Talk:John Lilburne/Archive 1

Archive 1

Major update of this page

In keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia I have rewritten the biographical entry for John Lilburne and in the spirit of Wikipedia this text is now available to everyone. It is based upon original and thoroughly documented research undertaken by me and my associates since 1983.

It is amazing that while so much material exists in Supreme Court opinions, in the diaries of Jefferson and Adams and especially in the works of Hugo Black, that John Lilburne has been written off as a footnote crackpot by school textbooks, when he was in reality the first in line of great champions of individual liberty and freedom.

Aside from sweeping his legacy aside, others have tried to claim him for strange causes by confusing the "Levellers so-called" with the religious "True Levellers", which were and are sometimes called "The Diggers". They were in fact more closely identified with the "Christian communism" movement based upon the Book of Acts. This confusion surfaced again in the Hippie days of the 1960s in San Francisco and since then others have also confused the issues. The True Levellers wanted to level property rights, but John Lilburne wanted to promote freeborn rights, the rights that everyone is born with but which some governments seek to limit.

I have discovered to my cost (having years ago actively attempted to get the State of Texas to include his legacy in its textbooks), that the problem seems to reside with international publishers of school textbooks, more than with political ideology in the USA. I found that both the left wing (Hugo Black, etc.) and the right wing (Pat Robertson, etc.) endorsed the idea that the works of John Lilburne are at the foundation of America's freedoms. The problem does not come from there - it arises when we look to England where John Lilburne lived and where a number of international textbook publishers are also based.

The same issues that Lilburne fought for in the 1600s are present today. While the press has not been gagged so severely in Britain, broadcasting was gagged throughout much of the 20th Century and the methods used to gag it were identical to those used with publishing.

Many of the software and Internet copyright laws and claims, especially those related to music copying, can be traced to this same history. The restrictions being introduced into the USA have their origins in the UK. Time permitting I will add further notes and references in order to fully document this article. For a comparison as to how the broadcasting laws vary between countries, see the entry for Pirate radio, especially Europe. MPLX/MH 21:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand why there is this obsession with calling the followers of Lilburne 'agitators'. This seems to be based on a deep misunderstanding of Army politics in 1647-8 and an uncritical reading of long discredited Marxist works such as Brailsford. The term Agitator referred to the representatives of the regiments who held a position on the General Council of the Army (see Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen or Gentles, The New Model Army as secondary sources that were not written in the stone age like most of the stuff cited here). They emerged from the regiments of the New Model Army (one agitator per regiment for the private soldiers and one per regiment for the officers) in or around March 1647 as a result of Parliament's Declaration of Dislike and its attempt to disband the New Model and raise a counter force under General Massey (see Woolrych for an account of this). They were not inherently connected to Lilburne or his fellow travellers who came to be called Levellers after the Putney Debates.

Altough Royalist propaganda linked the Agitators to Lilburne (such as the tract 'The Character of an Agitator' of November 1647) and some of the Agitators like Edward Sexby temporarily supported Lilburne and his friends they were quite distinct from Lilburne and his small group of activists who Ireton apparently dubbed 'the Levellers' at Putney (that is what Lilburne and Wildman later said). Indeed Lilburne (who was a person who would always associate his own personal struggles with national or cosmic struggles) later appealed to the common soldiers to turn against their agitators when they didn't support his position. Could someone please site the actual books and tracts (rather than cod Marxist accounts) by Lilburne where he calls his 'followers' the Agitators and where he is referring to the group (or is it bugbear) called Levellers - otherwise get rid of this inaccuracy User:Dr V 14:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Levellers and Diggers

The term Levellers and Diggers have been in use for many years to describe the two different political factions of the middle 1600s. It is just confusing to re-erect the arguments from that time about what the precise terms mean and whether it is an insult or not. Although the terms "So called levellers" and "True Levellers" ought to be mentioned once in passing, it is just confusing in an encyclopaedia to place too much influence on the phrases, because they are no longer used by anyone, unless they are reading the original sources and writing to a other who are also familiar with the sources.

The thing to be remembered is that we (or at least most of us) have a different mind set to the English gentry of the 17th century. Most of them including Cromwell believed that they were better than the "common" man. It took them a very long time to accept that they had to get rid of the King because they viewed society as a pyramid. So to them any one who advocated one man one vote would be considered a Leveller, because what the levellers were proposing was a levelling of society not the economy. The diggers were so far off the radar screen of the gentry outlook on life, that it took months for Fairfax to work out what on earth they were going on about!

In passing the http://100.1911encyclopedia.org/L/LE/LEVELLERS.htm states:

The germ of the Levelling movement must be sought for among the Agitators (q.v.), men of strong republican views, and the name Leveller first appears in a letter of the 1st of November 1647, although it was undoubtedly in existence as a nickname before this date (Gardiner, Great Civil War, iii. 380). This letter refers to these extremists thus: They have given themselves a new name, viz. Levellers, for they intend to sett all things straight, and rayse a parity and community in the kingdom.

In Britain if someone says that you are a Tory, it is not taken as in insult. although it started out that way because Conservatives are not Tories. But it is accepted by all sides in British politics that it is an acceptable label which has changed its meaning over time.

The label Roundhead was such an insult at the time it was coined that a soldier in the New Model Army could be disciplined for calling a fellow soldier a Roundhead. Today no sane person would object to the use of the term to describe soldiers in the New Model Army. Philip Baird Shearer 00:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

TWO VIEWS OF JOHN LILBURNE

I was attempting to edit this text today and suddenly I found myself in an edit/revert "war" with Philip Baird Shearer. So I did the logical thing and took a look at what Philip is interested in over on his "Talk" page and followed his link to comments about the English Civil Wars. I have written this in an abstract manner because obviously others have the ability to read these comments.

Now to Philip's edits today. I do have a problem with what you have done because essentially you have imposed a POV onto the text I wrote. You did a lot of deleting and a lot of substituting. Obviously if you read my comments at the top of this Talk page you must have observed that I have an interest in this area. That is also reflected on my own Talk page.

The problem as I see it is that you reverted to a traditional British opinion about Lilburne that casts him into the dustbin of history as an argumentitive idiot. That is how many of the old encyclopedias described him. My approach to this subject is different from your own. Since 1984 I have spent a considerable amount of time and money researching this man's legacy and it is not the legacy found in British history books and encyclopedias.

Put in basic terms Lilburne began as conservative Puritan and by the time his life was over (at a very early age), he had moved to the liberal views of a Quietist Quaker. But there was more to Lilburne than religion. What glues his life together is a passion for freeborn rights, not human rights bestowed by a government, but rights that you are born with. Lilburne links with Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson.

John Lilburne took his views into the court room and he suffered for them to the extent that a Nelson Mandela or a Martin Luther King suffered and possibly (probably) more so. The key to his passion was the law as it impacted the individual. The effect was that he challenged the system of licensing. I connected the British interpretation of print licensing to electronic licensing for a reason. They are connected and the legacy of Lilburne was cut off at the legs in England during 1659, but not in America. Pirate radio is but a modern day manifestation of the activities that Lilburne's colleagues were engaged in.

To write about American history as if there was no Great Britain would be absurd. But it is equally absurd not to connect the dots of the licensing laws. To deny that linkage in law is to deny the legacy of this great man who ranks with Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandella and any other person who has fought for individual liberty. Lilburne in my view ranks head and shoulders above the rest.

In the USA the ideas and writings of John Lilburne are foundation law - constitutional law. You cannot understand the 1st, 2nd or 5th Amendments without understanding John Lilburne and what he was fighting for. Now Wiki is not a quaint English encyclopedia, it is a world encyclopedia.

As I stated, I have spent years of my life investigating and researching the legacy of John Lilburne and now I have a problem. I do not believe in just removing or substituting text that I have written without any discussion (please note that I ALWAYS try to explain in both history captions when updating a page and with comments on the Talk pages when I introduce, add or change anything. But Philip has just decided to go ahead and make these changes without any real comment.

I read your comments about the Levellers, True Levellers and Diggers and I have a problem with your point of view. I do not agree that it is better to jumble all of these movements up as one. That is the cause of the problem as to why some have recently made CDs about Lilburne and formed polical movements invoking his name without understanding that what they are hanging around Lilburne's neck belongs around Winstanley's neck. Lilburne and Winstanley are not one and the same. The hippies in San Francisco made this mistake and Billy Bragg has made this mistake in the past.

I have no interest in getting into an editing war with you or anyone else on this topic. If you Philip would like to discuss this topic with me, I would be interested in discussing it with you. I notice that your primary interest comes from the English Civil Wars period rather than the biography of John Lilburne. (I observed your comments about the "English" rather than "British" civil wars and I am in agreement with you on that score. Great Britain refers to the island and the wars took place mainly in England. When Cromwell invaded Ireland he did not act in the sense of extending the civil wars but conducting a new war.

In any event I will resist the temptation to change anything on the article page as is right now and prefer instead to read your comments here - where perhaps we can put our heads together and contribute together rather than spar. I will leave a note on your page to draw your attention to this one. MPLX/MH 04:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With most of what you are saying you are preaching to the choir, so lets go through my changes (as they are in the article now "02:22, 20 Oct 2004" with the last change made before I made an edit "14:40, 18 Oct 2004") and you can mention what it is that I have done that you specifically object to:

• In the introduction added a link to Agitator because I knew you would object to the word Leveller, but I would prefer to add Leveller to the introduction as that is the label used in most books and why he is remembered. It is not because he started as a Puritan and ended as a Quaker. (IMHO his religious beliefs should be placed into the body of the text in context, and not in the second sentence of the introduction)

• Family Background Added apprentice.

• Unlicensed Publishing' I removed stuff on Old UK licencing laws does not belong here. Why middle 20th centuary radio and not the censorship laws in the UK and the DH Lawrence Lady Chatterley's Lover case? To pluck one example from later history for a comparison does not bring clarity to this article.

• Civil Wars 1642-1650 Added a lot and corrected why he left the army. Who ever wrote it seems to have confused John and his brother Robert. It was Robert who had problems with an Oath to Fairfax the C-in-C of the Army and the Army Council at the Corkbush Field rendezvous. John who was not in the army by then having left the army over the Solemn League and Covenant issue.

• Agitation If one accepts that "Levellers" is the term used in most secondary refrences to describe the movement of which JL was a part then changing "The "Levellers" wanted to level property rights," to "It was feared that "Levellers" wanted to level property" makes sence. The earlier wording only works if one insists in calling the Diggers Levellers which as I said above in great detail is confusing.

I agree that Levellers and Diggers were two diffrent groups. I agree the should not be mixed. That is why I removed text about Diggers from here because it is covered on the Diggers page. There only needs to be a couple of sentences on this page about them so that there can be links for people to follow.

• Oliver Cromwell I changed the name of this section to the Putney Debates and expanded it. How one could not mention the Putney Debates and turn a very serious constitutional debate into JL v. OC is beyond me. If there is one single point which is the cusp of the Levellers movement it is the Putney Debates and the Corkbush Field rendezvous. It is one of the biggest IF ONLYs in English history.

• Written Constitution I added mention of the second Agreement. Cromwell was not the C-in-C of the army or the leader of the House, so the King was not killed by "forces led by Oliver Cromwell." Replaced "Lilburne and two of his associates" with the name of the Three associates. Put in a Link to US Constitution.

• References I Added links to the source of the original documents.
• Category Levellers I added this.

---

Philip: If I was preaching to the choir it would not have been necessary for me to step aside while you began to rewrite the article with no explanation. At one point I was making a correction only to find myself blocked because you were still at it and reversing what I had just that minuted written! That was frustrating. I am pleased that you have joined with me in this discussion and there are several points that we can immediately agree upon and others which will require further discussion. So first let me mention the things that we are in agreement upon.

I am agreement with most of the additions that you have made concerning the life of John Lilburne. However, there are individual points which have become clouded within those texts and some edits that you have made to texts that I added and some deletions that you made to my additional texts that will require further editing.

I don't know who wrote the original because I came onto the scene as explained by me at the top of this page. However, you are correct in that there were several gaping holes in the story. The most reliable source for all of this is Pauline Gregg's now famous book called "Freeborn John" which is not even listed as a reference. It of course should be included as a major and authentic reference source.

I agree with the version created by Pauline Gregg but then I went beyond all of that with my own research beginning in 1984. I contacted and spoke with Ian Lilburne (mentioned in her book) who had provided the genealogy for her. Then I actually went to the US Library of Congress, University of Virginia (founded by Jefferson), the Jefferson home and the home area of Lucy Jefferson in Kentucky and many other locals as well. I contacted the son of Hugo Black and I have also investigated many of the London landmarks relating to the life and times of John Lilburne including his burial site.

This story has been deemed a POV political hot potato by many in Britain, especially within the Labour Party ranks. Lilburne was written off as a crank by the Conservative Establishment who claim that he left no legacy, while the Labour Party faction morphed him into the Winstanley crowd.

For this reason from my perspective, it is very, very important to show that Freeborn John was an individualist and an agitator - he was not a joiner. He was never a Leveller as such and he was never a True Leveller who were also known as The Diggers. This needs to be explained in detail. The clear distinction needs to be made between Levellers and True Levellers. This Wiki work is not only being read in England but around the world. What is local understanding may be both incorrect and skewed.

Lilburne did not turn to a "quiet religion" as such, because Quietism is a name given to a particular form of the Quaker religion.

It was because Lilburne was a loner and in prison that he became a Quietist and he also parted ways with the Levellers.

The third Agreement of the People goes by the proper name of "An Agreement of the Free People of England". (Not Wales, not Scotland - England.) Its full name should be the title. The third edition is also the most important edition.

You mention the Putney Debates and Putney has or had an exhibition marking this event. Sir James Goldsmith built upon this event for his Referendum Party of 1997.

John Lilburne's constitutional work of 1649 was not the basis of the US Constitution, but his life in court beginning with the 1637 trial (which became the basis of the US 5th Amendment) and going through to his death was that source of inspiration.

I once asked Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Roy Hattersley on TV why the Labour Party did not adopt the work of John Lilburne and push for a written constitution and he flat out told me and the world that a written constitution was a bad idea because it protected individual rights and not socialism which made it difficult to raise taxes. That is what he said. I know that Michael Foote and Tony Benn have also written about Lilburne and confused the issues even more by mixing Levellers with True Levellers.

But to understand the original spat over licensing you have to trace the history of licensing in the UK and it ends up with the DTI and their control (taken from the GPO) over the telegraph, wireless telegraph, telephone and wireless telephony (broadcasting) which led to the very British advent of "pirate radio". There is a direct link between pirate radio and Lilburne, just as there is a direct link between the absence of British style licensing laws in the USA. This licensing war is now raging in the music and movie worlds and it is coming into the USA via the back door by British vested interests.

This is why Lilburne is a hot potato today as he was when he was alive. His success was in the USA, but not in the UK.

Therefore without rushing around and changing even more texts immediately (and I ask you to put a brake on it as well), I will go through the existing paragraphs and comment on them one by one to get your feedback in order that we can reach a consensus. Once we agree on the basics I have no objection to you adding the text, or I can add the text in agreement with you. But at least we won't turn this into a disputed article.

However, duty calls in other areas for me at this moment in time and so it may be a few hours before I can return to this subject. I will post a note to let you know. MPLX/MH 17:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not an ancestor of Thomas Jefferson

This particular John Lilburne seems not to be an ancestor of Thomas Jefferson, though another John Lilburne is.

(1) John Lilburne
& Isabel Wortley
 (2) George Lilburne
   b. about 1585
   d. after 1681
 & Eleanor Hicks
   bur. 23 October 1677
   (3) William Lilburne
     b. about 1636
     d. 17 Jan 1681/2, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
   & Elizabeth Nicholson
     m. 21 August 1662, Newcastle-upon-Tyne
     (4) Jane Lilburne*
       d. after 1724
     & Charles Rogers
       d. after 1704
       m. about 1694
       (5) Jane Rogers
         b. abt 1695/1700
         d. after 5 December 1760, Dungeness, Goochland Co., Virginia
       & Isham Randolph
         b. January 1685, Turkey Island, Henrico Co., Virginia
         d. November 1742, Dungeness, Goochland Co., Virginia
         m. about 1718, White Chapel, London
         (6) Jane Randolph
           d. 31 March 1776, Monticello, Albemarle Co., Virginia
           bp. 20 February 1720, Shadwell, London, England
         & Peter Jefferson
           b. 29 Feb 1707/8, Osborne’s, Cheserfield Co., Virginia
           d. 17 August 1757, Goochland Co., Virginia
           m. 1739
           (7) Thomas Jefferson*
             b. 13 April 1743, Shadwell, Goochland Co., Virginia
             d. 4 July 1826, Monticello, near Charlottesville, Albemarle Co., Virginia
             bur. Monticello, near Charlottesville, Albemarle Co., Virginia

The George Lilburn in the second generation, of Sunderland-by-the-Sea, Durham, cited above was a member of Cromwell's Parliament, and was the uncle of John Lilburn the Leveler, and the uncle of Robert Lilburn, the Regicide. Ref: Gary Boyd Roberts, Ancestors of American Presidents, Santa Clarita, California, 1995. I have accordingly changed the word "ancestor" in the article to "relative". - Nunh-huh 22:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason I used the word ancestor instead of the word relative is because they both had the same common ancestry in the father of Freeborn John Lilburne and it was the easiest way to explain the following:

Lilburne-Jefferson family ties

• The grandfather of Freeborn John Lilburne was born in 1538 and he died in 1605. He was also named John Lilburne and he had two sons: Richard Lilburne who was born in 1583 and died in 1667), and George Lilburne, who was born in 1586 and died in 1676.

• Richard Lilburne was the father of Robert Lilburne who was born in 1614 and died in 1665. During the birth of the English Republic in 1649, he became a regicide when he signed the death warrant of King Charles I. Robert's brother was Freeborn John who was born in c.1615 and died in 1657.

• George Lilburne, brother of Richard and uncle of Freeborn John, had a son named William Lilburne who was born in 1635 and died in 1681. He was the first cousin of Freeborn John and his brother Robert.

• William Lilburne had several children of interest: His own son named John Lilburne married Isabel Quiney who was a great niece of William Shakespeare. Another son, also named William, in 1699 became Commander-in-Chief of British forces in Newfoundland. But it was the sister of John and William who passed on the Lilburne name to the Jefferson family.

• William's daughter Jane Lilburne married twice. Her second marriage to Charles Rogers produced a daughter they named Jane Rogers.

• Jane Rogers was living at home in London with her mother Jane Lilburne when Isham Randolph of Dungeness of Virginia first got to know her. Jane Rogers married Isham Randolph in the parish chapel of St Paul's church at Shadwell (London, England) in 1716 and then moved to Virginia.

• The marriage of Jane and Isham Randolph produced two daughters: Jane Randolph and Mary Randolph. Jane married Peter Jefferson, the father of Thomas Jefferson, while Mary Randolph married Charles Lewis.

• Jane and Peter had several children in addition to Thomas, and they all grew up in Virginia in a home named Shadwell which related to Shadwell Parish in England. Their son Randolph later married and named one of his sons Lilburne Jefferson. Jane and Peter also had a daughter named Lucy (sister of Thomas and Randolph). She married her first cousin, who was the son of Mary Randolph and Charles Lewis. They named their son Charles Lilburne Lewis.

• Later, Lucy and Charles Lilburne Lewis had children and one of them they named Lilburne Lewis. Thomas Jefferson kept in contact and tried to influence his nephew's education, but a few years later he dragged his family into disrepute with the bloody murder of a slave during the time of the Great New Madrid, Missouri earthquake. MPLX/MH 22:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From John Lilburne to Thomas Jefferson:

1. GREAT-GREAT-GRANDFATHER: William Lilburne (born 1635 and first cousin of Freeborn John Lilburne.) Daughter: Jane.
2. GREAT-GRANDMOTHER: Jane Lilburne married Charles Rogers. Daughter: Jane.
3. GRANDFATHER: Jane Rogers married Isham Randolph (Shadwell Parish, London, then moved to Virginia.) Daughter: Jane.
4. FATHER: Jane Randolph married Peter Jefferson (named their home Shadwell.) Son: Thomas Jefferson.

Lilburne and the Agreement of the People

What evidence is there to say (as it says in the text) that Lilburne was the author of the Agreement of the People? - The First Agreement of the People first appeared at Putney on 28 October 1647 as the 'answer of the agitators' to the General Council of the Army. John Wildman stated that the Agreement had come about from discussions on 27 October 1647 between soldiers and 'divers Country-Gentlemen' (i.e Wildman and Maximillian Petty) and that he had been chosen to put the soldiers 'sence unto' the General Council (see CH Firth, Clarke Papers I pp.226-240).

In his 'A Cal to all the Souldiers of the Army by the Free People of England' Wildman urged the soldiers to ‘joyne and be one with them [the People] in heart and hand, with all possible speede in some substantiall and firm AGREEMENT, for just freedome and common right, that this nation may no longer flote upon such wavering uncertain and sandy foundations of government’. Thomason collected this tract on 29 October 1647 which would indicate that it went to the printers as the Putney debates were ongoing. The first printed version of the Agreement of the People was received by Thomason on 3 November 1647.

As the article says Lilburne at this time was a prisoner in the Tower of London - however, he was able to put some out some works in his own name: 'The Jugglers Discovered (an attack on Cromwell and Ireton) came out on 1 October 1647; the 'Grand Plea' came out on 25 October 1647, The 'Additional Plea' came out on 1 November 1647 and 'For Every Individual Member of the Honourable House of Commons' came out on 13 November 1647. None of these tracts mention the Agreement of the People or even the terms of the Agreement. Further Lilburne rails against William Allen the agitator of Cromwell's regiment (who was a defender of the Agreement at Putney) in the Jugglers Discovered.

Lilburne is also famous for re-writing the Second Agreement of the People in 1648 after the Army had agreed it - the manuscript copy in the Clarke Papers at Worcester College, Oxford substantially differs from Lilburne's published account.

Given Lilburne's general character and especially his trait of self-publicity it seems rather odd that he doesn't mention the Agreement of the People at the time it was most current. The authorship of the First Agreement would appear to be that of John Wildman. User:Dr V 14:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent scholarship has it that all four had a part in the 1st May publication. In effect they reworked Lilburne's Foundations of Freedom whilst in prisoned in the Tower of London. The opening section "A preparative to all sorts of people" is entirely Walwyn, and the stylistically the rest is heavily influenced by Walwyn too. The Agreement is written in a style at odds with that of Lilburne's. John lilburne (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The text says this: 'The second was An Agreement of the People of England, and the places therewith incorporated, for a secure and present peace, upon grounds of common right, freedom and safety,[20] was presented to Parliament on 11 September 1648 after amassing signatories including about a third of all Londoners' - this is clearly wrong as it conflates the petition of 11 September 1648 with either the Foundations of Freedom or the Council of Officer's Agreement of the People presented to Parliament in January 1649 - the footnote refers to the Council of Officers' Agreement of the People.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.229.172 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 September 2011‎

Duplication

In the section "Agitation", we read

His enemies branded him as a Leveller but Lilburne responded that he was a "Leveller so-called." To him it was a pejorative label which he did not like. He called his supporters "Agitators." It was feared that "Levellers" wanted to level property rights, but Lilburne wanted to level human basic rights which he called "freeborn rights."

At the same time that John Lilburne began his campaign, another group led by Gerrard Winstanley became known as True Levellers. They were the people who demanded equality in property as well as political rights.

In the next section, we read

In July 1646, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London for denouncing his former commander the Earl of Manchester as a traitor and Royalist sympathiser. It was the campaign to free him from prison which spawned the political party called the Levellers. Lilburne called them "Levellers so-called" because he viewed himself as an agitator for freeborn rights.

Shouldn't these two sections be combined to remove the duplicated information? Jhobson1 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Broken References

The link to the Putney debates reference appears to be broken. Olard.tub (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken link to Putney debates (at essex.ac.uk) due to website reorganisation? Have attempted fix, hopefully to same page. Haploidavey (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC). Is OK Haploidavey (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong reference

I've removed the link to Thomas Prince which is obviously not the right person. I'm doubtful that an article will ever be written on him. Although he was important to the movement, being the Treasurer of the Leveller Party, there is little biographical details other than when his name crops up in relation to the other three. John lilburne (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

There is actually quite a substiantial amount of information on Thomas Prince separate from Lilburne, Overton and Walwyn - it is all contained in the ODNB article on him, if you can access it (a UK local authority library card should let you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.175.30 (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

1649–1651

The dates in the final section are all wrong, they have him banished after his return from exile. The dates seem to be taken from Firth in the DNB but they are all wrong he was banished in January 1652. A rump parliament committee in 1651 didn't take a year to find in favour of one of their own, they did so within a couple of weeks. The report is in Mercurius Politicus Jan 15-22 1652. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)