On the pillory itself, John Lilburne Trolled the judges of the starchamber the best way possible for punishment of contempt in the illegal proceeding against him-distributing copies of a book to the crowd that the star chambers wanted to prohibit and preaching against the star chambers.
John Lilborne and John Wharton was arrested by the star chamber for a prior restraint, he was arrested per an oath administered by a Chillington. Its sounds like an ecclesiastical court of bishops, trying to claim they were divine jurors to punish anyone they wanted but the court had long surrendered its morality. Chilburne was a servant of Wharton who ran a hotpress-a press that violated a national monopoly. (1315). Chillington alleged that Lilburne was printing 10-12k copies of reading material from Holland and importing it and storing it in England for distribution (1318). The clerked asked for a bribe from Lilburne in order for Lilburne to make an appearance, Lilburne refused-but was forced to make an appearance anyways (1320). The star chambers demanded that he answer truthfully all questioned they were to ask to him, and he refused as he previously answered all the questions without an oath from sir John Banks and knew they had nothing against him except wanted him to make statements against others or to ensnare himself [1321]. Both Lilburne and Wharton [already held 2 years for not giving an oath] were sentenced to contempt [1322]. The Lord keeper suggested that if they should refuse to take the oath the next Tuesday that they should be made an example of. At 1323, we see a copy of the allegations: Upon Information this day to this honorable court, by sir John banks, knight, his majesty's Attorney General, That John Lilburne and John Wharton, who are now at bar of this court, were the 24th of last ordered to be examined upon interrogatories touching upon their illegal printing, publishing, and dispersing of libellous and seditious books". On Monday, reading the order, Lilburne recognize the oath ordered is the same as the "High Commissioners oath" which had been held unlawful [id]. Without taking an Oath, Lilburne takes a defense that Chillington delivered a copy of the book to Childburne, and filed a false affidavit against Wharton and Lilburne in order to gain favor with the bishops and that Chillington was a known liar. [1324-5] He denied importing the books, or having knowledge or witness of the ships they were delivered, or anyone involved with the ships. The lord keeper declared him mad for not taking the oath, Lilburne protested the legality of the oath, and took a defense to his young age (20) as well. Wharton refused to plead saying that the court was illegal in that it required 3 different oaths (churchwardenship, obedience, ex officio) in which they deceive and perjure thousands of the king's subjects a year. The court wanted him to shut up and give an oath, he wanted to continue speaking and they laughed him off. [1326] the both refuse to take an oath.
They were both sentence to a 500 pound fine, and Lilburne was subjected to corporal punishment-Wharton was not on account of his old age. Lilborne's corporal punishment including being whipped and being put in the pillary. Both continued to be held. The court held them in "very high contempt and offense, with dangerous consequence and evil example, and worthy to undergo severe, sharp, and exemplary censure, which might deter others from the like presumptuous boldness of refusing to take an oath" [1327]. Old man wharton told the wardon, "how the bishops were the greatest tyrants since adam's creation; and that they were more cruel than the cannibals [1328]. They were punished in the jail for that at Warden Ingrams pleasure {seems the whole line of Ingrams are corrupt}. On account of weak health and that he was more likely to die than live, 3 weeks later Wharton was allowed to leave Prison.
On April 18th 1638, Lilburne was whipped at least 500 times [1354], and each lash had 20 cords on[1354], on his back as he was held on a cart through the streets of westminster to the pillory. In short he was whipped more than 10 000 times[1354], while preaching to the crowd [1328]. A surgeon was supposed to attend to his wound son the pillory, but did not appear. Lillburne continued to preach. He was given another chance to escape the pillory if he gave an oath. He refused, was placed in the pillory, and did better: he gave a speech. And his speech [and later his lawyer's speech] while attacking the bishops, make you appreciate more the arguments about what it means to be a christian nation.
The speech appeals to the English protestants, and that it is heavily anti-catholic, and compares the papacy to the antichrist, and that the bishops are in allegiance to the pope. As a base line he uses the pagan practices of the Romans. From that point he contrast the practices of the pagans with the practices of the star chambers, and make an indictment against the bishop to the public about their unchristian ways. [1332] Nah, it is worse than the laws of the heathen Romans, as we may read, Act xxv 16. For when Paul stood before the Pagan Governors, and the Jews required judgment against him, the governor replied, "It is not in the manner of Romans to condemn any man, before he and his accusers come face to face, to justify their accusations." [1333] As far as the bishops, they used to in former times challenge their jurisdiction, callings and power from the king; but they have now openly, in the high commission court, renounced that, as heard by many, at the censure of that noble doctor [Bastwick, see also 3 howell state trials 711]: And as you may fully read in his "Apolegiticus ;", and in 'his answer to sir John Banks Information'. Now I will here maintain it before them all, that there calling is so far removed from jure divino (as they say they are) that they are rater jure diablico....read Revelations 9th and 13th chapters of that revelation, and there you shall see, that locust come out of the bottomless pit, part of whom they are, and they are there lively described. Also you shall find, that the beast (which is the Pope, or roman state of government) hath given to him by the dragon (The Devil) his power, seat, and great authority. So that the Pope's authority comes from the devil; and the prelates, and their creatures, in their printed books, do challenge their authority, jurisdiction, and power (that they excercise over all sorts of people) is from Rome.
And for proving the Church of England to be a true church, their best argument is, that the bishops are lineally descend from his holiness (impiousness) of Rome, as you may read in Pockington's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pocklington book, "Sunday no sabbath". So that by their own confession they stand by that same power and authority, that they received from the pope. So their calling is not from God, but the Devil.....For not their daily practices and cruel burthens imposed on all sorts of people, high and low, rich and poor, witness that their decent is from the Beast, part of his state and kingdom [1334]...Therefore as you love your own souls, and look for that immortal crown of happiness in the world to come, look that you withdraw yourselves from that Antichristian power and slavery that you are now under"[1336] At [1337] they try to silence him, and he declares that he won't shut up even if they try to hang him. At [1338] Lilburne effectively Trolls the starchamber a pulls three copies of Bastwicks books into the crowd and told them to read it. At [1340], they again request that he shuts up. He again refuses, and this time they gag him.
(4) Gagging, an unmanly and barbarous cruelty, to be exercised upon beasts, not men, for man differs from brutes both ratione et oratione, in reason and speech; a punishment never heard of in any age; cutting out tongues, and perforations, in cases of blasphemy have been heard of, but never in a matter of such a nature; and this to continue for above an hour, till the blood gushed out of his mouth, as if they would have plucked his jaw in pieces, and all this for nothing; O insuffereable torments."- councel Mr Cook for lilburne.
When he was removed from the pillory, he still managed to say to the crowd, I am more than 'a conqueror through him that loved me' 'Vivat Rex' aka Jesus. Lilburne was allowed to stay at a tavern, Wharton was there, until the warden decided to return Lilburne to the fleet [prison]. No one was allowed to visit, but a surgeon (who through importunity) [1351]was allowed to dress his wounds. It seems the doctors then choose to let the wounds bleed ("blood") as to prevent fever (probably infection), before dressing him. His shoulders were so swollen they were larger than a witnesses penny loaf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_bun and the welts larger than tobacco pipes [1350]. [1341] The star chamber issued an order of punishment for Lilburne's [audacity] and "wickedness of utter[ing] "dry scandalous speeches" and distributing "seditious books". He punishment included being laid alone in iron fetters [1341&1345], that no one provide him money, and to take special notice of all letters, writings, and books sent to him. All people sent out to the pillory from that day forward would have their garments searched to prevent a repeat. He was also starved. The star chamber was to further investigate Lilborne for further charges for his speech that day [1342]. At 1344, it appears they tried to charge him with high treason, and made him march with the iron weights on. And the iron fetters themselves seems to have caused a severe illness that lasted 6-11 months [1345]. Lilborne petitioned the Parliament, and the parliament found. The parliament then had a committee to hear pleas from prisoners; Today, in the United states [I know, I tried] political prisoners can't even contact their representatives for help for ongoing illegal proceedings because of ethics rules. The Parliament found that the star chamber sentence was illegal. They found that it was Bloody, cruel, wicked, barbarous, and tyrannical". The parliament also demanded that reparations be paid to Lilborne for his imprisonment, sufferings, and losses during the sentence [1342]. That the case of Lilburne as well as the charges against Bastwick et all be sent to the house of Lords.
In about 1645, Lilburne sent his petition for compensation [1643]. It seems he attaches a copy of his petition to parliament that he was ultimately released on 1345, [1345] he notes that they were denying him visit from his friends. That they had been preventing him from obtaining food, and punishing his friends for trying to bring him food [1346]. That for a period of 10 days they have withheld all food from him. That his fellow prisoners took pity on him and fed him, for which they too were punished.
Mr. Cook was Lilburne's counsel appointed to him. He argued [but there was no decision] that being put an hour on the rack was better than being held in prison for a year. That what happened to Lilburne was actually Corpus inunobile juris; an immovable subject by law. He argued that lilburne's case was aggravated based upon 3 mostly christian and historical grounds.
- The denial of Lilburne's access to his friends, and physicians. Mr. Cook found that not even the Turks were that barbaric to their slaves, and that the members of the starchambers were after his blood.
- Mr. Cook also invoked the prophet Jeremaiah by paraphrasing Lamentations 4:9, so far that the jail was choosing to starve mr. Lilburne to death. "It is better to die by the sword than by famine" which is the greatest of all torments. For all punishments may be undergone by patience, but for hunger. That had it not been for his fellow prisoners he would have starve dto death, which is worse than what the Romans would have done. The punishment by the romans were Stoning (lapidatio), burning (combustio), beheading (decollatio), strangling(strangulatio) [I guess he forgot crucifixion]
- that he was held 3 years by the starchamber, for something not forbidden by the legislature.
mr. cook expanded on this by addressing the whippings.
The star chamber itself had previously prohibited whippings.[1354]
That amongs the romans no one was whipped more than 40 striped. That the whips consisted of 3 stripes, and eash lashing counted as 3 striped. The apostle Paul was limited then to 39 stripes ...albeit on 5 different instances. http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/11-24.htm
That mr. lilburne experienced a least 10 000 stripes. At least 500 lashes of 20 each.
Mr. Cook also arrgued against the Pillary
He also argued against gagging. We have provided a quote above, deprived man of reason and turns him into a beast.
he also denounced the judges of the star chambers [1355], calling them blood thirsty and murderous. He asked the parliament for proportional crimes invoking the not only the bible, but as an english atteney we can presume he was also talking about [maybe/maybe not Hammurabi but ] lex talionis
The Parliament went on to award Lilburne 2000 pounds from multiple defendants, but had difficulty collecting The estate of James Ingram could not be found, so he petitioned the Parliament again, and they awarded him 3000 pounds from the estates of traitors to the crown.
That is pretty much the end of this trial. He did get in more trouble later, was exiled back to Holland. Returned when Charles Reign ended (executed) and when Cromwell was in power. He was pronounced dead in 1654 (but wasn't), and his wife petitioned for his release but her was transferred and later paroled when he became a Quaker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne
I was about to jump to a 20th century case this week. Then a few days ago I decided that I should do zengler, and possibly a 19th century case that followed. Woke up today and realized that I should do the 7 bishops trial to build upon the english bill of rights. But the 7 bishops trial is fairly long. So I went for Lilburne instead. And I think it was worth my while. From researching Zengler, the star chambers once again went beyond what the Romans did. Sure the Romans could put a libeler to death, but they recognized truth as a defense. The starchambers changed it so truth wasn't a defense, they were more concerned about breaches of the peace. It was the American based courts that overrode the starchambers. In fact, even the Lilburne case was too long to complete in one day...but today was the 4rth of July so there is an excuse. There are many cases involving the star chamber in Howell state trials. I hate that all the copies I can find are in pdf format, but I think it is important to one day truly know the full extent of their evil. I think maybe next week I will try the 7 bishops trial, and by next week I could mean the 15th not the 11th. July 15th is an important day.
There really isn't a court decision very important here in the Lilborne case. But I think that the trial has a lot of merit in so far as addressing what it means to be a christian nation and the evolution of christian law and the boundaries of punishment, and it also brings up that some of our constitutional rights go as far back as ancient time. I have read the bible many times, but never picked up these details.
It is also interesting to see that when the courts gag people that men are reduced to beast states, and that historically gagging people was quite more severe than in the presence case. While this case spoke of extreme physical pain to the mouth/tongue, Locke would similarly argue that where speech is suppressed the appeal would be to heaven. So it is the appeal to heaven for which man restores his humanity from that of a beast....assuming he still has a tongue.
I been thinking a bit lately about how immortal the current penal system is in locking everyone up. Not just to the accused, but to the taxpayers. Lot of corporate welfare to: do you really want the government spending 40k+ a year to lock up a shoplifter caught stealing $25 or someone who had $5 worth of drugs? Certainly retail is under a lot of stress from amazon, but that is no excuse. I heard Amond Bundy speak the other day about how the jews would have treated criminal justice-they wouldn't have done so by locking harmless offenders up, but making them pay for the damages caused. But really how do you enforce it? Except for a violent offender, I don't think jail/prison is a viable answer. And even for violent offenders, if it be an accident, the Jews allowed sanctuary cities.
In expanding upon this, today in a criminal case people have to make pleading at an arraignment to an indictment charged against them. Recently in Nevada a man was sentenced to 15 days contempt for asking about the nature of the charges against him in Nevada, and declaring that it was the peoples court. Many people are being held these days with no bond, or having a high bond. Effectively people are being punished for the refusal to take the oath that the judges want them to take just like the starchambers, and keeping them locked up until they take the oath the judges want them to take, for which they are then automatically convicted. Just like the star chambers.
So long as people aren't throwing stones, I wonder if a better solution than jail and prison would be to bring back public whipping, pillories, and stocks. Our judges and cops are corrupt as hell. Many people are being locked up and held on no bond or a high bond, and either being thrown onto the streets civilly dead after being forced into a conviction, maybe under a court order gag. Or being thrown away into the penal system for so long that by the time they speak, there case will be too stale to garner any media attention. For the person sentence to 10 years prison for wishing his own kids happy birthday, imagine if he was instead on a pillory and yelling out that he was arrested and held for over a year without bond by judge Adele Grubbs that he was convicted for wishing his kids happy birthday for mailing them a letter. That would be the end of that judges career, the prosecutor, the cop too-and feminism itself would be dead when people see the real victims of their policies.
Of course we see from the case of the star chamber that the courts hate it when these people have the opportunity to speak while being given their punishment. They hate being held publicly accountable, they hate being defied, they hate it when people prove that the judges are not Gods and undermine their authority. They tyrants punished John Lilburne probably more lashes than anyone in history for megatrolling them on the pillory. And ultimately through Lilburne persistence he helped restore out rights from the ancients, and helped bring about the demise of the star chambers.
On some further notes. It has been deemed unchristian for the jails to deny detainees visitors, whether they befriends or doctors. It is deemed cruel to deny detainees food, and worse than what the Romans did. Yet across this country in person visits are being denied for video screens, and in fact the courts typically recognize the right of the jails to use video meetings instead of in contact visits for peneological reason. Common civil rights litigation is often food and medical related, yet tortfeasors hide behind sovereign and qualified immunity. Trying to make a christian nation [we're better than the pagans] argument today in the courts would be quite difficult, but it could be quite useful in terms of originalism. It is quite sad that America is losing the Argument that it is a christian nation, because trying to be better than those pagans kept raising the bar. Now things are turner v safely which is more concerned about peneological interest, and ripple effects, least restrictive means, alternatives, all weighted against an alleged constitutional rights deprivation. And even if you have a turner case, you have to either sue for damages or meet the 4 rules of equity. There is no real lower bar anymore in the states and officials hugging immunity and absconding christian duties for their transgressions, and not suprizingly this nation has fallen into tyranny. When you think about violence by police, not even the Romans could put a man to death without giving him the opportunity to confronting his adversaries face to face.
On another note, I wonder what the history of the rack is. Wikipedia suggest it's history goes back to the greeks, with Nero and others using it on christians. Was Mr Cook seriously arguing that being put into a device, for an hour, that dislocates all your joints better than a year in prison. I am not a doctor and can't predict when a person would heal. Was this only rhetoric, or is there an arcane argument that christian's shouldn't lock people up?
While Liliburne is likely wrong about the pope being the antichrist. He is probably right about statists being the antichrist.
http://www.constitution.org/trials/howell/03_howells_state_trials.pdf
The citation is 3 Howell state trials 1315
Please don't forget to Upvote.