Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	assemble_v	king_n	parliament_n	11,796	5	6.7701	4	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

comprised within the Articles of Exon or of any other Garison or not within Articles yet did they Petition in that manner although they were as zealous for their King as Sir John Stawel deeming it wisdom in them rather so to do then to run the hazard of not performing their Articles and thereby of the loss of their Liberty and Estate and especially since such acknowledgment or expression and formality of Address was within the intention of those Articles For if a man agreeth to submit to a Composition with these Exceptions certainly he doth agree to submit to all other Rules for such Composition not formerly excepted and this was a constant rule and observed at and before the time of the making of those Articles And therefore in regard Sir John Stawel did refuse to insert such an Acknowledgment or Expression in his Petition he hath in a second particular neglected the performance of his Articles and that premediately since he was preadvised Neither is it satisfactory when Sir John alleageth That he did tell Mr. Ashe he had borne Arms for the late King and by his command unless for the Reasons aforesaid he had in writing affirmed as much And yet this very Paper or pretended Petition which was thus delivered was not presented by himself but put in by a Solicitor And Sir John did refuse to subscribe the same as Mr. Michael Herring hath lately affirmed before a Committee of this present Parliament sitting in the Star-chamber And if it shall be objected That although the several Orders aforesaid did inable that Committee to compound onely with Delinquents it followeth not They should compound with none but such as in terminis acknowledged Delinquency It is easily answered when it is considered That Sir John was not advised to acknowledge in express terms That he was a Delinquent but if he had in his Petition set forth some act done by him amounting to Delinquency it had been sufficient but one of them he was by the constant rules of the Committee to insert in his Petition which Sir Iohn refused Sir Henry Berkley with others came in upon the Articles of Exon as well as Sir Iohn yet Sir Henries Petition was in these words To the Honorable Committe for Compounding with Delinquents The humble Petition of Sir Henry Berkley Knight Sheweth THat your Petitioner as formerly a Commissioner of the Army for His Majesty and since did voluntarily contribute to the Forces raised against the Parliament by means whereof he is become under the notion of a Delinquent That being in the City of Exeter upon the delivery thereof humbly craves the benefit of the Articles of the same And that he may be admitted to a favorable Composition for his offence according to the value of his Estate to the end he may free the same from Sequestration And he shall pray c. Subscribed Hen. Berkley But Sir Iohn having taken on a Resolution not to compound took up all pretences to avoid the same But Mr. Ashe asked him as Sir Iohn objecteth whether he had taken the negative Oath and Covenant to whom Sir Iohn answering no and that his Articles did free him from taking any Oaths Mr. Ashe replyed that before he could be admitted to Composition with them he must take them both It is answered that there then lay on that Committee a command several Ordinances of both Houses the transcripts whereof are inserted that injoined them to tender that Covenant and negative Oath to all persons that came to compound and to secure their persons upon refusal Sab. 1 Nov. 1645. ORdered by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled That the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall shall have power to tender the Solemn League and Covenant to all persons that come out of the Kings quarters to that Committee to compound either upon Mr. Speakers Pass or otherwise and to secure such as shall refuse to take the Covenant until they shall conform thereunto Sab. 5. April 1645. BE it ordained by the Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled That all and every person of what degree or quality soever that hath lived or shall live within the Kings quarters or been aiding assisting or adhearing unto the forces raised against the Parliament and hath or shall come to inhabite or reside under the power and protection of the Parliament shall swear upon the holy Evangelists in manner following I A. B. do swear from my heart that I will not directly nor indirectly adhere unto or willingly assist the King in the war or in this cause against the Parliament nor any forces raised without the consent of the two Houses in this cause or war And I do likewise swear that my coming and submitting my self under the power and Protection of the Parliament is without any manner of design whatsoever to the prejudice of the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament and without the direction privity or advice of the King or any of his Councel or Officers other then in what I have now made known so help me God and the contents of this book And be it ordained by the Authority aforesaid that the Commissioners for the keeping of the great Seal of England for the time being shall have power are hereby authorised to tender administer the said Oath unto any Peer or Wife or Widdow of any Peer so coming to inhabit as aforesaid And it shall be lawful to and for the Committee of the House of Commons for Examinations the Committee for the Militia in London and all Committies of Parliament in the several Counties Cities of the Kingdome to tender and administer the said Oath unto every other person so coming to inhabite a abovesaid if any person not being a member of or assistant unto either of the Houses of the Parliament shall refuse or neglect to take the said Oath so duely tendered unto him or her as abovesaid the said Commissioners and Committees respectively shall and may commit the same person to some prison there to remain without bail or mainprize untill he shall conform thereunto It is true that the Articles of Exon do free all persons comprised therein from all Oaths Covenants and Protestations but it is likewise as true that those Articles were not at the time of Sir Iohn's being at Goldsmiths Hall confirmed by both Houses as in right they then ought indeed the House of Commons had before that time confirmed them viZ. sixth of May 1646. but they were confirmed by both Houses not before the fourth of Nov. 1647 above an year after Sir Iohns being there so as the command of tendering this Oath and Covenant lay still upon that Committee and they were not to compound with any person be he within Articles or without before he had taken them and therefore it was no injustice in that Committee to deny Sir Iohn to treat with him before he was sworn for they were prohibited otherwise to admit him to Composition which Sir Anthony Irbie in his

and there did draw bloud and so continued in arms in the said County against the Parliament and raised great sums of money to assist the King against the Parliament Committed this Examinant to the common Goal and there kept him in prison and in chains by the space of one whole year and more and threatned to hang this Examinant divers times and said he was a Traitor against the King and did demand sums of money of him as he remembers 20 l. or more and further saith that he was carried from the Goal to the Assizes for this County and there was indicted for High Treason and the Bill then found against him And this Examinant verily believeth and to his best remembrance saith That Sir John Stawell was then present at the same Assizes Will. Cady By which Depositions of William Cady it is manifest that Sir Iohn Stawell fought and drew blood at Marshals Elme yet Sir John Stawels honorable testimony would perswade that they believe he did hurt or wound no man there A very neat belief to mince a truth as if the wounding of Ward to desperation of life found so by verdict his hacking and hewing upon the pursuit proved by Nicholas Ward and his fighting and drawing of bloud attested by William Cady were no hurting of any man These Depositions likewise prove the cruelty of Sir John and yet Sir John thinks it impossible for him to be guilty of so much bloud and cruelty as is mentioned in the Petition of Cady and Ward as if 26 wounds draw little or no bloud and as if chains irons close imprisonment exaction of great fines of well-affected persons to advance the late Kings interest to the destruction of the Commonwealth as the insuing Depositions will plainly manifest be less cruelty then is mentioned in their moderate Petition We do pray that Sir John may no longer stand on publick extenuation of these and the ensuing outrages of his but in secret repent them humbly imploring the divine mercy to avoid divine Justice being the readiest way to pacifie the restless proceedings of them who as he scandalously pretendeth hate him without a cause but probably are the instruments of that Justice Sir Johns Remonstrance hath brought us to the year 1643. and to Marquiss Hartfords approach to the Town of Taunton the place which afterward God preserved amidst the fires and notwithstanding the adusted wrath and rage of the besiegers and which Sir John during his Command thereof made the Rendezvous of Tyranny and arbitrary power not to advance the Royal Interest as was divulged but as is very likely to satisfie the displeasure he had taken up against the Inhabitants thereof upon the occasion abovesaid upon which approach these faithfull Inhabitants finding that they were not of strength sufficient to protect themselves from this rebellion sent their Justice of Peace Mr. George Powel and one Mr. Nicholas to the Besiegers to Treat of a Rendition upon Articles during which Treaty and after Articles agreed on amongst which some of them were That the Inhabitants should be free from Plunder and Imprisonment the Enemy upon pretence without the least ground of truth or probability that the Inhabitants were flying with their Moveables whereas they were in truth some strangers only then in the Town that went out did enter the same and notwithstanding those Articles plundered it to the value of 10000 l. and imprisoned the then Maior and chief Inhabitants thereof With what face then can Sir John now call so loud upon the faith of the Parliament and their Armies to perform their Articles when himself and his associates then brake theirs Now after this Plunder was made then Sir Iohn as he saith intreated that the Town might be admitted to a reasonable Fine which was assessed at 8000 l. a sum which that poor exhausted Town was not able to pay the richest of them being before that time plundered to what could be found And this moderate Fine was thus imposed likely to the knowledge of Sir Iohn if not by his Vote for he was then of the Councel of War that imposed it and Governor of the Town And yet now he saith it was 8000 l. as he hath heard To gain which Government Walter Cliffe the Gaoler Aldred Seaman and others Sir Iohns Agents were sent to gain subscriptions to the Petition in that Remonstrance recited page 13. which Petition was drawn beforehand and without the knowledge of the Inhabitants some of whom in hopes to get out of prison and others for fear of being imprisoned subscribed the same and such as denied their subscriptions thereunto were by Sir John Stawels special command inhumanly dealt with Sir John having thus gained unto himself the Government of this Garrison begins his intended revenge on the Inhabitants labouring with all rigour to extort that fine from them which he knew to be unreasonable and contrary to Articles to maintain as he confesseth page 16. the souldiers left there in Garrison indeed his fellow-Traitors And such Inhabitants as refused to pay the same either through a good affection to the Parliament or disability he imprisoned laid them in irons threatned to hang them and denied them humane necessaries causing a spout to be taken away which served them with rain water for their drink In which hardships Sir John kept them untill he had gained from them such sums of money as he thought fitting and then scoffingly boasted that he now knew a way to get money meaning by hard imprisonment and the torment of irons to inforce men by any means to raise sufficient to satisfie him Neither will his allegation that the Town agreed with the Marquiss to pay that fine any way excuse him in regard such Composition was contrary to their Articles and made when a plundring sword was amongst them Mr. George Powel was then a Justice of the Peace in that Town and how Sir John used him his depositions and his wifes attestation will declare being as followeth viz. October 22 1650. Examinations taken upon Oath the day and year above written by vertue of Directions from the right Honorable the High Court of Justice concerning certain high Crimes and misdemeanors committed by Sir John Stawell Knight of the Bath for Levying War against the Parliament of England GEorge Powel of Taunton in the County of Somerset Gentleman aged 30 years or thereabouts sworn and examined saith That in or about the fifth day of June in the year 1643. Sir John Stawell Knight of the Bath then in company with the Lord Marquiss of Hartford and others entred the said Town of Taunton in an hostile way having the day before summoned the said Town and Castle for the use of the late King which Town and Castle had then declared to be kept for the use of the King and Parliament who after their entring and so by force and power seized on this Deponent with many others and by one Davis their Marshal kept him prisoner some daies This Deponent then being

allow to such persons as should claim releife by Articles were both received and it was resolved upon the question in the Negative which he prayeth may be specially observed It may be thought presumption in Sir Iohn to intimate any reason or grounds of the refusal of those Provisoes and it would be modesty in us not to imitate him yet in answer to that his intimation we say that the Parliament as appeareth by their proceedings intended so much in the case of Sir Iohn Stawell though perhaps they would not have such a general proviso incerted either because their was no Judgement Vote or Resolution of that Parliament touching Articles but in the Case of Sir Iohn Stawell or because they presumed as well they might that their inferior deivrative Court of Articles would not call inquestion any of their proceedings but as soon as they did find that that Court had proceeded in the Case of Sir Iohn Stawell they forthwith by their Resolution of the 24 of Febr. abovesaid prohibited them any further proceedings especially when that Court began to proceed to sentence contrary to their judgement untill that time wisely forbearing their prohibition in expectation of that subordinate Courts submission to their Declaration of Sir Iohns not admittance to compound and their disposition of his Estate There is likewise a Proviso in that Act of reviver which in effect is the same with the recited Proviso and is in these words viZ. Provided That such person or persons claiming benefit of Articles as aforesaid have not forfeited the same by breach or nonperformance of what is or was on their part to be performed since those Articles were so granted And there cannot be a more supream Declaration or Judgement then that of the Parliament it self that Sir Iohn had forfeited the benefit of his Artitles and therefore the Case of Sir Iohn Stawell the onely Case depending in Parliament touching Articles was already provided for and by consequence that Proviso needless The second Proviso seemeth as needless to be inserted in this Act of Reviver for since it doth revive the former Act and doth enable that newly erected Court to put in execution all and every the powers expressed in that former Act one of which powers is to releive and redress the parties complaining so far as in justice they ought to have by the said Articles by restitution in specie or in value c. That Proviso speaks no more then what was enacted in the very body of that Act and for that reason doubtless was laid aside The next material thing for our Answer is the Letter of Sir Anthony Irbie mentioned in the Remonstrance page 59. to be directed to Mr. Tracy Pauncefoot Reg. of the Court of Articles and at large inserted and because he did Sir Iohn such good service by his said Letter Sir Iohn hath produced him as a Witness before the present Committee of Parliament where his examination was in these words viZ. The Examination of Anthony Irby Knight taken the 16 of November 1654. before the Committee of Parliament to whom the Lord Cravens Petition is referr'd being produced as a Witness on the behalf of Sir John Stawel whose Petition is referred by the Parliament to this Committee VVHo saith That he was one of the Committee for Compounding sitting at Goldsmiths Hall and was present there when Sir Iohn Stawel did prefer his Petition to compound And saith that the same was so preferred within the time limited by the Articles of Exeter as appeared by the Pass of Sir Thomas Fairfax And saith that the said Petition was read at the board but something therein was disliked for Sir Iohn Stawel did not acknowledge his Delinquencie nor would he take the Covenant and Negative Oath And further saith that Sir Iohn Stawel did not behave himself misbecomingly as this Deponent conceiveth only did insist upon the Articles of Exeter and said that by them he was to be admitted to Composition and he this Examinant took no exceptions at his carriage And saith that in those times there was want of mony and it was his opinion that Sir Iohn Stawel ought to compound And further saith That at that time this Examinant did not know of any body that was about to buy any part of Sir Iohn Stawels Estate but saith That about two or three yeares ago as he remembreth he was at Sir Abraham Williams his house being about the time of Sir Iohn Stawels Trial for his life or presently after as he remembreth and there he met Sir Edward Baynton and enquired of him the reason of the prosecution of Sir Iohn Stawell And Sir Edward Baynton then told this Examinant That there was a Gentleman who would have bought a Mannor of Sir Iohn Stawell in Somersetshire or Wiltshire he cannot tell whether and that he the said Sir Edward Baynton had some interest in part of it and had offered if Sir Iohn Stawell would sell his part he also would sell his other part but said that afterwards he was sorry for that offer because he conceived that was the original of Sir Iohn Stawels troubles And this Examinant further saith That Sir Iohn Stawell came punctually within the time limited by his Articles for that the Committee for compounding gave him a time to appear after the date of the time given by the said Articles on purpose that the Committee might shew him no favor when the time given by the Articles was out And saith That Sir Edward Baynton told him this Examinant that the person who would buy the said Mannor was Mr. Iohn Ash And this Examinant further saith That one of the Members of that Committee being the Chairman told the Committee that Sir Iohn Stawell was without with a Petition but said the same was failing in many circumstances And saith That after the Case then in debate was ended which was one Berkleys as this Deponent now remembers Sir Iohn Stawell was called in And this Examinant being now demanded whether Sir Iohn Stawell had subscribed not to bear arms against the Parliament as was required by his Articles This Examinate saith that there was a Committee who sate in Goldsmiths Hall to take Subscriptions without which as he remembreth Delinquents were not to stay within the Lines of Communication but saith that he doth not remember that ever he saw any Certificate that Sir Iohn Stawel had subscribed not to bear arms nor did he ever see the Certificate of any other person to that purpose that came to compound And this Examinant further saith That the Committee had an Order of Parliament not to compound with any that did not take the Covenant and Negative oath which latter the Committee had power to administer and the same was tendred to Sir Iohn Stawel but he refused to take it and said he was excused by his Articles And this Examinant further faith That it was not then objected against Sir Iohn Stawel that he had not subscribed the Engagement not to bear arms