At the very moment when he hoped to reap the fruit of his dissimulation and intrigues, he found himself unexpectedly confronted by the same fearless and enterprising demagogue, who, at the birth of the commonwealth, had publicly denounced his ambition, and excited the soldiery against him.  Lilburne, on the dissolution of the long parliament, had requested permission of Cromwell to return from banishment.  Receiving no answer, he came[a] over at his own risk,—­a bold but imprudent step; for what indulgence could he expect from that powerful adventurer, whom he had so often denounced to the nation as “a thief, a robber, an usurper, and a murderer?” On the day after his arrival in the capital he was committed to Newgate.  It seemed a case which might safely be intrusted to a jury.  His return by the act of banishment had been made felony; and of his identity there could be no doubt.  But his former partisans did not abandon him in his distress.  Petitions with thousands of signatures were presented, praying for a respite of the trial till the meeting of the parliament; and Cromwell, willing, perhaps, to shift the odium from himself to that assembly, gave his consent.  Lilburne petitioned the new parliament; his wife petitioned; his friends from the neighbouring counties petitioned; the apprentices in London did not only petition, they threatened.  But the council laid before the house the depositions of spies and informers to prove that Lilburne, during his banishment, had intrigued with the royalists against the commonwealth;[1] and the prisoner himself, by the intemperance

[Footnote 1:  It appears from Clarendon’s Letters at the time, that Lilburne was intimate with Buckingham, and that Buckingham professed to expect much from him in behalf of the royal cause; while, on the contrary, Clarendon believed that Lilburne would do nothing for it, and Buckingham not much more.—­Clarendon Papers, iii. 75, 79, 98.]

[Sidenote:  A.D. 1653.  June 15.]

of his publications, contributed to irritate members.  They refused to interfere; and he was arraigned[a] at the sessions, where, instead of pleading, he kept his prosecutors at bay during five successive days, appealing to Magna Charta and the rights of Englishmen, producing exceptions against the indictment, and demanding his oyer, or the specification of the act for his banishment, of the judgment on which the act was founded, and of the charge which led to that judgment.  The court was perplexed.  They knew not how to refuse; for he claimed it as his right, and necessary for his defence.  On the other hand, they could not grant it, because no record of the charge or judgment was known to exist.