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
A88820	To the Honourable, the Referrees of his Highnesse most Honourable Councel, in the cause between Sir John Stowell and the purchasers. The humble petition of William Lawrence of Edenburgh, esq.	Lawrence, William, 1613 or 14-1681 or 2.	1654 (1654)	Wing L692; Thomason 669.f.19[37]; ESTC R212343	4,619	1

To the Honourable the Referrees of his Highnesse most Honourable Councel in the Cause between Sir John Stowell and the Purchasers The Petition of William Lawrence of Edenburgh Esq Humbly sheweth THat whereas your Petitioner is imployed in his Highnesse service in Scotland which requires his personal attendance there And he being one of the said Purchasers as he is informed the said Sir John Stowel in his absence without summons or other legal notice hath and doth endeavour by surprize to pursue your Petitioner and work divers things against him prejudicial to his right And whereas your Petitioners purchase was before he left England confirmed by Act of Parliament and in confidence thereof your Petitioner suspecting nothing left no provision nor order against any suits not doubting the same And your Petitioner in the present condition he is in is now deprived of all counsel intelligence Agents writings evidences proofs and other things necessary to maintain a Title and of all fit means to make use of them Your Petitioner therefore humbly prayeth that no proceedings be suffered against him otherwise then is by Law allowable against a person not summoned and out of the Nation and who hath besides the warrant of an Act of Parliament which if permitted to be questioned there can be no end of controversie And that for the farther security of your Petitioner the present Petition and Reasons annexed may be read or inspected and rest with the papers of other Purchasers before your Honours to prevent any misinformation from the said Sir John Stowell And your Petitioner shall ever pray c. Reasons that the Petitioners purchase ought not to be questioned by Sir John Stowell I. Your Petitioner saith that such members of the Committee of Articles as have acted for the said Sir John Stowell against Purchasers are parties and not Judges and their Orders and Certificates ought to have no credit or authority And your Petitioner saith they have mistated the Case transgressed the duty of an inferiour jurisdiction and presumed on Acts of Sovereigne power they have wrongfully indebted the Common-wealth in vast summes of money to the said Sir John Stowel they have occasioned false scandal on it of infringing his Articles and have not beene indifferent or equal in their proceedings either as to publike or private rights all which your Petitioner will be ready to prove II. Your Petitioner saith that divers Purchasers some through fear and others by conspiracy with the said Sir John Stowell have and do put in divers feigned and feeble Petitions and pleas part of which the said Sir John Stowell to delude the vulgar hath put in print and the same purchasers have and do endeavour to betray the Cause of the Common-wealth and are companions your Petitioner therefore desireth that no proceeding be made against him in grosse but his cause heard patiently and particularly III. Your Petitioner saith that it hath been already decided and adjudged by Parliament that the said Sir John Stowell hath forfeited his Articles And thereupon the Act of sale of his estate was made and that judgement being given by Parliament to whose proceedings Purchasers neither could or ought to be privie and so much time since past That though the Evidence and proofs were then never so clear yet the memory may be now lost The Members witnesses proofs dead removed unknown or taken off It would be unreasonable to put Purchasers now to prove over againe what hath beene adjudged and would not onely question Sir John Stowels but most part of all the lands the Parliament ever sold or shall sell IV. Your Petitioner saith notwithstanding that if he shall be inforced he will prove that the said Sir John Stowell never submitted to composition according to Articles and that he hath both omitted committed divers Acts then and since which have clearly forfeited them V. There is sufficient publikely and vulgarly known of the said Sir John Stowell as none needs admire at the judgement passed against him for he offered nothing but insolencies and affronts to the Parliament it self when brought before them he reviled the Committee for compounding charging them to be delinquents themselves He charged the Judges at the Upper Bench that they sate by a countefeit Seale and that they were mock-Judges and the Jury a pack of Knaves he openly denied and defied the Supreme authority and charged the Court and Attorney-General with high Treason for acting by it publickly and to their faces He declared for the Scots in Armes against this Common-wealth till all was lost he made only a shew and pretence to desire to compound but really resolved and declared against it and derided and scorned all those who submitted to it All which was besides many others 1. No fit language or behaviour to demand a Composition with 2. A breach of the peace within the Parliaments quarters 3. An incensing of the people to rebel and adhere to the enemy 4 The highest prejudice to the Parliaments quarters a prisoner could do though he knew by his Articles he was not to prejudice the same and had given security to that end 5. Divers of the same Acts have been made treasonable by Ordinance of Parliament 6. If any innocent person had presumed on halfe so much it had been his ruine VI The said Sir John Stowell refused to acknowledge himself a Delinquent and thereby wilfully refused his Composition 1. It was the command of the Parliament and the Commissioners for compounding could not justifie composition on any other termes 2. The house of Lords being part of the Parliament had not then confirmed his Articles 3. The Parliament had considerately designed that all Delinquency should remaine of Record that both in the disposing of offices of trust and power and other future Acts relating to the Common-wealth they might the more readily guide themselves 4. A dishonour might have been aspersed upon them That it had been Latrocinium and not Bellum a robbery and no just warre if together with the penalties a confession or tryal of the offence had not likewise appeared 5. Both Commissioners and Sequestrators might have been otherwise liable to future actions and suits from the said Sir John Stowell and his heirs 6. The Parliament had appointed other Courts as namely the Commissioners of Appeals and those of the Common-Law for relief of persons sequestred being not Delinquents which were open unto him for trial if he would stand on that point But by standing on it with the Commissioners for compounding 't is clear he ousted them of jurisdiction to meddle with him 7. His refusal was not out of errour or mistake but advisedly and obstinately and after he was told of it 8. Both before and at time of making his Articles it was known that by the usual course of submitting to composition the first point was acknowledgement of Delinquency and therefore if the said Sir John Stowell had not liked it he might have chosen whether he would have