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 magazine 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 proclaimed 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 represent 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 England? 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 himself did then and ever represent the person of the people of England. If he did not, who then did, the Parliament having no being?