Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	estate_n	heir_n	tenement_n	1,389	5	10.3962	5	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

before sufficiently confuted his opinion that sir Iohn ought to compound as his expression was upon his Examination and his desire to have had sir Iohn admitted to composition as he ought by his Articles is granted for sir Iohn ought by his Articles to have been admitted to a Composition but sir Iohn would not compound in such manner as that Committee could compound with him and therefore he was justly denyed such an admission thereunto but according to their Rules he was admitted and might have compounded As concerning sir Anthonies relation touching the sale of a Manor of sir Iohn Stawels it was but a relation of another unsworn and therefore no evidence but Mr. Ash himself hath fully answered it and therefore needs no other at this time only sir Anthony hath confessed that the whole Committee without a Negative did resolve to report that carriage of sir Iohn to the House wherein sir Anthony now sweareth he then saw no incivility if he did not where was sir Anthonies Justice when himself voted that Report The same answer respectively may be given to sir David Watkins's Certificate mentioned in the Remonstrance page 61. and his Examinations before this Committee of Parliament both agreeing but in this only that sir David doth now affirm that he doth account 28 daies to the month when he saith that sir Iohn Stawell came and presented his Petition to the Committee within four moneths from the eight of April which likewise cannot agree with his Warrant of the fourth of August often mentioned he being one of the Committee that granted it and at that time it seemeth he accounted the Kalender moneths The Remonstrance page 62. doth surmise that the 15. of August 1653. the cause of Sir Iohn whereof the Court of Articles took the Cognizance upon them came regularly to be heard but how reagular or rather how extrajudicial hath been already declared when the Parliament had resumed it to themselves but that Parliament being disolved Sir Iohn Stawel took advantage thereof and by his importunity obtained from that Court of Articles a further though most extrajudicial proceeding therein even to judgment The Trustees of Drury house and Purchasers cannot be blam'd if to preserve the honour and credit of Acts of Parliament they did Petition the then Committe for Petitions in such manner as the Remonstrance sets forth to prevent such irregularities especially when that Court was deliberating and advising upon their judgement the Order of which Committee thereon was as is Remonstrated that Colonel Rous should report it to the Parliament with this sence of the Committee that the Purchasers ought to enjoy their Purchases and Sir Iohn have satisfaction if found within and ought to have the benefit of Articles which report made accordingly and the then Parliament reading the said several Votes of Parliament of the 24 of February 1652. touching the said confirmation of the sales and resuming the cause did resolve to take the consideration thereof on Fryday following After the resumption whereof and during its debate by the Parliament that Court of Articles took the boldness to give that Iudgement for Sir Iohn Stawell at large set forth in the Remonstrance pag. 65. thereby breaking through Resolves Judgments and Acts of Parliament to the contrary and therefore Sir Iohn could not probably conceive that any other besides himself would rest on or that the then Parliament would suffer their proceedings or the Judgements or Resolutions of their Predecessors to be questioned and annulled by an inferiour jurisdiction and therefore it was justly done by the Trustees and Purchasers to endeavour to render those illegal proceedings succesless and for the Parliament in vindication of their supream power to resume the debate touching the Trustees representation and Purchasers Petition the sooner to declare their resentment of those proceedings which they did on the 29 of August 1653. and upon that debate referred back to the same Committee to consider of an expedient for the Petitioners reliefe upon which reference that Committee of Petitions upon consideration had of that Judgement of the Court of Articles and the several Acts constituting that Court and of all the pleadings and proceedings passed in that case thought fit to report that the Purchasors ought to enjoy the same Estate which report the then Parliament was pleased to confirm and Teusd the 15 of Septemb. 1653. Resolved That this House do agree with this Report of the Committee that the Purchasers of Sir Iohn Stawel's Estate shall quietly possess and enjoy the same according to their several contracts made with the Trustees Henry Scobel Clerk of the Parliament And passed an Act accordingly in these words Thursd the 13. of Octob. 1653 An Act for confirmation of the sale of the Lands and Estate of Sir Iohn Stawell Knight of the Bath Be it enacted and deccared by Authority of Parliament that all sales made of any Estate Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods or Chattels of Sir John Stawell Knight of the Bath by vertue or appointment of any Act or Acts of Parliament are hereby confirmed and established and accordingly all Purchasers and Buyers of the same shall and may have hold and quietly enjoy the same to them their Heirs and Assigns according to the Rules Conditions and Limitations prescribed in the said Acts any Law or Judgment to the contrary notwithstanding Hen. Scobell Clerk of the Parliament Notwithstanding which reference resolution and Act of this second Parliament in confirmation of the Act and proceedings of the former Parliament and sale of the Estate accordingly Sir Iohn resteth not but now pretendeth that the Committee for Petitions pursu●d not the intent of that Order of Reference and draweth that pretence from these two Premises The one because Sir Iohn had the extrajudicial Judgment of the Court of Articles for part of his Estate therefore this Committee did not pursue the intent of that Order Whereas not to insist upon the consequence the judgment and proceedings of the Court of Articles against the Purchasers being the very cause of their Complaint and against which they desired relief from a superior Court the Parliament thought fit upon a due consideration to establish the enjoyment of the Lands and by consequence did lay aside that Judgment that would have disturbed it Sir John again saith that in regard the Committee did think fit to confirm the Purchasers estates therefore they did not pursue the intent of that Order touching the Purchasers relief As if it were not the best and most sit relief to confirm their Estates notwithstanding this Judgment that would otherwise have taken them away Neither in the judgment of the Parliament it self had that Committee not pursued their intent of Reference for both by a Resolve and an Act they setled the Estate accordingly He saith the Purchasers bargains and contracts could not be absolute and direct in regard the said Clause of Limitation had debarred the Trustees themselves from whom the Purchasers claim in case of Articles

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

that effect And because many Women resorted unto other Congregations and were not willing to hear his Malignant-Preacher he threatned by his Soldiers to strip them to their Smocks and would own it as an act of his own And further his malice extended not to the well-affected Inhabitants of Taunton alone but likewise to those of the Neighbor-hood he seized on the Estate of Colonel Ceely whilst he was in the Parliaments service the incivility of his Soldiers in the mean time hastning the death of the Colonels Wife and her childe And although Sir Iohn is pleased in his Remonstrance Pag. 19. to say That there were taken from the Colonel by his Command no more then seven or eight loads of Hay in a time of necessity These ensuing Certificates together with a Verdict given for Col. Ceely at the Guildhal London will shew the contrary WHereas Sir Iohn Stawel in his late Remonstrance amongst many other aggrievances there enumerated is pleased to recompt this one as not the least viz. That Col. Ceely hath obtained a Judgment at Law against him of One hundred and fifty pound damages for the carrying away onely of eight loads of Hay bearing himself much agrieved at the injustice of that Tryal and injury done him by the said Colonel Let the Impartial reade and then judge of the Cause It will be sufficiently proved by Testimony of divers besides the Warrants under his own hand that a Party of Sir Iohn Stawels Horse plundred the House of all his Goods and Houshold-stuff carried away divers of his Writings and Living goods That the Hay of Sixty Acres and Two hundred pounds worth of Corn growing on the Farm at Charlton was carried away and seised on So as his Wife was denied two Pecks a week for her self and children That one Walton his Captain by his command with Troopers entred the House and Chamber with Pistols and Swords drawn where Col. Ceely his Wife was with her Midwife and put her in such fear that soon after she died of a Convulsion then contracted and her childe likewise Now if the Colonel received no more damage then the loss of eight loads of Hay let all men judge It is therefore wondred That Sir Iohn Stawel should pass by so slightly the sufferings of those who felt his unjust plunder and cruelty and yet bear the damage thereof legally obtained so heavily though little in consideration to the wrong done and yet unpaid And in a Remonstrance set out to gain pity as it is supposed by a Mis-narative of his own sufferings should use so little truth and sincerity in the Relation of the loss of another man This is inserted to undeceive the people and take off the slander of a legal Tryal had and prosecuted WHereas Sir Iohn Stawel Knight of the Bathe in a late Pamphlet of his intituled His Remonstrance and in the 19 Page there hath averred That onely seven or eight load of Hay on Col. Ceelyes Estate were taken away by his command I William Ceely of the Middle-Temple London Esquire do hereby certifie to all whom it shall concern That I did in or about the year of our Lord God 1643. or 1644. cause to be carried from the Lands of the said Colonel to my House at Huntham in the County of Somerset of the Hay of the said Colonel to the number of fifty six loads or near thereabouts All which Hay about ten loads onely excepted was by some Constables of those parts and by colour of several Warrants under the proper hand-writing of the said Sir Iohn Stawel which I then saw and well knew taken away and that the said Sir Iohn Stawel did justifie the taking away thereof uttering these or the like words unto me Your Brother meaning the said Colonel is a Traytor and therefore I will have his Hay And that afterwards my self being Subpena'd to give my Testimony in a Cause then to be tryed at the Guildhal London between the said Colonel and Sir Iohn Stawel for taking away the said Hay I did appear and gave my Testimony to the effect aforesaid and that there were produced at that tryal by the said Colonel three other Witnesses besides my self viZ. Henry Hammond Tho. Bridge and William Chaple whose testimony was as touching the taking away of that Hay agreeing with mine in effect Given under my hand this first day of November 1654. Mr. Henry Ceely of Northcurry was likewise plundred and imprisoned and Mr. Henry Myntern imprisoned by Sir John Stawell but wherefore and in what manner their own Depositions hereunder transcribed will best declare November 23 1650. The Information of Captain Henry Mintern of Chesselborough in the County of Somerset taken before Sir John Thorowgood Knight Iohn Hurst and William Weston Esquires a Committee of the High Court of Justice for Examination THis Informant saith That being an Officer in Arms for the Parliament he was taken Prisoner at Glastonbury about St. James's day in the year 1643. and brought before Sir John Stawell then Governor of Taunton and after some examination of him concerning the estate of our Army the said Stawell by order committed this Informant to the Castle of Taunton where he remained about six months and from thence by the order of the said Stawell was carried by twelve Dragoons to the common Gaol at Ivelchester being carried in disgrace through three Market Towns in his passage to the said Gaol And this Informant saith that being a prisoner in Taunton Castle aforesaid after four daies imprisonment this Informant and divers others were brought before a Councel of War at the place where the Assizes are usually kept in Taunton where Stawell sate as Governor of the Town and President of the said Councel where after examination this Informant was sent back to the Castle where he remained untill the Assizes held at Wels about three weeks or a month before Christmas An. 1643. and was there Indicted for high Treason and examined by Mr. Richard Newcourt then Clerk to Sir John Stawell and the day after he was brought before Sir John Stawell at Mr. Waldrons house in Wels where his said Examination was read to him and Sir Iohn Stawell forced this Informant to subscribe the same and refused to take Bail for this Informant although 1000 l. bail was offered And Sir Iohn Stawell further told this Informant he was a Rebel and a Traitor and should be tryed for his life after which he was remaunded back to prison untill he was relieved by the Parliaments Forces This Informant further saith that being of the Grand Iury in the year 1647. one Richard Cluff of Taunton since deceased came before this Informant and divers others of the Grand Iury and informed them that there was means made to Sir Iohn Stawell for the reprieval of one Viccary a souldier of Captain Clarks in the year 1643. or thereabouts at which time the said Viccary was condemned by a Councel of War in Taunton and executed before the window where Sir

unto him and advised him to acknowledge his miscarriage at Goldsmiths Hall crave the pardon of the House and desire admission to Compound Which Sir Iohn disliked saying That if he were willing yet he was not able to pay the mony for a Composition Sir Iohn being brought to the Bar of that House and refusing to kneel is committed to Newgate for High-Treason for levying war against the Parliament the Transcripts of which Order and Mittimus are inserted in the Remonstrance fol. 29. Where he continued for some years Neglecting refusing passionately disdaining to Petition to be admitted to a Composition or any way to comply with the Parliament in that behalf although entreated and importuned thereunto by his wife and friends that desired to preserve him and his Estate and by others that stood deeply engaged as Sureties for his Debts His wife hath upon her bared knees and with many tears desired him if not for her sake yet for the sake of the children of his body to use her words that he would submit and Petition the Parliament for a Composition which notwithstanding he slighted as the poor Lady her self with grief affirmed to divers Gentlemen of worth and hath complained of his wilfulness amongst the rest unto Mr. Iames Ash whose testimony lately given to the Committee of Parliament to whom sir Iohns Petition is referred followeth viZ. Decemb. 15. 1654. The Information of James Ash Esq a Member of Parliament given to the Committee of Parliament to whom the Petition of Sir John Stawel is referr'd in the Case of the said Sir John Stawel WHo saith That he was present at Goldsmiths-Hall when Sir John Stawell came thither who delivered a paper which he called a Petition The Committee upon receipt and reading that paper were all of opinion It was not a Petition to compound The said Committee thereupon called in Sir John Stawell and asked him some questions some of them the Informant hath forgot but these he remembers Being demanded why he came thither if not to compound and they telling him they were a Committee to compound with Delinquents He said that he came to have his Estate that was taken from him and did endeavour in his speech to take off the Delinquencie from himself and to cast it upon the Parliament and Committee The particular expressions he cannot now remember nor doth he remember the title of the said Petition but saith the substance of it was to have his Estate Sir John Stawell being withdrawn the Committee fell into a debate whether his ill carriage there should be reported to the House But afterwards a Gentleman Mr. John Ash moving that he might have three or four dayes to amend his Petition and bring in a Particular to Compound which also he was told of by the Committee He this Informant heard no more of him till the Report made to the Parliament by Mr. John Stephens of his miscarriage and ill behaviour which the Parliament highly resented and did order him to be sent for as a Delinquent Whereupon being brought to the bar of the Parliament and commanded by the Speaker to kneel He this Informant sitting very neer Sir Iohn Stawel heard him mutter these words I desire to know my offence or crime Upon which being ordered to withdraw the Parliament made an Order for his commitment to Newgate as this Informant remembers Afterwards being by Order of Parliament referred to be tryed for Treason and Report being made to the Parliament of his high carriage and disowning their Authority and the Judges that sate thereby they were yet more incensed against him And afterwards upon the news given to the Parliament of one Mr. Anthony Ascams death the Parliament having before declared to bring some Delinquents to punishment who were excepted from pardon did refer Sir Iohn Stawell amongst others to be tryed at the High Court of Justice That during all the Debates when the Parliament gave any Judgment against him consideration was still had of his Articles and yet in those Judgments there were hardly any Negatives but the Question passed cleer That afterwards the Report being made from the High Court of Justice who did not proceed to give sentence of death against him in regard of the Articles of Exceter many Gentlemen Members of Parliament in the House did much wonder thereat but in regard of the opinion of the said High Court they did not again refer him to be tryed for his life but did as he remembers eo instanti pass a Vote That his Estate should be confiscate to the Commonwealth and afterwards past the Act for Sale of his Lands That to this Informants knowledge for many years together after the first apparance of sir Iohn Stawell at Goldsmiths Hall there were many endeavours used for to have drawn him to compound and to have had the benefit of his Articles but he would never be perswaded thereunto Now the reason of this his knowledg is because he was privy to the actings on his behalf and having discourse several times with the Lady Stawell concerning those endeavours which had been used to perswade him to compound And this Informant saying to her Can there be no way found out whereby he may be preserved and have the benefit of his Articles She answered this Informant in these words Sir you know what endeavours have been used and how we would have perswaded him to have suffered his son Ned Stawell meaning him called sir Edward Stawell to have compounded for his Estate but he would not give his consent thereunto but did threaten him if he endeavoured any such thing For saith she he doth still flatter himself with vain hopes of seeing the King restored and although there be every day more unlikelihood then other yet his faith continues strong That having some discourse with one Michael Tidcomb a Gentleman in Wiltshire as he remembers upon reading of the Act passed by the late little Convention or Parliament for the confirmation of the sale of sir Iohn Stawels Lands The said Gentleman spake these words I wonder said he that sir Iohn Stawell should now pretend to the Articles of Exceter since to my knowledge he did refuse to have the benefit of them For said he when I was a prisoner in Ely House with the said sir Iohn Stawell some intimation we had from the then King that we should submit to the Parliament and compound for our Estates Upon which we had a Debate amongst our selves and sir Iohn Stawell was present and it was the opinion of most of them they should submit to compound but sir Iohn Stawell did declare against it and laughed at them that had compounded or did intend it And this Informant further saith That sir Iohn Stawell came to Goldsmiths Hall in the afternoon as he now remembers and that this Informant was then a Member of Parliament but not of that Committee And this Informant saith that sir Iohn Stawell said these words I am no Delinquent which words he

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