Biographia Britannica/Volume 5/Lilburne

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
←
Biographia Britannica, Volume 5 (1760)
Lilburne
→
4005130Biographia Britannica, Volume 5 — Lilburne1760


​Lilburne [John], the coryphæus of the Levellers, was descended of an ancient family[footnote 1], and born in 1618[sidenote 1] at Thickney Puncharden in the county of Durham. He gave early proofs of an excellent memory, a ready apprehension, and a strong imagination; and being a younger son[sidenote 2], and also of a very forward temper, was carried by his father without any grammar learning[sidenote 3] to London, and put apprentice at twelve years of age to Mr Thomas Hewson an eminent wholesale clothier near London-Stone[sidenote 4]. In this service he had not been a long while, before, young as he was, he complained to the City-Chamberlain of his master’s ill usage; and having carried this point to his satisfaction[sidenote 5], he afterwards spared not to indulge his genius freely. He was naturally of a high-mettled daring spirit, and having been trained up among the Puritans[footnote 2], he spent several days a week in reading such of their books as were proper to inflame his zeal against the established Hierarchy[footnote 3]. The event was answerable to his endeavours, he ​became of such eminence among those people, as to be consulted upon the boldest of their undertakings while an apprentice, and presently after, was esteemed by them as a person inspired[sidenote 6]. Among others, the teacher[sidenote 7] of that congregation which he attended, frequently approving thereof, contracted an intimacy with him, and in 1636, brought him into the acquaintance of Dr Bastwick, then a Star-chamber prisoner in the Gate-house, whom he afterwards constantly visited. At one of these visits, the Doctor reading his Merry Litany[sidenote 8], young Lilburne was so much captivated with the anti-episcopal spirit of the piece, that with the author’s consent, he carried the manuscript to Holland[footnote 4], and printing it there[sidenote 9], after a stay of several months, employed in libelling and defaming the Bishops and the Prerogative, he returned home, and continued the same practices in disguise; but being in a little time betrayed by his associate, he was seized and carried before the Council-Board, and the High-Commission-Court, after some examinations[sidenote 10] being referred to the Star-chamber, was, after several examinations there, also found guilty February 13, 1637. of printing and publishing libels and seditious books, particularly one entitled, News from Ipswich[footnote 5]. In all these examinations, stiffly refusing to comply with the ordinary rules of trial[sidenote 11], as contrary to the liberties of a free-born Englishman, he got the nick-name of Free-born John[sidenote 12]; and being condemned to a severe punishment which was rigorously executed[footnote 6], he went through it with such a degree of hardiness and unfeeling obstinacy, as obtained him the title of a Saint among the Enthusiasts[sidenote 13]. After this he was ordered to be imprisoned in the Fleet, ’till he should make his submission, where, tho’ he was loaded with double irons on his arms and legs, and put into one of the basest wards, yet he found means to print and publish another libel of his own writing, under the title of The Christian Man’s Trial[footnote 7], in 4to, the same year. ​He continued a prisoner ’till the meeting of the long Parliament, November 3d 1640; when, upon his petition to the House of Commons, he was ordered on the 7th of that month, to have the liberties of the Fleet, and a better apartment there[sidenote 14]. In consequence of which, we find him a chief ringleader in the armed mob that appeared at Westminster May 3d 1641, crying out justice, against the Earl of Strafford; and drawing his sword upon Colonel Lunsford[sidenote 15], was apprehended and arraigned the next day of high-treason at the bar of the House of Lords, but dismissed[footnote 8]; and the same day, May the 4th, the following votes passed the House of Commons. That the sentence of the Star-chamber against him [Lilburne] is illegal, barbarous, bloody, and tyrannical. That reparations ought to be given him for his imprisonment, sufferings, and losses, and that the committee shall prepare this case of Mr Lilburne’s to be transmitted to the Lords, with those other of Bastwick, Leighton, Burton, and Prynne[sidenote 16]. As soon as the Parliament voted an army, Mr Lilburne entered a volunteer therein, was a Captain of foot on that side, at the battle of Edge-hill[sidenote 17], October 23d 1642; and remarkably distinguished himself in the engagement on the 12th of November following, at Brentford[sidenote 18]: where being taken prisoner by the King’s forces, he was carried to Oxford, and brought upon his trial for high-treason, but the sentence was prevented by means of a special declaration[sidenote 19] of the Parliament in his favour, December 17th 1642[footnote 9]; after which returning to his party, he ​was received in the army with extraordinary marks of joy, and his gallant behaviour rewarded with a purse of 300 pounds by the Earl of Essex[sidenote 20][footnote 10]. But that General beginning to press the Scots Covenant upon his followers, the Captain left him[sidenote 21], and going to the army newly raised, under the Earl of Manchester in 1643, obtained from him a commission on the 7th of October that year[sidenote 22], for a Major of foot in the regiment commanded by Colonel Edward King, Governor of Boston in Lincolnshire[sidenote 23]. The Major was diligent in putting that garrison into a good state of defence[footnote 11], and very narrowly escaped with his life at raising the siege at Newark, by Prince Rupert[footnote 12]. He had quarrelled with his Colonel some time before, and proceeding to lay several accusations against him before the General[footnote 13]. His Lordship removed the Major from Boston, and made him Lieu​tenant-Colonel to his own regiment of Dragoons, on the 16th of May 1644[sidenote 24]. This post he sustained with signal bravery at the battle of Marston-moor[sidenote 25], in the beginning of July, which being observed by Cromwell and Fairfax, he was offered a good post also in the army, upon the new modelling thereof[footnote 14], in April 1645: but the boilings of his conscience swelling now as high against the covenanted Presbytery as they had formerly done against the Prerogative and Episcopacy, he resolved to quit the service, and accordingly, on the last day of that month, he delivered up his troop, with the regiment, to Colonel John Okely near Abingdon[sidenote 26]. He had no sooner laid down his military weapons, than he took that state weapon his pen up, against the new-rising dominion: and attacked his old associate Mr Prynne, in a printed epistle to him on that subject, dated June the 7th, 1645[footnote 15]; and being brought before a committee of the House of ​Commons on the 13th, on account of some passage in that piece, he printed another epistle addressed to Mr Lenthal, charging the speaker with an embezzlement of 60,000 pounds of the publick money[footnote 16]. Whereupon an accusation against him being presented to that house, by Colonel King and Dr Bastwick, on the 12th of July, he was put into the custody of the serjeant at arms on the 19th. While he was under the care of that officer, he published a third epistle to a friend, dated July the 25th, upon which he was committed to Newgate on the 9th of August, and orders were given for his trial at the Old-Bailey on a charge of seditious practices; but in the interim, printing a state of his case, addressed to the world and his jury[sidenote 27], no bill was found against him[sidenote 28], and he was discharged from the prison by an order of the House of Commons[footnote 17], October ​the 14th, without being brought to a trial. On the 10th of November the petition for his arrears (which he had presented soon after quitting the army) was read by that house, but being referred to the Committee of Accounts, where he refused to give in the particulars upon oath, no order was made for payment[footnote 18]. While these things passed in the lower House, our author was engaged in another business before the House of Lords, upon a petition he had presented there for reparations and damages, on account of his sufferings in the Star-chamber, and on the 13th of February his cause was re-heard and a few days afterwards the former decree of 1640, annulling the proceedings of the Star-chamber was confirmed, and on the 5th of March he obtained a decree for two thousand pounds, and a bill to that effect having passed the House on the 27th of April, was sent down to the Commons for their consent[sidenote 29]: but in the beginning of that month he was charged by the Committee of Accounts with a debt of 2000 l. to the State[footnote 19], and was ​moreover arrested for the like sum on the 14th at the suit of Colonel King, in an action of trespass, from the Court of Common-pleas, for calling him a traytor[sidenote 30]. Our author being exceedingly provoked with this prosecution, which hindered him from bringing the affair of the Lord’s decree to a good issue, having put in extraordinary bail for his appearance[sidenote 31], he first offered a petition to the House of Commons, to bring the Colonel to his trial upon the abovementioned impeachment[footnote 20]: and receiving no satisfaction there[sidenote 32], he penned an epistle by way of appeal to Judge Reeves, and printed it with the title of The just Man’s Justification[footnote 21]. This piece was dated the 6th of ​June, and having therein aspersed the proceedings in law as unjust and tyrannical, and also cast some reflections upon the Earl of Manchester[footnote 22], he was called on the 10th before the House of Lords, where that Nobleman being Speaker, and examining him upon interrogatories touching the writing of the just mentioned book, he not only refused to answer, but protested against their jurisdiction over him in the present case, whereupon he was committed to Newgate, Whence, upon the 16th, he sent an appeal to the House of Commons, which being received there[sidenote 33], he persevered in shewing the utmost contempt of the upper House[footnote 23]; for which, having been first committed close prisoner in Newgate on the 23d, he was sent thence to the Tower as a more secure custody; on the 10th of July, a remonstrance signed by many thousand persons having been presented to the House of Commons in his favour[footnote 24]. In the Tower he was denied the use of pen, ​ink, and paper, and no body suffered to visit him; however, he found means to write another petition[footnote 25], renewing his appeal to the House of Commons, which being delivered by his wife, September the 23d, a committee was appointed to hear and report his complaint against the Lords. Sir Henry Martin was chairman of this committee, before whom our author made his first plea in the inner Court of Wards, on the last day of October, and was heard again by them in the Exchequer-chamber, November the 6th following[sidenote 34], but no report being made to the House, he sent a copy of his second plea before the Committee to Sir Henry Martin, and afterwards printed it under the title of The Anatomy of the Lords Tyranny. Not content with the justice done to himself in this performance, he published, not long afterwards, another book entitled, The oppressed Man’s Oppression declared, &c. in which he complained of the injury done to him by the House of Commons, in their deferring to take his case into consideration, and threatening to raise the people in his defence, he proceeds to charge that House, not only with having of late years done nothing for the general good, bur also, with having made many ordinances notoriously unjust and oppressive[footnote 26]. Whereupon the whole impression was ​seized[sidenote 35], and our author, by a warrant directed to the serjeant at arms, February the 8th, was fetched before the Committee for suppressing scandalous pamphlets[footnote 27]; where, having obtained an express order from the chairman [Corbet] to set open the doors, contrary to their usual practice of keeping close Committees on such occasions, he acknowledged the writing, printing, and publishing of the book, in pursuance of the question put to him, and the affair was never prosecuted any farther[sidenote 36]. But as he had herein departed from his constantly avowed principle of not answering to interogatories against himself, and his friends appeared to be uneasy upon it, therefore, to prevent any ill consequences that might ensue from that quarter, he wrote a piece shortly after for their satisfaction, and published it on the 30th of April 1647, with the following extraordinary title, The Resolved Man’s Resolution to maintain with the last drop of his heart’s blood, his civil Liberties and Freedoms, granted unto him by the good, just and honest Laws of England his native Country; and never to sit still, so long as he has a Tongue to speak, or a Hand to write, ’till he hath either necessitated his Adversaries, the House of Lords, and their arbitrary Assistants in the House of Commons[footnote 28], either to do him Justice and Right, by ​delivering him from his cruel and illegal imprisonment, and holding out unto him legal and ample Reparation for all his unjust sufferings, or else send him to Tyburn, of which he is not afraid; and doubteth not, if they do it, but at and by his death to do them, Samson-like, more Mischief at his Death, than he did them all his Life. All which is expressed and declared in the following Epistle, written by Lieutenant-Colonel John Lilburne, prerogative prisoner in the Tower of London, to a true friend of his, a citizen thereof, April 1647. In this piece, having intreated his friend to ply the Parliament well with petitions and remonstrances[sidenote 37], he intimates a design, if that method did not succeed, to apply himself to the army. Accordingly, as that faction soon after gave a manifest proof that they had play’d the supreme power into their own hands[sidenote 38], we find our prerogative prisoner consulting with the agitators, how to turn this new revolution to his service[sidenote 39]; and being informed by these friends, that all their endeavours in his favour were defeated by the commanding officers, and chiefly by Cromwell, he sent this last a threatning letrer, August the 13th, wherein he charges the Lieutenant-General with a design of usurping the sovereignty[footnote 29]; which was seconded by another on the 29th, addressed to Fairfax the General, ​undertaking to make good that charge[footnote 30]. And the same day he also transmitted a third letter to the Council of Agitators, with a petition to exert themselves for his deliverance from the Tower[footnote 31]. The same day likewise, a petition in his behalf being presented to the House of Commons, in the name of many citizens, it was referred to the Committee, and to report it with all convenient speed[sidenote 40]. Accordingly, the House voting on the 13th of September to receive the Committee’s report the day following, Crom​well made him a friendly visit in the Tower[footnote 32], but still the House, instead of discharging him as he expected, referred the case back to the Committee[sidenote 41][footnote 33]: whereupon, our author being informed of their intention to examine him in the Tower, wrote a letter September 18th, to the Lieutenant thereof, declaring his resolution not to see them if they came with that design, and absolutely protesting against the authority of the House[footnote 34], and on October the 2d he sent the Speaker a proposition to argue his cause against the jurisdiction of the House of Lords with any forty lawyers in the kingdom[footnote 35] ​On the 20th of that month he was fetched again before the Committee, when Serjeant Maynard being in the chair, he had a fair and full hearing upon that point[sidenote 42]; but the Committee declining to hear him upon some other things relating to the House of Commons[sidenote 43], he sent a paper upon those matters inclosed in a letter to Mr Maynard on the 28th[sidenote 44], wherein he promised, for the satisfaction of his enemies, to leave the kingdom if he had his demands paid by an order of the House, threatening otherwise to raise his friends among the people in his defence[footnote 36]. On the 9th of November an order passed the House that he should have liberty every day to go without his keeper to attend the Committee appointed about his business, and to return every night to the Tower[sidenote 45]. And he enjoyed the benefit of it some time, but an information of seditious practices being made against him in January to the House of Lords, he was taken into custody again, and brought before the House of Commons on the 19th of that month. When in his defence, he delivered a charge of high-treason against Cromwell and Ireton; upon which he was remitted to the Tower, and ordered to be tried by the law of the land, for seditious and scandalous practices against the state[footnote 37]. Conceiving himself to be especially in​titled by this order to his habeas corpus, he made a regular application for it to the King’s-Bench both that term and the next, and being put off by the Judges, he printed first, an epistle dated April 8th 1648, to Mr Lenthal, intitled, The Prisoner’s Plea for a Habeas Corpus[sidenote 46], which was followed by another dated the 19th of that month to Mr Justice Rolle, in 1648, intitled, The Prisoner’s mournful Cry against the Judges of the King’s Bench[sidenote 47], and was suffered to plead his cause himself at that bar, on the 8th of May[sidenote 48]. However, no rule being made there in his favour, he petitioned the House of Commons, whereby he obtained, August 1st, both his discharge from imprisonment, and an order to make him satisfaction for his sufferings[footnote 38]. The next day after he had got his li​berty, he wrote a friendly letter to Cromwell, then warmly attacked by the Presbyterians[footnote 39], September the 11th, he joined with several others in a large petition to the House of Commons against a personal treaty with the King[footnote 40]; presently after which, he went down into the North to take possession of some effects that had been assigned to him, in pursuance of the last mentioned vote of the Commons[sidenote 49], Returning to London in a short time, with a design to procure the settling of a new model of government before the King’s execution, which was then resolved on by the leading men in the army[sidenote 50], he had several meetings with Ireton and others upon that affair[footnote 41], but the ​general council of officers quashing all the projects of his party[footnote 42], he published, December 15th 1648,[sidenote 51] such articles of an Agreement with the People as had then been proposed (tho’ without effect), by them, and presenting at the head of several of his friends, a complaint of the army, and a kind of protest against their proceedings, to Cromwell, on the 28th,[footnote 43] returned in a few days to Newcastle, where he continued attending the business of his reparations ’till the death of his Majesty, soon after which he went back to London[footnote 44], where finding Duke Hamilton, Lord Capel, and some other royalists, lately ​brought to their trial before the High-Court of Justice, He appeared warmly in their favour against the jurisdiction of that Court[footnote 45]; at the same time he was informed of some violence threatened against his person, in a council of war at Whitehall, about the 22d of February, whereupon he engaged in drawing up his piece called England’s new Chains discovered[sidenote 52], and on the 26th of that month accompanied by Walwyn, Prince, and Overton, he presented an Address to the Supreme Authority of England in the House of Commons, containing a frame of new modelling the state, in opposition to that which had been offered there by the army in January preceding[sidenote 53], and being ordered to withdraw without receiving an answer[footnote 46], our author published the whole under the last mentioned title[footnote 47], upon which he was committed with his associates to the Tower, March the 29th, 1649. He had not been there long before he joined with them in writing another pamphlet, intitled, The Agreement of the People, which was published on the first of May, with a licence by Gilbert Mabbot[footnote 48]. This being followed with seve​ral others notoriously vilifying the conservators of the liberties of England, and Cromwell in particular as their supreme head and master[footnote 49]; a new act of treason was passed May 14th, and Mr Lilburne’s estate seized: many consultations were had from time to time, by the judges and principal lawyers, in pursuance of orders from the Council of State, to consider of the properest and most effectual method to be taken with him. At length, a special commission of Oyer and Terminer was issued to 40 persons, before whom, being brought to his trial[footnote 50] on the 24th of October at Guild-hall in London, upon ​an indictment of high-treason, after a hearing of three days, in which the facts alledged against him, notoriously and flagrantly treasonable against that government, were clearly ​proved, he was fully acquitted by the jury; the people present, with extraordinary acclamations of joy, testifying their approbation thereof; and he was discharged from the Tower by an order of the Council of State on the 8th of November[sidenote 54]. Shortly after this, having recovered his estate from Sir Arthur Haslerig[footnote 51], he undertook the management of a dispute in law, in which his uncle George Lilburne happened then to be engaged with that Baronet[sidenote 55]. While this cause was depending, he published a pamphlet in the beginning of August, intitled, A just Reproof to Haberdasher’s-Hall, &c. therein charging Sir Arthur, with several base practices[footnote 52] in the proceedings ​thereon. And in the further prosecution of this affair, he delivered to several members at the door of the House of Commons the same year, a petition, setting forth, that the said Baronet had overawed a Committee appointed for trying this cause, to give a false judgment contrary to the plain evidence before them[sidenote 56]. On the 15th of January, the Parliament gave a judgment for fining him in the sum of 7000 pound to the state, and banishing him the kingdom[sidenote 57], upon which he retired from London and crossed the water to Amsterdam, where he presently saw in the news-papers the act which passed on the 30th for the execution of that judgment[sidenote 58]. During his exile he fell into conversation with several of the royal party, before whom he spoke very freely, both against the then reigning powers in England, and in favour of the King[footnote 53]. He wrote also ​a paper which he called an Apology for himself, and printing it sent it in a letter to Cromwell, wherein he charged the Lord General with being the principal instrument in in procuring the just mentioned act[footnote 54]. Upon the dissolution of the long Parliament, he set all his engines at work, to obtain a pass for England[footnote 55], which proving ineffectual, he returned home without one in the beginning of June 1653, and was apprehended at London by the Lord-Mayor’s warrant on the 15th[sidenote 59], upon which he printed a plea on the 28th, asserting the nullity of the act for his banishment, for want of a legal power in the Parliament that passed it, and being committed to Newgate in July, he sent thence a petition on the 12th to the newly erected Parliament, praying a discharge from them; but that being neglected, he was brought on the 20th of August to his trial before the sessions at the Old-Bailey; where, however, upon making the same plea as before, and moreover that he was not legally shewn, by reason of a kind of misnomer in the indictment[sidenote 60], to be the person mentioned in the act, he was a second time acquitted by the jury[footnote 56]. Notwithstanding this he was shortly after conducted ​to Portsmouth, in order for transportation, but giving security to behave himself quietly for the future, was suffered to return[footnote 57]: after which he settled at Eltham in Kent, and joining the Quakers, preached among that sect there, and sometimes at Woolwich and the places adjacent, ’till his death[sidenote 61], which happened at Eltham, August 29th 1657, in the thirty-ninth year of his age. Two days after, his corps was conveyed to a house called the Mouth near Aldersgate in London, at that time the usual meeting place of the Quakers. Here it was warmly debated whether his coffin should be covered with a hearse cloth, which being carried in the negative, it was conveyed without one to the then new burial-place in Moor-Fields, near the place now called Old Bedlam, and interred there, four thousand persons attending the burial[sidenote 62]. The character given by Mr Wood of our author, appears from his history to be very just, That ‘he was from his youth much addicted to contention, novelties, opposition of government, and to violent and bitter expressions; that growing up, he became for a time the idol of the factious people, being naturally a great trouble-world in all the variety of governments. That he grew to be a hodge-podge of religion, the chief ring-leader of the Levellers, a great proposal maker and modeller of state, and publisher of several seditious pamphlets.’ But the remark upon him, attributed by this writer to Judge Jenkins, as spoken in a reproachful way, we are informed by Mr Rushworth, was said in Mr Lilburne’s favour by his friend Sir Henry Martin: That if there were none living but him, John would be against Lilburne, and Lilburne against John[sidenote 63]. Lord Clarendon, who judged our author not unworthy of a place in a history of the civil wars, having observed that he was a person of much more considerable importance than Wildman, and that Cromwell found it absolutely necessary to his own dignity effectually to crush him, concludes his account of him in the following terms. ‘This instance of a person not otherwise considerable is thought pertinent to be inserted, as an evidence of the temper of the nation, and how far the spirits at that time [1653] were from paying a submission to that power, when no body had the courage to lift up their hands against it.’ We have taken notice in the course of this memoir, that our author likewise complains heavily of this cowardliness in general, and particularly of his party on that very account[sidenote 64]. Indeed one main design in enlarging upon this article, was to produce a large variety of instances, which may serve as a commentary to the History of the Rebellion, the plan of which would not admit of being so particular. Another principal end herein, has been to give a series of proofs not commonly known, of the infinite guile and subtlety of Cromwell, which, joined to an enthusiastic confidence that he should always accomplish his designs in every instance, carried that arch-dissembler at length through a sea of difficulties, into the full possession of a despotic supremacy.

Textual notes[edit]

Sidenotes[edit]

  1. ↑ (a) See below in remark [Z].
  2. ↑ (b) His father had three sons, Robert, John, and Henry. See remark [I].
  3. ↑ (c) We find him frequently declaring he could not read Latin, particularly at his tryal in 1649, p. 22. printed that year in 4to. under the fictitious name of Theodorus Verax.
  4. ↑ (d) According to his own account, he served his master faithfully six years, which must be expired before he went to Holland in 1636, or the beginning of 1637. Legal and Fundamental Liberties, &c. p. 21. edit. 1649, 4to. where he also observe⟨s⟩, that he was put apprentice well nigh 20 years ago, and that his master drove a large wholesale trade. p. 20.
  5. ↑ (e) He tells us, that he ever after lived in peace with him, and that, in all the days of his calamity with the Bishops, he had the truest and cordialest friend of him that ever servant had of a master, in the day of his trial. Ibid.
  6. ↑ (f) See a pamphlet intitled, The Famers famed, or, an Answer to two seditious pieces, viz. The just Man in Bonds, and a Pearl in the Dunghill (written by a friend of Lieutenant Col. J. Lilburne, soon after his imprisonment in the Tower, June 23, 1646) by J. Shepheard, part ii. p. 11.
  7. ↑ (g) Mr Edmund Rozer; our author, calls him his familiar friend and neighbour, and fellow professor with him in religion. See more of him in rem. [C C C].
  8. ↑ (h) A libel, wherein the pride, lust, and abominable acts, of the prelates in private, are pretended to be laid open.
  9. ↑ (i) The author of Famers famed tells us, that, besides this, he printed many others there (but mentions not their titles), and brought them over to England at his return. p. 11.
  10. ↑ (k) Compare the Famers famed with Legal and Fundamental Liberties, ubi supra. His associate’s name was John Chilliburn, servant to Wharton, his fellow sufferer in the Star-chamber.
  11. ↑ (l) Viz. to take an oath to answer interrogatories, calling it the oath ex officio.
  12. ↑ (m) Rushworth’s Hist. Collect. Vol. I. part ii. p. 403. edit. 1688.
  13. ↑ (n) Famers famed, as above.
  14. ↑ (o) Rushworth, Vol. II. part i. p. 21. edit. 1692.
  15. ↑ (p) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 22. and his speech, at the opening of his trial in 1649; where he says, it was supposed that Col. Lunsford and his associates intended to cut the throats of the chiefest men then living in the House of Commons. p. 3. His own edition, in 4to. under the fictitious name of Theodorus Verax.
  16. ↑ (q) Rushworth, in the volume last cited, p. 250. The sentence was also declared null by the Lords, and ordered to be taken out of the records. Ibid. p. 469.
  17. ↑ (r) England’s Birthright, &c. p. 22. edit. 1646, 4to.
  18. ↑ (s) Our author declares, that about 700 of them withstood the King’s whole army for 5 hours, fighting it out to the very sword’s point, and the butt-end of the musket. His trial, as above, p. 3. and Lord Clarendon observes, that the two regiments there were reckoned the Parliament’s best foot, having behaved eminently well at Edge-hill, and that the King’s forces entered the town after a very warm service. Hist. of the rebellion, Vol. II. part i. p. 74. 8vo. edition.
  19. ↑ (t) Threatning the Lex Talionis, i. e. to punish the prisoners of the King’s party in their hands, in the same manner as Lilburne and the rest should suffer at Oxford. Rushworth, Vol. II. part iii. p. 93.
  20. ↑ (u) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 23.
  21. ↑ (w) Our author’s words are, I left him [Essex] for his persecuting for non-taking the Covenant. Ibid. But ’tis certain too, that Cromwell had a hand in it, since to him Lilburne constantly ascribes his obtaining the majority from the Earl of Manchester. See remark [M].
  22. ↑ (x) The Earl of Manchester’s army was raised in August. Salmon’s Chron. Hist. in this year.
  23. ↑ (y) Resolved Man’s Resolution, p. 32.
  24. ↑ (z) Ibid.
  25. ↑ (a a) England’s Birthright, p. 6. edit. 1646, 4to.
  26. ↑ (b b) Resolved Man’s Resolution, where last cited.
  27. ↑ (c c) It was reprinted in England’s Birthright, at the beginning, p. 6, 7.
  28. ↑ (d d) Mr Recorder acquainted the House, that no information or other charge had been brought against him, and that he desired either to be tried or discharged; whereupon it was resolved upon the question, that he be forthwith discharged. See the vote in Just Man’s Justification, p. 3.
  29. ↑ (e e) A Preparative to a Hue and Cry after Sir Arthur Haslerig, p. 17. Cook and Bradshaw were his Counsel in this cause, which he printed with Cook’s aggravations of his sufferings soon after.
  30. ↑ (f f) On the 14th of October, at his delivery out of Newgate.
  31. ↑ (g g) Two housekeepers and a stranger. Epistle to Judge Reeves, p. 2.
  32. ↑ (h h) It had lain above a month in divers of his friends hands in the House, but he could not get it read when the letter was wrote to the Judge, who was Chief-Justice of the Court, June 6. Ibid. p. 18.
  33. ↑ (i i) Letter to the Council of Agitators, p. 7.
  34. ↑ (k k) Grand Plea, &c. p. 1, 2.
  35. ↑ (l l) The officer also seized above 500 copies of his London Charters, of which, when Lilburne complained to the Committee, Mr Corbet told him, the officer had gone beyond his warrant. However, he says, he never recovered. See the authority in the next note (m m).
  36. ↑ (m m) Resolved Man’s Resolution, p. 1 to 12. where he tells us, that on his withdrawing from the Committee, the people cried out, they never would answer to close Committees any more, being the doors by law ought to be open, which they never knew before.
  37. ↑ (n n) He also declares his opinion for pulling down the present Parliament, and calling a new one, to bring them to a strict account, as the only means of saving the laws and liberties of England from utter destruction. p. 19.
  38. ↑ (o o) See Salmon’s Chronological Historian, under June, July, and August, this year 1647.
  39. ↑ (p p) See his letter to that Council, in the beginning.
  40. ↑ (q q) Rushworth, Vol. II. part iv. p. 790. edit. 1721.
  41. ↑ (r r) It was ordered to be recommitted, to find out some precedents of this nature, and report to the House. Ibid. p. 810.
  42. ↑ (s s) Our author tells us, this new hearing upon the point of law was the pure effect of his challenge. Additional Plea to Maynard, p. 17. and Rushworth informs us, that he had been before them on the 18th, and soon after gave in his speech in writing, declaring the Lords proceedings against him illegal, of which he gave many precedents, which he undertook to prove. His expressions were in law very high. Vol. VIII. p. 844.
  43. ↑ (t t) He concludes his plea with a declaration, that, having done with every thing in point of law against the Lords, ’till they reply, he had something to say in reference to the Commons; but being spent, desires to be heard October 26, according to their own appointment.
  44. ↑ (u u) This he printed afterwards with the title of An additional Plea, &c. to Serjeant Maynard, 1647, 4to.
  45. ↑ (w w) Rushworth, in the last cited vol. p. 868.
  46. ↑ (x x) In this epistle he accuses Cromwell of wilful murder, and desires Lenthal to bring the accusation into the House, for killing Arnel, at Ware in Hertfordshire, Nov. 15, 1647, in a time of peace, and declared so to be by Parliament’s declaration, in answer to the Scotch Commissioners, March 4, 1647.
  47. ↑ (y y) The several proceedings for obtaining the habeas corpus are set forth in this piece, wherein he spares not amply to bespatter that Judge, as well as the rest, for delaying it.
  48. ↑ (z z) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 8.
  49. ↑ (a a a) He got 400 pounds of sequestred coals and iron of Mr Bowes’s, besides between 100 and 200 pounds in rents. Ibid. p. 41.
  50. ↑ (b b b) See remark [U U].
  51. ↑ (c c c) He prefixed an epistle to ⟨i⟩t of his penning, and printed the whole at his own expence.
  52. ↑ (d d d) Legal and Fundamental liberties, &c. p. 74.
  53. ↑ (e e e) In this model they ran through the several articles of that offered by the army, charging it in every particular with unjust and tyrannical designs, and the House of Commons with a design to introduce an arbitrary power by the High-Court of Justice and the Council of State.
  54. ↑ (f f f) See his tryal printed shortly after under his own inspection, where the extracts from his books are produced, and the books fully proved to be of his writing and publishing.
  55. ↑ (g g g) See an account of this affair inthe next remark.
  56. ↑ (h h h) See his Petition to the Supreme Authority for the Commonwealth of England, July 12, 1653, p. 4.
  57. ↑ (i i i) Our author, in the last cited piece, tells us, this act was passed purely as a punishment for his petition; but it is not improbable, that he had given some foundation for creating a jealousy, that he had favoured the King’s attempt for a restoration at this time; and we find the Attorney-General observing, at Christopher Love’s trial, that Lilburne had been with him in the Tower as his Counsel. See remark [E E E].
  58. ↑ (k k k) His last cited Petition, in the same page.
  59. ↑ (l l l) A postscript to the petition last cited.
  60. ↑ (m m m) In the act, he was called Lieutenant-Colonel, and in the indictment, John Lilburne, late of London, Gent. He excepts also, that he was not a Lieutenant-Colonel, when the act passed, and that he was not legally convicted, having not been suffered to plead in his own defence.
  61. ↑ (n n n) Lord Clarendon was misinformed in his account, that he was not set at liberty, but shifted from prison ’till Cromwell’s death. Hist. of the Rebellion, Vol. III. p. 392. fol. first edit.
  62. ↑ (o o o) Wood’s Athen. Oxon. Vol. II. col. 174. and Rushworth’s Collections, Vol. II. p. 471.
  63. ↑ (p p p) Intimating a quarrelsome disposition to be more his misfortune than his fault, as being so predominant in his nature, that it could not be resisted.
    Naturam expellas furca tamen usque recurret. Hor.
  64. ↑ (q q q) See rem. [D D].

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ↑ [A] Descended of an ancient family] When our author’s cause was pleaded at the bar of the House of Lords in 1640, among other aggravations of the cruelty of the sentence passed upon him by the judges of the Star-chamber in 1637, it was urged by the managers in his behalf, that he was descended from an ancient family in the north[citation 1], a town in Northumberland still bearing the name of Lilburne or rather Leisle-bourne, by reason of the water called the Bourne, that was about it; and that the arms belonging to the family, are three water budgets, which is an ancient bearing of arms[citation 2]. His father Richard Lilburne, besides the estate at Thickley Puncharden abovementioned, was possessed of lands to a considerable value in the county of Durham. In 1638 he was engaged in a suit at law, for an estate of above 200 pounds a year in that county, wherein issue was joined for a trial by battle; which, as it seems to be the last instance of that ancient custom, and happened to fall in our author’s family, may deserve a place in these memoirs. This remarkable cause, after some former hearings, came on the 6th of August 1638 before judge Berkley at Durham, between Ralph Claxton demandant, and Richard Lilburne tenant. The demandant appeared at 10 o’clock in the forenoon by his attorney, and brought in his champion George Cheney in array, who cast his gantlet into the court with five small pence in it. Then the tenant appeared by his attorney, and brought in his champion William Peverel in array, who did the like. After some examination of the proceedings in the cause, the parties and their champions were adjourned ’till three in the afternoon of the same day; when appearing as before with sand bags and battons, some discourse was held of it by the judge, who also examined the champions, and having ordered them into the custody of two bailiffs of the court, adjourned them ’till 8 the next morning; at which time appearing again, they were adjourned ’till three after dinner, and upon their appearing accordingly, were adjourned ’till 8 the following morning, when the champions put in their pledges (as at the court held on the 7th of July preceding) to appear in the court of pleas to be held on the 15th of September next. In the interim, on the 15th of August, his Majesty in council being made acquainted, that there had been several days appointed for determining by battle the question of right which had long been depended between Claxton and Lilburne, for certain lands in the county of Durham, and that by the late appointment the same was to be tried by the said parties champions, December the 22d next, desired that the judges of that circuit, upon conference with their brethren, should be prayed and required to take the same case into due and serious consideration, and, if they could, to find any just way by law how the said combat might be put off, and the cause put into another way of trial; for his Majesty, out of his pious care of his subjects, would have it so, rather than to admit of a battle: but otherwise, since Lilburne had obtained a judgment upon a demurrer against Claxton, and also costs from the board for his vexation; and since that, Claxton had brought a new action, upon which Lilburne had waged battle; his Majesty would not deny the trial of laws, if it could not be legally prevented. After this, both parties bringing their champions into the court at Durham, having their sand bags and battons, and so rendered themselves in that fighting posture, when the court upon reading the record, found and error in it by mistake of the clerk (which some thought wilfully done) whereupon the court would not let them join battle at that time[citation 3]. Thus did the court order to avoid battle by deferring the matter, tho’ the champions were ever present in court at all meetings to join battle. In further pursuance of his Majesty’s earnest desire, there was a consultation of all the judges upon the following point. In a trial by battle upon a writ of right, the tenant waged battle which was accepted, and at the day to be performed. Berkley the justice there examined the champions of both parties, whether they were not hired for money? and they confessed they were, which confession he caused to be recorded, and gave farther day to by advised; and by the King’s direction all the judges were required to deliver their opinion, whether this was cause sufficient to de-arraign the battle by these champions; and by Bramston, chief Justice; Davenport, chief Baron; Denham, Hutton, Jones, Cook, and other justices, it was subscribed, that this exception, coming after the battle waged, and champions allowed, and sureties given to perform it, ought not to be received[citation 4]. Notwithstanding this opinion, means being still found to defer the trial from year to year, Richard Lilburne presented a petition to the House of Commons, which was read July 24th, 1641, setting forth how often he had joined issue for trial by battle for lands in value of above 200 pounds per annum, and had brought down his champion; but that they were from time to time put off from a trial by combat by the judges, who still found some error in the record, so that the trial could not proceed. Upon which, it was ordered afterwards by the House, that a bill be brought in to take away trial by battle[citation 5].
  2. ↑ [B] Trained up among the Puritans] Mr Wood tells us[citation 6] expressly, that his brother Robert was puritannically educated; and our author suggests, that his own master, Hewson, was a sectary, and that himself frequented the same meeting of those people with his master[citation 7]. He observes also upon another occasion, that both his father and uncle George Lilburne, were not only the first that ever he could hear of in the county of Durham, that opposed the King in the point of ship money, but likewise stood up against the Bishop of of Durham, and the Dean and Chapter there, in the business of innovations: that afterwards adhering to the Parliament, they became Justices of the Peace, Committee-men, Surveyors of Bishops lands, and Sequestrators of Delinquents estates[citation 8].
  3. ↑ [C] He read puritannical books] He tells us himself, that his master keeping only a warehouse, he had spare time enough several days in the week, which he spent in reading the Bible, the Book of Martyrs, Luther’s, Calvin’s, Beza’s, Cartwright’s, Perkins’s Molin’s, Burton’s, and Rogers’s works, with a multitude of other such like books which he had purchased[citation 9]. Lord Clarendon informs us, that our author confessed, that in the melancholy of his imprisonment, and by reading the Book of Martyrs, he raised in himself a marvellous inclination and appetite to suffer in the defence and for the vindication of any oppressed truth, and found himself very much confirmed in that spirit; and in that time diligently collected and read all those libels and books, which had anciently as well as lately been written against the Church, from whence, with the venom he had likewise contracted, the impudence and bitterness of their stile, and by practice, brought himself to the faculty of writing like them[citation 10]. But tho’ it be allowed, that too rigorous a punishment is rather apt to harden than amend the sufferer; yet whatever fallacious glosses Mr Lilburne might occasionally put upon the matter, with a design, apparently, to expose the bad policy of his Star-chamber judges, it is evident that the enthusiastic spirit, which he here suggests to be raised in him by the melancholy of a prisn, had entered into and taken full possession of him long before; which truth also he was not sparing upon other occasions to declare. Thus, in one place[citation 11] he observes, that in the year 1636, when he constantly visited Dr Bastwick in the Gate-house, his zeal was so strongly kindled for him and his cause, that he could willingly have laid down his life for the Doctor’s service. And in another piece printed in 1646[citation 12] he cries out with the same fervent spirit, that ‘he had then assuredly known God to be his God upwards of ten years, who would enable him always to carry his life in his hand, and give it up in his righteous cause at a moment’s warning, having prepared a mansion of eternal glory for him in heaven.’
  4. ↑ [D] He went to Holland] Mr Lilburne frequently in his writings calls this a banishment, for which he also claims reparations, and says that it was occasioned by his true affection to Dr Bastwick, for which he was forced by the Bishops and their catchpoles to fly into the Low-Countries for refuge, just about the time of the Doctor’s banishment: ‘Where, continues he, I was divers months, and where Sir William Boswell the King’s Ambassador laid for me, as I was informed, several designs to put me a ship-board, and send me over to England to the Bishops here for my visible activity there against them, which forced me continually to wear my sword about me[citation 13].’
  5. ↑ [E] News from Ipswich] Mr Prynne, the writer of this libel, suffered much the same punishment for printing and publishing it, by a sentence in the Star-chamber[citation 14], as was inflicted upon our author, who, according to Mr Wood’s account was then, or had been a little before servant to the former: ‘for, says that Antiquarian, about the year 1632, young Lilburne, upon the dislike of his trade, expressing an inclination to study the common law, was at his own request, as well as that of his friends, taken into Mr Prynne’s service, who shortly after suffering for his Histriomastix, his servant Lilburne took his master’s part, imprinted or vended a book or books against the Bishops, for which, being committed prisoner to the Fleet, he was afterwards whipt, &c.’[citation 15] But this account which is apparently very loose was certainly taken up from no good authority, as is evident from what is above related out of our author’s own books, that he served his master Hewson faithfully six years almost. Neither do we find in these or in any of Mr Prynne’s works, the least hint concerning this clerkship; a silence, which, considering the various contests that happened between these two antagonists, together with the temper of each, cannot be accounted for upon any other principle than this, that there was no manner of pretence for such a remark. It is not improbable indeed, that Mr Lilburne did not only turn his hand to the printing, but also to the binding of the libels, which were published by him at the time we are now speaking of, and some years afterwards; and this practice no doubt gave rise to Lord Clarendon’s observation, that ‘he was a book-binder before the wars[citation 16],’ which opinion was also further countenanced by his never following his proper trade of a clothier, as will be seen in the sequel.
  6. ↑ [F] Rigorously executed] He was probably apprehended in January, being first brought on the 24th of that month to the Star-chamber-office to take the oath abovementioned, and refusing it there again on the 9th of February, sentence was passed then to punish him for a high contempt of the Court, which was accordingly pronounced on the 13th, as follows, that he should be remanded to the Fleet ’till April 18th 1638; when he should be whipt at the cart’s tail, from thence to Old-Palace-Yard Westminster, and then set upon the Pillory there for two hours, after which to be carried back to the Fleet, there to remain ’till he conformed to the rules of the Court: also, to pay a fine of 500 pounds to the King, and give security for his good behaviour[citation 17]. In the whipping he received above 500 lashes with knotted cords, yet in the execution thereof, he uttered many bold speeches against the tyranny of the Bishops, and continued so to do after his head was in the hole of the Pillory, when, his hands being free, he tossed several copies of pamphlets, said to be seditious, among the people, taking them out of his pocket; and after the Star-chamber, then sitting, had ordered him to be gagg’d, he stampt with his feet. Upon this refractory behaviour, the Court ordered him to be laid alone, with irons upon his hands and legs, in one of the wards of the Fleet, where the basest and meanest sort of prisoners are used to be put. And it was ordered for the future, that all persons to receive corporal punishments from that Court should be searched, and neither writings nor any other thing suffered to be about them, and their hands to be bound; and the Attorney and Sollicitor-general were to examine him concerning his speeches, whether any against the Court of Star-chamber or any member thereof, as also whether any of the pamhlets were seditious[citation 18].
  7. ↑ [G] He found means to print another Libel] After some time there happened a fire in the Fleet, which breaking out near the ward where he lay in double irons, gave a jealousy, that being enraged to desperateness, he had set fire to the prison, regardless of his own death thereby. Hereupon both the neigbouring inhabitants without, and the prisoners within, crying release Lilburne, or we shall all perish, ran and made the warden remove him out of his hold; and after the fire was quenched, a place was provided for him where he had more air[citation 19]. Here we have another instance of that resolute and wild fierceness which is the genuine effect of inflamed enthusiasm, and which made Lilburne the idol of his party. During his imprisonment he had many scuffles with the wardens, wherein two of his fingers were so maimed, that he lost the use of them ever afterwards, as he alledges in his petition quoted in note (12). Besides the pamphlet abovementioned, he wrote several others during this imprisonment, as 1. Come out of her, my People. 2. The afflicted Man’s Complaint. 3. A Cry for Justice. 4. An Epistle to the Apprentices of London. 5. Several Epistles to the Wardens of the Fleet. 6. Nine Arguments against Episcopacy. Afterwards, when Presbytery prevailed, he printed these arguments against that polity, in a piece intitled, An Answer of nine Arguments, written by T B Lond. 1645; and they were also in the same view inserted in his Oppressed Man’s Oppression declared, p. 21. the following year, as a full answer to Mr Edwards’s Gangræna, written in defence of the Covenant.
  8. ↑ [H] Arraigned of high-treason but dismissed.] Our author tells us, that after the battle at Brentford in 1642, when he was a prisoner in Oxford castle, there came to him the Lords Dunsinore, Maltravers, Newark, and Andover, who told him, among other things, that he should be arraigned for a traytor, for being the chief or general of the apprentices, that came down to Westminster and Whitehall, and forced the House of Peers, and drove away the King from his Parliament, and so begun the wars. Unto which he replied, ‘Alas, my Lords, you will be far mistaken there; and, continues he, I cannot but wonder, that your Lordships should so undervalue your own honours and reputations, as so much as once now to mention this. Why, sirrah? said one of them. Why, my Lord? because your Lordships may remember, that the 3d of May 1641, the King caused warrants to issue out to apprehend me as a traytor for this very thing, and others depending on it, and as a traytor I was apprehended by his messengers, one of which that night kept me prisoner as a traytor, and the next morning being the 4th of May 1641, as a traytor I was brought by him to Whitehall, where (as I remember) old Sir Henry Vane and Mr Nicholas were appointed by the King himself to carry my impeachment to the House of Peers, at whose bar I that day appeared, and was there that day arraigned for my life, and one Littleton, the Lord Keeper’s kinsman, swore most bitterly against me; but upon further examination of witnesses, and hearing with patience my own defence for myself, I was by your whole house, who looked upon themselves as the highest judicatory in England, honourably and nobly acquitted, as a person innocent and free of the King’s accusation: of which, my Lords, let me plainly tell you, if I were guilty, you were a company of unrighteous and unjust judges for freeing me from that accusation. But, my Lords, being judicially tried therefore, and acquitted by yourselves, who (if my memory fail me not, I saw all at that trial) and by your house (then extraordinary full as ever I saw it) who judge yourselves the highest judicature in England, I am acquitted thereby, my Lords, from any more question about that business, although it should be granted I was never so guilty of it[citation 20].’ We see here that our author on this occasion pleaded before the House of Lords; he takes notice of it himself, and says in excuse, that he did not then understand the jurisdiction of that house, when afterwards, in a similar case, he withstood that jurisdiction even to imprisonment in 1646. This submission was frequently thrown in his dish by his adversaries, to whom his constant answer was this, When I was a child I spake as a child and acted as a child, but as soon as I became a man I put away childish things. He also gave upon a particular occasion the following account how he came by that knowledge. That about a month or six weeks before the Lords committed him to prison in 1646, a member of the House of Commons, and one that he believed wished him well, gave him a hint to take care of himself, for that to his knowledge there was a design among some of the Lords (the grounds and reasons of which he then told him) to clap him up by the heels. That upon this warning, he took every opportunity of discoursing with such as he thought knew any thing of the Lords jurisdiction, and found a general concurrence that the 29th chapter of magna charta was against it: Upon that he enter’d his protest. That upon further enquiry he found Sir Edward Coke’s judgment expressly against them; which book he takes notice was published after his first trial before the Lords. And that after he was put into the Tower, being informed by one of his fellow-prisoners of Sir Simon Beresford’s case in Edward 3d’s time, he presently got the record of it by Mr Collet’s hands, deputy-keeper of the office in the Tower[citation 21].
  9. ↑ [I] Saved by a declaration of the Parliament.] Upon the first day of his trial, the judge [Heath] at his request, not only freed him from close imprisonment, but allowed him pen, ink, and paper, and also a week’s time to advise with counsel. The use he made of these favours was to write two letters (in conjunction with Vivers and Catesby his fellow prisoners) one to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and another to young Sir Henry Vane, setting forth the proceedings against him. These being sent to his wife[citation 22] then at London, with proper instructions, she managed the affair with so much diligence, as to bring down a letter from the Speaker containing the substance of the abovementioned declaration, and delivered it to Judge Heath two days before they were to appear again at the bar, and upon this the farther prosecution of them was staid, our author’s wife having heard the judge at his reading the Speaker’s letter, say to the company then present, that ‘as to himself, he valued not the threat, but, said he, we must be tender of the lives of the Lords and Gentlemen that served the King, and are in the custody of those at Westminster[citation 23].’ Thus the trial was suspended, and not long after, Lilburne made his escape out of the jail by corrupting the marshal, says, Lord Clarendon, who tells us, he was liberally supplied during his imprisonment with money, by his friends [citation 24]. On the other hand, our author himself declares he was exchanged by the Parliament[citation 25], and that he lost 5 or 600 pounds during this imprisonment out of his own estate[citation 26]; he also complains heavily of Smith the jailor’s cruelty to him, especially at the time when he lay dangerously ill of a fever (wherein he lost the hair of his head) and for which, as his manner was, he afterwards repaid him with a stroke of his pen, calling him a merciless Turk[citation 27]. Lord Clarendon likewise to the same purpose observes[citation 28], that he was not so well treated in prison as was like to reconcile him.
  10. ↑ [K] The Earl of Essex gave him 300 pounds for his service.] Besides the particulars related above, there are some others concerning his behaviour at that time, of which we have from himself the following account: That in his sufferings and arraignment at Oxford, he carried himself with a great deal of resolution and undauntedness of spirit, for which the Parliament, by special declaration[citation 29], justified him, and exchanged him very honourably, high above his quality and condition; and at his coming home, some of them that were no mean ones, profered his wife a place of honour and profit for him, then reputed worth about 1000 pounds per annum, which he conscientiously scorned and slighted, professing to his wife, to her extraordinary grief, that he must fight (tho’ it were) for eight pence a day, ’till he saw the liberties and peace of England settled, rather than set himself down in a rich place for his own advantage, in the midst of so many grand distractions of his native country, as then possessed it[citation 30]. The same facts are touched by Lord Clarendon, and set in a different light. That, ‘When he was brought to his trial before the justice he behaved himself with so great impudence in extolling the power of the parliament, that it was manifest he ambitioned martyrdom for that cause.’—and upon his returning after his escape out of prison to the Parliament’s quarters, ‘he was received there with public joy, as a champion that had defied the King in his own court[citation 31].
  11. ↑ [L] He was diligent in putting that garrison into a good state of defence.] An instance of this we have in his account of monies disbursed during this service, one article of which is,
    A note of all the swords, belts, and holsters for pistoles, and bandeliers, that Major Lilburne caused to be brought into the magazine at Boston, February the 5th, 1643.
    Received from London by Major Lilburne’s appointment, two hundred and ninety swords. More received immediately after, by Major Lilburne’s appointment five hundred swords. Feb. 1643, received from Thomas Forman at Lynn, by Major Lilburne’s appointment, one chest of swords, containing two hundred. Received in April after from Major Lilburne, that his man brought into the magazine, and delivered them to my son Shepherdson, twenty swords. So received in swords 1010.
    Received of Major Lilburne 80 pair of holsters for pistols, and three hundred belts for swords. Received of Mr Wood and Mr Wind, by Major Lilburn’s appointment, one thousand collars of bandeliers. All these swords, holsters for pistols, sword-belts, and bandeliers, were received into the magazine from Major Lilburne, but what money has been paid in for any of them I know not. By me Richard Coney, keeper of the magazine in Boston.
    Our author speaking to this article of his accounts observes, that he furnished these stores at least, 20 pound in the hundred cheaper than the Colonel [King] then paid for the like at Boston[citation 32].
  12. ↑ [M] He had a narrow escape at Newark.] After the articles for raising the siege were concluded between Prince Rupert and Sir John Meldrum, Colonel King commanded, and in a manner forced, Major Lilburne, contrary to the agreement, to march away his regiment in a hostile manner with their arms, &c. so that they were set upon by the enemy’s horse, and forcibly disarmed, and also plundered, as violaters of the covenant and contract, to the disparagement of the whole army, yea and the Parliament itself, and to the extreme hazard and danger of abundance of their lives. ‘Yet King, continues our author, was so honest and valiant, that as soon as he saw the storm fall upon us, he fairly left us, and shifted for himself, without being plundered as we were, at which bout I lost well nigh 100 pounds[citation 33]; being plundered from the crowne of my head to the sole of my foote, and forced over hedge and ditch in by-ways for the safety of my life, to march almost ten miles without a hat or perewig (having by cruell sickness lately lost my heire in Oxford prison) britches or doublet, bootes or shooes[citation 34]. Our Major seems to have behaved with great bravery in the attack at Newark, which, Mr Rushworth informs us, was begun by three companies of Colonel King’s regiment, who marching up to the Countess of Exeter’s house, after a very sharp conflict took it. There were likewise two Captain Lilburnes in the division of horse commanded by Colonel Rocester, who signalized themselves in this action[citation 35]. These two Captain Lilburnes were probably the Major’s two brothers, Robert and Henry[citation 36].
  13. ↑ [N] He quarrelled with, and brought several accusations against his Colonel.] Our author observing that his promotion in Colonel King’s regiment was owing to Cromwell, tells us, that this friend gave him then some private instructions, which were, to be faithful in his place, and to complain either of Colonel King, or whomsoever he groundedly knew did any actions that tended to the ruin of salus populi, the safety of the people, or the state universal; and promised upon his honour and reputation, that he would do the best he could to have justice done, ‘and, continues our Major, he gave me the reason, wherefore he so earnestly tyed me to it, which was, because our General with his army was to march out of Lincolnshire, and that country being lately wonne out of the hands of the Cavaliers, there being very few of that country at that time, that desired command under the Generall, therefore, saith he, we are necessitated to make use of Col. King, and to make him Governour of Boston and Holland, looking upon him as an active popular man, who promised to do mighty things for the good of that country and the publique.
    ‘But in regard divers of the chiefe men of Boston doe mislike him, I have therefore, saith he, in his behalfe, engaged my selfe to them for him, that he shall be faithful, just, and honest towards them: and therefore, in regard I have no large experience of the man and of his temper, I principally looke upon thee Lilburne, and thy Lieutenant-Col. John Bury, whose faithfulness I can rest upon, and for both of whom I have used my interest to place on purpose with him, that so if he should break out to the dishonour of my engagement, and the detriment of the publique, I may from time to time be sure to know of it from you, that so it may be prevented, before it be past remedy.’ In pursuance of this secret counsel, our Major heartily vexed at his misfortune before Newark, took especial care to acquaint both the Earl of Manchester and Cromwell, with his Colonel’s behaviour[citation 37] there, as also of some other commands given by him, without consulting any of the officers of his regiment. And upon the first opportunity, he posted away himself to Bedford, where finding both the General and Cromwell, he gave them a full narrative of all the Colonel’s absolute carriage, in marching and countermarching his forces without the consent or approbation of his Field-officers; and that tho’ he had received from the committee of Lincolnshire divers thousand pounds to pay his officers and soldiers at Newark siege, yet the Major could never hear he had paid one penny to any officer there, and, as for his own part, he could not get a penny from him. So likewise, altho’ the country sent in great store of provisions for his regiment gratis, yet he and his under-sutlers made the Major and other officers and soldiers to pay ready money for a great part of it, to their extraordinary discontent, provoking them thereby to mutiny. That Sir John Maldrum told him, the Colonel had raised such a fire of contention among the chief officers at Newark siege, that he durst not call a council of war to consult how to manage their business, being there continually in contest with my Lord Willoughby, Colonel Rossiter, Sir Miles Hubbard, Sir John Paragraffe, and divers of the Lincoln committee: so that the commander in chief knew not well what to do, by reason of these distractions, when Prince Rupert came upon them. That he put Boston into great danger of being lost to the enemy, by ordering all the powder out of the magazine, and notwithstanding the loss of his own regiment’s arms at Newark, yet he refused to send for a supply to the governour of Lynn, ’till that supply was ordered by another; and when it did come, he sent the men immediately to recover Crowland, which had been lost by his means. The Earl of Manchester having heard the Major’s complaint, sent him post to London, to the committee of both kingdoms, about his marching to recover Lincoln, and thence to march to York to join the Scots. After his return, he renewed his complaints at Lincoln, desiring a council of war might be called thereupon. A trial by a court martial was also sollicited by some of the committee of Lincoln, who drew up a very heinous charge against Colonel King, as did also the Mayor and Aldermen of Boston; these last pressing Cromwell to use all his interest in the Earl, that they might be admitted to make their articles good in a council of war. Here a less spirited and more artful prosecutor would have rested the matter, especially as he had found the sweets of it, in being raised to the post of Lieutenant-Colonel of Dragoons, and moreover, seen the Colonel thereupon discharged the service, and put out of all his commands and offices, which were very many and profitable; being Colonel of horse, Colonel of dragoons, and Colonel of foot, Governor of Boston and the parts of Holland, and Governor of the city and county of Lincoln, with a power to levy what money he judged necessary for the support of the same. But the Lieutenant-Colonel not being able to procure the trial by a court-martial, prevailed with some of the Lincoln committee to exhibit to the House of Commons, in August 1644, a charge of high crimes and misdemeanors, consisting of 22 articles, against the Colonel, undertaking to support the greater part of them by his own testimony[citation 38]. The precipitate rashness and wrong headed zeal of this forward step will appear presently.
  14. ↑ [O] Proferred a good post when the army was new modelled, but resolved to quit the service.] He assures us this offer was made him by no mean man, even while this new model was framing, but that visibly there was such bitter designs against the poor people of God, who were strongly endeavoured to be destroyed by them, who with all their might they had endeavoured to preserve; and, ‘also, continues he, the laws and justice of the kingdom, to my understanding, in a very sad condition, I plainly told Lieutenant Cromwell, I would dig for turneps and carrots before I would fight to set up a power to make myself a slave, which expression he relished not well. Whereupon I told him, Sir, I will, if I were free to fight again, never serve a jealous master while I live. For the Parliament, by their late vote, hath declared a jealousie in all men that will not take the Covenant, which I can never do; and therefore, seeing I have served them faithfully, and they are grown jealous of me without cause, after so much assured experience of my faithfulnesse, I will never, in the mind I am now in, serve them as a soldier while I breath, let them get whom they please, and doe what they please[citation 39].’ Lord Clarendon gives the following account of this matter: That ‘from the the time of Lilburne’s returning to the army, after his imprisonment at Oxford, he was entertained by Cromwell with great familiarity, and in his contests with the Parliament, was of much use to him, and privacy with him. But he began then to find him so restless and unruly a spirit, and to make those advances in religion against the Presbyterians, before he thought it seasonable, that he dispensed with his presence in the army, where he was an officer of note, and made him reside in London, where he wished that temper should be improved; and when the Parliament was so much offended with his seditious humour, and the pamphlets he published every day in religion, with reflections upon their proceedings, that they resolved to prosecute him with great rigour; towards which the Assembly of Divines[citation 40], which he had likewise provoked, contributed their desire and demand. Cromwell wrote a very passionate letter to the Parliament, that they should so much discourage their army that was fighting for them, as to censure an officer of it for his opinion in point of conscience, for the liberty whereof, and to free themselves from the shackles in which the Bishops had enslaved them, that army had been principally raised; upon which all farther prosecution of Lilburne was declined at that time, tho’ he declined not their further provocation, and continued to make the proceedings of the Parliament as odious as he could[citation 41].’ The nature of this connexion between Cromwell and our author, which, agreeably to his plan, the noble historian here touches only in generals, will, in the sequel of this memoir, be seen fully and distinctly in the several particular incidents which were the effects thereof. To this purpose we must observe at present, that his Lordship is not to be understood (tho’ the words seem to imply as much) to signify our author’s continuance in the army long after the new model of it made by Fairfax and Cromwell, since the contrary is not only asserted by Lilburne, as appears in the text and remark thereto; but it is abundantly manifest in every step of his life after the time assigned there for his quitting the service. Moreover Lilburne expressly declares, in 1649, that after he threw up his commission, [in April 1645] he never could fight as a soldier, although Cromwell by himself, face to face, and by his agents (he was confident of it) had from time to time, and as earnestly sollicited him (as was possible for a man to be sollicited) to take a command in Fairfax’s army[citation 42]. And we shall find hereafter, that the arch-rebel had much more difficulty in managing the restless and unruly spirit of this underling, than his Lordship’s representation of it is apt to lead one into the belief of.
  15. ↑ [P] A printed epistle to Mr Prynne in June 1645.] Our author gives the following account of this piece: ‘No sooner was I by the ears with Manchester [in November this year[citation 43]], but Mr Prynne wrote his desperate invective books against us all that would not be conformable to the Covenant (that cheat), and the Scots Presbytery (that every thing and nothing); and would have had us all destroyed or banished the land of our nativity: so, in conscience to God, and safety to myself and brethren, I was inwardly compelled to deal with him that thus sought to destroy the generation of the Righteous; and accordingly I wrote him a sharp epistle now in print, dated 7, Jan. 1645[citation 44], which brought upon my back a whole sea of troubles; and a vote or votes in the House of Commons passed against me: whereupon, without any more a-do, black Corbet and the Committee of Examinations makes me a prisoner, and tosseth and tumbleth me to the purpose. So, before him, upon 13th of June 1645, was I forced to give in my reasons (now in print); wherefore I wrote that excellent and seasonable epistle (which was the first-avowed public cannon, I know of, in England discharged against the then insulting Presbyter for liberty of conscience[citation 45].’ By Mr Prynne’s invective books our author means, 1. Twelve considerable questions touching Church-government. 2. Independency examined and refuted. 3. A full Reply to certain brief Observations and Antiqueries on Mr Prynne’s Twelve Questions about Church government. 4. Brief Animadversions on Mr John Goodwin’s Theomachia, all printed by that author in 1644, in 4to; besides another the following year, against which Mr Lilburne’s Epistle, here spoken of, is particularly levelled, as appears from the title in these words: An Answer to Will Prynne, Esq; upon the coming out of his last booke, entitled, Truth triumphing over Falsehood; Antiquity over Novelty; in which are laid down five Propositions, which the author desires to discuss with the said Mr Prynne.
  16. ↑ [Q] Charged the Speaker with embezzling 60000 l. of the public money.] As this affair is but little known, we shall give the following representation of it, made by one of Lilburne’s friends[citation 46]. One Cob, a Sea-captain (says the author) who was a prisoner in the King’s-bench, and ill-used by Sir John Lenthal, the Keeper, found means to convey a letter to the Speaker, his brother; wherein he charged Sir John with seizing and detaining 60,000 l. belonging to Sir Basil Brooke, without giving any account of it to the Parliament: whereupon Cob being sent for out of prison, was brought to the door of the House of Commons, in order, as he thought, to make good his charge; for which purpose he carried three or four witnesses with him, to prove it. But the Speaker not calling him into the house, sent him out word, that he should go back, and that himself would come shortly to his brother, Sir John’s house, and speak with him there. Accordingly he did so, but would admit none to be present. However, Cob returning to the prison among his fellows, gave them a true account upon his reputation of what had passed; which was to this effect: That, as soon as he was brought into the room, the Speaker shew’d him his letter, and asked him if he would justify it? Yes, says Cob, and a great deal more, if you would do your duty in making it known to the honourable House of Commons. Upon this the Speaker turning to Sir John, said, If this be true, here is enough to hang you: to which Sir John replied, That Cob had misrepresented the matter; for, whereas, says he, he charges me with letting Violet [then a prisoner in the King’s-bench] go twice to Oxford, during the time that he and Sir Basil Brooke were contriving their plot against the City, you know I never let him go but once, and then I had your warrant for it. Well, well, (said the Speaker) Captain Cob I see you are an honest man, and much injured by your adversaries; but shake hands, and be friends with Sir John, and I will get you your liberty. But Cob perceiving that the Speaker did nothing in it, sent a copy of the aforesaid Letter to Mr William Pendry of London, with Ellen Thomas’s information about the 60,000 l. and which was then in Sir John’s hands; which Letter the said Pendry communicated to two Knights in Parliament, who took no more care than the Speaker to have it brought to light, nor the 60,000 l. attached. Thus the affair stood, if we may believe this author, when our Lieutenant-colonel wrote the above-mentioned epistle to William Lenthall, &c. wherein he lays open all this dark scene of roguery, as he calls it. On the 12th of July an information being given in to a Committee of the House of Commons by three citizens of London, Mr Pretty, Mr Rawson, and Mr Worley, that the 60,000 l. had been sent to Oxford. Our author also appeared as an evidence against Sir John; but the Committee having cleared him of the charge in the morning, the accusation mentioned[citation 47] in the text, was presented to the House in the afternoon by Colonel King and Dr Bastwick, the former of whom had received a fresh provocation from him in this epistle, where, among other aggravations of the Speaker’s injustice and unrighteous dealings, he did not forget that of his taking no notice of the impeachment, as he calls it, against the Colonel mentioned in remark [P]. Neither is this the only instance wherein King found means to pay him in his own coin, as is there also suggested. As to Bastwick, he appears plainly, as our author observes, to be in this affair a meer tool of Mr Prynne’s forming, by whom he was supported in it, as will be seen in the following remark.
  17. ↑ [R] He wrote an epistle—was sent to Newgate, and ordered to be tried for sedition, but discharged without a trial.] If Lilburne’s behaviour in this affair was insupportably impudent, yet it must be allowed that neither did his superiors, in chastising him, preserve that gravity which became senators. For after his commitment to Newgate, a warrant being made out for seizing the copies of his books, the officer, in virtue of that authority, entered with his attendants into his house, where, finding no-body but an old gentlewoman, whom they put into a great fright, they run up into the chamber, and his wife being then big with child, and near her time, they stole out of her drawers several pieces of child-bed linnen, besides other things, refusing to shew or give an account of them to the old gentlewoman who desired it[citation 48]. Our author having followed his blow upon Mr Prynne in the Epistle to a Friend, mentioned above, that antagonist, wrote an answer, intitled The Lyar confounded, &c. wherein he charged Lilburne with having joyned the Separatists and Anabaptists, in a conspiracy to root out the members of that parliament by degrees, beginning with Mr Speaker, whom, if they could cut off, all the rest would easily follow; and if this succeeded not, then to suppress and cut off this parliament by force of arms, and set up a new parliament of their own choice and function. To this our author, nothing dismayed thereat, printed a reply, with the title of Innocency and Truth justified, &c. In which he still insists that Prynne had more than a finger in his prosecution, alledging as a proof thereof, this last piece of that adversary, ‘which, says he, was framed, published cum privilegio, and dedicated to Mr Speaker, just at the time when he saw I was likely honourably to be delivered as a spotless and innocent man.’ Proceeding then to the charge of a conspiracy against the Parliament, he observes, that by this heinous charge, Prynne had manifested himself a perfect knave and enemy to the kingdom ‘in that he knew me, says he, guilty of such a thing, and never to this day durst question me, or prosecute me for it: and if it be but one of his false, malicious suggestions, then he proves and declares himself a lyar to fix so notorious a falshood upon him, that in this, and all other things, bids defiance to him; yea, and in the same false, scandalous, and transcendent lying book of his, besides scores of lyes, he fathers positively thirteen or fourteen upon me in less than eight lines[citation 49].’ Our author also offered publickly to prove this charge; but no notice being taken of that challenge, he triumphs in a piece written the next year over that lying and paultry fellow, ‘who durst never (says he) embrace my challenge there made to him, nor never so much as in any of his late voluminous lines return one word of answer, that ever I could see, to what there I justly fixed upon him; and therefore, by his silence in that particular, though he hath printed scores of sheets since, he hath given me just cause now to proclaime him so notorious and base a liar, that he is not ashamed to tell and publish above a dozen in eight lines[citation 50].’ Dr Bastwick also felt the point of our Lieutenant-colonel’s pen in this Epistle to a Friend. Mr Prynne therefore undertook his cause in a pamphlet, intitled A just Defence of John Bastwick, Doctor of Physick, against the Calumnies of John Lilburne, &c. in five sheets, 4to, by way of answer to a reproach cast upon the members of the House of Commons. In our author’s epistle he allows a great part of the members of the House of Commons to be in understanding no better than minors. Dr Bastwick having expressed himself to the same purpose in these remarkable words[citation 51]: As there is no family that is never so honest, that has not a whore or a knave of their kindred; so it is impossible in such a great council as the Parliament, but they should have some ninnies and groles, and men that have no more with than will reach from their nose to their mouth. The piece above cited, called England’s Birthright, &c. coming out in reply to that of Bastwick, the author thereof, making merry with this passage, says[citation 52], ‘Surely this Parliament will be contemptible not only to their foes, but also to their friends, and will never shake off this blot with the State unless they call him to an account, and make him name whom he means, and punish the licenser that durst be so bold to let such a book be published cum privilegio to the dishonour of the very Parliament itself. Surely Sir John, and his brother the Speaker, have fee’d Bastwick well, and are not very sound; that they put him their stalking-horse upon such desperate courses, to salve up their credit; and he has as little wit as honesty in him to be earnest for Sir John Lenthal in particular, who is notoriously known to be the greatest whoremaster, adulterer, rogue, cheat, thief, and what-not. There has so many complaints been made to this present Parliament (tho’ little effect they have taken, by reason of the Speaker’s power and interest) against him, whose common practice it is to walk in contempt and violation of the known laws of the kingdom, and the making of them null and of none effect, as much as in him lies, to the ruin and destruction of thousands of the free denizens of England. Besides his outlawries, which have been out against him these three years; he has dozens of executions upon him, and yet walks abroad, and continues Keeper of the King’s-bench prison, and Justice of Peace; and, as it is reported, is Chairman of a Committee, by means of which he is invested with a power to crush and destroy every man that but opens his mouth to speak of his baseness and injustice. The height of his injustice (continues he) and of his arbitrary and tyrannical government, is scarcely in Strafford to be parallelled, which his so insupportable to the poor opprest prisoners in the King’s-bench, that they have got a proverb among them in these words: The Lawyers rule the Committees, the Speaker rules the Lawyers, Sir John Lenthal rules the Speaker, Thomas Dutson rules Sir John Lenthal, and the Devil rules Dutson. In his letter to the council of Agitators, our author, ever mindful to make the best of every thing he did to his own advantage, ascribes his discharge from Newgate without a trial, to the influence which the state of his case, mentioned in the text, had upon the jury; but it is more probable that his escape was owing to the sharp letter which, as Lord Clarendon informs us, was wrote to the Parliament by Cromwell[citation 53]; which is likewise confirmed by several passages in England’s Birthright, pregnant with the highest encomiums upon Cromwell, who is there proclaimed to be seasoned at heart, and not rotten-cored; free from partiality and self-interest; well-skilled in soldering the disjoynted spirits in the army; and infinitely hating all factious partakings and base self-gains, p. 32; and ’tis remarkable, that while Lilburne lay in Newgate, upon a petition of some of his friends, the Speaker of the House of Commons sent him 100 l. in part of his arrears[citation 54].
  18. ↑ [S] No order was made for payment.] Here again he met his adversary, Mr Prynne, who, as Chairman of the Committee, tendred him an oath to the following effect: That he should swear what was due to him, and what he had received, and what free quarters he had had, as also what horses and arms from the State. This oath, as he acquaints his friend, he stoutly refused, resolving rather to lose all his money, and to be hanged, before he would make himself such a slave as to deprive himself of the benefit of the good and just laws of England, by taking such a wicked and unlawful oath. He farther alledged to the Committee, that having lost several of his papers and muster-rolls, when he was plundered as above-mentioned, at the siege of Newark, it was impossible for him to comply with the oath: and moreover, that he never dreamt of any such thing, as being called to give an exact account to the Parliament, walking, as he declares, by that rule that was established in the ordinances then in being; thinking that if the Army-Committee that was set other them to look to them, and the Council of War, that was to punish them for any misdemeanour, had nothing to say nor accuse him of, that he should have had his accounts audited, and sent by those persons named in the ordinance, under whom he served, and not be brought to a Committee at London; ‘That was not in being (continues he) when I engaged my life, nor had all the while that I was a soldier any power over us, nor never was in the field to know what belongs unto a soldier, and are merely in my apprehension intentively erected to cheat and ensnare honest and faithful commanders of their just due.’ This was a home-thrust, but he acknowledges it was aimed only at Prynne. He afterwards told them that he had his commissions ready to justify his service, and craved so much money as was due to him thereon for his pay, desiring them to let him have a charge what moneys, &c. they could fix upon him, and he would either acknowledge or disprove it; but the Committee assuring him, nothing could be done unless he would take the oath, he was dismissed, telling them he must and would repair again to the House of Commons that sent him thither[citation 55].
  19. ↑ [T] Charged with a debt of 2000 l. due to the State.] Before the decree for 2000 l. in the House of Lords was transmitted to the lower House, our author was summoned before the Committee of Accounts there, with the following warrant.
    By virtue of an Ordinance of Parliament of the 22d of February, 1643, for taking the general accounts of the Kingdom, these are to require you to appear before us of the Committee by the said Ordinance, at the House of Mr Freeman in Cornhill, London, on Wtdnesday next, at ten o’ clock in the forenoon. Hereof fail you not. Dated the 9th of March, 1645.
    Anthony Biddal, Thomas Bramfield,
    Thomas Hodges, Henry Hunter,
    Robert Ellis, Richard Burren,
    John Gregory, Humphry Foord.
    To Lieutenant Colonel John Lilburne.

    Coming before them, Mr Prynne again in the chair spoke to him thus: ‘Lieutenant-colonel, you were some months ago with us, by virtue of an order of the House of Commons, about your accounts, and we gave you time ever since to state them; but hearing nothing from you, according to our expectation, we have sent for you to clear yourself of above 2000 l. that is fixed upon you to be received of Mr Goulson the Treasurer, Mr Weaver, and Colonel King.’ To this the Lieutenant-colonel replied, that the order from the House of Commons, which gave them particular cognizance of his accounts, was procured by is own seeking, and that he brought it to them of his own accord, being not compelled by any man; that because he conceived it just, he had desired that the parties concerned in his accounts might be summoned before them; that so, face to face, the charge against him might be made good, and the ballance settled, which he was very confident was divers hundred pounds in his favour. That upon their refusing this, without his taking an oath, which he did then and still does hold to be unjust, notwithstanding the ordinance of Parliament authorizing them to insist upon it, he had left them to seek his right in a more legal way from the House; and that he was sure they neither commanded nor desired him to come any more before them; neither did he promise it. That the loss of time thereby was no loss to them, nor to the State, but to him, in whose debt, the State was, and not he to them; that if he had not certainly known it to be so, it was not likely he should have taken so much pains to get his accounts audited. In conclusion therefore, he desired he might have a particular charge, and have a competent time allowed to him to put in his exoneration, that so he might not be hindered from compleating his business before the Lords. ‘In which, (says he) Gentlemen, I hope you will not hinder me, by commanding me hither to wait upon you:’ but such a particular charge being again refused, unless he would take the aforesaid oath, and Mr Prynne still pressing that he should speedily come again before them, that so the State might not suffer, by reason of the moneys he had received, and stood charged with; he offered either that they should make stoppage of the money he expected to receive by the decree of the Lords, or else to put in good security to answer the charge. With this the Committee was satisfied, and gave him, at his own motion, a month, or six weeks time: for which he thanked them, and, taking his leave[citation 56], plyed his business in the House of Lords, where to effectuate their decree of March 5th, he obtained another for the present levying of the said 2000 l. out of the lands of the Lord Cottington, Sir Francis Windebanke, and Ingram the Deputy-warden of the Fleet, who gagged him upon the pillory, at eight years purchase, as they were before the wars, with the allowance of interest at 8 per cent. per annum, in case of obstructions for all or any part of it. To this purpose an Ordinance was drawn up, which fully passed that house on the 15th, 20th, and 27th of April, 1646, and was afterwards transmitted to the House of Commons[citation 57] for their consent.

  20. ↑ [U] A petition for the trial of Colonel King.] In this petition, to which a copy of the above-mentioned 22 articles is annexed, he confesses the charge of calling Colonel King a traytor, and declares himself ready to prove it, when the Colonel should be brought to his trial before the House: to obtain which trial, he urges that the Colonel’s offences (as the articles annexed evince) are not only treasonable and capital, but such as are properly examinable and only triable in Parliament[citation 58]. Wherefore, since he could not at law give any plea in bar or justification of the words pretended to be spoken by him, until the Colonel be either convicted or acquitted upon his trial, he prays that House to give orders to stay any further proceedings upon the said action of 2000 l. against him[citation 59], until sentence be given on the said trial.
  21. ↑ [W] The just man’s justification⟨.⟩] When our author found there was no likelihood of having his petition, mentioned in the last remark, read in the House of Commons, he went with Cromwell to Oxford, then besieged by the Parliament’s forces, to see if, with Colonel Ireton, and other of his friends there, he could do any thing to stave off his own trial at common law ’till Colonel King’s trial in Parliament was over; but his journey was to no purpose, being left (as he says) in the suds by Cromwell, who first engaged him in it [by his private instructions mentioned in remark [N]], and promised to stand to him[citation 60]. Upon this disappointment he returned to London, and consulted several Counsel, who all concurred in opinion, that he must put into the Court of Common-pleas no other plea than either guilty or not guilty; and likewise, that the common law took no notice of Ordinances or Articles of War, nor of any thing called treason but what was done against the King; by which argument Colonel King, in the betraying of Grantham and Crowland to the King’s party, had done that which was justifable and not punishable; ‘which was more (continues he) than I knew before; so that in this extraordinary transcendent strait, to save myself from being condemned by a Judge (whose power flows merely from an ordinance of Parliament) in 2000 l. for no other crime but for the faithful endeavouring to discharge my duty to the Parliament, in endeavouring the punishment of one professedly under the Parliament’s jurisdiction, for violating and transgressing their ordinances, unto which he himself stooped and submitted, I was of necessity forced and constrained, when all other just and rationall wayes and meanes failed me, to pen my plea myself, and in print direct it to the Judge; and called it, The Just Man’s Justification; or, A Letter by way of plea in Bar; written by Lieutenant-colonel J. Lilburne to the honourable Justice Reeves, one of the Justices of the Commonwealth’s court, commonly called Common-pleas[citation 61].’ In the entrance, he takes notice that he had before spoken with the Judge about this cause, and found a very courteous, fair, and rational carriage from him[citation 62], which emboldened him to write this letter: wherein, after many abuses thrown upon the Common-law proceedings therein, he denies that jurisdiction over him in the present cause, as being then depending in Parliament, and peremptorily refusing to put in any plea into the court, whose forms he did not understand himself, and would not trust the Serjeants to plead for him; he proceeds soldier-like in the following words: ‘Having contested above this seven years with all sorts and kinds of persons that would destroy me, and having often been in the field among bullets and swords, to maintaine the common liberties and freedomes of England, against all the declared traiterly oppugners thereof; and having, by the goodness of God, escaped many dangers and deaths, and being in my own apprehension ready to be ruinated and destroyed by a weapon inferior to a taylor’s bodkin, (namely) a formalitie or punctillo in law, it hath rouzed up my spirit to charge it with a soldier’s pure resolution in a new and unwonted manner[citation 63].’
  22. ↑ [X] Having cast some reflections upon the Earl of Manchester.] The offensive words are introduced in that part of this pamphlet, where our author relates he several applications which had been made to bring Colonel King to his trial, before the Earl of Manchester his General and a Council of War, and particularly those made to Cromwell, to use his interest with my Lord for that purpose: and, observing that they could not all prevail, he proceeds thus: ‘The reason of which I am not able to render, unlesse it were that his [Cromwell’s] two chaplains, Lee and Garter, prevailed with the Earles two chaplains, Mr Ash and Good, to cast a Scotch-clergy mist over their Lord’s eyes, that he should not be able to see any deformitie in Colonel King: but this I dare confidently say, if there we had had faire play, and justice impartially, King had as surely died as ever malefactor in England did.’ In his petition also to the House of Commons, annexed to this epistle, praying that the Colonel might be brought to his trial before them, having occasionally mentioned the Earl of Manchester, he put this marginal note thereto, who was since impeached of treason by L. G. C. [Lieutenant-General Cromwell] for being false to his trust, and had undoubtedly lost his head therefore, if L. G. C. had followed it as he should[citation 64]. What was the consequence of the Earl’s resentment, and the surprizing confidence of our author thereupon, will fall under the next remark. At present, the particular design of this memoir leads us to view the passages here quoted in another light; not as they relate to the quarrel between the Earl and Lilburne, but with regard to the connexion betwen him and Cromwell. In these passages we see a resentment plainly expressed of the latter’s behaviour, in forbearing to push the prosecution of Manchester. His accusation of that general had been presented to the House of Commons, in November 1644, soon after the action at Dennington-castle in Berkshre[citation 65]. Upon which a Committee was appointed to examine into the Earl’s conduct, before whom Lilburne had swore heartily, in support of the charge against him, incited thereto as well by his own quarrel with the Earl, on the score of Colonel King, as by Cromwell’s particular instigation[citation 66]. But after new modelling of the army, wherein Manchester was laid aside, the Lieutenant-general, his prosecutor, having obtained his ends[citation 67], resolved to give himself no farther trouble about the prosecution: however, considering Lilburne’s temper, it was necessary to hide that secret purpose from him, which was done so effectually, that no shadow of any suspicion he had thereof ever appeared before this epistle to Judge Reeves. On the contrary, the abovemention’d encomiums in England’s Birth-right[citation 68], are bestowed upon Cromwell, purely in the view of his good will to that prosecution, and in a full persuasion of his earnest desire to push it to a final issue: insomuch, that the author makes it one of his charges against the Parliament, that Cromwell was sent by them, contrary to his own inclination, first, to the siege of Taunton, and then to Windsor and elsewhere, with a particular design to keep him out of the way, and thereby hinder him from pursuing the upright purposes of his heart, either to lay Manchester flat upon his back, or fall himself in the conflict. So warmly was Lilburne at this time attached to his then unsuspected friend: but being left by this friend in the suds, as he expresses it upon the affair of his arrest by Colonel King abovementioned, he began to look more narrowly into his conduct; and thence were kindled those sparks of jealousy which shewed themselves first in the epistle to Judge Reeves. But we shall find him hereafter constantly speaking of Cromwell as his enemy, and treating him with the genuine virulence of his pen; except in an instance or two, when that arch dissembler found it necessary for compleating his own ends to shew this wayward spirit some favour; which was also as often repaid with suitable acknowledgements on his part.
  23. ↑ [Y] Persevered in shewing the utmost contempt of the upper House.] The author’s account of this whole affair is worth perusing, as follows: ‘Judge Reeves (says he) being wounded within at the downright truth of my formentioned Epistle or Plea, that lasheth the base and abominable corruptions of him and the rest of his brother judges; and finding something in it that brands Manchester for an unjust man in his late generalship, who then was Speaker of the House of Peers, away to him trudgeth the Judge in all post-haste with my book, to get him by his power to be revenged of me, which he was easily provoked and persuaded to; and accordingly the 10th of June, 1646, he gets an order to pass the Lords House, to summon me up to their bar, to answer to such things as I stood charged before their Lordships with, concerning the writing the aforesaid Letter or Plea; and when I came to their bar, they dealt with me like a Spanish Inquisition, in examining me against myself, which forced me then at the bar to deliver in my plea in law, to prove that by the Laws of England they had no jurisdiction over Commoners to try them either for life, limb, liberty, or estate[citation 69], which plea and protestation (continues he) made them mad, and for which they sent me to Newgate; from whence upon the 16th of June, I sent my appeal for justice to the House of Commons against them, which made the Lords madder; whereupon they, upon the 22d of June, 1646, issued out an order to bring me to their bar again, where, in contempt of their jurisdiction, I refused to kneel; for which they committed me to the keeper of Newgate, to be kept close prisoner without pen, ink, or paper, the accesse of my wife, or any other friend, which was with rigour sufficiently exercised upon me ’till the 10th of July, 1646; which day they issued out another order to bring me again to the bar, at which, when I came, in the height of contempt of their jurisdiction, I marched in amongst them with my hat on, and not only refused to kneel at their bar, but also with my fingers stopt both my ears when they went about to read my pretended charge; for all which they fined me 4000 l. to the King, and further sentenced me to be a prisoner seven years, or during their pleasure, in the Tower of London; to be for ever disfranchised of being capable to bear any office or place in military or civil government, in Church or Commonwealth[citation 70].’
  24. ↑ [Z] A remonstrance in his favour.] Before this Remonstrance, which threatens to break into the prison and release our prisoner by force, there is prefixed a print of our author’s head, with his face behind a cross-barred prifon window included in an oval frame, with this inscription thereon, Johannes Lilburne ætat. suæ 23, 1641. Over the frame are these words, The liberty of a free-born Englishman conferred on him by the House of Lords, 1646: to which, on the right hand, is added an escutcheon, bearing the arms of his family, three water-budgets, with a half-moon for distinction of the second son. Under the frame are the following no contemptible lines:
    Gaze not upon this shadow that is vain,
    But rather raise thy thoughts a higher strain;
    To God I mean, who set this young man free,
    And in like straight, can eke deliver thee;
     Yea, tho’ the Lords have him in bonds againe,
    The lord of Lords will his just cause maintaine.

    This print appears plainly to be done at our author’s discharge from the Fleet in 1641. The inscription over the frame, and the two last verses under it being added, and the head, which is well graved[citation 71], probably retouched upon this occasion.

  25. ↑ [A A] He found means to write a petition.] This was a piece of management for which our author triumphed soon after over the Lieutenant of the Tower, Colonel Francis West, in the following terms: ‘On the 10th of July, 1646, I came hither, and you sent me to the lodge where I am, with extraordinary strict and severe commands upon my keeper, who, within certain days after I came to him, demanded chamber-rent of me at a great deal higher rate than I pay: I told him necessity had no law, and I therefore desired him to ask me reasonable, and he should see what I would say to him. So at last he asked me 15s. per week. I told him I knew well the laws of all the prisons in England, and 15s. per week was a great deal of money for bare lodging; but in regard it was with me as it was, conditionally that he for his part would use me and my friends that should come to see me with civillity and humanitie, I would give him 15s. per week, and find my own linnen besides; protesting unto him, that the first time he used me or any that came to see me churlishly, I would not pay him one penny more of money: and I must ingenuously confess, I had no cause to complain of the man in point of civility, nor he of me in performing my promise: for I have paid him, tho’ it has been with some straights to me, betwixt 20 and 30l.—Now (continues he) I will deal ingenuously with you, and give you the true reason why I condescended to pay chamber-rent at first. It was because I had potent enemies to deal with in the House of Lords, who had sentenced me to pay 4000l. illegally and unjustly, and entred crimes against me in their records: I told you at first I was refreshed at my hopes of being freed, but I thought you would have destroyed me before I could clear myself, and anatomize their cruelty, both of which my soul thirsted after; and therefore if I had been able I would have purchased an opportunity of doing it at 20l⟨.⟩ a week. And truly, Sir, I have done my do, and published my cause to the view of the whole kingdom. First, In my wife’s petition, delivered to the House of Commons, September 23d, 1646. 2dly, In my book called London’s Liberty in Chains, discovered. And, 3dly, Twice before the Committee of the honourable House of Commons; the last discourse of which I published under the title of the Anatomy of the Lords Tyranny; and some friends have helped me in Vox Plebis, and Regal Tyranny discovered; which will live when I am dead, and prove the Lords winding-sheet[citation 72].’ This is another instance of Lilburne’s confidence in boasting; for notwithstanding we see him here declaring with such an air of self-satisfaction, that he had brought the keeper entirely to his bow; yet we find him inserting a postscript to his book called London’s Liberty in Chains discovered, purely to apologize for any incorrectness in the reasoning, or any errors or deficiencies in the quotations of that piece, on account of his being debarred pen, and ink, and paper, and obliged to write by scraps as he could steal an opportunity; and that he had no means of perusing or correcting his papers either before or after they were put to the press. The truth is, this bragging temper was as much a part of his constitution as quarrelling, he could no more forbear that than this, nor either of them, any more than (to use an expression of his own) he could forbear eating when he was hungry. Both were continually breaking out in season and out of feason. Indeed it must be owned, that the passage now under consideration was well-timed enough. He had then formed a design[citation 73], which he afterwards carried into execution[citation 74], of exerting all the powers of his pen to raise such a mob as should be able to attempt something effectual towards redeeming him from his captivity, in order to which it seemed necessary to possess them before-hand, with a full persuasion of his extraordinary worth and abilities. But this purpose in his present circumstances was answered undeniably well, by setting before their eyes a fresh proof of those abilities in outwitting his keeper, and in him the Lieutenant of the Tower, and thereby evacuating an express order of the House of Lords. Surely such a hero must be deserving of any enterprize in his behalf. In short, this has so much the face of a well-concerted scheme, that was not the faculty of glorying in his impudence perfectly congenial to Lilburne’s nature, and ever forward to display itself without the view of serving any particular end therein, one would be apt to look upon the present instance of it as a pure piece of art.
  26. ↑ [B B] Oppressive ordinances.] We have given the matter of his offence to the House of Commons, in the text, but no words, except his own, can represent the peculiar aggravations of it. Thus having declared that he has tried all fair means to get his report made to the House, that so he might have a hearing before them; and that he desires nothing more than to be called out to a legal trial, he proceeds in these words; ‘which, if they do not, but resolve to keep me here, I will, by God’s afsitance, before many months be expired, give them cause, with a witness, to call me out; for here, if I can help it, I will not be destroyed with a lingring death, tho’ they cut me to pieces as small as flesh for the pot. And therefore, having now with a long deliberation committed my wife and children to the care and protection of an All-merciful God, whom, for about these ten years, I have feelingly and senfibly known for my God in Jesus Christ, who with a mighty protection and preservation hath been with me in six troubles, and in seven, and from the day of my public contests with the Bishops, hath enabled me to carry my life in my hands, and to have it always in a readiness to lay it down in a quarter of an hour’s warning, knowing that he has in store for me a mansion of eternal glory. All these things considered, I am now determined, by the strength of God, if herein I have not speedily that justice, which the law of England offers me, which is all I crave or stand in awe of, no longer to wait upon the destructive seasons of prudential men, but forthwith to make a formal Appeal to all the kingdom of England and dominion of Wales, and set my credit upon the tenters to get money to print 20000 of them, and send them gratis to all the counties of England. The ingredients of which shall be filled with the Parliament’s own declarations against the King, turned upon themselves and their present praftices; then with an account of my Star-chamber sufferings[citation 75]; and conclude with a declaration what is the end, wherefore Parliaments by law ought and should be called; which is to redress mischiefs and inconveniencies, but not to increase them. He afterwards challenges them to shew any instance of an act or ordinance since the wars begun, that is for the universal good of the Commons of England that have borne the burthen of the day; on the contrary, he charges them with having made several ordinances to establish monopolies, (as that of merchant-adventurers, who have an exclusive power of sending cloth to the Netherlands, whereby he was hindered from following his trade) and avows that in their practice they had unhinged Magna Charta and the Petition of Right[citation 76].’
  27. ↑ [C C] Called before the Committee for scandalous pamphlets.] The issue of this affair is related above, but there happened one incident in the proceedings upon it, which sets the character of our author’s wife in so striking a light that it must not be omitted in the notes. This notable help-mate to her husband, was fetched by a particular warrant before the same Committee for dispersing the pamphlets now under examination, where Mr Corbet was Chairman. And in the course of the debates there, Lilburne declaring with his usual audaciousness, that before either that Committee, or any other power in England whatever it be, should rob him of his justly expected recompence of reward for all his labours, travels, and hazards, (which recompence of reward was the enjoyment of the just privileges and benefits of the good laws of the kingdom) he would spend his heart’s blood against them: ‘Yea, (continues he) if I had a million of lives I would sacrifice them all against you; and therefore, seeing you have all of you solemnly lifted up your hands to the most high God, and sworn to maintaine the laws of the kingdom, I desire you for your own credit’s sake to deal with me so, as not to give me too just cause to avouch it to your faces you are a company of forsworn men, and so to publish and declare you to the whole kingdom.’ With this Mr Weaver, burgess for Stamford said, ‘Mr Corbet, I conceive such reproachful and dishonourable expressions as Mr Lilburne gives us to our faces, is not to be endured or suffered, and therefore, I beseech you, let us be sensible of the honour due to our authority, and the house whereof we are members.’ To which our prisoner replied, that he was very confident he had said nothing dishonourable to the legal and just interest and power either of the House or the Committee, being no despiser of the just and legal authority of the House, nor desirous to affront or reproach the Committee; but begged them to consider that he was but a man, and a prisoner under many provocations; and to be so roughly fallen upon as he was by half a dozen of them at a time, and interrupted in making his legal defence, and not be suffered to speak his own words, was very hard: ‘and it is possible (continues he) I may be provoked to heat, and in heat say that, that is not convenient and fitting, the which if I should doe, I hope you, Mr Corbet, have understanding enough to judge and to reprove me for it; and truly, Sir, upon your reproofe, if I can possibly apprehend and see I have done amisse, I shall presently cry you peccavie.’ Hereabouts his wife, seeing Mr Weaver so furious upon him as he was, and greatly alarmed with the dreadful apprehensions that his noble spirits were thereupon sinking below their true natural standard, into the point of moderation[citation 77] and prudence, burst out with a loud voice, and said, ‘Did not I tell thee often enough long since that thou woulst serve the Parliament, and venture thy life so long for them, ’till they would hang thee for thy paines, and give thee Tyburn for thy recompence. I told thee besides, thou shouldst in conclusion find them a company of unjust and unrighteous judges; that more sought themselves and their own ends than the publique good of the Kingdome, or any of those that faithfully ventured their lives therefore[citation 78].’ We have not been able to discover the family of this high-mettled gentlewoman, but this present instance is sufficient to convince us, that Mr Lilburne had either the good sense or the good fortune in her to pick out a very suitable match for himself. Seven years after their marriage, he declares she had been the greatest comfort he had in all his troubles, ’till that time[citation 79]; and his meaning therein is clearly and fully unfolded in this pathetic speech, which manifestly shews that she was endowed with a spirit so exactly tallying with his own, that nature seems to have designed her for his counter-part; and accordingly it appears from several passages in his writings. that they lived in perfect harmony with each other[citation 80].
  28. ↑ [D D] Their arbitrary Assistants in the House of Commons.] Our author being persuaded that old Sir Henry Vane was one of the chief of these arbitrary assistants to the Lords against him. Among other resolutions executed in this piece, exerts himself in a particular manner against that old fox, as he calls him; being determined to pay him off, cost it hanging, burning, drowning, strangling, poisoning, starving, cutting in pieces, or whatever it will or can, ‘Yea, tho’ it lose me, (says he) all the interest I have in the world in any or all the great ones thereof, put Lieutenant-General Cromwell into the number[citation 81].’ Thus animated, he sets out with the business of the twelve subsidies, which occasioned the sudden dissolution of the short Parliament in 1640, and declares he had been told by one who sat therein, that Sir Henry had no such commission from his Majesty, but did it purely with a design to breed a quarrel between the King and the Parliament, and thereby procure that dissolution, on set purpose to save himself from being questioned about his dangerous and desperate monopoly of gun-powder, and other of his illegal knaveries in which he was deep enough, even over both boots and shoes. From this information given him by a member in that Parliament, he proceeds, as upon his own knowledge, to give an account of that monopoly; and tells us, that Sir Henry having jostled Sir John Evelyn out of the Powder-master’s place, put one Samuel Cordell, his valet de chambre, or gentleman, into it, as his agent; who, having the sole monopoly of making all the powder in England, furnished it for seven pence halfpenny into the Tower, which was sold out commonly for eighteen pence per pound at the first hand, besides the charge of getting three warrants; first one from the Council-board to the Master of the Ordnance, then Lord Newport, which cost dear enough; and then a second from his Lordship to the officers of the Ordnance; and a third from them to the particular clerk that kept the powder; all which were attended with trouble, cost, and money, besides a fee of a mark paid to the officers of the Ordnance, for every last of powder delivered: and Cordwell constantly engaged to bring in twenty lasts a month, there being twenty-four barrels in every last, and a hundred pound in every barrel[citation 82]. That Sir Henry likewise, as the principal instrument of setting this dangerous monopoly on foot, forced the merchants and seamen to give large bribes, or use some other indirect means to obtain his warrant to surnish their ships, notwithstanding they were forced to pay double the price for it; nay, almost treble to the rate it was sold at before his monopoly. That moreover, by this means, he disfurnished all parts of the kingdom was notoriously known to all the deputy-lieutenants, and thereby laid it open to a foreign invasion, which created strong jealousies in the people of a design to inslave and invassalize them; and was no little occasion of the present wars, by increasing the divisions between the King and people. After this having mentioned his own sufferings in the Star-chamber, where Sir Henry was then a judge; he goes on to observe, that not being able to hinder the Long Parliament from securing themselves from a dissolution, Sir Henry took care to behave himself so as to merit preservation from the swaying party. That to this end, being the King’s Secretary, and by virtue of that office acquainted with his Majesty’s secrets, in regard to which, tho’, as a Privy-counsellor, he was under the strictest obligation of secrecy to the King, ‘yet out the secrets went, particularly in the Earl of Strafford’s case; of which, (adds he) I have heard some great ones say, it was screwed to the highest pin, if not higher than in honesty and in justice it should;’ but this he did, not only to save himself, but to gain himself an esteem in the present Parliament; and so be in a possibility by the interest of his son, Sir Henry (Altho’ (fays he) to men, that were half blind, there was, and I think still is, a seeming enmity betwixt him and his father,) in time to make himself amends for his 8000l. a year by his places, which, by deserting the King, he was likely to lose; and indeed it is commonly reported, that as one of the Committee of the King’s revenue, he hath learned to lick his own fingers well.’ He then proceeds to lay open Sir Henry’s treachery to both sides, in his doubling carriage between them at the breaking out of the wars. As his obtaining the Place of Lord-Lieutenant of the County of Durham from the Parliament, and then sending his son, Sir George Vaine, on the King’s side at the battle of Edge-hill; and also conveying his magazine of arms from his castle at Raby, by Conyers his Land-steward and Dingley his Sollicitor, as a present for the King to the Earl of Newcastle[citation 83], then and there in arms against the Parliament; which Earl, he tells us, ‘might have been easily supprest at his coming there, if old Sir Henry Vaine had been true to his trust to the Parliament. All this while, if the King lost the day and the Parliament prevailed, here was himself and his son, young Sir Henry Vaine, to make good his interest on this side; so that, which way soever the game went, the old fox was sure in his own thoughts to stand upon his legs. But perceiving the King likewise to go down the weather by the Scots coming in[citation 84], he whistles away his son Sir George from the King’s army, and sending him to Durham, makes him Receiver of the King's sequestred revenue there, a place worth several hundreds a year; as also Chief Deputy-Lieutenant, Justice of Peace and Quorum, Committee-man, and Chairman of the Committee, having also the Posse Comitatus put into his hands:’ and that besides this son, there was a third son lately come out of Holland, where he had been a captain; and tho’ he had not a foot of land in the county, yet was made a Justice of Peace, and had other gainful offices there. Mr Lilburne concludes these remarks upon old Sir Henry Vane and his family, with observing that several other members of Parliament, especially the ruling ones among them, were equally guilty of the grossest knaveries and villainies, and corruptions, in the sad and afflicting contemplation of which, he breaks into the following exclamation: ‘O England, England, woe unto thee, when thy chosen preservers turn to be thy grand destroyers, and instead of easing thee of thy grievances, with a high hand of violence protect from justice those that commit them; and thou seest and knowest it, and yet art like a silly dove without heart, and dares not open thy mouth wide to reprove it, and endeavour, by petition or otherwise, the amending of it. Surely and undeniably that body, who or whatever it be, that is not able to evacuate it’s excrements, is nigh unto giving up the ghost, or of bursting out into such botches and ulcers, that it shall be an eye-sore to all that behold it, and stink in the nostrils of all men that have their senses[citation 85].’ Upon the whole, we see here several remarkable particulars concerning old Sir Henry Vane, which are not mentioned by Lord Clarendon, and will therefore be of service in throwing some further light upon the character given by his Lordship of that notorious Baronet. This extract also shews us how greatly our author’s attachment to Cromwell was loosened at this time, and accordingly we shall see it intirely disjointed in the next remark.
  29. ↑ [E E] He sent Cromwell a threatning letter, &c.] This Letter was in the following terms:

    ⁠‘SIR,
    It has been my unhappiness to be undone, and of late in a manner destroyed by men of gilded outsides, and, among the rest, I must plainly and truly tell you, I judge you the chiefe, and shall, if you please to give me so much libertie as to come and speak with you, easily evince it to your face, with that moderation as becomes a man that loves honesty and goodlinesse wheresoever he finds it, but that hates knavery and dissimulation in whatsoever person he meets it. Soe I have used all the meanes in the world I could think of to unbowel my mind as a friend to you face to face, but cannot prevail with you any otherwise than to flight me and my desires. I have lately sent you a fair message by Captain John White; and by him I received a contemning answer, onely be pressed me to know which way I could do you and your flattering darlings a displeasure. I have now at present sent him by Mr Billers, a copy of this inclosed paper to send speedily to you with this message, that I to verily believe, that that paper printed with such a paraphrase upon it as I could easily make, for all your present conceived greatnesse, would easily pull you as low, before you are three months older, as I am. I have honored you, and my good thoughts of you are not wholly gone, tho’ I confesse they are very much weakened. Sir, I must earnestly beg it at your hands, that you will within a week order it so, that I may either come and speake with you, or else that you would come and speake with me, that so I may, betwixt you and me, declare that, which truely my provocations and sufferings will hardly let me to keep from public view. I     have sent you this letter unsealed by this bearer, Mr Hunt (who very much honours you), of purpose to make some additions to it, and to leave you (as my last to you) without all excuse in case you sleight this, as you have done all my often former addresses to you, and I shall rest,

    SIR,

    From the place of my standing century, in my watchtower at the Tower of London, this 13th of August, 1647.

    your true universal friend, as I have formerly been, when you will manifest your selfe to be lesse for your own tottering greatnesse, and more for distributive justice, and the common not factious good of your poor native country,

    JOHN LILBURNE,
    That neither loves basenesse nor fears greatnesse.’

    The forementioned paper here follows.

    ‘Lieutenant-General Cromwell’s family in the army.

    Imprimis, Himself Lieutenant-general and Colonel of Horse. 2dly, One of his own sons Captain of the General’s Life-guard. 3dly, The other son Captain of a Troop of Horse in Colonel Harrison’s regiment, both, young, raw, and unexercised soldiers. 4thly, His brother-in-law, Desborow, Colonel of the General’s regiment of Horse. 5thly, His Son-in-law, Ireton, Commissary-general of the Horse and Colonel of Horse. 6thly, His brother, Ireton, Major-general of Horse and Captain of a Troop of Horse. 7thly, His Cousin Whaley, Colonel of Horse. 8thly, And his brother, lately made Judge-advocate. And all these are the Lieutenant’s creatures at his beck and command; besides his Cabinet Junto, which are principally Colonel Robert Hammond, Colonel Nathaniel Rich, Colonel Harrison, and Scout-master general Watson; and Commissary Staines, and Mrs Cromwell, are said to be the Cabinet Junto for placing and displacing of Officers in the Tower of London, who, ’tis said, have nominated Robert Spavin, the Lieutenant-general’s Man, their chiefe favouret, to be the Master of the Armory in the place of Mr Anthony Nichols, one of the eleven impeached members; so that it is evident and plain, that Lieutenant-general Cromwell’s chiefe design is not the good of the kingdom, and the promoting of universal and unbiassed justice, but the advancement of himselfe and his own kindred and friends; which will undoubtedly destroy him if he speedily look not very well about him. For the principal power of the kingdome being in his hands (not in the General’s nor the Agitators) all the grand oppressions, injustice, and delays in justice, will and must be laid upon his shoulders, seeing he has now power enough to help it, if he had a mind.—This Letter (says he) I caused to be delivered to Cromwell at Kingston[citation 86].’

  30. ↑ [F F] Another to the General, undertaking to make good that charge.] Here follows a copy of it:
    ‘To his Excellency Sir Thomas Fairfax, Captain-general of all the forces in England, at his head-quarters at Putney. This present:

    Give me leave to acquaint your Excellency, That the Lord’s-day last I sent your Honour a large letter to intreat you to make no address at all to the Lords for me; and this day, at the desire of some of the Agitators, I have fully stated my accounts to them[citation 87], and acquainted them fully what I desire, the substance of which was to use their utmost interest to get the House of Commons to call for my report from Mr Henry Martin, (who, with the Committee where he was Chairman, did many months ago hear my cause) and upon it either to justify me or condemn me, for protesting against the Lords jurisdiction over the Commons, my legal peers and equals, for protection, justice, and right against the Lords usurpation. But, most worthy Sir, the chiefe reason, why I now make bold to trouble your Excellence is, because I am continually told again and againe of many hard speeches against me at your quarters for opposing Lieutenant-general Cromwell; which makes me think sometimes that my deliverance is much retarded thereby. Vouchsafe me therefore liberty, Most Noble Sir, humbly to your most just and worthy selfe to make this proposition, that if the Lieutenaut-general, or any other in the army, conceive that I have done him any wrong, that if he please to chuse two honest men, I will chuse two more, and also your Excellence to be umpire betwixt us, before whom I do humbly desire our differences may be truly debated; and what the issue of all shall be, I, for my part, will stand to, and fulfil your Excellencie’s award, be it what it will be, if it be within my power. So craving pardon for my continued boldness with your Excellency, I commit you as my owne soul to the protection of the most High, and shall rest,

    Sir,

    Your Excellency’s most obliged, faithful Servant,

    to the utmost of his power,

    John Lilburne.
    From my prerogative, lawless, and unjust Captivity in the Tower of London, 26th of August, 1647[citation 88].’
  31. ↑ [G G] Appealed to the Agitators.] Our Lieutenant-colonel, from the time of his first taking a distaste to Cromwell, had made it his business to raise and foment this mutiny against him; and when he saw it work’d up into something of a body by the engagement agreed upon, and subscribed at Newmarket-heath[citation 89], on the 5th of July this year, he presently grew big with the most sanguine hopes of his fulfilling the fondest wish of his heart thereby[citation 90]. The first step necessary to be taken for him was evidently to procure his liberty: and in order to this, he formed a scheme, in concert with the principal mutineers, to draw up a state of his case, and send it, together with his petition thereon, in a letter to their Council, who were to present it to the grand Council of the army, and to exert the utmost strength of their power to effectuate it’s favourable reception there; and even to cram it, if possible, forcibly down the Lieutenant-general’s throat: and lastly (as there was reason enough to apprehend) that could not be compassed, they were to apply to Fairfax, as Constable of the Tower, for his order (which would be sufficient now the Parliament’s power was annihilated, and consequently the supremacy vested actually in the General) to release him as his prisoner, atleast upon giving bail[citation 91]. But every part of this plan as well as all their other measures were broken by Cromwell. That arch-rebel had kept a watchful eye upon the motions of these turbulent spirits from their first appearance in the army, and was now fully determined to crush a confederacy which was notoriously aimed to subvert all his views. The method he took to effect it, by pistolling the forwardest man among them in the foremost rank, at the head of his regiment[citation 92], is recorded by Lord Clarendon, as one of the boldest actions in the Life of that amazing man[citation 93]; and it is no diminution to the bravery of Lilburne’s spirit, that, after a conflict sustained for several years with unabated, tho’ unavailing, hardiness, he was flung at last by that matchless trickster, Huic uni forsan succumbere natus.
  32. ↑ [H H] Cromwell made him a friendly visit in the the Tower.] The intention of this visit, wherein he complied with Lilburne’s request of seeing him face to face, was to sound him upon the mutiny raised by the Agitators. In this view he told him of a report there was, that he designed, if he was discharged, to go down to the army, and make a disturbance there; intimating withal, that any clashing which might happen on his account, might at this juncture be of extraordinary prejudice to the kingdom; whereupon Lilburne assured him that, to cut off all possibility of any danger that might be apprehended from him, provided the House would do him reasonable justice, he should be so far from going down to the army in order to make a disturbance there, that he would immediately leave the kingdom, and voluntarily engage himself not to come into it again as long as the present troubles lasted; and to prevent, as much as possible, any clashing between the Houses on his account, he declared, that if the Commons would determine his cause against the usurpation of the Lords, he would leave all things concerning his private demands and sufferings ’till the next Parliament; and if that never came, he would never ask for reparation, of them. He tells us, he had many fair promises from Cromwell at this conference[citation 94], and we find him writing the same day to Sir Henry Martin as follows:

    ⁠‘Sir,
    Your late endeavours to make my poor report hath given me full satisfaction for your former neglect in that very businesse. I hear you are order’d by the present linsey-woolsey House of Commons to make it to them to-morrow; for my part I cannot own men (tho’ otherwise never so honest) that sate in the House of Commons in the Speaker’s absence, but as traytors and enemies to their country, who are already so declared by the body of the army, by whose means I had thought the House would have been purged of them: and therefore I cannot own any of them my Judges. In which regard I intreate you, that if you shall attempt the making of my report, that you acquaint the Speaker and the House with the true contents hereof. Sir, I desire farther to let you know, that I am not so in love with a prison as to refuse my liberty from the hands of any power in the kingdom, so I am meer passive, and not active in the seeking and procuring of it: but I, for my part, cannot desire it from any power, (tho’ I perish in it) but from that I judge to be a just power; tho’ I can take it from any power that will of themselves put it upon me. Soe with my service and true respects presented to you, I commit you to God, and rest

    Your faithful Friend to serve you,

    John Lilburne[citation 95].
    From my lawless captivity in the Tower of London, September the 13th, 1647.’
  33. ↑ [I I] The House referred the case back to the Committee.] If we may believe our author, Cromwell had the chief hand in this delay. ‘For (says he to Mr Maynard)[citation 96], when my wife procured a sitting of the Committee in the afternoon of that day, when my cause was referred again to you, the Lieutenant-general being there, moved, thatsince the cause was so knotty, and of so great concernment, it might be referred to some lawyers of their House to canvass it, who should have power to search for precedents;’ however that be, which is indeed well becoming the infinite guile and subtilty of the man, ’tis certain Lilburne construed it to intend nothing else but a malicious design to keep him at least fifteen months longer in prison. In which persuasion he wrote a second letter[citation 97] to his friend, Sir Henry Martin, wherein he falls upon Cromwell to the purpose, charging him with hindring the General, as Constable of the Tower, from taking bail, which he had offered upon his deliverance from thence; says, he is glued in interest and counsels with those four sons of Machiavel, who never heartily loved the liberty of the Commons, Lord Say, Lord Wharton, young Sir Henry Vaine, and Sollicitor St John; avers, that he brought him into all his troubles, and now unworthily and dishonourably leaves him in them; declares he should, as the cause now stands, die, if he may do it Samson-like, with as much satisfaction as ever he did eat or drink in his life; attests that he sees Cromwell’s and Vane’s design is to keep the people everlastingly in bondage with a rotten and putrified Parliament; accuses Cromwell of placing none but noun-adjectives in the army, with a design to set a new England independent tyranny[citation 98], now we have, says he, thrown down a bloody Episcopacy, and a persecuting tyranny; concludes with openly avowing his resolution to try what the private soldiers in the army, and the hob-nails and clouted-shoes will do for him. He also upon another occasion[citation 99] confesses, that he was at this time free both with his pen and tongue in discovering Cromwell’s hocus-pocus dealings with him and the kingdom, who appears, says he, to me to be one of the notablest jugglers that ever I was familiar with in the kingdom.
  34. ↑ [K K] A Letter to the Lieutenant of the Tower.] We shall insert this letter (which is short) because it is a further evidence of the present situation of our author’s mind, with regard to the House of Commons.

    ‘SIR,
    I am apt to think that if the Committee of the House of Commons come this afternoon, that in reference to the General’s letter it may be sent for by them. Truly, Sir, I desire not to affront them, which I must of necessity doe, if they send for me; being I cannot own the power of the House of Commons in their present mixture. Therefore, if they should go about to send for me, I intreat you to do your best to divert it, and I will be ready to give you my petrowle and securitie, if they and you agree upon it. Sir, I hope you will excuse the boldness of,

    18th of September, 1647.

    SIR,

    Your humble Servant,
    J. Lilburne[citation 100].’
  35. ↑ [L L] A proposition to argue his cause with any forty lawyers in the kingdom.] This challenge was evidently aimed at Cromwell, being given by way of answer to his reason for deferring the determination of Lilburne’s cause in the Committee, that it should be referred to some lawyers to canvass it. The paper was drawn up in these terms:
    ‘The Proposition of Lieutenant-colonel John Lilburne, Prerogative-prisoner in the Tower of London, made unto the Lords and Commons assembled at Westminster, and to the whole Kingdom of England, Oct. 2, 1647.
    I grant the House of Lords, according to the statute of Edw. III. c. 5. to have in law a jurisdiction for redressing of grievances, either upon illegal delays or illegal judgments given in any of the Courts of Westminster-hall, provided they have the King’s particular commission therefore, and other the legal powers contained in that statute, which jurisdiction, and no other, seems to me to be confirmed by the statute of the 27th of Eliz. c. 8. and 31 Eliz. c. 1.  
    But I positively deny that the House of Lords, by the known and declared law of England, have any original jurisdiction over any Commoner whatsoever, either for life, limb, liberty, or estate, which is the only and alone thing in controversy betwixt them and me. And this position I will in a public assembly, or before both Houses, in law debate with any forty Lawyers in England, that are practitioners of the law; and I will be content the Lords shall chuse them every man: and if after I have said for myself what I can, that any three of these forty Lawyers sworne to deliver their judgments according to the known law of England give it under their hands against me, I will give over my present contest with the Lords, and surrender myself up to the punishment and sentence of the present Lords and Commons.
    Provided at this debate I have six or ten of my friends present to take in writing all that passeth thereupon.
    Witnesse my hand and seale, in the presence of divers witnesses in the Tower of London, this 2d of October, 1647[citation 101].’
  36. ↑ [M M] He promised to leave the kingdom, &c.] The insults he had offered with his tongue and pen to Cromwell, giving great distaste to some of his near friends, who said, they would not only undo himself, but all that had any relation to him, and pressed him to do something that was reasonable and moderate to get his liberty; one of them assuring him, that he knew if he would do so and so[citation 102], he might have it. Hereupon our author considering that if he was set at liberty, he could not live in England to follow any employment, excepting oaths and tythes were abolished. ‘For (says he) either I must follow my trade, a clothier, which here I cannot do without taking oaths, which I cannot take; or else I must live in the country, and there I neither can nor would pay tythes; in which regard, if I were at liberty, I must of necessity go beyond seas. I did therefore propose, that upon that condition if the House of Commons will pass their judgment upon my protest against the Lords, and evacuate their sentence, and immediately help me to the 2000l. the Lords adjudged me, and get me but in ready money one half of my arrears for the whole, being 6 or 7000l. audited before a Committee of their own House, I would immediately lay out my money in cloths, or other commodities; and if I can pass with them, I will forthwith leave the kingdome, to which I will promise, without licence, I will not return for the space of twelve months for the rest of the money; and so I shall leave this Parliament ts the management of their own affairs among themselves. Witness my hand and seal this 6th of October, 1647.
    J. Lilburne.’
    But instead of obtaining his liberty thereby, as he was confidently made believe he should, they calumniated him as a man that neither cared for England, nor the liberties thereof, but merely and only fought for his money and his own ends; ‘whose juggling dealings with me (continues he) I shall more largely bring to notice, when I print my letter to subtle Mr Allen, the Agitator, which, by God’s affitance, shall speedily follow; and then my Appeal next to that, wherein I will cry out aloud, murder! oppression! and desolation to the whole kingdom! and with strong heart and voice call upon the House of Commons to judge my appeal, which I judge is now hindered by the grandees of the army, who, I may say, are body and soul the Lords creatures, as great lovers of tyranny, oppression, injustice, and dissimulation as they. And so I rest,
    John Lilburne,
    That neither loves basenesse, nor fears greanesse[citation 103].’
  37. ↑ [N N] Was afterwards remitted to the Tower, and ordered to be tried for seditious practices.] Some account of this affair is printed in Rushworth’s Collections[citation 104], which in substance is, that after a conference, January 18th, between the two Houses, their Lordships acquainted the House of Commons, that they had received information by one Mr Masterman, Minister of Shoreditch, that being desired by a friend of his to go to a private house to give his judgment on a petition to be presented to the House of Commons, he accordingly went, and found there Lieutenant-colonel John Lilburne, and many others, debating about the said petition; and that Lilburne did then speak many things tending much to the dishonour of both Houses of Parliament, and their proceedings, and expressed himself in such language against both, that it was not fitting for a man of his coat to mention them; and that this was stiled a petition, and that many thousand copies thereof should be dispersed through the kingdom to the dishonour of the Parliament and their proceedings. That their Lordships had formerly committed Lilburne to the Tower of London, and having information of his going abroad, sent to the Lieutenant of the Tower to know the reason he was not detained in custody, according to the order of that House; who answered, that there was lately an order of the House of Commons directed to him, and requiring him to suffer the said Lilburne to go abroad about his occasions; and that since the said order he could give no account of him. In conclusion, their Lordships desired that no occasion might be given to hinder the union and affection between both Houses of Parliament, and that the House would speedily consider of this business. The House of Commons accordingly took this business into consideration, and had much debate thereupon; and ordered, that their former order should be repealed, and that Lieutenant-colonel John Lilburne be committed prisoner to the Tower, and that the Lieutenant of the Tower should bring him to the bar of the House of Commons tomorrow morning: and another order was made, that Mr Wildman should be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms. January 19th, the House resuming the same affair, Lilburne was called in, and made a large, if not a tedious, answer to the information or charge against him, some whereof he confessed, and part denied. The proof of the information was likewise heard, and the examination of this business held ’till 6 at night, when the House, coming to a resolution upon it, ordered that Lilburne should be committed prisoner to the Tower of London; and that he should be tried by the law of the land for seditious and scandalous practices against the State; and that Wildman should be committed to Newgate, and tried according to law for treasonable and seditious practices also, against the State. That Mr Sollicitor, and all the Lawyers of the House should take care for preparing the charge against them, and bringing of them to trial the next term; and that Mr Becke of Lincoln’s-Inn should be employed in this business for the better expediting, and carrying it on. January 20th, the House was informed that Lilburne and Wildman were not carried to their several prisons, according to the orders yesterday made; and that many of their party gave out high language, that they should not be committed, unless their desires were granted before their commitment. The House hereupon ordered Lilburne and Wildman should be committed to the several prisons, according to the order of yesterday; and that the officers of the guard attending the House, should draw out a sufficient guard to assist the Serjeant at Arms, or his Deputy, in the execution of the said orders; and the guard being drawn forth, they were conveyed to their several prisons.—And the House, being informed that a meeting would be at Deptford in Kent, on Sunday next, by some discontented persons, upon this petition to the House, ordered the Committee should take care to suppress all meetings upon the said petition. And in respect many of these petitions were printed and given out to several persons to be dispersed; and also that there might be other meetings in London upon the same, the House ordered, that the Militia of London and Westminster Hamlets, &c. should take especial care for suppressing of all meetings, and preventing any inconveniencies that might arise by reason of the said petition, intitled, The Petition of many thousands of the free-born people of England, &c. So much we learn of the several steps taken in this affair by the Parliament. And our author himself, speaking on another occasion of this answer to the information on the 19th of January, he declares, that upon that day he openly delivered at the bar of the House of Commons a formal charge or impeachment of high-treason (according to their own ordinances) against Mr Oliver Cromwell and his subtle Machiavilian son-in-law, Mr Henry Ireton, for their notorious doing that in reference to the King, for but the petty acting of which, in comparison to theirs, they impeached Mr Denzil Holles, Sir Philip Stapleton, &c. of high-treason (as appeareth in their own book of declarations, p. 81, 82. art. 2, 3.) and forcibly expunged them their House as traytors[citation 105] therefore. In the same piece our author falls upon this rival friend, with the following imputation of baseness and treachery to him at this time, ‘Mr Oliver (says he) by the help of the army, at their first rebellion against the Parliament, their Lords and Masters, was no sooner up, but, like a most perfidious base unworthy man, he turned my enemy and jaylor, and was as great with Manchester in particular as ever. Yea the House of Peers were his only white boyes; being more than his drudges, and more conformable to his will than the House of Commons itself; and who but Oliver (that before to me had called them both tyrants and usurpers), became their proctor wherever he came? yea, and set his son Ireton at work for them also, insomuch, as at some meetings with some of my friends at the Lord Wharton’s lodgings, he clapt his hand upon his breast, and to this purpose, professed as in the sight of God, upon his conscience, that the Lords had as true a right to their legislative and jurisdictive power over the Commons, as he had to the coat upon his back; and he would procure a friend, Mr Nathaniel Fiennes[citation 106], should argue and plead their said right with any friend I had in England; and not only so, but did he not oblige the General and Council of War at Windsor, about the time when the other votes of no more addresses were to pass[citation 107] to make a declaration to the whole kingdom, declaring the legall rights of the Lords House, and their fixed resolutions to maintain and uphold it; which, as I remember, was sent to the General, &c. to the Lords by Sir Hardresse Waller.’ He afterwards observes, that Cromwell set his agents at work to get him to acknowledge the Lords jurisdiction, and that he and Ireton, after a little under-hand working begun to appear above-board, in rendering all the means gone about in the army for his liberty, not only ineffectual, but even a snare to him; and that their base dealing with him had put him upon writing these several pieces to discover their depth of knavery. (1.) The Jugglers discovered. (2.) Jonah’s Cry out of the Whale’s Belly. (3.) The People’s Prerogative. (4.) His additional Plea before Mr John Maynard. (5.) A Whip for the House of Lords. (6.) Rash Oaths unwarrantable[citation 108].
  38. ↑ [O O] He petitioned and obtained his discharge, and an order for satisfaction.] Besides his own, there was a petition also signed by seven or eight thousand of his friends, and delivered to the House; which was afterwards printed, together with the Speech of Sir John Maynard, to whom he attributes this final discharge[citation 109]; the order for which is mentioned in Rushworth[citation 110]. Thus, 1648, Aug. 1, a petition was read in behalf of Lieutenant-colonel John Lilburne, and upon long debate thereupon, it was ordered that he should be discharged his imprisonment, and a conference to be had with the Lords for the same. Referred also to a Committee how Lieutenant⟨-⟩colonel John Lilburne may have satisfacton, and allowance for his sufferings, as was formerly voted. Our author has also given us the names of the persons who were appointed of this Committee, which are Sir John Maynard, Sir Peter Wentworth, Lord Carre, who was the chairman, Colonel Boswell, Colonel Ludlow, Mr Holland, and Mr Copley[citation 111]. The Lieutenant-colonel immediately presented a petition to this Committee, praying for some considerable augmentation of the sum of 2000l. allotted to him by the House of Lords in 1646, the rather, because his fellow sufferer, Dr Bastwick, had 4000l. reparations allotted him, whose sufferings he conceived, were nothing so great as his in torment, pain, and shame; and in regard that the estates of Lord Cottington and Sir Francis Windebank, by subsequent orders of both Houses upon urgent occasions are much intangled and altered from the condition they were in 1646, when the Lords ordered him 2000 marks out of them[citation 112]; and for that the estate of James Ingram cannot be found, nor at present come by, he prays that all, or the greatest part of his reparations, may be fixed upon the Lord Coventry’s eslate[citation 113]. The Committee having made a report, an ordinance was read the first time, and passed in the House. Agreeable to this petition, Aug. 22d, for the raising of 3000l. out of the real estate of the late Lord Coventry, sometime Keeper of the Great-Seal of England, towards his reparations for the two sentences against him in the Star⟨-⟩chamber[citation 114]. But the late Lord Coventry’s son and heir hearing thereof in France, came immediately home, and by his interest put a stop to the second reading. And our author was informed, that the House had a design of assigning him the same sum out of the public money. This change in his security he did not at all relish; and therefore in order to prevent it, he drew up a large petition, and printed it on the 4th of September; a copy of which he presented at the door of the House to every member at his entrance the day following, when the second reading was appointed[citation 115], and the result, as we learn from Rushworth, was, That the House having considered his petition, ‘an ordinance for settling 3000l. upon him, to be vanced out of the Lord Coventry’s estate, was read, and, upon the question, laid aside; but the House only disagreeing in the manner, ordered that 3000 pounds worth of delinquents lands should be sold to him in fee at twelve year’s purchase, and that an ordinance of Parliament should be brought in for that purpose with all convenient speed[citation 116].’ In consequence of this order, he obtained a grant for some part of the sequestred estates of Sir Henry Bellingham and Mr Bowes, in the county of Durham, or Northumberland; from which he received about 1400 pounds[citation 117]; and Cromwell, soon after his return from Ireland, in the end of May 1650, procured him a grant of lands for the remainder ‘for which most noble favour (says he the following year) I must and do heartily declare and acknowledge myself highly obliged to him[citation 118].
  39. ↑ [P P] A Letter to Cromwell, then warmly attacked by the Presbyterians.] The Letter was in these terms: ‘SIR,
    What my comrade hath written by our trusty bearer might be sufficient for us both; but to demonstrate unto you, that I am no staggerer from my first principles that I engaged my life upon, nor from you, if you are what you ought to be, and what you are strongly reported to be; although if I prosecuted, or desired revenge for a hard and almost starving imprisonment, I could have had of late the choice of twenty opportunities to have payd you to the purpose; but I scorn it, especially when you are low: and this assure yourself, that if ever my hand be upon you, it shall be when you are in your full glory, if then you shall decline from the righteous wayes of Truth and Justice: which if you will fixedly and impartially prosecute,

    I am Your’s, to the last drop of my heart’s blood,

    (for all your late severe hand towards me)
    John Lilburne.
    From Westminster the 3d of August, 1648, being the second day of my freedom.’
    To understand fully the noble spirit of this letter, we must in company with our author take a view of Cromwell’s circumstances at that time. He had his hands full with the Royalists, Poyer, Young, Holland, Hamilton, and Langdale, this year; and still more so with the Parliament, there being a general odium then in both Houses against him, upon the impeachment of him by his own Major, Huntington. Lilburne, on the other hand, having obtained his liberty, was not a little up and in spirits on the occasion, and could at his pleasure, as he says, have been revenged of him if he had so pleased, either by divisions in his army, which was easily then in his power, or by joining with Major Huntington in impeaching him; which, as he observes, he had matter enough to do, and was earnestly sollicited to it again and again, and might have had money enough to boot in his then low and exhausted condition [with regard to the state of his purse]; Yet, continues he, I scorned it, and rather applied my hand to help him up again, as not loving a Scotch interest[citation 119], as is very well and fully known to his present[citation 120] darling Mr Cornelius Holland, and also to Colonel Ludlow, and Mr Thomas Challoner, with other members that I could name; and which was demonstrated to himself by a letter [that inserted here] I sent him by Mr Sexby, whom on purpose I procured to go down to him. Which letter, &c. as I have been told by the bearer, was not a little welcome[citation 121].
  40. ↑ [Q Q] A petition against a personal treaty with the King.] Our author tells us, that he was compelled, in conscience to have a hand in this, which he calls that most excellent of petitions, by reason of the several jugglings he observed in divers great ones, in reference to the personal treaty; and that there was nothing worth praising or liking thought of or presented by the Parliament, in reference to the people’s liberties; especially considering the late large expences and hazards for procuring the settlement of them. But besides this, another motive for joining at least more gladly in this petition is also suggested by him, which is, that he was persuaded it would be agreeable to the Lieutenant-general, who shewed a fair face then to him and his party, he also expressly says, he was sure it was no small piece of service to Cromwell and his great associates[citation 122]⟨.⟩ In his speech, on presenting a new model of government to the House of Commons, in 1649; our author observes this was the first petition he knew of in England against that treaty: and Mr Salmon takes notice of a Remonstrance, as he calls it, presented to the Commons, Nov. 10, this year, by the officers, against any further treaty with his Majesty, and requiring that the King and his adherents be brought to justice; and that a period be put to this Parliament, and more equal representatives chosen, in whom they would have the supreme power lodged[citation 123]. How far this was approved by Cromwell and his great associates soon after, will be seen in the next remark.
  41. ↑ [R R] Several meetings with Ireton, &c.] While Lilburne was in the North, on the business mentioned in the text, he saw Cromwell [at that time there with the army to quell the Scots]; and observing him narrowly, found he was not so heartily inclined to the views of his party [the Levellers], as had been represented. For which reason, on his return to London shortly after, he joined with some other friends in sending a message to Cromwell, proposing to settle the government by an agreement with the people. The messenger (Hunt) returning with Cromwell’s consent to the proposal, several Independents, to which party Cromwell’s answer was directed, and Levellers, among whom was Lilburne, met at the Nag’s-head tavern by Blackwell-Hall; where, after some warm debates, it was agreed to chuse four persons of each side, to adjust the matters in dispute[citation 124]. These delegates, which were Colonel Tichburne, Colonel White, Dr Parker, and Jo. Price, for the Independents; and for the Levellers, Lieutenant-Colonel Wotton, Mr Walwyn, Mr Wildman, and Mr Lilburne, in a second meeting at the Nag’s-head, November 15, 1648, unanimously agreed in these words: ‘That, in our conceptions, the only way of settlement is, (1.) That some persons be chosen by the army to represent the whole body; and that the well-affected in every county (if it may be) chuse some persons to represent them: and those to meet at the head quarters. (2⟨.⟩) That those persons ought not to exercise any legislative power, but only to draw up the foundations of a just government, and to propound them to the well-affected people in every county to be agreed to: which agreement ought to be above Law; and therefore the bounds, limits, and extent, of the Peoples legislative deputies in Parliament, contained in the agreement, to be drawn up into a formal contract, to be mutually signed by the well-affected people and their said deputies upon the days of their election respectively. (3.) To prevent present confusion, the Parliament (if it be possible) may not be by force immediately dissolved; but that the day of it’s dissolution be inserted in that agreement, by virtue whereof it shall be dissolved. (4⟨.⟩) That this way of settlement (if it may be) shall be mentioned in the Army’s first remonstrance. (5.) That the matter of the petition of September 11 be the matter to be settled.’ These heads for settling an agreement were immediately sent to the head-quarters at St Albans. But the Army’s declaration against the King coming out soon after, created so much uneasiness, and jealousy of their designs against the Levellers, that these presently repaired to Windsor to talk with Ireton about it; where, being accompanied with some of the Independents, they met him and a whole train of officers at the Garter inn, and, after several sharp disputes, they parted without coming to any agreement. However, proposing to Colonel Harrison soon after, that the army, and those whom they called their honest friends in the Parliament, as also the Independents and the Levellers, should chuse each of them four persons to draw up a final agreementl the Colonel was satisfied therewith, and engaged also for the other officers; and having actually procured Ireton’s consent, the following sixteen persons were chosen for the purpose. For the Independents, Colonel Tichburn, Colonel John White, Mr Daniel Taylor, and Mr Price a Scrivener. For the Levellers, Mess. Walwyn, Maximilian Petty, Wildman, and Lilburne. For the honest men in the Parliament, Colonel Henry Martin, Colonel Alexander Rigby, Mr Thomas Challoner, and Mr Scott. And for the Army, Commissary-General Ireton, Sir William Constable, Colonel Tomlinson, and Colonel Baxter. These commissioners, after the army came to town [December 2[citation 125]], constantly met at Whitehall, except that the Parliament-men failed, only Mr Martin was commonly there[citation 126].
  42. ↑ [S S] All these projects were quashed by the general council of officers.] After many fierce contests with Ireton only, sometimes whole nights together, wherein the Commissary was often very angry and lordly. The chief points of difference being about Liberty of Conscience, and the Parliament’s punishing where no law provides. An expedient in the first point was settled; and whereupon, the major part of the sixteen commissioners came to an absolute and final conclusion, supposing then all further debates were at an end, and that the agreement should, without any more ado, be promoted for subscriptions, first in the council of war, and next in the regiments, and lastly all over the nation. ‘But alas! poor fools, continues our author, we were merely cheated and cozened. It being the principal unhappiness of some of us (as to the flesh[citation 127]), to have our eyes wide open, to see things long before most honest men come to have their eyes open; and this is that which turns to our smart and reproach, and that which we commissioners feared at the first, viz. that no tyes, promises, nor engagements, were strong enough to the grand jugglers and leaders of the army, was now made clearly manifest; for, when it came to the Council, there came the General, Cromwell, and the whole gang of creatures, colonels and other officers, and spent many days in taking it all in pieces; and there Ireton shewed himself an absolute King, if not an Emperor, against whose will no man must dispute; and then Shittlecock Roe, their scout Okey, and Major Barton, where Sir Hardresse Waller sat President, begun to quarrel, and call some of us base and unworthy names, which procured them from me a sharp retortment, and a challenge of Sir Hardresse into the field. And so I took my leave of them, for a pack of dissembling juggling knaves, and returning to those who trusted me, and, giving them an account of all these proceedings at a publick meeting appointed for the purpose, I discharged myself absolutely for meddling or making any more with so perfidious a generation of men, as the great ones of the army were, but especially the cunningest of Machiavilians, Commissary Henry Ireton[citation 128].⟨’⟩
  43. ↑ [T T] He printed an agreement of the people, and presented it to Cromwell.] The paper now mentioned was no more than a bare sketch of that compleat agreement drawn up by our author and his two associates in the Tower next year; and the reason of printing and publishing this, was chiefly to be beforehand with the army, where they knew[citation 129] an instrument of the like sort, but more consonant to the views of the leading men therein, was preparing in the Council of Officers. Accordingly such a thing, intitled also An Agreement, was presented by the General and Council to the House of Commons on the 20th of January following[citation 130].
  44. ↑ [U U] He returned to London after the King’s death.] In the road, he was told by the Postmaster of Borough-brigg and others in Yorkshire, that the Cavaliers in those parts were most desperate mad at him in particular, about the beheading of the late King, although he was as far as Newcastle when it was done, and had also refused to give his consent to be one of the King’s Judges, being sollicited thereto before he left London. Nay more, he had accordingly declared himself at Windsor (in the debates mentioned in remark [S S) against the manner and time of the army’s intended dealings with his Majesty; arguing there very stiffly, that, upon their own principles, which led them to look upon all legal authority in England as now broken, they could be no better than murderers, in taking away the King’s life, though he were never so guilty of the crimes they charged upon him: for, as justice ought to be done, especially for blood, which they then principally charged upon him: so said I, continues he, and still say, it ought to be done justly; for, in case another man murder me, and a day, a week, or a year after, my brother or friend, that is no legal magistrate, executes him therefore, yet this is murder in the eye of the Law, because it was done by a hand which had no authority to do it; and therefore I press’d again and again, seeing themselves acknowledged all legal authority in England was broke, that they would stay his trial, ’till a new and equal free representative, upon the agreement of the well-affected people, that had not fought against their liberties, rights, and freedoms, should be chosen and sit; and then either try him thereby, or else by their Judges, sitting in the court called King’s-Bench. When they asked him, How by Law he could have him tried? he told them, that the Law of England expressly says, Whosoever murders or kills another shall die; it doth not say, excepting the King, Queen, or Prince, &c⟨.⟩ but indefinitely, whosoever murders shall die; and therefore, where none is excepted, there all men are included in Law: but the King is a man: Ergo, he is included as well as I. To this they objected, that it could hardly be proved, that the King with his own hands killed a man. In answer to which he observed, that, by the Law of England, he that counsels or commissions another to kill a man, is as guilty of the fact as he that does it. And besides the advantage was considerable, of trying the King by the rules of the Law, as it would be sufficient to declare, that no man is born, or justly can be made, lawless; but that even magistrates, as well as people, are subject to the penal as well as the directive part. On the other hand, to try him in an extraordinary way, that has no real footsteps nor paths in our law, would be a thing of extraordinary ill precedent; for why not twenty, upon pretended extraordinary cases, as well as one? and why not a thousand as well as twenty? and extraordinary cases are easily made and pretended by those that are uppermost, though never so unjust in themselves. Add to which, That to try him in an extraordinary way, when the Law hath provided all the essentials of justice in an ordinary way, and merely wants nothing (if it do want[citation 131] that) but twelve Kings as his peers or equals, will nourish and increase in men that erroneous conceit, that magistrates, by the law of God, Nature, and Reason, are not, nor ought to be, subject to the penal part of the law of men, as well as the directive part of it, which is the bane, ruin, and destruction of all the commonwealths in the world[citation 132].
  45. ↑ [W W] He appeared against the jurisdiction of the High-Court of Justice.] Considering Lilburne’s general temper, it is natural to expect him attending to hear these trials; but, besides his general disposition, he was particularly interested therein, as the method of proceeding against these delinquents, was a fresh instance of the Army’s resolution against calling a new Parliament. Upon that account he declares, he was peculiarly pleased with stout Capel, as he calls him, and his gallant defence, in alledging several statutes to prove, that all treasons shall be tried by the common-law, and not by extraordinary ways, but by the declared laws in being, and citing the Petition of Right for the proof thereof. Then looking round about him, and saying, I am an Englishman, and the Law is my inheritance, and the benefit of the Petition of Right my birthright; if so, then, said he, looking upon the President, Where ’s my jury? I see none of my jury that is to pass upon me; I demand the sight of my jury legally pannelled, as my right by Law, without the verdict of whom I cannot in Law be condemned. After the Court was broke up for that day, our author had several discourses with the prisoners, and sent them divers law-books and law-pleas, with that of Sir John Maynard and the four impeached aldermen, and much pressed some of them to put their lives upon the hazard of a plea and protestation against the jurisdiction of the Court; but, he says, they seemed to him to have promises of their lives, upon conformity to that jurisdiction, and could scarce believe they should die ’till the hour of death came upon them, He further assures us, that some of them sent to desire him to be one of their counsel, to plead for them in matter of Law; to whom he answered, that he could not plead for a justification of their actions (though he confessed there were much in Law to be said for them, especially as the case stood with them), but only against the jurisdiction of the Court. ‘And when Holland came to his trial, continues he, a lady, and some other of his friends, came to me to my house about him; but I was still upon the same string, yet sent him word of several particulars, in reference to my trial and arraignment at Oxford[citation 133], that was very material to his present cause; and if he would call me as a witnesse, he should see I would speak my mind freely and effectually, although I smarted for so doing; and he appointed to call me: whereupon, I went into the court, and conveyed word to him I was there; but whether his heart failed him or no, I know not, but he never called me[citation 134].’ Whoever reflects upon the spirit of John Lilburne, and his particular situation at this time, will easily grant, that the slight shewn by these royalists to all his forward offers to appear in their cause, and losing thereby an opportunity of abusing the High-Court of Justice face to face, in the very instant of their exercising that jurisdiction, was none of the least vexatious disappointments and rebuffs that he met with.
  46. ↑ [X X] He presented a frame of new modelling the State, which was thrown aside.] In his speech on presenting this model, &c. we learn, that the warrants for apprehending them were out at this time. See his words. ⁠‘Mr Speaker,
    I must confess I am to present you with a paper in writing of a new kind; for we have had no longer time to consider of it, than from Thursday last: that day warrants, as we are informed, being out against us to take us, from those that have no power over us, we durst not well go our ordinary way to work, to get subscriptions to it, lest we should be surprized before we could present it to this honourable House, and so be frustrated in that benefit and relief that we justly expect from you; and to present it with a few hands, we judged inconsiderable in your attention, and therefore chose, being in so much haste as we were, to prevent our imminent and present ruin, in person to bring it to your bar, and avowedly to present it here. And therefore, without any further question, give me leave to tell you I own it, and I know so does all the rest of my friends present; and, if any hazard should ensue thereby, give me leave to tell you, I am sorry I have but one life to lose, in maintaining the truth, justice, and righteousness, of so gallant a piece.’ The several articles of this model (too long to be inserted here) may be seen in Whitlock’s Memoirs, printed not a great many years ago[citation 135]. We shall only observe, that the variations from his account in the printed copy now before us, are no ways material, unless it be in article [30], where there are no words that give the least countenance to those of Mr Whitlock, viz. ‘No estate to be levelled, nor all things common.’
  47. ↑ [Y Y] He published England’s new Chains.] This piece was loaded with an additional charge annexed to the end of it, greatly aggravating their offence, as follows: ⁠Friends,
    Thus we have adventured to publish our proposal, for the thorow information and benefit of all that adhere unto the common interest of the people, hoping that with such, upon due consideration, it will find as large acceptance as our late petition of September 11, 1648; and we thought good, in regard we were not called in [to the house] to receive an answer to the same, to acquaint you that we intend to second it with a petition, sufficiently subscribed, we doubt not with many thousands, earnestly to sollicite there an effectual answer.’
  48. ↑ [Z Z] Licensed by Gilbert Mabbot.] This licence is dated April 30, 1649[citation 136], and, as it very probably was a forgery, it seems to have been one of the principal, if not the last, of the kind, which occasioned Mabbot to throw up his place, as he did on the 22d of May following, for four reasons, of which these are the first and last given by him to the Council of State. ‘I. Because many thousands of scandalous and malignant pamphlets had been published with his name thereunto, as if he had licensed the same (though he never saw them), on purpose (as he conceives) to prejudice him in his reputation amongst the honest party of this nation. IV. Because it is lawful, in his judgment, to print any booke, sheete, &c. without licensing, so as the authors and printers do subscribe their true names thereunto, that so they may be liable to answer the contents thereof; and if they offend therein, then to be punished by such lawes as are or shall be for those cases provided[citation 137].’ In the piece before us, though the imprimatur is dated April 30; yet both the agreement itself, and the introduction to it, called a Preparative to all sorts of people, are dated May 1, 1649, and both are subscribed with the authors names, which are also inserted in the title. There is likewise the Bookseller’s name who printed it put at the end[citation 138]. We ought not to omit, that there is no such article in this agreement, as that above taken notice of from Mr Whitlock.  
    This spirit of settling the government upon an agreement with the people, evidently rose out of the ashes of the supposed original contract between the King and People, which, upon the extinction of the King, and in him of kingly government, became of course extinct. The plan was not ill digested; and being universally well received by the populace, put Cromwell and the officers in the army to the exercise of their best wits, to present the ill consequences of it to their views; especially seeing the Agitators, or Levellers, before this last agreement was published, had carried matters even to a revolt in the army[citation 139]. Whereupon, not long after the reduction of those troops to their obedience, by the power of the sword, they set the power of their pen to work, and drew up a Declaration of the proceedings of the General, in reducing the late revolted troops, which was appointed by his Excellency and his Council of War to be printed and published, May the 22d. Wherein making several remarks upon the conduct of the Levellers, they expressed themselves in these terms.
    ‘The grounds and manner of the proceedings of these men, that have so much pretended for the liberty of the people, have been as followeth:
    There was a paper stiled the Agrement of the People, framed by certain select persons, and debated at a General Council of the officers of the army, to be tendered to the Parliament, and to be by them commended over to the People of the nation; it being hoped, that such an expedient, if assented unto at least by the honest part of the people, that had appeared for this common cause, to which God hath so witnessed, it would have tended much to the settlement and composing of our differences; at least have fixed honest men to such grounds of certainty, as might have kept them firm and entire in opposing the common enemy, and stand united to publick interest.
    The General Council of the army, and the other sorts of men, going then under the name of Levellers[citation 140], who (by their late actings have made good the same which we then judged but an imputation) had (as now it appears) different ends and aims both in the matter and manner of their proceedings. That which was intended by those men was, to have somewhat tendered as a test and coërcion upon the people, and all sorts of men and authorities in the land: that which these, to wit, the Council of the army, aimed at, was, to make an humble representation of such things, as were then likely to give satisfaction and unity, and might be remitted to mens judgments, to be owned or disowned, as men were satisfied in their consciences, and as it shall please God to let men see reason for their so doings, that so it might not be only called an agreement, but thro’ the freedom of it be one indeed, and receive it’s stamp of approbation from the Parliament, to whom it was humbly submitted.
    Hereupon, those other men took so much dissatisfaction, that they forthwith printed and spread abroad their paper, which was different from that of the army, using all possible means to make the same to passe, but with how little effect is very well known. And finding, by the armie’s application to the Parliament, that they were likely, according to their duty, to stand by and own them as the supreme authority of the nation, they have by all means assayed to vilipend that authority, presenting them to the people in printed libels, and otherwise, as worse tyrants than any who were before them.’
    To this harangue our coryphæus replied in an Epistle to Lenthal, dated June 8 following, and printed, as the title holds forth, ‘in the grand year of hypocriticall and abominable dissimulation.’ (1.) That this is a false narrative of the original occasion of that agreement mentioned in remark [U U], as appears from the account there given, the truth of which he stakes his life to make good, namely, that the little which the officers of the army did in it, they were drawn into it as a bear to the stake, and ‘which, says he, as the sequel shews, they undertook merely to quiet and please us, like children with rattles, ’till they had done their main work; viz. either in annihilating or purging the House, to make it fit for their purpose, and in destroying the King, unto both which they never had our consent in the least; and then totally lay it aside, as they have done, as being then able to do what they pleased, whether we would or no.’ He then proceeds to shew, (2.) That the Levellers paper was published before that of the Army was presented to the House, agreeably to his former account of this matter in the remark just mentioned. (3.) That the Levellers dissatisfaction was not taken at the army’s presenting their paper to the Parliament, but declared above a month by himself in their open Council, and presented also in writing to the General, on the 28th of December, 1648. (4.) That ‘Whereas they say, continues he, we used all possible means to make ours passe, but with how little successe is very well known. If they mean, we used all possible means to make ours pass with them, it is true; but the reason it had no better effect was, because it was too honest for them; and I am sure in the very epistle to it, it is declared, that the principal reason of printing it is, that the people might have an opportunity to consider the equitie of it, and offer their reasons against any thing therein contained. (5.) They say, We are troubled at their doing their duty, in submitting to authority, and owning the Parliament as the supreme authority of the nation, whenas, alas! it is as visible as the sun when it shines in it’s glory, that Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, nor John of Leyden and Neperdullion Jack Straw, nor Watt Tyler, can never be put in the ballance, for rebellions and treasons against all sorts of magistracy, with the General and his Council[citation 141].’
  49. ↑ [A A A] Several pamphlets against the Government, and Cromwell in particular.] These were intitled, (1.) An Impeachment of High⟨-⟩Treason against Oliver Cromwell, and his son-in-law Henry Ireton. (2.) The Legal and Fundamental Liberties of the People of England, revised, asserted, and vindicated, &c. (3.) A Preparative to a Hue and Cry after Sir Arthur Haslerig. (4.) An Outcry of the Young Men and Apprentices of London: or, an Inquisition after the lost fundamental Laws and Liberties of England, directed August 29, 1649, in an Epistle to the private Soldiers of the Army, especially all those that signed the solemn Engagement at Newmarket-Heath, the fifth of June, 1647; but more especially the private Soldiers of the General’s Regiment of Horse, that helped to plunder and destroy the honest and true-hearted Englishmen, traiterously defeated at Burford the 15th of May, 1649. (5.) A Salva Libertate, addressed to the Lieutenant of the Tower in September. Besides these, which were all produced at his tryal, he had, upon the erection of the Council of State, printed a piece intitled, The Picture of the Council of State, of which a second edition with additions was published the following year.
  50. ↑ [B B B] Being brought to his tryal he was acquitted.] Mr Lilburne made several attempts to stave off this tryal after the day for it was fixed[citation 142]. The first attempt was in a paper, which he afterwards published with the title of, The Innocent Man’s first Profer, directed to William Hevingham, Esq; of Hevingham in Suffolk, dated October 20; wherein he proposes to refer the matter to two judges, one to be chosen by himself, and the other by his persecutor the Attorney-General, promising to stand to their award, provided he may have two friends to take notes of all that passed. In a postscript he protests his innocency, in respect of being a confederate with Prince Charles (as he calls him), in answer to a pamphlet lately published by one Thomas May, charging him with such a confederacy. The next was in a Petition presented October 22 to the House, by his wife and his brother Robert, promising he should withdraw himself with his family into some foreign country, provided the money due to him from the State was given to him. This was followed the same day, by the Innocent Man’s Second Profer, by himself; where he adds to their proposal another condition, that all such as were willing to transplant themselves with him, should be allowed that liberty, and also have all their demands of moneys in arrear from the State paid to them; and further, that such as were poor, and willing to attend him, should have some reasonable allowance of money for that end. The next in order was a Petition, October 23, of the well-affected in and about the cities of London and Westminster, and parts adjacent, presenters and approvers of the late Petition of the 11th of September, &c. This is a kind of remonstrance, declaring the Parliament’s unjust proceedings in persecuting him, and averring his undoubted right to be discharged. After this, another petition was presented the same day, singly by his brother Robert, praying only a suspension of his tryal, ’till he should be able to convince him of his mistakes, or, if not, prevail with him to leave the kingdom. Last of all, Mrs Lilburne, almost distracted with the fear of losing her consort, pressed him (as did also one Mr Valentine and some other friends) to stoop as low as possibly he could to save his life, in which her’s was lock’d up. Whereupon, moved by her bitter mourning and crying, and the beholding the anguish of spirit of her that had been so faithful and hazardous a yoak-fellow to him in his above seven years sorrow, wrung from him, with much ado, the following letter to Mr Lenthal the Speaker. ⁠‘Honoured Sir,
    As a man, being at present somewhat confounded in myself, through a strong confidence of my own innocency, having suffered above measure, but intentionally done injury unto none, and press’d under, with the importunity of friends, especially with the heart-breaking sighs of my dear but even half-distracted wife; as, when my late children lay in a most disconsolate condition (which ended their lives), your House did me the favour to grant me my liberty[citation 143] to visit them, which I think was the saving of her life: so now, greater importunities lying upon me from divers, and her that is dearer unto me than many lives, I as earnestly intreat you to move your House, in the most effectual manner you can, that my tryal (so suddenly intended) may for some reasonable time be suspended, that so I may have time to hear and consider, what many of them say they have to offer by way of reason and argument, to perswade me to what at present my conscience is not convinced of. And I should likewise be desirous, if your House should judge convenient, that some competent number of gentlemen of your House might be permitted to debate with me those particulars, wherein I have appeared most to differ with other mens judgments; whereby, possibly, rational arguments may be so strongly urged, as, peradventure, may give such satisfaction, as may tend to the reconciling many differences: upon the knowledge of the acceptance of which, during all that time of suspension of tryal, I do hereby faithfully promise not in the least to disturb those that shall grant me this favour, being not so apt to make disturbance as is conceived; and herein you will exceedingly oblige,
    From the Tower of London, this 24th of Octob. 1649.
    		 SIR,

    Yours, to serve you,

    John Lilburne.’
    When this last effort to respite the tryal was found ineffectual, this faithful wife went, at his request, amongst their friends, to try their influence upon the jury.
    ’Tis no wonder, that all applications proved ineffectual to avoid his tryal, since, as Lord Clarendon informs us, though Cromwell could bear ill language and reproaches with less disturbance and concernment than any person in authority had ever done; yet the persecutions Lilburne exercised him with, made him plainly discern, that it would be impossible to preserve his dignity, or to have any security in the government, if his licentiousness continued; and therefore he had set spies upon him, to observe his actions and likewise his words; and, upon advice with the Counsel at Law of the State, being confidently informed, that, as well by the old established laws, as by new ordinances, Lilburne was guilty of high-treason, and had forfeited his life, if he were prosecuted in any court of justice, he caused him to be sent to Newgate, and the next sessions to be indicted of high-treason; ordered all the Judges to be present, and the Counsel at Law to inforce the evidence, and all care to be taken for the return of such a jury, as might be fit for the importance of the cause. His Lordship then proceeds to give the following account of our author’s behaviour at his tryal. ‘Lilburne appeared undaunted, and, with the confidence of a man that was to play a prize before the people for their own liberty, he pleaded Not guilty, and heard all the charge and evidence against him with patience enough, save that, by interrupting the Lawyers sometimes, who prosecuted him, and by sharp answers to some questions of the Judges, he shewed, that he had no reverence for their persons, nor any submission to their authority. The whole day was spent in his tryal; and, when he came to make his defence, he mingled so much Law in his discourse[citation 144], to invalidate their authority, and to make it appear so tyrannical, that neither their lives, liberties, nor estates, were in any degree secure, whilst that usurpation was exercised; and answered all the matters objected to him with such an assurance, making them to contain nothing of high-treason, and that to be a government against which high-treason could not be committed; and telling them, that all free-born Englishmen were obliged to oppose this tyranny, as he had done heartily for their sakes, and that he had done it only for their [the Jury’s] sakes, and to preserve them from slavery, contrary to his own private and worldly interest. He told them how much he had been in Cromwell’s friendship, and that he might have received any benefit or preferment from him, if he would have fat still, and seen his country enslaved; which, because he would not, he was brought thither to have his life taken from him by their judgment, which he apprehended not. In short, he defended himself with that vigour, and charmed the Jury so powerfully, that, against all the directions and charge the Judges could give them (who assured them, that the words and actions fully proved against the prisoner were high-treason by the Law, and that they were bound by the all obligations of conscience to find him guilty), after no long consultation between themselves, they returned with their verdict that he was not guilty, nor could they be perswaded by the Judges to change or recede from their verdict, which infinitely angred and perplexed Cromwell; and, as this account concludes, though Lilburne was then acquitted in 1653, yet Cromwell would never suffer him to be set at liberty, as by the law he ought to have been, but sent him from prison to prison, and kept him inclosed there ’till he himself died.’ Thus that noble historian, whose design herein was to shew the impotency of the protector in the height of his power: and we need not repeat the mistakes therein, which the reader will easily correct, by what he sees asterwards observed in this memoir.
    After his acquittal[citation 145], being conveyed back to the Tower under the additional guard of three companies of foot, he was attended with the loudest acclamations of the people, who made many bonfires in the city[citation 146]. And soon after his discharge he printed the tryal, prefixing thereto, by way of triumph, a print of himself at full length, standing at the Bar with Coke’s Institutes in his hand, the book which he had made use of to prove that flattering doctrine, which he applied with singular address to the Jury[citation 147], that in them alone was inherent the judicial power of the Law as well as fact. In the same print, over his head, are seen the two faces of a medal, upon one of which is inscribed the names of the Jury, and, on the other, these words: John Lilburne, saved by the power of the Lord, and the integritie of his Jury, who are Judge of Law as well as Fact, October 26, 1649. It is observable, that this practice of exalting the power and dignity of a Jury, was a fundamental part of the Levellers scheme; and therefore, a little before this tryal of Lilburne, we find Colonel Martin, a principal man among them, causing the Jury at Reading, after they were sworn, to put on their hats before the Judges as their right, declaring they were the then chief Judges in the Court, and those on the Bench inferior to them.
  51. ↑ [C C C] Having recovered his estate from Sir Arthur Haslerig.] This Baronet, soon after the new act for treason abovementioned was passed, had stopped payment of the profits arising from the sequestrated estates, out of which his reparations had been ordered by the Parliament; but he was no sooner cleared upon his tryal, than he resolved to have satisfaction. To which purpose, meeting Sir Arthur’s clerk in Channel-row, Westminster, he desired him before witness, as he loved his master’s life and welfare, to tell him, that he [Lilburne] wore a good dagger by his right side, and a good rapier by his left; and if within eight days he did not send him all his money, or give him some rational satisfaction, let him look to himself; for, after the time mentioned, wherever he met him, he would pay him for all together, though he were cut in 1000 pieces on the spot. ‘And, continues he, in case by my fair dealing with him, and telling him my intentions beforehand, he gets me committed to prison, and thereby thinks to disenable me to deal with him, he will be very much mistaken; for thereby the hand would only be changed.’ Hereupon, within the time limited, he received a warrant, signed by Sir Arthur and Colonel George Fenwick, to the Treasurer of Newcastle, to pay him or his assigns about 8oo pounds, which he accordingly received[citation 148].
  52. ↑ [D D D] He charged Sir Arthur with several base practices, in his piece intitled, A Just Reproof to Haberdashers-Hall⟨.⟩] The dispute mentioned in the text, between our author’s uncle George and Sir Arthur, came before the commissioners for compounding delinquents estates, of whom Sir Arthur was the chief, who sat at Haberdashers-Hall. Therefore in this piece, a state of the case is represented, together with the proceeding therein; by which it appears, that George Lilburne with others, having, in 1647, purchased of one Josiah Primate, the immediate lessee, a rich colliery[citation 149] at Harraton near Sunderland in the bishopric of Durham, this estate was seized in 1649 by Sir Arthur Haslerig, who acted in the committee of sequestrations[citation 150] in that county, under pretence that it belonged to one Wray, under the title of Sir John Hedworth, Knight, then proved to be a delinquent; from whom an appeal was made by Primate to the aforesaid commissioners in June 1650, and, after several delays, a petition presented to them, to bring the cause to a hearing in February following; upon which it was appointed to be heard in June 1651. In the interim, our author rode almost fourscore miles a day towards Durham, to fetch up witnesses in such weather, that the wind and hail-stones had like to have beat out both his eyes, ‘one of which, says he, I could never since perfectly recover[citation 151].’ But the hearing being still deferred upon one pretence or other[citation 152] by the commissioners, Mr Primate presented a petition to the Parliament, the 22 of July, praying them either to put him into possession of the said colliery, upon security given to be answerable for the profits, in case the said mines should hereafter appear to be duly sequestrable, or otherwise, that the commissioners for compounding may be commanded to hear and determine the matter, or else, in case of further delay, that Sir Arthur Haslerig, &c. may be compelled to give him good security for the profits, as well as his damages and expences, in case the said colliery be adjudged to be his [the petitioner’s], or that they would permit him to take his remedy at Law against Sir Arthur, without controul by the committee of Indemnity[citation 153]. And (as the petition concludes), ‘That you will take care to maintain the honour and dignity of Parliament (which doth consist in doing justice and right without respect of persons), by dealing with Sir Arthur according to his demerit, in case your petitioner shall fully make it appear to your honours, or some of your commitrees, that Sir Arthur hath merely acted arbitrarily, and without all shadow of Law or Justice, in taking your petitioner’s right and propriety from him; himself and his own private gain and interest being principally at the bottom of these his proceedings.’ Our author herein mentions several instances, besides the proceedings in this cause, of Sir Arthur’s injustice and oppression, committed without any order, ordinances, or act of Parliament, against his family and others also, and wishes the four northern counties would petition the Parliament to confiscate his suddenly and ill-gotten large estate[citation 154], to make satisfaction to the persons injured by him; declaring, that, by making one of his tools High-Sheriff, he had got possession of their bodies and estates, and by another tool, Wols the Commissary, had made himself Archbishop of their souls, and made sure of almost all the pulpits and tythes in the country. To this purpose, in 1659. there was published University Queries; one of which was, Whether Sir Arthur Haslerig might not invert this sentence, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up, into this, my zeal hath eaten up thine house.
    Some time after this just-mentioned petition, the cause was heard and judgment given by the commissioners, which occasioned Mr Primate’s second petition to the Parliament, delivered by our author as abovementioned; and the consequence of that (according to his account) was, the act for his perpetual banishment. It is observed of an eminent Spanish History-Painter, that his pictures, on account of the ill-chosen cruelty of the subject, had too sanguinary and shocking a likeness. In the piece of our author now under consideration, the choice of his subject was not so free as that of the painter, being wrung from him by a sense of his own injuries, as well as those of his friends and nearest relations; but the remark is equally just, that he has exhibited too lively a representation of the extreme miseries brought upon the northern counties, through the distraction of these lawless times. We see here, in the person of Sir Arthur Haslerig, iniquity bearing down all opposition, ’till it became thoroughly established by a continued series of many formally legal processes and judgments, glorying uncontrouled, and triumphing fearlessly and shamelessly in those counties. ’Tis true, the transcendent wickedness of this Baronet is amply displayed by Lord Clarendon in many instances; but we thought it not impertinent to add another, not commonly known, wherein our author and his family were particularly concerned. There is a postscript to this piece, wherein Mr Lilburne observes truly enough, that he has not meddled therein with the Parliament, and hopes he stands now as right in their eye as any man in England, ‘having, he says, of late done all such actions in respect and obedience to them, as is fitting for a wise man, or a man of conscience or honour, to do, to take off all their jealousies from him.’ And ’tis evident he stood very well at this time with Cromwell, who, having absolutely crushed the Levellers faction in the army in 1649[citation 155], had the year following, 1650, procured a new grant of some lands, to make good the residue of our author’s reparations; for which favour he took an opportunity of returning his publick thanks in this piece, p. 6. And it also will appear presently, that he had some private friendly conferences with that grand antagonist about this time.
  53. ↑ [E E E] He spoke freely of the reigning powers, and favour of the King.] The following observations, ’tis supposed, will put this assertion beyond all reasonable doubt, and, at the same time, serve to explain the full meaning of it. In the first place, we find him frequently, in the books written by him after the King’s death, declaring, it would be better for the nation to have Prince Charles seated in his father’s throne, upon certain conditions to be stipulated by him, than to continue under the tyrannical proceedings of the Parliament and Army[citation 156]. Particularly in his impeachment of Cromwell and Ireton, &c. where, after the warmest exhortations to his friends to set up the Agreement of the People as their banner, and bravely to fight under it, but neither for the Prince nor Parliament, unless he or they gave good security for adhering firmly to those principles, he proceeds in the following terms. ‘And upon such terms I doe not see, but you may justifiably, before God and man, joyne with the Prince himself, who, if we must have a King, I, for my part, had rather have the Prince than any man in the world, because of his large pretence of right; which, if he came not in by conquest by the hands of foreigners, the bare attempting of which may apparently hazard him the loss of all at once, by glewing together the now divided people to joyne as one man against him; but by the hands of Englishmen, by contract, upon the premises aforesaid (which is easily to be done), the people will easily see, that presently thereupon they will enjoy this transcendent benefit, (he being at peace with all foreign nations, and having no regall pretended competitors) viz. the immediately disbanding of all armies and garrisons, saving the old cinque-ports; and soe those three grand plagues of the people will cease, viz free-quarter, taxations, and excise, by means of which the people may once againe really say, they can enjoy something they can in good earnest call their own; whereas, for the present army to set up the pretended false Saint Oliver, (or any other) as their elected King, there will be nothing thereby but wars, and the cutting of throats year after year[citation 157].’ Agreeably to this doctrine, in the informations given against him after his return home concerning this matter now before me, it appears, that he had frequent conferences with Lord Hopton, Colonel Titus, Duke of Buckingham, Sir Charles Lloyd, and others; wherein he undertook, as the examinants all agree, if they would procure him 10000 pounds, he would destroy the Commonwealth of England, and settle the King upon his throne in a few months, or he would have a piece of him nailed upon every post in Bruges [they mostly resided in that town during his exile], calling Cromwell and the Parliament a false company of rogues, and said, that if the King would but observe what he had set down in some papers, shewing the reason why he [Lilburne] would not be a Cavalier, and reform but them, he might easily do his business and sit in his chair. Here we see the restoring of the King is, by intimation, put upon the same condition as before, viz, that of his subscribing to some instrument like the agreement of the people; and, by comparing these two evidences, we may know how to supply Mr Wood, and how to understand Mr Winstanley, upon this subject. The first of whom says, he became at this time acquainted with the Duke of Buckingham, Colonel Titus, Lord Hopton, &c.[citation 158] Mr Winstanley goes farther, and relates the negotiation, as he calls it, to restore the King, but, without taking notice of the condition annexed, declares his disbelief of the report: for, says he, besides his own denial, I cannot conceive he should have any thought that party would trust him, especially with such a sum of money, having before declared himself so great an enemy to the late King[citation 159]. But, as to his denial, let us see his own words, as they stand in his petition already mentioned to the House of Commons, July 12, 1653, after he was taken up and sent to Newgate, in order to his tryal for returning to England. In the conclusion of which he says, ‘He hopes they will not be hindered, through any suspicions of his compliance with Charles Stuart or his party; a poisonous ingredient, that his adversaries have always in readiness to cast in his dish, though they know it to be as false as hell, and believe not themselves in this their Machiavilian report. Your petitioner, continues he, professes, as in the presence of the Lord, before whom he knows he must render a strict account of the secretest and closest of his actions, that he returned into his native country with no worse a resolution, to the true and universal welfare thereof, than he engaged at first in the late Parliament’s quarrel against the King, and with a serious resolution to live privately and still upon his own, without intermeddling in any other affairs.’ He also declares, in another part of the same petition, ‘That, whatever liberties soever he has taken in discourse or company with any opposite party, yet he never in the least staggered in his fidelity to the cause of liberty and freedom that he first engaged in.’ Whoever has dipped the least into our author’s writings, and considers the nature of the condition there annexed to his promises in favour of Charles Stuart, will need no comment to shew the mental reservation couched under this seeming denial; and he must be little acquainted with the supreme vanity of Lilburne’s spirit[citation 160], who cannot conceive he should be capable of entertaining any thoughts, that the royal party would trust him with such a sum as 10000 pounds. Lastly, as to his declaration of enmity against the late King, his writings after the King’s death, and before too, are continually stuffed with declarations of much greater enmity against the reigning powers that succeeded him, particularly calling them far greater tyrants than ever he was. Upon the whole, it must be observed, the accusation charged upon him by his enemies as to this matter was, that of being confederate with Prince Charles, to restore him to the throne upon the old establishment. This he calls setting up his absolute will and prerogative in the nation; in answer to which he declares, ‘That if, to oppose all interests whatsoever, that would set up a single man or more to rule and govern by will and pleasure, without bounds, limits, checks, or controul, be sufficient cause to be judged a Cavalier and for Prince Charles, then must I ingenuously confess I am such a Cavalier, and hope so to die[citation 161].’ But to set the Prince upon the throne, with a power limited by his scheme of an agreement with the people, as it was not intirely inconsistent with the ground and foundation of his former professions against kingly government in general; so, surely, it cannot be inconceivable, that the height of his animosity, at the time of his banishment, to his grand rival Cromwell, should carry him to propose such a restoration of the King to the royal party; or that the impulses of his natural vanity should raise in him a confidence of being able to effectuate the proposal, by virtue of his influence over the people. The strength of which also evidently appeared upon his tryal afterwards. But we do not find by the depositions, that the proposal was embraced by the Royalists; on the contrary, they are represented therein, arguing against the project as in no wise feasible.
  54. ↑ [F F F] A letter to Cromwell.] The letter was as follows: ⁠‘My Lord,At my discourse with you in your gallery about five or six months ago, I had thought I had given your Lordship a full satisfaction in every thing that might remove all jealousies from you, of my disserving you in any kind; that, of all men in the Parliament, I little imagined to have found your honor to be the principall man to banish me into a strange country, where, for the safety of my life, I am forced to print an apology; and, because you are named in it, I judge it but man-like to send you a copy of it; and, if I had not been travelling last post-day, I had sent it you then; and I have also, by this post, sent to a friend three sheets of paper in writing, to communicate to your Lordship; the which, if you please to read them, you will find, that you are deeply concerned in them. I have no more to say to your Honour, but to desire God for you, if it be his pleasure, to make you speedily as righteous in actions, as you were some years agoe in declarations; and to take leave to say, I am yet as much honest John Lilburne as ever I was in my life, that neither loves flattery nor fears greatness or threatnings[citation 162].’
  55. ↑ [G G G] He set all his engines at work to procure a pass.] The following letter, printed with the abovementioned depositions, gives some light into this affair.

    ‘To my dear and loving wife Mrs Elizabeth Lilburne, these, with haste to London.

    ⁠My dear Love,
    I have been, and yet am, in a lingring condition to hear from thee; but I confess by this post I have nothing to expect from thee, more than to hear that thou art safely got amongst our friends at London; where I hope your joint activity will be such (according to my full instructions to you, and my true friend that went with you) as that you will procure my expected pass so speedily, as to send it me, or a copy of it, with my friend’s encouragement, to Dunkirk the next post; where, by God’s assistance, I will be on Sunday next at night; and if it come, ’tis more than probable I may come to Dover that packet (or certainly send you word when, by God’s gracious permission, I shall), for I long to see London; and if I come so suddenly, I shall leave all my things behind me, in the care and possession of Mr Lambert, for which I can either come over myself again or send for them. One reason that moves me to make the more haste is, because if I come over, and find things in a handsome way to my liking, I have something to say very speedily to such a great faithful man as I shall trust, and if come I shall stay at Dover a day, or two, or three, and by the post let you know I am there, and expect you to send me a horse to Canterbury, where at the post-house I intend to lye the first night, and shall not stir from thence ’till I receive a horse from you. But if our new Council of State or Governors[citation 163] will not cast a favourable eye upon me, and either deny or delay me a passe, so that the next post I hear not of it, I shall take it for granted, that Major-General Harrison being, as I hear, one of your new Councel of State, is my principallest and grandest adversarie; and accordingly I shall onely take arise (from what I have been informed he said at my banishment, and what he said publickly at Allhallowes, when from Dover I sent my letter to the people that meet there) to write him such a letter (which already in my brain I have conceived) as will no way please him, let the issue be what it will. I have writ again to Major-General Lambert (who I hear is President of your new Councel), and inclosed him one of my printed epistles in Dutch and English. I have also writ to Colonel Bennet, which you may read the copy of on the other side.
    Soe with my hearty and true love and affection presented to thee, and all my friends in the bulk, longing above measure to hear from thee, I commit thee and my poor babes[citation 164], as my own soul, to the protection of the Most High, and rest thy faithful and loving husband,
    J. L.
    I have herewith inclosed one of my printed letters, which I hope are before now printed at London. I have alreadie sent two copies of this two several waies for fear of miscarriage.
    I am in hast and can’t read this over, therefore pray mend the faults, if there be any.’
  56. ↑ [H H H] A second time acquitted by the jury.] This second acquittal was a more remarkable evidence of Lilburne’s extraordinary interest in the people than the former, and must needs provoke Cromwell much more, since it was done evidently in contempt of his power, at a time when he was actually in full possession of the supremacy, and was formally invested therewith soon after[citation 165]. It is observable, that, at the end of our author’s petition to the House of Commons 12 July, he printed an account of the proceedings before the Lord-Mayor at his commitment to Newgate. Having taken notice, that the marshal who apprehended him had declared, that he was over-awed to swear against his will, to the identity of his [Lilburne’s] person, and that another evidence to it was a Scotch parson, who had been formerly committed to the Gate-House as a felon, for returning to England without a special licence, contrary to an ordinance making such return felony, he concludes, ‘Therefore, Reader, judge seriously of the most blood-thirsty malice of the abovesaid conspirators [the Mayor and Recorder of London, and the Attorney-General, and their chief setters on], against poor Mr Lilburne’s life, who, if he were the man meant in the act of banishment, it is but a poor English felon, who may expect in reason more favour than a Scotch traytor.’ Here we see that irreconcilable animosity to the covenanters still subsisting in Lilburne, after Cromwell had perfectly subdued the force of both parties by his subtilty, in encouraging them to dash themselves against each other, ’till both were broken in pieces, and thereby made way for himself to enter at the breach, and take full possession of the fort.
  57. ↑ [I I I] Upon security for his good behaviour he was suffered to return.] Mr Wood, from whom we have the account of this particular, does not inform us who or what was his security, his author, undoubtedly, not being able to furnish any thing certain upon that head. But, as this author appears to be Lilburne’s nephew Richard, second son to his brother Robert, we have not scrupled, against the authority of Lord Clarendon[citation 166], to insert in the text the matter of his testimony as far as it reaches. And here, in the notes, we shall venture a step further, there being sufficient grounds for raising such a conjecture concerning the particular person who gave the security mentioned, as will not, it is conceived, be obnoxious to the imputation of futility. Nay, we cannot but think that the reader, by perusing what has been already observed in the course of this memoir, is beforehand with us in pointing out the man; since he must have seen our author’s brother Robert, not only concurring in general with him in his opinion of men and things, and particularly pushing his scheme of settling the government as far as he durst, and ’till he saw Cromwell absolutely resolved against it, but even (which is directly to the present purpose) carrying his affection and concern for his brother so far, as to offer to be his bail, in the view of obtaining thereby a suspension of his tryal in 1649, and afterwards constantly standing at his side to assist him therein, in an open disregard of the displeasure of the court frequently declared thereat. Add to this, on the other hand, that he appears to have been always well esteemed in the army, held at this time a considerable rank in it[citation 167], and had particularly obliged Cromwell, by yielding, not only to have his name put into the list of the late King’s Judges, but also actually sitting upon the Bench at his tryal and condemnation. Laying then all these circumstances together, can there be any reasonable doubt who was the person that averted Cromwell’s wrath against our author, and saved him from transportation, and, after going through an uncommon variety of storms, tempests, and shipwrecks, settling the weather-beaten vessel in a peaceful and still harbour; where, partly through a full conviction, that all possibility of success in any further strugglings against his grand adversary was cut off, and chiefly out of a religiously affectionate regard for his entirely beloved brother who stood responsible for him, he passed the remainder of his days in perfect tranquillity, equally undisturbed by and undisturbing his triumphant competitor[citation 168]. Mr Wood informs us, that our author’s family was continued in the descendants of his brother Robert; but Robert himself being tried and attainted after the Restoration, for having been one of the King’s judges, whilst his father was living, the estate at Thickley devolved upon Robert’s children by his wife Margaret, daughter of Henry Beke of Hadenham in Bucks, Gent. which were, 1. Robert, born anno 1650; Richard, born in 1652; Ephraim, born about 1662, &c. all which were living in 1688; and their father, the Major-General, being banished to the island of St Nicolas[citation 169] near Plymouth, spending the remainder of his days in that confinement; and, dying there in August 1665, aged 52 years or thereat bouts, was buried, as his son Richard believed, at Plymouth[citation 170].

Citations[edit]

  1. ↑ * In a war between the Wardens of the English and Scotish marches, anno 1375, Sir John Gordon entered England, returned with a large booty, and Sir John Lilburne, whom he had defeated and taken. Smollet’s History of England, Vol. II. p. 108. Lond. 1757, 4to.
  2. ↑ (1) Rushworth’s Hist. Collect. Vol. I. part ii. p. 469. edit. 1680, fol. where we see our author stiled John Lilburne, Gent. in the decrees of the Star-chamber. The manager’s name, not mentioned by Rushworth, was Cooke, as appears by the account of these proceedings published by our author soon after in fol. who was highly pleased with them, and often quotes them in his writings afterwards. See particularly Hue and Cry after Sir Arthur Haslerig, p. 17.
  3. ↑ (2) Mr Rushworth observes, that this proved an omen of what the next year produced, by a greater appearance of a battle, when the King’s army was at the camp of Berwick, and the Scots on the other side of Tweed; yet both armies parted also without battle.
  4. ↑ (3) Id. Vol. II. part ii. p. 788, 789, 790.
  5. ↑ (4) Ibid. part iii. p. 356. edit. 1692.
  6. ↑ (5) Ath. Oxon. Vol. II. col. 174.
  7. ↑ (6) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, &c. p. 21.
  8. ↑ (7) A just Reproof to Haberdashers Hall, p. 2, 3, 4. and 17. and A Preparative to a Hue and Cry after Sir Arthur Haslerig. p. 37.
  9. ↑ (8) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, &c. ubi supra.
  10. ↑ (9) History of the Rebellion, Vol. III. part ii. p. 500, 501, in 8vo.
  11. ↑ (10) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 21.
  12. ↑ (11) Intitled, The oppressed Man’s Oppressions, declared in an epistle to Col. Francis West, Lieutenant of the Tower, dated January 30 that year. p. 26.
  13. ↑ (12) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, ubi supra. and his petition to the Committee of the House of Commons, Aug. 1, 1648, (praying his reparations may be fixed upon Lord Coventry’s estate), printed in the Hue and Cry, p. 20, 21, 22.
  14. ↑ (13) See more of it in his article.
  15. ↑ (14) Athen. Oxon. Vol. II. col. 172.
  16. ↑ (15) Hist. of the Rebellion, Vol. III. p. 390. first edition in folio.
  17. ↑ (16) His offence was aggravated, in that he printed these books contrary to a decree of the Starchamber, made in July preceding, whereby printing without licence was prohibited.
  18. ↑ (17) Rushworth’s Hist. Collect. Vol. I. part ii. p. 465. & seq.
  19. ↑ (18) Id. ibid.
  20. ↑ (19) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 71.
  21. ↑ † Oppressed Man’s Oppressions declared, p. 15. where a copy of the record here mentioned is inserted.
  22. ↑ (20) He had married her some time before in this year 1642, as appears from his Preparative to a Hue and Cry after Sir Arthur Haslerig, toward the end, printed in 1649; where he says, She had been a comfort to him in all his troubles and sufferings for seven years.
  23. ↑ (21) See his trial in 1649, published under the fictitious name of Theodorus Verax in 4to. p. 38, 39.
  24. ↑ (22) History of the Rebellion, Vol. II. part ii. p. 501. 8vo. edit.
  25. ↑ (23) See the next remark [K].
  26. ↑ (24) A Preparative to a Hue and Cry, &c. p. 17.
  27. ↑ (25) Resolved Man’s Resolution, p. 36. In the Collection of Somers’s Tracts, Vol. XIII. there is a piece intituled, The Relation of Captain William Smith against the Parliament Prisoners in 1643.
  28. ↑ (26) Ubi supra.
  29. ↑ (27) Viz. the Declaration abovementioned.
  30. ↑ (28) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 23.
  31. ↑ (29) History of the Rebellion, Vol. II. part ii. p. 501, 8vo. edit.
  32. ↑ (30) Resolved Man’s Resolution, p. 33.
  33. ↑ (31) His loss was four horses with his portmanteau and cloaths, besides his papers of accounts. Ibid. p. 36.
  34. ↑ (32) Just Man’s Justification, p. 7. 2d edition, 1647, 4to.
  35. ↑ (33) Historical Collections, Vol. II. part iii. p. 306, 307, 308.
  36. ↑ (34) Resolved Man’s Resolution, p. 34. where Robert is stiled Captain, and Henry Captain-Lieutenant, June 11, 1644, and the action at Newark happened in March preceding.
  37. ↑ (35) He says it cost him 20 or 30 l. in posts, the Earl being at Bedford, and Cromwell in or about Cambridge. Just Man’s Justification, p. 6.
  38. ↑ (36) Ibid. from p. 5 to p. 25. second edit. in 1647, 4to.
  39. ↑ (37) Resolved Man’s Resolution, p. 35, 36.
  40. ↑ * In one place he calls them, by way of contempt, an assembly of dry-vines, and charges them with perjury in pressing the Covenant, where they engage to maintain the old established laws of England, and then notoriously encouraging the violation of those laws. Oppressed Man’s Oppression, p. 22.
  41. ↑ (38) History of the Rebellion, Vol. III. p. 392. first edit. in fol.
  42. ↑ (39) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 23.
  43. ↑ (40) See below in remark [X].
  44. ↑ (41) In the epistle to Lenthal, mentioned above in the text.
  45. ↑ (42) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 24.
  46. ↑ (43) The author of England’s Birthright, a pamphlet, if not penned by Lilburne himself, yet manifestly under his directions, in 1646, 4to. The title of it is England’s Birthright justified, against all arbitrary Usurpations, whether regal or parliamentary, or under what vizor soever; where divers Queries, Observations, and Grievances, of the People, declaring the Parliament’s present Proceedings to be directly contrary to those fundamental Principles, whereby their actions at first were justifiable against the King, in their present illegal dealings with those that have been their purest Friends, Adviser, and Preservers, and many other things of high Concernment to the Freedom of all the freeborn People of England. By a well-wisher to the just cause, for which L. Col. John Lilburne is unjustly imprisoned in Newgate.
  47. ↑ (44) Col. Ireton and Mr Hawlins were included in the accusation. See our author’s Letter to the Council of Agitators, at the end of the second edition of his Epistle to Judge Reeves, published in 1647, 4to. p. 25.
  48. ↑ (45) See our author’s second epistle to Sir Henry Martin, p. 2. When the copies of his book, The Oppressed Man’s Oppressions, &c. were seized afterwards, he complains, that other books not in the warrant were also seized, as England’s Chains discovered, but could get no redress. It appears, that by an act, Sept. 28, 1647, officers were empowered to enter any shop or house, where they shall be informed, or have good cause to suspect, any unlicensed papers or pamphlets, and these England’s Chains were not licensed. Scobel’s Collection of Acts, &c. anno 1647, chap. xcv.
  49. ↑ (46) Innocence and Truth justified, p. 4 to 35.
  50. ↑ (47) Resolved Man’s Resolution, p. 31.
  51. ↑ (48) P. 6.
  52. ↑ (49) P. 25.
  53. ↑ * See remark [O]
  54. ↑ (50) Ibid. p. 37. and Innocence and Truth justified, p. 29, 30.
  55. ↑ (51) Resolved Man’s Resolution, p. 36, 37.
  56. ↑ (52) Id. ibid. and p. 38.
  57. ↑ (53) Preparative to a Hue and Cry, p. 17.
  58. ↑ (54) For this he cites the followiug records. Rot. Parl. 1. Rich. II. No. 38, 39, 40. Rot Parl. 7. Rich. II. No. 17, 22.
  59. ↑ (55) Just Man’s Justification, p. 20 to 24.
  60. ↑ (56) This was written in 1647, after he had begun to quarrel with Cromwell.
  61. ↑ (57) Letter to the Council of Agitators, ubi supra, p. 26.
  62. ↑ (58) Lord Clarendon observes, that Reeves was a man of good reputation for learning and integrity, and who, in good times, would have been a good Judge. History of the Rebellion, Vol. I. p. 539. folio edit.
  63. ↑ (59) P. 19. This epistle is dated from his house in Half-moon alley in Petty-France, near Bishopsgate, London, June 6, 1646.
  64. ↑ (60) Idem, p. 9 and 20.
  65. ↑ (61) Rushworth, Vol. II. part iii. p. 732 to 736.
  66. ↑ (62) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 26. where he tells us, Cromwell first sollicited his wife at London to send for him for this purpose, from the leaguer at Crowland, and afterwards by a message delivered to him by his brother-in-law Desborough, near Sir Will. Russel’s in Cambridgeshire.
  67. ↑ (63) Our author observes, that Oliver only impeached the Earl for this end, to get him out of his command, that so he might get in a friend of his own that he could rule, and it may be in time himself. Ibid. Rushworth also, where last cited, takes notice, that these miscarriages in the army, and contests between the commauders, gave occasion for the new modelling of the Parliament’s forces.
  68. ↑ (64) In remark [S].
  69. ↑ * This plea and protestation he printed in his piece intitled, The Freeman’s Freedom vindicated, p. 3. edit. 1646, not long after this imprisonment.
  70. ↑ † Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 25, 26.
  71. ↑ (65) The Graver’s name is put within the frame, G. Gle. fecit.
  72. ↑ (66) Oppressed Man’s Oppressions, p. 23.
  73. ↑ (67) See the next remark.
  74. ↑ (68) In a piece wrote in concert with Overton, and intituled, The Outcries of the oppressed Commons, directed to all the rational and understanding in the Kingdom of England and Dominion of Wales. Published Feb. 1647, 4to.
  75. ↑ (69) Here he mentions several of his Judges in that Court, and, among the rest, old Sir Henry Vane, whom he threatens to anatomize to the purpose, which he d⟨i⟩d not fail to do soon after, as the remark [D D] will shew.
  76. ↑ (70) Oppressed Man’s Oppressions, p. 27.
  77. ↑ (71) This moderation was apparently the effect of Mr Corbet’s behaviour to him, that gentleman’s evenness of temper, as well as good sense, shewing itself conspicuously in our author’s account of this matter. See also another instance of it in James Howel’s article.
  78. ↑ (72) Resolved Man’s Resolution, p. 7, 8.
  79. ↑ (73) See more of this in the sequel.
  80. ↑ (74) In 1649, she had brought him three children, but they all died that year of the small-pox. Preparative to a Hue and Cry, p. 39.
  81. ↑ (75) This disregard of Cromwell’s interest plainly shews, that he was now highly displeased with him.
  82. ↑ * If this may be depended on, Sir Henry must make above twenty-five thousand pounds a year of this monopoly.
  83. ↑ (76) Our author’s father and uncle gave a joint affidavit of this in 1643. England’s Birthright, p. 19, 20, 21.
  84. ↑ * Our author’s frequent renunciations of a Scotch interest was remembred by those people, in the declaration and engagement, sworn to August 13, 1647. In which Lilburne, and he only, as being the principal champion of the sectaries, was cited by name, and some of his words against the King and Kingly power transcribed. Rushworth, Vol. VIII. p. 777. edit. 1721.
  85. ↑ (77) Resolved Man’s Resolution, p. 14 to 19.
  86. ↑ (78) Letters annexed to our author’s Epistle to Sir Henry Martin in 1647, Letter 1.
  87. ↑ (79) This account was inclosed in his Letter to the Council of Agitators, as is here intimated; and in it he brought the State indebted to him the sum of 800 pounds; whereas Mr Prynne, as is already observed, settled the balance against him to the value of 2200 pounds. Additional Plea to Mr Maynard, p. 5.
  88. ↑ (80) Ibid. Letter 2.
  89. ↑ (81) That is, to get himself into the State saddle. See the conclusion of this letter, wherein so much is plainly enough intimated.
  90. ↑ (82) His brother Robert, then a Colonel, was concerned together with a great part at least of his regiment in this affair at Newmarket-heath. Rushworth, Vol. II. part iv. or Vol. VIII. p. 914 and 922. edit. 1721.
  91. ↑ (83) Mr Henry Martin, who was also a Colonel, as well as Chairman of the Committee in our author’s cause against the House of Lords, apparently consented and approved of this scheme, having, in answer to a letter of Lilburne’s to him on this occasion, positively averred, that he had profered to make the report 20 times, but the House would not hear him. Letter to the Agitators, p. 28.
  92. ↑ (84) On Nov. 17 this year, we have his name, Rich. Arnell, from our author, who afterwards charged it upon him as murder. Legal and Fundamental Liberties, in the introduction.
  93. ↑ (85) History of the Rebellion, Vol. II. fol. edit.
  94. ↑ * Additional Plea to Mr Maynard, p. 6. See also the Prisoner’s mournful Cry, in an Epistle to Judge Rolles; where he expressly tells us, that none of the profers here mentioned were embraced by Cromwell, whom he there calls an usurper, tyrant, thief, and murderer.
  95. ↑ (86) Two Letters to Sir Henry Martin, printed this year in 1647, 4to. of which this is the first.
  96. ↑ (87) In the Additional Plea, ubi supra.
  97. ↑ (88) The same that has been cited before in note (86).
  98. ↑ (89) An instance of this he mentions in the act lately passed for treble tythes, i. e. for treble damages in case of refusal to pay the tythes, which he declares to be his own case. Milton’s was another, and he was also plainly tinctured with Quakerism, as well as lilburne, who, among other monopolies, often complains of that of confining the preaching of the Word of God to the rough Black-coats. The like complaint was often made by Milton.
  99. ↑ (90) Additional Plea, p. 2.
  100. ↑ (91) Letter the third, annexed to his two letters to Sir Henry Martin.
  101. ↑ (90) Additional Plea, p. 8.
  102. ↑ (91) What this was appears from his resolution to leave the kingdom for some time at least, ’till the public affairs were settled, i. e. ’till Cromwell had purged off the Agitators, and so secured to himself the whole army, and therein the supreme power. For that doubtless was the arch-rebel’s true meaning, from whom the proposition evidently came.
  103. ↑ (92) Additional Plea, in the conclusion.
  104. ↑ (93) Vol. VIII. p. 968, 970, 971. See also Wood’s Athen. Oxon. Vol. II. col. 173.
  105. ↑ (94) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, in the introduction.
  106. ↑ † Afterwards Lord-Chancellor to the Protector.
  107. ↑ (95) These votes passed the House of Commons February 15, 1647. Salmon’s Chronological Historian, p. 96. col. b. edit. 1723, 8vo.
  108. ↑ (96) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 27.
  109. ↑ (97) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 19. Where he also observes, that this great number of signers to the petition was procured in 7 or 8 days time, the juncture being critically favourable to him, on account of the Parliament’s apprehensions from the Cava⟨l⟩iers; and it is remarkable, that, the day after this petition, Prince CHarles being with his fleet in the Downs, sent a declaration to London, that he was come to release his father, &c.
  110. ↑ (98) Where last cited, p. 1212.
  111. ↑ (99) Preparative to a Hue and Cry, &c. p. 18.
  112. ↑ (100) All that part of Lord Cottington’s estate, which he should have had, was disposed of to Lord Say, and they had compounded with Windebank’s Heir. Ibid. p. 18.
  113. ↑ (101) Ibid. p. 21.
  114. ↑ (102) Rushworth, ubi supra, p. 1236.
  115. ↑ (103) Preparative to a Hue and Cry, p. 19. If we may believe himself, his reasono was a concern for the public welfare, which must suffer so far by this change; but it is evident, that the consideration of some rumours and deductions, which might be insisted on by Mr Prynne to adjust the ballance of his army accounts, was sufficient to put his mouth out of taste with the method of paying him out of the public money.
  116. ↑ (104) Ibid. p. 1253.
  117. ↑ (105) Ibid. p. 3. compared with Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 41. and with A Just Reproof to Haberdashers Hall, p. 6.
  118. ↑ (106) The last cited piece, in the same page, edit. 1651, 4to.
  119. ↑ * He points here at the treaty between the Parliament Commissioners and the King, which was opened September 18, 1648. Salmon, p. 98.
  120. ↑ † This was wrote in June the following year, 1649.
  121. ↑ (107) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 28.
  122. ↑ (108) Ibid. p. 29.
  123. ↑ (109) Chron. Hist. ubi supra. Our author also takes notice of this remonstrance, but says it was on the 16th of November from St Albans. See his Impeachment of Oliver Cromwell, &c. p. 67.
  124. ↑ (110) These were chiefly, that the Independents proposed first to put the King to death, and then force and thoroughly purge, if not dissolve, the Parliament; whereas it was insisted on by the Levellers, that the Parliament should be disſolved, and a new one called, before the King’s execution.
  125. ↑ (111) Salmon, ubi supra.
  126. ↑ (112) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 29 to 34.
  127. ↑ * As to the flesh, he says emphatically; for as to things of the spirit, these conceited minions of Heaven were ⟨f⟩avoured with this super-eminent degree of foresight assuredly, and, as they perswaded themselves, beyond the possibility of all contravention.
  128. ↑ (113) Ibid. p. ⟨3⟩5.
  129. ↑ (114) ’Tis upon this knowledge, that our author asserts, he printed their agreement before that presented by the army was half perfected. Ibid. p. 38.
  130. ↑ (115) Ibid. p. 36.
  131. ↑ (116) Lilburne plainly suggests here with regard to the army, what Milton did soon after of the Presbyterians, that, by stripping his Majesty of the kingly office and dignity, as they had long ago done, he was reduced to the state and rank of a private man. See Milton’s tenure of Kings, &c. throughout, in his Works, by Birch, Vol. I. tract 13. begun at p. 354. edit. 2, 1753, 2 vols, 4to.
  132. ↑ (117) Legal and Fundamental Liberties asserted, p. 42, 43.
  133. ↑ * In the Judge’s declaration, that he should be tried by the ancient laws of the kingdom.
  134. ↑ (118) Ibid. p. 68, 69.
  135. ↑ (119) In 1732, fol. p. 384.
  136. ↑ (120) The form is thus:
    April 30. Imprimatur Gilbert Mabbot.
  137. ↑ (121) Birch’s Life of Milton, prefixed to his Works, Vol. I. p. xxx. edit. 1753.
  138. ↑ (122) Thus, London, printed for Gyles Calvert, at the black Spread-Eagle, at the west end of St Paul’s.
  139. ↑ (123) Our author, jointly with Overton, printed an epistle on this occasion to the General in Lockyer’s behalf, dated April 27, 1649.
  140. ↑ (124) Our author says, this was a nick-name set upon them by the army at Putney-heath.
  141. ↑ (125) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, &c. p. 36, 37, 38, 39.
  142. ↑ (126) These are annexed to his own edition of the trial, printed soon after. His approbation prefixed to it is dated from Southwark, November 28, 1649. Besides which attempts, he also addressed himself to Prideaux the Attorney-General in the same view, and afterwards printed the substance of it, in a discourse intitled, Strength out of Weakness.
  143. ↑ (127) The urging of this favour, as a precedent to procure another, would, in almost any other person’s life, be a distinguishing mark of confident assurance, since he made use of that favour to disperse one of the very pamphlets for which he was now indicted. See his trial, p. 79.
  144. ↑ * ’Tis observable, that, in the point of Law, Lilburne often quotes Lord Clarendon’s speech for abolishing the Court of York; which may be seen in his article, remark [H].
  145. ↑ (128) The Lord Grey of Groby, Colonel Ludlow, Mr Robinson, and Colonel Martin, were serviceable to him in procuring this discharge. Trial, p. 155.
  146. ↑ (129) Ibid.
  147. ↑ (130) He concludes his defence with a full reliance on his jury, as his sole judges and keepers of his life, at whose hands the Lord would require his blood, in case they left any part of his indictment to the cruel and bloody men upon the bench, above the received doctrine of those times. Ibid. p. 141.
  148. ↑ (131) A just Reproof to Haberdashers-Hall, p. 6.
  149. ↑ (132) George Lilburne is said in this piece to clear 15 pounds a day from it. p. 18.
  150. ↑ (133) Our author’s father being a member of this committee, entered a protest against this seizure by Sir Arthur, alledging he was not legally one of the sequestrators. Ibid. p. 17.
  151. ↑ (134) Ibid. p. 15.
  152. ↑ (135) By affidavits of Sir Arthur’s procuring, as the several occasions required, which were admitted, though frequently contradictory to each other. p. 29, 30.
  153. ↑ (136) A committee erected for such purposes, and which held out a never-failing screen in behalf of their favourites.
  154. ↑ (137) On the other hand, it appears from this piece, thath Sir Arthur did not spare to charge the Lilburnes, our author’s father and uncle, with having defrauded the state of 12000l. a year of sequestred lands. p. 52.
  155. ↑ (138) Several of whom, as Lilburne remarks, were become both his proselytes and his creatures through cowardliness. Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 19.
  156. ↑ (139) See, among others, Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 57. where he maintains, that no power on earth can set any change of government against Prince Charles, as being heir apparent to his father, but what is done by an agreement of the people, and consequently, that his right to the throne was superior to the power of the Parliament, and could not nor was not destroyed by the late act of theirs, constituting England a Commonwealth.
  157. ↑ (140) Impeachment of Cromwell and Ireton, p. 7.
  158. ↑ (141) Athen. Oxon. Vol. II. col. 173.
  159. ↑ (142) Select Lives of England’s Worthies, p. 520.
  160. ↑ (a) Among thousands of other instances, the following is a most remarkable one of this vain confidence. In his Legal and Fundamental Liberties, printed in June 1649, p. 19. complaining of some of his old friends, who were lately become Cromwell’s creatures, and had published a book called Walwyn’s Wiles, representing our author therein, as a frothy, light, giddy hearted, fellow, easily deluded and drawn aside, being of no depth in himself, he proceeds thus: I am confident there is no two men in England that know me, whose consciences are more perswaded of the falsity of that their own assertion in every particular, than Mr Rozer and Master Kiffin are, if they would speak the truth from their very hearts; the whole stream of my actions, extraordinary well known to both of them for these twelve or thirteen years together, being as a large demonstration, that I understand the things I go about.
  161. ↑ (143) Postscript to his letter to Mr Heveningham, October 20, five days before his trial in 1649, in answer to a late charge of Thomas May, printed at the end of the said trial often quoted.
  162. ↑ (144) Winstanley, ubi supra.
  163. ↑ * Meaning Cromwell and his Council of Officers, who were the governors, in the interval between the dissolution of the Long-Parliament in April, and the meeting of the little one, as it is often called, in July 1653.
  164. ↑ (145) This expression shews, that he had other children after the death of the three first in 1649, as mentioned in remark [C C].
  165. ↑ (146) Salmon’s Chron. Hist. under the year 1653.
  166. ↑ (147) Hist. of the Rebellion, &c. Vol. III. p. 393. fol. edit.
  167. ↑ (148) He was Colonel of Horse in 1645, Governor of Newcastle the two following years, and, after the King’s death, was Major-General of the North of England.
  168. ↑ (149) ’Tis not improbable, that Cromwell might be the rather disposed to accept of the security for Lilburne’s good behaviour, and set him free as an act of clemency, at his entrance on the Protectorate about this time.
  169. ↑ (150) At his tryal he acknowledged the fact, and urged his ignorance of laws as his excuse; said he was for withdrawing the Court when the King moved it, and that on the day of the King’s death he retired to his chamber and mourned for it, upon which account his life was granted. See his tryal among those of the regicides.
  170. ↑ (151) Athen. Oxon. Vol. II. col. 174.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Biographia_Britannica/Volume_5/Lilburne&oldid=12455133"