Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	commissioner_n	john_n	sir_n	10,577	5	6.4155	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A73539	A declaration of the especiall vntruths contained in Morgans Bill exhibited in Parliament against Bowd[ler and] Meggs; Iones, and others, with answeres thereunto as hereunder followeth. Viz.	Bowdler, Richard.	1621 (1621)	STC 3432.7; ESTC S125196	7,410	2

in the subscription albeit he charged Bowdler with his promise of sauing him harmelesse Obiect 1618. 7. October One Commission beeing expired and no end made the Commissioners perswaded Morgan to enter Bond to stand to their Award whch he consented prouided that all th● Defendants would doe the like whereupon Meggs Bowdler and Turner only sealed Bonds but the rest refused which Morgan disliking procued a new Cmmission with direction a● in the first Commission but they refused thereupon to proceed as Coommissioners because Morgan was bound and but three of the Defendants Ans The Commissioners did not perswade Morgan but Morgan perswaded and intreated the Commissioners to goe on in an ar●itrary course when the first Commission was expired and he voluntarily did offer to seale new Bonds to stand to their award and he did accept of Meggs Turner and Bowdler their Bonds without the rest saying that those were the men he aymed at and desired the Commissioners to proceed without the other Bonds as by Morgans hand in the Booke of the Commissioners appeareth And touching the refusall of the Commissioners to proceed vpon the Commission which Morgan brought downe it was because the Lord Chancellor did the next day superseade the same with an other Commission of other content Obiect 1618. 5. Ianuary They made an Award and ordered Morgan to ceasse all Suits against Megs Iones Essington Barlow and Sir Iohn Bourchier with diurs other things not referred to them Ans They did not in their award order any such matter neyther did meddle with any thing which was not referred Obiect 21. Ianuary The Award was ordered by the Lord Chancellor to be spared for 11. Causes Ans The order for suspending the said Award contaynes but fiue Causes and they are particularly and fully answered by the Cerificate of the Commissioners of the ninth of February 1618. yet to giue a particular answere to them all it followeth Obiect 1. THey neuer tooke the Answere of Meggs and Bowdler to Morgans Bill whereunto they had demurred which was the first thing directed in t●eir Commission Ans 1. THe Commissioners did often call to Morgan to declare his exceptions to the said answers but he said it should not be needfull if ●ey made an Award as he hoped th● would doe And so indeed at last when they had examined all Accompts and found Morgan to be indebted to Bowdler they did t●inke it vnnecessary Obiect 2. They did not examine any Witnesses or Parties during all their proceedings but only Iohn Greennowes who is deeply engage for Bowdler and being chargeabl● 〈◊〉 these Monies himselfe sweares to free himselfe by charging Morgan therewith Ans 2. They did examine or cause to be examined at Hambrough in Germany one Iohn Qua●les Factor to Alderman Gore whose Depositions are aswell returned i● the Court as those of Iohn Greenowes and are vpon Record Besides when Morgan refused to take his Oath or to confesse the truth ●efore the Commissioners touchin● monies pretended by him to haue beene paid to Bowater Hoste Cleaue and others then the Commissioners did examine the said partis who did confront Morgan face t● face and forced him to confesse the truth as by their Certificate vpon Record in Court appeares Also it is to be considered that in exarining of Marchants Accompts the 〈◊〉 cannot be so full and sufficient testimony produced vpon Oath as by the comparing of Factors Accompts and Letters who had weekly Correspondence one with the othe● Lastly Iohn Greenowes was not chargeable to Bowdler for such mony as hee receiued by Morgans appointment but he rather by his Oa● made himselfe lyable to the ●ai● Morgan so that he did not sweare to free himselfe Obiect 3. The Commissioners charged Morgan for all seuen of the Defendants Ans 3 It is vntrue that he is charged with one peny for any of the Defendants for the Accompts doe concerne Bowdler only although Morgan had maliciously made the rest Defendants Obiect 4. They charged Morgan also for three others viz. Pasfijld Greenowes and Aniscombe Bowdlers Factors who were meere strangers to the Suite and to their Arbitrement Ans 4. These three Factors had conti●uall weekly dealings and intercourse with Morgan touching receits and payments of mony each for other and Accompts passed betweene them and Bowdler and Morgan so that necessarily Morgan must be charged with such summes of money as the said Factors or any of them did pay to him or by his appointment as on the other side the Commissioners discharged M●●gan of such monies as he paid for Bowdler to the said Factors Obiect 5. The Commissioners allowed Bowdler diuers great summes which they pretend Morgan receiued for Bowdler in Anno 1607. and 1608. which is before the time that Bowdler demands reliefe by his owne Bill for he pretends Errors of 1609. 1610. 1611. 1612. only Ans 5. There is but only one parcell allowed to Bowdler before Anno 1609. which is only for 112. l. 13. s. 4. Flemish money and it was apparently proued to the Commissioners against Morgan by his owne Letters that he was to be charged with it Besides before the Commissioners did enter into examination of the Accompts and differences of the parties they caused each party to set downe in writing his demands against the other at which time Morgan made no such exception Obiect 6. The Commissioners Awarded Morgan to allow to Bowdler great summes which hee neuer demanded by Bill or otherwise which Morgan neuer heard off till after their Award whereby hee could not answere them Ans 6. This accusation is most false For the Commissioners haue not allowed to Bowdler any one summe which at the first meeting before the Commissioners was not demanded in writing but they haue giuen Bowdler much short of his demands and caused him to particularize his demands of interest whereby the summes are varyed from the first demand and made lesse but not more then at the first and likewise a Copie of the said demands was giuen to Morgan and he did answere thereunto before the Commissioners Obiect 7. They allowed to Bowdler 8000. l. more then he did demand by Bill for he demands but 3000. l. and they haue giuen him 11000 l. Ans 7. The Commissioners according to the manner of Marchants at first meeting required both parties to expresse their demands in writings and accordingly they proceeded in the examining of their Accompts for the order of reference to the Commissioners was to examine the Accompts and not the Bill Also Bowdler demands by Bill reliefe for 3000. l. which Morgan should owe him accompting it ouer and aboue all that Morgan had payd for him of which kinde of payments the Commissioners allowed to Morgan 8000. l. Flemish at the least Besides by way of accompt exhibited in writing before the Commissioners Bowdler did demand much more then 11000. l. Obiect 8. They Awarded Turner and his Company to free Morgan from Peter Courten and 40. other Creditors of theirs

in all for aboue 18000. l. sterling yet they neuer mention who that Companie was for those that truly were of that Company viz. Meggs Iones Essington Barlow and Sir Iohn Bourchier they Award Morgan to ceasse all Suites against them by name but order not them to ceasse Suite against Morgan Ans 8. First of the pretended some of 18000. l. there was paid to Courten 12000. l. and diuers other summes to other men but Morgan was neuer engaged for any part thereof except to Courten although to satisfie his clamorous di●position the Commissioners did Award him to bee saued harmelesse Secondly Morgan had the same securitie vnder the name of Bowdler and his company which his Letter of Attorney did mention and he did know the company better then the Commissioners Thirdly Meggs Essington and Barlow were none of the Company Neither did the Commissioners order that Morgan should release to them or to Sir Iohn Bourchier as truely is alleaged Obiect 9. They Awarded Morgan to seale a Release vnto Bowdler whereby Bowdlers Counterbond of a 1000. l. sealed to Morgan to saue him harmelesse of the Bond of 50 which he sealed to Meggs for Bowdler should be discharged without giuing Morgan any allowance for it or Awarding Meggs to deliuer vp the said Bond or seale Morgan a Rel● Ans 9. By order of Court at the Rolles vpon the 22. of April 1618. it was ordered that the Accompts betweene Bowdler and Morgan being then vnder exam●tion before Master Barkehouse and other Commissioners if vpon perfecting of the said Examination it should appeare that Morgan was indebted to Bowdler 500. l. order then hee should pay to Meggs so much as he should be to Bowdler indebted and no more but if Bowdler were found indebted to Morgan then the Bond of Morgan Meggs of 500. l. should bee cancelled Now considering this order and that M●rgan had only sealed Bond before these Commissioners to pay to Meggs Wha● should be found indebted to Bowdler and not to p●y Bowdler any thing he is not wronged by this Award in this point For by Morgans paying of the Awarded sum● Meggs his Bond is discharged and he being found in Bowdlers debt Bowdlers counter-bond ought to be discharged Obiect 10. They Award Morgan to pay 579. l. 6. s. 0. vnto Bowdler within three monethes yet they limit Bowdler Turner and his Company no time to free Morgan of ingagements for them for aboue 18000. l. sterling Ans 10. The engagements are only imaginary and not reall yet the Commissioners did prouide that if any suite were commenced against Morgan hee shoul● thereof saued harmelesse from time to time vpon notice by him giuen to Bowdler or Turner of the said suite c. If they fayled herein he might take remedy vpon th● Bonds according to the Award For the Commissioners did not order Morgan to seale any release to them or they to him before all Articles of their Award were respectiuely performed Obiect 11. Lastly the Commissioners did not pursue the directions of their Commission in any one particular but did proceed most erroniously Ans 11. They did not vary from the directions of the Court in any thing except by the intreatie and consen of all parties as by their Certifcate of the ninth of February 1618. appeareth Besides being at last become Arbitrators and the said course vndertaken by perswasion of all parties and Bonds mutuall● sealed to abide their Award they were no longer bound to the formall proceedings and directions of the Court but for their better satisfaction they might proce●d as Marchants in t●● examination of Marchants Accompts Obiect 1618. 6. February The fiue Arbitrators petitioned the Lord Chancellor that they might not certifie the particulars of their Award Ans This is most vntrue for at this time they were not ordered to certifie any particulars and did not require any other thing of the Lord C●ancellor but that they might keepe their day Booke and other Papers whereby they might be able at all times to iustifie their Award and to shew the Reasons thereof Obiect 19. Februay The Commissioners or Arbitrators would not obey any of the orders of Court for redeliuery of Morgans Papers Ans As Morgan vpon one day procured an order which commanded the redeliuery so Bowdler the next day procured a counter-mand But at ●●ct when the order wa● setled they did obey Obiect 1619. 15. Aprilis 16. ●●ne The Commissioners being ordered to certifie to the Court the Reasons of their Award they still refused vntill Morgan forced them by an Attachmen● of the 20. of Iuly 1619. Ans They were neuer serued with Attachment neither was their any cause why Morgan should presse them to bring in their Reasons for that order was begot vpon the motion of Bowdlers Councell and not of Morgans besides the said order for certifying the particular Reasons of their Award was made but vpo● the 16. of Iune 1619. And they returned a Certificate vpon the fift day of August following which contayned the particuler labours of 160. dayes spent in that examin●tion and filled 150. sheets of Paper so that lesse time could not bee allowed for such a Certificate which was so exactly and fully declared Obiect 1619. 5. August They certifie the particulars of their Award and certifie that Master William Towerson and Master Ralph Freeman were priuie to all the●r said Proceedings Ans They did not certifie them to bee priuy to all their proceedings but did particularly set downe what parcels they were priuie vnto Obiect 18. Decemb. That six other Commissioners were appointed who assisted with the Auditor of the Chancery were to examine all Accompts Letters and Writings as also the Award of the Arbitrators Ans It is true that six other Commissioners were appointed but two of them were Masters of the Court and appointed to be continually presert or no meeting without them who out of their formalitie ouer-ruled the Marchants And the order of Reference made vnto these Committees was so full of restriction that thereby Morgan false Accompts could not be perfectly discouered neither could the truth of Bowdlers case be made apparant as by the order it selfe appeareth And the said Commitees because the Certificate of the first Commissioners was damned by the Lord Chancellor before he referred the consideration thereof vnto them therefore they could not allow of their testimonie in the said Certificate so that it was to no purpose that they were to examine it And likewise other Accompts Letters and Writings of Factors could not be admitted because not proued in Court Obiect That the six last Committees with the Auditor had often conference with the first Arbitrators Ans 13. Marc. The Committees and the Arbitrators neuer had meeting together for Master Towerson one of the last Committees did often mooue the Masters of the Court that they might haue called the Arbitrators vnto them but they would not consent thereunto Obiect The Cause being heard in open Court in presence of all parties and their Councell neither partie nor Councell denyed the truth of the last Certificate as by order appeares Ans 1620. 6. May. Many Obiections were made against the said Certificate by euery one of the parties and also their Councell albeit the order doth vntruly otherwise declare but the corruptions of those times was such that truth could take no place either in orders or otherwise Obiect The Cause being heard i● open Court it was finally decreed Ans 19. Iune 24. Dict● The Decree was made after the 26. of Iune but not in open Court neither at a Seale but very priuately in my Lords Chamber no one of the parties beeing present at the pronouncing thereof