Selected quad for the lemma: virtue_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
virtue_n	act_n	authority_n	enact_v	904	5	10.1864	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

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