Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	pay_v	say_a	sum_n	3,002	5	8.9846	4	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25924	Articles of accusation exhibited by the Commons House of Parliament now assembled against St. John Bramston, Knight, Sr. Robert Berkley, Knight justices of His Majesites bench, Sr. Francis Crawley, Knight, one of the justices of the Common-pleas, Sr. Humphrey Davenport, Knight, Sr. Richard Weston, Knight, and Sr. Thomas Trevor, Knight, barons of His Majesties Exchequer.		1641 (1641)	Wing A3833; ESTC R38534	30,976	35

proceedings examinations trials and judgements may be upon every of them had and used as is agreeable to Law and Justice Articles of the House of Commons in the name of themselves and of all the Commons of England against Sir Thomas Trevor Knight one of the Barons of his Majesties court of Exchequer impeaching him as followeth 1. THat in or about November 4. Car. divers goods and merchandizes whereof Iohn Rolls George Moore and other Merchants of London were Proprietors being seised and conveyed into certaine Store-houses at the Custome-house by Sir Iohn Worstenham Abraham Dawes and others the Farmors and Officers of the Customes and by them there detained because the said Proprietors refused to pay the Subsidie of Tonnage and Poundage pretended to be due and demanded by the said Farmours and Officers on his Majesties behalfe for the said Merchandizes whereas no such subsidy or duty of Tonnage or Poandage was due or payable for the same no Subsidy of Tonnage and Poundage having beene granted by Parliament to his Majesty The said Iohn Rolls and other the Proprietors of the said goods having by reason of such unlawfull seisure and detainer as aforesaid sued forth one or more writ or writs of Replevin directed to the Sheriffes of London being the proper remedy provided by the Law to regaine the possession of goods taken and with-held from the owners contrary to Law the said Sir Thomas Trevor Knight then and yet one of the Barons of his Majesties said Court of Exchequer together with the rest of the then Barons of the said Court upon information to them given that the said Proprietors or some of them had sued forth and did prosecute such writ or writs of Replevin for the delivery of the said goods did order an Injunction under Seale of the said Court to issue forth directed to the Sheriffes of London commanding them thereby not to execute the said writ or writs of Replevin or any like writ thereafter to be sued forth by any person or persons for the delivery of any goods in the like nature detained And did declare and order publiquely in the said Court of Exchequer that the said goods by Law were not Replevisable alleaging for cause that the said goods were in the Kings owne possession whereas the same did not judicially appeare to them and they did well know that the said goods were at that time in the possession of the Farmours and Lessees of the said Customes and no lawfull cause to them appearing or suggested of the taking and detaining of the said goods which Injunction and Declaration so granted and made were and are against the Lawes of the Realme and in subversion of the common right and remedy of the Subject for regaining the possession of his goods being taken and with-holden from him without lawfull cause That the Sheriffes of London for the time being served with the said Injunction did forbeare to execute the said writ or writs of Replevin By meanes whereof the said good continued so detained as aforesaid contrary to Law from the said moneth of November untill the moneth of June next following That the said Thomas Trevor and other the Barons aforesaid knowing the said goods to be unlawfully seized and detained for the pretended duties and Subsidie of Tonnage and Poundage whereas no such were payble by Law did from time to time delay the respective Proprietors from having restitution of their said goods being often in Court moved therein with intention thereby to force the said Proprietors by wanting their goods and the use thereof to pay all such summes as the said Officers of the Customes pretended to be due to his Majesty That to the end aforesaid the said Sir Thomas Trevor and the said other Barons refused to accept of any security to be given by the said Proprietors upon restitution had of their goods for payment of all such duties as should to made appeare to be made payable to his Majesty in such manner as the said Barons should direct That the said Sir Thomas Trevor and other the Barons aforesaid knowing that the said summes demanded on his Majesties behalfe by the said officers of the Customes not to be due by Law did refuse to order restitution of any part of those goods so detained as aforesaid to the Proprietors thereof unlesse the said Proprietors would deposite all such summes of money as the said Officers respectively demanded of them for pretended duties to his Majesty and the said Proprietors refufing to deposite the said summes demanded the said Sir Thomas Trevor and other the Barons aforesaid did order the said Officers to detaine double the value of the summes by them demanded for pretended duties to his Majesty and to restore the residue The said Sir Thomas Trevor and other the said Barons then knowing that the pretended summes demanded by the said Officers were not by Law due or payable to his Majesty 2. That in or about January 4. Car. the said Officers having seised severall Merchandize of the goods of Richard Chambers Merchant upon the pretences aforesaid did detaine the same and the said Chambers prosecuting by plaint to have his said goods replevied tho said Sir Thomas Trevor together with the said other Barons did in like manner in the said Court of Exchequer declare the said Chambers his goods not to be replevisable and enjoyned the Sheriffes of London to proceed no further therein no cause to them appearing of such seisure or detainer And the said Sir Thomas Trevor and other the Barons of the said Court refused to order the delivery of the said Chambers his goods upon good security offered by him to pay all such summes as should be made appeare to be due and for which the said goods were pretended to be detained and the said Barons being often moved in Court therein did refuse to order restitution of any part of the said Chambers goods untill the 23. of November 5. Carol and then ordered that the said Officers should detaine in their hands double the value of the summes by them demanded and restitution of the residue to be made to the said Chambers no cause of detaining any part of the said goods to them in any wise appearing 3. That whereas in the moneth of October in the fourth yeere of his said Majesties reigne the Farmers and Officers of the Custome-house having seised great quantities of Currants being the goods of Samuel Vassall merchant and having conveyed them into certaine store houses at the Custome house and detained them because the said Samuel Vassall refased to pay an imposition of five shillings six pence upon every hundred weight of the said currants pretended to be due and demanded by the said Farmours and Officers on his Majesties behalfe for the said currants whereas no such imposition was due or payable for the same but the said imposition was and is against the Lawes of this Realme And whereas also in Michaelmas Terme in the said fourth yeere of his Majesties raigne his

for refusing severall times to administer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to them without any lawful cause at the Assizes held at Norwich in _____ 1633. Hee the said Sir Robert Berkley then being one of the Judges of the Assize proceeded then to the tryall on the said Indictments where the matter in issue being that the said Brookâ— refused to administer the said Sacrament because the said Ingram and Corter would not receive tickets with their Sir names before their Christen names which was a course never used amongst them but by the said Brooke He the said Sir Robert Berkley did then much discourage the said Ingrams Counsell and over rule the cause for matter of Law so as the Jury never went from the Bar but there found for the said Brooke And the said Sir Robert Berkley bound the said Ingram to the good behaviour for the prosecuting the said Indictments and ordered him to pay costs to the said Brooke for wrongfully inditing him And whereas the said Carter not expecting the triall at the same Assizes he preferred his Indictment was then absent whereupon the said Sir Robert Berkley did cause to be entred upon the said Indictment a vâ—â—at quia non sufficiens in lege and ordered an Attachment against the said Carter which said proceedings against the said Ingram and Carter by the said Sir Robert Berkley were contrary to Law and Justice and to his owne knowledge 10. That the said Sir Robert Berkley being one of the Justices of the Court of Kings Bench and duly sworne as aforesaid in Trinity terme 1637. deferred to discharge or baile Alexender Jenings prisoner in the Fleet brought by Habeas Corpus to the Bar of the said Court the returne of his Commitment being that he was committed by two severall warrants from the Lords of the Councell dated the fift of November 1636. the first being only read in Court expressing no cause the other for not paying Messengers fees and untill he should bring a certificate that hee had paid his Assessement for Ship money in the County of Bucks but remitted him And in Michaelmas Terme after the said Jenings being brought by another Habeas Corpus before him as aforesaid and the same returned yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley refused to discharge or baile him but remitted him And in Easter Terme after severall rules were given for his Majesties Councell to shew cause why the said Jenings should not be bailed a fourth rule was made for the said Jenings to let his Majesties Attorney generall have notice thereof and notice was given accordingly and the said Jenings by another Habeas Corpus brought to the Bar in Trinity Terme after and the same returne with this addition of a new Commitment of the fourth of May suggesting hee the said Jenings had used divers scandalous words in derogation and disparagement of his Majesties government He the said Ienings after severall rules in the end of the said Trinity Terme was againe remitted to prison And he the said Sir Robert Berkley did on the fifth of June last deferre to grant his Majesties writs of Habaas Corpus for William Pâ—rgiter and Samuel Danvers Esquires Prifoners in the Gate house and in the Fleet And afterwards having granted the said writ of Habeas Corpus the said Pargiter and Danvers were on the eight of June last brought to the Bar of the said Court where the returnes of their Commitments were severall warrants from the Lords of the Councell not expressing any cause yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley then sitting in the said Court deferred to baile the said Pargiter and Danvers and the eighteenth of June last made a rule for a new returne to be received which were returned the 25. of June last in haec verba Whereas his Majesty finding that his Subjects of Scotland have in rebellious and hostile manner assembled themselves together and intend not only to shake off their obedience unto his Majesty but also as enemies to invade and infest this his Kingdome of England to the danger of his Royall Person c. For prevention whereof his Majesty hath by the advice of his Councell-board given speciall commandement to all the Lord Lieutenants of all the Counties of this Realme appointed for their Randezvouz in their severall and respective Counties there to be conducted and drawne together into a body for this service And whereas his Majestie according to the Lawes and Statutes of this realme and the constant custome of his Prodecessours Kings and Queenes of this Realme hath power for the defence of this kingdome and resisting the force of the Enemies thereof to grant forth Commissions under his great Seale to such fit persons as hee shall make choice of to array and arme the Subjects of this kingdome and to compell those who are of able body and of able estates to arme themselves and such as should not bee able of bodies but of abilitie in estate to assesse them according to their estates to contribute towards the charge of arraying and arming others being able of body and not able in estate to arme themselves And such persons as should be contrariant to commit to prison there to remaine untill the King should take further order therein And whereas the Earle of Exeter by vertue of his Majesties Commission to him directed for the arraying and arming of a certaine number of persons in the Countie of Northampton hath assest William Pargiter being a man unfit of body for that service but being of estate and abilitie fit to contribute amongst others to pay the sum of five shillings toward the arraying and arming of others of able bodies and wanting abilitie to array and arme themselves And whereas wee have received information from the said Earle that the said William Fargiter hath not only in a wilfull and disobedient manner refused to pay the said money assessed upon him towards so important a service to the disturbance and hinderance of the necessary defence of this kingdome but also by his ill example hath mis-led many others and as we have just cause to beleeve hath practised to seduce others from that ready obedience which they owe and would otherwise have yeelded to his Majesties just command for the publick defence of his person and kingdome which we purpose with all convenient speed to enquire further of and examine These are therefore to will and require you to take into your custodie the persons of the said Willam Pargiter and Samuel Danvers and them safely to keepe prisoners till further order from this Board or untill by due course of Lawe they shall bee delivered Yet he the said Sir Robert Berkley being desired to baile the said Pargiter and Danvers remitted them where they remained prisoners till the ninth of November last or thereabouts although the said Ienings Pargiter and Danvers on all and every the said returnes were clearcly baileable by Law and the councell of the said Ienings Pargiter and Danvers offered in Court very

Right 3. That he the said Sir Iohn Brampston then Lord chiefe Justice of the Court of Kings Bench about Trinity Tearme 1637. refused to baile or discharge Alexander Iennings prisoner in the Fleet brought by habeas Corpus to the barre before him the return of this Commitment being two severall warrants from the Lords of the Councell dated the fifth of November 1635. the first expressing no cause the other for not paying Messengers fees and untill hee should bring certificate that hee had paid his Assesment for ship-money in the County of Bucks And the said Sir Iohn Brampston the first warrant being onely read then said The cause of his Commitment did not appeare and that it was not fit for every Goaler to be made acquainted by the Lords of the Councell why they committed and therefore remitted him And in Michaelmas Tearme after the said Iennings being brought by another habeas Corpus as aforesaid and the same returned yet hee the said Sir Iohn Brampston refused to discharge or baile him but remitted him And in Easter Tearme next after severall rules for his Majesties Councell to shew cause why he the said Iennings should not bee bailed a fourth rule was made for the said Iennings to let his Majesties Atturney have notice which notice was given accordingly yet he remitted him And the said Iennings by another habeas Corpus brought to the Barre as aforesaid in Trinity Tearme after and the same returne with the addition of a new Commitment of the fourth of May 1638. suggested that he the said Iennings had used divers scandalous words in derogation and disparagement of his Majesties government After severall rules in the end of the said Trinity Tearme he againe remitted him to prison And he the said Sir Iohn Brampston about the 9. of July after at his chamber in Serjeants Inne being desired by Master Meâ—wtis one of the Clerkes of the Councell-boord to discharge the said Iennings for that he the said Iennings had entred into a bond of one-thousand pounds to appeare before the Lords of the Councell the next Michaelmas Tearme after and to attend de die in diem yet the said Sir Iohn Brampston refused to discharge the said Iennings untill hee entred into Recognizance to appeare the next Tearme and in the meane time to bee of his good behaviour And the said Iennings was continued on his said Recognizance till Easter Tearme after And the said Sir Iohn Brampston did on the fifth of June 1640. deferre to grant his Majesties writ of habeas Corpus for Samuel Danvers and William Pargiter Esquites prisonerâ— in the Gate house and in the Eleet and when hee had granted the said Writ the said eight of June after the returne being the order of the Councell Table not expressing any cause he the said Sir Iohn Bramston deferred to baile the said Pargiter And the eighteenth of Iune after made a rule for a new returne to be received which was returned the five and twentieth of the said June in haec verba Whereas his Majesty finding that his Subjects of Scotland have in rebellious and hostile manner assembled themselves together and intend not only to shake off their obedience unto his Majesty but also as enemies to â—avade and infest this his Kingdome of England to the danger of his Royall Person c. For prevention whereof his Majesty hath by the advice of his Councell-board given speciall commandement to all the Lord Lieutenants of all the Counties of his Realm with expedition to array and arme a certain number of able men in each County to be prepared ready to be condacted to such places as should be appointed for their Randezvouz in their severall and respective Counties there to be conducted and drawne together into a body for this service And whereas his Majestie according to the Lawes and Statutes of this realme and the constant custome of his Predecessours Kings and Queenes of this Realme hath power for the defence of this kingdome and resisting the force of the Enemies thereof to grant forth Commissions under his great Seale to such fit persons as hee shall make choice of to array and arme the Subjects of this kingdome and to compell those who are of able boly and of able estates to arme themselves and such as should not bee able of bodies but of abilitie in estate to assesse them according to their estates to contribute towards the charge of arraying and arming others being able of body and not able in estate to arme themselves And such persons as should be contrariant to commit to prison there to remaine untill the King should take further order therein And whereas the Earle of Exeter by vertue of his Majesties Commission to him directed for the arraying and arming of a certaine number of persons in the Countie of Northampton hath assest William Pargiter being a man unfit of body for that service but being of estate and abilitie fit to contribute amongst others to pay the sum of five shillings toward the arraying and arming of others of able bodies and wanting abilitie to array and arme themselves And whereas wee have received information from the said Earle that the said William Pargiter hath not only in a wilfull and disobedient manner refused to pay the said money assessed upon him towards so important a service to the disturbance and hinderance of the necessary defence of this kingdome but also by his ill example hath mis-led many others and as we have just cause to beleeve hath practised to seduce others from that ready obedience which they owe and would otherwise have yeelded to his Majesties just command for the publick defence of his person and kingdome which we purpose with all convenient speed to enquire further of and examine These are therefore to will and require you to take into your custodie the person of the said Willam Pargiter and him safely to keepe prisoner till further order from this Board or untill by due course of Lawe he shall bee delivered And the like return was then made in all things mutatis mutandis concerning the said Danvers for not paying a sum of money assessed upon him Yet hee the said Sir Iohn Bramston deferred to bail the said Danvers and Pargiter but remitted the said Danvers to the Fleet where hee remained till the 12. of July 1640. and the said Pargiter to the Gate-house where he remained till the ninth of November last although the said Ienings Danvers and Pargiter upon all and every the said returns ought to have been discharged or bailed by Law and the Councell of the said Ienings Danvers and Pargiter offered in Court very sufficient baile And he the said Sir Iohn Brampston being chiefe Justice of the Court of Kings Bench denyed to grant his Majesties Writ of Habeas Corpus to very many others his Majesties subiects and when hee had granted the said writs of Habeas Corpus to very many others his Majesties subjects and on the returne no cause appeared or

Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Text snippets containing the quad