Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	day_n	lord_n	see_v	3,711	5	3.5921	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67889	The vindication of Sr. John Stawells remonstrance, against a scurrilous pamphlet written by Mr. John Ash; entituled An answer to divers scandalls mentioned in the humble remonstrance of Sr. John Stawell. As also an answer to a petition of William Lawrence of Edenburgh, Esq; whereunto certain reasons are annexed, directed to the honourable the referrees of his highness most honourable council. With a conclusion humbly offered unto his highnesse the Lord Protector. / Written by Sr. John Stawell. Wherunto are annexed, a letter of Sir Anthony Irbyes, and a short reply of Sr. David Watkins relating unto some parts of the said pamphlet.	Stawell, John, Sir, 1599-1662.; Irby, Anthony, Sir, d. 1682.; Watkins, David, Sir.	1655 (1655)	Wing S5352; ESTC R208228	86,641	91

speak all that I had to say when J replyed that J had spoken all the Lord President spake letting me know the Court had with much patience heard me tell a long story though no way pertinent to the matter before them the substance being that Mr. Ash advised me to sel my Farm at Aubury and with that money to pay my Composition But the Lord President demanded whether he or any for him treated with me for buying of it or whether he discovered a desire to buy the Farm at Aubury That J answered his Lordship he did not and therupon the Lord President demanding how the Story could then reflect upon Mr. Ash J answered that J beleived Mr. Ash intended to buy the Farm because he had advised me to sell it This is in short the substance of his relation if at least that may be said to have a substance which is nothing only an invention of his own But Mr. Ash is very just in this particular and hath not only performed but is according to the Proverb better then his word For having assured me when I reproached him with his covetousness in the da●k corner that he would deny all that discourse if I should charge him with it He hath not only made this good but hath invented also this formall Story to give a countenance to his denyall And this J shall most cleerly prove not by the boldness of an affirmation as he hath done but by the undeniable Evidence of the Proceedings in the High Court where whatsoever was read or spoken was taken at first in short-hand by Mr. Pococke a person authorized therunto and afterwards written at large for information of that Court And is by Authority of the Court of Articles and by consent of Mr. Attorney Generall and my Counsell admitted as indifferent Evidence By this it doth appear that Mr. Attorney Generall upon the first sitting of the Court acquainted them that Mr. Ash and Mr. Stephens did both of them appear that day being the first time that they came to be examined as witnesses in my Cause and without mentioning any thing in the least kind of what is here affirmed by Mr Ash desired they might be sworn to give their Evidence and they were sworn accordingly and did deliver what they had to say before J spoke at all concerning Mr. Ash his carriage But when upon my answer to their Evidence J had in part laid open these his practises against me Mr. Attorney Generall was then so far from taking notice to the Court that what J spake did not at all answer to the reports about the Town as that he appealed unto the Court whether that so much as a word concerning Mr. Ash was spoken before that he was then present in the Court and gave his Evidence For proof wherof J shall insert here what was spoken by Mr. Attorney at the first entring into the business of the day and what he after urged when they had given their Evidence and I had made an answer to them which followes as it is in the aforesaid Record Verbatim thus expressed Wednesday 22. of Ianuary 1650. THe Cause of meeting this day my Lord was the Parliament on the tryall of Sir John Stawell had especially appointed that Mr. John Ash should be examined in this Cause he was sent to but it pleas'd the Lord to lay his hand upon him that he could not appeare Mr. Stephens likewise that was a member of the House was then out of Town you were pleased to appoint this day upon this occasion and Sir John Stawell had timely notice of it t is upon the speciall Plea we have done with that of not guilty I desire if you please that Mr. Ash and Mr. Stephens may have their Oaths given to them that they may give in their Evidence what they know of this business of Sir John Stawell Mr. Iohn Ash and Mr. Iohn Stephens are sworne My Lord if you please J will begin with Mr. Ash. If you please Mr. Attorney Let his Plea be read The Clark reads Sir Iohn Stawells Plea 1. That he is not lyable to the charge now read against him by the Act appointing his Tryall being a person admitted to Composition 2. That by the Articles of Exeter confirmed by Parliament he ought not to be Questioned for the offences laid to his charge Mr. Ash and Mr. Stephens did after this give in their Evidence against me to which J answered and having touched upon this passage together with some other things concerning Mr. Ash his practises against me Mr. Attorney Generall did then apply himself to the Court and spake as followeth My Lord I thought that Sir John Stawells own Iudgment would have made use of the liberty given him in a fair way I appeal to your memories whether any one word of this of Mr. Ash was said before Now Mr. Ash is here and speaks that Sir John Stawell thinks goes to the quick now it is time to revile and scandalize And therfore having fully cleered by this Record how grossely he hath erred in his relation I leave it to the Readers judgment what credit is to be given unto him touching discourses passed in private betwixt us who hath the Impudence to forge and publish this as a thing that passed in publike in the Court And that he had for proof therof a hundred Witnesses when as unto a thing that is so evident there is no doubt but every one of all those Witnesses will upon the reading hereof assent unto the truth of it Secondly That Mr. Ash notwithstanding his impudence to deny the truth doth yet confess that he did move me to sell Aubury for payment of my Fine though he doth deny that he had an intention to buy it yet it appears by Sir Edward Bayntons discourse unto Sir Anthony Irby mentioned in his Examination aforesaid that Mr. Ash himself was the person who was to be the Purchaser of that Mannor which is the substance of that wherewith J charge him And thirdly That he doth not so much as once alledge among his good advises to me that he perswaded me unto a Composition according to the Articles of Exeter that being the thing wherof I was desirous but to acknowledge my miscarriage at Goldsmiths Hall where I have shewed already that I had not at all offended and therfore could not acknowledge this or crave the pardon of the House as Mr. Ash advised me without confessing of a Crime wherof I was not guilty and subjecting my self unto the censure of the House as a person who had affronted the Committee imployed under them So as if I had been remitted to Goldsmiths Hall to make a Composition they must have needs according unto Justice ordered the Committee to have received a Fine from me not only in relation to my Articles but also for that pretended contempt of their Authority which Mr. Ash had a desire I should confess for his own

had not taken the Negative Oath and Covenant and saith that he saw the Lord Fairfax his Passe dated in Aprill and that he doth account four moneths after the rate of 28 dayes to the moneth and saith that he doth not know that any Certificate was brought to them touching subscription not to bear arms either in this or any case of persons compounding upon those Articles and saith that Sir Iohn Stawells not subscribing was not objected against him at that time Being crosse examined on the behalf of the Common-wealth saith THat some did say that Sir Iohn Stawells Petition was rather a Remonstrance than a Petition but the title was a Petition but he had not acknowledged his Delinquency nor taken the Negative Oath and Covenant and for that reason he conceives it was called a Remonstrance That the Committee were informed he had subscribed not to bear arms against the Parliament Sir Anthony Irby being Called in after the company were withdrawn and asked whether there were any private discourse at the Committee to Sir John Stawells prejudice HE saith that Sir Iohn Stawell being without the door the Chairman went out and on his return told this Examinant that Sir John Stawell was a great enemy had raised Arms against the Parliament drew the first blood in the West of England that his Petition was not valid he acknowledged no Delinquency had not taken the Negative Oath and saith that the Committee pressed him to it and upon refusall gave him time till his Articles were out because then they knew how to deal with him and saith that the Committee did not meddle with subscriptions for that was to be done by a particular Committee separated from them because that concerned Delinquents stay in town but only to see that they did take the Negative Oath and Covenant and further sayth that the second day that Sir Iohn Stawell appeared Mr. Stephens was in the Chair as he remembers My Composition being thus foyled when I first tendered it and the Committee disaffected to me by the misinformation and covert practices of Mr. Ash I who was ignorant of his designs and took him for my freind as he professed himself to me in publique expected that the Committee after they had considered that I was by my Articles excused from taking the Negative Oath and Covenant which was the only cause for which they had refused me when they had better considered of the Articles would again have called for m● and given me leave to prosecute the same and I was herein the more confirmed because I saw that by the Articles I was not limited to any time wherin I was to make my Composition but was to be admitted therunto when I should tender it and therefore I did hold my self assured that the Committee who had perceived my readines to Compound by the early tender of my Petition would not have looked upon me as a refractory person or have made use of any power to inforce me therunto And that I did not herein go upon mistaken grounds will appear plainly by a solemn Judgment and decree in the Court of Articles given in Mr. Newcourts Case wherin the Court upon consideration of a Certificate made unto them by the Commissioners for Compounding and of the Articles of Exeter resolved that he was to be suffered to make his Composition upon those Articles though he had not tendered the same till neer 3. years after the date of them and that the limitation of four moneths did concern only the excepted persons wherof I was none The Copy of which Certificate together with the Judgment and Decree of the said Court follow in these words From the Commissioners for Compounding c. the 10th of November 1652. Gent. IN pursuance of your Order of the 27th of October last in the Case of Richard Newcourt of Somerton in the County of Somerset upon search made in the Books and papers touching Compositions it appears That a Petition was Exhibited the 14th of April 1649. in the name of the said Richard Newcourt confessing that he adhered unto and assisted the forces raised against the Parliament for which his Delinquency his Estate was sequestred and desired to be admitted to Composition according to the Particular of his Estate annexed to the said Petition And a Certificate and estimate of his Estate was returned from the late Committee of Somerset the 15th of May following upon all which a Report according to the usuall manner was drawn up and the Fine set at a sixt one hundred and twenty pounds fifteen shillings no mention being made in the Petition or any other Paper touching Exeter Articles But on the 26th of March 1651. the said Richard Newcourt having obtained your Order of Reference hither the 26th of November 1649. he again Petitioned desiring to be admitted to his Composition upon the said Articles alledging that he was comprised in them and that one Mr. Smith his Sollicitor entred his former composition without mentioning the said Articles contrary to his knowledge Vpon hearing of which Petition the result was that no Order could be given here in the case And the Fine being still unpaid the Estate continues under Sequestration as by Copies of the sayd severall proceedings hereunto annexed appears Jo Leech Regist. A true Copy Tracy Pauncefote Regist. Exchecquer Chamber Westminster Wednesday the 22th of December 1652. By the Commissioners for releif upon Articles of War UPon full hearing of the Cause depending in this Court upon the Petition of Ri Newcourt of Somerton in the County of Somerset Gent. in presence of the Councill for the Common-wealth who were also fully heard therin And upon consideration of the matter of complaint of the said Richard Newcourt and of the Evidence produced on his behalf It appearing unto this Court that the said Richard Newcourt was comprised in the Articles made at the Surrender of the Garrison of Exeter and confirmed by Parliament By virtue wherof all persons included therin and not excepted were to be admitted to Composition according to the rates and proportions therin set down without any limitation of time And there being no proof before this Court nor any suggestion therof that the said Richard Newcourt had taken up Armes or otherwise engaged himself in open hostility or secret counsell against the Parliament since the said Articles granted wherby he might have lost or forfeited the benefit therof The Court upon full debate of the whole matter and upon consideration of the Acts of Parliament by which they are constituted and of the power and trust therby committed to them Do award order and adjudge that the said Richard Newcourt be admitted to compound for his Estate Reall and Personall according to the said Articles of Exeter And the Commissioners authorized by Parliament to compound with Delinquents are desired to take notice hereof and to admit the said Richard Newcourt to his Composition according to the said Articles A true Copy T. Pauncefote Regist. But whilst

Commonwealth and the said Trustees with this Resolution to the end they might set forth such other cause as they had to alledge if there were any on the States behalf by way of Plea or Answer to the said Petition And the Court also at the prayer of the Petitioner issued forth summons to such persons as were by the Petitioner named Defendants and certified by the Trustees aforesaid to have been Purchasers of the Lands and Estate of the Petitioner to plead or answer to the Complaint of the said Petitioner Hereupon the Councel for the Commonwealth put in an Answer wherein they say they know not that the Petitioner was comprized in Articles nor that he was in the City of Exeter at the surrender nor an Inhabitant there seven Months before the said Articles and that if he were comprized he knew not that the said Petitioner did submit unto or make Composition for his Estate acording to the true meaning of the said Articles and as he ought to have done and avers that the Petitioner had not performed such of the said Articles as on his part were to be performed but had wilfully broken and infringed the same That he hath been ingaged in secret counsels since the said Articles against the Parliament and committed other acts since the Articles whereby he hath forfeited the benefit of the same Articles through his own default And by way of Answer further also sets forth the same matters of Law formerly insisted upon in his said Plea and Demurrer whereupon this Court had formerly delivered their Judgements as aforesaid The said Trustees also put in their Answer and say That by the said Act of the 16. of Iuly 1651. the Petitioners Estate was setled in them upon Trust to convey the same as the said Act directed and that in pursuance thereof they have sold to several persons all the said Estate and do believe that a great part of the purchase-Mony is paid and claim no other interest in the said Estate than as persons intrusted as aforesaid neither know nor are concerned why the Parliament have enacted the Petitioners Estate to be sold Several persons named Defendants by the said Petitioner did also appear and put in Answers to the said Petition In particular Matthew Coker of Lincolns-Inne Gent. saith That he hath purchased from the said Trustees part of the Mannor of Priestley being parcel of the Lands of the said Petitioner and hopes to have back his mony and charges before he surrender and then he sayes he shall be alwayes ready to do the same Iohn War and Iohn Borradale say That they have joyntly contracted with the said Trustees for the Demeasnes of Bewley in the County of Somerset part of the estate of the said Petitioner That how far the Petitioner is concerned in the pretended breach of the Articles of Exon concerns not them to look at the Parliament having as they conceive sufficiently weighed and determined the interest of the said Petitioner in the said Articles before they exposed his Lands to sale Nicholas Battely Iohn Farwell Edward Bushell and Iohn Gorges by their several Answers severally say That they have contracted for the Lands respectively mentioned in the subscription of the Petitioner to the Order of this Court of Summons of the eighth of December last with those who they conceive had authority to do the same and each of them freely offers to submit to what Authority shall do therein Unto which Answers of the Councel for the Commonwealth and the said Trustees and of the said other Defendants the Petitioner Sir Iohn Stawell replied avering the truth of his said Petition and the cause being at perfect issue Witnesses were examined and their Depositions published and by the consent both of Mr. Attorney General and of the Councel for the Petitioner the whole evidence taken before the late High Court of Justice upon the Trial of the said Petitioner before them was agreed to be made use of by either party at the hearing of the cause The Court having also received the Answer of the present Commissioners for compounding c. sitting at Habberdashers-Hall London certifying That they have no further matter against the Petitioner than what hath been already signified to the said High Court upon his Trial by vertue of their Order in that behalf did appoint this day for the hearing of the whole cause Now upon full hearing of Mr. Latch Mr. Harrison and Mr. Amhurst on the behalf of the said Petitioner and of Mr. Attorney General Mr. Attorney Hall and Mr. Hurst on behalf of the Commonwealth together with Mr. Graves on the behalf of the said Trustees and upon reading of the said Answers of the said other Defendants purchasers of part of the Petitioners said Estate they nor any of them appearing nor any for them although due notice had been given unto each of them of the time appointed for the hearing of this cause whereof Oath is made the Court proceeded therein and upon the hearing of the Evidences and Witnesses produced on the behalf of the said Petitioner and of the Commonwealth and consideration had of what stands admitted and proved before this Court they do find and are cleerly of opinion That Sir Iohn Stawel is within the Articles of Exeter confirmed by Parliament by which no persons therein comprized and submitting to reasonable Composition for their Estates are to be accountable or questioned for any act past by them done relating unto the unhappy Differences between the late King and the Parliament That the Petitioner personally appeared before the Committee of the Militia of London and subscribed according to an Order in Parliament of the second of Iuly 1646. not to bear Arms against the Parliament nor wilfully do any act prejudicial to their affairs whilst he remained in their quarters which we find to be agreeable to the 21. of the said Articles That he also personally appeared the 24. of Iuly 1646. being within four months after the said Articles and presented a Petition to the Committee of Goldsmiths-Hall for Compositions mentioning therein his Estate to be sequestred and humbly praying they would please to admit him to Composition according to the said Articles and the then Generals Certificate rendering him capable of that agreement but his said Petition was rejected That Sir Iohn Stawel's tender of that Petition in the manner proved before this Court was a submission to Composition according to the said Articles of Exeter That he was afterwards by Warrant of the said Committee of the 13. of August 1646. committed to Ely-house for refusing to take the Negative Oath and Covenant injoyned by the Ordinances of Parliament of the fifth of April 1645. and first of November 1645. That since that Commitment he hath been continued prisoner in several Gaols and during that restraint hath been several times indicted and brought in question for his life for acts relating to the unhappy Differences supposed by him to be done before the granting of the

Act and makes it void whereof many examples are there mentioned Now this Act made by the Parliament a body Politick who by the confirming of my Articles were parties to them is contrary to common Right and Iustice because by confirming the sale of my Estate unto the Purchasers which according to the Articles of Exeter the Parliament were in Honor and Justice ingaged to restore unto mee upon a Composition They overthrow all Articles whose very Essence and Being consists in this That they are binding and conclusive to both parties which cannot bee avoided but by a mutual consent and consequently they have therein opposed Common Right and Iustice upon which the mutual bond of Articles is grounded whereby their Act according to the said Judgement reported by my Lord Cook is meerly void And secondly The same is void because the right of Articles is a Contract grounded upon the Law of Nations which being a Law Paramount and Superior to that of any particular Country or Nation controles all Laws and Ordinances made in opposition to it But if the said Act bee not for these Reasons void in it self as I do in some cleerness conceive it is Yet nothwithstanding it is absolutely void by the fortieth Article of the present Government Whereby it is Provided and Declared That the Articles given to or made with the Enemy and afterwards confirmed by Parliament shall be performed ●●d made good to the persons concerned therein Any thing in the said Writing or otherwise to the contrary nothwithstanding So as this Act is repealed and made absolutely void by the express words of the said Instrument the Basis and Foundation of the present Government which his Highness hath by his Oath promised to observe without any violation And unto which Mr. Lawrence is surely not well advised to oppose this Act being an Officer who in his present imployment doth act by vertue of and in obedience unto the form of Government which hath repealed it as may appear by a Certificate of the Commissioners for relief upon Articles of War returned by them in an Answet to a Reference unto them from his Highness of the 25. of Ianuary 1653. Which Certificate followeth in these words To his Highness Oliver Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging May it please your Highness IN pursuance of several Acts of Parliament authorizing us to give relief to persons within Articles We did the 14. day of October 1652. receive the Petition of Sir John Stawell And after many solemn and deliberate Debates and upon hearing as well what could be alleaged by some of the Defendants to his Complaint and Purchasers of part of his Estate as also by Mr. Attorney General and the rest of the Council on the behalf of the Commonwealth We did upon the 15. day of August last past deliver our Iudgement in the cause and did declare therein that the benefit of the Articles of Exeter did justly and properly belong unto the said Sir John Stawell as by the Decree and Iudgement of this Court relation thereunto being had may more at large appear wherewith Your Highness will by the Petitioner be attended when it shall be your pleasure to peruse the same Now upon your Highness Reference made to us the five and twentieth day of Ianuary last past relating to the Petition of the said Sir Iohn Stawell and authorizing us to give the Petitioner speedy relief or otherwise to certifie to your Highness the obstructions we found therein We have in observance thereof and upon the Petition and Motion on Sir Johns behalf reviewed our former Iudgement and upon hearing his Council who informed the Court That the Petitioner in pursuance of our Iudgement had made application to the Commissioners for compounding with Delinquents desiring to be admitted to a Composition for his whole Estate according to the Articles of Exeter and our said Iudgement thereupon but could not obtain their admission thereunto By reason whereof the said Articles as to him and our said Iudgement were rendred fruitless and ineffectual in regard the benefits and priviledges allowed by the said Articles and Iudgement were to operate after Composition made and perfected The Court taking consideration thereof thought fit to be informed from the said Commissioners for compounding upon what grounds their said Iudgement given in this cause was not observed and the Petitioner admitted to composition accordingly For which purpose they directed an Order to them the 8. day of this instant March to which the 10th following they returned an Answer under their hands to this purpose That Sir John Stawell had Petitioned to compound the first of September 1653. according to Exeter Articles which Petition they referred to their Council to state his case in order to a Composition But before the Fine came to be set viz. The 15. of September 1653. The Parliament resolved that the Purchasors of Sir John Stawells Estate should quietly possess and enjoy the same according to the several Contracts made with the Trustees and upon the 13. of October following an Act was passed for confirmation of the sale of the Lands and Estate of Sir John Stawell by which Resolve and Act the said Commissioners conceived themselves tied up from Composition with the Petitioner for any Estate save for what is unsold which they declare themselves ready to do And the said Commissioners do also insist upon an Ordinance made by your Highness and Council the 10. of February 1653. by which they say they are not impowred to compound with any Delinquents save onely with the persons named in the last additional Act for sale and with such Delinquents as shall discover any part of their Estates not being under Sequestration Upon serious consideration and debate whereof this Court being satisfied that by the Fortieth Article of the present Government produced in Court confirming Articles of War made with or granted to the Enemy and afterwards confirmed by Parliament any thing in that writing or otherwise to the contrary nothwithstanding That objection of the Act made in October last is removed Do nevertheless find that for want of due power in the said Commissioners for compounding being so limitted as aforesaid the Petitioner Sir John Stawell cannot attain the relief meant and intended him by his Articles by the Parliament confirming the same by the Acts constituting this Court by the Iudgement of the same Court and as they conceive by your Highness also which being the sole impediment and onely at present as we apprehend removeable by Your Highness and Council in the further communication of power to the said Commissiioners wherein also we find divers other Petitioners before us in like manner concerned This Court much resenting and commiserating the Petitioners pressures and grievances through want of effectual Iustice humbly submit the premises to your Highnesse's consideration and judgement to do and direct further herein as to your Wisdom and Iustice shall seem