rections. He committed men illegally

to

That this may be true is rendered very probable by letters to Thurloe, part of which I will here transcribe. The first is from Mr. Dove, high-fheriff of Wilts, dated Sarum, March 29, 1655, relating to the intended tryals for rebellion against the protector. I under

318.

ftand a commiffion of Oyer and Terminer is iffued out ⚫ for tryall of the rebels in the weft; and ther is a mistruft of my under-fheriffe. Sir, I refolve, that noe one man fhall be returned in the one or other juries, but fuch as may be confided in, and of the honeft well affected party to his highnefs, and the present ' government. Yf there be but enough to be found of them through the whole county (which I hope there is) it is and will be my greatest care for that business to fee it punctually done, and not trust my under- (») Thurles, fheriffe therewith (2).' I fuppofe he was as good as vol. iii. p. his word, for both the juries I find highly commended by the follicitor, and other of his highnefs's agents, in their accounts of the trials of the unhappy fufferers.Colonel Lilburne, in a letter to the fecretary, dated Yorke, April 10, 1655, has the following paffage, on a like fubject. As for jurors, happily the law may give liberty to choose them without the liberties of this city, both fact and act rifeing in the county, and ⚫ then we shall doe pretty well: but, if otherwise, there fhall be no diligence or care wanting to pick upp fuch C as are right (0).—Practices of this nature could (0) Id. p. not but be dangerous to the fubject.What is faid 360. in the text concerning Oliver's difplacing of judges, is founded on the authority of Whitlock. 'Baron Thorpe, and judge Newdigate, fays he, were put out of their places, for not obferving the protector's pleasure in all his commands (p).' I know not, whether I ought to infert under this head the difplacing Whitlock and Wid-rials, p. 625drington, commiffioners of the great Seal, for refufing to proceed according to an ordinance made for the better regulating and limiting the jurifdiction of the Gg3

High

(p) Memo

454

(9) Id. p. 626.

to prifon, and permitted them not to enjoy (www) the benefit of the laws. He caufed

men

High Court of Chancery.' Poffibly the protector, however he might be miftaken, really thought his regulation for the public good, and therefore could not be blamed for difmiffing fuch as were not to be prevailed on to concur with him therein.-Thefe gentlemen, however, as they were deemed by the protector men of honour and abilities, were employed in other departments, and enjoyed his countenance and encouragement. His fpeech, on the taking away the feal from thefe commiffioners, was remarkable, The protector, in the council-chamber, very gravely told us, fays • Whitlock, that he was forry fome of us could not fatisfy our own confciences, to execute the ordinance concerning the Chancery, which they were informed had much good in it to the publick, but he confefled, that every one was to fatisfy himself in matters to be performed by him, and that he had not the worfe opinion of any man for refufing to do that whereof • he was doubtful; but in this particular the affairs of the commonwealth did require a conformity of the officers thereof, and their obedience to authority, and ⚫ (being fome of us refused to execute this act, as was enjoyned) they were compelled thereby to put this charge of the cuftody of the great Seal into the hands of fome others, who might be fatisfied that it was their duty to perform this command, and to put the ordinance • in execution (q)!' I have faid the protector poffibly was not to be blamed for his conduct in this affair: the reader, however, muft judge of this.

(www) He committed men illegally to prifon, and per mitted them not the benefit of the laws.] The author of the World's Miftake in Oliver Cromwell' will fupply me with fufficient proofs of this. To prove, fays he,

that Oliver's time was full of oppreffion and injuftice, I fhall but inftance, in a few of many particulars, and begin with John Lilburne, not that I think him in any

men to be tried before new created tribunals,

.

kind one that deferved favour or refpect, but that equal juftice is due to the worst, fo well as to the beft men, and that he comes first in order of time.

'

1. John, in 1649, was, by order of the then parliament, tryed for his life, with an intent, I believe, of taking him away, but the jury not finding him guilty, he was immediately, according to law, generoufly fet at liberty by thofe that had quarrel enough against him. This example in the parliament, of keeping to the laws in the cafe of one, who was a profeffed implacable enemy to them, ought to have been copied by Cromwell; but, in the contrary, to fhew that there was a difference betwixt his and his predeceffors (the long parliament's) principles, when the law had again, upon a second trial (occafioned by Oliver) cleared Lilburne, the parliament's fubmitting to the law was no example to him; for, contrary to law, he kept him in prison, untill he was fo far spent in a confumption, that he only turned him out to • dye.

2. Mr. Conie's cafe is fo notorious that it needs but little more than naming: he was a prifoner at Cromwell's fuit, and being brought to the King's-Bench barr by a Habeas Corpus, had his counfell taken from the barr, and fent to the Tower for no other reafon, than the pleading of their client's caufe; an act of violence, that, I believe, the whole ftory of England doth not parallel.' This was on the 18th of May, 1655. The gentlemen thus committed, were Maynard, Twifden and Windham, men of great eminence in their curius Poliprofeffion, who could find no release from their impri- ticus, No. fonment, but by humbly petitioning the protector (r). 298. p.

-But to go on.——

3dly, Sir Henry Vane, above any one perfon, was the author of Oliver's advancement, and did fo long and cordially espouse his intereft, that he prejudiced himself (in the opinion of fome) by it, yet fo ungrate

Gg 4

ful

(r) See Mer

5354,

nals, and adjudged to death without the verdict

ful was this monfter of ingratitude, that he ftudied to deftroy him, both in life and eftate, because he could ⚫ not adhere to him in his perjury and falseness. The • occafion he took was this: he appointing a day of 'humiliation, and feeking of God for him, invited all God's people in his declaration, to offer him their advife in the weighty affairs then upon his fhoulders: Sir Henry taking a rife from hence offered his advice by a treatife called the Healing Question; but Cromwell, angry at being taken at his word, feized, • imprisoned, and endeavoured to proceed further against him, for doing only what he invited him to do.

4thly, In Richard's affembly, certain prisoners in the Tower, under the then lieutenant, and fome fent thence to Jersey, and other places beyond the fea, complained of falfe imprisonment. Their goaler was fent for, and being required to fhew by what authority he kept thefe perfons in hold, produceth a pa⚫ per all under Oliver's own hand, as followeth. Sir, I pray you feize fuch and fuch perfons, and all others whom you fhall judge dangerous men ; do it quickly, and you fhall have a warrant after it is done. The nature of this warrant was by Richard's affembly debated, and having firft Richard's own counfel's opi⚫nion in the case, as ferjeant Maynard, &c. they voted the commitments of the complainants to be illegal, unjust and tyrannical; and that, firft, because the warrant by which they were committed, was under the hand of the then (as they called him) chief magiftrate, who, by law, ought not to commit any by his own warrant. Secondly, Because no cause was fhewn in the warrant; and thirdly (in the cafe of thofe fent out of the reach of a Habeas Corpus, which in law is a banishment) Because no Englishman ought to be banished by any lefs authority than an act of parliament. And, therefore, for these reasons they

• voted

verdict of a jury. Thefe courts were stiled High

6

Miftake,

P. 12-14.

voted farther, that the prifoners fhould be fet at liberty without paying any fees or charges. But the turning out and punishing the lieutenant by the affembly (for obeying fo unjust a warrant) was prevented by (s) World's their fudden diffolution (s).' Moft of the facts here recited are well known to thofe verfed in this part of the English hiftory, and may be established on the best authorities. But on confulting the Journals of the parliament, here referred to, I find a miftake relating to the commitments by Oliver.-On Saturday the 26th of Feb. 1658, fay the Journals, Mr. Terill reported from the grand committee of the house for grievances and courts of juftice, the state of the case, • concerning Mr. John Portmans, a prifoner in the Tower, as it appeared to the committee; viz. That the lieutenant of the Tower, the third of February, 1657, received a letter from the late lord protector, early in the morning, directing him to apprehend Mr. John Portmans (amongst others) forthwith: that the fame day, in the afternoon, a warrant was sent to the • lieutenant of the Tower, under the hand of the late lord protector, to require and authorize him to apprehend and imprifon Mr. Portmans: that the fame night, or fhortly after, upon that warrant, Mr. Portmans was taken by a lieutenant and about fix foldiers, • under the command, and by the order and direction, of the lieutenant of the Tower; and hath ever fithence remained a prifoner there, without any tryal, or other proceedings had against him.'-' On the 26th of March following, the warrant for the commitment and detaining major-general Overton in the Ifle of Jersey was read; and was figned Oliver P.; and directed to the governor of the Ile of Jersey or his deputy; and was in these words; viz. These are to will and require you forthwith to receive into your charge the bodies of Robert Overton, major Norwood, and Sir Thomas Armstrong, and Wefton, efq;

.

and