Lieu. Col. John Lilburn's Plea in Law, Against an Act of Parliament of the 30 of January, 1651. Entitled, An Act for the execution of a Judgement given in Parliament against Lieu. Col. John Lilburn. Contrived and penned, on purpose for him, by a true and faithful lover of the Fundamental Laws and Liberties of the free people of England, a great deal more than of the person of Lieu. col. John Lilburn, though now he be a prisoner for the said Laws, and Liberties, and his own innocency, in Newgate: All which compels and forceth the Penman to be very studious of his own good and preservation, very much concerned, and very much encroached upon, in that harsh, unjust, and illegal dealing, that at present is exercised upon him: And therefore, for his own good and benefit, the honest Readers information, and for Mr lilburn's the prisoner's advantage, he presents these ensuing lines to thy view, and his, as the form of a Plea; that the Penman hereof, as a true wellwisher of his, and the people of England, would have him to engross into Parchment, and to have ready by him to make use of (in case his own brains cannot contrive a better) when he is called up to answer for his life before the Judges of the Upper-Bench, or any other Bar of Justice whatsoever; and the said form of a Plea for him thus followeth verbatim.  
The second Edition much enlarged, corrected, and amended, July 2. 1653.  
JOhn Lilburn now prisoner at the Bar saith, that he having heard the Charge contained in the Scire facias, Indictment, or Information, now read unto him at the Bar: For plea thereunto he saith, That it appeareth by the Act of Parl of the 30 of Jan. 1651. That upon the 15. of Jan. 1651. a Judgement was given in Parl. against one Lieu. Col. Jo. Lilburn, in the Act named, for high crimes and misdemeanours by him committed, as by the same appears, for which the fines and other punishments were promulgated against him, mentioned in the said Act. But the said John Lilburn now prisoner at the Bar saith, that the said J. Lilburn in the said Act named, and he the now prisoner at the Bar, be not one and the selfsame person; for that he the now prisoner at the Bar is a freeborn English Gentleman; and never was legally charged, indicted, & convicted, either by the Parl. or any other Court of Judicature, being a Court of Record, in the English Nation, or Commonwealth: Neither ever was there any Judgement given in Parl. against him the now prisoner at the Bar, for high crimes and misdemeanours mentioned in the said Act, upon the said 15 of Jan. 1651 (Votes or Resolves being not in the least any judgements in law) It being impossible that a Judgement in any legal Court of England should be passed against a freeborn English man; and that man daily forthcoming, and never to hear read, nor see any of the proceed ante-ceding the said Judgement, and never summoned by any legal process to any legal proceed, nor called to any legal Bar whatsoever, and demanded (according to Law) what he could say, why Judgement should not be passed against him. Neither ever did the prisoner J. Lilburn, now at the Bar, ever in all his life-time, by kneeling at the Bar of the P. of the Commonwealth of England, lately sitting at Westm. ever acknowledge that the said Parl. in law, ever had in all their life times, any the least jurisdiction in the world, to sentence him, or any other freeborn English man of England, (that are none of their Members of immediate Officers) for any crimes whatsoever, as I. Lilburn the prisoner at th● Bar hath fully and undeniably proved by Law in his Plea (upon the Writ of Habeas Corpus) before the late Judges of the King's Bench, viz. Judge Bacon, and Judge Rolls, upon the 8th of May, 1648. as in that printed Law-Argument, entitled, The law's funeral, is fully to be read in pag. 8 9, 10, 11. All crimes whatsoever being for him, only and solely to be h●ard, determined, and judged at the Common-law, and no where else. For, Magna Charta th● Petition of Right, and the Act that abolished the Star-Chamber, expressly saith, That no freeman of England shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseized of his free hold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or be ex●led, but by a lawful Judgement (of a Jury of 12 sworn men) of his equals (of the same neighbourhood) according to the Law of the Land. And that none shallbe taken (for any crime whatsoever, by any person or Court whatsoever) unless it be by indictment, or presentment of good and lawful people of the same neighbourhood where such deeds be done, in due manner, or by process made by Writ original at the Common law, and that none be put out of his franchise or freehold, unless he be duly brought in to answer and adjudged of the same according to the course of the Law, and if any thing be done (by any persons, or Courts whatsoever) against the tenor of the same it shall be void in Law, and holden for error.  
And the Petition of Right expressly saith, No man whatsoever shall be any ways punished (especially in criminal cases) but according to the Laws and Statutes already established in the Land. And those also by the said Petition of Right, and the Statute that abolished the Star-Chamber, are precisely declared to be according to our good, old, native, fundamental Rights & Liberties. This very thing (or the securing thereof) alone, being the principal and chief declared cause of all the late Parl. and present Armies wars with the late King and his son; and without the inviolable preservation of these our fundamental laws and liberties, it is impossible that any in the Army, from the highest to the lowest, in the least can acquit themselves of being justly esteemed, both before God and all just men, real and wilful murderers, of all those persons that they have slain in the late civil wars; and if so? woe unto them when God makes inquisition for innocent blood. Neither indeed, is he the now prisoner at the Bar, guilty of any such high crimes and misdemeanours, as is expressed in the said Act: Neither ever was he the now prisoner at the Bar, in the least duly and legally banished, and fined by the said Act; nor yet is a felon, nor guilty of felony in no manner of respect, as by the said Scire facias, Indictment, or Information, now read unto him is supposed: Neither can he rationally imagine, that by the Parl. that is mentioned in the said Act of the 30 of Jan. 1651. for banishing one Lieu. Col. john Lilburn, is not in the least meant the late Parl. of the Commonwealth of England sitting at Westminster, (especially, because it is not so expressed) who had taken many Oaths, and past abundance of Declarations, and particularly that of the 9 of Feb. 1648. inviolably to maintain the fundamental Laws of the Land, in reference to the people's lives, liberties, and properties, with all things incident, appertainining, and belonging thereunto; But that rather it was some ignorant sottish French Parl. sitting at Paris, or elsewhere in France, that understand nothing of the laws, liberties, and freedoms of England, or that it was the Malignant Cavalier Parl. lately sitting at Oxford, in the King's Quarters there, post-dating their Act, and thereby endeavouring by the said Act, to create such a a precedent as in the consequence of it would destroy all the laws, liberties, and properties, of the freeborn people of England, and thereby absolutely set up the Kings Will and Prerogative above Law, the bare endeavouring of which in the Earl of Strafford, hath been long since adjudgd high Treason. Or in the next place, if the Authors of the said monstrous and illegal Act of banishment, be neither the ignorant Parliament of Paris, nor the Cavalier Parliament of Oxford, then of necessity in the third place, it cannot in Charity and Reason but be judged that the said Act of banishment was drawn up by Mr Scobel, the Parliaments Clerk, Mr Hill their Chairman, and Mr Prideaux their Attorney General, when they were all riding Post, and so jumbled or shaken with fast riding, that it was impossible for them to hold their pens to write right and true; and when they had framed it, then by some cunning artifice, or enchantment of theirs, they preferred it to the said Parl. who in charity and common Reason must needs be judged to pass it when they were three quarters asleep, against some silly natural fool called Lieu. col. John Lilburn, that could not be imagined ever in his life to have read any thing of Law or Reason. It being impossible (in the least) in Reason to be conceived, that the late supreme Authority the Parl. of the Commonwealth of England sitting at Westminster, being only by their own Declarations, but trusted to provide for the People's weal, but not in the least for their woe, would ever in their right wits, or not being three quarters asleep, pass such an Act of Parliament against john Lilburn now prisoner at the Bar (who hath much read the law, and very well understands the fundamental liberties of England, and hath hazardously adventured his life a thousand times for the inviolable preserving of them) because such an Act of Parl. as the foresaid Act of Parl. is, is in the first place, An Act of Parliament against common right, common equity, & common reason; and therefore is void and null in law, and ought not to be executed; as appears by these following Law Authorities, viz. 1 part of Dr bonham's Case, fol. 118. and the 8th of Edw. 3. fol. 3. 30. 33 E. cassavit 32. and 27 H. G. annuity 41. and 1 Eliz. Dier. 113. and 1 part Cooks Institutes, lib. 2. chap. 11. sect. 209. fol. 140. a. 4 Edw. 4. 12. 12 Ed. 4. 18. 1 H. 7. 12. 13. Blow. come. fol. 369. and Judge Jenkins learned Works in the Law, printed for I. Gyles, 1648. but particularly by his Discourse of long Parliaments, pag. 139, 140, etc. See also Mr W. Prins notable book of the 16 of june, 1649. called, A legal Vindication of the liberties of England against illegal taxes, p. 11, 12, 13. etc. But especially see a book, entitled, The legal and fundamental liberties of England revived, asserted, and vindicated; printed and reprinted in the year, 1649. pag. 54, 55, 56, 57 yea an Act of Parl. That a man shall be Judges in his own Case, is avoid Act in law; as appears in Hubberts Case, fol. 120. and by the 8th Part of Cook's Reports in Dr bonham's Case, and by the present Armies own Book of Declarations, pag. 35, 52, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 132, 141, 142, 143, 144. Yea, saith that learned Oracle of the Law of England Sr Edw. Cook, in the 4th part of his Institutes, fol. 330. Where Reason ceaseth, there the Law ceaseth; for, seeing Reason is the very life and spirit of the law itself, the lawgiver is not to be esteemed, to respect that which hath no Reason; although the generality of the words, at the first sight, or after the letter, seem otherwise. And saith the said learned Author in his first part Institutes, fol. 140. a. All Customs and prescriptions (Acts of Parliament, Laws and judgements) that be against Reason, are void and null in themselves.  
And saith the Army's Attorney General John Cook, in the late Kings Case stated, pag. 23. that by the law of England, any Act or agreement against the laws of God and nature, is a mere nullity: for as a man hath no hand in making the laws of God and nature, no more hath he power to mar or alter them; and he citys the E. of Leicester's adjudged Case for a proof: And in pag. the 20th he also saith, That all the Judges in England cannot make one case to be law that is not reason, no more than they can prove a hair to be white that is black; which if they should so declare or adjudge it is a mere nullity; For law (saith he) must be reason adjudged. And excellent to this very purpose, is that ancient Law Book, called the Doctor and Student, who in his second Chap. pag. 4. expressly saith, Against the law of Nature (which he calls the law of reason) prescription, statute, nor custom, may not prevail; and if any be brought in against it, they be no prescriptions, statutes, nor customs, but things void and against justice; And what this law of nature or reason is, he excellently showeth in the latter end of the 4th pag. and the beginning of the fifth; and therefore in his 7th pag. he expressly saith, That to every good law, is required these properties, viz. that it be honest, rightwise, possible in itself, and after the custom of the country, convenient for the place and time; necessary, profitable, and also manifest; that it be not captious by any dark sentence, nor mixed with any private wealth, but all made for the common good; for, saith he, every man's law must be consonant to the law of God, otherwise they are not righteous, nor obligatory.  
Secondly, such an Act of Parliament as the foresaid Act of Banishment, is not only against common-right, common-equity, and common-reason; but it is absolutely destructive to the very ends of the people's trust conferred upon the Parliament; and so the highest of Treasons that can be committed, and that it is destructive to the ends of the people's Trusts, clearly appears by the Statutes of the 4th of Ed. the 3d, chap. 14. and 36 Edw. 3. 10. which expressly saith, That a Parliament at least shall be holden once every year; and that for the maintenance of the People's laws and liberties, and the redress of divers mischiefs and grievances that daily happen; and suitable to these things, are the ends contained in the Writs that summon them, & the intentions of those that choose the Members and send them. And suitable to this is the ends of Parl. sitting, as the present General and his Army in many of their remarkable Declarations have fully declared against the late 11 members, & their Accomplices: Yea, and forced the late Parl. to raze out of their Books and Records, many wicked and unrighteous things, as they judged them to be, after the Parl. had solemnly past them; as Votes, Orders, judgements, and Acts; yea, and endeavoured very earnestly to hang divers of those as Traitors that had executed them; as particularly, Alderman adam's, Langham, and Bunch; with the Lord Major Sr john Gayer, etc. But the greatest grievances and mischiefs in the world are by the foresaid mischievous and unjust banishing Act, established, ratified, and confirmed; for by it a man is condemned to lose his liberty and estate, and all the comforts of this life; and that without any the least crime committed, or accusation exhibited, or legal process issued out to summon the party to make any defence in the world, or ever calling or permitting him to speak one word for himself; Which is an act or proceeding against the light and law of Nature, Reason, the Law of God, against the Law of Honour, Conscience, and common-honesty; yea, a dealing worse with the party, than ever the cruel Jews did with Christ; or, than the bloody Butchers, Bishop Gardiner and Bonner did with the ●oasted Martyrs in Queen Mary's days; who always suffered them to have due process of law, and to know and see their Accusers, and to have free liberty to speak for themselves; and never condemned them, but for transgressing a known and declared Law in being.  
Yea also dealing worse with the party then ever the bloody Gunpowder Traitors were dealt with by King James, who always allowed them fair trials in law, from the beginning to the end, at the Bar of Justice, for their lives: Yea it is a worse dealing with the party, than ever the Parliament themselves dealt with the bloodiest and most massacring traitors that ever was in arms against them to cut their throats. Yea, the  practice, of the foresaid most illegal and unrighteous Act of banishment, is an Act, and proceed in the highest subversion of the fundamental law and liberty of England, that can be invented or imagined; and by consequence, if it may without the highest offence, or solicismes in Law be supposed, that his Excellency the Lord Gen. Cromwell, Major Gen. Harrison, and the rest of the Members of the late supreme Authority of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England sitting at Westminster, had any real finger in it, or were Actors of it, they may and aught all of them, with all the rest under them, that have executed any part of the foresaid unjust, injurious, illegal Act of Parliament, be apprehended, indicted, and processed against at the common-law, as Traitors, and subverters of the fundamental laws, liberties, and freedoms, of the freeborn people of England: As that learned man in the Laws of England, Sr Edward Cook, in the second, third, and fourth parts of his Institutes (all three of which are published by two special Orders of the late House of Commons, in Anno, 1641. for good Law) doth declare, and proof was dealt with by Empson and Dudley in less Cases, than the before recited unjust Act of banishment. Which Case of Empson and Dudley was thus:  
At the Parliament holden by King, Lords, and Commons, in Henry the sevenths' time, who was a most undoubted lawful King of England, and by his Marriage of his Wife the Lady Elizabeth, Heir apparent to the House of York, as Himself was to the House of Lancaster, had united the two claims of Lancaster and York in Himself; and in pitcht-battel had slain King Richard the third, the Usurper; and by reason of the extraordinary many troubles of His Reign, and the ignorant Regal time in which he lived considered, He had a thousand times more grounds to be arbytrary and discretionary in his proceed with the people of England, than the late decapitated Parliament had. Yet he summoned a free Parliament, who sat peaceably and quietly, without the force or purge of soldiers, and after that several Juries, at Assizes and Sessions by corruption and favour, had refused to fi●de persons that were judicially proved guilty before them of br●ach of penal laws, as in full and free Parliament by King, Lords and Commons, is avowedly declared; An Act of Parliament (recorded in the 4th part of Cooks Institutes, fol. 40, 41.) in the 11th of Hen. 7. chap. 3 was passed by King, Lords and Commons, in full and free parliament, to enable the Justices of Assize in open Sessions to be holden before them, and the Justices of peace in each country in England, upon information for the King before them to be made, to have full power and authority by their discretion (with ●ut trials by Juries) to hear and determine all offences and contempts committed against penal laws: In all which arbitrary or discretion I proceed, murder, treason and felony, was excepted out of their cognizance or jurisdiction, as also all other offences whereby any person should lose life, or member, or lands, tenements, goods, or chattels to the party complaining.  
By pretext of which statute saith the Lord Cook in his last recited foli●, Empson and Dudley (privy Counsellors and Justices of peace to Henry the seventh) did commit upon the subject insufferable pressures and oppressions (which yet at the highest was but the taking away some small part of the persons estates from them that they condemned) and therefore this statute was justly soon after the decease of Henry the seventh repealed at the next Parliament after his decease, by the statute of the 1 Hen 8. chap 6. A good caveat saith he to parliaments, to leave all causes to be measured by the golden and straight wet-wand of the law, and not to the uncertain and crooked cord of discretion. For it is not almost credible to foresee (saith he) when any maxim, or fundamental law of this Realm is altered (as elsewhere hath been observed) what dangerous inconveniences do follow, which most expressly appeareth by this most unjust and strange Act of 11 H. 7. For hereby not only Empson and Dudley themselves, but such Justices of peace (corrupt men) as they caused to be authorised, committed most grievous and heavy oppressions and exactions, grinding the face of the poor subjects by penal laws (be they never so obsolete or unfit for the time) by information only, without any presentment or trial by Jury, being the ancient birthright of the subject, but to hear and determine the same by their discretion, inflicting such penalty, as the statutes not repealed imposed. These and other like actions and oppressions by, or by the means of Empson and Dudley and their instruments, brought infinite treasures to the King's Coffers, whereof the King himself in the end, with great grief and compunction repent, as in another place we have observed. This statute of 11 H. 7. we have recited, and shown the just inconveniences thereof, to the end, that the like should never hereafter be attempted in any Court of Parliament, and that others might avoid the fearful end of those two Time-servers Empson and Dudley. Qui eorum vestigia insistant, eorum exitus perhorrescant. That is to say, Those that follow their footsteps, may fear the same destruction that they had; whose end in the third part of the Institutes fol. 208. and the fourth part fol. 198, 199. may be seen; was severally to be indicted at Common law (whose indictments is there to be read) and convicted and executed as Traitors, for subverting the fundamental Law and Liberties of England, viz. Trials by Juries: which the Conquests of the Romans, Saxons, Danes, or Normans, could never blot out of the Calendar of Englishmen fundamental Liberties, but hath from time to time, with the infinite hazards of their lives and bloods been preserved, as the choicest of their jewels, and as one of their chiefest fundamental right.  
Of whom the said Lord Cook in his exposition of the 29 Chapter of Magna Charta, in his second part, Institutes fol. 51, upon the words of lex terra, or the law of the Land (where he plentifully shows, that no Englishman whatsoever, ought not for any crime whatsoever, in any Court whatsoever, by any power or authority whatsoever, to be tried but by Juries, and due process of Law as is before shown) expressly saith; Yet  
Against this ancient and fundamental Law, and in the face thereof, I find an Act of Parliament made (saith he) that aswel Justices of Assize, as Justices of Peace (without any finding or presentment by the verdict of twelve men) upon a bare information for the King before them made, should have full power and authority by their discretions to hear and determine all offences and contempts committed or done by any person or persons, against the form, ordinance, and effect of any Statute, made and not repealed, etc. By colour of which Act, shaking this fundamental Law, it is not credible what horrible oppressions and exactions, to the undoing infinite numbers of people, were committed by Sir Richard Empson Knight, and Edmond ●●dley, being Justices of the Peace throughout England, and upon this unjust and injurious Act (as commonly in six cases it falleth out) a new Office was erected, and they made Masters of the King's forfeitures.  
But at the Parliament held in the first year of Henry the 8, this Act of the 11th of Henry the 7th is recited, and made void, and repealed, and the reason thereof is yielded, for that by force of the said Act it was manifestly known, that many sinister and crafty feigned forged informations, had been pursued against divers of the King's subjects, to their great damage and wrongful vexations, and the ill success hereof, and the fearful ends of the two Oppressors, should deter others from committing the like, and should admonish Parliaments, That instead of the ordinary and precious trial (per legem terra) by the law of the Land, they bring not in Absolute, and partial trials by discretion.  
And in the fourth part of his Institutes fol. 37. he expressly saith, That he finds an Attainder by Parliament of a subject (viz. Thomas Cromwell then Earl of Essex) of High Treason, who was committed to the Tower, and thereby forth coming to be heard, and yet was never called to answer in any of the Houses of Parliament. Of the manner of which proceeding he thus saith; Auferat oblivio, si potest, si non, utcunque silentiam tegat; That is, Let the Parliaments crime be buried in oblivion, if it be possible; and if not, nevertheless, yet let it give place to silence for the present. For saith he, the more high and absolute the jurisdiction of the Court is, the more just and honourable it ought to be in the proceeding, and to give example of Justice to inferior Courts. And fol. 38. he is confidently persuaded, that the rehearsal of this unjust Attainder, will hereafter cause the Honourable Members of both Houses of Parliament, to be so tender of their duty, in preserving the fundamental Laws and liberties of the people of England, as that never hereafter such an unjust Attainder shall be brought, where the party is forth coming, to condemn him, without hearing of him. And consonant unto this, is the Scripture and the Law of God therein contained, as appears by the third of Gen. vers. 9 where God after Adam had transgressed his Law, summons him before him to answer for himself, before he would pass judgement against him. And when Sodom had abominably defiled its ways, with the height of wickedness, yet the just God of heaven and earth, would not judge, condemn or pass sentence against them, Till he went down to see, whether they have done altogether according to the cry that is come up against them, or not; And saith God, I will know, Gen. 18. And Deut. 17.6.11. and Chap. 20.15. God saith expressly, One Witness shall not rise against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. And by the hand of Moses he required the people of Israel, to do according to the sentence of the Law, & the judgement which shall be given thereupon, and not to decline from the law, to the right hand, or to the left. And suitable to this is the judicial and legal proceed of the great Congregation of the children of Israel (consisting to the number of four hundred thousand able men) in the case of the Levite, and his ravished and slain Concubine, who in their judicial proceed in that Case, first demanded of him, how so great a wickedness came to be committed in Israel? And the conclusion, after their hearing, and examining the cause, was to consider, consult, and then to give sentence. And saith Nicodemus, that learned man in the Law of God, against the Scribes and Pharisees, in behalf of Christ, Doth our Law judge any man before it hear him? John 7.51. And saith Festus, the Heathen Roman Governor in Judea (that had no other guide to walk by, but the Light and Law of Nature) in the behalf of Paul, against his bloody enemies; It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any one to die, before that he which is accused have the accuser's face to face, and have licence to answer for himself, Act. 25.16. And saith righteous Paul, who writ the Oracles of God, infallibly by the Spirit of God; where there is no law, there is, nor can be no transgression, Rom. 4.15. And as evil saith the Lord Cook in the last forecited fol. was the proceeding in Parliament, in the second of Henry the 6. against Sir John Mortimer, the third son of Edmund the second E. of March, (descended from Lionel Duke of Clarence) who was indicted of High Treason, for certain words; which Indictment (without any Arraignment or pleading) being merely feigned to blemish the Title of the Mortimers; and withal, being insufficient in Law, as by the same appeareth, was confirmed by Authority of Parliament. And the said Sir John being brought into the Parliament, without Arraignment, and Answer, Judgement in Parliament was given against him, upon the said Indictment, that he should be carried to the Tower of London, and drawn through the city to Tyburn, and there hanged, drawn, and quartered; his head to be set on London Bridge; his four quarters on the four gates of London; as by the Record of Parliament appeareth. And therefore, in the next folio, being fol. 39 he saith, That whereas by Order of Law, a man cannot be attainted of high Treason, unless the Offence be in Law high Treason: he ought not to be attainted by general words of high Treason, by Authority of Parliament (as sometime hath been used) but the high treason ought to be specially expressed, seeing that the Court of Parliament is the highest and most honourable Court of Justice, and aught (as hath been said) to give example to inferior Courts. And further to show that Parliaments (which in their right constitution are the best conservators of our Laws, and Liberties) are erroneous things (when they walk by their own Wills, and forsake their true and only guide the fandamental Laws of England) what need there any more instances than many of the Armies own Declarations; in several of which, and their frequent Discourses, they have declared the late parliament a traitorous Parliament, Breakers of their Trust, and embroylers of the Nation in bloody wars, and subverters of the people's liberties and freedoms; yea, and in the conclusion, the Lord Gen. Cromwell himself, and Maj. Gen. Harrison, with their own hands have pulled them out by the ears, and plucked them up by the very Roots, as final breakers of their trust, & as a pack of the vildest knaves and villains that ever breathed in England; Although they were fenced in, and about by an Act of parliament made before the wars, by King, Lords, and Commons, that they should not be dissolved, but by their own free and voluntary consents; And, also, since they changed the Kingdom into a Commonwealth, by two several Acts of parl. of the 14 of May, 1649. and the 17 of July, 1649. in which it is expressly made high Treason, for any Englishman, or men, by writing, printing, or words declaring; or by endeavouring to raise or stir up Force to dissolve the late parliamment, or their council of state, without their own consents or to say, that the said late parl. or their council of state is tyrannical, usurped, or unlawful, as by the said Acts of Parl. with reference thereunto being had, more at large doth appear; (which Acts are printed in the first part of the Trial or Arraignment of the prisoner at the Bar at Guildhall, Octob. 1649. pag. 86, 87, 88, 89) And the said J. Lilburn, now prisoner at the Bar, for further plea saith, That for supposed violating those two last forementioned Acts of Parl. and that but for supposed words, and for the supposed, compiling, writing, and causing to be printed, Arguments, founded at grounded upon the known and declared fundamental Laws of England, the received principals of Reason, and the Armies own printed and published Declarations; he the said Joh. Lilburn, now prisoner at the Bar, was arraigned, and indicted, as a Traitor for his life at Guildhall, London, in Octo. 1649. And that principally by the instigation and means of his Excellency the present L. G. Cromwell; which Trial was with that violence and fury, that the said prisoner at the Bar was absolutely denied the declared benefit of the known Laws of England, viz. the help of Council learned in the Law (and a copy of his Charge and Indictment) which were not denied, but granted to the Lord Macquire, that grand Irish Rebel, and those arch Traitors, as they are commonly called, Strafford, Canterbury, Hambleton, Capel etc. and which also was granted to the prisoner at the Bar, as his Right by Law, when he was prisoner at Oxford, and arraigned by Judge Heath, etc. for his life as a traitor; so that the said J. Lilburn now prisoner, at the Bar, considering the several penalties declared to be due, to any person, or persons whatsoever, that by force or otherwise should but endeavour to dissolve the late Pa●…. or the● Council of State, he cannot either in Reason or Law, see or apprehend which way his Excellency the said L.G. Cromwell, and M. Gen. Harison, etc. if they continue and persevere as they have begun, to execute the said unjust and injurious Act of parl. upon the said J. Lilburn, prisoner at the Bar, (which is one of the most wickedest, and unjust, that ever the Parl. in their lives made, and one of the highest and most notorious Acts of their breach of trust that ever they committed; as is before fully proved) can in the least either before God or Man, acquit themselves of being guilty of the high●st of Treason, both by the letter and equity of the two last forementioned Laws (lately made in part by themselves; but principally by their instigation) in forcibly dissolving the late parl. against their own voluntary wills and consents; or how they can acquit themselves in the least in the eyes of all the understanding people in England, to be justly esteemed guilty of plucking up the parl. by the roots, not in the least for any evil oppression, injustice, or breach of trust they had committed against the Nation, or honest people thereof (that never yet in the least, upon their own principles, forfeited their liberties & freedoms) but only because they would destroy the parl. to have the power in their own hands; thereby to dispose of all the lives, liberties, and proprieties, of all the people of England, by their absolute wills and pleasures; and to deal worse and more arbytrary with the honest Inhabitants thereof, than any Conqueror that ever went before them did, although themselves against the late King, have in the King's Case stated, p. 22. by John Cook their own Attorney Gen. publicly declared, That Conquest is a Title or Government fit to be exercised amongst Bears and Wolves; but not in the least amongst men. And for any to aver Us in England to be a conquered Nation, is not only expressly against all the tenor of the Armies many and remarkable Declarations; but it is such an averment, than which, there can be none more pregnant and fruitful in Treason than it; as Mr Jo. Pym in his learned and rational printed Argument, by the special Order of the House of Commons the 29 April, 1641. against the E. of Strafford avers. And further in pag. 6. saith. There are few Nations in the world that have not been conquered; & NO doubt but the Conqueror may give what Laws he please to those that are conquered; but if the succeeding pacts and Agreements do not limit and restrain that Right, what people can be secure? England hath been conquered and Wales hath been conquered; and by this Reason will be in little better case than Ireland, if the King by the right of a Conqueror give laws to his people; shall not the people by the same Reason be restored to the right of the Conquered, to recover their liberty if they can? What can be more hurtful, more pernicious to both, than such Propositions as these? Which must needs be most truly averred, have no end of bloodshed and murder, and all the miseries besides that Tongue can express, or Heart can imagine.  
And it is impossible that ever the honest people of England should intrust, (as in some measure they have done) the General and His Officers with the Custody, and preservation of their lives, liberties, freedoms, and proprieties, with any the least intentions, that when they had subdued their common enemies, they should subdue their fundamental laws and Rights (for the preservation of which, the only Contest with the common enemy was begun) and then give them a Law, flowing from their uncertain discretionary Wills and pleasures. Sure I am, that righteous and just David calls those sons of Belial, and wicked men, that would go about to deprive those that stayed with the stuff, of an equal share in the Conquest, even with those that went out to fight, 1 Sam. 30.21, 22, 23, 24, 25, etc. and sure I am, that worthy man in his Age, Mr John Pym, in his foresaid excellent Speech, pag. 22. saith, That such Treasons as the subversion of fundamental laws, violating of liberties, can never be good or justifiable by any circumstance or occasion; and therefore by how much the more, a trust is upon a man, or generation of men, by so much the more it makes their Crime in this kind to be the more capital and heinous. Therefore, to conclude, though J. Lilburn, the prisoner at the Bar, could, and might in Law, urge many things more against the Parl. legallest power, in all manner of Acts of Attainder, the Argumenes against which are excellently set down in that rational & highly to be commended Plea in Law, entitled, The Laws subversion (p. 32.) or, Sr john Maynards' Case truly stated in 1648. by I. Houldin, Gent. and their non-jurisdiction in the least, as to punish any man whatsoever that is not of them, for any crime whatsoever; and also the absolute irrationality and illegality, of their making a particular law, or their setting up of a particular Court, for a particular man; which are notably and rationally discussed upon, in the 2d edition of the book, entitled, The Picture of the Council of state, p. 4, 5, 6. & the 2d edition of The legal fundamental liberties of England revived, asserted, & vindicated, p 71, 72, 73. yea, he might urge many Arguments, lawfully to prove, that the parl. was no parl. when they passed the said Act of banishment, but were long before dissolved, and that by their own consents, when the late parl. took upon them the exercise of Regality, & the dissolution of Kingship, and the House of Lords; as is notably endeavoured to be proved in the late Discourses of several of the Armies Champions; as particularly, one licenced to be printed for G. Calvert, and another by R. Moon, at the seven Stars in Paul's Churchyard. Yet he shall close all at present with this last Plea, viz. That although by the said unjust Act of banishment, the Act itself doth authorise all Judges, Mayors, Sheriffs, Bailiffs, and all other other Officers, as well Military as Civil, in their respective places, to be aiding and assisting in apprehending &c. the said banished Lieu. Col. John Lilburn; yet it authorizeth none of them in the least to arraign, try, condemn, and execute the said John Lilburn mentioned in the said Act; and therefore by reason of the insufficiency of the said Act, in that very particular, although John Lilburn, Gentleman, now prisoner at the Bar, were that Lieu. Col. john Lilburn mentioned in the said Act of banishment (as with confidence, for the just and legal Reasons, at the beginning of this his Plea it mentioned, he doth avow he is not) yet in regard the Parliament is dissolved, that made the said Act, which in reason (by reason of the said insufficiency of the said Act) cannot otherwise be supposed; but as they passed the Act of banishment themselves, against the john Lilburn therein mentioned and meant; so they resolved to reserve only to themselves, the final judging and condemning of him; which cannot be done now without their sitting again. And further he avers, that its impossible, as things at present in England now stands, to find a legal number of men, or one single legal men, to give a legal Commission to any man or men in England, to hold a legal Court of justice to try john Lilburn, now prisoner at the Bar, either upon pretence for transgressing the said unjust and illegal Act of banishment, or for any other real, or pretended Crime whatsoever: And, therefore, the premises duly and legally weighed and considered, he prays, and demands, as his absolute Right, the judgement of the Court upon the insufficiency & invalidity of proceed now had against him, on the Keepers of the Liberties of England's behalf, in point of Law, before he put himself upon the Country for any further Trial.  
june 28. 1653. john Lilburn, Gent.   

The illegal Mittimus of the Lord Major.  
Whereas it was enacted by a late Act of Parl. (entitled an Act for the execution of a judgement given in Parliament, against Lieu. Col. John Lilburne) that the said John Lilburne, should within twenty days to be accounted from the 15 day of january, 1651. depart out of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the Islands, Territories and Dominions thereof; and that in case the said John Lilburne, at any time, after the expiration of the said 20 days, to be accounted as aforesaid, should be found or should be remaining within England, Scotland, Ireland, or within any of the Islands, Territories or Dominions thereof, the said J. Lilburne is thereby adjudged a Felon, and to be executed as a Felon, ●s in the said Act was mentioned; And whereas the said J. Lilburne, hath been remaining and found since the expiration of the said 20 days within the Liberties of the City of London, in the Commonwealth of England, contrary to the said Act; These are therefore in the Name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England by Authority of Parl. to will and require you forthwith upon receipt hereof, to receive into your custody the body of the said J. Lilburne, whom I send unto you herewith, for the Felony aforesaid, and him safely to keep, until he shall be delivered by due course of Law, and this shall be your Warrant.  
Given under my Hand and Seal, Dated this 16 day of june, in the year of our Lord, 1653. JOHN FOWK, Major.  
To the Keepers of the Goal of Newgate.   

Postscript. Reader, if thou perusest the Charges or Proceed against King Edward the second, or King Richard the second, or the late King Charles; or against the Judges, Trisillian, Fulthorp, Berknap, Cary, Holt, Burge, and Lockton, with the rest of their Accomplices; as also against the late Ship-money Judges: Thou shalt clearly find, they were all principally proceeded against, For subverting of the People's fundamental Laws and Liberties, and the setting up Arbitrarines, Will, and Pleasure.  
July the 2d. 1653.   

REader, I am desired to entreat thee take notice, that besides all the Petitions that Mr Lilburn, and his friends, in and about the City of London (the last of which of the Citizens, the Soldiers about London freely signed) have delivered to the Council of State for him, which are all extant in Print; There is besides this Plea, two notable Pieces in print about him; The one is entitled, A Jury-mans' judgement upon the Case of Lieutenant Colonel John Lilburn: The other is called, A Defensive Declaration of Lieut. Col. John Lilburne, printed and reprinted in a second Edition, corrected and amended the first of July, 1653. And also there i● this day come out in print Mr Lilburn's Letter to the Lord Major of London, entitled, The Prisoners most mournful Cry, against the present Oppression and Tyranny that is exercised upon him.  
Finis.