Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	concern_v	say_a	tenement_n	1,379	5	11.0447	5	false

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

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

the Petitioner And so upon the whole matter it cost the Petitioners Father but Two thousand three hundred pounds to have this Estate of near Three hundred pounds by the year thus settled And as touching Depopulations made by Sir Iohn Stawell in the parish of Cothelestone mentioned in the aforesaid Petition I well know having been the most part of my time a near neighbour unto that place that Sir Iohn Stawell did give full satisfaction to all such Tenants whose Estates he redeemed being for the inlargement principally of his Courts Orchards and Gardens about his House and for such as wanted houses and had no other dwellings he either bought or gave them houses in other places to their full content who were better pleased with their Bargains and such Exchanges then with their former Estates And that the Depopulations complained of may the better be understood pray give me leave to inform you that there were but five small Tenements which were so compounded for worth about thirty pounds by the year in the whole and there are yet remaining in the said Parish ten several Tenements and Cottages which are injoyed by estates by him granted which are worth above one hundred pounds by the year and the Demeasns of Cothelestone lying within that Parish were never known to be less worth then Two hundred and seventy pounds by the year and with those additions complained of they are not now worth as is conceived above three hundred pounds by the year as they are annexed to Sir Iohns principal House Besides this there hath been four hundred Acres of land by estimation divided into thirty Acre Tenements by Sir Iohn Stawell and are annexed unto the Mannor of Cothelestone upon many of which Tenements houses are built and Familes do live which in former times had not a house standing upon it and inlargeth that Mannor much more than it was before And whereas in the said Petition it is thus expressed that it would be a very great cruelty and injustice by not making good publick Sales to sacrifise to his Rage and Revenge all the well-affected people of fifteen or sixteen great Mannors I cannot conceive any reason of this expression For Sir Iohns Tenants are so well affected unto him as I have not heard five only excepted whereof the Petitioner is one that any have bought a greater interest in his Lands then what hath been of his own granting and I suppose it will be conceived a great mercy unto them to be restored to him who hath ever been a good Land-lord unto them and stands obliged to the making good of their former Estates And I Iohn Lawrence do likewise say to that part of the Petition that avers That the Petitioner was totally ignorant of the Articles of Exeter or any pretence of the said Sir Iohn Stawell to the same he is very much mistaken for that I my self told the Petitioner That Sir Iohn Stawell had right to the Articles of Exeter and that the truth thereof was known to most men by the publick Trial he had received for his life at the High Court of Justice where his Articles were pleaded allowed and his life thereupon preserved and did advise him not to proceed further in his Purchase intended Wherefore we the Petitioners Uncles do humbly conceive That his Petition in many things wanteth a good foundation That it affordeth no right to the memory of his deceased Father and setteth forth great unthankfulness unto Sir John Stawell who hath been alwayes kind to our Name and Kindred Robert Lawrence John Lawrence November 24. 1654. The relation and dependance which the Grandfather Father and Family of Mr. Lawrence have alwayes had upon my Predecessors and my self And those good offices we have formerly received from them in the occasions wherein we have from time to time imployed them joyned to the just acknowledgement of those advantages received from us which is according unto Truth and Justice now publickly declared by his Uncles are a sufficient motive to me not to reproach the now Petitioner with his ingratitude and falshood towards a Family and person to whom hee ows the Fortune he now possesses Besides I have a hope that the just reprehension of two Uncles the Elders of his Family and who may challenge a respect and duty from him will make him sensible of that foul Error he hath committed in seeking by indirect means our Ruine and Destruction as he hath done which is the cause I leave the further handling of this point and pass unto the next wherein Mr. Lawrence is not more truly informed touching the Condition in which he pretends I am than in those other slanders wherein I have already shewed how grosly he is mistaken For neither hath my Wife purchased my principal place of Residence or any other part of my Estate for the use of me or my children or fifteen hundred pounds per annum mo●e by her Assigns and Friends as Mr. Lawrence doth suggest Nor have I since the time that my Estate was first sequestred received any the least profit or subsistence by allowance out of it And what opinion soever he hath of my Right and Title Truly I would not give consent that any Friend of mine imployed by me should put so mean a value upon the Publick Faith and Honor of the Parliament Armies and the whole Nation ingaged for the performance of my Articles as to become Purchasers of any part thereof at ten years Purchase considering That I am to be restored unto it upon the payment of two years value by my Articles The performance whereof Mr. Lawrence hath surely no just reason to oppose with so much Passion Falshood and Ingratitude as he hath done that he might keep unto himself a part of my Inheritance Unless he hath some wayes abused the Commonwealth in the said Purchase and is therefore loath to receive a satisfaction in value from them which could be no prejudice at all unto him if he hath given a full consideration for the same The last thing and which is most insisted on by Mr. Lawrence is the Act of the 13. of October 1653. made by the Little Parliament for confirming and establishing the sales made of my estate or goods in the possession of the Purchasers And for the better strengthing of it many reasons are therein offered of profit to the State and of convenience unto the Purchasers why the Purchase made by the Petitioner and others of my Estate should not be questioned Unto all which I give this Answer First That the Act before mentioned is meerly void in it self And secondly The same is Repealed and Declared absolutely void by the Fortieth Article of the present Government Of both which points I shall speak briefly as they lye in order First It is a Case adjudged and reported by the Lord Cook That where an Act of Parliament is contrary to common Righr and Justice The Common Law doth in that Case controle an