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 LONDON Printed by Thomas Newcomb dwelling in Thamestreet over against Baynards Castle Anno Domini 1654. AN ANSWER OF The Purchasers of the Lands LATE OF Sir JOHN STAWEL By ACT of PARLIAMENT Exposed to Sale for his Treason c. IT is true that Affliction and Calamities have attended Sir John Stawels late condition not by any practise mis-information or ill-grounded Apprehensions as himself would have it but through his own obstinacy wilfulness doubtless as a punishment for his slighting that Mercy which Divine Providence tendred unto him by the Army and which others of his own judgment and within his own Articles timely embracing did safely harbor whilest himself remains splitted on those Rocks which they wisely avoided Yet doth he now by his Remonstrance proffer his Peaceable-Obedience to this Common-wealth and it is better late then never But of what integrity can such his Autumn-submission be since it is tendred not till after the Fall of all hopes of a Contrariant and is mixt with an endeavor to palliat if not justifie his former exorbitances The particulars of which Remonstrance he doth avow upon the Faith of a Christian and Honor of a Gentleman though many of them be notorious untruths and which Remonstrance he hath published to Vindicate as he pretendeth the Honor and Justice of the Parliament and Army and undeceive the People when divers of them yet feel the smart and others will ever bear the marks of his cruelties It cannot be denied but that the County of Somerset in the year 1640. chose Sir John Stawel to serve in Parliament as a Knight thereof and thereby intrusted him with the protection of their Estates and Liberties Which high trust he undertook and accordingly sate in that Parliament but afterwards contrary to that trust he not onely deserted that Parliament but levied war against it and the Publick Interest of that County by colour of a most Illegal Commission of Array and by the command of one who as little deserved the recommendation of the then House of Commons as Sir John Stawel did the choice of that County neither answering the expectation then had of them and both infringing their Countries trust Sir John being thus in Arms opposed at Marshals-Elm the Forces then raised in that County by Authority of Parliament where his catriage will appear by this ensuing Examination being the Deposition of a Minister of Gods Word faithful to the Parliament and one that did therefore afterwards suffer under Sir Johns Tyranny October 22. 1650. Examinations taken upon Oath the day and year above written by vertue of Directions from the Right Honorable The High Court of Justice concerning certain High Crimes and Misdemeanors committed by Sir John Stawel Knight of the Bath for levying War against the Parliament of England JOhn Daniel of Buckland-Mary in the County of Somerset Clerk Aged Sixty years or thereabouts being sworn and examined saith That Sir John Stawel late of Higham in the County aforesaid Knight of the Bath did take up Arms against the Parliament of England and to his knowledge listed many Soldiers both Horse and Foot And Anno Dom. 1642. the said Sir John Stawel was himself in person at a place in the said County called Marshals-Elm and then and there had many Soldiers under his command both Horse and Foot and did abet and incourage the said Soldiers to fight against those that were then near unto them under the command as I conceive of Col. Pyne for the Parliament and preservation of the Peace of the then Kingdom And this Examinant further saith That he being with the company that were for the Parliament did adventure to ride up to the said place of Marshals-Elm by himself alone of purpose to discern what Forces the said Sir John Stawel had Before he came full to the top of the Hill the said Sir Iohn Stawel staid him and asked this Examinant What he did there and whether or no he was a Chaplain to the Army To whom this Examinant replied That he was not but had some occasion of his own at a place called Shapwick which was about two Miles from that place of Marshals-Elm And being demanded by the said Sir Iohn Stawel whether the Round-heads would come up the Hill and fight them This Examinant replied That he believed that they intended not to fight and thereupon this Examinant desired him to preserve the peace of the Kingdom But the said Sir Iohn being much enraged swore That if they would not come up to fight with them the said Sir Iohn and his Company would go down the Hill and fight with them and thereupon drew his sword and had also a Pistol and brandishing his sword said Come up Blades if you have a minde to it and we are for you And this Examinant further saith That there were placed in Quar-Pits thirty Muskettiers or thereabouts which had their light Matches and their Muskets loaden ready to fight which were at that time encouraged by the said Sir Iohn to be valiant And this Examinant further saith That at that time Mr. Robert Osborn being for the Parliament was there slain and many others grievously hurt and wounded and this Deponent with others taken prisoners by the said Sir Iohn Stawel and his Forces there with him And this Examinant further saith That one Captain Rosecareck a Cornish man six Moneths after or thereabouts came to Machelny where this Examinant then lived being sent by the said Sir Iohn Stawel and there searched this Examinants house for Arms and then carried away a Welsh-hook into the Castle of Taunton and also divers other Arms from other his Neighbors And the said Sir Iohn Stawel then calling in the Country upon Posse Comitatus by Warrant sent for this Examinant to appear before him and there told him That he was worthy to be drawn hanged and quartered for his siding with the Parliament against the late King By which Deposition the intention of Sir Iohn and that Company doth clearly appear to be otherwise then what by his Remonstrance is pretended Sir Iohn called the Parliament Forces Round-heads a Nick-name he lately learnt at Court swore those Round-heads should fight and then drew and brandished his sword inviting them to come up and fight and encouraged his Muskettiers in the Quar-pit But saith Sir Iohn the Parliament Forces made many shots first at us and wounded a Gentleman and killed his Horse which made him and his put themselves into a posture of Defence Be this granted to be true although the Depositions on both Parts seem to affirm the
Iohn Stawell was to sup and the said Cluff said further to the said Grand Iury that Sir Iohn Stawell refused to reprieve him and bid the Executioner do his Office and accordingly he the said Viccary was executed Henry Mintern October 22. 1650. Examinations taken upon Oath the day and year above written by vertue of Directions from the right Honourable the High Court of Iustice concerning certain high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Sir Iohn Stawell Knight of the Bath for Leavying War against the Parliament of England HEnry Ceely of North Curry in the County of Somerset Gentleman aged 53 years or thereabouts sworn and examined saith That Sir Iohn Stawell Knight of the Bath and Governor of Taunton in the year 1643 or 1644. about the first of February sent a Troop of horse to the house of the said Ceely by night by one Captain Walton and plundred the house of the said Ceely and carried him away prisoner to Taunton and there kept him in cruel endurance so long as the said Sir Iohn Stawell staid there Governor threatning him with hanging and death for adhering to the Parliament and at his the said Sir Iohn Stawels departure from Taunton sent the said Ceely to the prison of Bridgewater then in the power of the late King to the undoing of him the said Ceely and his Family Also in the time of this Deponents imprisonment in Taunton the said Sir Iohn did cause to be hanged and put to death one Viccarie for refusing to go in Arms against a Town in the County of Dorset named Lyme-Regit And further saith That the said Sir Iohn Stawell did appear with many more in Arms in the County aforesaid at Marshals Elme to the intent and purpose to wound kill and slay those that adhered to the Parliament as he the said Sir Iohn confessed to this Deponent when he was in prison in Taunton aforesaid and said that all those that were at Marshals Elme deserved to be hanged as Traitors for adhering to the Parliament And this Deponent doth verily believe that the bloud shed at Marshals Elme was the first bloud shed in the West of England I Iohn Baker of Higham in the County of Somerset Esquire do humbly certifie the unchristian dealings of Sir Iohn Stawell towards me who having received a wound and maim at Launsdown fight whereof I lay dangerously sick a long time as soon as Sir Iohn understood that there were hopes of life granted his Warrant for the apprehending of me and my brother threatning that if he took us he would hang us And indeed his Tyranny was such that we could expect no other had not God preserved us out of his hands and fury by letting of us have private notice of his designe upon which this Certificants friends conveyed me away by night and hid me in several places to avoid his rage Iohn Barker Sir Iohn Stawell did also commit Mr. Martyn Sandford the then High-Sheriff of the County of Somerset to the Prison of the Bridewell for some actings of the Sheriff for the advantage of the Parliament which as it is thought shortned his aged daies And to compleat his cruelty he caused to be hanged one Christopher Viccary for refusing to fight against the Parliament and the dictates of his conscience as appears by the precedent and following Depositions October 22. 1650. Examinations taken upon Oath the day and year above written by vertue of Directions from the right Honourable the High Court of Iustice concerning certain high Crimes and misdemeanours committed by Sir Iohn Stawel Knight of the Bath for Leavying War against the Parliament of England GEorge Lyssant of Taunton in the County of Somerset Woollen-draper aged forty years or thereabouts sworn and examined saith That he knew Sir Iohn Stawell to be late Governor of Taunton and that he in that time did raise Forces for the late King both of horse and foot against the Parliament and that the said Sir Iohn did raise and went with Forces from Taunton against the Town of Lyme and that the said Sir Iohn Stawell together with others of the Kings party did fine the said Town of Taunton for their Rebellion against the late King in the sum of 8000 l. for that they did adhere unto the Parliament And further saith that he saw one Reeves Major unto the said Sir Iohn Stawell upon the clamors and outcries of the people of the said Town to goe into the Quarters of the said Sir Iohn to seek to save the life of a Souldier whose name was reported to be Christopher Viccary who formerly lived at Norton which said Reeves returning back again said he could not prevail but that the said Viccary must suffer whereupon immediately after the said Viccary was hanged And also saith that he this Deponent was by the said Sir Iohn fined in the sum of 100 l. for his affection to the Parliament the said Sir Iohn saying that this Deponent was a Rebel against the King VVIlliam Savage of Taunton in the County of Somerset Lock-smith aged fifty years or thereabouts sworn and examined saith That Sir Iohn Stawell Knight of the Bath was about seven years since Governor of the Town of Taunton for the late King against the Parliament And also saith that one Christopher Viccary who sometimes quartered in this Deponents house being then a Souldier under the command of Captain Robert Clark in the late Kings service was by one Maior Reeves after he was condemned to suffer death carried into the Castle of Taunton and immediately after brought forth again and hanged by the order and appointment of the said Sir Iohn Stawell the said Viccary being drunk at the time of his suffering And further saith That the said Sir Iohn Stawell committed this Deponent unto Prison for his affection to the Parliament and there detained him for the space of three or four daies George Deacon of the Parish of Norton-fitZ-Warren in the Coutty of Somerset Husbandman aged 28 years or thereabouts sworn and examined saith That he knew Sir Iohn Stawell to be Governor of the Town of Taunton in the County of Somerset for the late King against the Parliament in the years 1643 or 1644. And that the said Sir Iohn did raise Forces both of foot and horse for the late King against the Parliament And further saith that he doth well remember one Christopher Viccary of Norton aforesaid who was then a Souldier under the command of Captain Robert Clark for the Kings service which said Viccary being by the said Sir Iohn Stawell and others commanded to march from Taunton unto and against Lyme which he the said Viccary refusing was by one Major Reeve carried into the Castle of Taunton and condemned to suffer death which said Reeves upon the outcries of the people of the said Town went unto the then Quarters of the said Sir Iohn to seek to save the life of the said Souldier which said Reeves returning back again said he could not prevail but that he
unto him and advised him to acknowledge his miscarriage at Goldsmiths Hall crave the pardon of the House and desire admission to Compound Which Sir Iohn disliked saying That if he were willing yet he was not able to pay the mony for a Composition Sir Iohn being brought to the Bar of that House and refusing to kneel is committed to Newgate for High-Treason for levying war against the Parliament the Transcripts of which Order and Mittimus are inserted in the Remonstrance fol. 29. Where he continued for some years Neglecting refusing passionately disdaining to Petition to be admitted to a Composition or any way to comply with the Parliament in that behalf although entreated and importuned thereunto by his wife and friends that desired to preserve him and his Estate and by others that stood deeply engaged as Sureties for his Debts His wife hath upon her bared knees and with many tears desired him if not for her sake yet for the sake of the children of his body to use her words that he would submit and Petition the Parliament for a Composition which notwithstanding he slighted as the poor Lady her self with grief affirmed to divers Gentlemen of worth and hath complained of his wilfulness amongst the rest unto Mr. Iames Ash whose testimony lately given to the Committee of Parliament to whom sir Iohns Petition is referred followeth viZ. Decemb. 15. 1654. The Information of James Ash Esq a Member of Parliament given to the Committee of Parliament to whom the Petition of Sir John Stawel is referr'd in the Case of the said Sir John Stawel WHo saith That he was present at Goldsmiths-Hall when Sir John Stawell came thither who delivered a paper which he called a Petition The Committee upon receipt and reading that paper were all of opinion It was not a Petition to compound The said Committee thereupon called in Sir John Stawell and asked him some questions some of them the Informant hath forgot but these he remembers Being demanded why he came thither if not to compound and they telling him they were a Committee to compound with Delinquents He said that he came to have his Estate that was taken from him and did endeavour in his speech to take off the Delinquencie from himself and to cast it upon the Parliament and Committee The particular expressions he cannot now remember nor doth he remember the title of the said Petition but saith the substance of it was to have his Estate Sir John Stawell being withdrawn the Committee fell into a debate whether his ill carriage there should be reported to the House But afterwards a Gentleman Mr. John Ash moving that he might have three or four dayes to amend his Petition and bring in a Particular to Compound which also he was told of by the Committee He this Informant heard no more of him till the Report made to the Parliament by Mr. John Stephens of his miscarriage and ill behaviour which the Parliament highly resented and did order him to be sent for as a Delinquent Whereupon being brought to the bar of the Parliament and commanded by the Speaker to kneel He this Informant sitting very neer Sir Iohn Stawel heard him mutter these words I desire to know my offence or crime Upon which being ordered to withdraw the Parliament made an Order for his commitment to Newgate as this Informant remembers Afterwards being by Order of Parliament referred to be tryed for Treason and Report being made to the Parliament of his high carriage and disowning their Authority and the Judges that sate thereby they were yet more incensed against him And afterwards upon the news given to the Parliament of one Mr. Anthony Ascams death the Parliament having before declared to bring some Delinquents to punishment who were excepted from pardon did refer Sir Iohn Stawell amongst others to be tryed at the High Court of Justice That during all the Debates when the Parliament gave any Judgment against him consideration was still had of his Articles and yet in those Judgments there were hardly any Negatives but the Question passed cleer That afterwards the Report being made from the High Court of Justice who did not proceed to give sentence of death against him in regard of the Articles of Exceter many Gentlemen Members of Parliament in the House did much wonder thereat but in regard of the opinion of the said High Court they did not again refer him to be tryed for his life but did as he remembers eo instanti pass a Vote That his Estate should be confiscate to the Commonwealth and afterwards past the Act for Sale of his Lands That to this Informants knowledge for many years together after the first apparance of sir Iohn Stawell at Goldsmiths Hall there were many endeavours used for to have drawn him to compound and to have had the benefit of his Articles but he would never be perswaded thereunto Now the reason of this his knowledg is because he was privy to the actings on his behalf and having discourse several times with the Lady Stawell concerning those endeavours which had been used to perswade him to compound And this Informant saying to her Can there be no way found out whereby he may be preserved and have the benefit of his Articles She answered this Informant in these words Sir you know what endeavours have been used and how we would have perswaded him to have suffered his son Ned Stawell meaning him called sir Edward Stawell to have compounded for his Estate but he would not give his consent thereunto but did threaten him if he endeavoured any such thing For saith she he doth still flatter himself with vain hopes of seeing the King restored and although there be every day more unlikelihood then other yet his faith continues strong That having some discourse with one Michael Tidcomb a Gentleman in Wiltshire as he remembers upon reading of the Act passed by the late little Convention or Parliament for the confirmation of the sale of sir Iohn Stawels Lands The said Gentleman spake these words I wonder said he that sir Iohn Stawell should now pretend to the Articles of Exceter since to my knowledge he did refuse to have the benefit of them For said he when I was a prisoner in Ely House with the said sir Iohn Stawell some intimation we had from the then King that we should submit to the Parliament and compound for our Estates Upon which we had a Debate amongst our selves and sir Iohn Stawell was present and it was the opinion of most of them they should submit to compound but sir Iohn Stawell did declare against it and laughed at them that had compounded or did intend it And this Informant further saith That sir Iohn Stawell came to Goldsmiths Hall in the afternoon as he now remembers and that this Informant was then a Member of Parliament but not of that Committee And this Informant saith that sir Iohn Stawell said these words I am no Delinquent which words he
he catcheth at every twig to recover it However the truth of those Verdicts and Indictments is since confirmed by the Iudgment of the High Court of Iustice upon Sir Iohn Stawels Plea of Not guilty and the Depositions of several Witnesses to that purpose as is certified under the subscriptions of three and twenty of that Court and manifested by the recital of the proceedings of that Court in the Remonstrance Sir Iohn being thus found guilty by three several Indictments of Treason and two Murders and still refusing the mercy of his Articles the Parliament in honour of Iustice and upon consideration of his forfeiture of Articles did on the 14 of March 1648. and two years and a half and more after his first Commitment Order his Trial upon these Indictments at the Upper-Bench bar where his Expressions were more insolent and his disownings of the present Authority greater then at any time before And so far was Sir Iohn Stawel after so long imprisonment from accepting the benefit of his Articles that he did not then mention them in order to his exemption from that Trial but on the contrary distinguishing Mr. Iustice Bacon from Mr. Iustice Roll owned the first as one sitting by the Kings Commission but disowned the latter being appointed by the Parliament under the Great Seal by them approved which Seal he termed a Counterfeit and accused the then Sollicitor-Generall of high treason for prosecuting against him in the name of the Parliament as was by several Witnesses proved before the High Court of Iustice And as Mr. Iohn Ash affirmeth uttered words to this effect viZ. My offence is not Treason for which I am here arraigned but because I would not permit the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall to pick my purse and give my consent to pay a sum of mony for the redemption of my Estate which is unjustly taken from me Which speeches if they had fallen from one formerly innocent had been an offence of an high nature but being spoken by sir Iohn a person guilty and so found by several Grand Iuries and at several times of Treason Murder and other high offences And by one that came into the Parliament-Quarters under the pretence of a Composition and in that conjuncture of time when divers Garrisons held yet out for the late King and some Ships had renegaded the Parliament-service and in one of the highest Iudicatures whither multitudes resorted to observe his deportment became not a Compounder much aggravated his former offences must prove prejudicial to the Parliaments affairs and contrary to the 21 of Exceter Articles and to sir Iohns Engagement and subscription at the Guild Hall and was doubtless a breach of his Articles And although perhaps these insolencies were not Treason within the Cognizance of an inferior or ordinary Judicature yet might the Parliament adjudge them so which they have done For in their Act of sale they have mentioned Treason committed by him which must be his miscarriages since his Articles for his former were pardoned And although it be granted they do not amount unto Treason yet they may be a breach of Articles for it is not Treason only that doth break them inferior offences may prove a breach the breach of good behaviour and certainly his miscarriages are of no less nature is a forfeiture of a pardon and why not of Articles Truely much more for pardon though of grace is grounded upon the compact and agreement of the whole Nation but these Articles are but the agreement of certain persons thereof of the Army with Traitors And although by the third Article of Exon certain enumerated Acts are made a breach of those Articles yet questionless other matters not enumerated may be a breach whereof these of sir John are some and it seems have been so adjudged by the Parliament For in the Debate of all Acts and Resolutions of theirs against sir John they still had a consideration of his Articles and adjudged these his miscarriages a breach of them and therefore declared him not to be admitted to Composition having forfeited the benefit thereof And although the Articles bind not sir John in point of his judgement yet they restrain him from all open and overt expressions thereof to the prejudice of the Commonwealth A man in private thoughts deemeth another man to be a thief perhaps knoweth him to be one This judgement this knowledg the Law taketh no notice of But let him declare such his thoughts judgement or knowledge by saying he is a Thief these open words being prejudicial to the party whereof the words were spoken make him liable to an Action and if he proves it not to repair him in damage Sir John might without damage have kept his judgement to himself but expressing it in such insolent and prejudicial language to the affairs of Parliament he forfeited his Articles Which his deportment being reported to the House of Commons they proceeded at that time no further against him in that Court but having then consideration of the Articles of Exon and to preserve the faith of their Armies from all colour of violation they still reserved their mercy for him if he had but then implored it But sir John continued in his averse resolution out of a confidence of the late Kings restitution to his Power and Authority and a designe thereby to receive his whole Estate gratis with a great reward for his many sufferings in owning and justifying the late Kings Cause beyond any of his party being the only Subject of his that refused to comply with the Parliament when he might and was earnestly invited thereunto which aim of his is apparent For Mr. Iohn Ash doth tell us that he sent unto the late King at Hampton-Court desiring him to take notice of the great sufferings he had undergone for his Majesties Cause and did let him know the hopes he had of his Majesties great favour and reward for him when he should be restored And Mr. Iames Ash testifieth that the Lady Stawell told him that sir Iohn did still flatter his hopes to have the King restored and although there were daily less hopes yet his faith continued strong nay besides the testimony of these two persons of honour and by the testimony of two witnesses each truth ought to be tryed if half an eye did but look into his carriage from his first coming before the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall untill his tryal by the High-Court of Justice it could be nothing but disownings contempts and opprobrious language of the present Government and Authority deriding of Compounders and not the least claim of the benefit of his Articles as long as his hopes of favour and singularity remained For sir Iohn never pleaded nor so much as ever pretended to those Articles untill some time after the late Kings death although in the mean time there were brought and obtained against him divers Actions and Iudgements for acts by him done before those Articles and relating to the wars which
the Parliament had by their Act declared that he was not admitted to compound and that that Court should try him as one not admitted thereunto which Declaration no inferior or subordinate Court or authority whatsoever hath power to examine or question And all Examinations Resolutions and other proceedings of that Court touching those Articles and Plea thereof are void and extrajudicial and Sir Iohn stands guilty by the Judgement of that Court of high Treason and other the offences abovesaid and by Act of Parliament declared not admitted to compound This his Guilt being certified to the Parliament by the high Court of Justice with a cesser of sentence in respect of his Articles the Parliament upon reading of that Certificate 10 Iune 1651. resented the same yet by reason thereof spared his life but passed an Act of the 16 of Iune 1651. a month thereafter whereby they adjudge sir Iohn to have forfeited his Estate for Treason and thereupon vested the actual possession of that Estate in certain Trustees and their heirs in order to the sale thereof which Lands are since sold accordingly and the moneys disposed of for the use of the Commonwealth sir Iohn Stawell being in that Act first named and before others of higher degree Which Act and Iudgement being the Act and Iudgement of all the People of England inclusively and the same judgement being since fully executed and the Estate of sir Iohn in fact sold and disposed of by and according to that Act and the Purchasers thereof by force of their respective bargains in the actual and peaceable possession thereof these consequences will follow and be necessarily deduced 1. That the Reasons and causes of that Iudgement cannot be examined or questioned out of the House it self Whether they passed that their Iudgement for Treasonable acts by him done before his Articles in regard they adjudge his Articles to be either neglected in performance or broken by all or any his refusals or misdemeanors abovesaid or whether they adjudged those misdemeanors either joyntly or severally to be a new Treason and by consequence a forfeiture of his Estate since his Articles Or whether for any and for any other act of his or cause they passed their Iudgement against him It will therefore seem very unreasonable and be of dangerous consequence if the Purchasers mediat or immediat should be now enforced for defence of such their Possessions to search into and produce the reasons and causes thereof especially since the Purchasers are meer strangers thereunto 2. That all the Examinations and other proceedings and very Iudgement of the Court of Articles on the said Iudgement of Parliament although an Act of Parliament erected it after that Iudgement given were extrajudicial against the fundamental Laws of this Commonwealth and of bad example Coram non Iudice When that Court under pretence of a general Act of Relief upon Articles did intermeddle with the Case of sir Iohn Stawel touching his person and Estate his Estate being already adjudged by Act of Parliament to be forfeited and the imprisonment of his person remaining indiscussed in that very House especially after the Parliament had Thursday Febr. 24. 1652. Resolved THat the Cause of Sir John Stawel upon his pretence of Title to Articles be resumed to the consideration and determination of the Parliament and that the Commissioners for giving relief to persons upon Articles do forbear to proceed any further therein untill the Parliament take further order Hen. Scobell Cler. Parl. Which Resolves amounting unto an explanation of that Act of Reviver determined not with the dissolution of the Parliament but doth remain annexed to it as a Codicil taking away the Iurisdiction of that Court in the Case of Sir Iohn 2. These proceedings were coram non Iudice in regard of a Proviso in that Act of Reviver in these words viZ. Provided That such person or persons claiming benefit of Articles as aforesaid have not forfeited the same by breach or non-performance of what is or was on their part to be performed since their Articles were granted Now the Parliament having declared if not adjudged Sir John Stawell not to be admitted to Compound have adjudged or declared that Sir John hath forfeited his Articles either by breach or non-performance either of which Judgment or Declaration the Court of Articles could not draw into question And therefore is Sir John within that Proviso and without the jurisdiction of that Court. It is a fundamental That a Judgment of Parliament should not be reversed or annulled by any subordinate or delegated Court Judicature or Authority whatsoever or otherwise then by the immediate power of Parliament which power cannot be transmitted to any other Judicature The Court of Articles have adjudged That Sir John Stawell from and after Composition made as aforesaid shall have the possession of his Estate freed and discharged from all sequestrations and seisures whatsoever and shall enjoy the same without any claim demand impediment or molestation of the said Trustees or of the Survivors or Survivor of them they or any of their heirs These are the words of that Judgment as it is recited in the Remonstrance pag. 71. Which Judgment in respect of this Estate is no otherwise then an annihilation of that Act of Parliament by this subordinate Court under pretence of a power transmitted unto them by the general words of the Act of Reviver when as a special Act could not give any such power of annihilation The Legislative power by the fundamental laws remaineth solely and undoubtedly in the Parliament and cannot be transferred to any inferior Judicature whatsoever Of which power the Abrogation or Repeal of former Laws is a branch or part But this Judgment of the Court of Articles in respect of the Estate of Sir Iohn doth amount unto a Repeal of that Act of disposing this Estate by a power pretended to be delegated to that Court by the general words of that Act of Reviver It is of bad example for that Court of Articles to take cognisance of the Cause of Sir Iohn Stawel the same being depending before the Supreme Authority of the Nation when as their Predecessors who had the same if not greater power for that very reason forbare to give Sir Iohn any relief in that behalf And when the High Court of Justice for the same cause forbore their sentence and did submit it to the judgment of the House although their Act was particular and the Act of Reviving the Court of Articles in generall words And the example is heighthened after that the Parliament-Votes had prohibited them any further intermedling to resume the cognisance of the Cause and to proceed to judgment and by that judgment in respect of the Estate to intrench upon the priviledge of Parliament in reversing the Judgments of Parliament and repealing the Acts thereof and when the Judges Members of that Committee and the best and fundamental Expositors of Acts of Parliament the Parliament that made them being
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
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 pursuâ—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
from any such absolute Estate Suppose the Estate of the Trustees had been subject to such a trust in case of other men claiming Articles yet in Sir Johns case for the reasons aforesaid there could be no such trust State but his case it will so appear Sir John committed Treason and then agreed to surrender Exon and to enjoy his Estate after Composition made within a moneth But Sir John did not make his Composition within four moneths but refused to make it according to the Rules of Goldsmiths Hall and refused to petition the Parliament to be admitted to compound at large The Parliament afterwards the four moneths expired and five years past no Composition made upon consideration of the Articles and Sir Iohns forfeiture of them enacted the Lands to be sold Now the trust upon the rendition being determined with the four moneths and Sir Iohns neglect of making his Composition within that time nay untill sale cannot be annexed to the Act of Sale neither is there any other trust of Articles in the case of Sir Iohn other then that lost trust at the rendition And that the trust was determined by his not making of his Composition within the four moneths it doth appear by a Judgment of a Court-Martial given about two years after and by that Army that best knew how to interpret their own Articles The Judgment is in these words At a Court-Martial of his Excellencie Sir Thomas Fairfax Knight Captain-General c. Held for the Head-quarters at White-Hall the 24 of February 1648. VPon the Question Whether Robert Barcroft not compounding sc within four moneths after the Rendition of Exon hath lost the benefit of the Articles of Exon as to his Indempnity against Richards It was Resolved in the affirmative HEN. WHALLEY Iudge-Advocate Sir Johns Case being thus may we ask him a question or two Since there was no Composition made within the four moneths as by the Articles he ought we would demand of him For what cause it was not made Who hindred it If he saith the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall that cannot be they would willingly have compounded with him knowing the present want of money as sir Anthony Irby sweareth and offered him a Composition according to their Rules and gave him longer time to that end If he saith the Parliament They did not they were ready and expected him five years nay some Members undertook it if he would have Petitioned to that purpose Neither could his imprisonment be his hindrance for he was at liberty till the four moneths were expired and when he was in prison his friends would have procured it if he would but have Petitioned or assented thereunto But certainly it was his own resolution to the contrary that only hindred it it was that staid him in the Country three moneths and a half of the four that kept him from Petitioning the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall untill after the four Moneths expired or but six daies as himself confesseth before the expiration and not to come there again till warranted And this his resolution rendered the endeavours of his friends fruitless and heightned his comportment to an insolency Again since his actions in Taunton are by a cloud of witnesses proved destructive illegal and irreligious we could in a second place demand of him by what Authority he thus acted If he saith by the late Kings approbation then certainly would not that Kings real intentions or constancy even in sir Iohns judgement be for the establishment either of Religion Laws or Peoples welfare as sir Iohn pretendeth Remonstrance page 75. if he will say by his own Authority then did he abuse his King as grossely as his Country for the people conceived those his exorbitances to be warranted by the King himself And then sir Iohn hath been faithless to King Parliament and his own Country To conclude since sir Iohn hath been a depopulator at Cothelston at Marshals Elm bloudy a Traitor a Murtherer what not in Taunton a breaker of Publick trust to his Country of Articles to Dunscomb ingratefull scandalously to Mr. Iohn Ash ruinously to Mr. Long Et si ingratum omnia since he intrenched on the Priviledg of Parliament when he went thence without their leave and upon the Kings privat Letter only and hath contemned the Authority thereof at their Barr in their Committee Iudges Great Seal and Sollicitor General sithence he hath scorned the mercy of the Army otherwise then to use it in advance of his Malignant designe Can sir Iohn think that the Army would have Articled with him at Exon if they had either known his former or foreseen his future miscarriages or that the Army in 1652. had in their Petition mentioned Remonstrance page 72. any respect for him when they Petitioned to have Articles of War made good according to the intent of them sithence sir John hath in not compounding lost their benefit both by their words and intent or that the late Parliament did upon designed passionate or self-interested reports pass their Acts or Resolutions abovesaid against him when his former offences his Articles and after-neglects and misdemeanors were then in their consideration Or can sir Iohn justly expect that this present Parliament shall when this his comportment shall appear before them take the Lands from the Purchasers persons innocent of integrity and friends to the Publick and contrary to the Judgements and Acts of former Parliaments who best knew his demerits and against the Law of Publique Sales which ought to be as firm as the Laws of the Medes and Persians and which nature it self taught the very Heathen to deem inviolable shall settle them on sir Iohn who in Justice deserveth not the mercy of his life FINIS ERRATA Pag. 5. l. 1. for Ward read Wards p. 6. l. 11. Baker r. Barker p. 24. l. 15. to be honest r to honest p 25 l. 11. without r. within p. 27. l. 33. any Act r. some Act. p. 29. l. 36. as r. was p. 31. l. 38. r. constantly compound p. 32. l. 3. for design r. desire p. 34. l 9. for over r. overt l. 17. r. to their rules l. 48 or Judgment and Sir David p. 39. l. 23. r. annexed pag. 11. p. 41. l. 28. r. admission p 42. l. 6. for chased r. purchased l. 19. r. be foreseen p. 45. l. 18. for greater r. great p. 47. l. 30. for be r. by l. 40. for or r. against p. 49 l. 13. r. heightned for them after that c. p. 57. l. 25. r. award l. 34. for received r. rejected p. 54. l. 4. for Goldsmiths-hall r. Guildhall p. 56. l. 13. for Act r. Account l. 14. r. Sir Anthonies own warrant the warrant of the Committee
that effect And because many Women resorted unto other Congregations and were not willing to hear his Malignant-Preacher he threatned by his Soldiers to strip them to their Smocks and would own it as an act of his own And further his malice extended not to the well-affected Inhabitants of Taunton alone but likewise to those of the Neighbor-hood he seized on the Estate of Colonel Ceely whilst he was in the Parliaments service the incivility of his Soldiers in the mean time hastning the death of the Colonels Wife and her childe And although Sir Iohn is pleased in his Remonstrance Pag. 19. to say That there were taken from the Colonel by his Command no more then seven or eight loads of Hay in a time of necessity These ensuing Certificates together with a Verdict given for Col. Ceely at the Guildhal London will shew the contrary WHereas Sir Iohn Stawel in his late Remonstrance amongst many other aggrievances there enumerated is pleased to recompt this one as not the least viz. That Col. Ceely hath obtained a Judgment at Law against him of One hundred and fifty pound damages for the carrying away onely of eight loads of Hay bearing himself much agrieved at the injustice of that Tryal and injury done him by the said Colonel Let the Impartial reade and then judge of the Cause It will be sufficiently proved by Testimony of divers besides the Warrants under his own hand that a Party of Sir Iohn Stawels Horse plundred the House of all his Goods and Houshold-stuff carried away divers of his Writings and Living goods That the Hay of Sixty Acres and Two hundred pounds worth of Corn growing on the Farm at Charlton was carried away and seised on So as his Wife was denied two Pecks a week for her self and children That one Walton his Captain by his command with Troopers entred the House and Chamber with Pistols and Swords drawn where Col. Ceely his Wife was with her Midwife and put her in such fear that soon after she died of a Convulsion then contracted and her childe likewise Now if the Colonel received no more damage then the loss of eight loads of Hay let all men judge It is therefore wondred That Sir Iohn Stawel should pass by so slightly the sufferings of those who felt his unjust plunder and cruelty and yet bear the damage thereof legally obtained so heavily though little in consideration to the wrong done and yet unpaid And in a Remonstrance set out to gain pity as it is supposed by a Mis-narative of his own sufferings should use so little truth and sincerity in the Relation of the loss of another man This is inserted to undeceive the people and take off the slander of a legal Tryal had and prosecuted WHereas Sir Iohn Stawel Knight of the Bathe in a late Pamphlet of his intituled His Remonstrance and in the 19 Page there hath averred That onely seven or eight load of Hay on Col. Ceelyes Estate were taken away by his command I William Ceely of the Middle-Temple London Esquire do hereby certifie to all whom it shall concern That I did in or about the year of our Lord God 1643. or 1644. cause to be carried from the Lands of the said Colonel to my House at Huntham in the County of Somerset of the Hay of the said Colonel to the number of fifty six loads or near thereabouts All which Hay about ten loads onely excepted was by some Constables of those parts and by colour of several Warrants under the proper hand-writing of the said Sir Iohn Stawel which I then saw and well knew taken away and that the said Sir Iohn Stawel did justifie the taking away thereof uttering these or the like words unto me Your Brother meaning the said Colonel is a Traytor and therefore I will have his Hay And that afterwards my self being Subpena'd to give my Testimony in a Cause then to be tryed at the Guildhal London between the said Colonel and Sir Iohn Stawel for taking away the said Hay I did appear and gave my Testimony to the effect aforesaid and that there were produced at that tryal by the said Colonel three other Witnesses besides my self viZ. Henry Hammond Tho. Bridge and William Chaple whose testimony was as touching the taking away of that Hay agreeing with mine in effect Given under my hand this first day of November 1654. Mr. Henry Ceely of Northcurry was likewise plundred and imprisoned and Mr. Henry Myntern imprisoned by Sir John Stawell but wherefore and in what manner their own Depositions hereunder transcribed will best declare November 23 1650. The Information of Captain Henry Mintern of Chesselborough in the County of Somerset taken before Sir John Thorowgood Knight Iohn Hurst and William Weston Esquires a Committee of the High Court of Justice for Examination THis Informant saith That being an Officer in Arms for the Parliament he was taken Prisoner at Glastonbury about St. James's day in the year 1643. and brought before Sir John Stawell then Governor of Taunton and after some examination of him concerning the estate of our Army the said Stawell by order committed this Informant to the Castle of Taunton where he remained about six months and from thence by the order of the said Stawell was carried by twelve Dragoons to the common Gaol at Ivelchester being carried in disgrace through three Market Towns in his passage to the said Gaol And this Informant saith that being a prisoner in Taunton Castle aforesaid after four daies imprisonment this Informant and divers others were brought before a Councel of War at the place where the Assizes are usually kept in Taunton where Stawell sate as Governor of the Town and President of the said Councel where after examination this Informant was sent back to the Castle where he remained untill the Assizes held at Wels about three weeks or a month before Christmas An. 1643. and was there Indicted for high Treason and examined by Mr. Richard Newcourt then Clerk to Sir John Stawell and the day after he was brought before Sir John Stawell at Mr. Waldrons house in Wels where his said Examination was read to him and Sir Iohn Stawell forced this Informant to subscribe the same and refused to take Bail for this Informant although 1000 l. bail was offered And Sir Iohn Stawell further told this Informant he was a Rebel and a Traitor and should be tryed for his life after which he was remaunded back to prison untill he was relieved by the Parliaments Forces This Informant further saith that being of the Grand Iury in the year 1647. one Richard Cluff of Taunton since deceased came before this Informant and divers others of the Grand Iury and informed them that there was means made to Sir Iohn Stawell for the reprieval of one Viccary a souldier of Captain Clarks in the year 1643. or thereabouts at which time the said Viccary was condemned by a Councel of War in Taunton and executed before the window where Sir
Iohn next appeared and he did but twice appear before that Committee it was about three days after the four moneths limitted by the Exeter Articles For it is granted by all that his second appearance was on the thirteenth of August for of that date is his Mittimus and the Order likewse of Goldsmiths Hall for Mr. Stephens report as appeareth by the Remonstrance Page 25. Now the thirteenth day was three days after the tenth of August the day of the expiration of the Kalender moneths but could not be so after the thirtieth day of Iuly the day of the expiration of the four moneths after the rate of eight and twenty days to the moneth which construction makes the Oath true in every particular otherwise it will prove repugnant to it self And this doth also agree with the Depositions of Mr. Michael Herring one other of that Committee who did swear before the High Court of Justice and hath since affirmed before the Committee of Parliament in the Star-chamber That that Committee of Goldsmiths Hall did not refuse his pretended Petition for that he came not in time but because he observed not the Rules of that Committee by which Oath if sir Iohn appeared on the four and twentieth of Iuly he could not be said not to come in time but if on the sixth of August then he came not in time according to the rate of eight and twenty days to the moneth And although that Committee out of favour to Sir Iohn in hopes of his future submission took no advantage of time yet sir Iohns coming to Goldsmiths Hall on the sixth day of August when his Articles were expired and that not voluntarily but by constraint upon the summons of that Committee argues him not very willing to endeavour his Composition and makes him really guilty of a neglect of performance of his Articles in point of time he having delayed the time of making his Composition or the least submitting unto it untill the four moneths expired Again when Sir John did tender his pretended Petition be it either on the 24 of July and so within the four months as Sir John will have it or after the fourth of August and expiration of them as that Order of Summons doth evidence yet could not that Committee receive his Petition in regard he had not by that Petition confessed his Delinquency nor expressed some act of his amounting unto Delinquency And although sir Iohn seems to complain of Mr. Ashe for that he refused his pretended Petition upon that ground yet sir John cannot but know that Mr. Ashe being then Chairman as himself confesseth did not refuse it as contrary to the rules prescribed that Committee in his opinion alone but in the judgement of the whole Committee And the reason why they could not compound with any without such an acknowledgment or expression was because the Ordinances that did enable this Committee to make Compositions expresly will That such persons with whom this Committee should compound should be Delinquents for they are therein denominated by the word Delinquents as doth appear by the several Orders and Resolutions of the sixth of March 1644. of the 18 of October 1645. of the fourth of November 1645. and the 13 of December 1645. and divers others And such were Delinquents only within the intention of those resolutions as had committed any act for which their Estates were liable to Sequestration and no others though perhaps they had otherwise offended the Parliament For this Committee at Goldsmiths Hall had not the absolute power of compounding that remained still in the Parliament but were limited and tyed up to the present and future Rules and Orders of the Parliament in such their compounding with Delinquents By the Resolution of the 24 of Iuly 1644. of the House of Commons The Committee at Goldsmiths Hall had power to contract with persons for the sale of Lands and Houses of Delinquents according to the former Order of the tenth of that moneth of Iuly at eight years purchase for Lands at least and six years purchase for houses at least at the rates they were let at before the wars began By the Resolution of the fourth of October 1645. The Rule by which the Committees shall proceed with such as shall compound for their Delinquency was to be according to the respective proportions set down in the Propositions of both Kingdoms formerly sent to His Majesty for a safe and well-grounded Peace By the Resolution of the Eight of December 1645. such Delinquents as came to the Cities of London and Westminster before the first of that moneth were to compound with the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall before the first of January then next The third of March 1644. the Committee of Goldsmiths Hall made their Proposition to the House of Commons in these words following That whereas now this Committee doth onely take into consideration such Delinquents as come recommended unto them by particular Orders if this Honorable House shall think fit to give this Committee a general power to receive treat and compound with whatsoever Delinquents shall immediately tender themselves to this Committee to be compounded with all They first representing unto this Honorable Assembly such Compositions made or Fines set upon them before any thing be concluded It will much promote the present Affairs and have power to send for such persons as they shall think to attend that Committee about their Composition and Fine Whereupon on the sixth day of March following The House did resolve That they assented unto this Proposition and ordered it accordingly By the Order of the 23 of March 1645. the Rules for Goldsmiths Hall to go by upon Compositions with Delinquents was to be those Rules that are set by the House upon the Propositions for such as came in sithence the first of December By which several Orders and Resolutions the Committee at Goldsmiths Hall were to compound with Delinquents alone that word being onely used for an expression and according to certain Rules and Orders and to conclude with no Delinquent without certifying the composition it self to the house This Committee then having power to compound with Delinquents onely and Delinquents particularly described it was requisite for that Committee and it was their constant rule That the Compounder should acknowledge either his delinquency or some act done by him which amounted unto the same to inable them to treat with him for if a person had committed no offence worthy of Sequestration and was notwithstanding sequestred the Parliament had appointed him elsewhere to attend his remedy and not here And it was fit in point of prudence That such acknowledgement or expression should be in writing and not by words or any verbal expression onely to the end That such writing should remain of Record for the future Indempnity of that Committee and other the Reasons of Mr. Justice Lawrence hereunto annexed And for these Reasons all such persons as did here compound none excepted were they