The grand Plea of Lievt. Col. John Lilburne, Prerogative Prisoner in the Tower of London, against the present tyrannical House of Lords, which he delivered before an open Committee of the House of Commons, the twenteth day of October, 1647. Where Mr. john Maynard the Lawyer had the Chair.  
Mr. Maynard,  
I Have undertaken a mighty hard and difficult work, to contest with so many powerful and great men of this Kingdom, conjoined in a House of Peers, (and thereby claiming the exercise of a greater power, than any other Court of record in England) for the Laws and liberties thereof, but when I read over the 19 Chap. of Magna Charta, and the Petition of right, and other the good, and post known, and declared Laws of this kingdom, made for the Common good, benefit, profit, protection, and preservation of the lives, liberties, and estates of all the free Denizens thereof, and seriously consider of them, and compare the present house of Lords, violent and irregular practices and deal with me thereunto, it makes my work to seem very facile, pleasant, and easy to me? And therefore for the clearing up of the justness of my present Contest with the present house of Lords, I shall desire from you a little liberty to speak a few words unto two things, before I come to my main Plea.  
And in the first place, I entreat a little liberty to make some short repetitions of my desires unto the Committee that examined my business now about 12. Months ago, where Mr. Martin had the Chai●e; who I know cannot but remember that at my first pleading of my cause before him, and the rest of that Committee, in the Inner Court of Wards; I made it my earnest desire unto them, that they would deal fairelier and justlier with the Lords than they had dealt with me, that so they might not justly complain of them for injustice, as I had to just cause to complain of the Lords themselves, & seeing that it was not the manner or law of the Heathen, Pagan, Romans to condemn any man before that he which is accused hath the accuser face to face, & have liberty to answer for himself, concerning the crime laid against him. Acts 25.16. and therefore I earnestly pressed th●… 〈◊〉 Lords might be summoned to send their Lawyers or Proctors to the Committee to plead for them, and that they might 〈◊〉 condemned 〈…〉 was pressed at present to speak to my own business, whereupon I desired them to give me leave to speak to two things, and the first was to matter of law, and the second to matter of fact. And first to matter of Law, I desired liberty to lay before them my grounds, reasons, and arguments (and to read my law proofs) which did fully convince my understanding that the Lords originally, had no jurisdiction over any Commoner of England what ever, either to try him or pass judgement against him, either for life, limb, liberty or estate. But Mr. Martin told me, that for his part he was as fully satisfied in the point as myself, and so he thought was all the whole Committee, and thereupon addressed himself unto them, to see whether they were or no. And they all unanimously declared their satisfaction, without any one then scrupling, and therefore commanded me to go on to matter of fact, which I did and laid down this assertion then before them.  
That in case the Lords had had jurisdiction over me (which I then and still do deny) yet I did aver and would by particulars make it good, that there was not the least legal formality in any of their Proceed with me, (and therefore also void in law) summoning me before any charge, impeachment, or indictment was filled against me, which was and is expressly against the fundamental common law of the land, and also against the 29. chap. of Magna Charta, and the Statutes of the 5. E. 3. 9 and 25. E. 3 4. and 28. E. 3. 3. and 37. E. 3. 18. and 42 E. 3. 3. Which Statutes are the true expositors of the 29. chap. of Magna Charta, and what is meant by lex terrae there mentioned, which is as all those Statutes show, That no man be put to answer without presentment before justices or matter of record, or by due process or writ original, according to the old law of the land, and if any thing from henceforth be done to the contrary, it shall be void in law and holden for error all and every of which Statutes are confirmed by the Petition of right, in the 3. of the present King, and in that act made the 17. of the King, this present Parliament, for the abolishing the Star Chamber.  
I then further went on, to show multitudes of errors in all their proceed with me, and by special order and command of that Committee, the 6. of Novemb. 1646. brought in my said plea in writing under my hand, and the 9 of Novemb. 1646. Delivered it to the hands of Col. Hen. Martin, and since caused it to be printed and intitulnd an Annotamy of the Lords tyranny, to which plea in point of fact I desire to refer myself.  
2. And secondly, I desire liberty by way of introduction to my plea to state the occasions of my being summoned before the Lords bar in june 1646. which were these, that after my deliverance out of Oxford Castle, I was by L. Gen. Cromwell's means made Major to Col. Edw. King, than Governor of Boston. etc. under the Earl of Manchester which said Edw. King proved unfaithful to his trust, and committed besides divers transendent inormities and misdemeanours, for which by the rules of war (which both he and I was under) he ought to have lost his life, of which I according to my duty and trust reposed in me complained to my General and Lieut. Gen. Cromwell, and laboured hard to obtain a trial for his life before a Council of War. But as I conceive by reason of the great interest of Kings two Chaplains, Mr Lee, and Mr. Garter, with the Earls two Chaplains, Mr. Ash and Mr. Good I nor the Committee of Lincolnshire, nor the Magistrates of Boston (who then were persecutors of him as well as myself) could get no effectual justice upon him, saving the cashiering him of all, or most of his great and profitable commands. Whereupon in August, 1644. Mr. Mussendon, Mr. W●lley, and divers of the Committee of Lincolnshire, preferred 22. Articles to the house of Commons against the aforesaid Coll. Edward King in the 4. ct 12. articles of which they expressly accuse him for betraying Crowland and Grantham into the hands of the professed and declared enemies of the Parliament, and myself in discharge of my duty to my Country, and the Parliament being an active prosecutor of the said Col. Edward King to bring him to a trial in the House of Commons upon the said impeachment, whereupon by way of diversion and revenge to save his own head upon his shoulders, he maliciously and designedly confederates with Dr. Bastwick, and upon the 12. of july. 1645. jointly under both their hands, send into the Speaker a most malicious, false note by way of accusation against me about 60000. l that then was said to be sent to Oxford by the Speaker, whereupon without being called into the House (though then at the door) either to justify or deny the charge fixed upon me I was by vote of the House committed a prisoner to the Sergeant at Arms, and from thence by Mr. Laurence Whitaker, was sent to Newgate and being there, there was an express order of the House of Commons (for any thing I know to the contrary by Col. King procured) for the arreigning of me at Newgate Sessions, where I was acquitted by proclamation as guiltless of any crime, and afterward by the certifying thereof by Mr. Glyn, Recorder of London to the House of Commons, I was by vote thereof the 14. of Octob. 1645. freely and clearly discharged.  
But King being conscious of his own guilt, and judging himself not safe nor long lived, unless he crushed me to pieces, and therefore most maliciously, and unjustly upon the 14. of April, 1646. contrary to the just privilege of Parliament and the Common law of England, caused me at Westminster (as I was following my business) depending (and then in agitation before the house of Commons (by whom I ought therefore in justice and law to have been protected, coming, staying, and going, till I had been dispatched by them) 
☞  to be arrested by the Bailiff thereof into the Court of Common Pleas, in an action of trespass for 2000 l. pretending that I the day I was delivered out of Newgate had said, that he the said Col. Edward King was a Traitor, and I would prove him one (which according to your Articles of War, or your own Ordinances had, and still is easy to do, if you will do justice) whereupon by petition to your House I pressed hard that he upon his impeachment might speedily come to his trial, or else that I (as in justice, law, and equity ought to be) might be protected, and the Judges of the Common pleas might be commanded to seize their proceed, till King upon his impeachment (then depending in the house of Commons) might either be condemned or justified, but I could get no answer to my petition, although I followed it with all the interest, might and strength I had, whereupon being in very great straits, I was necessitated to pen my plea myself to I. Reeves and print it, in the penning of which I was necessitated, for my own justification, to touch a little upon the Earl of manchester's refusing to do me and the kingdom justice and right, in an open Council of War against Col. King, and having by L. G. Cromwell's means been deeply with him engaged against the said Earl, in actively prosecuting of that impeachment of Treason and breach of trust, which he exhibited to your house about two years ago against the said Earl of Manchester, he the said Earl of Manchester being then Speaker of the house of Lords, (and so chief judge in his own case) caused me as ● conceive (though most illegally and unjustly) upon the 10. of june 1646. to be summoned up to their bar to answer (as by their warrant appears) such things as I should be there charged with, for writing that book or plea, which if there had been any thing in it scandalous, it was only tryable by a jury of my Peers or Equals (which are Commons or men of my own condition) at the Common Law, the house of Lords having not by law the least cognizance or jurisdiction in the world of it, and therefore all their proceed upon me from the beginning to the end are most illegal and unjust, and coram non iudice,  
And now in the third place, I come unto my plea, but by the way I desire to premise this unto you, that by your own Declaration of the 15. of December, 1641, and 17. of january, 1641. and the 12. of july. 1642. I find the law of the land, and the ordinary course of justice, called by you the common birthright of all the free men or people of England. 1. part book Decl. pag. 7. 38. 39 459. and in your Declaration of the 23. of October. 1642. you aver, that it is the birth right of the meanest of the Commonalty of this Kingdom, to enjoy the freedom and libertyes of the laws of the land, being (as there you say) entitled unto it, with the greatest Subject. The inviolable preservation of which in divers of your Declarations you declare, is the main and principal end of all your undertake, managed both by your swords and counsels. And this is that for which you have compelled the kingdom to swear divers oaths to maintain with the uttermost hazards of their lives and estates, and you have also imprecated (in your Declarations) the fierce wrath and vengeance of the great God of heaven and earth to fall upon you when you decline th●se ends.  
And therefore Mr Maynard considering all these your own words, and considering your own deep knowledge and understanding in the laws of England, by the practice of which you have got a great part of your estate, and by the destruction whereof you are not worth a groat in all the world, having no propriety in that you possess, being subject every moment of time to have all you have, taken from you without remedy, by him that is stronger than you; and therefore well did Mr. john Pym say in his speech against the Earl of Straford (recorded in your own book of Declarations, 1 part: page 140.) that the law is that which puts a difference betwixt good and evil, betwixt just and unjust, if you take away the law, all things will fall into confusion, every man will become a law unto himself, which in the depraved condition of human nature, must needs produce many great inormities, Lust will become a law, envy will become a law, covetousness and ambition will become a law, and what dibates, what divisions, such laws will produce, may easily be discerned.  
And truly Sir, neither the Lords, nor you, can lay it to my charge, that I am leagally convicted of the least crime that doth disfranchise me, or render me in the least uncapable of enjoying the utmost benefit and privilege that the Law of England will afford to a freeborn Englishman; neither can the Lords nor you, justly pretend against me, that I have drawn my sword against, (or otherwise publicly or privately, engaged with any interest in England, for the destroying) the laws and liberties thereof, nay, so fare have I been from any of those things, that I do with confidence avere it, that I have as freely with my sword in my hand (upon your and their primitive declared principles) adventured my life and blood for the preservation of the laws and liberties of England (with as much resolution as any Lord in England, and though it may unjustly be bruited abroad to my disgrace, by the House of Lords, or some other of my adversaries, that I am now fallen from, and forsaken my first principals, and would have neither law nor government, yet I do with abundance of confidence avere it, that I am not (if I know my own heart) changed or fallen from my first principles in the least, but that the Lords themselves are the true apostates: and that they are the men, that in their constant practices now of late years; strongly endeavour to destroy all law and government: and to set up in themselves an absolute arbitrary Tyranny, worse than either Star Chamber, Council Table, or High commission, or all three of them put all together in one, which I doubt not but in my following plea, to make as apparent to this Committee, as the Sun that shines at noon day, for which end I desire this Committee to take notice in the first place.  
That the Lords do not sit in their House by any power or authority, derived from the people's free election and choice, (who cannot in justice, reason, and equity, be bound, but by their own free consents, neither in reason, justice, or equity, can any be lawmakers to them, that are not thereunto justly empowered by them, which the House of Lords are not in the least) but are merely and altogether the creatures of the King made by his prerogative, some times of the basest and corruptest of the people, being the mere issue of his will, sitting by his command, who himself in reference to the bodies and estates of the people, is lymitted and bounded by the law.  
1. As for instance by the 29. th' of Magna Charta, the King himself cannot imprison any man, nor dispossess him of his freehold, liber●ies or free customs, or outlaw him, exile him or any otherwise destroy him, but by due process of law, according to the law of the Land, neither can he sell, deny, or defer, to any man either justice or right.  
2. And by the Statute of the 2, Edward, 3 8 and 14 Edwaard 3, 14 and 11 R. 2. 10 the King is tied that he shall not hinder, disturb, nor delay common right and justice according to the Law of the Land, by any command under the great Seal, or the little Seal, neither by any letters of his Signet or privy seal, and if he shall send any such commands, the Judges notwithstanding, shall and aught to go on to execute the Law in every point, as if any such command had never been.  
3. And by the Petition of right, made in the 3.d. of the present King, all those laws, and liberties are not only confirmed, but it is there enacted and fully declared, that no man be adjudged or condemned, but by the laws already established, and declared, and that all the Administrators of the laws of England, and all other of the King's ministers shall serve him and the Kingdom, according to the declared laws thereof, and not otherwise.  
4. And in the acts that abolished Shipmoney, and abolished the Star Chamber, and rectiffeth the Council Board, all and every the particulars of the said Petition of right is not only confirmed, but it is enacted further, that neither his Majesty, nor his privy Council, have or aught to have any jurisdiction, power or ●…er authority, by English Bill, Petition, Articles, libels, or any other arbitrary way whatsoever, to examine or draw into question, determine or dispose of the Lands, Tenements, heredetaments, goods or chattels of any the subjects of this Kingdom, but that the same aught to be tried and determined in the ordinary Courts of justice, and by the ordinary courses of law, which last clause is extraordinary pertinent to my purpose, that the ordinary Courts of justice, and the ordinary Courts of the law, are to be tryers of all causes and differences, betwixt party and party.  
And in that act there is a remedy provided for any man that shall illegally suffer imprisonment: or hereafter be committed or restrained of his liberty, by the command or warrant of the King himself, his heirs or successors in their own person, yea and the King's oath, that he takes when he is made King recorded. 1. part book decla. page 712, 713, 714. ties him to govourn his people, according to the established Laws, and to preserve unto them their liberties and freedoms.  
Now Sir, if the King the creator of the Lords be thus restrained by Law as he is, that he shall not do to the freemen of England what he pleaseth, nor exercise an arbitrary, tyrannical, illegal, power over their bodies or estates.  
It is impossible for him to give unto the Lords the exercise of an arbitrary tyrannical, illegal power, over their lives liberties, or estates, for it is a maxim in nature, there is no being beyond the power of being, neither I am confident are they able to produce any sole testimony that he ever gave them any such power. And though I grant that the King to the judges gives such a power, as he can not, nor doth not in his own person execute, 〈◊〉 I say that it is always a power, not flowing from his own will, but lim●…ted by the Law, by which he is authorized so to do by acts of Parliament, and I am sure by the words of the writ by which he summoned them to sit in Parliament, (as I find it printed in a late printed book, called the manner of holding Parliaments: pag.) which writ is the foundation and root of their power) all the power that is given them by that writ, is to come to the Parliament, to confer and treat with the King (or afford their council) of certain hard urgent affairs, concerning the King, the State, and defence of the Kingdom of England, and the Church thereof. But my pretended offence, touching none of these things but at the most is merely an action, or offence tryable at common Law, Cooks 5. part reports delibellis Famosis, and besides the Lords about me had no conference nor treaty with the King their prorogative fountain, as by their writ of summons, which is the foundation and ground of their power they ought to have.  
And therefore the Lords not only by the common law, but by their own law, and principles had not the least ground to pretend to a power or jurisdiction in the least of my cause.  
2ly I am summoned by the Lords Warrant to come to their Bar, and to answer such things as I stand charged with before their Lordships, concerning a pamphlet intitulled the just man's justification. Now Mr: Maynard, admit that that pamphlet as they call it, were mine, and full of scandals in the highest nature, yet libels and scandalum magnatum is not to be tried by the House of Lords, but is to be tried only (now the Starchamber is down) by an action at the common law, as appears by the 5. part of Cook's reports, Page 125. and the 13. Hen. 7. Kelay. 11. Eliz. Dier 285. and 30. assis Pla. 19 all which is fully confirmed by your own words in your own declaration, of the 19 May 1642. 1. part book Decl. pag. 208. where you affirm against the King, that he hath ways enough in his ordinary Courts of justice, to punish such seditious pamphlets, and sermons as are any way prejudicial to his rights, Honour, and authority, and if any of them have been so insolently violated, and vilified his Majesties own Council and officers have been to blame, and not the Parliament, who did never restrain any proceed of that kind in other Courts, and what you there avere of the King, I much more avere of the Lords, that their remedy in case of libilling (which yet I deny mine to be) is only at common law where there is a written, and action by the law ordained, de scandalis magnatum (as also for libels only triable by a Jury, upon an indictment at common law and not others wise, and this also seems to me to be very clear, and evident by the Statutes 3. E 1. 33. and ●…. E. 3. 18. and 38. E. 3. 9 and 42. E. 3, 3. and 2. R. 2. 5. and 12. R. 2. 11. none of which I am sure gives the House of Lords, any cognizance of my pretended crime, & therefore for them to meddle with me, having no jurisdiction of my cause, it being neither about error or delay of justice in inferier courts, their proceed are thereupon all Coram non iudice, and so void and null in law, from first to last it being a maxim in law, that that which from the beining is not valid, can never be made good by tract of time, or those things which are begun from an evil principal, can never, attain to a legal Issue.  
3. My third argument against all the Lords proceed with me is this that no man what ever he be is to be imprisoned, but by the established laws of the land, they are the very words of the excellent Petition of Right, but there is no established Law for the judgement of the Lords in any thing where the King their Creator is not concurrant 14. Edward 3, 5, for the Lords as I said before are only there, not by any election, or power, from the people, but as persons of honour created and made by the will of the King to assist him as before, and let their Lawyers or any of their Proctors show me one precedent before this Parliament to the contrary, without the Kings Writ for Execution  
For in the Writ of Error, wherein lies the main and principal power of the Lords, there must be a Petition to the King for the allowance thereof: and the King must give them a particular Commission, and power to take Cognizance of it before they can have Jurisdiction of it, as is clear and plain by the express words of the 14. E. 3. 5. which Statute is the principal strength and basis of the Lords power; but my case is neither delay of Justice in an other Court, nor corruption of Judgement in another Court, which is all the cases the Lords have jurisdiction of by Law, which is as binding to them as to any other Courts of Justice in England, as is clear by the 4. H. 4. 23. which Statute positively declares, it is a subversion of the Law of the Land, for the Lords originally to take cognizance of causes, or to overrule the just and ordinary proceed of the Law in other inferior Courts: 
* As was lately fully pleaded at the Lords Bar (as I am from very good hands imformed) both by Mr. Recorder Glyn and yourself Mr. Maynard in the remarkable case of Limbry, against Alderman Langham, unto which Plea concurred the opinion of all the Judges then in England, which they were commanded to give by the Lords special command, upon which very Plea as I am told, the cause is since dismissed from before the Lords as not legally proper for their Jurisdiction, which at least serves thus far to my end, that an Act of Parliament is as binding to the House of Lords as to any other Court of Justice in England: I might here also make use of the Duke of Epernoones' case about 2 years ago if I wanted matter & Law against the Lords.  Neither was there made in my case any Petition to the King, nor any Commission of his granted to the Lords to authorise them to meddle with me, and therefore all their proceed against me are illegal from first to last in the highest nature. Again, it is plain by the Law of the Land, That no man shall be put to Answer without presentment before Justices, or matter of record, or by due process, and writ original, according to the old Law of the Land. See the 5. E. 3. 9 & 25. E. 3. 4. & 28. E. 3. 3. & 37. E. 3. 18. & 42. E. 3. 3. and the Petition of Right the 3d of the King, and the Act that abolished the Star-Chamber the 17. of the King. And Sir Edward Cook's Exposition of Magna Charta, but not any of this, was done in my case; for the Lords summoned me Oretenus before my charge was filled against me, and examined me Viva voce upon interrogatories against myself, without letting me know either Accuser, Prosecutor, Witness, Jury, or Charge, and therefore all their proceed with me from first to last are totally illegal and most unjust.  
4 My fourth Argument against the illegal proceed of the Lords with me is, from the 29 Chap of Magna Charta and the 3 E. 1. 6. and the Petition of Right, which expressly declares, That no man is to be judged but by his peers, and by due process according to the Law of the Land (see Clarks case in 5 part Cooks Reports) that is as learned Sir Edward Cook in his Exposition of Magna Charta (published for good Law by two special Orders of your House) saith, by his equals, that is, men of his own condition, Commons only being peers to commons, as Barons of Parliament are peers to Barons of Parliament. 2 Part Institut. fol. 28, 29. 46. 50. where also he declares what title they bear that are comprehended within the name of peers of Parliament, and also what titles they have that are comprehended within the title of Commons. And notable to this purpose is the Record of Sir Simond de Berisford in the 4. E. 3. Ro. 2. which M. Henry Martin had from me at large last year under the hand of the Record-Keeper of the Tower of London▪ the substance of which Record is, That E. 3. in his own person did charge the House of Lords to give right and lawful Judgement against Sir Simond de Berisford for his treason and murder in murdering his Father King Edw. 2. but the Lords to the King in Parliament said all with one voice, That the aforesaid Sir Simon was not their peer, wherefore they were not bound by the Law to give judgement against him, yet nevertheless at the King's importunity they did, but it was assented, agreed and enacted (saith Sir Ed. Cook 2 part Inst. fol. 50.) by the King and all the grandees in full Parliament, That that judgement should never be drawn into example, or consequence for the time to come: And they there gave the reason of it, because it was against the Laws of the Land, for them to judge those that were not their peers and equals.  
From whence I observe, That if it be illegal for the House of Lords with the King's presence, consent and concurrence, (as they here confess) to condemn Sir Simon de Berisford for Treason and murdering the King, (because he was none of their peers) although vigorously put upon it by King Edw. the Third in the behalf of his father, who in his own person sat and concurred with them in it; much more is it unlawful for the Lords to presume, to pass judgement upon me a Commoner, for a trivial supposed case, without the King their creators presence, Commission or Concurrence, which by their own principles, and by the principles of the Law yet in force, giveth life, power and strength to all such their Judicial actions, and therefore all their proceed with me are most illegal and unjust, and utterly null and void in Law.  
5 My Fifth Argument against them is, That by the Laws of this Land no man is to be Judge in his own case, 8. H. 6. fol. 21. 5. El. Dier. 220. and Doctor Bonbams' case 8 part of Cooks Reports, yea and an Act of Parliament in such a case, is a void Act by Law.  
Therefore the Lords ought not to have judged this cause of mine, for that it concerns themselves, or at least the Earl of Manchester who was Speaker all the three several times I was before their House, who with the rest of his fellow Lords, were not only Parties, but Complainants, Persecutors, Witnesses, Jury and judges, which practice is against all the Laws of England and the forms thereof, as you yourselves notably confess and declare in the case of the five Members, 1 part Book Decl. pag 201. and a greater act of injustice then ever I heard done, by either the Star-chamber, council-board or High Commission Court, in the days of their greatest tyranny and oppression.  
6 If the Lord's judgement originally were binding in my case, than a few Lords would bind not only me, but all the Commons of England, who all one after one, may be so served by them, as I am, and that without any hope of redress in the world, (which both Law and reason abhors) either by Writ of Error or Appeal, Attaint or Certificate of Assize to any Court whatever, no not to the Parliament itself, for than it would come before themselves again, who would never condemn themselves nor their own Decrees.  
And if the House of Commons suffer the Lords to excercise such an arbitrary illegal tyranny as they have done upon me, and without all grounds, rules or forms of Law, suffer them to send for whom of the Commons of England they will, and at their will and pleasure condemn them in what and how they please, than the House of Commons stands for mere cyphers, the Judges in Westminster-Hall for cyphers, and all the Laws in England for cyphers, and we the Commons of England are become the perfectest slaves this day upon the face of the earth, and by this practice the end of all Government is overthrown, viz. the weal and safety of the people, as your House declares it to be in your notable Declaration of 17. April, 1646. 2. part Book Decl. pag. 879. where you also declare, (but I may say by your deal with me, without any intentions to perform it) that you will not nor any by colour of any authority derived from you, shall interrupt the ordinary course of justice, in the several Courts and Judicatories of this Kingdom, nor intermeddle in cases of private interest, otherwhere determinable, unless it be in case of male administration of justice, wherein ye shall see and provide that right be done and punishment inflicted as there shall be occasion, according to the Laws of the Kingdom, and the trust reposed in you.  
Yea, and hereby the people of the Kingdom are left without all means to preserve themselves, which yourselves say, it never ought to be, being as old a Law as any is in the Kingdom, 1 part Book Decl. pag. 207. in that you suffer the House of Lords without control to exercise at their pleasure such a power over the Lives, Liberties and Estates of the Freemen of England, as I confidently aver it, cannot legally nor justly be exercised by King, Lords and Commons, joined and agreeing altogether, who are (when the most is said that can be said of them) but Magistrates (as all other Magistrates are) appointed for the protection and preservation, but not ruin or destruction of the people, 1 part Book Dec. pag. 150. yea and de facto, habitually to do that, for but endeavouring of which, the Earl of Strafford lost his head by the decree of this very Parliament, and for which I doubt not but either I or my posterity shall see the proudest and stoutest of them to do theirs; it being more just, equitable, and rational, to destroy a man for acting and doing of a mischief, then intending it, Strafford being a Saint and a just man upon their own principles in comparison of themselves.  
And therefore Sir, if you or the Lords shall show me as many Precedents as will fill Paul's, that they have done to others as they have done to me, I value them no more in comparison to the several Acts of Parliament, and the Common Law of the Land, which are above Acts, that I have cited, which are point blank against their usurpations, than I value a dirty rag on the dunghill, and I say unto you, that if the Lords in their House can make Precedents to destroy Acts of Parliament, (and pluck the fundamental common Law of England up by the roots) yea such Acts as have been confirmed by scores of Parliaments, then why do you cousin, blind, deceive and delude the people of England, by sitting for cyphers in the House of Commons, and therefore awake and rouse up like men, and powerfully and effectually rescue our Liberties from them, lest we do it ourselves, and punish you, as justly you deserve for your cowardly or treacherous negligence.  
7. The Lords being the mere creatures of the King, made by his will and pleasure, and set there as Prerogative persons, and yet in Law and by their own principles, as Lords without the King, they have no Prerogative, and yet have acted upon me, without the King or his particular Commission, which makes all they have done unto me, to be null and void both in Law and reason; yea, and I may justly say, that they, both in reference to the King and people thereby have forfeited their power and honour, and cannot justly by you the trusties of the people, (and who should be the Guardians of their Laws and Liberties) any longer be owned or acknowledged, either in equity, reason, honour, justice, safety or conscience to be a House of Peers, but a company of Apostats fall'n from their first institution and degenerated into Tyrants, and therefore deserve at least from you and the Kingdom the Starre-Chambers doom.  
Object. But contempt of a Court, by the Law, subjects a man to Fine and Imprisonment.  
Answ. I answer first, I do absolutely deny, that I did either contemn or affront their Court, for I obeyed their Writ of Summons, and withal respect and Compliment came to their Bar, (which I aver was more than by Law 〈◊〉 to have done) where being examined upon Interrogatories against myself, I pressed hard to be dealt legally with, and to see my charge in writing, and to know my accuser and persecutor, both of which was denied me, contrary to Law and justice, and a judgement in my own case given by themselves, but the February before against the Star-chamber, where they declared that the Starre-Chambers sentence and all their proceed against me (which was upon the very same 〈◊〉 for refusing to answer Interrogatories) is illegal and most unjust against the Liberty of the Subject, and Law of the Land, and Magna Charta, and unfit to continue upon Record, yea and in another Decree gave me 2000 l. damages, against some of the Judges and Executors of that sentence; all which I pressed again and again at their open Bar, which was to no purpose; for they angrily pressed me to give a positive answer to their illegal questions, and believing in my own breast, I should be committed for refusing to answer, I delivered in my Plea by way of protest, against their Jurisdiction, as justly I might do, (it being a maxim in Law, (as I said before) that that which is illegal in the beginning, by tract of time cannot be made lawful) for which and nothing else, they most illegally committed me to Newgate, the 11. June, 1646. which Warrant I desire may be read, as also the Decree.  
2. I answer, their Court was no Court to me in my case, having no Jurisdiction of the cause, being not any of the causes that they by the 14. Ed. 3. c. 5. have Jurisdiction of, and if it had yet by that Statute they could not meddle with me without the King's concurrence, and his special Commission, which they had not in the least, and therefore in a double respect all their proceed with me, are most illegal and unjust, and therefore null and void in Law.  
3 But in the third place I grant, that contempt or affront of a Court that hath jurisdiction over the Cause is fineable and imprisonable, but to affront, contemn, or abuse a Court that hath no Jurisdiction of the cause for which the party is convened before them, I say by Law is neither fineable nor imprisonable: As for instance, if a Court of Session's questions me for my Freehold, and I refuse to answer them, and give them contemptuous words for meddling with that which by Law they have no jurisdiction of, they may by Law bind me to my good behaviour, but cannot fine or imprison me, much less dis-franchise me of all the privileges of an Englishman, as the Lords have done to me, as appears by their sentence: the same holds good in the Court of Common Pleas, who if they go about to hold Plea of Murder before them, if the party refuse to answer, it is no contempt of the Court, because they have no jurisdiction over such causes. And pertinent to this purpose is Baggs Case in the 11. part of Cooks Reports, who being summoned before the May or of Plymouth, in open Court called him cozening Knave, and said unto him, come kiss etc. for which the Mayor dis-franchised him, and it was resolved, that the dis-franchisement was illegal, because it was not according to Law, for that the Mayor in Law had no power to do it, and at most could have only bound him to his good behaviour.  
So that the Lords assuming over me a power of Jurisdiction without Law, and the King's Commission according to the form of the Statute in that behalf, they are no Court to me in my case, nor capable of the cause in controversy betwixt us, and therefore I say again in a double sense, they have not the least ground or colour in Law either to Fine or Imprison me, but at most (in case there were an affront, as I deny) to bind me (or cause me) to be bound to my good behaviour; and as for keeping on my hat, refusing to kneel, and stopping of my ears a month after my first commitment in contempt of their illegal usurpations, having long before that justly appealed to the House of Commons, I am not in the least sensurable therefore as they have sensured me, even to 4000 l. fine, 7. years' imprisonment, and everlasting disfranchisement, seeing it is a Maxim in Law and Reason both, That that which from the beginning is not valid, can never be made good by tract of time; or those things that are begun from evil principles, can never attain a legal or just issue.  
Object. But if it shall be objected, That this Argument destroys the Act of the continuance of this Parliament, because the King is and hath been absent, and not in a capacity according to the Statute to grant His Commission and Concurrence.  
Sol. I Answer, That the act of continuance gives the Lords no more power than what they had by the Law before, for it gives them nothing but continuance, and therefore the Argument is legal & just against them, that the Prerogative Lords forsaking their own creator, and dealing with me contrary to the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom; yet as much in force as ever, and not appropriating or assuming to themselves any formal new power, but merely stand by the Primitive power derived from him (he being by their own declared principles as much their King as ever, all Writs, etc. still running in His Name) they have lost their Honour and Justice in going beyond their bounds, and dealing so illegally, tyranically, and unjustly with me as they have done. Therefore from all the premises and authorities before mentioned laid together, I do draw my conclusion which is this, That I was originally and still am most illegally imprisoned by the House of Lords, and illegally fined, and illegally disfranchized; in such a manner that in all ages by the most oppressive and worst of Courts of Justice in England, was never known nor heard of before, for a bare and supposed Misdemeanour.  
And therefore I most earnestly and most pressingly crave as my right, the Judgement of the House of Commons upon my appeal to them against the Lords, (for which I have waited upon them almost seventeen months) and that I may no longer run the hazard of ruin and destruction, of me, my wife, and little children, for contesting for my own, both in the sight of God and man; and which is mine both by the law of God, Nature, and my Country; that is to say, My sentence vacated, my liberties for future secured, and the Lords exemplarily punished, as well as the Star-Chamber, High-Commission, or Councel-●…d, being they may more justly be charged then any of them, for not keeping themselves to the points limited upon them by the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom, but have (not only with me, but with multitudes of others) undertaken to punish where no Law doth warrant, and to make decrees for things, for which they have no such authority, and to inflict heavier punishments then by any Law is warranted, which as the act itself expresseth were the principle causes of their abolition, and may more justly be of the House of Lords, for that there was hopes of remedy (in case of injustice done by them) by appeal to a Parliament, which cannot in the least be expected against the House of Lords, the appeal being still to themselves, unless the House of Commons do instate appeals against them solely in themselves: " And by how much the more they judge their Court to be higher than other Courts, by so much the more they ought in law, justice, equity, conscience and honour, to be transcendent in the equal, legal, just, and impartial administration of Justice:" an act of tyranny and oppression being ten times more odious in them then in any other inferior Court, as learned Sir Edw. Cook well observes in his Instituts.  
And also I demand as my right and due, ample reparations from the Lords for all their tyranny illegally without remorse, pity, and compassion exercised upon me, to the apparent hazard of my life and being, and that I may also have from them so much money for my legal maintenance, as in all ages for these three or four hundred years hath been allowed to men in my condition and prison, and may be provided for for the time to come during my stay there.  
And that I may freely be left to take my course at Common Law upon all Jailers, Keepers of Prisons, and the Sheriff of London, as have most illegally and unwarrantably executed their illegal, arbitrary, and unbinding tyrannical Orders and Decrees upon me, and that now after seven year's delay by you, I may also immediately be put by your House into a certain capacity to receive of the Earl of Salisbury, old Sir Henry Vane, the Lord Chief Justice Bramston, and Doctor Allife, who have visible and plentiful estates in being, my long-since decreed reparations against my Star-Chamber Judges, with just additions for my long stay, large expenses, and great troubles therefore, and not be put to seek it from the Lord Cottington, Sir Francis Windebank, and Mr. Ingram, late Warden of the Fleet, whose estates are so wasted and destroyed by sequestration, etc. that I know not where to find them, and may be hereafter, as I have been already, seven years in obtaining my just right and due from them.  
And lastly, I earnestly desire and press, that speedy care by your House be taken, to put the Earl of Manchester and Col. Edward King upon their thorough Trials, upon the foresaid Impeachments, either to their justifications or condemnations; and that all Suits of theirs at Common Law against me for words spoken about or concerning the said Impeachments, may be stopped, as in Justice, Law, and Equity they ought to be, till they be either condemned or justified upon the said Impeachments.  
And now Sir, I have done with all and every thing that in point of Law I have to say against the Lords irregular deal with me till they reply: some other things in reference to the House of Commons (I think as essential to my own welfare as any thing I have already said) I have ready to say, but that my present strength and voice is in a manner quite 〈◊〉, so that I cannot well go on at present, though I have all my matter ready; and therefore I earnestly entreat a new day to say out the rest, and so leave it to your judgement: and Tuesday next (being the 26. of October 164●. at two a clock in the afternoon in the same place) being your own appointed time, I earnestly desire your presence there, when and where I doubt not but I shall demean myself with as much honour and respect towards you, as you upon Wednesday last, with justice, candour and fairness did demean yourself towards me, and the Kingdom, so much concerned in me, in giving me so fair, public, free and uninterrupted a hearing, which can not but in ingenuity be acknowledged a great obligation to him that in sincerity subscribes himself,  
Sir, Yours and the Kingdoms faithful Servant, John Lilburne.  
FINIS.