Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	act_n	power_n	will_n	1,439	5	6.6180	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75403	An answer of the purchasers of the lands, late of Sir John Stawel, by act of Parliament, exposed to sale for his treason to a pamphlet, intituled, The humble remonstrance of Sir John Stawel: together with the answer of John Ashe Esquire, to divers scandals mentioned in that remonstrance. As also a petition and several reasons for establishment of publick sales; tendred by Wil. Lawrence Esq; one of the judges in Scotland.	Lawrence, William, 1613 or 14-1681 or 2.	1654 (1654)	Wing A3300; Thomason E1072_3; ESTC R208226	62,646	64

the Parliament had by their Act declared that he was not admitted to compound and that that Court should try him as one not admitted thereunto which Declaration no inferior or subordinate Court or authority whatsoever hath power to examine or question And all Examinations Resolutions and other proceedings of that Court touching those Articles and Plea thereof are void and extrajudicial and Sir Iohn stands guilty by the Judgement of that Court of high Treason and other the offences abovesaid and by Act of Parliament declared not admitted to compound This his Guilt being certified to the Parliament by the high Court of Justice with a cesser of sentence in respect of his Articles the Parliament upon reading of that Certificate 10 Iune 1651. resented the same yet by reason thereof spared his life but passed an Act of the 16 of Iune 1651. a month thereafter whereby they adjudge sir Iohn to have forfeited his Estate for Treason and thereupon vested the actual possession of that Estate in certain Trustees and their heirs in order to the sale thereof which Lands are since sold accordingly and the moneys disposed of for the use of the Commonwealth sir Iohn Stawell being in that Act first named and before others of higher degree Which Act and Iudgement being the Act and Iudgement of all the People of England inclusively and the same judgement being since fully executed and the Estate of sir Iohn in fact sold and disposed of by and according to that Act and the Purchasers thereof by force of their respective bargains in the actual and peaceable possession thereof these consequences will follow and be necessarily deduced 1. That the Reasons and causes of that Iudgement cannot be examined or questioned out of the House it self Whether they passed that their Iudgement for Treasonable acts by him done before his Articles in regard they adjudge his Articles to be either neglected in performance or broken by all or any his refusals or misdemeanors abovesaid or whether they adjudged those misdemeanors either joyntly or severally to be a new Treason and by consequence a forfeiture of his Estate since his Articles Or whether for any and for any other act of his or cause they passed their Iudgement against him It will therefore seem very unreasonable and be of dangerous consequence if the Purchasers mediat or immediat should be now enforced for defence of such their Possessions to search into and produce the reasons and causes thereof especially since the Purchasers are meer strangers thereunto 2. That all the Examinations and other proceedings and very Iudgement of the Court of Articles on the said Iudgement of Parliament although an Act of Parliament erected it after that Iudgement given were extrajudicial against the fundamental Laws of this Commonwealth and of bad example Coram non Iudice When that Court under pretence of a general Act of Relief upon Articles did intermeddle with the Case of sir Iohn Stawel touching his person and Estate his Estate being already adjudged by Act of Parliament to be forfeited and the imprisonment of his person remaining indiscussed in that very House especially after the Parliament had Thursday Febr. 24. 1652. Resolved THat the Cause of Sir John Stawel upon his pretence of Title to Articles be resumed to the consideration and determination of the Parliament and that the Commissioners for giving relief to persons upon Articles do forbear to proceed any further therein untill the Parliament take further order Hen. Scobell Cler. Parl. Which Resolves amounting unto an explanation of that Act of Reviver determined not with the dissolution of the Parliament but doth remain annexed to it as a Codicil taking away the Iurisdiction of that Court in the Case of Sir Iohn 2. These proceedings were coram non Iudice in regard of a Proviso in that Act of Reviver in these words viZ. Provided That such person or persons claiming benefit of Articles as aforesaid have not forfeited the same by breach or non-performance of what is or was on their part to be performed since their Articles were granted Now the Parliament having declared if not adjudged Sir John Stawell not to be admitted to Compound have adjudged or declared that Sir John hath forfeited his Articles either by breach or non-performance either of which Judgment or Declaration the Court of Articles could not draw into question And therefore is Sir John within that Proviso and without the jurisdiction of that Court. It is a fundamental That a Judgment of Parliament should not be reversed or annulled by any subordinate or delegated Court Judicature or Authority whatsoever or otherwise then by the immediate power of Parliament which power cannot be transmitted to any other Judicature The Court of Articles have adjudged That Sir John Stawell from and after Composition made as aforesaid shall have the possession of his Estate freed and discharged from all sequestrations and seisures whatsoever and shall enjoy the same without any claim demand impediment or molestation of the said Trustees or of the Survivors or Survivor of them they or any of their heirs These are the words of that Judgment as it is recited in the Remonstrance pag. 71. Which Judgment in respect of this Estate is no otherwise then an annihilation of that Act of Parliament by this subordinate Court under pretence of a power transmitted unto them by the general words of the Act of Reviver when as a special Act could not give any such power of annihilation The Legislative power by the fundamental laws remaineth solely and undoubtedly in the Parliament and cannot be transferred to any inferior Judicature whatsoever Of which power the Abrogation or Repeal of former Laws is a branch or part But this Judgment of the Court of Articles in respect of the Estate of Sir Iohn doth amount unto a Repeal of that Act of disposing this Estate by a power pretended to be delegated to that Court by the general words of that Act of Reviver It is of bad example for that Court of Articles to take cognisance of the Cause of Sir Iohn Stawel the same being depending before the Supreme Authority of the Nation when as their Predecessors who had the same if not greater power for that very reason forbare to give Sir Iohn any relief in that behalf And when the High Court of Justice for the same cause forbore their sentence and did submit it to the judgment of the House although their Act was particular and the Act of Reviving the Court of Articles in generall words And the example is heighthened after that the Parliament-Votes had prohibited them any further intermedling to resume the cognisance of the Cause and to proceed to judgment and by that judgment in respect of the Estate to intrench upon the priviledge of Parliament in reversing the Judgments of Parliament and repealing the Acts thereof and when the Judges Members of that Committee and the best and fundamental Expositors of Acts of Parliament the Parliament that made them being

And also saith That he was fined by the said Sir John Stawel in the sum of Forty pounds whereof upon the payment of Fifteen pounds he fled away George Treagel Alexander Kingsland did then likewise depose to this effect That Anno 1643. Sir Iohn Stawel was Governor of Taunton for the King and did imprison this Deponent and divers other well-affected and kept them in Irons until they had paid great sums for their enlargement Henry Dunscomb did then likewise swear to this effect That Sir John Stawel committed him to Ilchester Goal to lie there till he did rot if he would not take up Arms against the Parliament Robert Audrey also upon his Oath did affirm to this effect That Sir Iohn Stawel being Governor of Taunton this Deponent for his affection to the Parliament was indicted for High Treason at Wells and Sir John Stawel said That he would see this Deponent hanged drawn and quartered for being against the King and would hang his quarters upon the Gates of Taunton Some Particulars of the Remonstrance of Sir John Stawel Knight Answered by Christopher Taylor the now Major of Taunton November 28. 1653. NOtwithstanding the fair gloss that Sir John Stawel endeavored by his Remonstrance to put upon the cruel dealings with many of the Inhabitants of this Town which were well affected to the Parliament I do certifie as followeth That whereas Sir Iohn sets forth that there were Eight thousand pounds imposed on this Town in the pain of a Fine to prevent plundering and his fair dealing with the Inhabitants thereof as he was their Governor I do certifie That there were great plunders committed by his Party here And for my own part I was put unto Three hundred pound Fine whereof I paid One hundred and fifty pound and for Fifty pound of it was inforced to engage my Taunton-Dean Land Before the payment of which One hundred and fifty pounds I was often threatned with imprisonment if I did not pay it according to his Order And that on the payment of my last Fifty pound I being much unprovided at that time I desired him that he would accept of Twenty pounds parcel thereof for that time and that the payment of Thirty pound residue might be respited until the Thursday following which he would not admit of but by his command I stood committed for some time and longer had continued in custody had not Mr. John Syms engaged to see it paid And afterwards besides the extorting of the said One hundred and fifty pound from me he commanded a house of mine to be pulled down near the Castle-gate which I had not long before built and erected and at this time if it stood would have yeelded Ten pound by the year And as if the pulling it down had not been enough he would not suffer me though my Wife importuned him thereunto to save the Tyle-stones which by computation were worth about Ten pound but telling her he had nothing else to imploy his Soldiers about So they beat them down and spoiled them and carried away the whole stones being about One hundred loads And Sir Iohn having during his Government commanded the Fast appointed to be kept Wednesdays to be kept Fridays the Congregation on Sabbath-days and Fasting-days being very thin by reason of the inability and disaffection of the Minister which Sir Iohn assigned here to Preach required two of the Company to go into every Street of the said Town and learn who resorted to other places to hear the Word Preached Whereupon Sir John once having had intelligence of many Women that went to other Congregations he said in my hearing That he would appoint a Party of Soldiers to meet them who should strip them to their Smocks and that that act should not be taken as done by the Soldiers but by himself To set forth in part the cruel dealings of Sir John Stawel towards us the Inhabitants of the Town of Taunton in the time of the late Wars I Matthew Quash of Taunton do certifie as followeth AT the coming in of the Kings Army into our Town of Taunton aforesaid I had no sooner put off my Arms but was extremely plundered and my two Sons taken prisoners and for one of them I must pay Twenty pound for his ransom or else he must be hanged Sir Iohn Stawel being then Governor of this Town In a few days after there was a Fine of Eight thousand pounds imposed on us the said Inhabitants and thereupon my self and others were called up together in the Market-place by the said Sir Iohn Stawels command where they demanded of us our Fines which were very hard for us in our plundered condition and on our refusal of payment thereof I and the rest were presently committed by Sir Iohn Stawel unto the Castle where I was kept for the six first days without any bit of Victuals unless I would come to their Ordinary of Fourteen shillings a week which was too hard for me And indeed I was loath to strengthen then against my Friends by any supply of money as they desired but my necessity compelled me to Petition to have such provision as I could of my own or to have a Joyner to make me a Coffin For in such a condition I could not long subsist And thereupon liberty was granted me to have Victuals of my own In a few weeks after this we were removed from the Castle and committed prisoners to the Bridewel by Sir Iohn Stawel he saying though our imprisonment was so grievous That whilst these Townsmen have so much ease in the Castle they will not go from their money And in the said Bridewel we were kept in Irons night and day for a long while Mr. William Mills now in London was the man whose Leg was fettered with Irons to my Leg and he can witness it No Petition could prevail with Sir John Stawel for my enlargement for he said That I was the basest Rogue in all the Town and termed me a Tub-Preacher But if need require I could have One thousand hands for my own and Childrens faithfulness to the Parliament and that cause for which I have suffered much loss in my Estate Which Testimonies fully declare Sir Johns disposing of the Estates and Persons of the chiefest of those Inhabitants at his will and contrary to all Law And therefore some of them upon their Actions brought against him for these Injuries obtained respective Verdicts and Judgments upon full Evidence on both sides and by Testimony satisfactory to a Forreign Jury a Jury at the Guildhal London Neither were persons and Estates the bounds of Sir John Stawels rage He breathed out threats and persecution against their Consciences styling them Puritans Tub-Preachers He fined Mr. Powel Ten pound for being absent from Sir Johns Fasts when sick He forbad Mr. Mills and his Fellow-prisoners either to pray or sing Psalms in prison telling them If they did he would be so neer unto them as to hinder their long Prayers or to

beginning of the late Wars which being not paid caused the said George Longe to go at several times to the Gaol at Newgate to intreat him to Petition the Parliament that he might be admitted to a Composition but the said Sir John Stawell was much discontended with him for his endeavour therein Also the said George Longe being prosecuted on his said engagements for Sir Iohn Stawell made again his request unto the said Sir Iohn that he would think upon some way to make his Composition and peace with the Parliament telling him that the Parliament as it should seem had taken such notice of his not prosecuting his Articles or forfeiting them that an Act was drawing up for the sale of his and other Delinquents lands a Copy or draught whereof the said George Longe at his own cost procured and delivered to him and he read the same being left with him to consider and did further acquaint him that until the Act was perfected there was hope yet left so as he would betake himself to the work but if he neglected it that he would not onely undoe his own family but also this Certificant and his Which courtesie of the said George Longe the said Sir Iohn Stawell repaid with disdainful scorn and pride telling him that he had better Councellors then the said George Longe Which Act passed not until about an year after during which time many of the persons which were first mentioned got themselves struck out of the said Act their causes being referred to a Committee and as it is thought so might Sir Iohns have been if he had but laid hold of the advice of his meanest friends Afterwards his Highness the Lord Protector was to make his voyage into Ireland to reduce it before whose going the said George Longe went again to Sir Iohn Stawell in regard of his the said Georges sad condition to intreat and perswade him and having made some relation of his thoughts did acquaint Sir Iohn that he was come the third time to draw a Petition unto his Highness then Lord General that he would intercede to the House in his behalf that he might be admitted to a Composition wherein the said George Long being so nearly concerned did promise unto him if he would cause his Petition to be drawn and therein humbly state his case he the said George would find some means of procuring his Petition to be answered In which the said George Long could not prevail with the said Sir Iohn Stawell at which this Certificant stood amazed to see Sir Iohn Stawell and himself so near undone and the said George Longe so sensible and Sir Iohn no way regardful of his condition and so took a sorrowful farewell George Longe Was not this an apparent wilfulnes in Sr. Iohn that rather then he would Petition the Parliament for his admittance to Composition he would hazard the ruine not of himself and Family alone but of this Gentleman and his house who had so friendly and deeply engaged for him and is not Sir Iohn justly declared by the Parliament to be not admitted to Compound when he had for four years space for the Articles were granted the ninth of April 1646 and the Act that declared his non admission was passed the ninth of July 1650 against the advice and notwithstanding the importunities of his friends and sureties disdainfully neglected to Petition to that purpose which by his Articles he ought to have done for it was not enough for Sir Iohn passively to submit to a Composition but by all means to compass it actively and to that end the word submit in the twelfth Article is explained by the word make in the 22 of the same Articles Sir John is pleased in his Remonstrance to produce a Petition which he saith he delivered to Mr. John Ashe but indeed hath been lately drawn by Sir John of purpose to secrete his resolution not to compound for Mr. Iohn Ashe Ans page 13. saith that the Petition which after many amendments and obliterations of the high language therein Mr. Iohn Ashe was to deliver as then it was Mr. Iohn Ashe upon his going into the Country did by Sir Iohns appointment deliver to Mr. DenZil Hollis who refused to deliver it because it desired his removall to a Prison more commodious but not his admissito his Composition neither doth that Petition in his Remonstrance mention any such desire nor indeed his removal therefore could not be the Petition delivered to Mr. Iohn Ashe but one of a later birth Thus his resolution not to compound continueth still upon him notwithstanding his now endeavours to perswade a continual readiness in him thereunto if suffered In the interim he is by Order from the House of Commons of the 18. of August 1646. at the next Assizes held for the County of Somerset at Taunton found by the then Grand-Iury guilty of High-Treason But that Indictment being in a legal formality only insufficient to bring him to his Trial was laid aside and afterwards by another Order of the same House of the 18 of February 1647. there were three Indictments found against him one for High-treason and two for Murder one for killing of Robert Osborn at Marshals-Elm being the first blood shed in the West of England in that quarrel and the other for the murder not execution of Christopher Viccary Which Indictments were found by a Grand Iury consisting of nineteen Esquires and Gentlemen some whereof have been since and now are in the Commission of the Peace four whereof only were of Taunton viZ. Mr. Richard Bovet Mr. Samuel Whetcomb Mr. Philip Lyssant and Mr. George Powel the rest living in several places in that County and but two of these four viZ. Mr. Richard Bovet and Mr. Powel had then obtained Iudgments against Sir Iohn and yet those legally and upon evidence and defence made The one for Sir Iohns taking away unjustly 1200 l. worth of Mr. Bovets estate the other for his cruelty towards Mr. Powel as aforesaid and Mr. Bovet only hath since chased a parcel of Sir Iohns Estate But doe all or any of these allegations invalid those Verdicts found by fifteen more besides those four of Taunton Because Sir Iohn Stawels most frequent and greatest acts of Treason and the Murder of Viccary were committed in Taunton was it not fit that some of the Jury should be of Taunton that could best judge of these his acts And because some of them had obtained Verdicts against him upon sufficient proofs for injuries done unto them can it be any exception against their Verdict especially since they had long before the time of the Verdict recovered the same And as weak is the last allegation Because one of them hath purchased some Estate exposed to sale in 1651. Therefore he was no competent Iuror 1647. four years before when such exposal to sale could not without a spirit of divination be before seen and might have been prevented if he had pleased but being now sold

dissolved did deliver their opinions against such jurisdiction The Examinations Judgment and Proceedings of that Court being coram non Judice and against Fundamentals are meerly void in Law especially when that Judgment is grounded upon no proofs the proofs taken by the High Court of Justice being taken extrajudicially as abovesaid and are therefore in a Legal construction Nullities Which gives a full and short Answer to that large recital thereof in the Remonstrance And although the Certificates Orders and Awards of that Court of Articles are binding and conclusive to all Courts of Justice Committees c. any Law Order or Ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding yet hath not that Court such sole and supreme power or jurisdiction as to controll the Acts or Resolutions of the Parliament the source of their power and especially when their Act beginneth with Courts of Justice which are of an inferior jurisdiction Nor can it now neither ought it to be supposed that the aforesaid Acts Orders Resolutions Iudgments and Proceedings of that Parliament were or were given in breach or violation of any of the Articles of Exon especially they still having a consideration thereof in the violation of which Articles the faith of the Army and honour and justice of the Nation is so highly concerned But it shall and ought to be presumed that Sir Iohn by some or all of the misdemeanors and neglects aforesaid or by other acts of his best known to that Parliament had in the judgment thereof forfeited and lost the benefit of his Articles Sir John by way of objection Remonstrance p. 74. reciteth a Clause in that Act of Sale in these words viZ. Nevertheless upon trust and confidence that the said William Skinner and others the persons abovenamed or any five or more of them shall have hold and enjoy all and every the premises and every of them subject unto such trusts and uses as by this Act or in and by authority of Parliament shall be hereafter further directed and appointed and shall dispose of the same accordingly And from thence would infer 1. That this power of limiting the trusts of those Lands was reserved by the Parliament in relation to the Articles of War by them confirmed that in regard they had ratified divers of them and eminently bound themselves in Faith Honour and Justice to make good and could not take notice of such as had right or claim to the same they thereof provided according to this reserved power that the Trustees should dispose of Lands accordingly In answer whereof it must be premised 1. That the Articles of Exon were confirmed by both Houses the fourth of Novemb. 1647. And this Act passed the sixth of July 1651. almost four years after 2. That the words of that clause refer to trusts and uses onely which should for the future be directed and appointed by that Act or authority of Parliament It will then follow that the trusts if any of the Articles of Exon cannot be the trusts mentioned in that Act being precedent to it not subsequent That the Act for sale passed for no causes mentioned in those Articles but for others and for ought appeaes for offences of a later perpetration That it was well known to that Parliament that Sir Iohn did claim the benefit of those Article for the Parliament had at several times before and at the time of the passing of this Act his very Articles in consideration and deemed them forfeited by him The second thing that Sir Iohn doth infer is that the reviving after that of the Court of Articles was a Declaration of the uses and trusts of that Act of Sale seeing to that persons grieved contrary to those Articles this Court was constituted to do them right any Law Order or Ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding But Sir Iohn hath mistaken the Act the words are not that the Court of Articles should releive the party within Articles any Law to the contrary but that the Certificate of that Court should be binding to all inferiour Courts of Justice any Law to the contrary notwithstanding Again by the Act of Sale the trusts of that Act are declared the land sold and setled according to that Declaration and therefore the Patliament cannot by vertue of that reservation declare any contrary or other trusts nor did by their Act of reviver make use of their former power having already executed the same in overthrow of those sales executed by vertue of that Act of sale especially when as hath been shewn Sir Iohn is a party excepted out of that Act. After which Act of Sale and not before Sir Iohn doth pretend to Petition the Parliament for admission to composition which Petition as he alledgeth by his Remonstrance page 39 he delivered unto Mr. Garland but whether Mr. Garland did or thought fit to present it to the Parliament in regard of Sir Iohns former actions is not declared and perhaps the Parliament refused it and justly for Gods vice-gerents do often Act like God himself who when after a long forbearance on his part and an obstinate continuance in evil on mans part he resolveth to punish he doth execute the same accordingly notwithstanding the Prayers and supplications of the sinner to whom he then turneth a deaf year This might the Parliament do Sir Iohns slightning of their mercy and the necessity of their Justice urging them to it Sir Iohn saith Remonstrance pag. 40. that at the time of the passing of the Act of the 29. of Septemb. 1652. for reviveing the Court of Articles provisors were tendered he conceiveth by the Purchasers the one of the 28 of Septemb. 1652. in these words viZ. Provided that this Act or any thing therein contained shall not extend nor cinstrained to ixtend to prejudice alter or make void any Resolutions Votes or Judgments given in the Parliament touching any of the Articles aforesaid or any persons claiming thereby The other of the day following in these words viZ. Provided alwayes and be it further enacted and declared That no real or personal Estate which hath been setled conveyed or assured to any person or persons by vertue of any Act Ordinance or Order of this present Parliament shall be made null vacated or otherwise determined or disposed of by the Commissioners named in this Act or by their Authority but if they shall see cause of restitution by vertue of Articles subject unto their CogniZance they make a word not in specie against the particular person or persons upon whom such Estate or Estates shall be setled conveyed or assured but invalue to be satisfied by such other Lands or Revenew as the Parliament shall direct any thing in this Act or the former which is hereby revived to the contrary notwithstanding The first of these he saith after the second reading the last after the first reading did pass in the Negative which proviso tending to the limitation of that benefit which the House was most honourably pleased to grant and