2956
LILBURNE.
ral others notoriouſly vilifying the conſervators of the liberties of England, and Cromwell in particular as their ſupreme head and maſter[footnote 1]; 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 2] on the 24th of October at Guild-hall in London, uponan
Sidenotes
Footnotes
- ↑ [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.
- ↑ [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 4]. 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
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 1]. 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 2], 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 3].’
Citations
- ↑ (123) Our author, jointly with Overton, printed an epiſtle on this occaſion to the General in Lockyer’s behalf, dated April 27, 1649.
- ↑ (124) Our author ſays, this was a nick-name ſet upon them by the army at Putney-heath.
- ↑ (125) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, &c. p. 36, 37, 38, 39.
- ↑ (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.
by
