header-logo header-logo

22 January 2009 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7353 / Categories: Blogs , Public , Human rights , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Free-born John

Geoffrey Bindman pays tribute to a seditious scribbler and freedom fighter

The story told in the recent Channel 4 drama “The Devil’s Whore” takes place during the civil war in 17th century England. Commendably, it avoids the tired stereotypes of Cavaliers and Roundheads in favour of a more nuanced depiction of the contending political forces, among them those precursors of democracy, the Levellers, led by John Lilburne.

Lilburne is only now coming to be recognised as a fundamentally important figure in our political and legal history. He was also a man of extraordinary personal courage and determination. Cromwell made him a colonel in his army, but he became disillusioned when Cromwell abandoned the democratic programme which Lilburne passionately advocated.

 

Just defence

In his early twenties Lilburne was brought before the Star Chamber accused of sending “factious and seditious libels out of Holland into England”. When questioned he refused to answer, saying: “I know it is warrantable by the law of God, and I think by the law of the land, that I may stand on my just defence, and not answer your interrogatories, and that my accusers ought to be brought face to face, to justify what they accuse me of.”

He was whipped and pilloried but his claims to the right of silence and to hear and challenge the evidence against him were a dramatic challenge to an oppressive judicial process. In 1641 he was vindicated by the House of Commons which resolved that the “sentence of the Star Chamber given against John Lilburne is illegal and against the liberty of the subject: and also bloody, cruel, barbarous, and tyrannical”. Later, however, he accused the commons of reviving the practices of the Star Chamber when he was arrested for publishing pamphlets advocating religious toleration and attacking suppression of dissent. Again he refused to answer incriminating questions, condemned the secrecy of the proceedings, and cited the authority of Magna Carta.

 

Democratic contribution

Lilburne’s contribution to our democracy and our law has never been properly credited. His role in establishing fairness in the judicial system is especially significant today when we are seeing the erosion of principles which for centuries were believed to be sacrosanct.

Though this successful challenge to the Star Chamber contributed to its abolition, some of its practices continued to be followed in the ordinary courts and in Parliament after the execution of Charles I. Lilburne’s rift with the increasingly authoritarian Cromwell led to further prosecutions. Cromwell attacked Lilburne’s “seditious scribbling” and said either Lilburne or himself would perish for it.

In 1649, Lilburne was tried at the Guildhall for high treason by a specially appointed commission which included no less than 14 judges. He demanded to see the indictment against him and to have access to legal advice, neither of which was at that time routinely allowed. He refused to plead without them. As before he refused to answer incriminating questions. By sheer force of argument he persuaded the court to give in to his demands.

His advice to the jury that they need not apply the law unless they approved of it was perhaps more questionable, but they declared him not guilty.

After recording the verdict the report of the trial continues: “‘No’ being pronounced with a loud voice, immediately the whole multitude of people in the hall, for joy of the prisoner’s acquittal, gave such a loud and unanimous shout as is believed was never heard in Guildhall, which lasted for about half an hour without intermission: which made the judges for fear turn pale and hang down their heads.”

 

Future generations

Lilburne’s popularity had reached its height at this point but the Levellers movement was in decline and Lilburne’s financial difficulties led him into further conflict which this time led to his banishment to Holland. Although he was allowed to return to England in 1653 he never recovered his influence and died at the age of 42 in 1657. Nevertheless the advantages he secured in defending himself in his trials became enshrined in the law for the benefit of future generations.

In 1961, Michael Foot MP asked the government whether in view of “recent historical evidence of the part played by the Levellers in the establishment of Parliamentary freedom and democracy in this country”, a suitable memorial to Lilburne could be erected in the Palace of Westminster. It does not seem to have happened, but it is not too late to honour a great civil libertarian. Now would be appropriate time when our government is only too ready to ignore our hard-won heritage of liberty and equal justice.

Issue: 7353 / Categories: Blogs , Public , Human rights , Constitutional law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll