ism in their persons, and Cromwell was of opinion that it could only be governed by an able monarchical despotism in his own person. So difficult has it always been found to get rid of one tyranny without having another set up in its place-so difficult that the exceptions may be called the wonders of history.

I have stated that on the 28th of March, the Council of State made an order for the committal to the Tower, of Lilburne, Walwyn, Overton, and Prince. On the 30th of March a petition signed by 10,000 persons was presented to the House in their behalf. This petition is ably and temperately drawn, and, from various expressions in it, those who framed it evidently believed that even at that time Cromwell had formed designs against the nation's liberties. The petitioners say that "the hostile seizure by the Council of State, and their examinations apart upon questions against themselves, no accuser appearing face to face, no friends allowed to be present, and thereupon committed prisoners to the Tower, being all directly contrary to Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, and to your own declarations of the 8th February and 17th March last; we are inforced to believe that some eminent persons, whose particular interests our said friends may have opposed, have surprised this honourable House." The petition then refers to their frequent motions and petitions, especially their Agreement of the People, wherein are comprised such clear fundamentals of just government." The framers of the petition would here seem to claim for Lilburne and Overton the authorship of the "Agreement of the people;" a claim which can hardly be just, though they may have been consulted by Ireton in the framing of that document. The petitioners then charge "some eminent persons in the army" with hatred

66

towards their friends for their endeavours to keep the military power subordinate to the civil, and for standing betwixt the absolute domination of such "eminent persons of the army " and the freedom of the people; for which their friends have been long aspersed by them as "Levellers, Atheists, Jesuits, &c." The petitioners further say they are credibly informed that Lieut.-Gen. Cromwell declared in the Council "that they must break this party into pieces or they would break them: that, if they did not do it, they would render themselves the most silly, low-spirited men in the world, to be routed by so contemptible and despicable a generation of men." The petition then complains that the Declaration of Parliament reflecting upon them as "persons seditious, destructive to the present Government, mutineers, hinderers of the relief of Ireland, and continuers of free quarter, hath so forespoken them, that, whensoever they come to trial, they are likely to fall under abundance of prejudice; besides the influence those eminent persons (who now visibly appear their particular adversaries) have upon all persons in office, and upon all the present forces in being.” The petitioners say they cannot "discern how it can be just to try men on a Declaration made after the fact pretended;" and earnestly intreat the House that they will first make strict inquiry into the cause of that force of soldiers used against the prisoners contrary to law, enlarge them from their present imprisonment in the Tower; and then, if any person hath wherewith to accuse them, that they may be proceeded against, as by law they ought, by warrants from a justice of the peace to be served by constables not soldiers, and, if the fact be bailable, to be allowed bail; if not, to be secured in that legal prison appointed for that place and fact not

in a prerogative prison as the Tower is; and then in an ordinary way to have the benefit of a trial by a jury of twelve sworn men in the neighbourhood, not overawed by soldiers: "a trial which we conceive, cannot in justice, in any circumstance, be denied to the worst of thieves, murderers, and traitors; and which was our real intention in our late petition presented to you concerning them." The petition after praying that the execution of civil affairs may be wholly freed from the interposition of the sword, and that martial law may not be exercised in time of peace, thus concludes: "Lastly, we intreat that there may be some general encouragement from you, to proceed to a speedy settlement, by way of an "Agreement of the People," upon the grounds of an equal and just government; and so that all discord, enmity and dissatisfaction amongst former friends, may finally receive a speedy end, by and with this Parliament; and that the end of this may be the beginning of a new and equal representative.'

The petition being read gave so high offence to the House, that they resolved "that the petitioners should have a sharp reprehension for it." A Committee was also appointed to withdraw immediately, and prepare an answer to be given to the petitioners by the Speaker; which, upon their being called in, he delivered to them in the following terms: "Gentlemen, the House hath read your petition; and, lest I should mistake as you have done, hath commanded me to give you this answer; that the four persons in your petition are, upon just and mature consideration, appointed to be brought under a legal trial for crimes against law preceding the fact, and not after, as suggested; at which trial they will have free liberty to offer what1 Parl. Hist. vol. ii. pp. 1306-1310.

oever they shall have to say in their own defence: and to such proceedings the Parliament do expect that all persons in England should submit, and in the judgment of Parliament acquiesce. That the contrivers of this petition have therein taken a liberty of scandalous and seditious suggestions, not allowable nor justifiable in any persons whatsoever, under pretence of petitioning; and do so far countenance the imprisoned persons, in the offences for which they are questioned, as might render them justly suspected of the like crimes. But the Parliament will yet exercise patience towards you, conceiving that divers wellmeaning men may, by false yet specious pretences, be deluded into this miscarriage; and hoping that, by this forbearance, such may come to see their own errors.'

2 دو

The petition of the men having thus failed, the women took up the case of Lilburne and his associates, and presented a petition to the House in terms, according to Whitelock, "almost scolding." But the women did not improve the case of the prisoners by their interference, for the House ordered that the following answer be given them by their serjeant-at-arms: "That the matter they petitioned about was of an higher concernment than they understood; that the House had given an answer to their husbands; and therefore desired them to go home and look after their own business, and meddle with their housewifery."

3

I have said that the Government called the Commonwealth was in fact a strong and able military oligarchy, supported by ability and courage indeed, but without that stability which a broad basis alone can give. If the Parliament had felt that their power was based on public

1 Parl. Hist. vol. iii. pp. 1310, 1311. 2 Whitelock's Memorials, p. 379, April 23, 1649, folio, London, 1732.

3 Whitelock, p. 398, April 25, 1649. Parl. Hist., vol. iii., pp. 1310, 1311.

opinion, they would not have been so afraid of adverse pamphlets as their acts and deeds showed them to be. They are constantly recurring to this grievance. On the 16th of June we find these orders made by the Council of State

"That a letter be written to the lord mayor to pursue according to ordinance of Parliament all such persons as sell or make pamphlets;" "That the act for pamphlets be brought in on Wednesday next."' Not content with silencing the press they resolved to silence the pulpit also as far as regarded any expression of opinion respecting themselves. On the 28th of March it was ordered by the House that it be referred to a committee to bring in an act forbidding ministers in London or any part of England or Wales, in their pulpits, in preaching or praying, to meddle with matters of government on the transactions of State; and it was ordered that this act be brought in on Friday morning.2

The account given in the petition before mentioned of the origin of the term Levellers is not unsupported by the evidence of contemporary writers of some authority. Thus Richard Baxter in his Autobiography says that there arose a party who adhered to the principles of the Agreement of the People; "which suited not with Cromwell's designs: and to make them odious he denominated them Levellers, as if they intended to level men of all qualities and estates ".3

1 Order Book of the Council of State, 16th June, 1649. MS. State Paper Office. They had before, namely on the 14th of May, made the following order, which did not prevent them from answering pamphlets in the way tyrants answer:-"That Mr. Hall shall be employed by this Council to make answer to such pamphlets as shall come out to the prejudice of this Commonwealth, and that he shall have £100 per annum for his labour, with an assurance given him from this Council

that they will take further care of him."-Ibid, 14th May, 1649, à Meridie. It appears from subsequent orders that a part of Mr. Hall's duties was to write answers to some of Prynne's pamphlets. Thus "That 500 of the copies of Mr. Hall his answer to Mr. Prynne be printed in Latin and that the charge of it be defrayed by the Council."-Ibid., 17th October, 1649.

2 Commons' Journals, 28 Martii, 1649. Baxter's Life, by Himself, part i.

p. 61.