Page:The Leveller movement; a study in the history and political theory of the English Great Civil War (IA levellermovement01peas).djvu/142

 to answer for his testimony before any inferior court. He instructed his lawyer to enter this defense; further, he wrote a letter to Justice Reeves of the court of Common Pleas protesting against the court’s action in entertaining King’s suit. The publication of this letter, under the title of The Iust Mans Iustification, embroiled the author with the House of Lords. In recounting his troubles with Colonel King he had alluded slightingly to the Earl of Manchester, saying that King’s chaplains had persuaded Manchester’s to throw a mist over their lord’s eyes, that he might see no fault in Colonel King. Mild as this seems, it was too strong for the Lords who were extremely punctilious for the reverence due a member of their House. Their punctiliousness, indeed, had seemed to increase as in the course of the war their position in the state had grown more and more precarious. Several times as a result of their summary proceedings against commoners who had been guilty of breach of privilege of the peers, they had come into collision with the House of Commons. Apparently not profiting by their past experience, the Lords on June 10 summoned Lilburne before them.

Lilburne acted on the principle that the Lords had no authority to summon or arraign commoners before them. He attended on the summons only from respect and civility to his social superiors, for