Page:Biographia britannica v. 5 (IA biographiabritan05adam).djvu/88

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

LILBURNE.

2953

berty, he wrote a friendly letter to Cromwell, then warmly attacked by the Preſbyterians^{[footnote 1]}, September the 11th, he joined with ſeveral others in a large petition to the Houſe of Commons againſt a perſonal treaty with the King^{[footnote 2]}; preſently after which, he went down into the North to take poſſeſſion of ſome effects that had been aſſigned to him, in purſuance of the laſt mentioned vote of the Commons^{[sidenote 1]}, Returning to London in a ſhort time, with a deſign to procure the ſettling of a new model of government before the King’s execution, which was then reſolved on by the leading men in the army^{[sidenote 2]}, he had ſeveral meetings with Ireton and others upon that affair^{[footnote 3]}, but thegeneral

Sidenotes

↑ (a a a) He got 400 pounds of ſequeſtred coals and iron of Mr Bowes’s, beſides between 100 and 200 pounds in rents. Ibid. p. 41.
↑ (b b b) See remark [U U].

Footnotes

vanced out of the Lord Coventry’s eſtate, was read, and, upon the queſtion, laid aſide; but the Houſe only diſagreeing in the manner, ordered that 3000 pounds worth of delinquents lands ſhould be ſold to him in fee at twelve year’s purchaſe, and that an ordinance of Parliament ſhould be brought in for that purpoſe with all convenient ſpeed^{[citation 1]}.’ In conſequence of this order, he obtained a grant for ſome part of the ſequeſtred eſtates of Sir Henry Bellingham and Mr Bowes, in the county of Durham, or Northumberland; from which he received about 1400 pounds^{[citation 2]}; and Cromwell, ſoon after his return from Ireland, in the end of May 1650, procured him a grant of lands for the remainder ‘for which moſt noble favour (ſays he the following year) I muſt and do heartily declare and acknowledge myſelf highly obliged to him^{[citation 3]}.

↑ [P P] A Letter to Cromwell, then warmly attacked by the Preſbyterians.] The Letter was in theſe terms:

‘SIR,
What my comrade hath written by our truſty bearer might be ſufficient for us both; but to demonſtrate unto you, that I am no ſtaggerer from my firſt principles that I engaged my life upon, nor from you, if you are what you ought to be, and what you are ſtrongly reported to be; although if I proſecuted, or deſired revenge for a hard and almoſt ſtarving impriſonment, I could have had of late the choice of twenty opportunities to have payd you to the purpoſe; but I ſcorn it, eſpecially when you are low: and this aſſure yourſelf, that if ever my hand be upon you, it ſhall be when you are in your full glory, if then you ſhall decline from the righteous wayes of Truth and Juſtice: which if you will fixedly and impartially proſecute,

I am Your’s, to the laſt drop of my heart’s blood,

(for all your late ſevere hand towards me)
John Lilburne.
From Weſtminſter the 3d of Auguſt, 1648, being the ſecond day of my freedom.’
To underſtand fully the noble ſpirit of this letter, we muſt in company with our author take a view of Cromwell’s circumſtances at that time. He had his hands full with the Royaliſts, Poyer, Young, Holland, Hamilton, and Langdale, this year; and ſtill more ſo with the Parliament, there being a general odium then in both Houſes againſt him, upon the impeachment of him by his own Major, Huntington. Lilburne, on the other hand, having obtained his liberty, was not a little up and in ſpirits on the occaſion, and could at his pleaſure, as he ſays, have been revenged of him if he had ſo pleaſed, either by diviſions in his army, which was eaſily then in his power, or by joining with Major Huntington in impeaching him; which, as he obſerves, he had matter enough to do, and was earneſtly ſollicited to it again and again, and might have had money enough to boot in his then low and exhauſted condition [with regard to the ſtate of his purſe]; Yet, continues he, I ſcorned it, and rather applied my hand to help him up again, as not loving a Scotch intereſt^{[citation 4]}, as is very well and fully known to his preſent^{[citation 5]} darling Mr Cornelius Holland, and alſo to Colonel Ludlow, and Mr Thomas Challoner, with other members that I could name; and which was demonſtrated to himſelf by a letter [that inſerted here] I ſent him by Mr Sexby, whom on purpoſe I procured to go down to him. Which letter, &c. as I have been told by the bearer, was not a little welcome^{[citation 6]}.
↑ [Q Q] A petition againſt a perſonal treaty with the King.] Our author tells us, that he was compelled, in conſcience to have a hand in this, which he calls that moſt excellent of petitions, by reaſon of the ſeveral jugglings he obſerved in divers great ones, in reference to the perſonal treaty; and that there was nothing worth praiſing or liking thought of or preſented by the Parliament, in reference to the people’s liberties; eſpecially conſidering the late large expences and hazards for procuring the ſettlement of them. But beſides this, another motive for joining at leaſt more gladly in this petition is alſo ſuggeſted by him, which is, that he was perſuaded it would be agreeable to the Lieutenant-general, who ſhewed a fair face then to him and his party, he alſo expreſsly ſays, he was ſure it was no ſmall piece of ſervice to Cromwell and his great aſſociates^{[citation 7]}⟨.⟩ In his ſpeech, on preſenting a new model of government to the Houſe of Commons, in 1649; our author obſerves this was the firſt petition he knew of in England againſt that treaty: and Mr Salmon takes notice of a Remonſtrance, as he calls it, preſented to the Commons, Nov. 10, this year, by the officers, againſt any further treaty with his Majeſty, and requiring that the King and his adherents be brought to juſtice; and that a period be put to this Parliament, and more equal repreſentatives choſen, in whom they would have the ſupreme power lodged^{[citation 8]}. How far this was approved by Cromwell and his great aſſociates ſoon after, will be ſeen in the next remark.
↑ [R R] Several meetings with Ireton, &c.] While Lilburne was in the North, on the buſineſs mentioned in the text, he ſaw Cromwell [at that time there with the army to quell the Scots]; and obſerving him narrowly, found he was not ſo heartily inclined to the views of his party [the Levellers], as had been repreſented. For which reaſon, on his return to London ſhortly after, he joined with ſome other friends in ſending a meſſage to Cromwell, propoſing to ſettle the government by an agreement with the people. The meſſenger (Hunt) returning with Cromwell’s conſent to the propoſal, ſeveral Independents, to which party Cromwell’s anſwer was directed, and Levellers, among whom was Lilburne, met at the Nag’s-head tavern by Blackwell-Hall; where, after ſome warm debates, it was agreed to chuſe four perſons of each ſide, to adjuſt the matters in diſpute^{[citation 9]}. Theſe delegates, which were Colonel Tichburne, Colonel White, Dr Parker, and Jo. Price, for the Independents; and for the Levellers, Lieutenant-Colonel Wotton, Mr Walwyn, Mr Wildman, and Mr Lilburne, in a ſecond meeting at the Nag’s-head, November 15, 1648, unanimouſly agreed in theſe words: ‘That, in our conceptions, the only way of ſettlement is, (1.) That ſome perſons be choſen by the army to repreſent the whole body; and that the well-affected in every county (if it may be) chuſe ſome perſons to repreſent them: and thoſe to meet at the head quarters. (2⟨.⟩) That thoſe perſons ought not to exerciſe any legiſlative power, but only to draw up the foundations of a juſt government, and to propound them to the well-affected people in every county to be agreed to: which agreement ought to be above Law; and therefore the bounds, limits, and extent, of the Peoples legiſlative deputies in Parliament, contained in the agreement, to be drawn up into a formal contract, to be mutually ſigned by the well-affected people and their ſaid deputies upon the days of their election reſpectively. (3.) To prevent preſent confuſion, the Parliament (if it be poſſible) may not be by force immediately diſſolved; but that the day of it’s diſſolution be inſerted in that agreement, by virtue whereof it ſhall be diſſolved. (4⟨.⟩) That this way of ſettlement (if it may be) ſhall be mentioned in the Army’s firſt remonſtrance. (5.) That the matter of the petition of September 11 be the matter to be ſettled.’ Theſe heads for ſettling an agreement were immediately

Citations

↑ (104) Ibid. p. 1253.
↑ (105) Ibid. p. 3. compared with Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 41. and with A Juſt Reproof to Haberdaſhers Hall, p. 6.
↑ (106) The laſt cited piece, in the ſame page, edit. 1651, 4to.
↑ * He points here at the treaty between the Parliament Commiſſioners and the King, which was opened September 18, 1648. Salmon, p. 98.
↑ † This was wrote in June the following year, 1649.
↑ (107) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 28.
↑ (108) Ibid. p. 29.
↑ (109) Chron. Hiſt. ubi ſupra. Our author alſo takes notice of this remonſtrance, but ſays it was on the 16th of November from St Albans. See his Impeachment of Oliver Cromwell, &c. p. 67.
↑ (110) Theſe were chiefly, that the Independents propoſed firſt to put the King to death, and then force and thoroughly purge, if not diſſolve, the Parliament; whereas it was inſiſted on by the Levellers, that the Parliament ſhould be diſſolved, and a new one called, before the King’s execution.

ſent

[12] (a a a) He got 400 pounds of ſequeſtred coals and iron of Mr Bowes’s, beſides between 100 and 200 pounds in rents. Ibid. p. 41.

[13] (b b b) See remark [U U].

[8] [P P] A Letter to Cromwell, then warmly attacked by the Preſbyterians.] The Letter was in theſe terms:

‘SIR,
What my comrade hath written by our truſty bearer might be ſufficient for us both; but to demonſtrate unto you, that I am no ſtaggerer from my firſt principles that I engaged my life upon, nor from you, if you are what you ought to be, and what you are ſtrongly reported to be; although if I proſecuted, or deſired revenge for a hard and almoſt ſtarving impriſonment, I could have had of late the choice of twenty opportunities to have payd you to the purpoſe; but I ſcorn it, eſpecially when you are low: and this aſſure yourſelf, that if ever my hand be upon you, it ſhall be when you are in your full glory, if then you ſhall decline from the righteous wayes of Truth and Juſtice: which if you will fixedly and impartially proſecute,

I am Your’s, to the laſt drop of my heart’s blood,

(for all your late ſevere hand towards me)
John Lilburne.
From Weſtminſter the 3d of Auguſt, 1648, being the ſecond day of my freedom.’
To underſtand fully the noble ſpirit of this letter, we muſt in company with our author take a view of Cromwell’s circumſtances at that time. He had his hands full with the Royaliſts, Poyer, Young, Holland, Hamilton, and Langdale, this year; and ſtill more ſo with the Parliament, there being a general odium then in both Houſes againſt him, upon the impeachment of him by his own Major, Huntington. Lilburne, on the other hand, having obtained his liberty, was not a little up and in ſpirits on the occaſion, and could at his pleaſure, as he ſays, have been revenged of him if he had ſo pleaſed, either by diviſions in his army, which was eaſily then in his power, or by joining with Major Huntington in impeaching him; which, as he obſerves, he had matter enough to do, and was earneſtly ſollicited to it again and again, and might have had money enough to boot in his then low and exhauſted condition [with regard to the ſtate of his purſe]; Yet, continues he, I ſcorned it, and rather applied my hand to help him up again, as not loving a Scotch intereſt^{[citation 4]}, as is very well and fully known to his preſent^{[citation 5]} darling Mr Cornelius Holland, and alſo to Colonel Ludlow, and Mr Thomas Challoner, with other members that I could name; and which was demonſtrated to himſelf by a letter [that inſerted here] I ſent him by Mr Sexby, whom on purpoſe I procured to go down to him. Which letter, &c. as I have been told by the bearer, was not a little welcome^{[citation 6]}.

[11] [Q Q] A petition againſt a perſonal treaty with the King.] Our author tells us, that he was compelled, in conſcience to have a hand in this, which he calls that moſt excellent of petitions, by reaſon of the ſeveral jugglings he obſerved in divers great ones, in reference to the perſonal treaty; and that there was nothing worth praiſing or liking thought of or preſented by the Parliament, in reference to the people’s liberties; eſpecially conſidering the late large expences and hazards for procuring the ſettlement of them. But beſides this, another motive for joining at leaſt more gladly in this petition is alſo ſuggeſted by him, which is, that he was perſuaded it would be agreeable to the Lieutenant-general, who ſhewed a fair face then to him and his party, he alſo expreſsly ſays, he was ſure it was no ſmall piece of ſervice to Cromwell and his great aſſociates^{[citation 7]}⟨.⟩ In his ſpeech, on preſenting a new model of government to the Houſe of Commons, in 1649; our author obſerves this was the firſt petition he knew of in England againſt that treaty: and Mr Salmon takes notice of a Remonſtrance, as he calls it, preſented to the Commons, Nov. 10, this year, by the officers, againſt any further treaty with his Majeſty, and requiring that the King and his adherents be brought to juſtice; and that a period be put to this Parliament, and more equal repreſentatives choſen, in whom they would have the ſupreme power lodged^{[citation 8]}. How far this was approved by Cromwell and his great aſſociates ſoon after, will be ſeen in the next remark.

[p88-15] [R R] Several meetings with Ireton, &c.] While Lilburne was in the North, on the buſineſs mentioned in the text, he ſaw Cromwell [at that time there with the army to quell the Scots]; and obſerving him narrowly, found he was not ſo heartily inclined to the views of his party [the Levellers], as had been repreſented. For which reaſon, on his return to London ſhortly after, he joined with ſome other friends in ſending a meſſage to Cromwell, propoſing to ſettle the government by an agreement with the people. The meſſenger (Hunt) returning with Cromwell’s conſent to the propoſal, ſeveral Independents, to which party Cromwell’s anſwer was directed, and Levellers, among whom was Lilburne, met at the Nag’s-head tavern by Blackwell-Hall; where, after ſome warm debates, it was agreed to chuſe four perſons of each ſide, to adjuſt the matters in diſpute^{[citation 9]}. Theſe delegates, which were Colonel Tichburne, Colonel White, Dr Parker, and Jo. Price, for the Independents; and for the Levellers, Lieutenant-Colonel Wotton, Mr Walwyn, Mr Wildman, and Mr Lilburne, in a ſecond meeting at the Nag’s-head, November 15, 1648, unanimouſly agreed in theſe words: ‘That, in our conceptions, the only way of ſettlement is, (1.) That ſome perſons be choſen by the army to repreſent the whole body; and that the well-affected in every county (if it may be) chuſe ſome perſons to repreſent them: and thoſe to meet at the head quarters. (2⟨.⟩) That thoſe perſons ought not to exerciſe any legiſlative power, but only to draw up the foundations of a juſt government, and to propound them to the well-affected people in every county to be agreed to: which agreement ought to be above Law; and therefore the bounds, limits, and extent, of the Peoples legiſlative deputies in Parliament, contained in the agreement, to be drawn up into a formal contract, to be mutually ſigned by the well-affected people and their ſaid deputies upon the days of their election reſpectively. (3.) To prevent preſent confuſion, the Parliament (if it be poſſible) may not be by force immediately diſſolved; but that the day of it’s diſſolution be inſerted in that agreement, by virtue whereof it ſhall be diſſolved. (4⟨.⟩) That this way of ſettlement (if it may be) ſhall be mentioned in the Army’s firſt remonſtrance. (5.) That the matter of the petition of September 11 be the matter to be ſettled.’ Theſe heads for ſettling an agreement were immediately

[1] (104) Ibid. p. 1253.

[2] (105) Ibid. p. 3. compared with Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 41. and with A Juſt Reproof to Haberdaſhers Hall, p. 6.

[3] (106) The laſt cited piece, in the ſame page, edit. 1651, 4to.

[5] * He points here at the treaty between the Parliament Commiſſioners and the King, which was opened September 18, 1648. Salmon, p. 98.

[6] † This was wrote in June the following year, 1649.

[7] (107) Legal and Fundamental Liberties, p. 28.

[9] (108) Ibid. p. 29.

[10] (109) Chron. Hiſt. ubi ſupra. Our author alſo takes notice of this remonſtrance, but ſays it was on the 16th of November from St Albans. See his Impeachment of Oliver Cromwell, &c. p. 67.

[14] (110) Theſe were chiefly, that the Independents propoſed firſt to put the King to death, and then force and thoroughly purge, if not diſſolve, the Parliament; whereas it was inſiſted on by the Levellers, that the Parliament ſhould be diſſolved, and a new one called, before the King’s execution.

[footnote 1]

[footnote 2]

[sidenote 1]

[sidenote 2]

[footnote 3]

[citation 1]

[citation 2]

[citation 3]

[citation 4]

[citation 5]

[citation 6]

[citation 7]

[citation 8]

[citation 9]