A. They will, and did; insomuch, that it was the reason why Cromwell, after he had gotten into his own hands the absolute power of England, Scotland, and Ireland, by the name of Protector, did never dare to take upon him the title of King, nor was ever able to settle it upon his chil- dren. His officers would not suffer it, as pretending after his death to succeed him; nor would the army consent to it, because he had ever declared to them against the govern- ment of a single person.
B. But to return to the King. What means had he to BEHEMOTH. Dialogue 3.
pay, what provision had he to arm, nay, means to levy, an army able to resist the army of the Parliament, maintained by the great purse of the city of London, and contributions of almost all the towns corporate in England, and furnished with arms, as fully as they could require?
A. Tis true, the King had great disadvantages, and yet by little and little he got a considerable army, with which he so prospered, as to grow stronger every day, and the Parlia- ment weaker; till they had gotten the Scots, with an army of 21,000 men, to come into England to their assistance. But to enter into the particular narration of what was done in the war, I have not now time.
B. Well then; we will talk of that at next meeting.
DIALOGUE III.
B. We left at the preparations on both sides for war; which, when I considered by myself, I was mightily puzzled to find out what possibility there was for the King to equal the Parliament in such a course, and what hopes he had of money, men, arms, fortified places, shipping, counsel, and military officers, sufficient for such an enterprise against the Parliament, that had men and money as much at command, as the city of London, and other corporation towns, were able to furnish, which was more than they needed. And for the men they should set forth for soldiers, they were almost all of them spitefully bent against the King and his whole party, whom they took to be either papists, or flatterers of the King, or that had designed to raise their fortunes by the plunder of the city and other corporation towns. And though I believe not that they were more valiant than other men, nor that they had so much experience in the war, as to be accounted good soldiers; yet they had that in them, which in time of battle is more conducing to victory than valour and experience both together; and that was spite.
Dialogue 3. BEHEMOTH. m And for arms, they had in their hands the chief magazines, the Tower of London, and the town of Kingston-upon-Hull; besides most of the powder and shot that lay in several towns for the use of the trained bands.
Fortified places, there were not many then in England, and most of them in the hands of the Parliament.
The King's fleet was wholly in their command, under the Earl of Warwick.
Counsellors, they needed no more than such as were of their own body; so that the King was every way inferior to them, except it were, perhaps, in officers.
A. I cannot compare their chief officers. For the Parlia- ment, the Earl of Essex (after the Parliament had voted the war) was made general of all their forces both in England and Ireland, from whom all other commanders were to receive their commissions.
B. What moved them to make general the Earl of Essex? And for what cause was the Earl of Essex so displeased with the King, as to accept that office?
A. I do not certainly know what to answer to either of those questions; but the Earl of Essex had been in the wars abroad, and wanted neither experience, judgment, nor courage, to perform such an undertaking. And besides that, you have heard, I believe, how great a darling of the people his father had been before him, and what honour he had gotten by the success of his enterprise upon Calais, and in some other military actions. To which I may add, that this Earl himself was not held by the people to be so great a favourite at court, as that they might not trust him with their army against the King. And by this, you may perhaps conjecture the cause for which the Parliament made choice of him for general.
B. But why did they think him discontented with the Court?
A. I know not that; nor indeed that he was so. He came to the court, as other noblemen did, when occasion was, to wait upon the King; but had no office (till a little BEHEMOTH. Dialogtte 3.
before this time) to oblige him to be there continually. But I believe verily, that the unfortunateness of his marriages had so discountenanced his conversation with ladies, that the court could not be his proper element, unless he had had some extraordinary favour there, to balance that calamity. But for particular discontent from the King, or intention of revenge for any supposed disgrace, I think he had none, nor that he was any ways addicted to Presbyterian doctrines, or other fanatic tenets in Church or State; saving only, that he was carried away with the stream (in a manner) of the whole nation, to think that England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; not considering that the supreme power must always be absolute, whether it be in the King or in the Parliament.
B. Who was general of the King's army?
A. None yet but himself; nor indeed had he yet any army. But there coming to him at that time his two nephews, Prince Rupert and Maurice, he put the command of his horse into the hands of Prince Rupert, a man than whom no man living has a better courage, nor was more active and diligent in prosecuting his commissions; and, though but a young man then, was not without experience in the conducting of soldiers, as having been an actor in part of his father's wars in Germany.
B. But how could the King find money to pay such an army as was necessary for him against the Parliament?
A. Neither the King nor Parliament had much money at that time in their own hands, but were fain to rely upon the benevolence of those that took their parts. Wherein (I confess) the Parliament had a mighty great advantage. Those that helped the King in that kind were only lords and gentlemen, which, not approving the proceedings of the Parliament, were willing to undertake the payment, every one, of a certain number of horse; which cannot be thought any great assistance, the persons that paid them being so few. For other moneys that the King then had, I have not heard of any, but what he borrowed upon jewels in the Low Dialogue 3. BEHEMOTH. 113 Countries. Whereas the Parliament had a very plentiful contribution, not only from London, but generally from their faction in all other places of England, upon certain propositions (published by the Lords and Commons in June 1642, at what time they had newly voted that the King intended to make war upon them), for bringing in of money or plate to maintain horse and horsemen, and to buy arms for the preservation of the public peace, and for the defence of the King and both Houses of Parliament; for the re- payment of which money and plate, they were to have the public faith.
B. What public faith is there, when there is no public? What is it that can be called public, in a civil war, without the King?
A. The truth is, the security was nothing worth, but served well enough to gull those seditious blockheads, that were more fond of change than either of their peace or profit.
Having by this means gotten contributions from those that were the well-affected to their cause, they made use of it afterward to force the like contribution from others. For in November following, they made an ordinance for assessing also of those that had not contributed then, or had con- tributed, but not proportionably to their estates. And yet this was contrary to what the Parliament promised and de- clared in the propositions themselves. For they declared, in the first proposition, that no man's affection should be measured by the proportion of his offer, so that he expressed his good-will to the service in any proportion whatsoever.
Besides this, in the beginning of March following, they made an ordinance, to levy weekly a great sum of money upon every county, city, town, place, and person of any estate almost, in England; which weekly sum (as may appear by the ordinance itself, printed and published in March 1642, by order of both Houses) comes to almost 33,000/., and consequently to above 1,700,000/. for the year. They had, besides all this, the profits of the King's lands and 9 woods, and whatsoever was remaining unpaid of any sub- sidies formerly granted him, and the tonnage and poundage usually received by the King; besides the profit of the sequestrations of great persons, whom they pleased to vote delinquents, and the profits of the bishops' lands, which they took to themselves a year, or a little more, after.
B. Seeing then the Parliament had such advantage of the King in money and arms and multitude of men, and had in their hands the King's fleet, I cannot imagine what hope the King could have, either of victory or (unless he resigned into their hands the sovereignty) of subsisting. For I can- not well believe he had any advantage of them, either in counsellors, conductors, or in the resolutions of his soldiers.
A. On the contrary, I think he had some disadvantage also in that; for though he had as good officers at least as any that then served the Parliament, yet I doubt he had not so useful counsel as was necessary. And for his soldiers, though they were men as stout as theirs, yet, because their valour was not sharpened so with malice as theirs were of the other side, they fought not so keenly as their enemies did: amongst whom there were a great many London apprentices, who, for want of experience in the war, would have been fearful enough of death and wounds approaching visibly in glistering swords; but, for want of judgment, scarce thought of such death as comes invisibly in a bullet, and therefore were very hardly to be driven out of the field.
B. But what fault do you find in the King's counsellors, lords, and other persons of quality and experience?
A. Only that fault, which was generally in the whole nation, which was, that they thought the government of England was not an absolute, but a mixed monarchy; and that if the King should clearly subdue this Parliament, that his power would be what he pleased, and theirs as little as he pleased: which they counted tyranny. This opinion, though it did not lessen their endeavour to gain the victory for the King in a battle, when a battle could not be avoided, yet it weakened their endeavour to procure him an absolute victory in the war. And for this cause, notwithstanding that they saw that the Parliament was firmly resolved to take all kingly power whatsoever out of his hands, yet their counsel to the King was upon all occasions, to offer propositions to them of treaty and accommodation, and to make and publish declarations; which any man might easily have foreseen would be fruitless; and not only so, but also of great dis- advantage to those actions by which the King was to recover his crown and preserve his life. For it took away the courage of the best and forwardest of his soldiers, that looked for great benefit by their service out of the estates of the rebels, in case they could subdue them; but none at all, if the business should be ended by a treaty.
B. And they had reason: for a civil war never ends by treaty, without the sacrifice of those who were on both sides the sharpest. You know well enough how things passed at the reconciliation of Augustus and Antonius in Rome. But I thought, that after they once began to levy soldiers one against another, that they would not any more have returned of either side to declarations, or other paper war, which, if it could have done any good, had done it long before this.
A. But seeing the Parliament continued writing, and set forth their declarations to the people against the lawfulness of the King's commission of array, and sent petitions to the King as fierce and rebellious as ever they had done before, demanding of him, that he would disband his soldiers, and come up to the Parliament, and leave those whom the Par- liament called delinquents (which were none but the King's best subjects) to their mercy, and pass such bills as they should advise him; would you not have the King set forth declarations and proclamations against the illegality of their ordinances, by which they levied soldiers against him, and answer those insolent petitions of theirs?
B. No; it had done him no good before, and therefore was not likely to do him any afterwards. For the common people, whose hands were to decide the controversy, under- stood not the reasons of either party; and for those that by n6 BEHEMOTH. Dialogue 3.
ambition were once set upon the enterprise of changing the government, they cared not much what was reason and justice in the cause, but what strength they might procure by seducing the multitude with remonstrances from the Parliament House, or by sermons in the churches. And to their petitions, I would not have had any answer made at all, more than this: that if they would disband their army, and put themselves upon his mercy, they should find him more gracious than they expected.
A. That had been a gallant answer indeed, if it had pro- ceeded from him after some extraordinary great victory in battle, or some extraordinary assurance of a victory at last in the whole war.
B. Why, what could have happened to him worse, than at length he suffered, notwithstanding his gentle answers, and all his reasonable declarations?
A. Nothing; but who knew that?
B. Any man might see that he was never like to be restored to his right without victory: and such his stoutness being known to the people, would have brought to his assistance many more hands than all the arguments of law, or force of eloquence, couched in declarations and other writings, could have done, by far. And I wonder what kind of men they were, that hindered the King from taking this resolution?
A. You may know by the declarations themselves, which are very long and full of quotations of records and of cases formerly reported, that the penners of them were either lawyers (by profession), or such gentlemen as had the am- bition to be thought so. Besides, I told you before, that those which were then likeliest to have their counsel asked in this business, were averse to absolute monarchy, as also to absolute democracy or aristocracy, all which govern- ments they esteemed tyranny; and were in love with mix- archy* which they used to praise by the name of mixed 1 " In love with monarchy " all the edd, except the one of 1815, which has, " with a sort of monarchy, "evidently by conjecture.
Dialogue 3. BEHEMO TH. 117 monarchy, though it were indeed nothing else but pure anarchy. And those men, whose pens the King most used in these controversies of law and politics, were such (if I have not been misinformed) as having been members of this Parliament, had declaimed against ship-money and other extra-parliamentary taxes, as much as any; but when they saw the Parliament grow higher in their demands than they thought they would have done, went over to the King's party. B. Who were those?
A. It is not necessary to name any man, seeing I have undertaken only a short narration of the follies and other faults of men during this trouble; but not (by naming the persons) to give you, or any man else, occasion to esteem them the less, now that the faults on all sides have been forgiven.
B. When the business was *now* brought to this height, by levying of soldiers and seizing of the navy and arms and other provisions on both sides, that no man was so blind as not to see they were in an estate of war one against another; why did not the King (by proclamation or message), accord- ing to his undoubted right, dissolve the Parliament, and thereby diminish, in some part, the authority of their levies, and of other their unjust ordinances?
A. You have forgotten that I told you, that the King himself, by a bill which he passed at the same time when he passed the bill for the execution of the Earl of Strafford, had given them authority to hold the Parliament till they should by consent of both Houses dissolve themselves. If therefore he had, by any proclamation or message to the Houses, dissolved them, they would, to their former defama- tions of his Majesty's actions, have added also this, that he was a breaker of his word: and not only in contempt of him have continued their session, but also have made advantage of it to the increase and strengthening of their own party.
B. Would not the King's raising of an army against them be interpreted as a purpose to dissolve them by force? And n8 BEHEMOTH. Dialogue 3.
was it not as great a breach of promise to scatter them' by force, as to dissolve them by proclamation? Besides, I cannot conceive that the passing of that act was otherwise intended than conditionally; so long as they should not ordain anything contrary to the sovereign right of the King; which condition they had already by many of their ordi- nances broken. And I think that even by the law of equity, which is the unalterable law of nature, a man that has the sovereign power, cannot, if he would, give away the right of anything which is necessary for him to retain for the good government of his subjects, unless he do it in express words, saying, that he will have the sovereign power no longer. For the giving away that, which by consequence only, draws the sovereignty along with it, is not (I think) a giving away of the sovereignty; but an error, such as works nothing but an invalidity in the grant itself. And such was the King's passing of this bill for the continuing of the Parliament as long as the two Houses pleased. But now that the war was resolved on, on both sides, what needed any more dispute in writing?
A. I know not what need they had. But on both sides they thought it needful to hinder one another, as much as they could, from levying of soldiers; and, therefore, the King did set forth declarations in print, to make the people know that they ought not to obey the officers of the new militia set up by ordinance of Parliament, and also to let them see the legality of his own commissions of array. And the Parliament on their part did the like, to justify to the people the said ordinance, and to make the commission of array appear unlawful.
B. When the Parliament were levying of soldiers, was it not lawful for the King to levy soldiers to defend himself and his right, though there had been no other title for it but his own preservation, and that the name of commission of array had never before been heard of?
A. For my part, I think there cannot be a better title for war, than the defence of a man's own right. But the people, Dialogues. BEHEMOTH. 119 at that time, thought nothing lawful for the King to do, for which there was not some statute made by Parliament. For the lawyers, I mean the judges of the courts at Westminster, and some few others, though but advocates, yet of great reputation for their skill in the common-laws and statutes of England, had infected most of the gentry of England with their maxims and cases prejudged, which they call prece- dents; and made them think so well of their own know- ledge in the law, that they were very glad of this occasion to show it against the King, and thereby to gain a reputa- tion with the Parliament of being good patriots and wise statesmen. B. What was this commission of array?
A. King William the Conqueror had gotten into his hands by victory all the land in England, of which he dis- posed, some part as forests and chases for his recreation, and some part to lords and gentlemen that had assisted him or were to assist him in the wars. Upon which he laid a charge of service in his wars, some with more men and some with less, according to the lands he had given them: 1 whereby, when the King sent men unto them with commis- sion to make use of their service, they were obliged ta appear with arms, and accompany the King to the wars for a certain time at their own charges: and such were the commissions by which this King did then make his levies.
B. Why then was it not legal?
A. No doubt but it was legal. But what did that amount to, with men that were already resolved to acknowledge for law nothing that was against their design of abolishing monarchy, and placing a sovereign and absolute arbitrary power in the House of Commons?
B. To destroy monarchy, and set up the House of Com- mons, are two businesses.
A. They found it so at last, but did not think it so then.
B. Let us come now to the military part.
A. I intended only the story of their injustice, impu- dence, and hypocrisy; therefore, for the proceeding of the 120 BEHEMOTH. Dialogue 3.
war, I refer you to the history thereof written at large in English. I shall only make use of such a thread as is necessary for the filling up of such knavery, and folly also, as I shall observe in their several actions.
From York the King went to Hull, where was his maga- zine of arms for the northern parts of England, to try if they would admit him. The Parliament had made Sir John Hotham governor of the town, who caused the gates to be shut, and presenting himself upon the walls flatly denied him entrance: for which the King caused him to be pro- claimed traitor, and sent a message to the Parliament to know if they owned the action; *and they owned it*.
B. Upon what grounds?
A. Their pretence was this: that neither this nor any other town in England was otherwise the King's, than in trust for the people of England.
B. But what was that to the Parliament? *Is the town therefore theirs?* A. Yes, say they; for we are the Representative of the people of England.
B. I cannot see the force of this argument: we repre- sent the people, ergo, all that the people has is ours. The mayor of Hull did represent the King. Is therefore all that the King had in Hull, the mayor's? The people of England may be represented with limitations, as to deliver a petition or the like. Does it follow that they, who deliver the petition, have right to all the towns in England? When began this Parliament to be a Representative of Eng- land? Was it not November 3, 1640? Who was it the day before, that is, November 2, that had the right to keep the King out of Hull, and possess it for themselves? For there was then no Parliament. Whose was Hull then?
A. I think it was the King's, not only because it was called the King's town upon Hull, but because the King him- self did then and ever represent the person of the people of England. If he did not, who then did, the Parliament having no being?
Dialogue 3. BEHEMOTH.
B. They might perhaps say, the people had then no Representative.
A. Then there was no commonwealth; and consequently, all the towns of England being the people's, you, and I, and any man else, might have put in for his share. You may see by this, what weak people they were, that were carried into the rebellion by such reasoning as the Parliament used, and how impudent they were that did put such fallacies up^n them.
B. Surely they were such as were esteemed the wisest men in Eng'.and, being upon that account chosen to be of the Parliament.
A. And were they also esteemed the wisest men of England, th?.t chose them?
B. I cp.unot tell that. For I know it is usual with the freeholders in the counties, and with tradesmen in the cities and boroughs, to choose, as near as they can, such as are most repugnant to the giving of subsidies.
A. The King in the beginning of August, after he had summoned Hull, and tried some of the counties thereabout what they would do for him, sets up his standard at Notting- ham; but there came not in thither men enough to make an army sufficient to give battle to the Earl of Essex. From thence he went to Shrewsbury, where he was quickly fur- nished; and appointing the Earl of Lindsey to be general, he resolved to march towards London.— The Earl of Essex was now at Worcester with the Parliament's army, making no offer to stop him in his passage; but as soon as he was gone by, marched close after him.
The King, therefore, to avoid being enclosed between the army of the Earl of Essex and the city of London, turned upon him and gave him battle at Edgehill; where, though he got not an entire victory, yet he had the better, if either had the better; and had certainly the fruit of a victory, which was to march on, in his intended way towards London: in which the next morning he took Banbury-castle, and from thence went to Oxford, and thence to Brentford, BEHEMOTH. Dialogue 3.
where he gave a great defeat to three regiments of the Par- liament's forces, and so returned to Oxford.
B. Why did not the King go on from Brentford?
A. The Parliament, upon the first notice of the King's marching from Shrewsbury, caused all the trained-bands and the auxiliaries of the city of London (which was so frightened as to shut up all their shops) to be drawn forth; so that there was a most complete and numerous army ready for the Earl of Essex, that was crept into London just at the time to head it. And this was it that made the King retire to Oxford. — In the beginning of February after, Prince Ru- pert took Cirencester from the Parliament, with many pri- soners and many arms: for it was newly made a magazine. And thus stood the business between the King's and the Parliament's greatest forces. The Parliament in the mean- time caused a line of communication to be made about London and the suburbs, of twelve miles in compass; and constituted a committee for the association, and the putting into a posture of defence, of the counties of Essex, Cam- bridge, Suffolk, and some others; and one of these com- missioners was Oliver Cromwell, from which employment he came to his following greatness.
B. What was done during this time in other parts of the country?
A. In the west, the Earl of Stamford had the employ- ment of putting in execution the ordinance of Parliament for the militia; and Sir Raph Hopton for the King executed the commission of array. Between these two was fought a battle at Liskeard in Cornwall, wherein Sir Raph Hopton had the victory, and presently took a town called Saltash, with many arms and much ordnance and many prisoners. Sir William Waller in the meantime seized Winchester and Chichester for the Parliament. — In the north, for the commis- sion of array was my Lord of Newcastle, and for the militia of the Parliament was my Lord Fairfax. My Lord of New- castle took from the Parliament Tadcaster, in which were a great part of the Parliament's forces for that country, and Dialogue 3. BEHEMOTH. 123 had made himself, in a manner, master of all the north. About this time, that is to say in February, the Queen landed at Burlington, and was conducted by my Lord of Newcastle and the Marquis of Montrose to York, and thence not long after to the King. Divers other little advantages, besides these, the King's party had of the Par- liament's in the north.
There happened also between the militia of the Parlia- ment, and the Commission of Array in Staffordshire, under my Lord Brook for the Parliament, and my Lord of North- ampton for the King, great contention, wherein both these commanders were slain. For my Lord Brook, besieging Litchfield-Close, was killed with a shot; notwithstanding which they gave not over the siege, till they were masters of the Close. But presently after, my Lord of Northampton besieged it again for the King; which to relieve, Sir William Brereton and Sir John Gell advanced towards Litchfield, and were met at Hopton Heath by the Earl of Northamp- ton, and routed. The Earl himself was slain; but his forces with victory returned to the siege again; and shortly after, seconded by Prince Rupert, who was then abroad in that country, carried the place. These were the chief actions of this year, 1642; wherein the King's party had not much the worse B. But the Parliament had now a better army; insomuch that if the Earl of Essex had immediately followed the King to Oxford (not yet well fortified) he might in all likelihood have taken it. For he could not want either men or ammu- nition, whereof the city of London (which was wholly at the Parliament's devotion) had store enough.
A. I cannot judge of that. But this is manifest, con. sidering the estate the King was in at his first marching from York, when he had neither money, nor men, nor arms enough to put him in hope of victory, that this year (take it altogether) was very prosperous.
B. But what great folly or wickedness do you observe in the Parliament's actions for this first year?
124 BEHEMOTH. Dialogue 3.
A. All that can be said against them in that point will be excused with the pretext of war, and come under one name of rebellion; saving, that when they summoned any town, it was always in the name of the King and Parliament, the King being in the contrary army, and many times beating them from the siege; I do not see how the right of war can justify such impudence as that. But they pretended that the King was always virtually in the two Houses of Parlia- ment ■ making a distinction between his person natural and politic; which made the impudence greater, besides the folly of it. For this was but an university quibble, such as boys make use of in maintaining (in the schools) such tenets as they cannot otherwise defend.
In the end of this year they solicited also the Scots to enter England with an army, to suppress the power of the Earl of Newcastle in the north; which was a plain confession, that the Parliament's forces were, at this time, inferior to the King's. And most men thought, that if the Earl of New- castle had then marched southward, and joined his forces with the King's, that most of the members of Parliament would have fled out of England.
In the beginning of 1643, the Parliament, seeing the Earl of Newcastle's power in the North grown so formidable, sent to the Scots to hire them to an invasion of England, and (to compliment them in the meantime) made a cove- nant amongst themselves, such as the Scots had before taken against episcopacy, and demolished crosses and church windows (such as had in them any images of saints) throughout all England. Also in the middle of the year, they made a solemn league with the nation, which was called the Solemn League and Covenant.
B. Are not the Scots as properly to be called foreigners as the Irish? Seeing then they persecuted the Earl of Strafford even to death, for advising the King to make use of Irish forces against the Parliament, with what face could they call in a Scotch army against the King?
A. The King's party might easily here have discerned Dialogue 3. BEHEMOTH. 125 their design, to make themselves absolute masters of the kingdom and to dethrone the King. Another great impu- dence, or rather a bestial incivility, it was of theirs, that they voted the Queen a traitor, for helping the King with some ammunition and English officers ' from Holland.
B. Was it possible that all this could be done, and men not see that papers and declarations must be useless; and that nothing could satisfy them but the deposing of the King, and setting up of themselves in his place?
A. Yes; very possible. For who was there of them though knowing that the King had the sovereign power, that knew the essential rights of sovereignty? They dreamt of a mixed power, of the King and the two Houses. That it was a divided power, in which there could be no peace, was above their understanding. Therefore they were always urging the King to declarations and treaties (for fear of sub- jecting themselves to the King in an absolute obedience); which increased the hope and courage of the rebels, but did the King little good. For the people either understand not, or will not trouble themselves with controversies in writing, but rather, by his compliance and messages, go away with an opinion that the Parliament was likely to have the victory in the war. Besides, seeing the penners and contrivers of these papers were formerly members of the Parliament, and of another mind, and now revolted from the Parliament, because they could not bear that sway in the House which they expected, men were apt to think they believed not what they writ.