Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	chief_a	court_n	say_a	3,468	5	7.0943	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94942	A true and perfect narrative of the several proceedings in the case concerning the Lord Craven, before the Commissioners for Sequestrations and Compositions sitting at Haberdashers-Hall, the Council of State, the Parliament and upon the indictment of perjury, preferred and found against Major Richard Faulconer, the single and material witness against the Lord Craven, concerning the petition to the King of Scots, vvhich as the said Faulconer pretended, was promoted at Breda by the Lord Craven, and wherein, as the said Faulconer deposed, the Parliament of England was stiled by the name of barbarous and inhumane rebels. Shortly after which oath the Lord Cravens estate was voted by Parliament to be confiscate.	Falconer, Richard, Major.; Craven, William Craven, Earl of, 1606-1697.; England and Wales. Parliament.	1653 (1653)	Wing T2536; Thomason E1071_1; ESTC R208200	44,802	51

Record being accordingly removed a Capias in order to an Out-lawry was taken out against the said Faulconer who for several Sessions before had refused to appear At last the said Faulconer was taken upon the said Capias and carried to Newgate where he lay for some time and would not appear nor plead to the Indictment Whereupon the prosecutors for the Commonwealth were inforced to move the Court for a Habeas Corpus to bring him to the Bar that he might be enjoyned to plead and accordingly the Court required him to plead Whereupon he pleaded Not guilty to the Indictment Hillary Term. 1652. In Hillary Term following a day was appointed for Trial upon the Indictment at Guild-Hall London before the Lord chief Justice Rolls where the said Captain Bishop and Faulconer appeared with their Counsel and Witnesses And Mr. Rushworth also appeared in behalf of the Commonwealth with Counsel and Witnesses and had given in the Record to have the Jury called but it so fell out that a person of integrity then in Court who had gotten certain knowledge when and where the said Oath was taken gave Mr. Rushworth notice that the Oath given to Faulconer was administred unto him at White-Hall in Middlesex and not at Haberdashers-Hall in London and therefore the place being mislaid in the Indictment a London Jury could not find a fact done in Middlesex Whereupon Mr. Rushworth immediately withdrew the Record for that time and gave a stop to the Triall No time was mispent to recover this mistake For within two dayes a new Indictment was drawn and preferred to the Grand Jury in Middlesex Sir Henry Blunt being Foreman where the Indictment was found and was as followeth Hillary Term 1652. Before this time that is to say upon Tuesday next after the morrow Middlesex of the Purification of the Virgin Mary this same Term before the Keepers of the Liberty of England by authority of Parliament in the Upper-Bench at Westminster by the Oaths of twelve honest and lawful men it is presented That Richard Faulconer late of Westbury in the County of Southampton Gent. Not having the fear of God before his eyes but moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil and minding and endevouring to bring the Right Honorable William Lord Craven Baron of Hampsteed Marshall in the County of Berks in danger of the loss of his life and of the Sequestration confiscation and forfeiture of all his Goods and Chattels Lands and Tenements within this Commonwealth of England the tenth day of February In the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred and fifty at White-Hall in the Parish of Martins in the Fields in the County of Middlesex before Samuel Moyer Esquire James Russel Esquire Edward Winslow Esquire Josias Barners Esquire and Arthur Squib Esquire then being Commissioners for compounding with Delinquents and for managing of all and every the estates of Delinquents and Popish Recusants that the fifteenth day of April in the said year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred and fifty were or then after should be under Sequestration did upon the Holy Evangelists corruptly wilfully falsly and maliciously of his own proper Act consent and Agreement swear and upon his Corporal Oath before the Commissioners aforesaid on the said tenth day of February in the said year one thousand six hundred and fifty then having sufficient and lawfull power to Administer the said Oath and to take the testimony and depositions of witnesses upon their Oaths in such cases then and there deposed That several Officers about thirty in number made a Petition to the Scots King Charles to entertain them to sight for him against the Common-wealth of England by the name of Barbarous and Inhumane Rebels either in England or Scotland for the recovering of his just Rights and re-instating him in his Throne And did also then and there corruptly willfully falsly and maliciously before the said Commissioners swear that the said Officers deputed him the said Richard Faulconer and Colonel Drury to present the said Petition who as the said Richard Faulconer then and there corruptly willfully falsly and maliciously before the said Commissioners did swear indeed drew the same And did also then and there corruptly willfully falsly and maliciously before the said Commissioners swear that he the said Richard Faulconer with Colonel Drury applyed themselves to the Lord Craven meaning the aforesaid William Lord Craven intreating him to present the said Petition to the Queen of Bohemia to present it to the King of Scots And did also then and there corruptly wilfully falsly and maliciously before the said Commissioners swear that the said Lord Craven taking the said Petition and reading the same cheerfully said unto Colonel Drury and him the said Richard Faulconer There Is the Queen of Bohemia deliver it to her and I will speak for you And that the said Queen of Bohemia did present the said Petition and did also then and there corruptly wilfully falsely and maliciously before the the said Commissioners swear that the said Lord Craven after told him the said Richard Faulconer and company that they should receive an answer from the Queen of Bohemia to their Petition and that he meaning the said William Lord Craven had spoken to the Queen of Bohemia in their behalf Whereas in truth neither did several Officers or any Officer make a Petition to the said King to entertain him or them to fight for him against the Common-wealth of England Nor did several Officers or any Officer make a Petition to the said King to entertain him or them to fight for him against the Commonwealth of England by the name of Barbarous and Inhumane Rebels either in England or Scotland Nor did several Officers or any Officer make a Petition to the said King to entertain him or them to fight for him against the Commonwealth of England by the name of Barbarous and Inhumane Rebels either in England or Scotland for the recovering of his just rights or reinstating him in his Throne And whereas in truth the said Richard Faulconer and Colonel Drury were not deputed by the said Officers to present the said Petition in the said Oath mentioned and whereas in truth he the said Richard Faulconer with Colonel Drury did not apply themselves to the said Lord Craven intreating him to present the said Petition to the Queen of Bohemia to present it to the said King of Scots Nor did he the said Richard Faulconer with the said Colonel Drury intreat him the said Lord Craven to present the said Petition to the said Queen of Bohemia to present it to the said King of Scots And whereas in truth the said Lord Craven did not take the said Petition nor read the same Nor say unto the said Colonel Drury and him the said Richard Faulconer there is the Queen of Bohemia deliver it to her and I will speak for you And whereas in truth the said Lord Craven did not tell him the said Richard Faulconer and

he had the Letter from one of Bristol and get some money of Bishop for that Intelligence mentioned in the Letter of which the said Ballard was to have half but he the said Ballard refused to go with the same knowing it to be unjust Mr. Powel a Justice of Peace of the County of Middlesex did Faulconer committed to Newgate for suspition of Felony testifie to the Court that this Faulconer was brought before him upon suspition of Felony and committed which Mittimus he produced in Court that afterwards the Lord Chief Justice Rolls did send for him out of New Prison to Newgate that Faulconer hath A reputed high-way man Faulconer committed to Ailesbury Gaol for suspition of Felony Robbery and murder a common name for a Robber upon the high way Mr. Goodman Gaoler of Ailesbury did testifie unto the Court that the said Faulconer the 20th of March 1648. was committed to Ailesbury Gaol by Sir Thomas Sanders Mr. Bulstrode and two other Justices of the Peace upon suspition of Felony Robbery and Murthers and tendered a Certificate thereof in Writing unto the Court. The Defence made on the behalf of Faulconer 1. THe evidence being given on the behalf of the Common-wealth Mr. Windham Mr. Latch Mr. Lechmore and Mr. Haggat of Counsel for Faulconer did offer something to the consideration of the Court before they did produce their witnesses viz. That although it concerns every man that perjury should be punished Matter offered by Faulconers Counsel before they descended to Proof For every mans Life Liberty Fortune and Estate depends upon an Oath and in these times it is somewhat dangerous if they should be forsworn So on the otherside if Faulconer be not forsworn it is but just he should be acquit That the Counsel for the Commonwealth have endeavoured to prove that there was a Petition but that there was no such words in the Petition as are suggested and have endeavoured to impeach the credit of Faulconer That they have produced a Copy of Faulconers Oath which ought not to be admitted because it is but a Transcript of a Transcript a Copy of a Copy brought from Haberdashers-Hall to the Council of State and from the Council of State to the Parliament and there the Copy is entred in the Journal Book And the witnesses that have been produced do not swear positively to the Oath as it is in writing and one particle may turn the whole sense of an Oath And though these words Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells were in it Yet how it is applied and how the sense of it fals it cannot be judged but by the Original writing it self and it concerns the Counsel for the Keepers to produce it How it should come into Faulconers hands there is no account given but by one Knight Who saith Faulconer shewed him a thing which Faulconer said was his Original deposition against the Lord Craven but the credit of Knights Testimony is left to the Jury It is sworn that that Copy produced in Court was examined but Mr Winslow doth not positively say it was examined by the Original when in their custody That as to the witnesses produced against the credit of Faulconer they did hope to counterpoise his life to be as of a man that might be credited That in the Petition delivered at Breda there is something of those words though there be not Barbarous and Inhumane Rebells which was but a nominal thing yet the prostrating of themselves to prosecute the cause is desired may be observed though the actual words be not there yet the sense doth bear it that the case is somewhat hard with Faulconer who was imployed at the Court at Breda as an Emissary as a Spye And at his return in giving an account of his observations at Breda let something fall concerning the Lord Craven without any design in him and that what Faulconer delivered in his deposition was with qualifications as he did believe to his best remembrance and the like Hereupon Captain Bishop was produced on the behalf of Faulconer Captain Bishops dicourse not applicable to the perjury in question as a witness whose discourse was long and consisted of three parts 1. It took notice how the Council of State sent for him from his habitation at Bristoll to be imployed in matters of great trust and afterwards what trust was reposed in him and Mr. Scot in order to the safety of the Nation 2. By way of Argument on behalf of Faulconer he did declare what services Faulconer had done for the Commonwealth and that Faulconer was one by whom this Commonwealth sate safe at this hour and by whom he enjoyed his life And what an ill requitall this was to be thus proceeded against The third part of his discourse was to declare what particular designs the State formerly had in hand and what designs the enemy had against the State and what service he did to countermine the enemy in their designs The last of the three being not as was conceived so advisedly spoken in publike and which would be more unfit to be in print Shall therefore here be past over in silence as also what Captain Bishop said at large concerning the two first particulars In respect they are no proofs pertinently to be applied as to the perjury in question A brief account only shall be therefore given what Captain Bishop properly spoke as a witness As a witness Captain Bishop said he had never seen Faulconer The substance of Captain Bishops Testimony in drink or misbehave himself but ever observed him as a sober man that he did draw Faulconers information which Faulconer did deliver as the substance and that he must say that the words or to that effect should have been put in and that it was his fault they were not in and he could not tell but that they were in That the Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall were desired to come to White-Hall to Administer an Oath to the said Faulconer privately least danger should befall the witnesses if they were discovered That Horsnel was formerly an Agent for the Prince and was to receive orders from Tom Cook in the Tower and was ordered to be tried by the high Court of Justice That Colonel Drury was a Papist in Arms and being brought before him to be examined still had the Lord Craven in his mouth before he was asked a question The like of Brisco He said that before Drury and Brisco came from beyond Seas his Agent gave him notice of their coming And thereupon he laid wait for them and caught them that Drury said when he was examined that he had not a penny of money that he did not commit him to Prison but took his Paroll and in commiseration gave him two shillings six pence for his Supper He said further that Drury did contradict himself in what he had formerly informed the Council of State and to that end produced in Court the Copy of Druries Information which being read in Court

and a great bustle of of business This Informant with Colonel Drury applied themselves to the Lord Craven intreating him to present the Petition to the Queen of Bohemia to present it to the King of Scots the said Lord Craven taking the Petition and reading the same Chearfully said to Colonel Drury and this Informant There is the Queen of Bohemia deliver it to her and I will speak for you Upon which they applied themselves to the said Queen and she presented the Petition After which the King of Scots the Lord Craven the Marquess of Newcastle the Queen of Bohemia with some other Lords went into a withdrawing room where this Informant and company could not enter But the Lord Craven came forth of the withdrawing Chamber and told this Informant and company That they should receive an answer from the Queen of Bohemia to their Petition and that he had spoken to the Queen of Bohemia in their behalf who afterwards came and told this Informant and company that she had delivered their Petition and that the King had taken order for it The next morning at three of the Clock the King departed but this Informant and company had their Quarters satisfied by the Princess of Orange according to the said Kings order upon their Petition and thereby to inable them to follow the said King in the prosecution of these Wars against the Parliament of England which was the effect of their aforesaid Petition That this Informant saw the Lord Craven very often and familiar with the said King and enter with the said King into the withdrawing Chamber and staid there the last night the said King was at Breda very late Richard Faulconer Jur. 10. Feb. 1650. Coram nobis Samuel Moyer James Russel Edward Winslow Josias Barners Arthur Squib Colonel Hugh Reyly was likewise sworn before the said Commissioners at the same time whose Information was in these words viz. Febr. 10. 1650. The Information of Colonel Hugh Reyly taken before Samuel Moyer James Russel Edward Winslow Josias Barners and Arthur Squib Esquires Commissioners for compounding c. Who saith THat during the late Treaty at Breda this Informant did oftentimes Colonel Hugh Reyly his Information against the Lord Craven see the Lord Craven with the now King of Scots in his Bed-chamber and also walked abroad with him there being no man more conversant with the King then he That the said Lord Craven during the said Treaty did twice go to Rotterdam and Dunhagh and back again being imployed as was commonly reported at Court there by the said King That the said Lord Craven had a charge from the King to look to one Mrs. Barlow who as is reported and he believes to be true had a child by the King of Scots born at Rotterdam which he did and after the King was gone for Scotland the said Lord Craven took the child from her for which she went to Law with him and recovered the child back again as is reported Hugh Reyly Jur. 10. Feb. 1650. Samuel Moyer James Russel Josias Barners Edward Winslow Arthur Squib Captain Thomas Kitchingman was ten dayes after sworn before the said Commissioners whose Information was as followeth viz. Feb. 20. 1650. The Information of Captain Thomas Kitchingman taken upon Oath before the Commissioners for compositions c. Who saith THat the said Captain Thomas Kitchingman in April and May Captain Kitchingmans Information against the Lord Craven 1650. Saw the Lord Craven several times with the King of Scots at Breda and waiting upon the said King several times at his Table at Breda This Informant also saw the Earl of Oxford at the same time with the King of Scots at Breda waiting upon the said King at his Table and saw the Lord Craven and the Earl of Oxford many times go into the withdrawing rooms after the said King This Informant also saw the Lord Craven and the Earl of Oxford in the Bowling-ally in Breda Castle with the said King Thomas Kitchingman Jur. coram Commissionar Febr. 20. 1650. Sir William Craven having notice that the Lord Cravens estate was in danger of Sequestration and considering that himself and his children by Elizabeth daughter to Fardinando Lord Fairfax upon whom a great part of the said estate was setled were like to be concerned therein desired Mr. Rushworth to go with him to the Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall and to desire a Copy of the Charge against the Lord Craven and accordingly a Copy of the depositions taken against the Lord Craven was demanded by Sir William Craven and Mr. Rushworth To whom Mr. Moyer in the name of the rest of the Commissioners answered That they had not fully considered of the Informations against the Lord Craven But said that very speedily a Copy of the Charge should be delivered and power should be given to the Lord Craven to examine and cross examine witnesses whereupon at that time they departed being confident that they should never be deprived by those Commissioners of that common justice of being heard before condemnation March 4. 1650. The Commissioners at Haberdashers-Hall having taken into The Commissioners scruple to Sequester the Lord Craven consideration the said Informations of Faulconers Reylys and Kitchingmans were not satisfied in their judgements that they could Sequester the Lord Craven thereupon Wherefore they presented their doubt in that case to the Council of State which doubt or quere of theirs as it is recorded and recited in an order of the Council of State was as followeth Tuesday 4. Martij 1650. At the Council of State at White-Hall Upon perusall of the depositions touching the Lord Craven presented to this Council from the Commissioners for Sequestrations c. sitting at Haberdashers-hall And of their certificate wherein they mention that they have given orders for the seizing and securing the said Lords estate but offer it as a doubt whether the Parliament hath made it matter of Sequestration for any person living beyond the Seas to hold correspondency with or repair to the person of the now King of Scots when he was beyond the Seas And desire it may be offered to the Parliament for a Rule which may inable them to proceed to Sequestration in that and other cases of like nature It is ordered by the Council that Mr. Atturny Generall do report this matter to the Parliament and in respect the retarding of Sequestrations where persons may be esteemed justly sequestrable tends much to the prejudice and disadvantage of the State to desire that the Parliament will be pleased to give some directions therein for the expediting of Justice in this and the like cases Ex. Gualter Frost Secr. March 6. 1650. Mr. Prideaux Atturney Generall makes his report to the Parliament Mr. Atturny Generals Report according to the directions of the said order which report of his is entered in the journal book agreeing verbatim with the order of the Council of State of the 4. March and he also made a report of the three