel; and there is nothing more clear (to any who hath known French Occurrences) than that real Assistance, which the King, to the uttermost of His Power, gave to those of the Religion at that time, made the Cardinal Richelieu an irreconcileable enemy to the King. Wherefore I cannot but say, that it is a strange forgetful Boldness to charge the King with that which was evidently other mens faults.

There are also other things that to any knowing man will rather seem Jeers than Accu∣sations; as the German Horse, and Spanish Fleet in the year 1639. But my Affection shall not so blind me, as to say that the King never erred; yet, as when a just Debt is paid, Bonds ought to be cancell'd; so Grievances, be they never so just, being once redressed, ought no more to be objected as Errours. And it is no Paradox to affirm, that Truths this way told are no better than Slanders: and such are the Catalogue of Grievances here enumerated; which when they are well examined, every one of them, will not be found such as here they are described to be.

Now as concerning those Discourses which mention the beginnings of these Troubles, (which are in Two several places of this Declaration) I will only say this, that what the King did upon those Occasions, was merely to defend the Rights of His Crown, which were and are evidently sought to be torn from Him. Nor can I acknowledge all those Relations to be true, such as Private Levies of men by Popish Agents, Arming of Papists in the North, Calling in of Danish Forces, and the like: And as for the stale Slander of calling up the Northern Army, now renewed, it is well known that the Two Houses (even at that time) were not so partial to the King, as to have conceal'd a Practice of that kind, if they could have got it sufficiently proved.

But if the Irish Rebellion can be justly charged upon the King, then I shall not blame any

for believing all the rest of the Allegations against Him: only I protest against all Rebels Testimony as good Proof; it being most certain by experience, that they who make no Con∣science of Rebelling, will make less of Lying when it is for their Advantage. And it is no little wonder that so grave an Assembly as the House of Commons should so slightly exa∣mine a Business of that Great Weight, as to alledg that the Scots Great Seal did counte∣nance the Irish Rebellion; when I know it can be proved by Witnesses without exception, that for many months before, until the now Lord Chancellor had the keeping of it, there was nothing at all Sealed by it. Nor concerning this great point will I only say, that the King is Innocent, and bid them prove (which to most Accusations is a sufficient Answer) but I can prove, that if the King had been obeyed in the Irish Affairs before He went last into Scotland, there had been no Irish Rebellion; and after it was begun, it had in few months been suppressed, if His Directions had been observed. For if the King had been suffered to have performed His Engagements to the Irish Agents, and had disposed of the discontented Irish Army beyond Sea (according to His Contracts with the French and Spanish Ambassa∣dours) there is nothing more clear, than that there could have been no Rebellion in Ireland; because they had wanted both Pretence and Means to have made one. Then, when it was broken forth, if those vigorous courses had been pursued which the King proposed, (first to the Scots, then to the English Parliament) doubtless that Rebellion had been soon suppressed. But what He proposed took so little effect, that in many months after there was nothing sent into Ireland but what the King Himself sent (assisted by the Duke of Richmond) before He came from Scotland, unto Sir Rob. Steward; which, though it were little, will be found to have done much service, as may be seen by the said Sir Robert's voluntary Testimony gi∣ven in writing to the Parliament Commissioners then attending the King at Stoak. And cer∣tainly a greater Evidence for Constancy in Religion there cannot be, than the King shewed in His Irish Treaty; for in the time that He most needed Assistance, it was in His Power to have made that Kingdom declare unanimously for Him, and have had the whole Forces thereof employed in His Service, if He would have granted their Demand in Points of Re∣ligion, they not insisting on any thing of Civil Government, which His Majesty might not have granted without prejudice to Regal Authority: and this can be clearly proved by the Marquess of Ormond's Treaties with the Irish, not without very good Evidence by some of the King's Letters to the Queen which were taken at Naseby, that are purposely concea∣led, lest they should too plainly discover the King's detestation of that Rebellion, and His rigid firmness to the Protestant Profession. Nor can I end this Point, without remarking with wonder, that Men should have so ill Memories as again to renew that old Slander of the King's giving Passes to divers Papists, and Persons of Quality who headed the Rebels; of which He so cleared Himself, that He demanded Reparation for it, but could not have it, albeit no shew of Proof could be produced for that Allegation: as is most plainly to be seen in the first book of the Collection of all Remonstrances, Declarations, &c. fol. 69, & 70.

Thus having given a particular Answer to the most material Points in this Declaration, the rest are such frivolous, malicious, and many of them groundless Calumnies, that Con∣tempt is the best Answer for them. Yet one thing more I must observe, that they not only endeavour to make Fables pass for currant Coyn, but likewise seek to blind mens Judge∣ments with false Inferences upon some Truths. For Example, it is true that the King hath said in some of His Speeches or Declarations, That He oweth an Accompt of His Actions to none but God alone; and that the Houses of Parliament joynt or separate have no Power either to make or declare any Law: But that this is a fit foundation for all Tyranny, I must utterly deny. In∣deed if it had been said, that the King without the Two Houses of Parliament could make or de∣clare Laws, then there might be some strength in the Argument: but before this Parliament it was never so much as pretended, that either or both Houses without the King could make or declare any Law; and certainly His Majesty is not the first (and I hope will not be the last) King of England, that hath not held Himself Accomptable to any Earthly Pow∣er. Besides, it will be found that this His Majesty's Position is most agreeable to all Divine and Humane Laws; so far it is from being Destructive to a Kingdom, or a Foundation for Tyranny.

To conclude, I appeal to God and the World, whether it can be parallel'd by Example, or warranted by Justice, that any man should be slander'd, yet denied the sight thereof, and so far from being permitted to answer, that if he have erred, there is no way left him to ac∣knowledge or mend it: and yet this is the King's present Condition; who is at this time laid aside, because He will not consent that the old Fundamental Laws of this Land be changed, Regal Power destroyed, nor His People submitted to a new Arbitrary Tyrannical Government.

Notes

• * 1.1

  5, 15, 26, 29. of Decemb. 84 15. of Jan. 1645.