Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	court_n	great_a	king_n	2,817	5	3.7634	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75699	An answer to divers scandals mentioned in a certain pamphlet, entituled, The humble remonstrance of Sr. Iohn Stawell. Written by John Ashe Esquire, 1654.	Ashe, John, Esquire.	1654 (1654)	Wing A3944; Thomason E1072_2*; ESTC R208223	28,340	31

AN ANSWER TO DIVERS SCANDALS Mentioned in a certain Pamphlet Entituled THE Humble Remonstrance OF Sr. IOHN STAWELL WRITTEN By JOHN ASHE Esquire 1654. LONDON Printed by Thomas Newcomb dwelling in Thamestreet over against Baynards Castle Anno Domini 1654. AN ANSWER TO Divers Scandals mentioned in a certain PAMPHLET Entituled THE Humble Remonstrance OF Sir John Stawell IT is not my purpose at this time to write an exact Narrative of all proceedings and passages which have been in the Case of Sir John Stawel from the 18 of July 1646. which was the time of his first coming to London from Exceter unto the year 1652. at which time he was Arraigned before the High Court of Justice I having done that formerly even upon the first sight of that Scandalous Pamphlet Entituled The Humble Remonstrance of Sir John Stawell but did not at that time expose it to publique view for these Reasons 1. First Because an Answer had been given by me to all those Particulars which may any way seem to reflect on me before the High-Court of Justice to the general satisfaction of the whole Court and all that were present and to the shame and confusion of the said Sir John Stawel who was then a Prisoner at the Barr of the said Court 2. Secondly Because the Scandals mentioned in the said Pamphlet were so apparently false and improbable that any one who hath been in the least manner acquainted with those transactions might easily perceive even in the said Paper a manifest confutation of those falshoods which are therein malitiously suggested and vainly charged on me 3. Thirdly Because that in regard of my respects to his Family I was willing to be silent lest in giving an Answer to those scandals wherewith he endeavoureth in the said Pamphlet to asperse me by saying that I did clandestinely obstruct his composition I should do what I conceive my self at this time obliged unto viz. clearly prove by undeniable arguments and circumstances that he never intended to compound at all but resolved on the contrary flattering himself with hopes of seeing the late King restored to his Power and greatness from whom he might receive not only his whole Estate which was unjustly taken from him as he constantly affirmed but also a great reward for his many sufferings in owning and defending the Cause of the said King beyond any of his Party But since the Honourable Parliament hath been pleased to refer the Petition of the said Sir John Stawell unto a Committee where the matter of Fact may be throughly examined to the end that my testimony on the behalf of the Commonwealth may not seem to be any way impeached in regard of those feigned Scandals mentioned in his said Pamphlet and lest my carriage in the business of his Composition might be misrepresented to those who were strangers to my actions therein I have judged it necessary to publish these ensuing lines premising a few Particulars which were fully cleared in that discourse which I did then write which are as followeth First That although Sir John Stawell did appear at the Committee of Gold-Smiths Hall about four daies before the time limited by the Articles of Exceter for Compositions were expired yet he never intended to make any Composition there according to the Order of Parliament and the Rules prescribed for Composition upon the said Articles but did oftentimes declare his resolution to the contrary And when the Lady Stawell his wife and Sir Edward Stawell his son then in France did earnestly solicite him that they or either of them might Petition the Parliament to be admitted to compound for the said Estate since he refused it Sir John Stawell did deny to give his consent thereunto and did threaten his said son that in case he did attempt any such thing he would disinherit him and was much incensed against the said Sir Edward Stawell for that he had written Letters unto Mr. Ashe for his admission to Composition since his Father refused it some of which Letters Sir John Stawell intercepted 2 That Sir Iohn Stawel did wholly depend upon the late Kings restoring to his power and authority that from him he might receive not only his whole estate then unjustly taken from him by the Parliament as he said but also a great reward for his many sufferings in owning and justifying the late Kings Cause beyond any other of his party and did send to the said King when he was last at Hampton Court desiring him to take notice of the great suffering he had undergone for his Majesties Cause and did let him know the hopes he had of his Majesties great favor and reward when he should be restored And upon this confidence did Sir Iohn Stawell neglect his composition and refused the benefit of Exceter Articles 3. That Sir Iohn Stawell during the life of the late King and after his first appearance at Goldsmiths Hall did never tender any Petition for his admittance to composition or to claim the benefit of Exceter Articles either unto the Parliament or Committee of Parliament or any other Court whatsoever And when in the life time of the late King he was arraigned for Treason at the Upper Bench Bar he did not then claim the benefit of Exceter Articles nor made any mention of them for his exemption from that tryal but on the contrary he not onely refused to own the Judge that sat there by Commission from the Parliament but uttered an expression to the Court to this or the like effect viz. My offence is not Treason for which I am here arraigned but because I would not permit the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall to pick my purse and give my consent to pay a sum of money for the redemption of my Estate which is unjustly taken from me by which expression he sufficiently declared his resolution against compounding 4. That I did with all reallity and faithfulness use my utmost endeavours to perswade Sir Iohn Stawell to submit unto the Parliament and to make his Composition that so himself and his posterity might be preserved from ruine and that Sir Iohn Stawell did refuse to follow that my councel and advice and did declare that his resolution was not to Compound but to depend upon the said Kings favour And when I did press him to follow the examples of all the other Gentlemen of the Kings Party who submitted to Composition he did seem to jeer and deride them for their follies intimating that his Estate would be restored him by the King with sufficient damages from those that had possessed the same during the Sequestration and for that reason would not permit either his Lady or any other friend for her to take any of his Estate at a Rent from the Sequestrators Fifthly That those scandalous aspersions cast upon me by Sir John Stawell in his Pamphlet Entituled his Humble Remonstrance and mentioned in page 23 24 28 and 30. are meer fictions and never heard of by me or any other person

the Scots in Arms against this Commonwealth and till all was lost he made only a shew and pretence to desire to compound but really resolved and declared against it and derided and scorned all those who submitted to it All which was besides many others 1. No fit language or behaviour to demand a Composition with 2. A breach of the Peace within the Parliaments quarters 3. An incensing of the People to rebel and adhere to the enemy 4. The highest prejudice to the Parliaments quarters a prisoner could do though he knew by his Articles he was not to prejudice the same and had given security to that end 5. Divers of the same Acts have been made treasonable by Ordinance of Parliament 6. If any innocent person had presumed on half so much it had been his ruine VI. The said Sir Iohn Stawell refused to acknowledge himself a Delinquent and thereby willfully refused his Composition 1. It was the command of the Parliament and the Commissioners for compounding could not justifie composition on any other terms 2. The House of Lords being part of the Parliament had not then confirmed his Articles 3 The Parliament had considerately designed that all Delinquency should rema in of Record that both in the disposing of Offices of trust and power and other future Acts relating to the Commonwealth they might the more readily guide themselves 4. A dishonour might have been aspersed upon them that it had been Latrocinium and not Bellum a robbery and no just War if together with the penalties a confession or tryal of the offence had not likewise appeared 5. Both Commissioners and Sequestrators might have been otherwise liable to future actions and suits from the said Sir John Stawell and his heirs 6. The Parliament had appointed other Courts as namely the Commissioners of Appeals and those of the Common-Law for relief of persons sequestred being not Delinquents which were open unto him for trial if he would stand on that point but by standing on it with the Commissioners for compounding 't is clear heousted them of jurisdiction to meddle with him 7. His refusal was not out of error or mistake but advisedly and obstinately and after he was told of it 8. Both before and at time of making his Articles it was known that by the usual course of submitting to composition the first point was acknowledgement of Delinquency and therefore if the said Sir John Stawell had not liked it he might have chosen whether he would have taken Articles without an express dispensation of that very point VII Your Petitioner saith that the interest of the land in question doth not totally belong to the said Sir John Stawell but there are divers charges upon it and divers transactions have been made touching the same to other persons making no pretence to Articles who never made claim and therefore bound by the sale which your Petitioner ought to have liberty to examin as well by the Oath of the said Sir John Stawell as other persons and to have a Production of the Deeds Titles and Evidences of the said land in Court if there be cause VIII Your Petitioner saith that Purchasers were commanded to pay in their second moyeties by Act of Councel at White-Hall and their Estates were thereupon confirmed by Act of Parliament called by his Highness which is the deepest fundamental of property can be laid and the highest assurance the Law can give and ought not to be questioned IX His Highness hath been pleased likewise by his Oath in the Iwstrument Government to confirm the securing property and to Govern therein according to the Laws and Statutes the benefit whereof your Petitioner doth claim X. Your Petitioner acknowledgeth Laws may be repeal'd Judgements reversed and Authorities countermanded but humbly saith That buying and selling binds Supream Power it self And that in the particular sale the full price both of money and blood hath been received And therefore neither God nor man can revoke their onwn bargain and sales and the whole Christian Religion it self hath no other foundation but a bargain and sale XI Your Petitioner saith his Purchase being a reversion he was necessitated to drown and extinguish his old Lease for which old Lease the said Sir John Stawell received of this Petitioners father far more then the whole Inheritance was worth And your Petitioners occasions have likewise since his Purchase compell'd him to commit acts of forfeiture of his said old Lease by Feoffments and otherwise and to charge the mixt interest of old and new Purchase part with a joynture part in tail to an infant part with debts part orphans money part others And upon such transacting and charging the same hath bound himself in many penal Covenats and Bonds to warranty so that if Justice be not done to your Petitioner in maintenance of his Right your Petitioner is utterly destroyed and made incapable of other Indempnity or Reparation XII Your Petitioner was totally ignorant of the Articles of Exceter or any pretence of the said Sir Iohn Stawell to the same and the same Sir Iohn Stawell might and ought to have given him notice of the same and was earnestly requested and solicited to give your Petitioner notice and directions of his desires touching his intended purchase And the said Sir Iohn Stawell did notwithstanding purposely and fraudulently conceàl the same from your Petitioner which point though your Petitioner had nothing else to say is unanswerable both in the laws of peace and war XIII Your Petitioner saith that the said Sir Iohn Stawell might and ought further to have given notice to the Trustees for sale the Committee of obstructions the Terretenants of the land who had preemption as it is the course and other persons have done though inacted to be sold and their claims taken away as the said Sir John Stawel's was but he did not and therefore by his own wilfull defaults he lost the benefit of stopping sales which others in the like condition obtained Your Petitioner saith that the said Sir John Stawell is a subject and the Land in question English Land and the said Sir Iohn Stawell neither doth nor can claim by his Articles to be in better condition then the residue of the Subjects of England And they if their Estates happen to be sold by mistake in Parliament or erroneus Judgement at Common-Law or their claims have been unjustly refused or there be a trust or title of Equity in Chancery on the Land whereof Purchasers have no notice must take in lieu thereof that expedient which the Law allows namely reparation in value as far as is proper And for the residue damage by way of Action which legal expedient is made good by the said Articles and without them he can have no benefit of the same By the Act for settlement of Ireland the Parliament declared in a far stronger case and though no sale were made to necessitate it that persons there might be transplanted from their own Estates of