LILBURNE.
2959
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 1]. 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 2], 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 3]. 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 1]. He wrote alſoa paper
Sidenotes
- ↑ (h h h) See his Petition to the Supreme Authority for the Commonwealth of England, July 12, 1653, p. 4.
- ↑ (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].
- ↑ (k k k) His laſt cited Petition, in the ſame page.
Footnotes
- ↑ [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 1]. 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 2].’ 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 3] 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 4]. 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 5], 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 6].’ 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
Citations
- ↑ (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.
- ↑ (140) Impeachment of Cromwell and Ireton, p. 7.
- ↑ (141) Athen. Oxon. Vol. II. col. 173.
- ↑ (142) Select Lives of England’s Worthies, p. 520.
- ↑ (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.
- ↑ (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.
VOL. V. No. 247.
33 D
of
