Page:Biographia britannica v. 5 (IA biographiabritan05adam).djvu/93

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 1]}. Shortly after this, having recovered his eſtate from Sir Arthur Haſlerig^{[footnote 1]}, he undertook the management of a diſpute in law, in which his uncle George Lilburne happened then to be engaged with that Baronet^{[sidenote 2]}. 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 2]} in the proceedingsthereon.

Sidenotes

1. (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.
2. (g g g) See an account of this affair inthe next remark.

Footnotes

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.

1. [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 1]}.
2. [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 2]} 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 3]} 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 4]}.’ But the hearing being ſtill deferred upon one pretence or other^{[citation 5]} 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 6]}. 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 7]}, 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 8]}, 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.

Citations

1. (131) A juſt Reproof to Haberdaſhers-Hall, p. 6.
2. (132) George Lilburne is ſaid in this piece to clear 15 pounds a day from it. p. 18.
3. (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.
4. (134) Ibid. p. 15.
5. (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.
6. (136) A committee erected for ſuch purpoſes, and which held out a never-failing ſcreen in behalf of their favourites.
7. (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.
8. (138) Several of whom, as Lilburne remarks, were become both his proſelytes and his creatures through cowardlineſs. Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 19.

[E E E] He