Page:Biographia britannica v. 5 (IA biographiabritan05adam).djvu/90

brought to their trial before the High-Court of Juſtice, He appeared warmly in their favour againſt the juriſdiction of that Court^{[footnote 1]}; at the ſame time he was informed of ſome violence threatened againſt his perſon, in a council of war at Whitehall, about the 22d of February, whereupon he engaged in drawing up his piece called England’s new Chains diſcovered^{[sidenote 1]}, and on the 26th of that month accompanied by Walwyn, Prince, and Overton, he preſented an Addreſs to the Supreme Authority of England in the Houſe of Commons, containing a frame of new modelling the ſtate, in oppoſition to that which had been offered there by the army in January preceding^{[sidenote 2]}, and being ordered to withdraw without receiving an anſwer^{[footnote 2]}, our author publiſhed the whole under the laſt mentioned title^{[footnote 3]}, upon which he was committed with his aſſociates to the Tower, March the 29th, 1649. He had not been there long before he joined with them in writing another pamphlet, intitled, The Agreement of the People, which was publiſhed on the firſt of May, with a licence by Gilbert Mabbot^{[footnote 4]}. This being followed with ſeve-ral

Sidenotes

1. (d d d) Legal and Fundamental liberties, &c. p. 74.
2. (e e e) In this model they ran through the ſeveral articles of that offered by the army, charging it in every particular with unjuſt and tyrannical deſigns, and the Houſe of Commons with a deſign to introduce an arbitrary power by the High-Court of Juſtice and the Council of State.

Footnotes

1. [W W] He appeared againſt the juriſdiction of the High-Court of Juſtice.] Conſidering Lilburne’s general temper, it is natural to expect him attending to hear theſe trials; but, beſides his general diſpoſition, he was particularly intereſted therein, as the method of proceeding againſt theſe delinquents, was a freſh inſtance of the Army’s reſolution againſt calling a new Parliament. Upon that account he declares, he was peculiarly pleaſed with ſtout Capel, as he calls him, and his gallant defence, in alledging ſeveral ſtatutes to prove, that all treaſons ſhall be tried by the common-law, and not by extraordinary ways, but by the declared laws in being, and citing the Petition of Right for the proof thereof. Then looking round about him, and ſaying, I am an Engliſhman, and the Law is my inheritance, and the benefit of the Petition of Right my birthright; if ſo, then, ſaid he, looking upon the Preſident, Where ’s my jury? I ſee none of my jury that is to paſs upon me; I demand the ſight of my jury legally pannelled, as my right by Law, without the verdict of whom I cannot in Law be condemned. After the Court was broke up for that day, our author had ſeveral diſcourſes with the priſoners, and ſent them divers law-books and law-pleas, with that of Sir John Maynard and the four impeached aldermen, and much preſſed ſome of them to put their lives upon the hazard of a plea and proteſtation againſt the juriſdiction of the Court; but, he ſays, they ſeemed to him to have promiſes of their lives, upon conformity to that juriſdiction, and could ſcarce believe they ſhould die ’till the hour of death came upon them, He further aſſures us, that ſome of them ſent to deſire him to be one of their counſel, to plead for them in matter of Law; to whom he anſwered, that he could not plead for a juſtification of their actions (though he confeſſed there were much in Law to be ſaid for them, eſpecially as the caſe ſtood with them), but only againſt the juriſdiction of the Court. ‘And when Holland came to his trial, continues he, a lady, and ſome other of his friends, came to me to my houſe about him; but I was ſtill upon the ſame ſtring, yet ſent him word of ſeveral particulars, in reference to my trial and arraignment at Oxford^{[citation 1]}, that was very material to his preſent cauſe; and if he would call me as a witneſſe, he ſhould ſee I would ſpeak my mind freely and effectually, although I ſmarted for ſo doing; and he appointed to call me: whereupon, I went into the court, and conveyed word to him I was there; but whether his heart failed him or no, I know not, but he never called me^{[citation 2]}.’ Whoever reflects upon the ſpirit of John Lilburne, and his particular ſituation at this time, will eaſily grant, that the ſlight ſhewn by theſe royaliſts to all his forward offers to appear in their cauſe, and loſing thereby an opportunity of abuſing the High-Court of Juſtice face to face, in the very inſtant of their exerciſing that juriſdiction, was none of the leaſt vexatious diſappointments and rebuffs that he met with.
2. [X X] He preſented a frame of new modelling the State, which was thrown aſide.] In his ſpeech on preſenting this model, &c. we learn, that the warrants for apprehending them were out at this time. See his words.
    
   ‘Mr Speaker,
   I must confeſs I am to preſent you with a paper in writing of a new kind; for we have had no longer time to conſider of it, than from Thurſday laſt: that day warrants, as we are informed, being out againſt us to take us, from thoſe that have no power over us, we durſt not well go our ordinary way to work, to get ſubſcriptions to it, leſt we ſhould be ſurprized before we could preſent it to this honourable Houſe, and ſo be fruſtrated in that benefit and relief that we juſtly expect from you; and to preſent it with a few hands, we judged inconſiderable in your attention, and therefore choſe, being in ſo much haſte as we were, to prevent our imminent and preſent ruin, in perſon to bring it to your bar, and avowedly to preſent it here. And therefore, without any further queſtion, give me leave to tell you I own it, and I know ſo does all the reſt of my friends preſent; and, if any hazard ſhould enſue thereby, give me leave to tell you, I am ſorry I have but one life to loſe, in maintaining the truth, juſtice, and righteouſneſs, of ſo gallant a piece.’ The ſeveral articles of this model (too long to be inſerted here) may be ſeen in Whitlock’s Memoirs, printed not a great many years ago^{[citation 3]}. We ſhall only obſerve, that the variations from his account in the printed copy now before us, are no ways material, unleſs it be in article [30], where there are no words that give the leaſt countenance to thoſe of Mr Whitlock, viz. ‘No eſtate to be levelled, nor all things common.’
3. [Y Y] He publiſhed England’s new Chains.] This piece was loaded with an additional charge annexed to the end of it, greatly aggravating their offence, as follows:
    
   Friends,
   Thus we have adventured to publiſh our propoſal, for the thorow information and benefit of all that adhere unto the common intereſt of the people, hoping that with ſuch, upon due conſideration, it will find as large acceptance as our late petition of September 11, 1648; and we thought good, in regard we were not called in [to the houſe] to receive an anſwer to the ſame, to acquaint you that we intend to ſecond it with a petition, ſufficiently ſubſcribed, we doubt not with many thouſands, earneſtly to ſollicite there an effectual answer.’
4. [Z Z] Licenſed by Gilbert Mabbot.] This licence is dated April 30, 1649^{[citation 4]}, and, as it very probably was a forgery, it ſeems to have been one of the principal, if not the laſt, of the kind, which occaſioned Mabbot to throw up his place, as he did on the 22d of May following, for four reaſons, of which theſe are the firſt and laſt given by him to the Council of State. ‘I. Becauſe many thouſands of ſcandalous and malignant pamphlets had been publiſhed with his name thereunto, as if he had licenſed the ſame (though he never ſaw them), on purpoſe (as he conceives) to prejudice him in his reputation amongſt the honeſt party of this nation. IV. Becauſe it is lawful, in his judgment, to print any booke, ſheete, &c. without licenſing, ſo as the authors and printers do ſubſcribe their true names thereunto, that ſo they may be liable to anſwer the contents thereof; and if they offend therein, then to be puniſhed by ſuch lawes as are or ſhall be for thoſe caſes provided^{[citation 5]}.’ In the piece before us, though the imprimatur is dated April 30; yet both the agreement itſelf, and the introduction to it, called a Preparative to all ſorts of people, are dated May 1, 1649, and both are ſubſcribed with the authors names, which are alſo inſerted in the title. There is likewiſe the Bookſeller’s name who printed it put at the end^{[citation 6]}. We ought not to omit, that there is no ſuch article in this agreement, as that above taken notice of from Mr Whitlock.

Citations

1. * In the Judge’s declaration, that he ſhould be tried by the ancient laws of the kingdom.
2. (118) Ibid. p. 68, 69.
3. (119) In 1732, fol. p. 384.
4. (120) The form is thus:
   April 30. Imprimatur Gilbert Mabbot.
5. (121) Birch’s Life of Milton, prefixed to his Works, Vol. I. p. xxx. edit. 1753.
6. (122) Thus, London, printed for Gyles Calvert, at the black Spread-Eagle, at the weſt end of St Paul’s.