when under tria' of "Freeborn" John Lil»- Tr. 1270) is one of unusual in'tíesides being one of the few state trials of the time which resulted in an ac quittal, it was conducted more in accordance with modern forms than any previous trial. Objections to leading questions and to copies of documents as evidence appear for the first time. The right of the prosecution to reply was also first stated in this case. The treatment of the prisoner does not show much improvement; but Lilburne was a re fractory defendant. He at first refused to plead. After much wrangling he plead not guilty, and his defense, stripped of all its quibbles, was that he was a better patriot than his prosecutors. His speech in his own defense is a curious combination of shrewd ness and effrontery. "The jury by law," he told the court, "are not only judges of the law but of the fact also; and you that call yourself judges of the law are no more but Norman intruders, and in deed and in truth, if the jury please, are no more but ciphers to pronounce their verdict." Upon his acquit tal he was re-imprisoned, and subsequently banished by an act which provided that if he returned he would be guilty of felony. He did return, and upon his second trial was again acquitted (5 St. Tr. 407). In what he termed the "furious hurley burley" of his sec ond trial he achieved the additional triuirph of extorting from the court, for the first time, a copy of his indictment. Lilburne's second acquittal incensed Cromwell, and the jury were summoned before the council to an swer for their conduct. Andrew's case recalls the worst days of Tudor tyranny. Andrews, who was a bar rister of Gray's Inn and had served in Charles' army, was charged with being im plicated in a design to raise a rebellion in the Isle of Ely. Nothing was legally prove3 against him, and his conviction could only be sustained on the theory that a base in tention to levy war is treason. Proof by
witnesses, trial by jury, the right of chal lenge, were all denied him. Attorney Gen eral Prideaux openly argued that "as the prisoner had an affection to act, though nothing acted, that was sufficient treason, and for that affection he deserved death." We have a full and circumstantial report of Love's trial (5 St. Tr. 43). Love was a Presbyterian divine who was charged with being implicated in what is known as the Presbyterian Plot for a Scotch Alliance with Charles. He succeeded in securing a hear ing by counsel on matters of law, and Hale appeared for him. He was kindly treated by the court, but the charge against him was not legally proved. Among other trials during the Common wealth were the cases of Gerhard, Vowell, and Fox for conspiring to murder the Pro tector. The guilt of the prisoners was clear ly proved, and, apart from the deprivation of trial by jury, the proceedings were unusually fair. In Sidercombe's case it was held that setting fire to the palace at Whitehall was an overt act of treason. In the trial of Hewet, Mordaunt and others on a charge of plotting to restore the Stuarts, Hewet was sentenced upon his refusal to plead. Mordaunt was ac quitted by the casting vote of the president of the court. It is said that this was the only instance of an acquittal in the records of the High Court of Justice. The trial of the Regicides (5. St. Tr. 947), who had been exempted from the general in demnity, followed immediately upon the Restoration. The trials were, on the whole, fairer than might be expected. The prison ers did not dispute the facts; and twentynine convictions and thirteen executions may be called mild, according to the prac tices of those days, for a great rebellion. The disgusting desecration of the graves of the Puritan leaders was a far greater stain upon the Royalists. Vane's execution was infamous (6 St. Tr.
