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 1]. 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 2], he firſt offered a petition to the Houſe of Commons, to bring the Colonel to his trial upon the abovementioned impeachment[footnote 1]: and receiving no ſatiſfaction there[sidenote 3], he penned an epiſtle by way of appeal to Judge Reeves, and printed it with the title of The juſt Man’s Juſtification[footnote 2]. This piece was dated the 6th ofJune,
Sidenotes
- ↑ (f f) On the 14th of October, at his delivery out of Newgate.
- ↑ (g g) Two housekeepers and a stranger. Epiſtle to Judge Reeves, p. 2.
- ↑ (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.
Footnotes
- ↑ [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 3]. 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 4], until ſentence be given on the ſaid trial.
- ↑ [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 5]. 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 6].’ 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 7], 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
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. |
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 1], 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 2] for their conſent.
Citations
- ↑ (52) Id. ibid. and p. 38.
- ↑ (53) Preparative to a Hue and Cry, p. 17.
- ↑ (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.
- ↑ (55) Juſt Man’s Juſtification, p. 20 to 24.
- ↑ (56) This was written in 1647, after he had begun to quarrel with Cromwell.
- ↑ (57) Letter to the Council of Agitators, ubi ſupra, p. 26.
- ↑ (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.
a soldier’s
