Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	lord_n	way_n	word_n	3,986	5	4.1445	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67889	The vindication of Sr. John Stawells remonstrance, against a scurrilous pamphlet written by Mr. John Ash; entituled An answer to divers scandalls mentioned in the humble remonstrance of Sr. John Stawell. As also an answer to a petition of William Lawrence of Edenburgh, Esq; whereunto certain reasons are annexed, directed to the honourable the referrees of his highness most honourable council. With a conclusion humbly offered unto his highnesse the Lord Protector. / Written by Sr. John Stawell. Wherunto are annexed, a letter of Sir Anthony Irbyes, and a short reply of Sr. David Watkins relating unto some parts of the said pamphlet.	Stawell, John, Sir, 1599-1662.; Irby, Anthony, Sir, d. 1682.; Watkins, David, Sir.	1655 (1655)	Wing S5352; ESTC R208228	86,641	91

speak all that I had to say when J replyed that J had spoken all the Lord President spake letting me know the Court had with much patience heard me tell a long story though no way pertinent to the matter before them the substance being that Mr. Ash advised me to sel my Farm at Aubury and with that money to pay my Composition But the Lord President demanded whether he or any for him treated with me for buying of it or whether he discovered a desire to buy the Farm at Aubury That J answered his Lordship he did not and therupon the Lord President demanding how the Story could then reflect upon Mr. Ash J answered that J beleived Mr. Ash intended to buy the Farm because he had advised me to sell it This is in short the substance of his relation if at least that may be said to have a substance which is nothing only an invention of his own But Mr. Ash is very just in this particular and hath not only performed but is according to the Proverb better then his word For having assured me when I reproached him with his covetousness in the da●k corner that he would deny all that discourse if I should charge him with it He hath not only made this good but hath invented also this formall Story to give a countenance to his denyall And this J shall most cleerly prove not by the boldness of an affirmation as he hath done but by the undeniable Evidence of the Proceedings in the High Court where whatsoever was read or spoken was taken at first in short-hand by Mr. Pococke a person authorized therunto and afterwards written at large for information of that Court And is by Authority of the Court of Articles and by consent of Mr. Attorney Generall and my Counsell admitted as indifferent Evidence By this it doth appear that Mr. Attorney Generall upon the first sitting of the Court acquainted them that Mr. Ash and Mr. Stephens did both of them appear that day being the first time that they came to be examined as witnesses in my Cause and without mentioning any thing in the least kind of what is here affirmed by Mr Ash desired they might be sworn to give their Evidence and they were sworn accordingly and did deliver what they had to say before J spoke at all concerning Mr. Ash his carriage But when upon my answer to their Evidence J had in part laid open these his practises against me Mr. Attorney Generall was then so far from taking notice to the Court that what J spake did not at all answer to the reports about the Town as that he appealed unto the Court whether that so much as a word concerning Mr. Ash was spoken before that he was then present in the Court and gave his Evidence For proof wherof J shall insert here what was spoken by Mr. Attorney at the first entring into the business of the day and what he after urged when they had given their Evidence and I had made an answer to them which followes as it is in the aforesaid Record Verbatim thus expressed Wednesday 22. of Ianuary 1650. THe Cause of meeting this day my Lord was the Parliament on the tryall of Sir John Stawell had especially appointed that Mr. John Ash should be examined in this Cause he was sent to but it pleas'd the Lord to lay his hand upon him that he could not appeare Mr. Stephens likewise that was a member of the House was then out of Town you were pleased to appoint this day upon this occasion and Sir John Stawell had timely notice of it t is upon the speciall Plea we have done with that of not guilty I desire if you please that Mr. Ash and Mr. Stephens may have their Oaths given to them that they may give in their Evidence what they know of this business of Sir John Stawell Mr. Iohn Ash and Mr. Iohn Stephens are sworne My Lord if you please J will begin with Mr. Ash. If you please Mr. Attorney Let his Plea be read The Clark reads Sir Iohn Stawells Plea 1. That he is not lyable to the charge now read against him by the Act appointing his Tryall being a person admitted to Composition 2. That by the Articles of Exeter confirmed by Parliament he ought not to be Questioned for the offences laid to his charge Mr. Ash and Mr. Stephens did after this give in their Evidence against me to which J answered and having touched upon this passage together with some other things concerning Mr. Ash his practises against me Mr. Attorney Generall did then apply himself to the Court and spake as followeth My Lord I thought that Sir John Stawells own Iudgment would have made use of the liberty given him in a fair way I appeal to your memories whether any one word of this of Mr. Ash was said before Now Mr. Ash is here and speaks that Sir John Stawell thinks goes to the quick now it is time to revile and scandalize And therfore having fully cleered by this Record how grossely he hath erred in his relation I leave it to the Readers judgment what credit is to be given unto him touching discourses passed in private betwixt us who hath the Impudence to forge and publish this as a thing that passed in publike in the Court And that he had for proof therof a hundred Witnesses when as unto a thing that is so evident there is no doubt but every one of all those Witnesses will upon the reading hereof assent unto the truth of it Secondly That Mr. Ash notwithstanding his impudence to deny the truth doth yet confess that he did move me to sell Aubury for payment of my Fine though he doth deny that he had an intention to buy it yet it appears by Sir Edward Bayntons discourse unto Sir Anthony Irby mentioned in his Examination aforesaid that Mr. Ash himself was the person who was to be the Purchaser of that Mannor which is the substance of that wherewith J charge him And thirdly That he doth not so much as once alledge among his good advises to me that he perswaded me unto a Composition according to the Articles of Exeter that being the thing wherof I was desirous but to acknowledge my miscarriage at Goldsmiths Hall where I have shewed already that I had not at all offended and therfore could not acknowledge this or crave the pardon of the House as Mr. Ash advised me without confessing of a Crime wherof I was not guilty and subjecting my self unto the censure of the House as a person who had affronted the Committee imployed under them So as if I had been remitted to Goldsmiths Hall to make a Composition they must have needs according unto Justice ordered the Committee to have received a Fine from me not only in relation to my Articles but also for that pretended contempt of their Authority which Mr. Ash had a desire I should confess for his own

meet Io. Bradshaw Will. Underwood Matth. Sheppard Iohn Ireton Iohn Hayes Edw. Whalley Clem. Oxenbridge William Bosvile Tho. Mytton Queens-Court Westminster 15 March 1653. This is a true Copy Exam. Tracy Pauncefote Regist. THe right I have to my Estate upon a Composition according to my Articles notwithstanding the said Act of confirmation appears clearly by this Certificate and the restoring of it unto me will not be so destructive to Mr. Lawrence as he pretends satisfaction being made unto him of what he hath disbursed because upon the restoring of my Estate his Lease also is revived and the forfeiture by Feoffments or otherwise if any were is purged neither can he be prejudiced by any penal Covenants and Bonds to warranty in regard the disability to perform them will in this Case proceed from the Law not his Laeches or default THere now remains nothing for me to answer but the Reasons therein mentioned for the establishment of publique Sale unto all which I give this general Answer That they proceed upon false and mistaken grounds proposing Profit Security Advantage and conveniency unto the State and private Purchasers as the chief end which they prefer before those great and sacred tyes of Honor Faith and Iustice recommended unto us by the Word of God and most religiously observed in all ages by the most famous Common-wealths and renowned Generals who have upon occasion always preferred the bond of Honesty and in particular the punctual observance of their Promises unto an Enemy before those things that were of highest consequence and advantage to them THemistocles did once propose to the Athenians a famous Common-wealth among the Grecians that he had a design to render them the Masters of all Greece the effecting whereof was most infallible and easie but might not be imparted to the people and did therefore desire their consent and Orders for it The Athenians before they would give their consent commanded him to propose it to Aristides who was then renowned for his great Valour as a worthy General but much more famous for his love to Justice The design being communicated by him to Aristides he let the people know that what Themistocles proposed would be indeed of very great advantage to them and was in the performance of it easie but that withall it was not honest to be done being to fire the Spartans Fleet which lay in all security upon their Coast trusting unto a Truce between them The Athenians upon the hearing of this report forthwith rejected the Propositions of Themistocles preferring the considerations of Honesty and Iustice before all those of Profit and Advantage ATtilius Regulus a Roman Consul in the first Punick War chose rather to expose himself unto and suffer death by an extremity of torments than violate his Faith given to the Enemy SExtus Son to the great Pompey refused to consent unto the breach of Articles made with Mark Anthony and Augustus Caesar although he might thereby have been with ease the Master of the then known world onely by cutting of a Cable and carrying away with him to Sea those famous Generals who doubted not to put themselves under his power relying for their security onely upon the sacred tie of Articles There may be multitudes of these Examples found out in History among the Pagans who had no other rule to guide them but the Law of Nature and the sense of Honor But among Christians the practice of it is strictly recommended to us by the Law of God and our own Country can furnish us with many presidents upon this subject THe Protestants in France during those Civil Wars which happened there about the fifth year of Queen Elizabeth delivered into her hands the strong Town of New-haven in Normandy into which she put a Garison of 3000 men commanded by the Earl of Warwick a person of great Honor and gallantry All France takes an Alarm at their arrival as being very sensible of their known valour and just pretension to that Province and a great army is presently drawn round about it to the siedge thereof the English scorn their Attempts and the great valour of the noble Earl had rendered all their expectations frustrate had not a fatal and sudden Plague fallen among the Souldiers which in a few daies consumed the greatest part of the besiedged and forced him to capitulate for rendring of the Town unto the French which he could by no means have longer kept Scarce were the Articles agreed upon and fully perfected but that the English Fleet consisting of sixty sail of ships well furnished with men and all provisions needful appeared in sight of the Town but the noble Earl who had already passed his Faith for rendering of the Town unto the French judging it to be dishonorable to break his word although to continue our possession in France gave notice to the Admiral of what had past and quitted it unto the French giving thereby a great example of his Faith and Iustice whereby he merited a favorable reception from that noble Princess and found an honorable place in history THe Case of Sir Iohn Scudamore is directly the same with mine in all its circumstances he commanded for King Henry the Sixth the Castle of Pembrook when Edward the Fourth having defeated him recovered his Right and was acknowledged King of England the Lord Herbert was imployed by the new King to reduce that Castle held by Sir Iohn Scudamore who surrendered it to the Lord Herbert upon Articles to have his life and his estate preserved unto him notwithstanding which Articles he was by the malicious practise of some enemies put into the Bill of Attainder past in the Parliament of the first year of that King for the attaining of the Servants and party of the late King Henry the Sixth and his Estate was thereby confiscate with a Proviso that it should not extend to deprive him of his life on the possession of his Goods and Chattles His Lands by vertue of that Act of Parliament were seized into the Kings hands and divers of them granted over unto others Sir Iohn Scudamore at the next Parliament preferred his Petition setting forth his Case and prayed relief upon his Articles and upon proof thereof made and by producing the Certificate of the Lord Herbert whereby it did appear such Articles were granted to him The Bill for his Attainder was reversed the Grants of the Estate ●acated and he restored to the possession of it Which is my very Case without any difference at all save onely this That he was by that Judgement settled again in his estate which I am yet in expectation of by vertue of the sentence given for me in the Court of Articles I will conclude this Point with one example drawn from the Word of God which is the best Authority and ought to be the guide of all our actions WE read in Ioshua That God himself by his Decree infinitely more just and binding

had not taken the Negative Oath and Covenant and saith that he saw the Lord Fairfax his Passe dated in Aprill and that he doth account four moneths after the rate of 28 dayes to the moneth and saith that he doth not know that any Certificate was brought to them touching subscription not to bear arms either in this or any case of persons compounding upon those Articles and saith that Sir Iohn Stawells not subscribing was not objected against him at that time Being crosse examined on the behalf of the Common-wealth saith THat some did say that Sir Iohn Stawells Petition was rather a Remonstrance than a Petition but the title was a Petition but he had not acknowledged his Delinquency nor taken the Negative Oath and Covenant and for that reason he conceives it was called a Remonstrance That the Committee were informed he had subscribed not to bear arms against the Parliament Sir Anthony Irby being Called in after the company were withdrawn and asked whether there were any private discourse at the Committee to Sir John Stawells prejudice HE saith that Sir Iohn Stawell being without the door the Chairman went out and on his return told this Examinant that Sir John Stawell was a great enemy had raised Arms against the Parliament drew the first blood in the West of England that his Petition was not valid he acknowledged no Delinquency had not taken the Negative Oath and saith that the Committee pressed him to it and upon refusall gave him time till his Articles were out because then they knew how to deal with him and saith that the Committee did not meddle with subscriptions for that was to be done by a particular Committee separated from them because that concerned Delinquents stay in town but only to see that they did take the Negative Oath and Covenant and further sayth that the second day that Sir Iohn Stawell appeared Mr. Stephens was in the Chair as he remembers My Composition being thus foyled when I first tendered it and the Committee disaffected to me by the misinformation and covert practices of Mr. Ash I who was ignorant of his designs and took him for my freind as he professed himself to me in publique expected that the Committee after they had considered that I was by my Articles excused from taking the Negative Oath and Covenant which was the only cause for which they had refused me when they had better considered of the Articles would again have called for m● and given me leave to prosecute the same and I was herein the more confirmed because I saw that by the Articles I was not limited to any time wherin I was to make my Composition but was to be admitted therunto when I should tender it and therefore I did hold my self assured that the Committee who had perceived my readines to Compound by the early tender of my Petition would not have looked upon me as a refractory person or have made use of any power to inforce me therunto And that I did not herein go upon mistaken grounds will appear plainly by a solemn Judgment and decree in the Court of Articles given in Mr. Newcourts Case wherin the Court upon consideration of a Certificate made unto them by the Commissioners for Compounding and of the Articles of Exeter resolved that he was to be suffered to make his Composition upon those Articles though he had not tendered the same till neer 3. years after the date of them and that the limitation of four moneths did concern only the excepted persons wherof I was none The Copy of which Certificate together with the Judgment and Decree of the said Court follow in these words From the Commissioners for Compounding c. the 10th of November 1652. Gent. IN pursuance of your Order of the 27th of October last in the Case of Richard Newcourt of Somerton in the County of Somerset upon search made in the Books and papers touching Compositions it appears That a Petition was Exhibited the 14th of April 1649. in the name of the said Richard Newcourt confessing that he adhered unto and assisted the forces raised against the Parliament for which his Delinquency his Estate was sequestred and desired to be admitted to Composition according to the Particular of his Estate annexed to the said Petition And a Certificate and estimate of his Estate was returned from the late Committee of Somerset the 15th of May following upon all which a Report according to the usuall manner was drawn up and the Fine set at a sixt one hundred and twenty pounds fifteen shillings no mention being made in the Petition or any other Paper touching Exeter Articles But on the 26th of March 1651. the said Richard Newcourt having obtained your Order of Reference hither the 26th of November 1649. he again Petitioned desiring to be admitted to his Composition upon the said Articles alledging that he was comprised in them and that one Mr. Smith his Sollicitor entred his former composition without mentioning the said Articles contrary to his knowledge Vpon hearing of which Petition the result was that no Order could be given here in the case And the Fine being still unpaid the Estate continues under Sequestration as by Copies of the sayd severall proceedings hereunto annexed appears Jo Leech Regist. A true Copy Tracy Pauncefote Regist. Exchecquer Chamber Westminster Wednesday the 22th of December 1652. By the Commissioners for releif upon Articles of War UPon full hearing of the Cause depending in this Court upon the Petition of Ri Newcourt of Somerton in the County of Somerset Gent. in presence of the Councill for the Common-wealth who were also fully heard therin And upon consideration of the matter of complaint of the said Richard Newcourt and of the Evidence produced on his behalf It appearing unto this Court that the said Richard Newcourt was comprised in the Articles made at the Surrender of the Garrison of Exeter and confirmed by Parliament By virtue wherof all persons included therin and not excepted were to be admitted to Composition according to the rates and proportions therin set down without any limitation of time And there being no proof before this Court nor any suggestion therof that the said Richard Newcourt had taken up Armes or otherwise engaged himself in open hostility or secret counsell against the Parliament since the said Articles granted wherby he might have lost or forfeited the benefit therof The Court upon full debate of the whole matter and upon consideration of the Acts of Parliament by which they are constituted and of the power and trust therby committed to them Do award order and adjudge that the said Richard Newcourt be admitted to compound for his Estate Reall and Personall according to the said Articles of Exeter And the Commissioners authorized by Parliament to compound with Delinquents are desired to take notice hereof and to admit the said Richard Newcourt to his Composition according to the said Articles A true Copy T. Pauncefote Regist. But whilst

Articles were both rejected and upon the Question resolved in the Negative This power being granted to the said Honorable Commissioners without limitation or restriction gave them Authority to hear and determine my Complaint before them as being a person imprisoned sequestred and indamaged contrary to Articles given unto mee by the Lord Fairfax late Lord General confirmed by Parliament so as I was a person capable of relief according to their Judgement and Determination by the express Letter of both the Acts and accordingly I exhibited my Petition to the said Court on the 14. of October following which was within the time limitted by the Proviso in the said latter Act where the same after many proceedings which are at large mentioned in my Remonstrance coming to be heard the 15. of August 1653. the said Commissioners did solemnly give their Judgement as followeth Monday the 15 of August 1653. By the Commissioners constituted by Act of Parliament for relief of persons upon Articles Conditions and Engagements made in time of War sitting in the Exchequer-Chamber Westminster WHereas Sir Iohn Stawell hath exhibited his Petition into this Court thereby amongst other things setting forth That he is comprized in the Articles made upon the surrender of the City and Garrison of Exeter bearing date the eighth of April 1646. and afterwards confirmed by Parliament By the twelfth of which said Articles it was agreed That no person therein comprized should be questioned or accountable for any act past by them done or any other done by their procurement relating unto the unhappy Differences betwixt the late King and the Parliament they submitting themselves to reasonable and moderate Composition for their Estates which the then General Sir Thomas Fairfax was really to endeavor with the Parliament that it should not exceed two years value of any mans real Estate respectively and for personal according to the ordinary Rules not exceeding the proportion aforesaid Which Composition being made they should have Indempnity for their persons and injoy their Estates and all other Immunities without payment of fifth or twentieth part or any other Taxes or Impositions except what should hereafter be charged upon them in common with other Subjects by Authority of Parliament And by the 21 Article it was further agreed That no Oath Covenant Protestation or Subscription relating thereunto shall be imposed upon any person whatsoever comprized within the said Articles but onely such as should bind all persons aforesaid not to bear Arms against the Parliament of England sitting at Westminster nor wilfully do any act prejudicial to their Affairs whilst they remain in their Quarters That he had a Certificate under the Hand and Seal of the then General dated the 14. of April 1646. signifying that he was to have the benefit of the said Articles That the 15. of Iuly 1646. he came to London to make his Composition and according to an Order of Parliament of the second of Iuly 1646. and within the time therby limited undertook by a subscription under his hand not to bear Arms against the Parliament according to the intention of the said Order and 21 Article And upon the 24. of the same Iuly 1646. he preferred his Petition in person to the Committee at Goldsmiths-hall for compounding with Delinquents desiring to compound according to the said Articles But was not admitted because he refused to take the Negative Oath and Covenant And was the 13 of August 1646. for such his refusal onely committed first to Ely-House afterwards by Order of the then House of Commons to Newgate for High-Treason in levying war against the Parliament where he continued almost four years and in that time was several times Indicted for Treason and twice arraigned for his life at the then Kings Bench Bar And that Judgements are obtained against him in personal Actions for seven thousand pounds in Damages And all this for acts relating to the Differences between the late King and the Parliament and before the Date of the said Articles That in Iuly 1650. he was by Order of the High Court of Justice removed from Newgate to the Tower and there kept in close custody and the seventeenth of December 1650. and divers days after tried for his life before the said High Court who after many daies trial examination of Witnesses and strict inquiry into his actions and the performance of the Articles on his part did not proceed to sentence but certified their proceedings to the Parliament a copy of which Certificate was annexed to this Petition That ever since the said Trial he was a prisoner and from the Date of the said Articles his Estate sequestred by which together with his Debts and felling his Woods and Timber he hath lost near Thirty thousand pounds in his Estate besides his imprisonment and hazard of his life That his Estate by an Act of the 16 of Iuly 1651. is amongst others declared forfeited for Treason and hath been since sold accordingly That neither he nor his Sons or Servants have ingaged against the Parliament in any act of hostility since the said Articles nor hath he lost the benefit thereof by any default of his and therefore prays That the said Certificate of the High Court of Justice may be considered and the liberty of his person and the possession of his Estate may be granted to him discharged of such Judgements Executions Sales and Incumbrances as are contrary to the meaning of the said Articles and free from Composition in regard the profits of his Estate for seven years have been received to the use of the Commonwealth Unto which Petition several Pleas and Demurrers were put in by Mr. Attorny General on the behalf of the Commonwealth of England and by the Council for the Trustees for sale of Estates forfeited for Treason on the behalf of the same Trustees the effect whereof was It appearing that the Parliament had interposed in the case of the Petitioner both in respect of his imprisonment and in appointing Tryals for his life and the selling of his Estate as by them adjudged to be confiscated for Treason Therefore that as to his Imprisonment and possession of his Estate the Court could not take cognizance of the complaint or examine or give any relief thereupon as by the said Pleas and Demurrers reference thereunto being had may more at large appear Which Petition Pleas and Demurrers coming regularly to hearing before this Court after long debate and mature deliberation had of and upon the same this Court upon the 31. of December last past declared their opinion That the said Pleas and Demurrers which for the present admitted the state of the Fact to be such as is set forth in the said Petition did not contain in themselves sufficient matter to preclude this Court from proceeding upon the said Petition and did therefore resolve and adjudge the same to be over-ruled and set aside and appointed the Solicitor for the State attending the Court to acquaint the Councel for the