Page:Biographia britannica v. 5 (IA biographiabritan05adam).djvu/85

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

2950

LILBURNE.

well made him a friendly viſit in the Tower^{[footnote 1]}, but ſtill the Houſe, inſtead of diſcharging him as he expected, referred the caſe back to the Committee^{[sidenote 1]}^{[footnote 2]}: 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 3]}, 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 4]}On

Sidenotes

↑ (r r) It was ordered to be recommitted, to find out ſome precedents of this nature, and report to the Houſe. Ibid. p. 810.

Footnotes

↑ [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 1]}, 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 2]}.

From my lawleſs captivity in the Tower of London, September the 13th, 1647.’
↑ [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 3]}, 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 4]} 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 5]}, 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 6]} 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.
↑ [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 7]}.’
↑ [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.

Citations

↑ * 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.
↑ (86) Two Letters to Sir Henry Martin, printed this year in 1647, 4to. of which this is the firſt.
↑ (87) In the Additional Plea, ubi ſupra.
↑ (88) The ſame that has been cited before in note (86).
↑ (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.
↑ (90) Additional Plea, p. 2.
↑ (91) Letter the third, annexed to his two letters to Sir Henry Martin.

But

[4] (r r) It was ordered to be recommitted, to find out ſome precedents of this nature, and report to the Houſe. Ibid. p. 810.

[3] [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 1]}, 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 2]}.

From my lawleſs captivity in the Tower of London, September the 13th, 1647.’

[9] [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 3]}, 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 4]} 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 5]}, 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 6]} 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.

[11] [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 7]}.’

[p85-12] [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.

[1] * 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.

[2] (86) Two Letters to Sir Henry Martin, printed this year in 1647, 4to. of which this is the firſt.

[5] (87) In the Additional Plea, ubi ſupra.

[6] (88) The ſame that has been cited before in note (86).

[7] (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.

[8] (90) Additional Plea, p. 2.

[10] (91) Letter the third, annexed to his two letters to Sir Henry Martin.

[footnote 1]

[sidenote 1]

[footnote 2]

[footnote 3]

[footnote 4]

[citation 1]

[citation 2]

[citation 3]

[citation 4]

[citation 5]

[citation 6]

[citation 7]