The Parliament and their party made a great outcry at this
attempt--that it was base and treacherous while in a treaty of peace;
and that the king, having amused them with hearkening to a treaty,
designed to have seized upon their train of artillery first, and,
after that, to have surprised both the city of London and the
Parliament. And I have observed since, that our historians note this
action as contrary to the laws of honour and treaties, though as there
was no cessation of arms agreed on, nothing is more contrary to the
laws of war than to suggest it.
That it was a very unhappy thing to the king and whole nation, as it
broke off the hopes of peace, and was the occasion of bringing the
Scots army in upon us, I readily acknowledge, but that there
was anything dishonourable in it, I cannot allow. For though the
Parliament had addressed to the king for peace, and such steps were
taken in it as before, yet, as I have said, there was no proposals
made on either side for a cessation of arms, and all the world must
allow, that in such cases the war goes on in the field, while the
peace goes on in the cabinet. And if the war goes on, admit the king
had designed to surprise the city or Parliament, or all of them, it
had been no more than the custom of war allows, and what they would
have done by him if they could.
Pages:
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287